Views
2 months ago

atw 2018-07

atw

atw Vol. 63 (2018) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July RESEARCH AND INNOVATION 388 the scenario described by the TSO seems to be extremely unlikely, FRM decided to install a new ventilation system – with filtered exhaust air – for the time of decommissioning and the use of the reactor hall after decommissioning. As long as the ventilation system is not accepted by the licensing authority, FRM is not allowed to use tools in the reactor hall that could cause emission of aerosols into the air, thus rendering impossible every significant step in physical decommissioning. 4.3 Radioactive Waste Most of the radioactive material is still stored in the reactor hall. The components that were close to the reactor core are still in the reactor pool covered with water. The disposal of radioactive waste is not going on at the moment. This is mainly due to the following: The radioactive material can’t be processed or separated in the reactor hall because of the state of the ventilation system described in chapter 4.2. Additionally, appropriate financial resources and personnel have not yet been allocated for the disposal of radioactive waste. 4.4 Financing of the project FRM is part of FRM II which is a central scientific facility of TUM. In order to pay for projects necessary for the decommissioning (for example new construction of the ventilation system and disposal of radioactive waste) FRM has to ask the Board of the TUM for financial resources. The TUM Board asks the responsible Ministry of Science for money which again requests their financial means from the Bavarian Parliament. If the Bavarian Parliament decides to finance the necessary projects, the Ministry – responsible for publicsector construction – assigns their Building and Construction authority to plan the construction project (in terms of public finance every step of the decommissioning project is a construction project). This planning is than done by FRM (and of course contractors working for FRM) and presented to the construction committee of the Bavarian Parliament by the Building and Construction authority. If the construction committee sees the project feasible, the Building and Construction authority has access to financial resources. But still FRM is the operator responsible for the nuclear installation. So in very close cooperation the Building and Construction authority and FRM are acting as contracting authorities for the decommissioning projects. 5 Conclusion The history and the current state of the FRM have been described. Once the remaining issues will be resolved, the decommissioning will proceed as licensed. The complex financing procedure described in chapter 4.4 is adding an additional level of complexity to the already challenging decommissioning project. References [1] Festschrift der Technischen Universität München, „40 Jahre Atom-Ei Garching“. [2] A. Steyerl, 1969, Physics Letters 29B 33-5. [3] Bayerische Staatsministerium für Umwelt und Verbraucherschutz StMUV, 03.04.2014, „Genehmigung nach § 7 Atomgesetz (AtG) zum Abbau der Reaktoranlage des Forschungsreaktors München FRM in Garching“. [4] Der Spiegel, 15.12.1999, „Chronologie: Die Brandkatastrophe am Düsseldorfer Flughafen.“ | | Editorial Advisory Board Frank Apel Erik Baumann Dr. Maarten Becker Dr. Erwin Fischer Eckehard Göring Dr. Ralf Güldner Carsten Haferkamp Dr. Petra-Britt Hoffmann Dr. Guido Knott Dr. Willibald Kohlpaintner Ulf Kutscher Andreas Loeb Dr. Thomas Mull Dr. Ingo Neuhaus Dr. Joachim Ohnemus Prof. Dr. Winfried Petry Dr. Tatiana Salnikova Dr. Andreas Schaffrath Dr. Jens Schröder Prof. Dr. Jörg Starflinger Dr. Wolfgang Steinwarz Prof. Dr. Bruno Thomauske Dr. Walter Tromm Dr. Hans-Georg Willschütz Dr. Hannes Wimmer Ernst Michael Züfle Imprint | | Editorial Christopher Weßelmann (Editor in Chief) Im Tal 121, 45529 Hattingen, Germany Phone: +49 2324 4397723 Fax: +49 2324 4397724 E-mail: editorial@nucmag.com | | Official Journal of Kerntechnische Gesellschaft e. V. (KTG) | | Publisher INFORUM Verlags- und Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH Robert-Koch-Platz 4, 10115 Berlin, Germany Phone: +49 30 498555-30, Fax: +49 30 498555-18 www.nucmag.com | | General Manager Christian Wößner, Berlin, Germany | | Advertising and Subscription Petra Dinter-Tumtzak Robert-Koch-Platz 4, 10115 Berlin, Germany Phone: +49 30 498555-30, Fax: +49 30 498555-18 E-mail: petra.dinter@kernenergie.de | | Prize List for Advertisement Valid as of 1 January 2018 Published monthly, 9 issues per year Germany: Per issue/copy (incl. VAT, excl. postage) 24.- € Annual subscription (incl. VAT and postage) 176.- € All EU member states without VAT number: Per issue/copy (incl. VAT, excl. postage) 24.- € Annual subscription (incl. VAT, excl. postage) 176.- € EU member states with VAT number and all other countries: Per issues/copy (no VAT, excl. postage) 22.43 € Annual subscription (no VAT, excl. postage) 164.49 € | | Copyright The journal and all papers and photos contained in it are protected by copyright. Any use made thereof outside the Copyright Act without the consent of the publisher, INFORUM Verlags- und Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH, is prohibited. This applies to reproductions, translations, microfilming and the input and incorporation into electronic systems. The individual author is held responsible for the contents of the respective paper. Please address letters and manuscripts only to the Editorial Staff and not to individual persons of the association´s staff. We do not assume any responsibility for unrequested contributions. Signed articles do not necessarily represent the views of the editorial. | | Layout zi.zero Kommunikation Berlin, Germany Antje Zimmermann | | Printing inpuncto:asmuth druck + medien gmbh Baunscheidtstraße 11 53113 Bonn ISSN 1431-5254 Research and Innovation Decommissioning of Germany’s First Nuclear Reactor ı Ulrich Lichnovsky, Julia Rehberger, Axel Pichlmaier and Anton Kastenmüller

atw Vol. 63 (2018) | Issue 6/7 ı June/July [5] History of the Werkfeuerwehr, Technical University of Munich, Garching, https://www.feuerwehr.tum.de/index. php?id=30. [6] S. Thierfeldt et. al. (Brenk Systemplanung), March 2013, „Sicherheitsbericht zur Stilllegung des Forschungsreaktors München (FRM) der Technischen Universität München”. [7] K. Kugel, K. Möller (BfS), 20.2.2017, „Anforderungen an endzulagernde radioaktive Abfälle (Endlagerungsbedingungen, Stand: Februar 2017) – Endlager Konrad –”. [8] C. Lierse et. al., 28.12.2010, Abschlussbericht FKZ02S7951: „Entsorgung von Beryllium/Berylliumoxid und Cadmium aus Forschungsreaktoren“. Abbreviations FMA HEU KTA PCB SNF Freimessanlage (Release Measurement Facility) Highly Enriched Uranium Kerntechnischer Ausschuss (Nuclear Safety Standards Commission) Polychlorinated biphenyl Spent Nuclear Fuel StMUV Staatsministerium für Umwelt, Gesundheit und Verbraucherschutz (Bavarian state ministry of the environment, health and consumer protection) TSO Technical Safety Organisation Authors While You Were Sleeping: The Unnoticed Loss of Carbon-free Generation in the United States Chris Vlahoplus, Ed Baker, Sean Lawrie, Paul Quinlan and Benjamin Lozier M. Sc. Ulrich Lichnovsky Fachbereichsleiter Stilllegung und Rückbau FRM(alt) B. Sc. Julia Rehberger Ingenieurin Dokumentation und Änderungsdienst FRM(alt) Dr. Axel Pichlmaier Fachbereichsleiter Reaktorbetrieb FRM II Dr. Anton Kastenmüller Technischer Direktor FRM II FRM II, Forschungs-Neutronenquelle Heinz Maier-Leibnitz Technische Universität München Lichtenbergstr. 1 85748 Garching, Germany 389 ENERGY POLICY, ECONOMY AND LAW The United States has embarked on actions to combat climate change by putting a focus on lowering the carbon emissions from the electric generation sector. A pillar of this approach is to promote the greater use of renewable resources, such as wind and solar. The past decade has seen significant growth in carbon-free energy from wind and solar. Generation from these resources reached 333,000 GWh in 2017. However, unbeknownst to many who care about climate change, most of the progress made to date through renewables is at significant risk due to the loss or potential loss of more than 228,000 GWh of nuclear carbon-free generation. Renewables growth: Investment in carbon-free generation Over the past decade, wind and solar have grown in large part due to policies such as renewable portfolio standards, federal tax incentives, and in some cases state tax incentives. Few would argue that the addition of renewable generation is a critical element of a comprehensive carbonreduction strategy. Since 2008, the policy focus on renewables has attracted hundreds of billions of dollars of investment for the development of wind and solar. The results have been significant – in the past decade 90 % of the current operating wind and solar capacity was added, roughly 75 GW of wind and 52 GW solar. [1] Another result of these investments has been to help wind and solar drive down the cost curve reaching a more competitive position. The policies promoting renewables have clearly contributed to the addition of a meaningful amount of carbon-free electricity as well as to jump-starting an industry in the United States. Early retirement: Nuclear generators face challenges In the same timeframe, natural gas prices have driven down power prices, causing difficulties for both renewables and existing generation. The nuclear industry in particular has been challenged by low natural gas prices and the lack of overall policy support for its zero-carbon attributes. As a result, the nuclear industry has faced a wave of actual and announced retirements. The most vulnerable nuclear plants have been small, singleunit plants and merchant facilities in deregulated markets with low energy and capacity values. Under these conditions, existing nuclear plants are having difficulty competing in bidbased markets and in some regulated as well. Some states have recognized this issue and have explored zerocarbon incentives to keep plants open that would otherwise have shut down. However, these incentives are being challenged and still make these plants, while technically “reprieved,” what we categorize as “at risk.” In 2016, the New York Public Service Commission approved a Clean Energy Standard (CES), which supported the continuation of more than 3 GW of nuclear capacity (i.e., Fitzpatrick, Ginna, and Nine Mile Point nuclear plants). [2] In the same year, Illinois passed The Future Energy Jobs Bill that provides nuclear plants with $ 0.01/kWh, saving almost 3 GW of nuclear capacity (i.e., Clinton and Quad Cities nuclear plants). [3] The actions in New York and Illinois sustained more than 50,000 GWh of carbon-free generation per year. Meanwhile, Connecticut recently estimated it would cost roughly $ 5.5 billion to replace the carbon-free generation from Dominion Energy’s Millstone station with renewables. [4] To understand the potential for loss of carbon-free generation, Scott- Madden identified four categories of “at-risk” nuclear assets. Each nuclear plant operating in 2008 (a date that coincides with the rapid growth in renewables) was reviewed and, if applicable, placed into one of the following “at-risk” categories: • Retired – Any nuclear plant that has ceased operations since 2008. Some plants on the list had physical Energy Policy, Economy and Law While You Were Sleeping: The Unnoticed Loss of Carbon-free Generation in the United States ı Chris Vlahoplus, Ed Baker, Sean Lawrie, Paul Quinlan and Benjamin Lozier