1 / 18

Ralph L. Andersen, CHP Director – Health Physics & LLRW Nuclear Energy Institute May 15, 2008

The Resurgence of Nuclear Power Health Physics Society Baltimore-Washington Chapter Gaithersburg, MD. Ralph L. Andersen, CHP Director – Health Physics & LLRW Nuclear Energy Institute May 15, 2008. Today’s Briefing. Nuclear Power — Today and Tomorrow Environmental Considerations

ezra
Télécharger la présentation

Ralph L. Andersen, CHP Director – Health Physics & LLRW Nuclear Energy Institute May 15, 2008

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Resurgence of Nuclear PowerHealth Physics SocietyBaltimore-Washington ChapterGaithersburg, MD Ralph L. Andersen, CHPDirector – Health Physics & LLRWNuclear Energy InstituteMay 15, 2008

  2. Today’s Briefing • Nuclear Power — Today and Tomorrow • Environmental Considerations • Outlook for Radiation Protection

  3. NuclearPower — Today and Tomorrow

  4. Sources of U.S. Electricity (2007) 21.5% Natural Gas Low construction cost Volatile fuel cost Combined cycle capacity factor: 43.3% Steam plant capacity factor: 16.0% Emissions: NOx, CO2 1.6% Oil Volatile fuel cost Capacity factor: 19.6% Emissions: SO2, NOx, CO2 19.4% Nuclear High construction cost Stable fuel cost Capacity factor: 91.8% Emissions: None 5.8% Hydro Large-scale opportunities gone No fuel cost Capacity factor: 27.8% Emissions: None 48.6% Coal High construction cost Capacity factor: 71.1% Emissions: SO2, NOx, CO2, particulates, mercury, toxic metals 3.2% Renewables (and Other) High construction cost No fuel cost Capacity factors: 30.4% (Wind), 19.8% (Solar) 75.0% (Geothermal) 70.9% (Biomass) Emissions: None Source: Global Energy Decisions / Energy Information Administration 4/08

  5. Nuclear Power in the United States — Today • 104 operating commercial reactors (102 operating naval reactors) • Stable and affordable production costs • 1.76 cents/KWh • 92% average capacity factor • Nearly 20% of US electricity supply with 10% of the installed capacity • Used fuel safely stored on 64 sites • Zero GHG emissions during electricity production • Valuable business assets

  6. U.S. Electricity Production Costs 1995-2007, In 2007 cents per kilowatt-hour Production Costs = Operations and Maintenance Costs + Fuel Costs Source: Global Energy Decisions Updated: 5/08

  7. Renewal of Operating Licenses Continues 26 Intend to Renew 48 Granted 22 Unannounced 8 Under NRC Review 6 Filed in 2006 Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

  8. What’s Driving the Interest in New Nuclear? • Growing need for baseload generation • Near-term need for new generating capacity (e.g. Northeast, mid-Atlantic, Southeast, South, Texas) • 25% increase in electricity demand by 2030 • Increasing environmental concerns and potential controls on carbon emissions • Chronic volatility in natural gas prices • Nuclear power safety record

  9. Today’s Scorecard • Design certification (evolutionary designs) • 2 certified (Westinghouse AP-1000, GE ABWR) • 3 under NRC review (GE ESBWR, Areva EPR, Mitsubishi APWR) • Construction/operating licenses (COLs) • 9 complete applications for 15 reactors

  10. Short-Term Outlook (to 2010) • Expect 7 to 11 additional COLs by the end of 2008 • First wave of plants (likely 4 to 8 plants) • 2008: Start procurement of long-lead components (reactor pressure vessels, turbines, steam generators) • Late 2008 - 2009: Start site preparation (land clearing, roads, grading, construction-support facilities, excavation) • Late 2009: Other procurement starts • 2009 - 2010: Arrange financing • Late 2010: COL approval, start safety-related construction

  11. Long-Term Outlook (to 2020) • First wave (4 to 8 reactors) expected to start commercial operation beginning in 2016 • Potential for 15 to 20 new nuclear reactor plants (up to 30 GW) coming on-line by 2020 — avoidance of 140 million metric tons of CO2 per year • Build rate and number of plants will depend on success of first wave (within cost and schedule estimates, without licensing mishaps)

  12. Environmental Considerations

  13. Emissions Produced by 1 Kilowatt-hour of Electricity Based on Life-Cycle Analysis Source: “Hydropower-Internalized Costs and Externalized Benefits,” Frans H. Koch, International Energy Agency (IEA)-Implementing Agreement for Hydropower Technologies and Programs, Ottawa, Canada, 2000. Order of magnitude validation by University of Wisconsin study (August 2002) and WNA Energy Analysis of Power Systems (March 2006)

  14. U.S. Electricity Sources Which Do Not Emit Greenhouse Gases Source: Global Energy Decisions / Energy Information Administration Updated: 4/07

  15. U.S. Electric Power Industry CO2 Avoided Million Metric Tons Source: Emissions avoided are calculated using regional and national fossil fuel emissions rates from the Environmental Protection Agency and plant generation data from the Energy Information Administration. Updated: 4/07

  16. Perspective on CO2 Emissions Prevented By U.S. Nuclear Plants equals CO2 from 131 million cars CO2 emissions prevented by U.S. nuclear power plants (2006) CO2 emitted by all 136 million U.S. passenger cars (2005) Source: Emissions avoided by nuclear power are calculated using regional fossil fuel emission rates from the Environmental Protection Agency and plant generation data from the Energy Information Administration. Car emissions from EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality Emissions Facts. Updated: 4/07

  17. Environmentalists Support Nuclear Energy “The important and overriding consideration is time; we have nuclear power now, and new nuclear building should be started immediately. All of the alternatives, including fusion energy, require decades of development before they can be employed on a scale that would significantly reduce emissions. In the next few years, renewables will add an increment of emission-free energy, mainly from wind, but it is quite small when compared with the nuclear potential.” — James LovelockAuthor “The Revenge of Gaia: Earth's Climate Crisis and the Fate of Humanity”July 2006 “There were legitimate reasons to worry about nuclear power, but now that we know about the threat of climate change, we have to put the risks in perspective. Sure, nuclear waste is a problem, but the great thing about it is you know where it is and you can guard it.” — Stewart BrandNoted environmentalist and founder, publisher, and editor of The Whole Earth Catalog The New York Times February 27, 2007

  18. Strong Public SupportNear Existing Plants 81% Utility protecting environment 71% Willing to see new reactor built near them 86% Give nuclear high safety rating 82% Favor nuclear energy 86% Favorable impression of nearest plant Source: Bisconti Research Inc. August 2007 poll of 1,152 U.S. adults; margin of error is +/- 3%

More Related