Prof. Andre Berger, Universite Catholique de Louvain, was a member of the AMPERE Commission appointed by the Belgian government in 1999 to report on electricity demand and options for meeting it in the 21st century. He was in charge of the chapter on Climatic Variations, Global Warming and Human Impacts.
What is today's Belgian position on nuclear power?
Nuclear provides over half of Belgium's electricity today. The Belgian government (the previous one was called 'rainbow' because it was made up of socialists, liberals and greens) decided to close down the nuclear power plants in Belgium each time one reaches 40 years of operation, so that there would be no more nuclear power plants by 2040 in Belgium. No replacement for energy production has been quantitatively proposed. The decision was entirely a political one: socialists and liberals said that a compromise was necessary with the greens who were pushing for this. Furthermore, they even used the AMPERE Commission report to justify their action despite the fact that AMPERE and its peer review highly recommended nuclear energy!
Does this imply depending on French nuclear output?
The politicians were trying to convince people that renewables (wind turbines mainly) will be the solution, although all calculations (AMPERE, Bureau du Plan, myself and others) clearly show that this is simply impossible if we wish to meet the Kyoto target. No more than 10 % of our electricity can be produced by wind according to AMPERE.
Certainly there is a real danger that we either become subservient to other countries like France and Finland who seem to be more intelligent than Belgium, or we return to the Middle Ages, with lack of available energy for development or pay a lot our lack of foresight.
What are the immediate and longer term implications of this position?
I have developed a scenario based on a 10% increase in electricity demand to 2010 (above 1998), a 10% electricity production from renewables, the same CO2 emissions from non-electricity sources, and the same non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions, both as in 1990. To meet Kyoto this leaves us with 45 billion kWh allowed to be produced by thermal power plants, but we still need substantial production from nuclear power plants - 84% of last year's output. If theoretically those plants do not exist anymore, it will leave us with emissions well in excess of Kyoto requirements. With a penalty of EUR10/tCO2 it means we must pay150 million Euro per year.
Alternatively, if we invest totally in nuclear instead of thermal power plants, we would save so much CO2 which at that price means a saving of EUR 180 M/yr. The difference amounts to 330 million Euro each year! Economists have criticised this simple calculation, telling that the market will react and that Belgium will benefit from it. But in fact, most people believe that the penalty for CO2 excess will probably be more than my assumption of EUR 10, and secondly, Kyoto phase 2 - if there will ever be one - will be much more drastic than Kyoto 1. Indeed if we believe the threat of global warming - and the efficiency of a Kyoto Protocol to reduce it by constraining CO2 emissions, our climate modeling shows that we must reduce our global emissions by 50 %. (Compare that with the Kyoto 1 target of 5.2 % in the industrialised countries, within which USA and Russia are not willing to participate anymore!)
How do you perceive the public views of nuclear power?
Unfortunately, the nuclear industry has not sufficiently advertised nuclear energy. Therefore the public - with the considerable help of media, mainly the daily and weekly newspapers is only hearing comments by the anti-nuclear people (Greenpeace and Green Party). When you explain clearly the situation, as I do in a large number of public fora, most people understand and become upset at not having been properly informed in good time.
The prime responsibility of the Belgium policy is therefore, attributable to the "anti-nuclearists" with their scary, irrational and non scientific arguments. But the nuclear industry shares some of the blame for letting them go on without any reaction (or sometimes much too weak). Also the politicians who are afraid of the public reaction are responsible for the problem. We have now entered a world of green terrorism - I mean where the so-called ecologists are terrorizing people with irrational and subjective arguments propagating a diabolical view of nuclear energy without even trying to understand or make any difference between a nuclear bomb and nuclear energy.
We must explain clearly that nuclear power plants are much safer than most other industries (chemical, biological, industrial, pharmaceutical ....), that the nuclear waste problems are almost totally solved - or at least in a much better situation than any other technological wastes, and that proliferation of nuclear weapons has nothing to do with nuclear energy.
See also paper on Nuclear power in Belgium
NB. Since the above interview the Belgian Energy Minister has called for reconsideration of the nuclear phase-out policy, which raises the possibility of its repeal due to perceived necessity.
Nuclear technology originally developed in only a few countries - often arising out of weapons programs. In the early years, the concept of nuclear fuel cycle centres was topical. In the 1950s, the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) charter itself allowed centralised plutonium storage and management. Studies were performed on regional nuclear fuel cycle centres and on international spent fuel management but did not come to fruition.
However, in practice a few countries (including non-weapons states such as Germany and Sweden) did develop into international suppliers of nuclear technology. The fuel cycle was largely international during the 1960s and 1970s, in the sense that services such as uranium production and enrichment, fuel fabrication, reprocessing and reactor supply were carried out in a limited number of countries and sold to others. Even the back end of the fuel cycle was to some extent internationalised, with the UK, France and Russia all retaining wastes produced by the reprocessing of foreign fuels.
But with time, national nuclear capabilities were developed by countries looking for increased independence from the big suppliers, seeking commercial opportunities, or seeking an independent nuclear weapons capability. To restrict further weapons development, while allowing peaceful use of nuclear energy, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was conceived, including inspection rights in non-weapons states.
In 1975 the IAEA launched a study project to examine the economic, safety, safeguards and security aspects of a multinational or regional approach to nuclear fuel cycle facilities, which were envisaged as including spent fuel storage, fuel reprocessing, plutonium fuel fabrication and waste disposal.
In 1980 the IAEA-sponsored International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation (INFCE) report on reprocessing and plutonium recycling said that "the evolution of institutional arrangements should be towards multinational ventures and could result in the development of regional nuclear fuel cycle centres." International control and storage of separated reactor-grade plutonium was seen to have non-proliferation advantages.
Since then the advent of modern centrifuge enrichment technology allowing small and relatively low-cost plants, including possibly undeclared plants, in countries without any major industrial base has exacerbated the problem in relation to high-enriched uranium. Centrifuge technology requires a small fraction of the power of its predecessors, so is easy to conceal. The INFCE report on enrichment recommended multinational facilities or national ones with supervision by other governments, and limiting the number of plants, with expansion "only in response to the needs of a competitive market".
The INFCE waste management and disposal report firmly recommended that proposals "for establishing multinational and international repositories should be elaborated" due to their non-proliferation advantages. "Centralised facilities for disposal of spent fuel and/or vitrified high-level wastes .... would reduce the diversion risk" and be more economical.
Four significant problems with the current system have grown in importance in the intervening years:
The conclusion to be drawn is that, to address each of these problems in an integrated fashion, the time is ripe to reconsider the global benefits of nuclear fuel cycle centres for both front end and back end activities.
Arguments focussing on the front end have been set out in a number of recent studies and by the IAEA.
There has also been increasing support for the concept of shared multinational repositories. The concentration of only the back end of the fuel cycle into a few countries might appear less problematic. The materials concerned are less sensitive than separated fissile materials. Only spent fuel itself is sensitive in a non-proliferation sense, and the spent fuel has a large built-in protective characteristic because of its intense radiation. However, final disposal of radioactive waste is a very long-term technical and societal challenge that has taxed most waste management programmes even those committed to purely national solutions.
The Pangea project in 1999 raised the profile of the global debate on international repositories. It was primarily concerned with disposal of spent fuel in a deep geological repository, and it received solid support in scientific and business circles worldwide and in Australia. However, political opposition was strong and the project was dropped by its sponsors.
Following the failure of proposals aimed at storage on Pacific Islands, the US-based Non-Proliferation Trust and the Minatom Development Trust proposed implementing international storage and disposal facilities in Russia, beginning with 10 000 tonnes of non-US origin fuel. The substantial revenues were to be used for remedial action in Russia. But US consent would be needed to transfer much of the foreseen inventory to Russia and this would be conditional on political considerations. The original US project appears to have stagnated. However, over the past few years Russia has become increasingly serious about spent fuel import. It is the only country publicly supporting this at government level, with laws passed to enable it, and the Russian option seem to have increasing support from the USA and from the IAEA.
The recent US MIT study on the Future of Nuclear Power notes that there is considerable scope for international sharing of waste storage and disposal facilities. The authors recommended that a network of centralized facilities for storing spent nuclear fuel should be established in the USA and internationally.
Arius (Association for Regional and International Underground Storage) is a small group of organisations, currently from eight countries, cooperating to support the concept of sharing facilities for storage and disposal of all types of long-lived radioactive wastes without commercial goals. Arius' mission is to promote concepts for socially acceptable, international and regional solutions for environmentally safe, secure and economic storage and disposal of long-lived radioactive wastes, especially for smaller users, who may not wish to - or may not have the resources to - develop facilities of their own. Arius is also co-organiser of a specific EC-funded project, SAPIERR, which is examining the technical and legal aspects influencing a regional repository concept in Europe.
There is clearly scope for the international community to take concrete steps to expedite any credible proposals for shared repositories. One option is to support, technically and financially, the initiatives of smaller countries interested in implementing a common facility. The most immediate start, however, may be by improving existing Russian proposals. For example assistance with repository development could be provided, and mechanisms could be developed, to enhance international oversight and transparency, and thus global confidence in Russian projects.
Based substantially on WNA Symposium paper by Charles McCombie & Neil Chapman, Sept 2004.
Fourth new-generation reactor design approved
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has given final design approval with safety evaluation to the AP1000 nuclear power reactor design. This is the fourth 3rd generation reactor to gain such approval, and the first of the generation 3+ designs. It will give Westinghouse a distinct boost in marketing the reactor in China and Europe as well as the USA. Final US design certification is likely late 2005, following public comment. The 1100 MWe AP1000 has passive safety systems, a 60 year operating life and is scaled up from the already approved AP600. It represents the culmination of a 1300 man-years and a $440 million design and testing program. Capital costs are projected at $1200 per kilowatt and modular design will reduce construction time to 36 months.
Platts 13/9/04, Ux Weekly 13/9/04.
Utility recovers spent fuel storage costs
Exelon has reached agreement with the US Justice Department on recovering up to $300 million in storage costs for its spent fuel to 2010 due to the Department of Energy defaulting on its obligation to start taking spent fuel from utilities in 1998. The agreement covers all of Exelon's 17 nuclear reactors, and the cash will come from tax monies, not the Nuclear Waste Fund to which utility ratepayers have contributed $24 billion. Other utilities have been suing the federal government to achieve the same result and billions of dollars are involved.
Nucleonics Week 12/8/04, NEI 10/8/04.
Nuclear operating costs rise
Average operating costs for US nuclear power stations rose to 1.75 c/kWh in 2003 (from 1.69c in 2002). This partly reflected the investment of some $1 billion in security at US nuclear plants over the last three years. But fuel costs for coal and gas-fired plants rose significantly, so nuclear competitiveness improved during 2003.
In earlier announcing strong financial results, Exelon pointed to its 17 nuclear units, comprising 40% of its capacity, as the key to this. Its five dual-unit sites are the lowest-cost plants in the country, and the company has cut nuclear operating costs by 47% since 1997, with the duration of refuelling outages falling to one third in that period, to a 24 day average.
Nucleonics Week 26/8 & 23/9/04.
USEC progresses centrifuge enrichment plant
USEC Inc has submitted a licence application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build and operate its commercial $1.5 billion American Centrifuge Plant in Piketon, Ohio. It will be on the same Portsmouth site where the Department of Energy's experimental plant operated in the 1980s, involving 1300 centrifuges as the culmination of a very major R&D program. USEC's Portsmouth diffusion plant is now closed, but Piketon is also the site of its Lead Cascade demonstration plant. For the main centrifuge plant it envisages initial annual capacity of 3.5 million SWU from 2010 but has foreshadowed 7 million SWU in its application to allow for expansion. Authorisation for enrichment up to 10% is sought - most enrichment plants operate up to 5% U-235 product, which is becoming a serious constraint as reactor fuel burnup increases.
USEC 23/8/04 & web site.
US buys into French fast research
The US energy secretary has signed an agreement with the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) to gain access to the Phenix 233 MWe experimental fast neutron reactor at Marcoule for research on nuclear fuels. The Department of Energy acknowledged that this fast neutron "capability no longer exists in the USA". Phenix started operation in 1974 but was then shut down for modification 1998-2003 and is now fundamental to France's research on waste disposal, particularly transmutation of actinides. The US research with Phenix will irradiate fuel loaded with various actinides under constant conditions to help identify what kind of fuel might be best for possible future waste transmutation systems.
DOE 24/8/04.
US swings to coal from gas
In the last five years the natural gas wellhead price in the USA has increased nearly threefold (Jan-Apr 2004 on 1999) due largely to increased demand for power generation. This means that power generated from it - notably in the 175 GWe of new gas capacity - will now be more than twice as expensive, which has put coal back in the limelight. The US Department of Energy says that 92 new coal-fired plants totalling 59 GWe of generating capacity are proposed, involving a $69 billion investment. However, since May the benchmark US coal price has doubled to about $66/tonne, which will increase the power costs from that by more than one cent per kWh, equivalent to a carbon tax of about $40/t. Industry projections of 50 GWe of new nuclear capacity by 2020 now look relatively modest.
FT 16-17/8/04.
Cameco misses out on Texas reactors
Having agreed to buy 25.2% of the South Texas nuclear power plant (2 x 1250 MWe units) Cameco was rebuffed by two of the existing owners exercising right of first refusal and paying $332 million for the equity. Texas Genco Holdings and City Public Service Board of San Antonio will increase their shares to 44% and 40% respectively, while the City of Austin maintains its 16% share. The vendor, American Electric Power, will pay Cameco $7 million to terminate the agreement it signed six months ago. The sale is still subject to regulatory approval.
Nucleonics Week 9/9/04.
New Ukraine reactor connected to grid
Khmelnitsky-2, one of two new Ukrainian VVER-1000 reactors, has been connected to the national grid after starting up in August. With Rovno unit 4 having now been licensed and due to follow suit in October, some 1900 MWe will be provided to replace that lost by Chernobyl's closure. Ukraine then aims to build a third unit at Khmelnitsky. Ukraine now has 14 nuclear reactors in operation (12,218 MWe), eight of which have started commercial operation since the Chernobyl accident. Attending the grid connection ceremony, the Ukrainian President said that Western governments had failed to honour their 1995 undertakings to assist his country in exchange for closing the Chernobyl plant, particularly in relation to the Khmelnitsky-2 and Rovno-4 completion, grid infrastructure and a pumped storage hydro plant.
Nucleonics Week 12/8/04, cf Newsletter 4/04.
UK government regaining nuclear spine?
A series of speeches and announcements seems to herald a belated and low-profile change of course by the UK government on nuclear energy. As the latest hurricane lashed the Caribbean, the Prime Minister said that global warming was in fact the gravest challenge facing the planet and that he intended to push it to the top of the international agenda in the G-8 context, targeting the USA and Russia, both of which - unlike UK - are doing all they can to increase the role of nuclear energy. He also wants a commitment from India and China to tackle global warming - both are in fact committed to a fourfold expansion of nuclear output by 2020. Then Professor Ian Fells, Chairman of the New & Renewable Energy Centre, called for greater realism concerning nuclear power and said that politicians' hopes that renewables would "save the day" were simply "wishful thinking". "It is foolish to set renewables against nuclear power as though they are alternative strategies. It is time to make some painful decisions .Š. we should be embarking on building new power stations now," he said.
The Department of Trade & Industry told ministers that nuclear energy would need to provide half of Britains' electricity by 2050 if the country was to have any hope of meeting its 60% greenhouse gas reduction target, though it is by no means abandoning renewables. The Times pointed out that the main logical implication of the Prime Minister's speech was building nuclear power plants and even being prepared to subsidise them if necessary, given that wind turbines are subsidised by £300 million per year - "the most senseless investment ever approved by Treasury". If global warming is a real threat, then nuclear power is the "one technology currently available to hold it at bay Š.. all else is hypocrisy."
Times 11, 14 & 15/9/04.
UK report queries renewables
A 127-page report from the House of Lords Science & Technology Committee raised major questions about the practicality and cost of the UK government's policy targets for renewable energy - basically wind. The context is of 2.4 GWe of nuclear plant being decommissioned by 2010 while 5.9 GWe of gas-fired plant has planning consent and the UK is poised to become a net importer of that fuel. As UK dependence on gas increases, storage can accommodate only 14 days supply.
The best estimate for renewables contribution to electricity by 2010 was 6-7%, well short of target, and requiring a subsidy of 4.5-5.0 pence/kWh through the Renewables Obligation, paid by the consumer. This compares with 1.65 p/kWh cost for nuclear generation (including wastes) by British Energy in 2003, but the renewables figure still ignores the cost of back-up capacity held in readiness, the amount of which will increase as renewables share grows toward 10%. The report comments that the government may need to accept the need for new nuclear plants if it wants a secure supply of affordable electricity for the UK, with low carbon emissions.
HL paper 126-1 15/7/04.
Areva signs up EdF reprocessing
Continuing its long-standing role reprocessing France's spent nuclear fuel, Areva has announced a EUR 4 billion contract to treat 5250 tonnes of EdF's spent uranium fuel at La Hague. The deal covers also the provision of 100 tonnes of mixed oxide (MOX) fuel per year to EdF from the separated plutonium for seven years, and the vitrification and packaging of the separated high-level wastes.
"Through this contract, EdF and Areva reaffirm their shared analysis of long-term prospects for the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and their willingness to share and maintain a coherent vision of how existing industrial infrastructures should be used." Even allowing for EdF still needing to pay for disposal of the separated high-level wastes, the cost appears to be comparable with that for direct disposal of spent fuel and means that EdF gets about 30% more energy from the original uranium than otherwise. EdF sets aside EUR 0.15 cents/kWh of nuclear electricity for all back-end costs, and said that the contract was economically justified even in the new competitive environment of EU electricity supply.
Areva 24/8/04, Nucleonics Week 2/9/04.
EC revives safety and wastes initiative
The European Commission has put forward revised versions of proposed directives on nuclear safety and radioactive waste management, having earlier failed to get sufficient support for its proposed legislation. The EC still supports EU-wide harmonisation of safety standards and wants to make it obligatory for each state to draw up a final waste management program with deadlines. It says international agreements on these matters are insufficient to force action, and binding EU legislation is needed.
EC 8/9/04.
Swedish reactor boosted
The installation of three new low-pressure turbines at unit 3 of the Forsmark nuclear power plant has increased power by 30 MWe, to 1185 MWe net and is expected to increase reliability over the next twenty years or more of operation. The reactor is the newest of Sweden's 11 and started operation in 1985.
Siemens 27/8/04.
Russia cancels new reactor
It appears that Russia's Rosatom has aborted construction of Kursk-5, a new RBMK reactor which was due to come on line in 2006. This would mean that two further planned RBMK plants will be replaced by other designs. The decision is economic, on the basis that a new RBMK unit would be the only one of its kind left when the present ones - 11 at three sites - are retired by about 2015.
WNA Symposium, Nucleonics Week 16/9/04.
UK set to tackle legacy wastes
With the UK Energy Act 2004 now on the statute books and providing the legal framework for establishing the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, attention has turned to funding the clean-up of legacy wastes. The initial budget of £2 billion per year for three years is now firm, more than half of it through the Department of Trade & Industry. The balance will come from central government grant and income from commercial activities. It was also announced that the government expected contracts on the basis of competitive tender to be let for half of the UK nuclear sites by 2008. Ministers hope to reduce total liabilities by 10% by 2010, and also get efficiency savings of 2% per year.
NIA IndustryLink July-Aug 2004.
UK cuts discharge limits from Sellafield
Following five years of study and review and in the light of recent developments on site, the Environment Agency has announced major cuts in radioactive discharge limits from the British Nuclear Group's Sellafield site. The technetium-99 site limit will drop from 90 to 20 TBq/yr, with a further reduction to 10 TBq expected in 2006 (the limit was cut from 200 TBq/yr in 1999 and current performance is 9 TBq/yr). The site limit for argon-41 emissions has been removed, since closure of the 1950s era Calder Hall power plant has eliminated these - formerly the main source of what very little radiation exposure there was to neighbours. Other plant and site limits are also reduced, overall by 35% for liquids and 60% for gases.
Environment Agency 13/8/04, Nucleonics Week 19/8/04.
UK study on terrorist attacks
The UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) has prepared a report on the vulnerability of nuclear facilities to terrorist attacks and the likely consequences of such. A published summary draws only upon information in the public domain. For reactors, existing defence in depth provisions related to possible accidents are the main safety provision, but spent fuel storage, transport and reprocessing plants are also considered. The summary notes that studies on the physical robustness of particular facilities are classified and there is insufficient information in the public domain to draw conclusions about the consequences of any attack. However, apart from possibly the oldest reactors, existing safety features and engineering provide considerable reassurance.
POST July 2004.
Ukrainian coal blast
Some 36 miners have been killed in a methane and coal dust explosion in an East Ukraine coal mine 50 km from Donetsk. About 27% of Ukraine's electricity is from coal.
Mining J 23/7/04.
China confirms six new reactors
China's State Council has formally approved construction of new power plants at Lingao and Sanmen, then also at Yangjiang, totalling up to 15 GWe. A further decision on another at Qinshan is expected once site-related licensing problems are sorted out. Lingao phase II will replicate the twin 935 MWe Framatome-ANP units already in service there, Sanmen and Yangjiang will be open to foreign bids for units of 1000 MWe or more, which are third-generation designs such as Westinghouse AP1000 or larger Framatome-ANP EPR units from Areva - two units at Sanmen and six (total 6000-9000 MWe) at Yangjiang, to be built in three phases.
Nucleonics Week 29/7/04, Xinhua 12/9/04, Agence France Presse 29/9.04.
Canada and China sign to review new reactor
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd has signed agreements with the National Nuclear Safety Administration of China and the Nuclear Safety Centre in relation to reviewing the safety of AECL's Advanced Candu Reactor. These will help keep ACR reactor technology as a live option in China as it massively expands its nuclear power capacity. AECL in the last two years has completed two Candu-6 units under budget and ahead of schedule at Qinshan in China.
AECL 21/9/04.
Japan outlines hydrogen targets
An evaluation by Japan's Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI) has indicated that by 2010 it expects to confirm the safety of high-temperature reactors and establish operational technology for an iodine-sulfur (IS) plant to make hydrogen thermochemically. Basic engineering testing of the hydrogen production process using the high temperature engineering test reactor (HTTR) - which recently achieved 950°C operating temperature - is expected to be complete in March 2005. By 2015 an IS plant producing 1000 m3/hr of hydrogen should be linked to the HTTR to confirm the performance of an integrated production system. Then by 2025 JAERI expects a 600 MW high temperature reactor and IS system to be producing hydrogen at 60,000 m3/hr - enough for about a million fuel cell vehicles.
Atoms in Japan August 2004.
Northeast Asian grid mooted
Asia-Pacific energy ministers in June considered the likely rapid growth in power demand in NE Asia and the associated price volatility. Power demand to 2020 is expected to grow 5.6% pa in China and 3.8% pa in Russia, with energy investment soaking up a much higher proportion of GDP than elsewhere - much of this for grid infrastructure. Some interconnection exists between China and Russian Far East, and much more is envisaged, including Japan and the Koreas. Sakhalin gas is expected to play a major role in the region. Major Russian export of hydro, nuclear and gas-fired power to Japan, China and South Korea is envisaged, with seasonal reciprocal flows. Two new nuclear plants near Primorye could contribute 4000 MWe through Vladivostok.
Power in Asia 22/7/04.
Accident at Japanese nuclear plant
Failure of a secondary coolant pipe in the unit 3 turbine hall of Mihama nuclear power plant - a 28-year old pressurised water reactor - killed four contract workers and injured seven more due to steam burns, one of whom later died. The reactor shut down automatically. The provisional International Nuclear Event Scale rating is 0+. No radioactive release was involved.
Following the fatal accident, Kansai Electric sequentially shut down all of its 11 nuclear reactors for pipe inspections in their turbine halls. Each was to be down for about two weeks with the process running through September, but restarts are being delayed. Shutdowns involve a total of 9300 MWe. A directive from the Nuclear & Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) required that all utilities check all their plants, including non-nuclear ones. The burst 560 mm pipe at Mihama had corroded to less than 20% of its original wall thickness.
A similar fatal accident occurred at the Surry-2 plant in the USA in 1986 due to pipe corrosion thinning, and NISA said that nine similar pipe burst accidents had occurred at Japanese nuclear plants and seven more at other power plants. It also reported that pipe thickness at 802 out of the country's 1466 fossil-fuelled plants had never been comprehensively checked.
NISA 9/8/04, Nucleonics Week 12/8/04, Kansai 13/8/04, JAIF 10/8/04, Ux Weekly 16 & 30/8/04, Power in Asia 16/9/04.
South Korean enrichment experiment excites concern
In the course of its declarations on the Additional Protocol which has it has signed to tighten up its safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it emerged that milligram quantities of uranium had been enriched at the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) in 2000, and not then declared. The process was atomic vapour laser isotope separation, and some 0.2 g U was enriched to about 10% U-235. The uranium experiments were not continued, though the process has been used at laboratory scale for other metals such as ytterbium. The IAEA is investigating further and has called the lapse "a matter of serious concern". KAERI was also interested in molecular laser enrichment processes.
IAEA 2/9/04, Nucleonics Week 9/9/04.
Canadian uranium production
Cameco and Areva (Cogema Resources) have reported uranium production of 3825 tonnes U3O8 (3243 tU) from the McArthur River - Key Lake operation for the half year to end of June, and Cameco about 1200 tonnes (1000 tU) from Rabbit Lake. McArthur River is expected to produce 8400 t U3O8 for the full year and Rabbit Lake 2700 t. Areva has reported 1367 t U3O8 (1159 tU) production from McClean Lake.
Cameco 22/4 & 30/7/04, Areva 7/8/04.
Partial construction licence for new Canadian mine
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has issued a construction licence for surface facilities of the Cigar Lake mine in Northern Saskatchewan, including headframe, hoist and freezing plant. Cameco is awaiting approval for full construction of the project, which is now expected to open in 2007.
CNSC 21/7/04.
Canadians review nuclear wastes
Canada's Nuclear Waste Management Organisation has published the findings of a survey of Canadian attitudes to managing spent nuclear fuel. The study found that citizens want to take responsibility and act now on wastes arising from electricity they have used. However, they want to preserve options for future generations to utilise or treat such materials. Meanwhile transparency in the context of clear government control is desired.
NWMO 26/8/04.
Canadians polled on energy
Surveys in May and June of Canadian and Ontario views on energy and nuclear power in particular have been published a year after the blackout and as Ontario contemplates an electricity supply shortfall of 5000 to 7000 MWe by 2007. Only 43% of those in Ontario and 59% nationwide are confident that the electricity supply is sufficient and most want to see a broad mix of sources for it. Nationwide 75% see nuclear as being part of this mix, but 88% in Ontario think it will be. Two thirds in Ontario and 57% nationwide support upgrading and modernising the country's nuclear facilities, and half of those in Ontario favour building new nuclear power plants. Support for nuclear energy has grown significantly in Ontario but remained the same nationwide over the last two years.
Ipsos-Reid 3/8/04.
Australian uranium production record
Australia's uranium production for the half year to end June was at a record level: 5018 tonnes U3O8 (4255 tU). This included 506 tonnes from Heathgate Resources' Beverley mine, close to licensed capacity for the first time. Total production for the 12 months was 9532.4 t U3O8 and exports were 9099 t worth A$ 364 million FOB. Average value over 2003-04 calculated from A$ FOB estimates was US$ 12.95/lb U3O8.
DITR, Heathgate 30/7/04.
ERA closes Ranger mine for clean-up
At the end of August Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) suspended operations at the 24-year old Ranger mine to concentrate on addressing issues raised by a Supervising Scientist Report on water contamination in March. Over the ensuing months considerable attention had been paid to fixing problems highlighted by the water incident, and the closure enabled completion of most of that work in line with the Report. The federal Resources Minister said that he thought a "culture of complacency had developed", and warned that "any failure to meet ... standards will cause me to suspend any further operation of the mine". A second incident was also reported on and concerned clearance of equipment leaving the site.
ERA deployed three teams to oversee health and safety improvements. They focused on radiation controls, safety, and "a major and sustainable improvement in general 'housekeeping' standards across the Ranger site." The Minister is auditing progress and has specified successive targets to the end of the year, the first of which was met. ERA's Chief Executive said that "ERA deeply regrets these incidents and on behalf of the company I apologise to all stakeholders for the failure of the mine to meet all of the standards set by regulators." The mine reopened after a week and sales commitments were unaffected.
ERA 30/8, 5 & 14/9/04, Minister ITR 31/8/04.
Honeymoon developments
After a drilling campaign with neutron logging of the Yarramba palaeochannel immediately NW of Australia's Honeymoon deposit, Southern Cross Resources (SXR) announced that no further reserves had been confirmed and the exploration program was being shifted to Gould's Dam on the Billeroo palaeochannel, further away but more prospective. Sedimentary Holdings, which acquired the Honeymoon lease in 1997 and organised the capital raising by SXR, has now sold its final 7% share.
SXR 8/9/04, Mining News 16/9/04.
Two major studies on generation costs
A new report from the University of Chicago, funded by the US Department of Energy, compares the levelised power costs of future nuclear, coal, and gas-fired power generation in the USA. Various nuclear options are covered, and for ABWR or AP1000 they range from 4.3 to 5.0 c/kWh on the basis of overnight capital costs of $1200 to $1500/kW, 60 year plant life, 5 year construction and 90% capacity. Coal gives 3.5 - 4.1 c/kWh and gas (CCGT) 3.5 - 4.5 c/kWh, depending greatly on fuel price.
The levelised nuclear power cost figures include up to 29% of the overnight capital cost as interest, and the report notes that up to another 24% of the overnight capital cost needs to be added for the initial unit of a first-of-a-kind advanced design such as the AP1000, defining the high end of the range above. For more advanced plants such as the EPR or SWR1000, overnight capital cost of $1800/kW is assumed and power costs are projected beyond the range above. However, considering a series of eight units of the same kind and assuming increased efficiency due to experience which lowers overnight capital cost, the levelised power costs drop 20% from those quoted above and where first-of-a-kind engineering costs are amortised (eg the $1500/kW case above), they drop 32%, making them competitive at about 3.4 c/kWh.
The study also shows that with a minimal carbon control cost impact of 1.5 c/kWh for coal and 1.0 c/kWh for gas superimposed on the above figures, nuclear is even more competitive. But more importantly it goes on to explore other policy options which would offset investment risks and compensate for first-of-a-kind engineering costs to encourage new nuclear investment, including investment tax breaks, and production tax credits phasing out after 8 years. (US wind energy gets a 1.5 c/kWh production tax credit.)
Another new report from the Canadian Energy Research Institute gives an updated comparison of generation costs for Ontario. As well as comparing different fuels and technologies for base-load power, it compares public and private investor funding in deriving the actual levelised power cost. Both the new ACR-700 and the well-proven Candu-6 units are examined for the nuclear case.
On capital cost, figures (C$, net kW) of $1600/kW for coal, $711/kW for gas (CCGT), $2347/kW for AC-700 and $2972/kW for Candu-6 are used, including $300 million owner's cost added to the basic capital cost for the nuclear plants - which are twin units. The ACR is on first-of-a-kind basis. For public funding, over 30-year operating life and 90% capacity factor, power production costs (c/kWh) come out at 4.8c for coal, 7.2c for gas (6.1c & 7.8c respectively with $15/t CO2 cost), 5.3c for ACR and 6.3c for Candu-6. With higher financing plus tax costs, the figures for merchant funding are 5.9c for coal, 7.5c for gas (7.3c & 8.1c respectively with $15/t CO2 cost), 7.3c for ACR and 8.9c for Candu-6. Gas figures are very sensitive to fuel prices.
University of Chicago August 2004, CERI August 2004.
US and Russian researchers envisage "new nuclear era"
Sixteen heads of the main US and Russian nuclear research centres have made a joint declaration intended for heads of government which outlines an ambitious plan for nuclear energy development. They envisage use of advanced reactors which more fully utilise fissile resources and involve a carefully controlled fuel cycle, with reduced risks from arms proliferation and terrorism. The new nuclear era would be driven by global energy demand coupled with resource constraints on non-nuclear fuels and climate change concerns.
Fuel cycles would involve reprocessing while maintaining proliferation resistance, and would extend fissile fuel supplies to more than a thousand years. "Exportable reactors in this system could supply more than half the world's electricity, a significant part of the world's water needs and a significant share of its hydrogen needs by the end of the century at twice the efficiency of current reactor systems" while minimising wastes.
Nucleonics Week 19/8/04.
Plutonium-powered Cassini explores Saturn
The Cassini-Huygens spacecraft having reached Saturn is commencing four years of an exploration program there during which the Huygens lander will alight on the largest moon - Titan. Launched in October 1997, the 5.5 tonne spacecraft travelled 3 billion kilometres to reach Saturn in July - twice as far as Jupiter is from the Sun. It is powered by three radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs) providing 870 watts electrical - the largest power source on any deep space vehicle so far. Each RTG has 18 heat source units of 1.44 kg, with iridium-clad plutonium-238 fuel pellets. The high decay heat of Pu-238 (560 W/kg) with its half-life of 88 years makes it particularly suitable for space RTGs.
Scientific American June 2004, Reactors for Space paper.
Political Physicist by Terence Price, The Book Guild, 429pp. ISBN 1 85776 8282 0.
This autobiographical account from Terry Price, first Secretary General of the Uranium Institute (now WNA), is a delightful and fascinating account of postwar Britain from the standpoint of a senior public servant scientist. The early years, designing nuclear reactors and defining the limits of nuclear technology, and the later years establishing the UI and grappling with alleged uranium cartels will be of most interest to WNA readers, but there is much else including his involvement with international disarmament negotiations, cosmic ray research, military strategic planning, and forlorn transport policies. The early years of UI coincided with the author's evidently frenetic activity helping to bring about major policy change in UK government, and that account too is a highlight.
IHL
Briefing & mines papers updated in last two months include:
Reactor table
Australia's uranium & who buys it
Supply of Uranium
Economics of nuclear power
US nuclear power industry
Energy subsidies & external costs
Nuclear desalination
Cosmic origin and role of uranium
Nuclear energy prospects in Australia
NORM
Chernobyl accident (& appendix)
Advanced reactors
Small (advanced) nuclear power reactors
Nuclear power reactors
Plans for new reactors
Nuclear power in Czech Republic
Nuclear power in Sweden
Decommissioning nuclear facilities
Nuclear power India & Pakistan
Nuclear power in Belgium (new)
Nuclear power in Brazil (new)
Nuclear power in Japan
Nuclear power in South Korea
Nuclear power in India & China
Australia's uranium deposits and prospective mines
Ux: 27 Sept US$ 20.00/lb U3O8, US$ 52/kgU.
See also Ux Consulting graphs
World reactor changes
Ukraine: Khmelnitsky-2 operating, 950 MWe
Khmelnitsky-3 proposed 950 MWe
US: Palisades 12 MWe uprate
Sweden: Forsmark 3 uprate 30 MWe to 1185 MWe
Russia: Kursk 5 construction stalled (possibly aborted)
China: add 2 planned, 2000 MWe
GPO Box 1649N, Melbourne 3001, Australia
phone (03) 9629 7744
fax (03) 9629 7207