Hans Rudolf Gubser is Director, Business Units Nuclear Energy and Grid of NOK, the leading Swiss nuclear power plant operator, and Chairman of Zwilag, the Swiss Intermediate Storage Facility. The picture shows him campaigning ahead of the national vote of 18 May, 2003.
http://www.vpe.ch/fotos_aktionstag/together_thumb/images/NOK_HR_Gubser_jpg.jpg (Warwick: needs to be lighter around eyes)
What is the significance of the Swiss referendum vote in May?
The vote of 18th May clearly showed that our population prefers to maintain the CO2-free Swiss electricity production mix of 60 percent hydropower and 40 percent nuclear. Accepting one or both of the so-called 'popular initiatives' for phasing out nuclear energy would have forced Switzerland into a very expensive, speculative adventure. The significance of such a result is that people clearly understood that there is no ecologically credible or economically competitive alternative that could replace the 40 percent of electricity produced by nuclear energy within the timeframe of 10 to 20 years as envisaged by the initiatives. We are happy about the fact that, with 58.4 percent "No" votes against the "Moratorium plus" initiative and 66.3 percent "No" against "Electricity without nuclear", a clear majority of voters defeated the phase-out proposals. It is of particular importance that no less than 22 of the 23 cantons rejected both initiatives, i.e. apart from the traditionally critical region of Basel, the country was practically unanimous in rejecting the phase-out adventure.
http://www.atomenergie.ch/portrait.cfm?job=4878390&doc=htm&id=1828&b1=&o1=and&b2=&fsee=1&txt=1&arc=1
Mega poster (64m x 44m) on Goesgen NPP's cooling tower:
"For safety, climate protection and jobs: Atomic initiatives - vote 'No' twice!"
The Swiss trust the reliability of their own nuclear power plants. They prefer to use electricity from Swiss NPPs rather than importing nuclear electricity from abroad - where nuclear safety and protection of the environment is not under Swiss control.
The answer to your question, however, is not straightforward. The Swiss are extremely sceptical, maybe even obstinate, restive. Only a minority would say they see nuclear positively. However, the question to be voted on was not whether nuclear energy was good or bad. Accordingly, we did not run a campaign to promote the virtues and advantages of the atom. Our communication efforts for the vote concentrated on showing the disadvantages and dangers of a nuclear phase-out. The decisive argument was probably cost. People understood that an early shut-down of the existing, well-performing NPPs would be very expensive. They rightly feared that, ultimately, it would be individual electricity consumers who would have to meet that cost through higher electricity bills. In addition, the further weakening of enterprises in economically-difficult times by higher electricity prices and CO2 taxes was considered to be unwise. The majority of voters obviously concluded that it is better to have the country's NPPs operating as long as they are safe - and to profit from the heavy investments made in the past - rather than destroy precious resources by accepting an early shut-down of power plants that are as good as new.
How will the industry build on this?
Our highest priority now is to continue operating our nuclear power plants safely and efficiently for the benefit of the environment and the economy - with the reaffirmed will and unambiguous backing of the Swiss electorate. Of course, the public trust expressed in the May 2003 vote places a tremendous obligation on the industry to ensure that it continues to strive for excellence in NPP and used fuel management. We shall work without hesitation and devote ourselves to achieving the necessary progress in the field of safe, final disposal of nuclear waste in our country. In conjunction with politicians, the industry has to identify new, creative and pragmatic plans for translating available technical solutions into action within our environment of direct democracy. Fortunately, the revived momentum and motivation that the nuclear community derives from the positive outcome of the vote will support these efforts in the years ahead.
Will you need to build new plants in the next decade?
At present there is no need for new nuclear power plants in this country. One of the next steps will be to clarify the feasibility of preparing the first generation NPPs for an operational lifetime of 50 years, and the second generation plants for 60 years or more. On the other hand, the possible alternatives for replacing the existing units after the end of their operating lifetimes between 2019 an 2044 will need to be addressed in due course, from an economic, ecological and political standpoint, as well as taking into account aspects of public acceptance and security of electricity supply.
Mr Saraev pointed out that Rosenergoatom operated very much within the context of state energy policy - currently that defined in 2000, and of state funding for new plants to meet policy goals. Currently Russian nuclear plants provide about 140 billion kWh per year from 22 GWe (20.8 GWe net), government policy is for this output to increase to about 200 billion kWh by 2010 and 270 billion kWh or more by 2020. The growth is to come from lifetime extension of first-generation units for 10-15 years, upgrading, increased availability to 85% average (and hopefully more), together with some new plant.
Six new plants expected to be commissioned by 2011 (Kalinin-3, Kursk-5, Volgodonsk-2, Balakovo-5 & 6, Beloyarsk-4) have total capacity of 5.8 GWe. Then by 2020, another 13 GWe including the first lead-cooled BREST plant, together with district and industrial heat plants totalling 5 GW thermal. Little was said about new fast neutron reactors in that time frame, though Beloyarsk-4 is a BN-800 unit. (Two BREST units planned near Arkhangelsk are also fast reactors.)
His main emphasis was the improvement in operation of present reactors with better fuels and greater efficiency in their use, closing much of the gap between Western and Russian performance. Fuel developments include the use of burnable poisons - gadolinium and erbium, as well as structural changes to the fuel assemblies. (Russia has two main types of reactors in service: the graphite-moderated, fuel channel RBMK reactor of some 1000 MWe, and conventional light-water VVER reactors in two sizes - 440 and 1000 MWe.)
With uranium-gadolinium fuel and structural changes, VVER-1000 fuel has been pushed out to 4-year endurance and VVER-440 fuel even longer. For VVER-1000, five years is envisaged by 2010, with enrichment levels increasing nearly by one third (from 3.77% to 4.87%) in that time, average burn-up going up by 40% (to 57.7 GWd/t) and operating costs dropping by 5%. With a 3 x 18 month operating cycle, burn-up would be lower (51.3 GWd/t) but load factor could increase to 87%. Comparable improvements were envisaged for later-model VVER-440 units.
For RBMK reactors the most important development has been the introduction of uranium-erbium fuel at all units, though structural changes have helped. As enrichment and erbium content are increased (eg to 2.8% and 0.6% respectively at Leningrad-2), increased burn-up is possible. For the BN-600 fast reactor, improved fuel means up to 560 days between refuelling.
Beyond these initiatives, the basic requirements for fuel have been set as: fuel operational lifetime extended to 6 years, improved burn-up of 70 GWd/tU, and improved fuel reliability. In addition, many nuclear plants will need to be used in load-following mode, and fuel which performs well under variable load conditions will be required.
All RBMK reactors now use recycled uranium from VVER reactors and some has also been used experimentally at Kalinin-2 and Kola-2 VVERs. It is intended to extend this. A related task is to utilise surplus weapons-grade plutonium in MOX fuel for up to seven VVER-1000 reactors from 2008 and the one fast reactor (Beloyarsk-3) from 2007.
Mr Rogov had earlier given a lot of detail on the investment program of nuclear industry development 2002-05 and for the period to 2010. The total amount of this is 450 billion roubles (US$ 15 billion) in 2002 currency, 290 billion roubles (US$ 9.7 billion) of it by 2010. Some 35% of this is for upgrading and replacement capacity, 56% of it for new capacity (@ US$ 650/kW), including 90 billion roubles (US$ 3 billion) for growth after 2010. He also set out how unified electricity tariffs are planned to increase from 1.1 c/kWh in 2001 to 1.9 c/kWh in 2005 and 2.4 c/kWh in 2010.
In conclusion, Mr Saraev said that development of nuclear power was essential for the Russian power industry and thus the whole economy, and the developments outlined to 2020 were entirely feasible.
US plants increased their output in 2002 due to record average capacity factor, expected to be 91.5%. In the last five years increased production from the same number of reactors has been equivalent to the output of 13 large new ones.
Ux Weekly 12/5/03, NucNet news #160/03, NEI Nuclear Energy Overview 24/3/03.
Energy bills advance in Congress
The comprehensive Energy Policy Act of 2003 was passed by the US House of Representatives by a vote of 247 to 175. It contains several important provisions supporting nuclear power and also domestic uranium mining. The corresponding Senate bill renews the Price-Anderson provision of nuclear liability insurance, funds a prototype nuclear-hydrogen cogeneration project and authorises loan guarantees for up to half the costs of building new nuclear plants. It contains $1.7 billion in R&D funding over four years, including $399 million for an advanced fuel recycling program.
A broad-based alliance of more than 80 energy firms and industry groups - many representing competing policy goals - has asked Congress for legislation to boost production of all types of energy in order to meet demand 20 years from now. More natural gas production, more coal, crude oil and renewables development, and stimulation of investment in new power reactors were all needed, leading to "a broad portfolio of domestic energy resources, which helps create jobs, insulate consumers from energy price spikes, and strengthens national security."
Ux Weekly 14/4/03, Nucleonics Week 17/4/03, NEI Nuclear Energy Overview 21/4/03, Platts 12/5/03.
US regulators plan to work with Canada and UK
With several new reactor designs emerging which might be built in any of the three countries, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has signalled that it will collaborate with Canada's Nuclear Safety Commission on licensing AECL's Advanced Candu Reactor (ACR-700) and with UK's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate on licensing the Westinghouse AP-1000. This will focus on hardware and exclude site issues, but will be a significant rationalisation. The NRC Chairman has since said that there would be no delay in processing any application to build a new nuclear plant.
Platts 31/3/03, NucNet news #179/03.
Report on staged development of Yucca Mountain
A report by the National Academies National Research Council reviews the feasibility of developing the Yucca Mountain high-level waste repository by stages, with public input and as a continual learning process. The report says there is enough flexibility in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 3-stage licensing process to allow "Adaptive Staging." Also, establishing a pilot operation would be a way forward - the Department of Energy is assessing this.
More recently the NRC has released a further draft of the Yucca Mountain Review Plan which it will use to assess DOE's application for constructing the repository.
National Academies 6/2/03, SpentFuel 31/3/03.
US spent fuel security affirmed
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has responded to suggestions that spent fuel is vulnerable to terrorist actions and should be put into dry storage casks after five years. "Nuclear power reactor spent fuel pools are not soft structures. They are neither easily reached nor easily breached. Instead, they are robust structures constructed of very thick concrete walls with stainless steel liners. In addition other design characteristics of these pools can make them highly resistant to damage and can ease the ability to cope with any damage" - eg being below ground level or among other structures. Also, emergency cooling can readily be undertaken.
NEI Nuclear Energy Overview 21/4/03.
New study updates nuclear economics
A study by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) has updated the economic relativities of nuclear and gas-fired power. It confirms that new nuclear plants could be built in the USA over 2005-10 for $1250 per kilowatt capacity. The Westinghouse AP-1000 was the main type considered, but other advanced designs would be similar according to EPRI. Scenarios of future US construction depended on the price of gas and whether nuclear capital costs could be further reduced. The impact of a tax on carbon emissions was considered also.
NEI Nuclear Energy Overview 21/4/03.
Finland accepts reactor bids
Tenders have been submitted to TVO for Finland's fifth reactor, apparently by three vendors, and for four designs: Framatome ANP: European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR) of 1500 MWe and the SWR-1000 (a BWR) of 1200 MWe; GE: Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) of 1300 MWe; Atomstroyexport: VVER-91/99 of 1060 MWe. The EPR is the new standard design for France, the ABWR has been operating in Japan and already has design certification in the USA while the SWR is now undergoing it, and two of the VVER-91 units are being built in China. The new plant is expected to cost EUR 1.75-2.5 billion.
Nucleonics Week 3 & 17/4/03.
Bulgaria considers reactor options
Five reactor vendors have submitted information to the Bulgarian Ministry of Energy for supplying the Belene nuclear power plant on the Danube River. Construction of two VVER-1000 units at Belene was suspended in 1991 due to financial problems, with construction 40% complete and some US$ 1 billion spent. Most of the equipment for the first unit is stored at the site and is reported in good condition. Cost estimates to complete the first unit are about US$ 1 billion.
The offers for totally new plant are from AECL, Westinghouse (for AP-1000 PWR), Skoda, Framatome ANP (for EPR) and Atomstroyexport. Mitsubishi has expressed interest. Tenders may be called later in the year.
Nucleonics Week 3/4/03, TradeTech NMR 23/5/03.
Ukraine moves forward on new reactors
The Ukrainian government has approved estimates for the completion, site works and upgrades of its Khmelnitski-2 and Rovno-4 nuclear power reactors, at US$ 621 million and US$ 642 million respectively. First cores for both VVER-1000 units will add some US$ 100 million. Both reactors were 80% complete when a four-year halt was imposed in 1990.
With local finance, the government had hoped to complete both units next year, using a consortium of Framatome ANP and Atomstroyexport. However, it is again negotiating with EBRD for west European finance - a US$ 215 M loan was almost agreed in 2001 with US$ 585 M from the EU, but the government balked at doubling the wholesale price of power to USD 2.5 cent/kWh.
Nucleonics Week 20 & 27/3/03, FreshFuel 24/3/03, Energy in E Europe 21/3/03.
Baltic partnership for new Ignalina plant
Latvia and Estonia are working with Lithuania to prepare for a feasibility study on a US$ 2 billion project to build a large new reactor at the site of Lithuania's Ignalina nuclear plant, which is due to be shut down under EU accession arrangements. Ignalina (2 x 1380 MWe) makes the country a major electricity exporter, particularly to Latvia, while Estonia relies heavily on oil shale for its power, which is costly and polluting. All three want to minimise energy dependence on Russia. Lithuania has signed a cooperation agreement with Areva for feasibility study of a new Framatome nuclear plant.
Ux Weekly 31/3 & 26/5/03, TradeTech NMR 31/3/03, Nucleonics Week 29/5/03.
Czech proposal to double Temelin
The Czech government is considering building two further reactors at Temelin, after 2010, to replace more than 2 GWe capacity at obsolete coal-fired plants. Units 1 and 2 there are running but have not yet entered commercial operation.
Ux Weekly 26/5/03, TradeTech NMR 23/5/03.
Sweden strengthens nuclear support
An April poll (N=1021) confirms that Sweden's citizens remain strongly in support of nuclear power, with 81% registering positive views. Some 12% wanted an increase in nuclear power, while 19% wanted existing units replaced and 50% opted for simply continuing to operate existing units as long as they remain safe. However, 86% said that nuclear power's lack of carbon dioxide emissions was an important factor in considering future energy options. Nearly half of Sweden's electricity comes from nuclear.
State-owned utility Vattenfall has announced plans to invest US$ 1.9 billion over the next 10-15 years to upgrade eight nuclear plants it is involved with (at Forsmark, Ringhals & Barseback), adding some 600 MWe of capacity.
NucNet news #167/03, Reuters 22/5/03.
Construction starts on new Romanian reactor
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd has announced the start of construction on Romania's Cernavoda-2 reactor, a second 710 MWe Candu 6 unit which will provide about 655 MWe net. It will take four years and US$ 700 million to complete construction, with Ansaldo (Italy) and Romanian partners. The first Cernavoda unit was completed in 1996 and supplies some 10% of the country's power.
AECL 17/4/03.
UK ponders plutonium disposition
A broad stakeholder group in the UK has considered how the country's expanding stockpile of reactor-grade plutonium might be used or disposed of within the next 50 years. It explored four options: immobilising in an existing or a new plant, and burning it as mixed oxide (MOX) fuel in new or (three) existing reactors. None found universal favour. The group, under the aegis of the Environment Council, spent three years addressing the question. BNFL has proposed building two Westinghouse AP-1000 reactors at Sellafield to burn 100% MOX fuel, which would consume all the plutonium over some 20 years. The resultant spent fuel would be considered as an immobilised plutonium product and treated as waste. It was noted that Magnox-generated Pu had a low Pu-241 (and hence Am-241) level and could thus be stored for up to 60 years after separation before MOX fabrication, while Pu from light water reactors would need to be used within 5 years. The UK civil stockpile is approaching 70 tonnes.
Nucleonics Week 17/4/03.
Revision of waste categories proposed
The UK government has been advised by its Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee to adopt a new category of Very Low Radioactive Material (VLRM), which would enable simpler disposal and relieve the pressure on Low-Level Waste (LLW) disposal facilities. It would correspond with procedures already allowed for BNFL as well as in France and Sweden, and applied to materials up to some 0.01 GBq/t, would maintain safety. The UKAEA had proposed upper limit of 0.04 GBq/t for beta/gamma and 0.002 GBq/t for alpha activity in VLRM, compared with current UK upper limit of 12 GBq/t for beta/gamma and 4 GBq/t for alpha in LLW. Very LLW - below 0.004 GBq/m3 of beta/gamma (some 4 times the level of granite) - can be placed in normal landfill, and the limit for regulatory control of artificial radionuclides is one tenth of this. The VLRM could be buried at many suitable sites.
Nucleonics Week 27/3/03.
Hungarian fuel damage rated 3 on INES scale
During the chemical cleaning of corrosion products on the surface of the fuel cladding, some 30 fuel assemblies from the Paks-2 VVER-440 reactor overheated and were severely damaged. The cleaning was being undertaken during a routine refuelling shutdown in a special pool near the reactor, using a reputable German process. The damage is attributed mainly to a deficient design of the cleaning tank's cooling and control system. Some radioactive noble gases and I-131 were released in the plant and to the environment, and the event has been rated 3 on the International Nuclear Event Scale - a "Serious Incident".
Nucleonics Week 24/4 & 1/5/03, Platts 12/5/03.
New German research reactor licensed
After more than a year's delay due to political pressure, the Technical University of Munich has received approval to start its new 20 MW FRM-2 research reactor at Garching using fuel enriched to 93.2% U-235. However, the national safety authority has imposed the condition that fuel enriched to less than 50% U-235 be used by 2010. This is in line with international moves to reduce enrichment levels in research reactors to less than 20% in that time scale - nearly half of the world's research reactors, particularly older ones, now use high-enriched fuel.
Nucleonics Week 24/4/03, & cf Research Reactors briefing/information paper.
UK report concludes Sellafield saga
The UK Nuclear Installations Inspectorate has confirmed that in a 3-year shake-up BNFL has satisfactorily dealt with all the matters raised in its February 2000 report, which showed the need for major changes in management and control of operations at Sellafield.
BNFL 12/5/03.
Norway protests to UK on marine discharges
The Norwegian government has said it will file a formal diplomatic protest over discharges of 90 TBq/yr of technetium-99 from BNFL's Sellafield site - "It is an act provocation not to take into account the effect of the consequences of discharges on the Norwegian fishing industry."
However, a report on the EC's MARINA II study suggests that today's effects from Sellafield may be non-existent. Since 1986 the radiological impact on the most exposed people near major sites such as Sellafield and Cap La Hague was significantly and consistently below all relevant safety standards - these sites provide the major nuclear industry discharges. Anthropogenic inputs of radioactivity into the waters north and west of Europe (the NE Atlantic or OSPAR region) have decreased by several orders of magnitude since the 1960s and the overall radiological impact from the nuclear industry on the EU population has decreased to 5% of the 1978 level - now a trivial 14 man-sievert per year. Off Sellafield, remobilised sediments are now a larger source of exposure than current effluent and ceasing discharges altogether would not affect concentrations of some radionuclides.
Phosphate industry discharges of naturally-occurring radionuclides (NORM) were formerly significant, and the radionuclides persist. Oil and natural gas production from Norwegian and UK coastal waters results in ongoing NORM releases which bio-concentrate, and these now contribute 90% of alpha-active discharges in the OSPAR region. The radiotoxicity of NORM from oil, gas and phosphate is higher than that of the radionuclides discharged by the nuclear industry so nuclear discharges are now responsible for less than 1% of the collective dose due to NORM in the marine environment, and about one ten thousandth of the collective dose rate due to all natural radioactivity in the region.
MARINA II summary report August 2002, Nucleonics Week 15/5 & 5/6/03, Platts 19/5/03.
Meanwhile it is reported that the Chinese government has approved in principle the construction of Framatome-type 1000 MWe pressurised water reactors (PWRs) in Guangdong province and possibly Zhejiang province under the current Five-Year Plan. These appear to be the CNP-1000 type developed from those at Daya Bay and Lingao but with 60 GWd/t burn up and 24-month refuelling cycle. Westinghouse has also been proposing a 1000 MWe standard Chinese PWR design for the next tranche of construction. Framatome will work in joint venture with Chinese partners on the reactors in Guangdong - for which financing is reportedly in place, and also at Sanmen in Zhejiang, where site works have begun.
Nuclear Canada 30/4/03, Nucleonics Week 1/5/03.
China to help build new Pakistan reactor
A memorandum of understanding has been signed for Chinese help in constructing a second 300 MWe reactor at Chashma in the Punjab. This will be a twin to Chasnupp-1, a Chinese-built unit which entered service almost three years ago and which is under IAEA safeguards.
NucNet news #125/03.
Tokyo power crisis continues
Tepco has restarted the first of its shut-down reactors serving the Tokyo area, after authorisation from the Governor of Niigata prefecture and local mayors, as well as earlier approval from the Nuclear & Industrial Safety Agency. The 1315 MWe Kashiwazaki-Kariwa-6 reactor will reach full power early in June. Unit 7 is expected to restart in mid June, as is Fukushima Daiichi-6. No dates have been set for restarting Tepco's other 14 reactors, though eight municipal governments in Fukushima prefecture have called on the company to restart them as soon as possible once they are cleared by NISA. Permission from the governors of Fukushima and Niigata prefectures is awaited - these being well outside Tepco's service area. A significant shortfall in electricity supply looms for the Tokyo area, some hundreds of kilometres from the reactor sites, and this conflict of interest between stakeholders is a continuing problem for Tepco.
Ux Weekly 12 & 19/5/03, NucNet news #170/03, Reuters 27/5/03, Nikkei Weekly 26/5/03.
Japanese reactor bows out
At the end of March the small Fugen prototype Advanced Thermal Reactor operated by JNC was shut down. This had heavy water moderator and light water cooling in pressure tubes and was the first thermal reactor in the world to use a full mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel core.
Power in Asia 3/4/03.
Quake closes Japanese reactor
An earthquake registering 7 on the Richter scale tripped Tohoku's Onagawa-3 nuclear reactor in Miyagai prefecture on 26 May, shutting it down automatically and safely. Two other units there were already shut down for maintenance.
Power in Asia 29/5/03.
Russia leans on Iran over safeguards
Russia has now joined the USA and UK in expressing concern about the purpose of new uranium enrichment capacity being built in Iran, notably at Natanz. The capacity is despite the fact that all fuel provision and services for Iran's Bushehr reactor - due for completion in 2004 - is contracted from Russia. While Russia has steadfastly ignored US appeals to abandon construction of the Bushehr reactor, it has now told Iran that supply of fuel later this year will be withheld unless Iran signs the IAEA Additional Protocol (an amendment to each country's safeguards agreement with IAEA under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), thereby agreeing to intrusive inspections of all its nuclear facilities - declared or suspected. The Bushehr reactor project is under IAEA safeguards, but other facilities as yet are not.
Financial Times 26/5/03.
North Korea quits NPT
Having given notice in January, North Korea's withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty became effective in April. It is the first nation to withdraw.
Meanwhile construction of two light water reactors continues and is reported to be about 30% complete. Funding is principally from South Korea andJapan.
Tradetech NMR 16/5/03.
Canadian nuclear waste policy
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) has released for public review a draft policy which sets out the principles to guide regulatory decisions on radioactive wastes. It is intended to be congruent with international standards and practices. The CNSC is in the process of assessing an application to expand the dry storage facility for spent fuel at Pickering nuclear power station beyond the present 650 dry storage containers. Ontario Power Generation also proposes a dry storage facility at Darlington in the same 2007 time frame, pending commissioning of a national repository for spent fuel.
SpentFuel 21/4/03.
Ontario decommissioning costs
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has approved Ontario Power Generation's plans for decommissioning its reactors from 2011. OPG estimated that it will cost C$ 18.2 billion (C$ 6.2 billion in present value terms) to decommission Ontario's 20 nuclear power reactors and dispose of the wastes. It assumes interim storage of all wastes followed by disposal of intermediate-level wastes and deep geological disposal of spent fuel from 2035. Dismantling would start 30 years after reactor shutdown and account for about a third of the overall costs. OPG has set aside C$2 billion for decommissioning and will add about C$454 million per year to this for five years, then a reduced amount over the remaining lives of the reactors. There are no direct costs to Bruce Power, which leases its eight reactors from OPG.
SpentFuel 21/4/03, Platts 15/5/03.
Nuclear steam for tar sands
A study by the Canadian Energy Research Institute has confirmed that even down to 60% of current gas prices, nuclear energy would be more cost-effective than the gas used at present for providing process steam to extract oil from Canada's tar sands. The reference plant was an AECL ACR-700 advanced reactor.
Nuclear Canada 15/5/03.
Low-level waste repository site confirmed
Following environmental approval of two sites, the federal Minister for Science has selected one of these, on a sheep station, 20 km east of Woomera in South Australia as the location for Australia's low-level waste repository. This follows over ten years of scientific assessment and consultation. A licence from the Australian Radiation Protection & Nuclear Safety Agency is still required, but the government hopes to have the repository operating next year.
Kemp & McGauran media releases 9/5/03, cf DEST Radwaste web site
Honeymoon marks time
Southern Cross Resources has reported that its Honeymoon ISL mine project is on hold pending improved conditions in financial markets. Some immediate refinancing will be used for drilling to increase reserves. Development plans remain unchanged, for 850 tonnes U3O8 (720 tU) per year, with production costs forecast at US$ 13.20 /kg ($15.60 /kgU). Production should commence twelve months after securing a further US$ 33 million finance.
FreshFuel 26/5/03, Ux Weekly 2/6/02.
The announcement was unexpected, though both parties have been seeking a further partner for the project since October. So far, test results have demonstrated that the process works and the current phase is assessing economic performance. Silex stresses that there are no technical grounds for diminished confidence in the SILEX process for uranium and disagrees with USEC's view of its potential, though USEC cited "numerous technological hurdles" still ahead. SILEX would not be ready for deployment until about 2009. All rights to the SILEX technology revert to Silex Systems, which has cash reserves sufficient to continue development of the uranium process along with its silicon and zirconium enrichment programs (with other partners).
Silex 121/3 & 1/5/03, USEC 30/4/03.
Eskom confirms backing of PMBR
South African utility Eskom has confirmed that it is ready to proceed with a demonstration unit of the Pebble Bed Modular reactor (PMBR), subject to relevant government approvals which are pending. It views it "as a strategic national demonstration project with the potential to bring major macro-economic, social and strategic benefits for South Africa as a whole." US utility Entergy also expressed support for the project, in which BNFL has a stake. The PMBR is further ahead than any other high-temperature reactor technology.
NucNet news #176/03.
New world energy projections
A new report published by the European Commission strengthens the case for increasing the use of non-fossil energy sources, such as nuclear and renewables. It projects the world energy scene in 2030 and shows a doubling in energy consumption, continued domination of fossil fuels, and CO2 emissions at twice their 1990 level on the basis of current business and technological trends. It finds that the cost of meeting emission targets worldwide could be reduced by 30% if nuclear and renewable sources of electricity were used on a large scale. The World Energy, Technology and Climate Policy Outlook (WETO) report is issued by the ECÕs Directorate-General for Research. Earlier, the US Energy Information Administration released its International Energy Outlook, which projected a 58% increase in energy demand and 76% increase in electricity demand by 2025. Carbon dioxide emissions are projected to increase by 59% by 2025 in that report, given a doubling in gas use.
Foratom 13/5/03, NucNet news # 168/03, NEI Nuclear Energy Overview 5/5/03.
Russian clean-up agreement signed
An agreement, and a protocol regarding liability, to enable a massive clean-up of military nuclear materials in northwest Russia has been signed after five years of negotiations. The agreement signatories include Russia, the USA, UK, Sweden, Norway, France and Euratom. The Multilateral Nuclear Environmental Program for the Russian Federation (MNEPR) will focus on naval spent fuel from 109 decommissioned submarines and other radioactive wastes from Russia's Northern Fleet, particularly in the Kola Peninsula. It will also involve reactor safety at the Leningrad and Kola nuclear power plants - with some of Russia's oldest reactors. EUR 110 million has been pledged by the EU and other countries - EUR 62 million to be available immediately, but much more than this is expected to be provided eventually from the G8 Global Partnership Fund - about half of it from the USA.
Nucleonics Week 22 & 29/5/03, cf Newsletter #2/03.
WNA expands working groups
The World Nuclear Association has expanded its functions to include member working groups on Radiological Protection and Event Definition. The latter is to ensure that in the event of a future incident involving core damage to a reactor, the industry and others are better able to communicate publicly in terms that are consistent, accurate and resistant to misinterpretation. The WNA Director-General reminded members that "the question is not whether the global nuclear industry will grow, but whether it will grow fast enough" as "our world seeks to reconcile the twin imperatives of human need and environmental security."
Accountants crunch greenhouse figures
PricewaterhouseCoopers and a French newspaper Enerpresse have published carbon dioxide emission figures for the 25 largest European power producers, covering more than 750 million tonnes per year of CO2. The average CO2 emission factor in Europe was 353 g/kWh, reflecting the high proportion on nuclear power, hydro and gas in the generation mix. A transatlantic comparison showed that while the USA produces 50% more electricity, it emits three times as much CO2 from it. This reflects the high proportion of coal used, and only 20% nuclear contribution, giving an emission factor of 720 g/kWh in the USA.
Enerpresse 22/10/02.
Nuclear power in world today
Reactor table
Advanced reactors
Small nuclear power reactors
Sustainable energy
US nuclear power industry
French nuclear power program
Nuclear power in Russia
Nuclear power in Japan
Nuclear power in India and China
Nuclear power in Finland
Waste management in nuclear fuel cycle
NORM
Safety of nuclear power reactors
Nuclear desalination
Occupational safety in U mining
Radioactive waste repository for Australia
See also Ux Consulting graphs
GPO Box 1649N, Melbourne 3001, Australia
phone (03) 9629 7744
e-mail: uic@mpx.com.au
fax (03) 9629 7207