Recent reports on dealing with the comparative costs of power generation show nuclear power in an increasingly favourable light.
The March report for the UK's Royal Academy of Engineering made some conservative assumptions regarding capital costs and some very generous assumptions concerning wind energy output, and came up with a very favourable picture of nuclear energy prospects in the UK, especially if carbon emissions are taken into account. Gas remains an attractive alternative to nuclear, but the prospect of higher gas prices, not to mention the opportunity costs involved, limits its appeal. The fiction that renewables can do the same job as base-load plant is exposed in a way that the UK government can hardly ignore, and wind power is shown to be more than twice as expensive as nuclear power anyway.
Leaving aside the reliability of output from wind plant, a Eurelectric study on the actual financial subsidy per unit of electricity delivered is salutary. Overall, the cost of subsidising renewable energy in Europe will come to more that EUR 11.5 billion per year by 2010 on present trends, with a significant impact on consumer electricity prices. The direct support was EUR 3.3 billion in 2001. The nonsensical posturing of the German government in relation to nuclear power is highlighted by the effective 6.6 cents per kilowatt hour subsidy paid for wind energy there, the output of which is increasingly difficult to accommodate in the grid without diseconomies for other plant. The wisdom of so heavily subsidising an energy source which cannot deliver continuous reliable output is open to question.
Then the report of the Ontario Review Committee was released, giving a clear set of recommendations on the most cost-effective way forward in addressing an imminent electricity shortfall in that part of the world. Nuclear energy is affirmed as needing to remain as the centrepiece of plans for future electricity supply there. The prospect of Ontario increasing its role in providing electricity to northeastern USA by constructing a string of modern nuclear power plants along the borders with Michigan and New York states has been raised by others.
See items in European and Canadian news below.
Energy bill resurfaces
A new Energy Bill has been introduced into the US Senate. The new bill is estimated to cost some $14 billion, less than half the previous one which failed to be passed last year, and it does not contain the controversial liability waiver for a petrol additive. The main nuclear energy provisions are unchanged, though the production tax credit of 1.8 c/kWh for output from new advanced reactors is in considerable doubt. The bill will be handled under a Senate rule which does not require a committee stage. The bill is expected also to renew the 1.8 c/kWh subsidy paid for wind power, which expired in December.
Ux Weekly 16/2/04, Nucleonics Week 12 & 19/2/04, Power Economics Jan 04.
Cameco to buy Texas nuclear capacity
Canada's Cameco Corporation has signed an agreement to buy 25.2% of the South Texas nuclear power plant, comprising two 1250 MWe PWR units which are among the newest in the USA. The US$ 333 million price includes $54 million for fuel and other inventory. This gives a value of $443/kW, and adjusted for age this is the lowest price for some years apart from Exelon's purchase of BE's share in AmerGen. The acquisition is subject to the other three owners' right of first refusal. Some $125 million of decommissioning funds have been accumulated in relation to Cameco's share, and will be transferred.
Cameco owns 31.6% of Bruce Power, which operates six Candu reactors in Ontario. South Texas will provide PWR experience and "a platform for further expansion".
Cameco 1/3/04, Nucleonics Week 4/3/04.
Hydrogen economy needs nuclear
A US National Research Council and National Academy of Engineering report on The Hydrogen Economy affirms the vision of it having "fundamental and dramatic benefits" for both energy security and the environment, though the transition to it would take many decades. In the short term, wind turbines driving electrolysis offer the best prospect of pollution-free hydrogen at about $6.60/kg, or $10.70/kg without grid backup. Long-term reliance on natural gas as a feedstock for hydrogen is problematical, though it is the principal present source. Hence the Department of Energy should also develop hydrogen production from domestic coal resources (with carbon capture and sequestration) and from nuclear heat processes.
At a Canadian nuclear conference a senior US Department of Energy director said that the USA had established a production target of 30 million tonnes of hydrogen per year to replace a quarter of today's US petrol consumption, and requiring some 225,000 MW thermal of nuclear power capacity.
National Academies 4/2/04, Refocus weekly 11/2/04, Nuclear Canada 23/2/04.
US energy budget request
The US Department of Energy has made a US$ 24.3 billion budget request for Fiscal Year (FY) 2005, including $410 million for nuclear energy science & technology programs - a $5 million increase from FY 2004. Among the nuclear research priorities is the Generation IV reactors program - $31 million towards developing the next generation of advanced energy systems which are more proliferation-resistant and have reduced life cycle costs. Other nuclear R&D was reduced. The budget request also supports revitalising the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) as the prime centre for nuclear R&D. In FY 2005, it will be merged with Argonne National Laboratory-West to create the Idaho National Laboratory, which will play a lead role in the whole Generation IV program as well as nuclear power applications for space and testing of naval reactor fuels. Funding requested for nuclear waste disposal was largely to finalise the licensing application for Yucca Mountain is $907.5 million - $303 million above last year.
NucNet News # 30/04, Nucleonics Week 5/2/04, SpentFuel 9/2/04, Nuclear Energy Overview 9/2/04.
US MOX plant delay
Construction of the mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel facility at the Savannah River site has been postponed until 2005 due to disagreements between Russia and US contractors over liability issues. US contractors want legal protection in the event the US-designed plant in Russia encounters problems. The USA and Russia have committed to converting a total of 68 tonnes of weapons plutonium into MOX fuel in parallel programs.
SpentFuel 9/2/04.
UK report on generation costs
A new report for the Royal Academy of Engineering looks at electricity generation costs from new plant in the UK on a more credible basis than hitherto. In particular it aims to develop "a robust approach to compare directly the costs of intermittent generation with more dependable sources of generation". This means adding the cost of standby capacity for wind, as well as carbon values up to £30 per tonne CO2 (£110/tC) for coal and gas. Wind power is shown to be more than twice as expensive as nuclear power.
Without the carbon increment, coal, nuclear and gas combined cycle (CCGT) range 2.2-2.6 p/kWh and integrated coal gasification combined cycle is 3.2 p/kWh - all base-load plant. Adding the carbon value (up to 2.5 p) takes coal close to onshore wind (with back-up) at 5.4 p/kWh - offshore wind is 7.2 p/kWh, while nuclear remains at 2.3 p/kWh. Nuclear figures are based on a conservative £1150/kW (US$ 2100/kW) plant cost (including decommissioning). The report does not look at energy security, which looms as a major issue for UK in respect to natural gas, since an increasing proportion will come from Siberia.
| Basic cost | With back-up | With £30/t* CO2 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nuclear | 2.3 | n/a | n/a |
| Gas-fired CCGT | 2.2 | n/a | 3.4 |
| Coal pulverised fuel | 2.5 | n/a | 5.0 |
| Coal fluidised bed | 2.6 | n/a | 5.1 |
| Onshore wind | 3.7 | 5.4 | n/a |
| Offshore wind | 5.5 | 7.2 | n/a |
Meanwhile a parliamentary Trade & Industry select committee set up after last year's blackouts has said that investment in replacing electricity network infrastructure needs to double. It accused the government regulator of being short-sighted for pursuing lower consumer prices at the expense of longer-term investment. The power distribution companies have since sought approval to spend £8-9 billion on their networks between 2005 and 2010, compared with £5.5 billion in the current 5-year period, excluding £0.5 billion for distributing 'green' energy.
Report 10/3/04, Times 11/3/04, Guardian 25/3/04.
Renewables cost quantified
The cost of subsidising renewable energy in Europe will come to more that EUR 11.5 billion per year by 2010 on present trends, with a significant impact on consumer electricity prices. The direct support was EUR 3.3 billion in 2001. The Eurelectric quantitative report on direct support schemes projects 2010 subsidies ranging from 0.4 c in Finland to 6.6 c/kWh in Germany.
In a separate report Eurelectric and the Federation of Industrial Energy Consumers in Europe pointed out that "Introducing renewable energy unavoidably leads to higher electricity prices. Not only are production costs substantially higher, but intermittent energy sources like wind energy imply back-up capacity which adds considerably to the end price." "Reducing CO2 by promoting renewable energy can thus become extremely expensive for consumers," though both organizations fully support renewables in principle.
Eurelectric Jan 2004 & 25/3/04.
UK study confirms new reactor type
A joint study by BNFL, Westinghouse and British Energy has confirmed the AP1000 pressurised water reactor as a strong candidate for deployment in the UK, with total generating costs for a twin-unit plant of 2.0-2.5 p/kWh including waste management and decommissioning. It is expected to achieve US regulatory design certification this year (the AP600 having done so in 1999). Spent fuel volumes will be 10% lower than for Sizewell B (PWR) and it can operate entirely with mixed-oxide fuel.
BNES Nuclear Energy Feb 2004.
German utilities ponder new reactor
Several large nuclear utilities have notified the German government that they are negotiating with Electricite de France (EdF) to take part in building a 1600 MWe demonstration EPR - advanced European Pressurised Water Reactor - in France. German utilities have participated in the earlier development of the type. Their letter is a brief courtesy notification, but means the utilities are asserting their legal right to invest in new nuclear capacity, regardless of the phase-out agreement applying to current reactors in the country. The first reactor to be closed on political rather than economic grounds is likely to be EnBW's Obrigheim plant, in 2005. It is the smallest and oldest in operation. The uneconomic Stade plant closed last October.
Nucleonics Week 12/2/04.
EU committee asserts need for nuclear
The European Economic & Social Committee (ESC) has issued an opinion that stresses the need to maintain the use of nuclear power, and makes it clear that Europe cannot meet its future climate change and energy security objectives without it. In particular, "renewables will not be able to rise to the challenge" of providing adequate supply, and any "partial or total abandonment of nuclear power would compromise the EU's chances of respecting its commitments on the climate issue." The fact that nuclear "ensures stable production prices" is a major economic virtue. The Committee represents 'organised civil society' and formally advises the European Commission and parliament on key issues. (Though many are funded by the EU, non-government organisations operate independently - the environmental ones as a Green-8 consortium.)
The ESC report forming the basis of the opinion said that it is "entirely unreasonable" to assume that renewables can do the same job in providing power without carbon emissions. Also, "abandoning nuclear power would be prohibitively expensive for EU consumers," and looking ahead, vendor prices of new nuclear plants are falling. Nuclear provides "a major advantage" in supply security by being able to "post a stable as well as a competitive price at a time when prices on the internal electricity market are beginning to lurch upwards." The report says nuclear safety and radiation protection are resolved through technical and regulatory means, and final disposal of nuclear wastes is being resolved - citing programs in several EU countries. Accordingly, "efforts should be made to provide information on the real issues of the nuclear industry: security of supply, elimination of CO2 emissions, competitive prices and the safety and management of spent fuel, so that organised civil society" can give rational consideration to them.
EESC 25/2/04, Nucleonics Week 29/1/04, Foratom 26/2/04.
Areva considers share in PBMR
Talks between the South African stakeholders in the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) project and Areva with its Framatome ANP subsidiary have canvassed the possibility of major French investment in it, or some other collaboration. Some US$ 1 billion is being sought for the demonstration reactor at Koeberg and a fuel plant at Pelindaba. The South African pitch is reportedly based on eventual use of the PMBR for hydrogen production, and in the short term, tendering for a demonstration hydrogen plant in the USA - also of interest to Areva. BNFL is the only international partner in PMBR at present, with a 22% stake.
(SA) Business Report 23/2/04, Nucleonics Week 26/2 & 25/3/04.
Russian nuclear exports flourish
Russia's Minatom exported nuclear fuel and equipment totalling US$ 3 billion in 2003, a substantial increase reflecting its better overall performance. Sales of nuclear fuel assemblies were up 25%.
President Putin, addressing a student rally at the Siberian State University in Krasnoyarsk, has strongly supported plans to import Russian-origin spent nuclear fuel for reprocessing in Russia. While environmental concerns must be addressed, he saw no problems in doing so and the whole procedure was "justified and correct". Legislation allowing such imports (effectively: the export of a service) was enacted about two years ago, and since then Russia has become commercially very active in exporting fresh fuel for power reactors. A recent sale was to Mexico, traditionally a US market.
FreshFuel 2/2/04, NucNet news # 49/04.
Russia proposes leasing reactors
For some years the concept of floating nuclear power plants based on a pair of Russian KLT-40 reactors - well-proven in Russian icebreakers - has been advanced. A new proposal is to lease such floating power plants to India, China, Indonesia and other SE Asian countries. The twin unit plants would produce 70 MWe of power plus 300 GJ/hr (82 MWt) of heat for desalination. Construction cost of each plant is put at US$ 180 million, to be paid off over eight years and the plants would then be returned to Russia for major servicing.
NucNet news #56/04, Kurchatov Inst.
Russian reorganisation
With the shrinkage from 30 to 17 ministries in Russia, the civil functions of Minatom have been assigned to a new Federal Atomic Energy Agency under former Minatom minister Alexander Rumyantsev, within the Ministry for Energy & Industry. Minatom's military functions have gone to the Defence Ministry. The nuclear regulatory agency Gosatomnadzor (GAN) was renamed the Federal Atomic Supervisory Service.
Nucleonics Week 18/3/04.
German repository muddle
The German government plans to abandon research at the Gorleben salt dome and embark upon a new nationwide search for a single geological repository site for all German radioactive waste. Gorleben already has an operating interim storage facility for high-level wastes on the surface and is considered geologically suitable longer-term. The German audit bureau estimates that the policy change will cost as much as EUR 10 billion in delay and wasted effort. It says that the Konrad site (intended for intermediate-level wastes) should also be pursued. The utility companies operate Gorleben and also a facility at Ahaus (for high and intermediate-level wastes), but the federal government is responsible for final disposal of high-level wastes.
SpentFuel 16/2/04, DATF.
New South Korean reactor starts up
Ulchin-5, a 960 MWe Korean Standard Nuclear Plant (PWR), was connected to the grid at the end of January. It is the fifth such unit, and the country's 19th power reactor. Commercial operation is expected by mid year, and its twin unit 6 is a year or so behind it.
NucNet news # 67/04.
New Chinese reactor starts up
The second unit of Qinshan phase 2 project in Zhejiang province (Q-3) has been connected to the Chinese grid, after some delays in its completion. Its 610 MWe twin, Qinshan-2, started up at the end of 2001. The units are locally-designed and constructed pressurised water reactors, scaled up from Qinshan-1 (279 MWe). Construction of the US$ 1.8 billion project started in 1996.
Qinshan phase 3 project (units 4 and 5, each 665 MWe) used the CANDU 6 technology, with Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL) being the main contractor on a turnkey basis. Construction began in 1997. Unit 4 started up in 2002, unit 5 in 2003.
Qinshan phase 4 is proposed as two 1000 MWe reactors, possibly scaled up from phase 2 project, but more likely standardised with four other units to be ordered in 2005.
Xinhua 11/3/04.
China to quadruple nuclear capacity by 2020
Faced with an expected 12% increase in electricity demand this year, compared with only a 9% increase in capacity to meet it, China is seeking rapid expansion of generating capacity. The China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) has announced that it plans to quadruple nuclear capacity from some 8500 MWe (6600 MWe operating plus 1900 nearly complete) to 36,000 MWe by 2020.
FreshFuel 15/3/04.
India to accelerate reactor construction
Up to four more fast breeder reactors may be built in different parts of India by 2020, according to the Atomic Energy Commission chairman. They would be similar to the 440 MWe prototype fast reactor at Kalpakkam, now confirmed as under construction and due to start up about 2010. It will be fuelled with uranium-plutonium carbide (the reactor-grade Pu being from its existing PHWRs). The several fast breeder reactors comprise stage 2 of the country's strategy to utilise thorium as a nuclear fuel, and they will breed U-233 from a Th-232 blanket around the core. This will then be burned in advanced heavy-water reactors with more thorium, so that about 75% of the power comes from the thorium.
Due to looming power shortages, the Nuclear Power Corporation of India is speeding up construction of three reactors to have them on line by March 2007. The three units are the first Kudankulam 950 MWe reactor, plus Rajasthan/ Rawatbhata-5 and Kaiga-4 - both 202 MWe. The units are respectively about 25%, 35% and 30% complete. NPCIL already expects to commission Kaiga-3, and Tarapur-3 & 4 - total 1182 MWe - by early 2007. The government is aiming for 41 GWe of new capacity from all sources by March 2007.
NPCIL 22/3/04, NucNet news # 66/04, Nucleonics Week 18/3/04.
Agreement on new Pakistan reactor
China has agreed with the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission on development of the new 300 MWe Chashma-2 nuclear plant in the Punjab. The US$ 600-700 million reactor will complement the Chinese-built unit 1 (aka Chasnupp), which went into commercial operation in 2000. China provides the enriched fuel for this and it is under site-specific safeguards arrangements with IAEA, as will be the new unit. Technical details of unit 2 have been finalised, but not the price.
TradeTech NMR 12/3/04, Ux Weekly 15/3/04.
Japan study on power costs
Japan's Federation of Electric Power Companies has quantified the relative costs of generation by new plants starting operation in 2002 and running for at least 40 years at 80% capacity. Nuclear comes out at 5.6 yen/kWh, coal 5.9 yen, LNG 6.3 yen, oil 10.95 yen and hydro 13.6 yen, all at 3% discount rate. Actual costs for 2000-02 were 8.3 yen/kWh for nuclear and 10.0 yen/kWh for thermal.
Atoms in Japan Feb 2004.
Japan MOX progress
Fukui prefecture has given approval for Kansai Electric Power Co to use mixed oxide (MOX) fuel in its Takahama-3 & 4 reactors. Kansai expects to sign a new contract with Cogema to fabricate the fuel, to be loaded in 2007. MOX fuel fabricated for Kansai pre 2001 will be recycled into the new batch, which will need to meet new quality assurance standards imposed by Japanese regulators.
Nucleonics Week 25/3/04.
South Korea solicits waste site interest
The Ministry of Commerce, Industry & Energy has announced that it will accept preliminary applications to host a nuclear waste facility including a low- and intermediate-level repository and a 20,000 tonne interim repository for spent fuel to be operational by 2016. Local government applicants must demonstrate the consent of one third of their residents by the end of May - related to the prospect of financial compensation. An attempt last year to nominate Wido Island as the site yielded to local opposition.
SpentFuel 9/2/04.
Ninth Japanese waste shipment
The ninth shipment of vitrified high-level wastes from reprocessing Japanese spent fuel in France has arrived in Japan via the Panama canal. In this, 132 canisters were sent, making a total of 892 so far since 1995. Each canister contains about 400 kg of glass, about 14% of which is radioactive waste derived from about 1.3 tonnes of spent fuel. Japan's spent fuel is no longer being sent to Europe, but is being stored at Rokkasho pending reprocessing there from about 2006.
Khaleej Times 4/3/04, SpentFuel 8/3/04.
Pakistan admission on technology
A senior Pakistani scientist has admitted assisting Libya, Iran and North Korea with development of centrifuge technology to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons. Iran was sold Pakistan's old aluminium centrifuges, which it declared to the IAEA. It now appears that more modern steel centrifuges were subsequently supplied to all three countries. While trade in fissile materials is well controlled under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), trade in equipment is less constrained.
FT 2, 3 & 13/2/04.
Ontario review: green light for Pickering
The Review Committee looking at the future of Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and its Pickering power station has issued a report with positive implications for the province's nuclear capacity. It will lead to a government plan to reform Ontario's electricity sector. A large part of the report is on the role, function and governance of OPG itself, but it also addresses what should be done with the three Pickering A units 1-3 which were laid up in 1998. Noting that there are sunk refurbishment costs in unit 1 of some C$ 325 million from the project which returned unit 4 to service, the report recommends proceeding with a further C$ 450-600 million to bring unit 1 back on line, fully refurbished, by late 2005. Though this amounts to four times the 1999 estimate, it would yield power at 2-3 cents/kWh less than that from a new combined cycle gas plant. Project management is a key to it however, as unit 4 refurbishment ran three times over its initial estimate and completion was two years late. If unit 1 work goes to plan, a decision should be taken to restore units 2 & 3 also.
Beyond the Pickering A refurbishment, "Ontario must begin planning now to supplement and ultimately replace its ageing nuclear assets with new and better generations of nuclear technology", but not necessarily "Canadian-developed technology". While coal is abundant, it "is even less politically correct than nuclear power" - according to one columnist.
Review report 18/3/04, Toronto Sun 21/3/04.
Bruce Power examines options in Ontario
Following the successful restarting of two laid-up reactors, Bruce Power is undertaking a feasibility study to explore what next in taking up opportunities to help meet Ontario's looming power shortage. One option is to refurbish its old and laid-up Bruce A units 1 & 2 (769 MWe each) with new steam generator (unit 2) and pressure tubes plus upgrade to current standards, another is to write them off and build one or two new Advanced Candu Reactor (ACR-700) units on its existing site. A 1996 estimate for recommissioning unit 2 was C$ 500 million. It is also looking at refurbishing four Bruce B units (started in mid 1980s) to extend their lives beyond the next 15 years.
The utility's 2003 performance was much improved, with production 24.5 TWh being 18% up on 2002, and capacity factor of 85% compared with 75% in 2002. In 2003 it spent C$ 350 million on restarting units 3 & 4.
Bruce Power 29/1/04, Cameco 27 & 29/1/04, Nucleonics Week 5/2/04.
Canadian oil sands prospect
A report by the Alberta Chamber of Resources says continued reliance on natural gas for heat and steam to extract oil from Alberta's tar sands would be "unsustainable and uneconomic", requiring 60% of Western Canada gas production by 2030. Therefore continued oil production from tar sands requires switching to coal or nuclear power to provide steam. The report notes that at gas prices over C$ 4/GJ, nuclear power is competitive, but there is a problem using a fixed heat source to service a widespread operation.
Nuclear Canada 10/2/04.
Cameco reports production
Cameco has reported total production of 6877 tonnes U3O8 (5831 tU) from the McArthur River mine and 2281 t (1934 tU) from Rabbit Lake in 2003. Its revenue from uranium was C$ 570 million, and uranium earnings before tax C$ 71 million.
Cameco 27/1/04.
Uranium production improves
ERA reported that uranium production from the Ranger mine totalled 5065 tonnes U3O8 (4295 tU) drummed in 2003, 13% up on 2002 and better than the previous record year in 1997. Sales were 5241 tonnes from Ranger and 18 t purchased, with total revenue A$ 197 million. Earnings before tax were A$ 35.3 million and net profit after tax A$ 19.9 million. During the year ERA gained ISO 14001 certification for its environmental management system at Ranger.
Uranium production from WMC Resources' Olympic Dam mine totalled 3176 tonnes U3O8 (3203 t UOC, 2693 tU) in 2003, after recovering from a low first quarter.
Production from Heathgate Resources' Beverley ISL mine was 717 t U3O8 (608 tU).
Australian uranium exports in 2003 reached 9612 tonnes U3O8 (8151 tU), though total production at 8958 tonnes (7596 tU) was at much the same level as in 2000 and 2001.
WMCR 15/1/04, ERA 29/1/04, DITR 5/2/04.
International review of low-level waste repository
A team of five international experts led by the Head of Radioactive Waste Disposal Safety at the International Atomic Energy Agency has reviewed the National Radioactive Waste Repository licence application. They concluded that the process of site selection has been thorough and the site selected offers good prospects of meeting internationally-endorsed safety objectives and criteria. However, further work is necessary "to demonstrate (that) safety for the purposes of licensing." The full report in expected soon.
ARPANSA 29/1/04.
New Executive Director for ANSTO
Dr Ian Smith has been appointed Executive Director of the Australian Nuclear Science & Technology Organisation, whose new research reactor is due to start up next year. Dr Smith is a metallurgist with a background in both university and industry - having held senior management positions with the Comalco Research Centre and CRA Advanced Technical Development. He expects that public acceptance of nuclear energy will increase, especially in Europe, and that it will become the main means of hydrogen production.
ANSTO 16/2/04, Sydney Morning Herald 23/2/04.
Wind lobby seeks more support
The Australian Greenhouse Office and wind energy lobby are pushing for a tripling of the country's wind energy target, to 30,000 GWh/yr. This would involve extending the subsidy through the mandated renewable energy target scheme which amounts to a consumer-paid increment of - and capped at - ($A) 4 c/kWh (US$ 3c) for power from wind, more than doubling the price relative to thermal sources. The present requirement is 9500 GWh/yr from new renewables.
Australian 14/1 & 24/2/04.
OECD liability provisions updated
Long-awaited Protocols to amend the Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the field of Nuclear Energy and the supplementary Brussels Convention have been signed, confirming 2001 agreements which shift most of the onus from governments on to the industry - and their insurers. The protocols increase the operators' liability to a minimum of EUR 700 million for reactors and define "nuclear damage" more widely in the light of Chernobyl experience. Installation state (public funds) liability is increased to EUR 500 million and collective state (international) liability to EUR 300 million, giving total coverage of EUR 1.5 billion - over four times the present level. The EU Council now has to authorise ratification of the protocols, and they then need to be ratified and put into national legislation by the Convention parties (15 for Paris, 12 for Brussels Convention). The Conventions date from 1960 and 1963 respectively and were both revised in 1964 and 1982.
OECD/NEA 11/2/04, Nucleonics Week 19/2/04.
USA supports IAEA measures
President Bush has given strong support to the IAEA¹s Additional Protocol for each country and urged the Senate to ratify it for USA. "The 40 nations of the Nuclear Suppliers Group should refuse to sell enrichment and reprocessing equipment and technologies to any state that does not already possess full-scale functioning enrichment and reprocessing plants. This step will prevent new states from developing the means to produce fissile material for nuclear bombs. Proliferators must not be allowed to cynically manipulate the NPT to acquire the material and infrastructure necessary for manufacturing illegal weapons." The Nuclear Suppliers' Group - focused on technology - already limits supply of civil nuclear technology to countries with full-scope safeguards arrangements under the NPT - covering all facilities, and the new proposal would make ratification of the NPT's Additional Protocol also mandatory. (Safeguards arrangements focus on fissile materials.)
South Korea is the latest country to ratify the Additional Protocol to its safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency, allowing intrusive inspections related to its nuclear activities. This makes the total of states bringing it into force to 39, with 80 having signed it.
Platts 24/2/04, Bush speech, 11/2/04.
Europe wind capacity up 23%
In 2003 EU wind power capacity grew by 23% to 28,401 MWe, expected to produce 60 billion kWh/yr (ie 24% utilisation).
Refocus Weekly 11/2/04.
A Case for Nuclear-Generated Electricity... or why I think nuclear power is cool and why it is important that you think so too; by Scott Heaberlin, 2004, Battelle Press, Columbus, Ohio; 340 pp. ISBN 1-57477-136-1.
This is an admirably chatty book which covers a lot of relevant ground from energy needs, alternative possibilities for meeting it, technology as such, nuclear physics, "the bad stuff about things nuclear", to present and future nuclear power systems. It contains a lot of information from the inside - the author being a long-time nuclear engineer focused on safety and technology applications with Battelle/DOE. It is very US-oriented and irritating in not using SI units, but its wordy 317 pages of text is easy to read and full of interesting material which fleshes out the basic message.
Reactor table
Nuclear power in the world today
Plans for new reactors worldwide
Economics of nuclear power
Energy subsidies and external costs
Australia's uranium
Safeguards appendix
Waste management in the nuclear fuel cycle
Canada's U production & nuclear power
US nuclear power industry
Nuclear power in Sweden
Nuclear power in Spain (new)
Nuclear power in Switzerland (new)
Nuclear power in Germany
Nuclear power in Russia
Nuclear power in Bulgaria (new)
Nuclear power in China
Nuclear power in India & Pakistan
Nuclear power in South Korea
Nuclear power reactors
Nuclear powered ships
NORM
Civil liability for nuclear damage
Radioisotopes in medicine
Radiation and the nuclear fuel cycle
Australia's uranium mines (UIC mines paper)
Ux: 29 March US$ 17.50/lb U3O8, US$ 45.50 /kgU.
See also Ux Consulting graphs
World reactor changes
China: Qinshan 3 to operating, total now 9 / 6587 MWe,
Construction: 2 / 1900 MWe
S. Korea: Ulchin 5 (960 MWe) to operating
USA: Fort Calhoun uprate mid Feb 478 to 485 MWe,
Move Browns Ferry-1 to construction.
Spain (in 2003): 1.9% uprate to Cofrentes to 1068 MWe
Spain: total 7584 MWe net
Swiss total 3220 MWe net
Canada: move Pickering-1 to construction 515 MWe, from planned.
India: Kalpakkam 440 MWe to construction
WNA reactor database and reactor tables reviewed. Following integration of another reactor database, WNA has been reviewing and cross-checking its information on world nuclear power reactors. Many are now listed in individual country papers which are mostly checked by authoritative sources in the countries concerned, and this information is now related to the database (on a regular basis) and to the table (updated bimonthly).
GPO Box 1649N, Melbourne 3001, Australia
phone (03) 9629 7744
e-mail: uic@mpx.com.au
fax (03) 9629 7207