under construction. It was therefore effectively a “program limitation” rather than a “phase‐out”referendum. Sweden retained the 2010 phase‐out date until the middle of the 1990s, but an activedebate on the country’s nuclear future continued and led to a new inter‐party deal to start thephase‐out earlier but abandon the 2010 deadline. The first reactor (Barsebäck‐1) was shut downin 1999 and the second one (Barsebäck‐2) in 2005.On 5 February 2009, the parties of Sweden’s conservative coalition government signed anagreement on energy and climate policy that proposed ambitious renewable energy and energyefficiency targets and called for the scrapping of the Nuclear Phase‐Out Act. In June 2010, theparliament voted by a tight margin (174–172) to abandon the phase‐out legislation. 654 As a result,new plants could again be built—but only if an existing plant is shut down, so the maximumnumber of operating units will not exceed the current ten. In January 2014, the state utilityVattenfall started a “decade‐long public consultation” on the construction of new nuclear powerplants. 655In the meantime, Vattenfall envisaged extending lifetimes of five of its seven units at Forsmarkand Ringhals to 60 years. The previous objective for Ringhals‐1 and ‐2 was a 50‐year lifetime. 656However, in April 2015, Vattenfall decided “to change direction for operational lifetimes ofRinghals‐1 and ‐2” and the two units “may be closed down between the years 2018 and 2020,instead of, as previously announced, around 2025”—that is after 44 to 46 years of operation. Thereasons given were continued low electricity prices and increasing production costs. As forVattenfall’s five other reactors (Ringhals‐3 and 4, Forsmark‐1 to ‐3), the previously planned “atleast 60 years of operational lifetime, until the beginning of 2040s, remains”. 657Swedish operators have pushed uprating projects to over 30 percent. OKG, the second Swedishoperator, implemented a 33‐percent uprate at Oskarshamn‐3 with a two‐year delay. AtOskarshamn‐2, shut down since June 2013, a 38 percent capacity increase was under way, but hasbeen "indefinitely postponed" in June 2015. 658 In March 2015, OKG had estimated that themodernization will be completed “before the turn of the year”, adding that “this is clearly amiscalculation compared with the original time estimate for these works, which were started inJune 2013”. 659 Vattenfall had cancelled its planned 14‐percent uprate for Forsmark‐3 inNovember 2014, stating that the “profitability calculation for the power increase at Forsmark 3has deteriorated since the issue was last discussed by the board about a year ago”. 660 Indeed, in654 NEI, “Swedish Government Overturns Nuclear Ban”, 21 June 2010.655 WNA, “Nuclear Power in Sweden”, Updated April 2015, seehttp://www.world‐nuclear.org/info/Country‐Profiles/Countries‐O‐S/Sweden/, accessed 29 May 2015.656 Vattenfall, “Vattenfall plans to provide nuclear power for up to 60 years”, Press Release, 22 May 2013, seehttp://www.vattenfall.com/en/pressreleasedetailhidden.htm?newsid=943A721F600C4F72AF3AC1D4F96C601A,accessed 2 June 2013.657 Vattenfall, “Vattenfall changes direction for operational lifetimes of Ringhals 1 and 2”, Press Release, seehttp://corporate.vattenfall.com/news‐and‐media/press‐releases/2015/vattenfall‐changes‐direction‐foroperational‐lifetimes‐of‐ringhals‐1‐and‐2/,accessed 29 May 2015.658 WNN, “Oskarshamn 2 uprate put on hold”, 17 June 2015, see http://www.world‐nuclear‐news.org/C‐Oskarshamn‐2‐uprate‐put‐on‐hold‐1706155.html, accessed 6 July 2015.659 OKG, “Total safety modernisation of Oskashamn 2 completed before the turn of the year”, 13 March 2015,see http://www.okg.se/en/Media/News/Total‐safety‐modernisation‐of‐Oskarshamn‐2‐completed‐beforethe‐turn‐of‐the‐year/,accessed 29 May 2015.660 WNN, “Forsmark 3 power uprate cancelled”, 24 November 2014, see http://www.world‐nuclearnews.org/C‐Forsmark‐3‐power‐uprate‐cancelled‐2411145.html,accessed 29 May 2015.Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt et al. World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2015 153
June 2015, E.ON, the majority owner of Oskarshamn‐2, said it wanted to shut down the unitbecause it was unprofitable to operate; minority owner Forum disagreed. 661It is not only the economics that have changed quickly and dramatically, but also the politicalframework. The Red‐Green Government that took office in October 2014—the Green Party holdsthe Environment portfolio and a Deputy Prime Minister position—in its Statement of GovernmentPolicy declared:Nuclear power is to be replaced by renewable energy and energy efficiency measures,and…Sweden, in the long term, is to have 100 per cent renewable energy.…Nuclear power must bear a larger proportion of its economic costs to society. Safety requirementswill be made more stringent and the nuclear waste charge will be increased. Vattenfall is to takethe lead in the transition of the energy system towards a greater proportion of renewableenergy. 662“Goals and visions” of the new Swedish government include:• By 2020 at least 50 per cent of total energy consumption should come from renewable energysources.• By 2020 the transport sector should meet the renewable energy target of at least 10 per cent.• By 2020 energy efficiency should increase by 20 per cent. This is expressed as a cross‐sectoraltarget of a 20 per cent reduction in energy intensity by 2020 relative to 2008. 663The primary energy and transport sector goals are likely already achieved in 2014. 664On 31 May 2015, with a significant share of nuclear down for refurbishment and refueling, for thefirst time, more wind capacity was spinning than nuclear power operating.A significant shift is underway in a country that in 2014 represented the world's fifth largestshare of nuclear power in its electricity mix, and the largest installed nuclear capacity per capita.The United Kingdom operates 16 reactors, which provided 57.9 TWh or 17.2 percent ofthe country’s electricity in 2014, down from a maximum of 26.9 percent in 1997. The U.K.operators EDF Energy and Magnox Ltd. do not transmit load factor data to Nuclear EngineeringInternational. However, data published by the IAEA‐PRIS database indicate that the average loadfactor for the U.K. reactors was 69.4 percent in 2014, among the five worst national performers ofthe year.The 11 first‐generation Magnox plants, nine with twin reactors and two with four reactors, haveall been retired, except for one reactor at Wylfa. It was to be closed by the end of 2014, but in thePeriodic Safety Review submitted to the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) in October 2013, theoperator requested that the reactor’s operating life be extended by one year to enable it to fully661 WNA, “Nuclear power in Sweden”, 26 June 2015, see http://www.world‐nuclear.org/info/Country‐Profiles/Countries‐O‐S/Sweden/, accessed 3 July 2015.662 Government Offices of Sweden, “The new Government’s environment and energy policy”,29 October 2014.663 Government Offices of Sweden, “Goals and visions”, published 27 November 2014, Updated 21March 2015, see http://www.government.se/government‐policy/energy/goals‐and‐visions/, accessed29 May 2015.664 Tomas Kåberger, personal communication, 31 May 2015.Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt et al. World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2015 154
- Page 2:
This page is intentionally left bla
- Page 9:
Figure 32: Age Pyramid of the 131 N
- Page 12 and 13:
new company called Uniper. And in A
- Page 14 and 15:
Reactor Status and Nuclear Programs
- Page 16 and 17:
in 2015. Historic analysis shows th
- Page 18 and 19:
Olympic swimming pools. A groundwat
- Page 20 and 21:
"For all intents and purposes, AREV
- Page 22 and 23:
On 8 June 2015, the U.S. utility in
- Page 24 and 25:
The world’s nuclear statistics re
- Page 26 and 27:
According to the latest assessment
- Page 28 and 29:
first in which there was zero nucle
- Page 30 and 31:
definitive closure of the Indian re
- Page 32 and 33:
Table 1: Nuclear Reactors “Under
- Page 34 and 35:
and ‐4 in Ukraine are approaching
- Page 36 and 37:
Figure 9: Construction Starts in th
- Page 38 and 39:
ecent design and compliant with sig
- Page 40 and 41:
clear that the 3/11 events had an i
- Page 42 and 43:
Figure 15: The 40‐Year Lifetime P
- Page 44 and 45:
Bangladesh, Belarus, Turkey, UAE, a
- Page 46 and 47:
eports on the faulty components’
- Page 48 and 49:
January 2015, both the Chamber of T
- Page 50 and 51:
conditions of financing and partici
- Page 52 and 53:
of the contract, with Rosatom cover
- Page 54 and 55:
start construction in the next 2-3
- Page 56 and 57:
In the late 1990s, the nuclear indu
- Page 58 and 59:
AES‐2006 have received orders, wh
- Page 60 and 61:
shortage of skilled labor; quality
- Page 62 and 63:
use of passive features in the EPR
- Page 64 and 65:
there have been a number of other i
- Page 66 and 67:
standardize. Without standardizatio
- Page 68 and 69:
Leningrad‐2‐1 Russia AES‐2006
- Page 70 and 71:
ut noted that these “had varying
- Page 72 and 73:
(IRIS) design. The design started i
- Page 74 and 75:
or early 2013. 219 In 2011, it was
- Page 76 and 77:
national energy bureau around two w
- Page 78 and 79:
scale they would manage to lower th
- Page 80 and 81:
The top of the reactor building of
- Page 82 and 83:
TEPCO and the Government are planni
- Page 84 and 85:
out that TEPCO’s lax management o
- Page 86 and 87:
physical condition or suicide (“e
- Page 88 and 89:
In March 2015, Fukushima Prefecture
- Page 90 and 91:
“Rising long‐term natural gas p
- Page 92 and 93:
projects came in at an average of U
- Page 94 and 95:
Figure 20: Wind, Solar and Nuclear,
- Page 96 and 97:
to rapidly accelerate the use of lo
- Page 98 and 99:
• In Germany, renewables provided
- Page 100 and 101:
target is undoubtedly ambitious, bu
- Page 102 and 103:
Annex 1: Overview by Region and Cou
- Page 104 and 105: U.S. that have “shown interest in
- Page 106 and 107: The construction of Angra‐3 was s
- Page 108 and 109: project boosted the nameplate capac
- Page 110 and 111: Shuttering old, uneconomic reactors
- Page 112 and 113: In the case of Vogtle, a report for
- Page 114 and 115: limit their competitiveness to meet
- Page 116 and 117: generation projects in oversupplied
- Page 118 and 119: identified and solved will we allow
- Page 120 and 121: commercial operation only on 31 Dec
- Page 122 and 123: TEPCO that its staff had deliberate
- Page 124 and 125: produce plutonium for use in MOX fu
- Page 126 and 127: Power's Takahama‐3 and ‐4, with
- Page 128 and 129: Kansai Electric, along with Kyushu
- Page 130 and 131: permanent closure of five reactors
- Page 132 and 133: contractor and China Nuclear Indust
- Page 134 and 135: in May 2013, when the NSSC, followi
- Page 136 and 137: The political consequences of the m
- Page 138 and 139: The European Union 28 member states
- Page 140 and 141: In the absence of any successful ne
- Page 142 and 143: of the serious concerns by a range
- Page 144 and 145: negative outlook, “owing to conti
- Page 146 and 147: The average age of France’s power
- Page 148 and 149: EDF shares lost up to 85 percent of
- Page 150 and 151: power output is expected to rise si
- Page 152 and 153: low 639 , and coal‐fired generati
- Page 156 and 157: utilize the fuel that it obtained b
- Page 158 and 159: opinion at any of the sites propose
- Page 160 and 161: In Bulgaria, nuclear power provided
- Page 162 and 163: criteria defined in the tender”.
- Page 164 and 165: signed a binding agreement that mad
- Page 166 and 167: let the reactor operate until 2026.
- Page 168 and 169: time of ordering, the reactors were
- Page 170 and 171: intergovernmental agreement to comp
- Page 172 and 173: Takahama‐1 (PWR) 826 1974 - 40 10
- Page 174 and 175: IAEA have chosen to limit the LTS c
- Page 176 and 177: Note: SFP: Spent Fuel Pool, RPV: Re
- Page 178 and 179: Table 10: Definition of Credit Rati
- Page 180 and 181: Monticello 3/71 3/05 11/06Palisades
- Page 182 and 183: (as of 10 June 2015) 764Table 12: C
- Page 184 and 185: 2. Chinese Nuclear Power Plants Und
- Page 186 and 187: 2006-08, he carried out research at
- Page 188 and 189: CGN or CGNPC - Chinese General Nucl
- Page 190 and 191: INS - Indian Nuclear SocietyINSAC -
- Page 192 and 193: NSSC - Nuclear Safety and Security
- Page 194 and 195: UNSCEAR - United Nations Scientific
- Page 196 and 197: Romania 2 1 300 14 18. 5% (‐) 8%
- Page 198 and 199: Shandong Shidaowan 200 01/12/12 2/2
- Page 200 and 201: USA 5 5 633Virgil C. Summer‐2 111
- Page 202: 25 Delayed numerous times. Latest I