1 / 31

Nuclear Power: The Return

Nuclear Power: The Return. John Stamos Office of Nuclear Energy United States Department of Energy Presentation to the California Council on Science and Technology October 31, 2006. Vermont Yankee (1). Columbia (1). FitzPatrick (1). Coal 50%. Monticello (1). Nine Mile Point (2).

jaafar
Télécharger la présentation

Nuclear Power: The Return

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. Nuclear Power: The Return John Stamos Office of Nuclear Energy United States Department of Energy Presentation to the California Council on Science and Technology October 31, 2006

  2. Vermont Yankee (1) Columbia (1) FitzPatrick (1) Coal 50% Monticello (1) Nine Mile Point (2) Seabrook (1) Kewaunee (1) Fermi (1) Pilgrim (1) Ginna (1) Palisades (1) Gas 19% Millstone (2) Prairie Island (2) Point Beach (2) Indian Point (2) (2) Susquehanna Limerick (2) Oyster Creek (1) Cook (2) Peach Bottom (2) Perry (1) Duane Arnold (1) Byron (2) Salem (2) Beaver Valley (2) Davis-Besse (1) Ft. Calhoun (1) Quad-Cities (2) Hope Creek (1) Dresden (2) Three Mile Island (1) Braidwood (2) Calvert Cliffs (2) La Salle (2) Cooper (1) North Anna (2) Nuclear 19% Clinton (1) Callaway (1) Hydro 7% Surry (2) Wolf Creek (1) Diablo Canyon (2) Harris (1) McGuire (2) Watts Bar (1) Oil 3% Brunswick (2) Oconee (3) Sequoyah (2) H. B. Robinson (1) Vogtle (2) Source: EIA Browns Ferry (3) San Onofre (2) ANO (2) Catawba (2) Other 2% Palo Verde (3) Summer (1) Hatch (2) Comanche Peak (2) Grand Gulf (1) Farley (2) Electricity Production River Bend (1) Waterford (1) South Texas (2) Crystal River (1) St. Lucie (2) Turkey Point (2) 103 Nuclear Power Plants Totaling 99 GWe Nuclear Energy—A Quiet, Dependable Servant Nearly 800 BkWh generated and saving 680 MMTCO2 each year • No new order has been placed for nearly 30 years. • By staying on this path, nuclear power would provide about 1% of our electricity by 2050.

  3. President Eisenhower: Atoms for Peace • Contributions of uranium and fissionable materials to an international Atomic Energy Agency • That fissionable material would be allocated to serve the peaceful pursuits of mankind. Experts would be mobilized to apply atomic energy to the needs of agriculture, medicine, and other peaceful activities • A special purpose would be to provide abundant electrical energy in the power-starved areas of the world “to serve the needs rather than the fears of mankind” December 8, 1953

  4. Fossil Fuels for Generation– 2/3 to 4/5 of the Mix 334 BkWh 550 BkWh, +65%

  5. Economy of Nuclear Power Late 1950s • A nuclear plant vs. conventional coal where coal costs $0.35 per MMBtu. Nuclear Coal

  6. Cooperative Power ReactorDemonstration Program—Demonstration and 1st Round • Shippingport (modified naval PWR-60 MWe), 1957 • Fermi 1 (Na, breeder-61 MWe), 1963 • Yankee Rowe (PWR-167 MWe), 1960 • Hallam (Na-graphite-75 MWe), 1962 • Dresden (BWR-200 MWe),1960 • Indian Point (PWR-257 MWe), 1963

  7. Electricity Consumption Kept Growing Between 1965 - 1969, 80 reactors were ordered, followed by another 115 in the four years 1970 – 1973

  8. Electricity Consumption Kept Growing(But Much More Slowly)

  9. . . . Leading to Second Thoughts 8 % annual growth 2.5% annual growth

  10. Environmentalism • Don’t pollute • Save energy • Small and decentralization are beautiful • Nuclear power is too expensive and “dangerous”

  11. Economy of Nuclear Power • A nuclear plant vs. scrubbed, pulverized coal or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $3 per MMBtu. Nuclear Coal Natural Gas

  12. Economy of Nuclear Power • A nuclear plant vs. scrubbed, pulverized coal or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $3 per MMBtu. Nuclear Coal Natural Gas • Absent capital recovery, nuclear power is the lowest cost baseload technology.

  13. Economy of Nuclear Power • A nuclear plant vs. scrubbed, pulverized coal or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $3 per MMBtu. Nuclear Coal Natural Gas

  14. Besides too volatile natural gas prices, nuclear power has proven its economic productivity. The idea that all the electricity demand produced by fossil fuels and nuclear power could be met by reducing demand with increased energy efficiency and expanded renewables to provide the remainder became untenable. Time to Rethink? Nuclear Capacity Factor is at an All-Time High Performance improvement is equivalent to adding 17 more reactors since Watts Bar 1 in 1996. % Capacity Factor Source: Energy Information Administration data • Concerns about reducing carbon-dioxide emissions continue to grow, while solutions devoid of expanded nuclear power seem less plausible.

  15. Example of A Reduced GHG Emissions Future GtC = Giga-Tonnes Carbon

  16. How Big is a “Gigaton” ? Using Today’s Technology, These Actions Can Cut Emissions by 1 GtC/Year Actions That Can Reduce Emissions by 1 GtC/Year Using Today’s Technology

  17. Environmentalism • Don’t pollute • Save energy • Small and decentralization are beautiful • And maybe nuclear power can help

  18. Economy of Nuclear Power • A 1st-of-a-Kind nuclear plant vs. scrubbed, pulverized coal or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $3 per MMBtu. Nuclear Coal Natural Gas • An Nth-of-a-Kind nuclear plant vs. IGCC with CO2 sequestration or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $9 per MMBtu. Natural Gas Coal Nuclear

  19. Economy of Nuclear Power • A 1st-of-a-Kind nuclear plant vs. IGCC with CO2 sequestration or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $9 per MMBtu. Natural Gas Nuclear Coal • A Nth-of-a-Kind nuclear plant vs. IGCC with CO2 sequestration or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $9 per MMBtu. Natural Gas Coal Nuclear

  20. Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) • Signed into law on August 8, 2005 • Provides 3 key incentives for construction and operation of new advanced nuclear power plants • Section 638, “Standby Support” – Energy (Part of NP 2010) • Section 1306, “Production Credits” – Treasury • Section 1703, “Loan Guarantees” – Energy • Designed to reduce regulatory and financial uncertainties for “first movers.”

  21. Economy of Nuclear Power • A 1st-of-a-Kind nuclear plant vs. IGCC with CO2 sequestration or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $9 per MMBtu. Natural Gas Nuclear Coal • A 1st-of-a-Kind nuclear plant with economic incentives vs. IGCC with CO2 sequestration or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $9 per MMBtu. Natural Gas Coal Nuclear

  22. Economy of Nuclear Power • A 1st-of-a-Kind nuclear plant with incentives vs. IGCC with CO2 sequestration or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $9 per MMBtu. Natural Gas Coal Nuclear • A Nth-of-a-Kind nuclear plant vs. IGCC with CO2 sequestration or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $9 per MMBtu. Natural Gas Coal Nuclear

  23. World Nuclear Expansion • Nearly 250 reactors are being built, planned, or under consideration world-wide 68

  24. Uranium Resources Source: World Nuclear Association

  25. Economy of Nuclear Power • A Nth-of-a-Kind nuclear plant vs. IGCC with CO2 sequestration or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $9 per MMBtu Natural Gas Coal Nuclear • A Nth-of-a-Kind nuclear plant with uranium prices at $100/lb U3O8 vs. IGCC with CO2 sequestration or natural gas combined cycle, where natural gas costs $9 per MMBtu. Natural Gas Nuclear Coal

  26. Actual Discharges*, all reactors (operating & shutdown) There are 104 operating reactors and 14 shutdown reactors Projected discharges, all reactors, 44 license renewals Actual discharges, shutdown reactors only Projected discharges*, all reactors, 104 license renewals Actual MTHM in dry storage, all reactors Historical and Projected CommercialSpent Nuclear Fuel Discharges ~130,000 MTHM total ~109,000 MTHM total Current pool capacity ~ 61,000 MTHM** Current Inventory: ~ 53,500 MTHM from 118 reactors (as of 12/05) ~ 9,000 MTHM in dry storage (as of 8/28/06) ~ 3,800 MTHM from 14 shutdown reactors Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 2055 Sources: * Based on actual discharge data as reported on RW-859’s through 12/31/02, and projected discharges, in this case, based on 104 license renewals. ** Based on pool capacities provided in 2002 RW-859 (less FCR) and supplemented by utility storage plans.

  27. Reliable Fuel Service Model • Expand nuclear energy while preventing spread of sensitive fuel cycle technology • Fuel Cycle Nations – Operate both nuclear power plants and fuel cycle facilities • Reactor Nations – Operate only reactors, lease and return fuel

  28. Energy Consumption by Resource Source: Annual Energy Review 2004, DOE/EIA-0384(2004), August 2005, p. xx

  29. President Eisenhower: Atoms for Peace • Contributions of uranium and fissionable materials to an international Atomic Energy Agency • That fissionable material would be allocated to serve the peaceful pursuits of mankind. Experts would be mobilized to apply atomic energy to the needs of agriculture, medicine, and other peaceful activities • A special purpose would be to provide abundant electrical energy in the power-starved areas of the world “to serve the needs rather than the fears of mankind” December 8, 1953

  30. President Bush: Global Nuclear Energy Partnership • “America will work with nations that have advanced civilian nuclear energy programs, such as France, Japan, and Russia. Together, we will develop and deploy innovative, advanced reactors and new methods to recycle spent nuclear fuel. This will allow us to produce more energy, while dramatically reducing the amount of nuclear waste and eliminating the nuclear byproducts that unstable regimes or terrorists could use to make weapons.” • “We will also ensure that . . . developing nations have a reliable nuclear fuel supply. In exchange, these countries would agree to use nuclear power only for civilian purposes and forego uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities that can be used to develop nuclear weapons.” February 18, 2006

More Related