the future of nuclear energy for electricity generation in belgium

KATHOLIEKEUNIVERSITEIT

LEUVENENERGYINSTITUTE

The Future of Nuclear Energyfor

Electricity Generation in Belgium

W. D’haeseleer University of Leuven Energy-Institute



Relative Proportion Energy Basket Electricity Generation in Belgium

Nuclear Fuel 57,8%

Gaseous fuel 26,8%

Solid fuels 11,5%

Hydraulic 1,8%

Others 1,1%

Liquid fuels 1%



Orders of magnitude Belgian electricity system (2000)

Installed power 16 000 MWe

Peak power (winter) 12 à 13 GWe

Min power (summer) 7 GWe

Electricity consumption 80 TWhe



Present Situation Nuclear Energy in Belgium

Installed capacity ~ 5700 MWe

Commercial nuclear electricity generation ~ 50 à 60% of ~ 80 TWhe

Power Plants

Doel 1, 2 ~ 2 × 400 MWe Tihange 1 ~ 900 MWe Doel 3, 4 ~ 2 × 1000 MWe Tihange 2, 3 ~ 2 × 1000 MWe



Evolution Nuclear Capacity in Phase-Out Scenario

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

Nuclear Capacity in Belgium;phase-out scenario (MWe)

S1 S2



Co-generation (CHP)

fuel

1

Co-generation

E = 0,35

Q = 0,50

1

0,35

0,50

loss 0,15

E=E

Q=Q

0,35

0,50

fuel

1,20

Power plant

E = 0,55

0,64

furnace

Q = 0,90

0,56

loss 0,35

E

E

Q

Q



Cogeneration potential in Belgium

Based on VITO/IW study (also AMPERE) PPS > 5 % w.r.t. separate generation Only Pe > 85 kW No district heating

Energetic potential ~ 4000 MWe + 500 MWe economic potential ~ 2700 MWe + 400 MWe

market potential ~ 2000 MWe + 300 MWe

Remaining mkt potential ~ 1000 MWe + 500 MWe



Renewable EnergyPotential Solar PV

Theoretically: 3000 TWh/a at 10% efficiency

~ 100 km2 via roofs, streets, ...=> 10 – 20 TWh/a technical pot=> 7.6 GW installed

Problem: day/night cycle; seasons



Renewable EnergyPotential Wind; on shore

Theoretical potential

- 340 TWh/a total- 190 TWh/a > 5 m/s- 50 TWh/a > 6 m/s

5% surface:- 16 TWh/a total technical- 9.5 TWh/a > 5 m/s- 2.5 TWh/a > 6 m/s



Renewable Energy Potential Wind; on shore

Several detailed studies(Wind Atlas Vlaanderen, TEE, Van Leuven)

Prognosis Commission Ampere: 1 à 2 TWh



Renewable EnergyPotential Wind; off shore

± 120 km2, 10 to 30 km away from coast ± 1000 MW installed ± 3 TWh



Renewable EnergyHydro

Theoretical potential ± 0.6 TWh/a Technical potential ± 0.4 TWh/a Already 0.3 TWh in use



Renewable EnergyGeneration Cost

PV cells: 15 – 25 BEF/kWh Wind: 2 – 5 BEF/kWh (or more) Biomass: 2 – 6 BEF/kWh (or more) Hydro: 3.6 – 11 BEF/kWh Need green certificates to come to some sort of

pseudo-economical potential



Renewable EnergyTotal Technical Potential

Total electricity consumption Belgium ~ 80 TWh (1998); perhaps ~ 100 TWh (2020)

Total renewable: max ~ 8TWh

3 – 4 TWh realistic (horizon 2020)

Without waste fraction: 2 – 3 TWh



Nuclear Power

well designed nuclear plants very reliable & safe

- new generation of plants even safer (AP600, ABWR, System 80+, EPR,…)

- interesting new concepts (GT-MHTR)

- generation iv (Gen-iv) Nuclear fuel only valuable for electricity production Nuclear route without GHG emission Unreasonable fear of nuclear waste & ionizing radiation Nuclear power not perfect, but quite valuable



Nuclear power; contd

New nuclear power stations

Nuclear plants are capital intensive- long Pay Back Time

Uncertainty for investors

- electricity markets: preference for short PBT

- pressure from public opinion & policy makers (NIMTO, NIMBY, BANANA))




New power stations; contd

Attitude of utility executives

- struggle for life; cost cutting predominant

- no long term responsibility for electricity provision

- no longer guaranteed delivery produced electricity

- political climate (Sweden, Germany, Belgium)

- but reverse evolution in Finland and France

- if nuclear plant proposed today,

no guarantee to get operation license




New power stations; contd

Presently “only” expansion in Far East

- transfer of know how West East

- later, we’ll import from Japan!




Existing Nuclear Plants

Continue to operate “good” power stations

- clean bill of health on safety aspects

- positive contribution to GHG-issue

- economically competitive




Existing nuclear plants; contd

No predetermined design life power station

- original “estimates” based on guess for thermal

transients

- all components replaceable; but safety level to be kept

- ten-yearly overhaul

- translated in economic price tag




Existing nuclear plants; contd

No technical arguments for premature closure but in a democracy, government can impose limitations

Careful with “subtle” opposition against further operation

- delays & heavy administration for permits replacements/modifications

- heavy procedures for transport & management of nuclear

waste




Uncertainties for energy efficiency & renewables

necessary to keep nuclear technology

- replace present generation by future generation

- re-activate & improve breeding concept necessary to invest in development “alternative” concepts

- GT-MHTR, ADS necessary to keep investing in R&D nuclear fusion research

- unexhaustible and “clean” source

- given political will, almost certain to succeed



CO2 emissions

due to electricity generation



Climate and Human Activity

Conclusions Ampere climate expert:

There is little doubt that the measured increase ofthe CO2-eq emissions lead to an enhanced greenhouse effect




Conclusions consistent with

IPCC 2-nd assess.: “The balance of evidence suggests

a discernible human influence on

global climate”

IPCC 3-rd assess.: “In the light of new evidence … most of the

observed warming up over the last 50 years

is likely (chance > 0.66 - 0.90) to have been

due to the increase in GHG concentrations”



GHG “reductions” Kyoto Protocol




Further Ampere observations:

• Kyoto Protocol will have “negligible” impact

• We will not be able to prevent global warming; we will have to prepare for adaptation

• Kyoto is only the beginning; later, much more stringent reductions will be necessary




CO2 emissions in EU: ~ constant between 1990-1996

but, * Germany: DDR* UK : massive switch coal gas

CO2 emissions in Belgium: + 13,7 % between 1990-1996



Preliminary figures

1996 for Belgium: 150 Mt GHG

130 Mt CO2

118 Mt CO2 due to combustion

22 Mt CO2 electricity generation

CO2 electricity generation < 20 % CO2 due to combustion

European average ~ 30 %

CO2 emissions due to electricity generation



Emission scenariosPromix

Promix simulation till 2012 Nuclear generation frozen IEA fuel prices No tax (energy, nor CO2)

Demand evolution

A : + 2 %/a till 2005; + 1.5 %/a till 2012

B : + 0.5 %/a till 2005; 0 %/a till 2012

C : + 3.5 %/a till 2005; + 3 %/a till 2012



PROMIX Simulation CO2-evolution 1998-2012

18000

20000

22000

24000

26000

28000

30000

32000

34000

36000

38000

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

CO

2-eq

. [

kto

n/a

]

A_GPiea_N=_T0 + 2%/a till 2005, then + 1,5%/a

B_GPiea_N=_T0 +0,5%/a till 2005, then 0%

C_GPiea_N=_T0 + 3,5%/a till 2005, then + 3%



Emission scenariosReversed scenario

What would have been the CO2 emissions

in Belgium

if we never had any nuclear electricity generation?



Historic CO2-emissions Electricity Generation, and MARKAL Simulation CO2-evolution without Nuclear Power

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998

Mton CO

2

nuclear replaced by coal only

nuclear replaced by generation mix nuclear replaced by gas only

Real emissions



Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision?

State of Affairs January 31, 2003:

• Nuclear phase out after 40 years in governmental declaration (July 1999)

• Law is orthogonal to then installed AMPERE Commission• Nuclear Phase-Out Law

- implements phase out in period 2015 – 2025

- prohibits construction new nuclear plants



Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision?State of Affairs March 6, 2002; contd

Explanatory Memorandum / Phase-Out Bill:

- suggests no conflict between phase out and GHG commitments

“uses” Ampere figures to “demonstrate reasonableness” of energy savings

explicit reference to “Triptique Approach”

- incorporates “texts” that should guarantee security of supply

indicative plan

international electricity exchanges



Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision?State of Affairs March 6, 2002; contd

- specifies that AMPERE requested to keep nuclear option open

keep up competences for operation of facilities

keep up scientific knowledge follow up new developments

- exceptional “Act of God”

in case of threat of the security of supply(at competitive prices), a Royal Decree can halt automatic phase out



Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision?Problems with Planned Phase Out

Observation: AMPERE “Conclusions & Recommendations” too diplomatic

Must read between the lines!

Suggests potential “routes” in case of nuclear phase out

But does not address the consequences of such phase out

AMPERE document “Synthesis Report” provides all

elements to demonstrate risks related to nuclear phase out



Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision?Problems with Planned Phase Out; contd

Enhanced GHG effect / Climate Change- Electricity Generation in B: moderate CO2 emitter thanks to NE

- Bill manipulates AMPERE figures to “demonstrate” reasonableness

of energy savings

- Simple computation shows difficulties for 2012 (Kyoto) and quasi-impossibility after 2012

- Post-AMPERE analysis with MARKAL shows magnitude of penalty

- Triptique Approach: simply non-defendable!



Historic CO2-evolution and Nuclear Electricity Generation

-100 -90 -80 -70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10

0 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

CO2 emission [%] 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Nuclear energy [%]

CO2 emission Nuclear energy



Belgium 307 g/kWhe

France 56 g/kWhe

Sweden 42 g/kWhe

Norway 5 g/kWhe

Germany 588 g/kWhe

NL 603 g/kWhe

UK 521 g/kWhe

Spain 471 g/kWhe

Denmark 791 g/kWhe

Italy 521 g/kWhe

EU 399 g/kWhe

USA 610 g/kWhe

JPN 350 g/kWhe

World (1994) 544 g/kWhe

Typical emissions electricity generation



PROMIX Simulation CO2-evolution 1998-2012

18000

20000

22000

24000

26000

28000

30000

32000

34000

36000

38000

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

CO

2-eq

. [

kto

n/a

]

A_GPiea_N=_T0 + 2%/a till 2005, then + 1,5%/a

B_GPiea_N=_T0 +0,5%/a till 2005, then 0%

C_GPiea_N=_T0 + 3,5%/a till 2005, then + 3%



Historic CO2-emissions Electricity Generation, and MARKAL Simulation CO2-evolution without Nuclear Power

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998

Mton CO

2

nuclear replaced by coal only

nuclear replaced by generation mix nuclear replaced by gas only

Real emissions



Back of Envelope CalculationGHG versus Nuclear Phase Out

1990-1996 increase in C02 emission + 13.7 %

Simulation scenario A 1998-2012 + 8 % Required Kyoto reduction 7.5 %

30 % compared to A Most voluntaristic attempt :

• + 1000 MWe CHP CO2 reduction with 2-3 %

• + 1500 MWe wind CO2 reduction with 8 %

• + 4 % el. generation bio mass CO2 reduction with 8 %

20 %

In 2012 still 10 % - pts short!



Back of Envelope CalculationGHG versus Nuclear Phase Out; contd

Post-Kyoto with nuclear phase out

…. very difficult “squaring the circle” - nuclear phase out from 2015 - need for storable fuel (coal) - all potential CHP, bio mass and wind exhausted; still too early for PV



Post-Ampere MARKAL; hypotheses

analysis performed by ETE research groupK.U. Leuven (S. Proost, D. Van Regemorter)

period 1990 – 2030, intervals of 5 years

technology database compatible with Ampere data

max. installed nuclear power in 2030 is 8000 MWemin. electricity production with coal: 4 TWh

Kyoto extrapolated until 2030 (-15% w.r.t. 1990)



Scenario 1No Kyoto constraint; no nuclear phase out

Demand ELEC: 113 TWh

Nuclear 60 TWh

Coal: 33 TWh

Gas: 1 TWh

Cogeneration: 19 TWh

Renewables: 1 TWh

Cost: -0.5% of GDP 2000

Demand ELEC: 99 TWh

Nuclear 60 TWh

Coal: 9 TWh

Gas: 10 TWh


Renewables: 1 TWh

Cost: - 0.7% of GDP 2000

Demand ELEC: 84 TWh

Nuclear 43 TWh

Coal: 4 TWh

Gas: 19 TWh


Renewables: 1 TWh

Cost: - 0.1% of GDP 2000

203020202010



No Kyoto constraint, new nuclear

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

TW

h

Renew ables

Cogeneration

Gas

Coal

Nuclear



Scenario 2No Kyoto constraint; nuclear phase out


Nuclear 4 TWh

Coal: 74 TWh

Gas: 9 TWh


Renewables: 1 TWh

Cost: -0.4% van GDP 2000

Demand ELEC: 88 TWh

Nuclear 30 TWh

Coal: 16 TWh

Gas: 23 TWh


Renewables: 1 TWh


Demand ELEC: 84 TWh

Nuclear 43 TWh

Coal: 4 TWh

Gas: 20 TWh


Renewables: 1TWh


203020202010



No Kyoto constraint, no new nuclear

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

TW

h

Renew ables

Cogeneration

Gas

Coal

Nuclear



Scenario 3Kyoto; nuclear phase out

Demand ELEC: 98 TWh

Nuclear 4 TWh

Coal: 4 TWh

Gas: 62 TWh


Renewables: 5 TWh

Cost: 2.7% van GDP 2000

Demand ELEC: 86 TWh

Nuclear 30 TWh

Coal: 4 TWh

Gas: 27 TWh


Renewables: 5 TWh


Demand ELEC: 81 TWh

Nuclear 43 TWh

Coal: 4 TWh

Gas: 17 TWh


Renewables: 1 TWh


203020202010



Kyoto constraint, no new nuclear

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

TW

h

Renew ables

Cogeneration

Gas

Coal

Nuclear



Scenario 4Kyoto; no nuclear phase out


Nuclear 60 TWh

Coal: 4 TWh

Gas: 11 TWh


Renewables: 5 TWh


Demand ELEC: 95 TWh

Nuclear 60 TWh

Coal: 4 TWh

Gas: 12 TWh


Renewables: 1 TWh


Demand ELEC: 82 TWh

Nuclear 43 TWh

Coal: 4 TWh

Gas: 17 TWh


Renewables: 1 TWh


203020202010



Kyoto constraint, new nuclear

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

TW

h

Renew ables

Cogeneration

Gas

Coal

Nuclear



Buying emission certificates from Russia ?

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Mto

n C

O2

Kyoto agreementDecember 1997

permitted CO2 emissions

(w/o sinks)fictitiousemissioncertificates



Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision?Problems with Planned Phase Out; Contd

Security of Supply

- See MARKAL Analysis: “all gas basket”

- Indicative Plan: is only indicative! liberalised market has problems with new investments (California, New Zealand,

Spain)

- international electricity exchanges:

flawed argument

other countries could think similarly lack of transmission capacity



Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision?Problems with Planned Phase Out; Contd

Postponement Clause: - in case of “Act of God”

- due to international threat security of supply

- how about commitments GHG-reduction?

Final decision on phase out? No, future parliament can change lawbut

very uncertain context for investors;

future nuclear investments not evident



Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision?Conclusion

If Belgium is serious about GHG reductions

e.g., - 15% in 2030 compared to 1990

and automatic nuclear phase out goes ahead

Major problems for security of “affordable” supply

due to - geopolitical instability

- price fluctuations- non-transparant behavior liberalised market

- limited availability renewable sources

- insufficient impact energy efficiency

reorientation taxes (CO2-tax, energy tax) may help

but careful economic analysis needed (competitiveness industry)



Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision?Conclusion; contd

Because of major uncertainties,

deciding now to automatically close NPP’s seems irresponsible

Better alternative:

evaluate energy and environmental context continually; set appropriate safety and environmental standards and let the market choose whether NE is an option



General Conclusion

Commercial Nuclear Energy is “sustainable”

can be applied continually to benefit future generations and third world

prohibiting nuclear energy does away with prosperity effects

Government & parliament have erred with phase-out law

- based on ideological considerations

- likely very “expensive”

(GHG, higher prices, interruptions, deny “clean” technology for later generations)

- creates uncertainty for future investors

Belgium will pay considerable penalty!



Cost of electricity production by technologies producing only electricity in 2010 in constant 2000 BEF/kWhe

Cost (non fuel)

Fuel cost Total 1 External cost / CO2

External cost / other

Total 2

Pulverised coal (SC) 0.76 0.61 1.37 0.60 0.37 2.34

Pulverised coal (ASC) 0.83 0.58 1.41 0.57 0.23 2.21

Pulverised coal (USC, 2020) 0.85 0.53 1.38 0.51 0.22 2.10

IGCC 1.03 0.64 1.67 0.62 0.13 2.42

Kerosene gasturbines 1.81 1.57 3.38 0.62 0.76 4.76

Gas gasturbines 1.86 1.29 3.15 0.38 0.25 3.79

STAG power plant 0.45 0.86 1.31 0.25 0.17 1.74

PWR nuclear (40 years) 0.87 0.38 1.24 0.01 0.03 1.28

AP600 nuclear (40 years) 0.78 0.40 1.18 0.01 0.03 1.22

MHTGR nuclear (30 years) 1.41 0.26 1.67 0.01 0.03 1.70

Wind turbine onshore, seaside 1.81 0.00 1.81 0.02 0.02 1.85

Wind turbine onshore, polders 2.62 0.00 2.62 0.02 0.02 2.66

Wind turbine offshore 2.35 0.00 2.35 0.02 0.02 2.39

Wind turbine onshore, inland 3.14 0.00 3.14 0.04 0.08 3.26

Wood gasification – STAG 0.90 1.97 2.87 0.07 0.29 3.23

Waste incinerators 0.59 1.17 1.76 (0.41) (0.20) (2.38)

the future of nuclear energy for electricity generation in belgium

Documents