atw 2018-12

More documents

Recommendations

Info

atw Vol. 63 (2018) | Issue 11/12 ı November/December 616 27. Dr. Christoph Lierse, Garching 27. Norbert Lügger, Adelsdorf 28. Dr. Ingeborg Hagenlocher, Ittlingen 60 Jahre | 1959 20. Werner Mannsdörfer, Eberdingen 50 Jahre | 1969 9. Dr. Markus Nie, Bubenreuth 16. Peter Juretzka, Stade 16. Dr. Jens Schröder, Pulheim 24. Harry Weirich, Bexbach 31. Ulrich Sander, Brackenheim NEWS Top To fight climate change, environmentalists say yes to nuclear power (nei) The Boston Globe highlighted a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) stressing nuclear energy’s role in reducing carbon emissions. In the editorial, the Globe noted that the urgency of protecting the climate swayed UCS to support conditional measures to preserve nuclear plants, which supply nearly 20 percent of U.S. electricity and more than 56 percent of the nation’s clean energy. In the report, the group outlined a hard truth about the future. With climate change accelerating, as a new U.N. report underscored, the time to be fussy about how to reduce emissions has passed. What’s New? A really big deal in the energy and environment D.C. scene. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released a report today acknowledging the impact that nuclear plant closures have on climate and air quality, and in it the organization advocated for policies such as those adopted in states like Illinois, New York, Connecticut and New Jersey in recent years to preserve well run, financially challenged nuclear plants. The report explicitly recognizes the need for nuclear power to play a substantial role in decarbonization efforts. Fast Facts • Out of the 21 nuclear plants (16.3 GW) UCS identifies as “at-risk”, 5 have already announced retirement. They note that this involves 17 states where there are at-risk plants that likely will need some sort of policy to save them, and the at-risk retirements could go from 16.3 GW to 28.7 GW with lower natural gas prices. • The report offers three key policy prescriptions for preserving at-risk plants: (1) a carbon tax; (2) a clean energy standard; and (3) a set of principles for state-based zero emission credit (ZEC) programs in the states. UCS’ commitment to nuclear safety is unwavering in this report. Policy remedies it advocates must be limited to plants operating at the highest levels of safety. Why it Matters: This is a big deal for UCS and the climate community. Prior to this report, UCS had remained silent on any climate impacts asso ciated with nuclear plant closures. With this report UCS recognizes the utility of a clean energy standard, as opposed to merely a renewable portfolio standard, and advocates that well-run nuclear plants receive credit for their low- emissions benefits through federal low-carbon policies or through state-based, ZEC style of programs that are already being deployed to help save plants. What NEI’s President and CEO Maria Korsnick has to say about this report: “This is a forward leaning moment for an organization of significant influence in America’s climate and science community. There is increasing consensus across broad cross- sections of American political, environmental, security and energy experts that nuclear energy is critical to resilient, reliable and clean power. This UCS report is explicit in recognizing the scale of contributions nuclear power makes to mitigate against carbon and pollutants. It adds significantly to increasing momentum for recognizing the role nuclear plays in America’s clean energy future. “Enacting technology-neutral policies and establishing programs that credit nuclear for its 24/7, clean and reliable attributes will ensure the viability and economic success of America’s largest source of clean energy. Industry experts have long warned of the severe consequences that plant closures would have on the environment. We join UCS in urging policymakers to take actions that will preserve the nuclear fleet and open doors for new nuclear construction and innovation in nuclear technology.” The Big Picture: This report joins a notably growing chorus of key voices sounding the alarm that the loss of nuclear energy would make it far more challenging to constrain carbon emissions and protect our environment. | | www.nei.org World Atomic Society calls for action on future of nuclear research in Europe (nucnet) Europe risks losing much of its nuclear research capacity because of a “crisis in political vision” on energy issues and limited public funds, the European Atomic Energy Society says in a position paper published today. The paper says investment is needed to enable advanced nuclear research and a renewed programme of public engagement is needed to allow a more balanced view of Europe’s future energy mix, particularly considering the need for decarbonisation. It says the successful development of new nuclear technologies can only be achieved by research laboratories with appropriate infrastructure and with cooperation and support by the industry. This requires “stable and dedicated funding programmes from national, European and private sources”. This, in turn, needs a change of political attitudes towards nuclear, focusing on the long-term societal benefits of a low-carbon, energy dense, stable baseload technology that is complementary to renewable technologies. According to the EAES, the investments needed would be considerably smaller than subsidies supporting the deployment and commissioning of renewable technologies. The paper says that with limited public funds available both nationally and in Europe, research institutions are increasingly relying on industrial support. This support, however, is decreasing, and in such a political environment, utilities prefer to invest in extending nuclear reactor lifetimes, rather than investing in new-build. “Vendors are finding it difficult to invest in new nuclear technologies and are relying on proven designs and plants. This is resulting in a lack of innovation and poor public perception, despite an exemplary safety record,” the paper says. News
atw Vol. 63 (2018) | Issue 11/12 ı November/December It says the gradual loss of nuclear skills within Europe is well documented, with an ageing workforce and challenges in attracting the best graduates into the industry. “This will result in a lack of competitiveness with respect to other nuclear players in the world and a lack of understanding of our nuclear legacy.” There are instruments available to stimulate nuclear research in Europe, with nuclear energy listed as a supported technology within the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan). The Horizon 2020 framework programme has funds dedicated to activities related to the Euratom Treaty. However, Euratom funds are only sufficient to maintain a modest R&D programme in selected areas. Moreover, there is a risk that these funds will have little impact if they are not appropriately supported by a clear policy at member state level, the paper says. US: Cost of nuclear generation reaches nearly 10-year low (nei) A new Nuclear Energy Institute study shows that the nuclear industry has reduced its total generating costs by 19 percent since their peak in 2012. These reductions in cost are so dramatic that 2017 total generating costs of $33.50 per megawatt-hour (MWh) have gone down to almost what they were nearly 10 years ago in 2008 ($32.75 per MWh). “Through the Delivering the Nuclear Promise campaign and other initiatives, Operations the hardworking men and women of the nuclear industry have done an amazing job reducing costs wherever they find them,” NEI Vice have remained flat compared to the past decade. President of Policy Development and Public Affairs John Kotek said. “As we continue to face economic headwinds in markets which do not properly compensate nuclear plants, the industry has been doing its part to reduce costs to remain com petitive.” “Some things are in urgent need of change if we are to keep the nation’s nuclear plants running and enjoy their contribution to a reliable, resilient and low-carbon grid. Namely, we need to put in place market reforms that fairly compensate nuclear similar to those already in place in New York, Illinois and other states.” Other findings of the Nuclear Costs in Context study include: • The average total generating costs for nuclear in 2017 of $33.50 per MWh, represents a 3.3 percent reduction from 2016. • The 19 percent reduction in costs since 2012 includes a 41 percent reduction in capital expenditures, a 17 percent reduction in fuel costs, and a 9 percent reduction in operating costs. The report warns that despite these reduced prices, several nuclear power plants have been closed in recent years because of economic pressures. Since 2013, seven nuclear reactors (Crystal River 3 in Florida, San Onofre 2 and 3 in California, Kewaunee in Wisconsin, Vermont Yankee, Fort Calhoun in Nebraska, and Oyster Creek in New Jersey) have shut down permanently. Another 12 reactors have announced their permanent shutdown. If all these closures are taken together, they represent a massive loss of carbonfree electricity generation for the country: 55.5 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) avoided annually. That is the equivalent of the carbon emissions avoided by approximately 14,000 wind turbines per year or the electricity used by 8 million homes per year. Operations costs increased over the last twelve years from $19.25 per MWh in 2002 to $20.43 per MWh in 2017. Operations costs have declined 9.8 percent from the peak in 2011. This increase in operations costs was not driven by any single category. Operations costs in the 2002-2008 period are similar to where money was being spent in the 2009-2017 period. However, operations costs The chart below breaks down operations spending over the last 11 years. $ Billions (in 2017 dollars) 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Work Management (WM) Training (TR) Support Services (SS) Nuclear Industry Operations Cost, 2006-2017 Operations (OP) Fuel Management (NF) Materials and Services (MS) | | US: Cost of nuclear generation reaches nearly 10-year low (NEI). Loss Prevention (LP) Engineering (ENG) Source: Electric Utility Cost Group The report cites various factors as contributing to premature closure of these plants including: • sustained low natural gas prices, which suppress prices in power markets • relatively low growth in electricity demand • federal and state mandates for renewable generation which suppress prices, particularly during off-peak hours when wind generation is highest and the electricity is needed the least • market designs that do not compensate nuclear plants for the value they provide to the grid. Certain states have implemented plans that recognize and place a value on nuclear’s contributions. New York, Illinois, New Jersey and Connecticut have enacted policies that will compensate nuclear plants for their environmental attributes, ensuring that a total of 12 reactors in these states will not be forced to shut down prematurely. Closed nuclear plants are often replaced with natural gas power plants which produce substantial amounts of CO 2 and come with a bigger price tag than existing nuclear plants. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, new natural gas-fired plants come with a levelized cost of $48 per MWh compared to existing nuclear’s cost of $33.50 per MWh. Cost information in the study was collected by the Electric Utility Cost Group with prior years converted to 2017 dollars for accurate historical comparison. | | www.nei.org IAEA showcases global coordination on Small, Medium Sized or Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) (iaea) The International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) expanding international coordination on the safe and secure development and deployment of small, medium sized or modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) has come into focus with new publications and expert meetings on these emerging technologies. Significant advances have been made in recent years on SMRs, some of which will use pre-fabricated systems and components to shorten construction schedules and offer greater flexibility and affordability than traditional nuclear power plants. Some 50 SMR concepts are at various stages of development around the 617 NEWS Fuel Fuel costs represent approximately 20 percent of the total generating cost. Fuel costs experienced a relatively rapid increase from 2009 to 2013. This was largely the result of an escalation in uranium prices, News
Page 1:
nucmag.com 2018 11/12 573 Should Nu
Page 4 and 5:
atw Vol. 63 (2018) | Issue 11/12 ı
Page 6 and 7: atw Vol. 63 (2018) | Issue 11/12 ı
Page 68: Early Bird Discount! Register by 31
show all

atw 2018-12

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?