atw 2019-03

nucmag.com
2019
3
131
Nuclear Power Plant
Flexibility
141 ı Serial | Major Trends in Energy Policy and Nuclear Power
Wind Energy in Germany and Europe
149 ı Spotlight on Nuclear Law
Extended Interim Storage – Impact on the
Environmental Impact Assessment?
151 ı Decommissioning and Waste Management
The German Quiver Project
ISSN · 1431-5254
24.– €
168 ı Special Topic | A Journey Through 50 Years AMNT
Core Problems 1982 – More Open Discussion
Register Now!

7. – 8. Mai 2019
Estrel Convention Center Berlin, Deutschland
www.unserejahrestagung.de
#50AMNT
Unsere 50. Jahrestagung gewährt einen Rückblick
auf vergangene Tage und einen Ausblick auf die Zukunft
– mit über raschenden Highlights, anspruchsvollen
Vorträgen und spannenden Diskussionen.
Registrieren Sie sich für die
50. Jahrestagung Kerntechnik unter
› www.amnt2019.com
Medien Partner
Lassen Sie sich dieses bemerkenswerte Jubiläum nicht entgehen!

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
0, the Facts Remain ...
Dear reader, the number “0” certainly has a special meaning in the world of numbers, science and also in everyday
life. For some it is a blessing, for others it is a curse. As the 37 th element in the roulette game, it guarantees the gambling
casino a competitive advantage below the line on probabilities; as zero in philosophy, it represents nothing.
Zero has a place in algebra and contrary to its “worthlessness”
it is very meaningful: zero (0) is neither positive
nor negative. It is completely harmless in addition and
subtraction – it does not change a number in the result. In
multiplication it makes everything null and void out of
any number, no matter how large. As a divisor it is even
forbidden in division, because it would overturn our
complete number system.
Since such numbers and number systems can be used
independently of languages, they are also suitable for
depicting connections uniformly and carefully, i.e. in an
internationally understandable way.
In the internationally agreed language of nuclear
power, the “International Nuclear and Radiological Event
Scale – INES” is certainly of particular importance as a
­recognised classification system.
Since 1990, i.e. for almost 30 years, events in the field of
nuclear technology have been classified according to this
scale, which was developed by the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear Energy Agency
(NEA) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD). On the one hand, the INES scale
should enable technical experts to explain the safety
­significance of an event to the public in an understandable
way. On the other hand, the public can interpret the
­significance of events just as easily and clearly by means of
absolute numbers. The INES evaluation scale comprises
7 levels for the events recorded: from level 1 to level 7. The
classification into the levels is based on safety-oriented or
radiological criteria. Events of level 1 to 3 are classified as
incident and events of level 4 to 7 are classified as accident
with increasing consequences.
In order to also record events that are neither incident
nor accident and are generally referred to internationally
as operating deviation, the level zero (0) below the actual
INES scale has also been introduced. According to the
­internationally valid and binding definition, these events
have “no safety significance”.
The application of the INES scale in 74 countries
worldwide today – including all countries operating
nuclear power plants – and the extension of the scale to
other areas, such as medicine and the industrial application
of radioisotopes and ionizing radiation sources,
­underscores the practical benefits and broad acceptance of
the scale. In addition, the IAEA contributes to the international
public transparency of event reports by posting
infor mation on the Internet platform www-news.iaea.org.
The INES scale is not intended and not suitable for
performance comparisons between the participating
countries or for deriving safety-related developments
from statistics – this has been agreed and recognised
by all participating countries. Nevertheless, in the media
context, “chronicles of incidents” or “evaluations” based
on INES reports are sometimes almost ritualised. Germany
is a well-known pioneer in this field and so the media,
under the title “AKW Brokdorf und Grohnde melden
meisten Störfälle” (“Brokdorf and Grohnde nuclear power
plants report most incidents”), knew before the end of
2018 on an internet blog post as a source that with
79 incidents in 2018, “German nuclear power plants
would have reported as many as they had not for 7 years”.
However, all these incidents that have been cleverly
verbally pushed into the realm of near catastrophes are
­INES “zero” events, i.e. they have no safety significance
and have no connection with the term “incident” nor the
term “accident” – reading helps, understanding even more.
It will now be a bit complicated for the interested citizen
to get his own interpretation. The individual reports on
“Reportable Events” available in the WWW at the Federal
Office for the Safety of Nuclear Waste Management can
be used to evaluate all reports and thus the safety-related
“zero” summary for Germany's nuclear power plant
operation in 2018 can be drawn – an optically differentiated
presentation of these internationally agreed facts
based on the INES criteria would already be helpful for the
interested public at this point.
Beyond journalistic attention, an evaluation of the
­reportable events for Germany since their first application
in 1991 shows that almost all (99 %) events are assigned to
category “0” of the INES scale; i.e. with the participation
and after determination by the responsible state authorities,
events are "without safety-related" significance (this
is no statement in terms of statistics!).
The summary is: INES 0 = no “fault”, no “incident”, no
“accident” – “0” in all its fullness of “nothing” and also
actually a "zero report".
Christopher Weßelmann
– Editor in Chief –
123
EDITORIAL
Editorial
0, the Facts Remain ...

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
EDITORIAL 124
0, es bleibt dabei ...
Liebe Leserin, lieber Leser, die Zahl „0“ besitzt in der Welt der Zahlen, der Wissenschaft und auch im Alltagsleben
eine sicherlich besondere Bedeutung. Für die einen ist sie Segen, für die anderen ist sie Fluch. Dem Spielcasino
garantiert sie als 37stes Element im Roulettespiel unter dem Strich über Wahrscheinlichkeiten den Wettbewerbsvorteil,
als Null in der Philosophie stellt sie das Nichts dar.
Die Null hat einen Platz in der Algebra und entgegen ihrer
„Wertlosigkeit“ ist sie sehr bedeutungsvoll: Die Null (0) ist
weder positiv noch negativ. In der Addition und Subtraktion
ist sie völlig harmlos – sie verändert im Ergebnis
keine Zahl. In der Multiplikation macht sie aus jeder noch
so großen Zahl alles null und nichtig. Als Divisor ist sie
in der Division sogar verboten, da sie unser komplettes
Zahlensystem umwerfen würde.
Da solche Zahlen und Zahlensysteme unabhängig von
Sprachen verwendet werden können, eignen sie sich auch
dazu, Zusammenhänge einheitlich und sorgfältig, also
auch international verständlich, abzubilden.
In der international vereinbarten Sprache der Kernenergie
hat dabei sicherlich die „International Nuclear and
Radiological Event Scale“, kurz INES, als anerkanntes
Ordnungssystem einen besonderen Stellenwert.
Seit 1990, also seit fast 30 Jahren, werden Ereignisse im
Bereich der Kerntechnik gemäß dieser, von der Internationalen
Atomenergie-Organisation (IAEO) und der
Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) der Organisation für wirtschaftliche
Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (OECD)
entwickelten, Skala eingestuft. Die INES-Skala soll es
dabei einerseits den fachlichen Anwendern ermöglichen,
der Öffentlichkeit auf verständliche Art und Weise die
sicherheitstechnische Bedeutung eines Ereignisses zu
erläutern, auf der anderen Seite kann die Öffentlichkeit
anhand der Einordnung durch absolute Zahlenwerte
ebenso einfach und deutlich die Bedeutung von Ereignissen
interpretieren. Die INES-Bewertungskala umfasst dazu
7 Stufen für die erfassten Ereignisse: von der Stufe 1 bis
zur Stufe 7. Die Einordnung in die Stufen erfolgt anhand
sicherheitsorientierter bzw. radiologischer Kriterien.
Dabei sind Ereignisse der Stufen 1 bis 3 als Störungen
(engl. incident) deklariert und Ereignisse der Stufen 4 bis
7 als Unfälle (engl. accident) mit jeweils zunehmendem
Ausmaß von Folgen.
Um auch Ereignisse zu erfassen, die weder als Störfall
noch als Unfall gelten und allgemein international als
Betriebsabweichung bezeichnet sind, ist zudem die
unterhalb der eigentlichen INES-Skala liegende Stufe
„Null“ (0) eingeführt. Nach der international gültigen und
­verbindlichen Definition haben diese Ereignisse „keine
­sicherheitstechnische Bedeutung“ („no safety significance“).
Die Anwendung der INES-Skala in heute 74 Ländern
weltweit – mit dabei sind alle Kernkraftwerke betreibenden
Staaten – und die Erweiterung der Skala auf
­weitere Bereiche, wie z.B. die Medizin und die industrielle
Anwendung von Radioisotopen und ionisierenden
Strahlen quellen, unterstreicht den praktischen Nutzen
und die breite Akzeptanz der Skala. Zudem trägt die IAEO
durch das Einstellen von Informationen auf der Internetplattform
www-news.iaea.org zur internationalen öffentlichen
Transparenz von Ereignismeldungen bei.
Die INES-Skala ist nicht dazu vorgesehen und auch
nicht dafür geeignet Performance-Vergleiche unter den
beteiligten Ländern anzustellen oder gar mittels Statistik
sicherheitstechnische Entwicklungen abzuleiten – dies
haben alle beteiligten Staaten vereinbart und anerkannt.
Dennoch finden sich im medialen Kontext teils fast
schon ritualisiert auf INES-Meldungen basierte „Störfallchroniken“
oder „Auswertungen“. Deutschland ist hier
­bekannter Vorreiter und so wussten Medien unter dem
Titel „AKW Brokdorf und Grohnde melden meiste Störfälle“
auf einem Internet-Blog-Beitrag als Quelle aufgesetzt
schon vor Jahresende 2018, dass „deutsche Atomanlagen“
mit 79 Vorfällen in 2018 so viele wie seit 7 Jahren
nicht mehr gemeldet hätten. Alle diese geschickt verbal in
den Bereich der Beinahekatastrophe geschobenen Vorfälle
sind allerdings INES-„Null“-Ereignisse, die also keine
sicherheitstechnische Bedeutung haben und in keinem
Zusammenhang mit dem Begriff „Störfall“ stehen – Lesen
hilft, verstehen noch mehr.
Etwas aufwändig wird es nun für den interessierten
Bürger sich dazu ein eigenes Bild zu verschaffen. Über die
im WWW verfügbaren Einzelberichte zu „Meldepflichtigen
Ereignissen“ beim Bundesamt für kerntechnische
Entsorgungssicherheit lassen sich alle Meldungen auswerten
und so kann das sicherheitstechnische „Null“­
Resümee für Deutschlands Kernkraftwerksbetrieb des
Jahres 2018 gezogen werden – eine optisch anhand der
INES­ Kriterien offensichtliche Darstellung dieser international
vereinbarten Fakten wäre an dieser Stelle für die
interessierte Öffentlichkeit sicherlich auch hilfreich.
Jenseits publizistischer Aufmerksamkeit ist mit einer
Auswertung der Meldepflichtigen Ereignisse für Deutschland
seit erster Anwendung im Jahr 1991 festzuhalten,
dass nahezu alle (99 %) Ereignisse der Kategorie „0“
der INES-Skala zugeordnet sind; also mit Beteiligung
und nach Festlegung durch die verantwortlichen staatlichen
Behörden Ereignisse „ohne sicherheitstechnische“
Bedeutung sind (dies ist keine (!) statistische Aussage).
Das Resümee lautet: INES 0 = keine „Störung“, kein
„Störfall“, kein „Unfall“ – „0“ in seiner ganzen Fülle des
„Nichts“ und auch eigentlich eine „Null-Meldung“.
Christopher Weßelmann
– Chefredakteur –
Editorial
0, the Facts Remain ...

Kommunikation und
Training für Kerntechnik
Suchen Sie die passende Weiter bildungs maßnahme im Bereich Kerntechnik?
Wählen Sie aus folgenden Themen: Dozent/in Termin/e Ort
3 Atom-, Vertrags- und Exportrecht
Das Recht der radioaktiven Abfälle RA Dr. Christian Raetzke 17.09.2019 Berlin
Ihr Weg durch Genehmigungs- und Aufsichtsverfahren RA Dr. Christian Raetzke 02.04.2019
22.10.2019
Atomrecht – Navigation im internationalen nuklearen Vertragsrecht Akos Frank LL. M. 03.04.2019 Berlin
Atomrecht – Was Sie wissen müssen
Export kerntechnischer Produkte und Dienstleistungen –
Chancen und Regularien
3 Kommunikation und Politik
RA Dr. Christian Raetzke
Akos Frank LL. M.
RA Kay Höft M. A.
O. L. Kreuzer
Dr.-Ing. Wolfgang Steinwarz
Berlin
04.06.2019 Berlin
12.06. - 13.06.2019 Berlin
Schlüsselfaktor Interkulturelle Kompetenz –
International verstehen und verstanden werden
Public Hearing Workshop –
Öffentliche Anhörungen erfolgreich meistern
Kerntechnik und Energiepolitik im gesellschaftlichen Diskurs –
Themen und Formate
Angela Lloyd 20.03.2019 Berlin
Dr. Nikolai A. Behr 05.11. - 06.11.2019 Berlin
November 2019
Greifswald/
Lubmin
3 Rückbau und Strahlenschutz
In Kooperation mit dem TÜV SÜD Energietechnik GmbH Baden-Württemberg:
Das neue Strahlenschutzgesetz –
Folgen für Recht und Praxis
Stilllegung und Rückbau in Recht und Praxis
Dr. Maria Poetsch
RA Dr. Christian Raetzke
Dr. Matthias Bauerfeind
RA Dr. Christian Raetzke
04.04. - 05.04.2019
25.06. - 26.06.2019
10.09.-.11.09.2019
Berlin
24.09. - 25.09.2019 Berlin
3 Nuclear English
Advancing Your Nuclear English (Aufbaukurs) Devika Kataja 10.04. - 11.04.2019
18.09. - 19.09.2019
Enhancing Your Nuclear English Devika Kataja 22.05. - 23.05.2019 Berlin
3 Wissenstransfer und Veränderungsmanagement
Berlin
Erfolgreicher Wissenstransfer in der Kern technik –
Methoden und praktische Anwendung
Veränderungsprozesse gestalten – Heraus forderungen
meistern, Beteiligte gewinnen
Dr. Tanja-Vera Herking
Dr. Christien Zedler
Dr. Tanja-Vera Herking
Dr. Christien Zedler
26.03. - 27.03.2019 Berlin
26.11. - 27.11.2019 Berlin
Haben wir Ihr Interesse geweckt? 3 Rufen Sie uns an: +49 30 498555-30
Kontakt
INFORUM Verlags- und Verwaltungs gesellschaft mbH ı Robert-Koch-Platz 4 ı 10115 Berlin
Petra Dinter-Tumtzak ı Fon +49 30 498555-30 ı Fax +49 30 498555-18 ı seminare@kernenergie.de
Die INFORUM-Seminare können je nach
Inhalt ggf. als Beitrag zur Aktualisierung
der Fachkunde geeignet sein.

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
CONTENTS
126
Issue 3 | 2019
March
Contents
Editorial
0, the Facts Remain ... E/G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
Inside Nuclear with NucNet
Why UK Is Banking on SMRs as the Future of Nuclear . . . . . . . .128
DAtF Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Calendar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130
Feature | Major Trends in Energy Policy and Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Plant Flexibility at EDF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .131
Serial | Major Trends in Energy Policy and Nuclear Power
Wind Energy in Germany and Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141
Spotlight on Nuclear Law
Extended Interim Storage – Impact on the Environmental
Impact Assessment? G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .149
Decommissioning and Waste Management
The German Quiver Project
Quivers for Damaged and Non-Standard Fuel Rods . . . . . . . . . 151
Advanced Sectorial Gamma Scanning for the Radiological
Characterization of Radioactive Waste Packages . . . . . . . . . . .160
Special Topic | A Journey Through 50 Years AMNT
Annual Meeting in Mannheim:
Core Problems 1982 – More Open Discussion on Old
and New Insights and Barriers to Progress G . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
KTG Inside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172
Cover:
Control rod drive mechanism of nuclear power
plant Krümmel/Germany. Copyright: Bernhard
Ludewig.
News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173
Nuclear Today
Is the UK Ready to See Nuclear Fade Before It Can Shine? . . . . . 178
G
E/G
= German
= English/German
Imprint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Contents

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
127
Feature
Major Trends in Energy Policy
and Nuclear Power
CONTENTS
131 Nuclear Power Plant Flexibility at EDF
Patrick Morilhat, Stéphane Feutry,
Christelle Lemaitre and Jean Melaine Favennec
Serial | Major Trends in Energy Policy and Nuclear Power
141 Wind Energy in Germany and Europe
Thomas Linnemann and Guido S. Vallana
Spotlight on Nuclear Law
149 Extended Interim Storage – Impact
on the Environmental Impact Assessment?
Verlängerte Zwischenlagerung – Auswirkungen
auf die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung?
Tobias Leidinger
Decommissioning and Waste Management
151 The German Quiver Project
Quivers for Damaged and Non-Standard Fuel Rods
Sascha Bechtel, Wolfgang Faber, Hagen Höfer,
Frank Jüttemann, Martin Kaplik, Michael Köbl, Bernhard Kühne and Marc Verwerft
Special Topic | A Journey Through 50 Years AMNT
168 Annual Meeting in Mannheim:
Core Problems 1982 – More Open Discussion
on Old and New Insights and Barriers to Progress
Jahrestagung in Mannheim:
Kernprobleme 1982 – Offenere Diskussion
alter und neuer Erkenntnisse und Hemmnisse
Contents

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
128
Why UK Is Banking on SMRs
as the Future of Nuclear
INSIDE NUCLEAR WITH NUCNET
Vincent Zabielski is a
specialist nuclear
lawyer at Londonbased
law firm
Pillsbury, focusing on
international nuclear
energy matters,
including advice
related to new-build
EPC contracts, power
purchase agreements,
operation and maintenance,
fuel supply
chain, liability issues,
and export controls.
Before joining
Pillsbury, he was
senior nuclear counsel
for the United Arab
Emirates’ nuclear new
build programme,
where he was
responsible for
integration of nuclear
licensing strategy
with the largest-ever
public financing of a
public works project.
The UK is making significant investment in the development of small modular reactors and, despite
­challenges, could have its first unit up and running in the early 2030s, says London-based nuclear lawyer
Vincent Zabielski.
Small modular reactors (SMR) promise to bring
nuclear power to the masses, revolutionising
the nuclear power industry by making its production
increasingly affordable and available to a far wider market.
SMRs are standardised products that are made on a
factory production line, rather than bespoke machines
that are constructed onsite one at a time. Mass production
will ensure consistency in quality and drive down unit
costs, compared to traditional, one-off, and complex large
reactor designs.
SMR components will be much cheaper to transport
than those used in traditional large reactors. SMR reactor
plant and supporting components are all compact enough
to be transported from factory to construction site by boat,
lorry or railway; unlike the huge transporters and road
closures that are required for larger conventional plants.
These designs are also much safer: the smaller reactor
cores, simpler systems, and reliance on built-in passive
safety features all mean that the size of the emergency
planning zone can be reduced to the boundary of the plant,
in contrast to the “plume exposure pathway”, which is up
to 16 km, for traditional large nuclear plants.
In countries with a smaller electrical grid, for example
sub-Saharan Africa and the polar north, SMRs offer
advantages for ensuring grid stability. Their power can be
delivered in bite-sized morsels to the wider grid, resulting
in a stable and incremental expansion of the grid as
demand increases.
SMRs are also much less demanding in terms of siting
as they do not require the same large, low-population
zones as traditional reactors.
Safety improvements aside, the largest economic
advantage of modular design is the great reduction in
­construction risk. Thanks to an SMR’s factory construction,
the site hosting it can be prepared before it arrives,
minimising expensive contract variations. This reduction
in construction risk should mean that budgets and timelines
will be met more reliably.
The UK is easily the most progressive western country
when it comes to nuclear power. The government is taking
steps in the right direction with significant investment in
SMRs, including a fund of up to £20m for supply chain
­development, £7m for regulatory readiness, and up to
£44m in an advanced modular reactor feasibility and
­development project. In June 2018, the Department for
Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy issued its ambitious
nuclear sector deal policy paper. This paper presents plans
for cooperation between the government and the civilian
sector. Those plans include a 30 % reduction in the cost of
new-build projects by 2030; lower generation costs and a
20 % reduction in decommissioning costs to the taxpayer;
and a more competitive supply chain, with more UK
companies using advanced manufacturing methods and
entering domestic and export markets for nuclear goods
and services.
As part of the nuclear sector deal, the government will
set out a framework to support the development and
deployment of SMRs and the technologies that support
them.
The UK nuclear regulatory framework is goal-based
rather than prescriptive, which makes the UK particularly
attractive for deploying SMRs. While nuclear reactor
vendors are required to demonstrate their safety case to
the Office of Nuclear Regulation, the regulations do not
prescribe any particular design solution. In other words,
the ONR requires that SMRs be safe, but it doesn’t tell the
manufacturer how to make them safe – that is the job of
the designer.
As for cost, the current market for nuclear power is
largely limited to wealthy buyers with deep pockets. But,
thanks to its small and modular design, the production
time, introduction period and safety management of SMRs
are all considerably reduced. With this in mind, the cost of
implementing this technology into global power grids
should be significantly lower than traditional large
reactors.
The other positive news is that development of SMRs in
the UK should not be disproportionately impacted by
Brexit and withdrawal from the Euratom treaty. In the very
near term, the UK will need to establish bilateral nuclear
cooperation treaties with major supplier countries in the
EU and elsewhere, but it has already begun to do this.
Western powers, such as Canada, France and the US,
are developing SMRs. There are also promising new
designs from China, Russia, and Japan. However, it seems
that the UK is the most likely to make the greatest strides in
SMR development, given the government’s support of
nuclear.
Realistically, the earliest an SMR will be operational in
the UK is probably the early 2030s. That may seem a long
time, but there is a lot that needs to happen between now
and commercial operation.
Supply chains will need to be developed, ONR generic
design assessments will need to be completed, the SMR
manufacturing facility will need to be designed and built,
and a site will need to be identified and prepared to accept
the SMR. All of this takes time, but if the government holds
its current course, all of these challenges can be overcome.
Vincent Zabielski
Inside Nuclear with NucNet
Why UK Is Banking on SMRs as the Future of Nuclear

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
Notes
Will Electricity Demand Be Secured in Germany?
The Ministry of the Environment, Climate Protection and the Energy
Sector Baden-Württemberg published a study by the University of
Stuttgart and the German Aerospace Centre (DLR) called “Security
of Energy Supplies in Southern Germany till 2025 – Cover of
Demand in Extreme Situations?”. The objective of this study is to
show if the energy supply of Southern Germany and Germany
as a whole will be secure under new circumstances.
The table below shows the load balance of Germany as a whole.
For self-sufficient consideration, there will be a deficit from the year
2019. It could be covered on the one hand by the Guaranty Standby
(2.6 GW) and the Capacity Reserve (1.9 GW) or on the other hand
by imports from foreign countries. Despite all three reserves, the
demand cannot be longer covered from the year 2023 after all
nuclear power plants will be shut down.
DATF EDITORIAL NOTES
129
There are two different scenarios. The scenario without accelerated
coal phase-out is based on the shutdown of power plants referred
to their supposed life cycle. In contrast to this, the scenario
with accelerated coal phase-out assumes that there will be an
accele rated decline of capacity of coal-fired power plants from
the year 2021 (based on a study by Agora Energiewende, 2016*).
Maximum Load, Secured Load and Balance of Germany
[GW] 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Max. Load 80.3 79.3 78.2 77.1 76.1 75.0 74.0 73.0 72.0
Guaranty Standby (GS), Grid Reserve (GR), Capacity Reserve (CR)
GS 0.9 1.8 2.6 2.6 2.2 1.7 0.7 0.0 0.0
GR 6.6
CR 0.0 0.0 1.9
Scenario without accelerated coal phase-out
Assured Capacity 86.8 79.3 74.5 71.5 70.4 66.8 62.4 60.9 59.8
Balance 6.5 0.0 -3.7 -5.6 -5.7 -8.2 -11.6 -12.1 -12.2
Balance (incl. GS & CR) 7.4 1.8 0.8 -1.1 -1.6 -4.6 -9.0 -10.2 -10.3
Balance (incl. GS, GR & CR) 14.0 8.4 7.4 5.5 5.0 2.0 -2.4 -3.6 -3.7
Scenario with accelerated coal phase-out
Assured Capacity 86.8 79.3 74.5 71.5 70.4 65.0 58.8 56.5 54.1
Balance 6.5 0.0 -3.7 -5.6 -5.7 -10.0 -15.2 -16.5 -17.9
Balance (incl. GS & CR) 7.4 1.8 0.8 -1.1 -1.6 -6.4 -12.6 -14.6 -16.0
Balance (incl. GS, GR & CR) 14.0 8.4 7.4 5.5 5.0 0.2 -6.0 -8.0 -9.4
Guaranty Standby: Inoperative coal-fired power plants which can be restarted in extreme situations.
Grid Reserve: Inoperative power plants in Southern Germany which can be restarted if the grid cannot transfer electricity from the windy north to
the south (mainly in winter).
Capacity Reserve: Inoperative power plants which can be restarted in less than 12 hours to cover load peaks (coal-fired plants are not suitable).
https://bit.ly/2If853o
For further details
please contact:
Nicolas Wendler
DAtF
Robert-Koch-Platz 4
10115 Berlin
Germany
E-mail: presse@
kernenergie.de
www.kernenergie.de
DAtF Notes

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
Calendar
130
2019
CALENDAR
03.03.-07.03.2019
WM Symposia – WM2019. Phoenix, AZ, USA,
www.wmsym.org
05.03.-06.03.2019
VI. International Power Plants Summit.
Istanbul, Turkey, INPPS Fair,
www.nuclearpowerplantssummit.com
10.03.-15.03.2019
83. Annual Meeting of DPG and DPG Spring
Meeting of the Atomic, Molecular, Plasma Physics
and Quantum Optics Section (SAMOP),
incl. Working Group on Energy. Rostock, Germany,
Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft e.V.,
www.dpg-physik.de
10.03.-14.03.2019
The 9 th International Symposium on Supercritical-
Water-Cooled Reactors (ISSCWR-9). Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada, Canadian Nuclear Society
(CNS), www.cns-snc.ca
11.03.-13.03.2019
18 th Workshop of the European ALARA Network:
ALARA in Decommissioning and Site Remediation.
Marcoule, France, European ALARA Network
www.eu-alara.net
11.03.-12.03.2019
Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference.
Washington D.C., U.S.A., Carnegie Endownment for
International Peace, carnegieendowment.org
13.03. – 14.03.2019
Nuclear Engineering for Safety,
Control & Security. Bristol, UK,
The IET, https://events.theiet.org
13.03. – 15.03.2019
NUGENIA Forum 2019. Paris, France, NUGENIA,
www.nugenia.eu
24.03.-28.03.2019
RRFM 2019 – 2019 the European Research
Reactor Conference. Jordan, IGORR, the International
Group Operating Research Reactors and European
Nuclear Society (ENS), www.euronuclear.org
25.03.-27.03.2019
Cyber Security Implementation Workshop.
Boston MA, USA, Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI),
www.nei.org
01.04.-03.04.2019
CIENPI – 13 th China International Exhibition on
Nuclear Power Industry. Beijing, China,
Coastal International, www.coastal.com.hk
09.04.-11.04.2019
World Nuclear Fuel Cycle 2019. Shanghai, China,
World Nuclear Association (WNA), Miami, Florida,
USA, www.wnfc.info
ATOMEXPO 2019. Sochi, Russia,
2019.atomexpo.ru/en/
15.04.-16.04.2019
07.05.-08.05.2019
50 th Annual Meeting on Nuclear Technology
AMNT 2019 | 50. Jahrestagung Kerntechnik.
Berlin, Germany, DAtF and KTG,
www.amnt2019.com – Register Now!
15.05.-17.05.2019
1 st International Conference of Materials,
Chemistry and Fitness-For-Service Solutions
for Nuclear Systems. Toronto, Canada, Canadian
Nuclear Society (CNS), www.cns-snc.ca
16.05.-17.05.2019
Emergency Power Systems at Nuclear Power
Plants. Munich, Germany, TÜV SÜD,
www.tuev-sued.de/eps-symposium
24.05.-26.05.2019
International Topical Workshop on Fukushima
Decommissioning Research – FDR2019. Fukushima,
Japan, The University of Tokyo, fdr2019.org
29.05.-31.05.2019
Global Nuclear Power Tech. Seoul, South Korea, Korea
Electric Engineers Association, electrickorea.org/eng
03.06.-05.06.2019
Nuclear Energy Assembly. Washington DC, USA,
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), www.nei.org
03.06.-07.06.2019
World Nuclear University Short Course:
The World Nuclear Industry Today.
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, World Nuclear University,
www.world-nuclear-university.org
04.06.-07.06.2019
FISA 2019 and EURADWASTE ‘19. 9 th European
Commission Conferences on Euratom Research
and Training in Safety of Reactor Systems and
Radioactive Waste Management. Pitesti, Romania,
www.nucleu2020.eu
24.06.-28.06.2019
2019 International Conference on the Management
of Spent Fuel from Nuclear Power Reactors.
Vienna, Austria, International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), www.iaea.org
23.06.-27.06.2019
World Nuclear University Summer Institute.
Romania and Switzerland, World Nuclear University,
www.world-nuclear-university.org
21.07.-24.07.2019
14 th International Conference on CANDU Fuel.
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, Canadian Nuclear
Society (CNS), www.cns-snc.ca
28.07.-01.08.2019
Radiation Protection Forum. Memphis TN, USA,
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), www.nei.org
29.07.-02.08.2019
27 th International Nuclear Physics Conference
(INPC). Glasgow, Scotland, inpc2019.iopconfs.org
04.08.-09.08.2019
PATRAM 2019 – Packaging and Transportation
of Radioactive Materials Symposium.
New Orleans, LA, USA. www.patram.org
21.08.-30.08.2019
Frédéric Joliot/Otto Hahn (FJOH) Summer School
FJOH-2019 – Innovative Reactors: Matching the
Design to Future Deployment and Energy Needs.
Karlsruhe, Germany, Nuclear Energy Division
of Commissariat à l’énergie atomique et aux
énergies alternatives (CEA) and Karlsruher Institut
für Technologie (KIT), www.fjohss.eu
04.09.-06.09.2019
World Nuclear Association Symposium 2019.
London, UK, World Nuclear Association (WNA),
www.wna-symposium.org
04.09.-05.09.2019
VGB Congress 2019 – Innovation in Power
Generation. Salzburg, Austria, VGB PowerTech e.V.,
www.vgb.org
08.09.-11.09.2019
4 th Nuclear Waste Management,
Decommissioning and Environmental Restoration
(NWMDER). Ottawa, Canada, Canadian Nuclear
Society (CNS), www.cns-snc.ca
09.09.-12.09.2019
24 th World Energy Congress. Abu Dhabi, UAE,
www.wec24.org
09.09.-12.09.2019
Jahrestagung 2019 – Fachverband für
Strahlenschutz | Strahlenschutz und Medizin.
Würzburg, Germany,
www.fs-ev.org/jahrestagung-2019
16.09.-20.09.2019
63 rd Annual Conference of the IAEA. Vienna,
Austria, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
www.iaea.org/about/governance/generalconference
07.10. – 11.10.2019
International Conference on Climate Change and
the Role of Nuclear Power. Vienna, Austria,
IAEA, www.iaea.org
07.10. – 18.10.2019
ICTP-IAEA Nuclear Energy Management School.
Trieste, Italy, IAEA, www.iaea.org
15.10. – 18.10.2019
Technical Meeting on Siting for Nuclear Power
Plants. Vienna, Austria, IAEA, www.iaea.org
22.10.-25.10.2019
SWINTH-2019 Specialists Workshop on Advanced
Instrumentation and Measurement Techniques
for Experiments Related to Nuclear Reactor
Thermal Hydraulics and Severe Accidents.
Livorno, Italy, www.nineeng.org/swinth2019/
23.10.- 24.10.2019
Chemistry in Power Plants. Würzburg, Germany,
VGB PowerTech e.V., www.vgb.org/en/
chemie_im_kraftwerk_2019.html
27.10.-30.10.2019
FSEP CNS International Meeting on Fire Safety
and Emergency Preparedness for the Nuclear
Industry. Ottawa, Canada, Canadian Nuclear Society
(CNS), www.cns-snc.ca
12.11.-14.11.2019
International Conference on Nuclear
Decommissioning – ICOND 2019. Eurogress
Aachen, Aachen Institute for Nuclear Training GmbH,
www.icond.de
25.11.-29-11.2019
International Conference on Research Reactors:
Addressing Challenges and Opportunities to
Ensure Effectiveness and Sustainability.
Buenos Aires, Argentina, International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), www.iaea.org/events/
conference-on-research-reactors-2019
This is not a full list and may be subject to change.
Calendar

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
Feature | Major Trends in Energy Policy and Nuclear Power
Nuclear Power Plant Flexibility at EDF
Patrick Morilhat, Stéphane Feutry, Christelle Lemaitre and Jean Melaine Favennec
Based upon existing experience feedback of French nuclear power plants operated by EDF (Electricité de France),
this paper shows that flexible operation of nuclear reactors is possible and has been applied in France by EDF’s 58
reactors for more than 30 years without any noticeable or unmanageable impacts: no effects on safety or on the
environment, and no noticeable additional maintenance costs, with an additional unplanned capability load factor
­estimated at only 0.5 %. EDF’s nuclear reactors have the capability to vary their output between 20 % and 100 % within
30 ­minutes, twice a day, when operating in load-following mode. Flexible operation requires sound plant design (safety
margins, auxiliary equipment) and appropriate operator skills, and early modifications were made to the initial
­Westinghouse design to enable flexible operation (e.g., use of “grey” control rods to vary reactor core thermal power
more rapidly than with conventional “black” control rods). The nominal capacities of the present power stations are
sufficient, safe and adequate to balance generation against demand and allow renewables to be inserted intermittently,
without any additional CO 2 emissions. It is a clear demonstration of full complementarity between nuclear and
renewable energies.
1 Introduction: Nuclear and Renewable
energies are the two pillars of France’s
low carbon electricity
The fight against climate change has entered a crucial
phase with the objective set by COP 21 to keep global
warming “well below” +2 °C at the horizon 2100. Today,
energy accounts for most CO 2 emissions worldwide and the
electricity sector in particular is a prime candidate for deep
decarbonization. A recent MIT study [1] says that unless
nuclear energy is incorporated into the global mix of
low-carbon energy technologies, the challenge of climate
change will be much more difficult and costly to meet.
Although nuclear energy raises the problem of nuclear
waste management, solutions have been identified, and it is
the climate change challenge that is overwhelming.
In this respect, France – which already has low carbon
intensity facilities – is a step ahead of its major European
neighbours. This low carbon and competitive mix must be
preserved in the long term, drawing on the complementary
relationship between renewable energy sources and
­nuclear energy. France’s electricity generation is built on a
mix of varied generation units, based upon nuclear power
plants (NPPs), renewable energies sources (RES)
consisting of hydropower plants, wind turbines, solar
farms or biomass plants and a few remaining set of conventional
units.
With an overall net generation capacity of 129.3 GWe
(92.3 GWe in mainland France), generating 580.8 TWh
(424.7 TWh in mainland France) in 2017 [2], the EDF
group is one of the world’s leading electricity producers.
EDF’s fleet generates 87 % carbon-free electricity, due to
the predominance of nuclear and hydropower generation
facilities, in an increasingly restrictive environmental
regulatory context.
EDF is among the world’s 10 largest global power
suppliers, and produces the smallest amount of CO 2
per kilowatt-hour, with direct emissions currently at
82 gCO 2 /kWh 2 (25gCO 2 /kWh for EDF France Mainland),
which is far less than the world average for the sector
(506gCO2/kWh in 2015) and the average for the main
­European electricity providers (275gCO 2 /kWh in 2016).
EDF group’s decarbonization strategy is first and foremost
based on an ambitious industrial policy focused on a
low-carbon generation with a balanced mix of nuclear and
renewable energy.
More specifically concerning nuclear power, EDF is the
world’s biggest NPP operator. EDF operates 58 nuclear
units in mainland France, based on PWR (Pressurized
­Water Reactor) technology; A “unit” is defined here as
a generation facility including a reactor, steam generators,
a turbine, a generator, the related equipment and the
buildings that house them. These units are spread over 19
sites, with an average age of 32 years. They are divided into
three series according to the electrical power available:
a 900 MW series consisting of 34 units, a 1,300 MW series
consisting of 20 units, and a 1,500 MW series consisting of
4 units.
Built in the 1980-90s and originally based on a
Westinghouse design, with upgrades implemented by
EDF and Framatome, the French nuclear fleet grew at a
quick pace, reaching about 72 % of the total electricity
generated in France [3] in 2017 (see Figure 1), 89 % of
France's Installed capacity (130.7 GW)
France's Electricity output (530 TWh)
| | Fig. 1.
France's 2017 installed capacity and electricity output [3].
FEATURE | MAJOR TRENDS IN ENERGY POLICY AND NUCLEAR POWER 131
Feature
Nuclear Power Plant Flexibility at EDF ı Patrick Morilhat, Stéphane Feutry, Christelle Lemaitre and Jean Melaine Favennec

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
FEATURE | MAJOR TRENDS IN ENERGY POLICY AND NUCLEAR POWER 132
| | Fig. 2.
EDF's 2017 installed capacity and electricity output in mainland France [2].
electricity generated by EDF alone in mainland France [2]
(see Figure 2). Thus, EDF’s nuclear facilities are already
giving France a major lead compared to its neighbours
in terms of curbing greenhouse gas emissions, while still
ensuring lower electricity costs.
In the past 30 years, EDF has striven to further increase
the operational flexibility of its reactors, to make them
more compatible with load fluctuations and to the
intermittent renewable energy sources that are a crucial
and growing part of any energy mix. France‘s situation is
particular in that nuclear units must themselves be able
to provide this flexibility of generation, because of their
predominant share of electricity supply. EDF relies on
feedback from 30 years’ experience, showing that, except
for some minor impacts on the secondary system (water/
steam cycle), flexibility has no significant operational
impact: in particular, nuclear safety is not affected.
In the rest of the world, most of nuclear plants run on
a full-power basis, also known as base-load operation,
since they contribute to a minor share of electricity supply
(­typically 10 % to 30 %): flexibility is achieved by gas, coal
and other fossil fuel units, contributing to additional CO 2
emissions.
To ensure a continuous supply of electricity, it is
therefore necessary either to store a part of the electricity
generated by renewables and use it when wind and sun
are not available, or to introduce generation units able to
easily modulate their own electricity output.
2 What is Plant Flexibility?
Although high electricity storage capacity is the current
target for electricity utilities worldwide, electricity cannot
yet be stored on a significant industrial scale [4]. Thus an
electrical power system must be able to adjust to rapidly
varying electricity demand/generation balance. Whereas
balancing levers exist on the demand side, this document
focuses on balance on the generation side.
Base-load operation refers to a steady power output
which depends on the unit series [5]. Power changes may
occur, whether planned (reduction or shut-down for
­refueling or periodic maintenance) or unplanned (specific
maintenance to address emergent plant issues); but for a
base-load operated plant, these are triggered by events
occurring at plant level rather than grid system level.
Historically, most of the nuclear power plants in the world
have been operated as base-loaded units: operating at a
constant power level is simpler and less demanding in
terms of plant equipment and fuel, not to mention the
­economic benefit to operate as long as possible nuclear
power plants that have high investment costs with low
variable costs. (nuclear variable costs are mainly fuelrelated
costs and represent less than 30 % of operating
costs).
In contrast to base-load operation, flexible NPP
operation refers to any mode of operation in which power
output varies to meet the demand of the electrical grid
system. As electricity demand varies continuously, the gap
between output and demand results in variation in grid
frequency: frequency drops when demand increases (lack
of generation) and rises when demand decreases (excess
of generation).
Two types of flexibility are usually distinguished: large
load variation programs agreed in advance between grid
operator and plant operator, known as “load following”
(applied to nuclear plants in France but not in all
countries), and minor automatic load variations aimed
at controlling grid frequency, known as “primary and
secondary frequency control”, usually implemented on all
nuclear plants when available. These two types of ­flexibility
can be superimposed.
In Load Following mode [6], the nuclear power plant
follows a load pattern determined to match the electrical
demand expected by the grid operator (depending on
time, day, week, season or emergent grid events) and the
actual capabilities of the plant. The power output is set
manually by the plant operator. Power ranges between
maximum output (depending on the series: i.e., 900 MW,
1,300 MW or 1,500 MW) and a minimum output
corresponding to the minimum required to supply the
automatic plant controls (about 20 % of the nominal
­power of the plant: i.e., 180 MW for standard 900 MW
plants, 260 MW for 1,300 MW PWRs, and 370 MW for
1,500 MW PWRs). In France, a nuclear power plant is able
to ramp up or down between 100 % and 20 % of nominal
power in half an hour, and again after at least two hours,
twice a day.
In Frequency Control mode, the power plant has to
monitor the frequency of the grid and immediately adapt
its level of generation in order to keep the frequency stable
at the desired value (50 Hz ± 0.5 Hz in Europe). This
is achieved through an Automatic Frequency Control
(AFC) process, which acts at different amplitudes and time
scales.
Primary frequency control allows short-term adjustments
(in less than 30 seconds) and is used to stabilize grid
frequency transients. An automatic control implemented
on the turbine increases the electrical output if the
frequency falls, or decreases output if the frequency rises.
Feature
Nuclear Power Plant Flexibility at EDF ı Patrick Morilhat, Stéphane Feutry, Christelle Lemaitre and Jean Melaine Favennec

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
The magnitude of variation under primary frequency
­control is set at ±2 % of the unit’s nominal power.
Secondary frequency control operates over a longer
timeframe (up to 15 minutes), and is aimed at what
is known as the “frequency restoration reserve”, an
operational reserve activated to restore grid frequency to
the nominal frequency at national and European scale.
An automatic signal is sent remotely by the grid operator
to the plant to change its power output within a range of
±5 % of the unit’s nominal power (i.e., 50 MW for 900 MW
plants, 65 MW for 1,300 MW plants and 75 MW for 1,500
MW plants).
Taken together, primary and secondary control provide
additional flexibility up to ±7 % of the unit’s nominal
­power (i.e., 70 MW for 900 MW series, 90 MW for
1,300 MW series and 100 MW for 1,500 MW series).
An example of a flexible operation power record for
a French NPP is shown in Figure 3 below. It illustrates
typical power variations in a single reactor (unit) at a
1,300 MW PWR plant over a 24-hour period.
| | Fig. 3.
Power generated by one plant reactor (1,300 MW capacity) over a 24-hour
period in Sept’ 2015, in response to variations in electricity demand and in
supply of local intermittent renewables.
Load-following and frequency control are two levers
of flexibility at the within-day timescale. Other levers
are worth mentioning. On a timescale of a week, plant
­availability can be adjusted by shifting routine tests
by a few days. On a seasonal timescale, refueling and
maintenance operations can be scheduled during periods
of low demand, providing 100 additional TWh during the
season of highest demand.
A study by EDF showed that, until 2030, the nominal
capacities of EDF’s nuclear NPPs (2 variations per day:
change from 100 % to 20 % power in half an hour) are
­sufficient to balance the intermittency of renewables in
most situations [7]. EDF is able to keep two in three units
in flexible mode (capable of power variation between
100 % and 20 % of nominal power). In spring or summer,
when 12 to 15 reactors are shut down for maintenance
or reloading, about 45 nuclear units out of 58 remain
connected to the grid. If 30 units can vary their output
by 500 MW each, the total fleet has a flexibility capacity
of 15,000 MW, in addition to the existing capacities of
hydro-generation, fossil-fuelled power stations and
export/import surplus.
EDF has also striven to limit or optimize operating
rules which could reduce the present flexibility: a simple
example is the optimization, so as to meet flexibility
requirements, of scheduling of periodic full-power tests
such as flux mapping tests (performed to calibrate core
instrumentation).
3 Nuclear and Renewable alliance:
Getting along with flexibility
There are two main constraints for dispatchable power
plants: power variations due to consumers’ fluctuating
­demand, and the inevitable fluctuations of intermittent
renewable energy generation because of varying weather
conditions and the day/night cycle. This requires flexibility
from large power plants, such as nuclear or fossil-fuelled
units, in addition to hydro-generation which is naturally
flexible.
3.1 Electricity consumption
Electricity consumption obviously varies constantly. In
France, the annual difference between maximum and
minimum hourly consumption can exceed 60 GW:
30,199 MW on August 13 at 7 am and 94,190 MW on
January 20 at 9 am. Risk in supply-demand balance differs
between winter and summer, as seen in Figure 4 and
Figure 5, mainly due to heating in winter.
| | Fig. 4.
Demand in France in a 2017’ summer week.
| | Fig. 5.
Demand in France in a 2017’ winter week.
In terms of frequency control, the winter risk (lack of
capacity) is greatest at the peak hour of 7 pm on weekdays,
whereas the summer risk (risk of over-capacity) is mainly
around the lowest consumption levels, encountered early
morning at weekends, between midnight and 5 am.
French generating facilities are sized to meet the winter
consumption peak.
3.2 Inherently variable renewable energy:
Wind and solar
Renewable energy sources are of two types: dispatchable
or controllable sources such as hydroelectricity, biomass
and geothermal power; and non-dispatchable sources,
also known as variable renewable energies (VRE), that
are intrinsically highly fluctuating (like wind and solar
power).
Approximately 1,800 MW of renewable energy have
been added to the French generation capacity every year
since 2010, the equivalent of one new nuclear unit every
year. Wind power capacity amounted to 13,559 MW as
of December 31, 2017 [3]. Wind power generation saw
a sharp increase of 14.8 % compared to 2016. A new
maximum wind turbine production rate was recorded at
FEATURE | MAJOR TRENDS IN ENERGY POLICY AND NUCLEAR POWER 133
Feature
Nuclear Power Plant Flexibility at EDF ı Patrick Morilhat, Stéphane Feutry, Christelle Lemaitre and Jean Melaine Favennec

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
FEATURE | MAJOR TRENDS IN ENERGY POLICY AND NUCLEAR POWER 134
| | Fig. 6.
Trajectories for VRE in France. Source : RTE adequacy report' 2017.
1.30 pm on December 30, with power output of 11,075 MW.
With 887 MW new capacity in mainland France, solar
­energy capacity reached 7,660 MW in 2017. Solar power
generation increased by 9.2 % compared to 2016.
The 2015 French “Energy transition for sustainable
growth” law set a target of 40 % of renewables in power
generation by 2030 in France.
In 2017, RTE – the French Transmission System
Operator – issued a comprehensive study to identify
challenges and solutions for upcoming developments in
the electricity production/consumption balance [8]. The
document forecast an increase in wind capacity of 1.5 to
2 GW per year and an increase in solar capacity of 1.4 to
1.8 GW per year up to 2023. Beyond 2023, the pace of
development is expected to be maintained, reaching 40 to
51 GW wind capacity and 28 to 36 GW solar capacity by
2030, for a production of 96 to 122 TWh for wind energy
and of 33 to 43 TWh for solar energy (see Figure 6).
At the European level, renewables have been a feature
of the power system for many decades, in the form
of hydroelectricity. The countries with the highest
proportions of renewables today have a mix that is heavily
reliant on hydro resources: Norway (96 %), Sweden
(47 %), Switzerland (59 %) and Austria (60 %).
The power systems of these countries have low carbon
intensity (see Figure 7). Countries with higher carbon
intensity, usually with limited hydro potential, are turning
to VRE generation, in the form either of wind or solar
power or a combination thereof, in a bid to lower CO 2
emissions from power generation: for example, Germany,
Ireland, Denmark and Spain. However, reducing CO 2
emissions through massive VRE development greatly
depends on the generation mix, and may not be immediately
successful. France stands out in this regard, with
carbon intensity comparable to countries with large hydro
resources with only about 10 % hydroelectric generation,
thanks to the development of nuclear energy combined
with renewables.
For the next decades, the European Commission has
set targets for the reduction of CO 2 emissions and the
development of renewable energy to help the EU achieve a
more sustainable energy system. Targets for 2020 are
binding and call for a reduction of 20 % in carbon emissions
compared to 1990, a 20 % share of renewable energies in
the final gross energy consumption, and a 20 % gain in
­energy efficiency. Targets for further horizons call for a
reduction in CO 2 emissions of 40 % by 2030 and at least
80 % by 2050 compared to 1990, and a renewable energy
share of 27 % in the final gross energy consumption by
2030. This last target is under discussion and might be
increased to 32 %, but the focus is mostly on the heating
and transport sectors.
For the power sector, a set of European reference
scenarios, taking account of European targets and policies
agreed upon at EU and member-state level, were developed
in 2016. They include ambitious development of solar
and wind power across Europe through 2030, with
most European countries able to lower their CO 2 emissions
by 2030. Therefore, the share of VRE is increasing in every
country, changing the landscape of the power system.
France’s neighbors will be net importers by 2030 (see
Figure 8), while France, with its renewable capacity and
nuclear fleet, will continue to export a large volume of
competitive low-carbon electricity.
| | Fig. 8.
European-wide yearly net exchange balance (Source: 2015 – eia.gov and
2030 – EU Reference Scenarios 2016).
| | Fig. 7.
Left – percentage of non carbon-free production in total country generation; Middle – percentage of RES
production in country generation, Right – percentage of Variable Renewable Energy production in
country generation. Source: 2015 – EIA.gov, 2030 – EU Reference Scenarios (2030).
3.3 Merit order
The term “merit order” refers to the order in which the
electricity market uses the various sources of electricity
production. Use of the fleet’s various components is managed
by giving priority, at any given time, to the generation
type offering the lowest variable costs: non-dispatchable
production such as wind or photovoltaic solar power, and
river hydropower plants are used for base generation,
since these resources (river flow, wind, sun) are “free” and
lost if not converted into electricity; nuclear plants, because
of their low variable operation costs, are used for
base and mid-merit generation; adjustable hydropower
Feature
Nuclear Power Plant Flexibility at EDF ı Patrick Morilhat, Stéphane Feutry, Christelle Lemaitre and Jean Melaine Favennec

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
| | Fig. 9.
Impact of RES share increase on the merit order.
generation (lakes, pumped storage stations) and the
­thermal fleet (mostly gas turbines or combined cycles) are
used for mid-merit and peak generation.
But, obviously, VRE generation depends on local
weather conditions (wind, sun, clouds, etc.), which are not
necessarily present when needed. For instance, a sunny
day in the summer will show a strong variation following
sunrise, and production will be highest at 2 pm: the power
increase rate can be as much as 900 MW in 1 hour, which is
equivalent to one PWR, and therefore will be dispatched to
several NPPs.
A similar situation can occur with wind, in case of peak
wind speed. On the other hand, a cloudy day in winter
with no wind provides no renewable generation, and
“ conventional” generation (fossil fuels, nuclear power,
etc.) has to satisfy the demand. Nuclear power must adapt
to the variations in residual demand.
Therefore, as shown Figure 9, the introduction of a
greater share of renewable energies (including hydro) will
displace the merit order, shifting away high variable cost
units (coal, gas, oil) and putting market price at the level of
nuclear generation costs.
The typical model for pure base-load generation is to
produce at maximum power all year long and pay back the
costs on the energy-only market by spreading the variable
and marginal costs. Today, nuclear plants in France have to
adapt to demand variations when net demand gets very
low and deviates from the maximum power-only model.
Load-following allows nuclear plants to provide ancillary
services, for which they are paid: they provide an
additional service needed for the stability of the power
system. Load-following also allows the producer to
optimize the scheduling of refueling operations, thereby
giving additional value to the fuel loaded in the core. The
periods where net demand is low have a marginal cost for
the system that is low. Saving the fuel in the core when the
spread is small, usually over the spring or summer, allows
the power producer to use it when it is most needed and
consequently when prices are highest, usually in winter.
This ensures that the largest number of plants are available
over the period of highest demand and that no plants are
offline for refueling during these periods.
A future with a large volume of renewable wind and
solar energy entails a power system with a large proportion
of non-synchronous generation. Therefore, complementary
services not provided by non-synchronous generation
will emerge, and the storage value of fuel will increase.
Producers will find new compensations for their base
plants. For example, the recent capacity market provides
complementary payments to suppliers. In future, massive
growth of renewable energy will lead to new services to
ensure the safety of the power system, and these services
will have payments associated.
One example of new services could be payback for
inertia service. The rotational speed of alternators is
important to control and stabilize grid frequency.
Conventional technologies such as nuclear or hydropower
plant alternators comprise heavy rotating masses with
high inertia, a physical phenomenon which impedes rapid
slowdown or acceleration of rotation. Consequently, they
have a very significant stabilizing effect on grid frequency.
In contrast, wind turbines, not to mention solar panels,
have lower inertia effects. Therefore, a major change in
production technology could decrease grid frequency
stability, which in turn could lead to a need to reward
inertia capability.
Nuclear plants can play a front role in these new
services. At the same time, their fuel will be able to provide
flexibility to the system, and optimizing fuel use throughout
the campaign will allow producers to maximize return.
In tomorrow’s power system, producers will be paid for
their production from a variety of sources and not only
from the energy market. Nuclear plants with their intrinsic
characteristics will be a great asset for the power system
and its safety.
4 Safe and cost-effective plant flexibility
at EDF’s nuclear plants
4.1 Basics of flexible operation
As can be seen in Figure 10, heat generated in the primary
water by uranium fission and neutron absorption reactions
in the vessel is transferred to a secondary system through
| | Fig. 10.
Typical 1,300 MWe unit able to perform power flexibility (power control in the reactor core, water/steam
cycle energy conversion, and electrical power output from the generator).
FEATURE | MAJOR TRENDS IN ENERGY POLICY AND NUCLEAR POWER 135
Feature
Nuclear Power Plant Flexibility at EDF ı Patrick Morilhat, Stéphane Feutry, Christelle Lemaitre and Jean Melaine Favennec

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
FEATURE | MAJOR TRENDS IN ENERGY POLICY AND NUCLEAR POWER 136
| | Fig. 11.
Control rod.
insertion in the
reactor core
a steam generator where water is transformed into
steam, which feeds turbines in turn driving an electrical
generator. The electricity is then transferred through
transformers and lines to the electricity grid.
The nuclear plant’s electrical output is controlled by
changing the mass flow rate that enters the turbine. To do
so, plant operators can vary the steam production from the
steam generator, and thus the nuclear reaction in the vessel.
An alternative solution is to maintain constant reactor
core thermal power and divert steam away from the turbine
through bypass or relief valves to the condenser or the
atmosphere. However, this solution has some limitations:
potential thermal pollution of the environment, condenser
integrity concerns, impaired plant ­efficiency, etc.
4.2 Control of reactor core thermal power
Changing reactor-core thermal power, by modulating
­fission reactions, is effective but has significant impact on
core neutronics (flux distribution, burn-up rate, fission
by-products), materials (thermal limit) and safety
( response to transients). Two main means of reactivity
control are used: control rods and boric acid concentration,
both being neutron absorbers.
Control rods allow real-time control of the uranium
­fission process. Composed of materials that absorb
neutrons, the rods provide a reactivity margin able to
ensure reactor safety, and are used for rapid reactor power
changes (e.g., shutdown and start-up).
Compared to the original pressurized water reactors
design (Westinghouse’s), the main change in EDF’s PWR
fleet was to adjust the types of control rods and their
positions in the reactor core [9] (Figure 11).
It is noteworthy that French nuclear power plants (PWR
900 and 1,300) have the greatest worldwide experience
in using “grey” control rods specially adapted for plant
­flexibility [10].
Whereas most nuclear reactors are still fitted with
standard “black” control rods, with high neutron­ absorbing
effect, most of EDF’s reactors have “grey” control rods,
designed to have lower neutron-absorption, allowing
­adjustment to local power patterns. “Grey” control rods
lessen the deformation of neutron flux distribution that
occurs when standard “black” control rods are inserted in
or withdrawn from the core. This feature makes them
particularly suited to governing core thermal power
changes: when power load has to be reduced, several
groups of grey rods are gradually inserted.
Another mean of controlling core reactivity is boric acid
reactivity control. Boric acid is a soluble neutron absorber
added to the reactor coolant to provide negative reactivity
throughout the fuel cycle, thereby assisting regulation of
the core’s long-term reactivity. Boric acid control, unlike
control rods, ensures an even power and flux distribution
over the entire core.
When full power load is stabilized, xenon, a neutronabsorbing
fission product, is distributed homogeneously in
the reactor core. Xenon is produced by fission reactions
(proportional to local power) and builds up and then later
decreases, at a certain delay, if the power decreases. Once
the power is lowered, the amount of xenon changes, its distribution
varying locally: this is managed by injecting boric
acid in the primary circuit, to compensate for an overall
decrease in xenon concentration, or by dilution to reduce
the concentration when xenon levels increase.
Boron dilution explains the reduced amplitude of
possible power variations in the last third of the cycle. With
the boron concentration in the circuit decreasing along the
cycle, it takes more and more water to remove the same
quantity of boron. As the flow of dilution is limited, the
amplitude of power decreases has to be reduced to manage
power changes at the normal pace.
4.3 Characterization of Load following
transients recorded from 2002 to 2016
In the following sections, analysis of the impact of flexible
operation is based on load-following operations recorded
by EDF. We focus on the period 2002-2016, representing
15 years of experience feedback in flexible operation, for
which a comprehensive study was conducted by EDF in
order to obtain the most representative assessment of
the potential impact of large load transients. Two main
parameters were recorded: overall load transient duration,
and depth of load drop.
Statistical analysis showed that PWR 900 MW and
1,500 MW units presented fewer load transients
( respectively, about 40 transients/unit/year and 30
­transients/unit/year) than 1300 MW units (average of
about 70 transients/unit/year).
Furthermore, the analysis indicated that the great
­majority of load transients occurred when the fuel cycle
(period between two refueling outages) had less than 60 %
coverage. Only 13 % of load transients occurred in cycles
with more than 80 % coverage.
5 Impacts of power flexibility
on plant systems and components
Feedback from 40 years’ experience in reliable flexible
operation allows EDF to draw some conclusions about the
impact of load-following and frequency control on plant
operation and maintenance [11]. The following sections
­address the main fields (Figure 12) that have been
assessed.
| | Fig. 12.
Relevant fields for assessing the safety of flexibility in existing PWR units.
5.1 Safety first: additional safety studies
to demonstrate the safety of flexibility
conditions for nuclear core integrity
EDF’s studies showed that operating in a flexible mode had
no impact on reactor safety, since all variations in power
were within areas of operation for which modeling and
experimental studies demonstrated the absolute safety of
the nuclear core.
This also means that, if any incident occurred during an
operation at intermediate load (lower than full nominal
power), the reactor could be operated according to existing
procedures, and also if the event occurred at full load.
Feedback from EDF’s experience shows that safety-risk
events (IAEA INES level 0 or 1) due to load-following
were rare. No additional LCOs (Limited Conditions of
Feature
Nuclear Power Plant Flexibility at EDF ı Patrick Morilhat, Stéphane Feutry, Christelle Lemaitre and Jean Melaine Favennec

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
­Operation) or SCRAMs (automatic shutdown) were
­reported due to flexible operation.
For a reactor operating a few days per year at any level
of intermediate power, safety studies have to be extended
to the full operating power range. The operator must
demonstrate that accidental situations would be handled
safely regardless of the initial state of the reactor at the
time of the event.
Load reduction occurs firstly with partial insertion of
rods in the core. The power flux pattern, roughly homogeneous
at full load, is then locally modified: less power
where rods are inserted, and proportionally more power in
areas not reached by the rods. It follows that, if half of the
rated power was provided by only a quarter of the height of
the core, the concentration of power, and thus the
fuel-cladding temperature (or other local parameters)
would be locally very high, with a risk of exceeding acceptable
limits.
To avoid such a situation, load variation is maintained
within an area of operation which ensures that the specified
limits are respected at all times.
5.2 Absence of impact on nuclear fuel integrity
A specific safety concern is the phenomenon known as
“pellet-clad interaction”. By design, there is a gap in a fuel
rod between the cladding and the pellets. Inside the
cladding of the fuel rods, there are uranium pellets (Figure
13), but also gas: gas deliberately introduced during fuel
rod fabrication, but also fission gas generated by the
nuclear reactions. When the reactor is operating, fuel
pellets expand, and exert contact stress on the cladding.
At a given power level, a balance is reached between
the external pressure of the cladding (155 bars: i.e., the
pressure of the water in the vessel and primary system)
and the internal contact stress to the cladding, and the fuel
is then said to be “conditioned”. When thus “conditioned”,
the fuel can be used for limited periods at power levels
lower than the conditioned power level. But, if the power
level is kept below the conditioned power level for an
extended period of time, clad creeping reduces rod
diameter. In that case, if reactor power increases, excessive
contact stress between fuel and cladding (i.e., pellet-clad
interaction) may occur, and may eventually lead to a crack
in the cladding. Subsequently restrictions on power ramp
rates and operating times at reduced power must be
applied.
Moreover, where control rods are inserted, local power
decreases and fuel irradiation is lower. Once rods are
extracted at full load, these areas provide increased local
power. This increase must remain within certain limits,
otherwise hot spots would appear. These limitations are
taken into account by using specific credits that are defined
for a fuel cycle (period between two unit outages) and
followed on a daily basis.
Therefore, EDF has implemented permanent monitoring
of the state of fuel conditioning, to ensure sufficient
margins in clad stress during power transients. The Operational
Technical Specifications thus provide for monitoring
of a coefficient, “credit K”, corresponding to the available
stress margin and determining the number of days authorized
at reduced power operation. Specific studies and feedback
from years of experience have shown that current
flexibility situations do not increase this particular risk in
any way as long as credit K remains positive.
The credit is consumed over time if the unit operates
with extended reduced power: this is the case for all power
decreases exceeding 8 hours over any 24 h period. The
| | Fig. 13.
Relevant fields for assessing the safety of flexibility in existing PWR units.
credit is reconstituted when the plant operates at base
load, over which the primary and secondary frequency
controls can be superimposed.
As long as credit K remains positive, contact stress
between cladding and pellets is limited. These credits are
sufficient to enable changes in power and the introduction
of a significant share of renewable energy. The integrity of
the first containment barrier is thus not jeopardized by
­operation in the current flexibility mode.
5.3 Nuclear flexibility has no impact on primary
system components integrity
Like the second containment barrier, the primary circuit
(vessel, pressurizer, pumps, steam generators and
associated pipes) has been designed with mechanical
restrictions and a limited number of allowable stress cycles,
based on the power changes expected over plant lifetime.
The number of transients allowed for a given amplitude
is determined by studies, and periodic inspections are
scheduled. As long as the circuit has not reached this limit,
impact on materials and welds is non-significant.
Reactor thermal power changes during flexible operation
result in more frequent variations in reactor coolant
system temperature and volume, and in particular in the
surge line and pressurizer, where hot water expands and
pressure is controlled. While pressure remains stable at
155 bar, temperature varies by more than 30 °C on the
side of the hot legs (between the vessel and the steam
generator).
Regular cycle counting (counting the number of cycles
at an expected stress level, to determine fatigue usage
­factor) is implemented in EDF’s nuclear plants. Each
change in temperature exceeding a certain threshold is
logged as a situation of transient loading. Throughout
plant lifetime, continuous monitoring counts and keeps
track of the number of transients, to ensure that the
­remaining margin is sufficient, by comparing accumulated
cycles versus allowable limit. For some specific locations,
online fatigue monitoring have been implemented and
tested (determining actual fatigue based on measured
conditions).
Feedback shows that, in practice, actual power
variations since unit commissioning remain well below
allowed cycle-counting limits and are fully compatible
with vessel aging.
Operating in flexible mode increases wear in control
rod drive mechanisms (CDRMs), depending on power
­variation frequency and amplitude. CRDMs currently used
in EDF’s French nuclear reactors were redesigned
mechanically to allow for an increased number of rod
FEATURE | MAJOR TRENDS IN ENERGY POLICY AND NUCLEAR POWER 137
Feature
Nuclear Power Plant Flexibility at EDF ı Patrick Morilhat, Stéphane Feutry, Christelle Lemaitre and Jean Melaine Favennec

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
FEATURE | MAJOR TRENDS IN ENERGY POLICY AND NUCLEAR POWER 138
movement cycles under flexible operation. Cycle counting
ensures they are replaced before fatigue failure occurs.
­After a predefined number of maneuvers, CDRMs have to
be changed, with associated direct and indirect costs
( components, outage, dosimetry).
No noticeable effect of flexible operation has been
detected on I&C (Instrumentation and Control).
5.4 Plant flexibility has no noticeable impact
on the Environment
In order to assess the impact of flexible plant operation
on the environment, the following issues have been
examined: additional waste quantities (solid, liquid,
­gaseous), effluent temperature and discharge volume, and
respect of environmental regulatory limits.
1. Chemistry considerations
One drawback of flexible operation is the increased
demand on plant chemistry systems. Reactivity control
by boric acid requires the operator to borate and dilute
the reactor coolant system frequently. Primary coolant
dilution uses large volumes of water, which must be
stored and processed before use (to maintain reactor
grade purity) and after use (due to presence of dissolved
radionuclides) in the primary system. If water is added
to the circuit, an equivalent amount must be removed:
plant operation thus produces primary effluents,
without, however, any additional emission into the
­environment. These effluents are removed, stored in
closed circuits and tanks and treated (gas stripper,
evaporator to separate boron from water). Water is
first degassed, then distilled to separate boron from
pure water. The boron is returned to water tanks for
re-injection of into the primary system. The hydrogen
concentration in the primary circuit also needs continuous
monitoring by the control room operator. Boric
acid reactivity control affects reactor coolant chemistry
pH. Lithium, in the form of lithium hydroxide (LiOH), is
commonly added, to raise primary coolant pH and
inhibit corrosion.
Providing this monitoring and good coordination
between chemistry and operation is adhered to, no
­negative impact on chemistry has been noticed in EDF’s
nuclear plants since the beginning of flexible operation
It is noteworthy that, since tritium and carbon 14
­releases are directly correlated to neutron flux, and
hence to the energy produced, the total quantity of
tritium produced and released in a plant operating
under load-following (i.e., not at full load) tends to be
less than with a base load unit.
2. Liquid waste and chemical reagent
consumption
Feedback from EDF’s experience with its fleet identifies
two main factors regarding liquid waste volume
and chemical reagent consumption: power variation
amplitude and the timing of the variation within the
fuel cycle. Power variations at the end of the fuel cycle
(later than 66 %) and at low power (below 45 % of
nominal power) have the greatest impact. Therefore,
planning large power variations at low burn-up and
smaller variations at high burn-up is a straightforward
way to reduce the volume of liquid effluent due to plant
flexibility. Additional volume averaged +20 % of the
annual volume released by the Nuclear Island Liquid
Radwaste Monitoring and Discharge System. Impact in
terms of additional radioactivity was undetectable. No
impact of plant flexibility on liquid effluent from the
secondary circuit, and hence on consumption of
chemical reagents used for secondary-side chemistry
control, was identified.
3. Solid waste
With increasing use of boric acid for reactivity control,
nuclear units operating in flexible mode require greater
volumes of primary water for boron dilution, generating
greater volumes of liquid effluent, plus variations in
primary circuit pH and corrosion product solubility,
and requiring more demanding use of water purification
systems circuits, filters and demineralizers.
The impact, but still slight, of flexibility is on the boron
recycling system, used for the treatment of primary
­liquid effluent. This impact was estimated on two types
of solid waste: spent ion exchange resins (+5.6 % of the
average annual volume) and wastewater filters (+3.4 %
of annual consumption). However, the increase had no
impact on waste management (storage, emission limits,
transportation or workforce).
4. Thermal Discharge
The maximum thermal discharge of a plant may be
limited by a number of factors, including maximum
plant outlet temperature, maximum temperature
change from plant inlet to plant outlet, and maximum
plant volumetric flow rates as specified in environmental
permits.
Flexible units have less impact on the open environment
because they release less heat into the cooling
source ( river or sea water, in either open or closed
circuit: see Figure 14). Local conditions vary greatly
from one plant to another (depending on river flow,
temperature, and season). When the plant is operating
| | Fig. 14.
Cooling of a nuclear unit, by river or sea water in an open circuit (left), or with a cooling tower in a closed circuit (right).
Feature
Nuclear Power Plant Flexibility at EDF ı Patrick Morilhat, Stéphane Feutry, Christelle Lemaitre and Jean Melaine Favennec

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
under flexible con­ditions, the unit will obviously ­release
less heat into the cooling source.
The various chemicals used for water cleaning and
treatment (e.g., in the condenser, which is the largest
heat exchanger with the cooling source) are used in
quantities limited by regulations.
5. Environmental Limits
Based on feedback from EDF’s flexible operations over
the period 2012-2015, an internal study showed that
flexible operation had very limited environmental
impact, well within regulatory limits. No noticeable
­effect was identified for additional radioactivity or
­operation limitations, even for the most flexible plants
(PWR 1,300 MW series).
5.5 Flexibility has limited impact
on the secondary systems
The secondary system (water and steam thermal cycle)
consists mainly of heat exchangers connected by pipes,
valves and pumps. During variations in load, these circuits
encounter variations in pressure, temperature and steam
characteristics. Valves open or close, depending on power
level. Repetition of these transients can accelerate erosion,
possibly including circuit corrosion that can sometimes
lead to short unplanned outages. Statistically, comparison
of groups operating in load-following mode versus groups
permanently at full load shows only very slight differences
in performance, and certainly no impact on operational
safety. The most noticeable impacts on secondary circuits
are leakage at welded joints, erosion of pipes and ageing of
heat exchangers.
5.6 Flexibility does not significantly
increase maintenance costs
Feedback from experience with EDF’s PWR fleet showed
no significant additional costs. From 2000 to 2014, 10 units
were deliberately maintained at full stable load (no flexibility
periods): in terms of operating performance, the
difference between these base-load operated plants and
other units operating in load­ following mode were within
normal scatter: i.e., difficult to evaluate.
Further investigations showed that, since 2010, the
load factor unavailability capability in EDF NPPs has
­remained around 2-2.5 %, 0.5 % of which is attributed to
flexible operation (as observed for the PWR 900 series).
Statistical studies showed a minimal increase in
maintenance costs in EDF units resulting from increased
flexibility.
5.7 Plant operators’ skills are called upon
to manage more frequent power ramps
The ability to operate in load-following mode is part of the
control room operator’s training and skill.
While control rod positions are determined by power
output, water and boron management is ensured manually
by the control room operator. The operator’s skill is
regularly called upon for control of the core. A good understanding
of physical phenomena such as changes in xenon,
water and boron levels and rod effects is required. As
xenon effects are not immediate, the control room operator
must be attentive to reactor control several hours after
load­following.
To help control room operators, full-scope simulators
are used for training, and technical specifications and
procedures provide general instructions.
Detailed conditions depend strongly on recent core
history. After 3 days at full load, power and xenon are
balanced in the core; a power decrease ramp will have
simple, foreseeable effects. But, if the reactor shows 3 or 4
variations in the period, with different amplitudes and
­durations, power profile and xenon distribution will be
different.
The next power decrease liable to change these balances
should be managed with care; a control strategy must
­always be defined and adjusted by the control room
operators, under the control of the shift manager of the
unit. Training courses include this issue, but controlassistance
tools have also been developed over the last
15 years. These applications calculate change power flux
balance, and allow the operator to better anticipate
phenomena and optimize control strategy so as to remain
within the center of the authorized area and better predict
transient following. Based on recent core history records,
these dedicated simulators help control room operators to
forecast xenon levels and prepare dilution/borication
strategies.
6 Conclusion and perspectives: Nuclear
flexibility is the safe CO 2 -free solution to
extend the share of renewables in France
While renewable energies have a key role to play in the
European strategy for the decarbonization of electricity
production, dispatchable generation remains necessary in
order to ensure system stability and security of supply.
Long term study aimed at understanding the technical and
economical feasibility of massive deployment of wind and
solar across the European system shows that a con tribution
of nuclear is necessary in order to obtain the required CO 2
reductions [12].
Flexible operation of nuclear reactors is possible, and
has in fact been implemented in France in EDF’s fleet of 58
reactors for more than 30 years without any noticeable or
unmanageable impact on safety or the environment, nor
any significant additional maintenance costs.
Flexible operation requires sound plant design (safety
margins, auxiliary equipment) and appropriate operator
skills. But three decades of best practices and feedback
from a huge experience show that the nominal capacities
of the installed fleet (two significant power decreases
per day, transitions from 100 % to 20 % of power in half
an hour) are safe and able to balance demand with
generation, even with renewables on the grid.
New power plant designs with a larger capacity, such
as EPRs, include flexibility features. Studies for future
small modular reactors (SMRs, units ranging from 50 to
300 MW) include flexibility features in their specifications.
To remain the leader in very low carbon electricity
generation, the EDF group is intensifying the development
of renewable energies while ensuring the safety, performance
and competitiveness of the existing nuclear
facilities and new nuclear investments. EDF announced a
plan to increase its portfolio of renewable energy
generation by 2030. Investments in renewable energy,
with the launch of the Solar Power Plan, represent a
­significant step towards meeting the Group’s goals. By
2035 in France, 30 GW of solar capacity will have been
installed with partners. This amounts to quadrupling the
country’s current solar capacity. In addition to its solar
roadmap, EDF has recently introduced an electricity
storage plan. EDF will invest to ramp up storage capacity
to 10 GW. It is likely that the increase in renewables and
storage facilities will keep on challenging the flexibility
capabilities of nuclear power plants. R&D studies are
on-going on to determine future prospects up to 2050.
FEATURE | MAJOR TRENDS IN ENERGY POLICY AND NUCLEAR POWER 139
Feature
Nuclear Power Plant Flexibility at EDF ı Patrick Morilhat, Stéphane Feutry, Christelle Lemaitre and Jean Melaine Favennec

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
FEATURE | MAJOR TRENDS IN ENERGY POLICY AND NUCLEAR POWER 140
| | Editorial Advisory Board
Frank Apel
Erik Baumann
Dr. Erwin Fischer
Carsten George
Eckehard Göring
Florian Gremme
Dr. Ralf Güldner
Carsten Haferkamp
Christian Jurianz
Dr. Guido Knott
Prof. Dr. Marco K. Koch
Ulf Kutscher
Herbert Lenz
Jan-Christan Lewitz
Andreas Loeb
Dr. Thomas Mull
Dr. Ingo Neuhaus
Dr. Joachim Ohnemus
Prof. Dr. Winfried Petry
Dr. Tatiana Salnikova
Dr. Andreas Schaffrath
Dr. Jens Schröder
Norbert Schröder
Prof. Dr. Jörg Starflinger
Prof. Dr. Bruno Thomauske
Dr. Brigitte Trolldenier
Dr. Walter Tromm
Dr. Hans-Georg Willschütz
Dr. Hannes Wimmer
Ernst Michael Züfle
Electricity is a key factor for the direct reduction of CO 2
emissions, as well as a substitute for fossil fuels in the
transport, construction and industrial sectors. In the
forward­ looking scenarios limiting global warming to
+2°C, low-carbon electricity should thus become the
­leading source of energy by 2040-2050: the use of
electricity should therefore be stepped up, in order to bring
down emissions to a quarter of current levels by 2050, and
to aim at carbon neutrality.
In this perspective, a strong alliance between nuclear
and renewables is a safe, cost-effective and clean solution
to achieve a low-carbon generation mix to combat climate
change and meet the goal of going beyond the 2°C target
set by COP21.
References
1. The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World, an interdisciplinary MIT study, MIT
Energy Initiative, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2018); http://energy.mit.edu/
wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Future-of-Nuclear-Energy-in-a-Carbon-Constrained-World.pdf
2. EDF’s reference document for the 2017 financial year (2018); https://www.edf.fr/sites/default/
files/contrib/groupe-edf/espaces-dedies/espace-finance-en/financial-information/
regulated-information/reference-document/edf-ddr-2017-accessible-version-en.pdf
3. RTE, 2017 Annual Electricity Report (2018); http://www.rte-france.com/sites/default/files/
rte_elec_report_2017.pdf
4. Comité de prospective de la Commission de Régulation de l’Electricité, “La flexibilité et le stockage
sur les réseaux d’énergie d’ici les années 2030“ (2018); http://www.eclairerlavenir.fr/wp-content/
uploads/2018/07/Rapport_GT2.pdf
5. “Non-baseload operation in nuclear power plants: load following and frequency control modes of
flexible operation”, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series NP-T-3.23 (2018); https://www-pub.iaea.org/
MTCD/Publications/PDF/P1756_web.pdf
6. S. FEUTRY, “Load following EDF experience feedback”, presented at the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) Technical Meeting on Flexible (Non-Baseload) Operation Approaches for
Nuclear Power Plants, Paris, France, September 4-6, 2013.
Imprint
| | Editorial Office
Christopher Weßelmann (Editor in Chief)
Im Tal 121, 45529 Hattingen, Germany
Phone: +49 2324 4397723
Fax: +49 2324 4397724
E-mail: editorial@nucmag.com
Martin Schneibel (Editor)
INFORUM, Berlin, Germany
Phone: +49 30 498555-43
Fax: +49 30 498555-18
E-Mail: martin.schneibel@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
| | Advertising and Subscription
Petra Dinter-Tumtzak
Phone: +49 30 498555-30
Fax: +49 30 498555-18
E-mail: petra.dinter@nucmag.com
| | Layout
zi.zero Kommunikation
Antje Zimmermann
Berlin, Germany
| | Printing
inpuncto:asmuth
druck + medien gmbh
Baunscheidtstraße 11, 53113 Bonn, Germany
7. S. FEUTRY, “Production renouvelable et nucléaire : deux énergies complémentaires”, Revue
Générale Nucléaire, N°1 January-February, 23, (2017); https://doi.org/10.1051/rgn/20171023
8. RTE Generation Adequacy Report, “Bilan prévisionnel de l’équilibre offre-demande
d’électricité en France “ (2018); https://www.rte-france.com/sites/default/files/
synthese-bilan-_previsionnel-2018.pdf
9. S. FEUTRY, “Flexible nuclear and renewables alliance for low carbon electricity generation”,
presented at the OECD meeting, July 18th, 2018
10. H. HUPOND, “Load following and Frequency Control Transients vs. Loading and Design- EDF
experience and practice” presented at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Technical
Meeting on Flexible (Non-Baseload) Operation Approaches for Nuclear Power Plants, Paris,
France, September 4-6, 2013.
11. “Program on Technology Innovation: Approach to Transition Nuclear Power Plants to Flexible
Power Operations“, Final Report N°3002002612, Electric Power Research Institute (2014).
12. A. BURTIN, V. SILVA, “Technical and economic analysis of the European electricity system
with 60 % RES”, report INIS FR 15-0634 (2015). http://www.energypost.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2015/06/EDF-study-for-download-on-EP.pdf
Authors
Patrick Morilhat
EDF Research & Development
6 Quai Watier
78401, Chatou, France
Stéphane Feutry
EDF Generation Division
Christelle Lemaitre
Jean Melaine Favennec
EDF R&D
| | Price List for Advertisement
Valid as of 1 January 2019
Published monthly, 9 issues per year
Germany:
Per issue/copy (incl. VAT, excl. postage) 24.- €
Annual subscription (incl. VAT and postage) 187.- €
All EU member states without VAT number:
Per issue/copy (incl. VAT, excl. postage) 24.- €
Annual subscription (incl. VAT, excl. postage) 187.- €
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) 174.77 €
| | 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,
micro filming 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.
ISSN 1431-5254
Feature
Nuclear Power Plant Flexibility at EDF ı Patrick Morilhat, Stéphane Feutry, Christelle Lemaitre and Jean Melaine Favennec

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
Serial | Major Trends in Energy Policy and Nuclear Power
Wind Energy in Germany and Europe
Status, potentials and challenges for baseload application:
European Situation in 2017
Thomas Linnemann and Guido S. Vallana
Introduction Wind power is a cornerstone of rebuilding the electricity supply system completely into a renewable
system, in Germany referred to as “Energiewende” (i. e. energy transition). Wind power is scalable, but as intermittent
renewable energy can only supply electrical power at any time reliably (security of supply) in conjunction with
­dispatchable backup systems. This fact has been shown in the first part of the VGB Wind Study, dealing with operating
experience of wind turbines in Germany from 2010 to 2016 [1],[2]. This study states among other things that despite
vigorous expansion of on- and offshore wind power to about 50,000 MW (92 % onshore, 8 % offshore) at year-end 2016
and contrary to the intuitive assumption that widespread distribution of about 28,000 wind turbines, hereinafter
­referred to as German wind fleet, should lead to balanced aggregate power output, no increase in annual minimum
power output has been detected since 2010, each of which accounted for less than 1 % of the relevant nominal capacity.
A question of grid losses
These observations illustrate that an increased interconnection
in Europe would necessitate the transmission
of electricity over very long distances. This raises the
question of the extent of grid losses, as it has so far been
the rule of thumb in the electricity industry to build power
plants as close as possible to the consumer to keep grid
losses low. These comprise load-dependent and loadindependent
losses, losses due to power transformation
and losses from reactive power compensation. However,
the majority of the losses are heat losses caused by the
ohmic resistance of the power lines.
With the transmission of electricity via high-voltage
alternating current (HVAC) overhead lines, specific ­total
losses of around 1 % per 100 km transport distance arise
[26], which remain roughly constant across a broad range
of transmission capacities.
Current technical limits in terms of HVAC trans mission
are extra high voltage of around 765 kV, transmission capacities
of up to 3,000 MW and transport distances up to
around 1,000 km, the latter being ­limited by transmission
angle and reactive power requirement [27].
With established high-voltage direct current (HVDC)
transmission via overhead lines with ±500 kV, specific
grid losses of around 0.5 % per 100 km have to be ­factored
in [26]. Converter stations are required here at both end
points of the transmission route to transform alternating
current into direct current and vice versa, and each of
these causes additional losses of around 1 % of the transmission
capacity [26],[27].
At present, HVDC transmission routes via overhead
lines are designed for extra high voltages of ±800 kV,
transmission capacities of around 6,400 MW and ­transport
distances of up to about 2,000 km. With extra high ­voltages
of this kind, the specific conduction losses fall to just under
0.4 % per 100 km transport distance. Technical limits in
terms of HVDC transmission are extra high voltages of
±1,100 kV, transmission capa­cities up to 12,000 MW and
distances up to 3,300 km [28].
For HVAC transmission via 380kV overhead lines over
an average transport distance of 1,500 km between centers
of national wind fleets in 18 European countries, grid
­losses of at least 15 % of the transmission ­capacity would
have to be expected, if considered seriously at all. In the
case of HVDC transmission with ±500 kV the level would
be just under 10 % [26], [27].
For long-distance transport of electricity over the
longest single distances considered here between wind
fleet centers of peripheral countries like Finland or ­Norway
(Scandinavia), Portugal or Spain (Iberian Peninsula) and
Greece (Aegean) and Romania (Balkan Peninsula) of
around 3,000 km or more, HVAC transmission would
­probably not be considered, as high grid losses of 40 % or
more of the transmission capacity would have to be
factored in [26]. In case of HVDC transmission, too, grid
losses amounting to one fifth of the transmission capacity
would have to be expected with transport distances of this
order [26].
In all cases cited above, further grid losses would have
to be added for collecting and stepping up the power
output of the wind turbines in the producing country to a
suitable voltage level and the further distribution of the
transmission capacity remaining after the long-distance
transport to the end consumer in the country of destination
via extra high, high, medium and low voltage networks.
These grid losses can be quantified with data from the
Council of European Energy Regulators (CEER) and the
US Energy Information Authority (EIA) for the years 2010
to 2015 (Table 2) [29],[30].
In total, and averaged over several years and all
18 countries, grid losses of around 6.6 % of the annual
electric energy fed into the grid have to be factored in for
an average European country for the transport and
distribution of electricity from the power plant to the end
consumer. These losses are split across the voltage levels
extra high, high, medium and low [7].
In Germany, voltage in the extra high voltage network is
380 or 220 kV. At present, the extra high voltage network
is responsible for large-scale, nationwide connections
and supplies to regional electricity suppliers and large
­industrial companies. It is almost 37,000 km long and is
linked via interconnectors with the European grid.
The high voltage network is operated at a voltage
of 110 kV and about 97,000 km long. This regional
distribution network particularly transfers electricity to
industrial companies, local electricity suppliers or transformer
substations. Voltage is stepped down to medium
voltage level here, mostly 20 kV, for supplying to industrial
companies and businesses. The circuit length of this
­network is about 520,000 km.
Private households, businesses and the agricultural
sector only have electrical devices designed for voltages of
230 V or 400 V. In order to be fed into the local low voltage
network, medium voltage has to be converted again. With
its circuit length of around 1,190,000 km, the low voltage
network is the longest supply network.
Part 2 *
*) Part 1
was published
in atw 2 (2019),
pp. 79 ff.
SERIAL | MAJOR TRENDS IN ENERGY POLICY AND NUCLEAR POWER 141
Serial | Major Trends in Energy Policy and Nuclear Power
Wind Energy in Germany and Europe ı Thomas Linnemann and Guido S. Vallana

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
SERIAL | MAJOR TRENDS IN ENERGY POLICY AND NUCLEAR POWER 142
Country
Table 1 illustrates that by far the lowest transport and
distribution network losses across all voltage levels are to
be found in Finland with around 3.3 % of the ­electric
­energy fed in annually, followed by Germany (4.1 %), then
Austria (4.8 %) and the Netherlands (4.8 %).
The highest value is to be found in Romania, at 11.9 %,
followed by Portugal (9.6 %) and Spain (9.5 %). In ­relation
to electricity consumption, the grid losses averaged over
several years and all 18 countries amount to around 7.3 %.
In absolute figures, the losses from the transport and
distribution networks of 18 countries in relation to the
total annual electric energy fed into the grid to provide all
end consumers in these countries at present add up to
around 200 TWh per year [30]. This is around double last
year’s generation of electricity from solar power of these
countries, or about 60 % of their electricity ­generation
from wind power [15].
Averaged over several years and all 18 countries, grid
losses of about 1.5 % of the annual electric energy fed in
arise for an average European country when electricity is
transported at extra high voltage level. Here, too, countryspecific
differences can be observed. Finland, for example,
has the lowest losses, with 0.8 % of the ­annual power fed
in, followed by Austria (0.9 %), ­Sweden (0.9 %) and the
Netherlands (0.9 %).
In the case of Germany (1.0 %), it has to be added that
the losses in the extra high voltage network doubled from
around 0.7 % in 2010 to 1.4 % in 2015. With specific total
losses at extra high voltage level of around 1 % per 100 km
transport distance, the losses in the extra high voltage network
can also be interpreted as doubling of the average
power plant distance from the end consumer from around
70 to 140 km in the past six years. The share of losses of the
extra high and high voltage networks in the total grid
losses has increased in Germany at the same time from 33
to 43 % [7].
Mean grid losses in % of total annual electric energy fed into the grid
Transport and distribution 1) Transport only 2)
Ø 3) 2010 2015 Ø 3) 2010 2015
AT 4.8 4.7 4.9 0.9 0.8 0.9
BE 4.9 4.7 4.7 1.7 1.6 1.7
CZ 5.0 5.5 5.6 1.0 0.8 1.1
DE 4.1 4.0 4.6 1.0 0.7 1.4
DK 6.0 6.0 5.6 2.2 2.0 2.3
ES 9.5 9.4 10.5 1.4 1.6 1.5
FI 3.3 2.8 2.6 0.8 0.8 0.8
FR 6.5 6.7 7.3 2.1 2.2 2.1
GR 7.0 7.1 9.7 2.5 2.8 2.5
IE 8.0 8.1 8.1 2.0 2.0 2.0
IT 6.9 6.7 6.4 n.a. n.a. n.a.
NL 4.8 5.0 4.6 0.9 1.1 1.0
NO 6.3 7.6 6.2 1.7 1.9 1.5
PL 7.0 8.2 6.9 1.2 1.2 1.2
PT 9.6 8.5 10.1 1.4 1.5 1.3
RO 11.9 12.6 12.5 1.6 1.8 1.5
SE 5.0 4.9 3.8 0.9 1.0 0.9
UK 7.8 7.2 8.5 1.8 1.5 2.1
Ø 4) 6.6 6.7 6.6 1.5 1.4 1.4
| | Tab. 2.
Mean grid losses for transport and distribution in the 18 European countries in percent of total annual electric energy fed into the grid from 2010 to 2015.
1) including extra high, high, medium and low voltage 2) extra high voltage only 3) Averaging for the years 2010 to 2015 and the sources CEER [29]
and EIA [30] 4) Averaging for the 18 European countries
In many European countries, the share of decen tralised
power generation plants in the nationwide power plant
­capacity has significantly increased over the past years.
These plants normally feed into the medium and low
voltage networks, and in some cases also into the high
voltage networks. Grid losses should tend to fall when
decentralised power plants move closer to the end consumer,
as not only does the distance for transporting and
distributing electric power output decrease, but so too
does the need for transforming.
However, this does not apply without restriction, as t
he local synchronicity of generation and consumption
­likewise influences the grid losses: if decentrally ­supplied
electricity can be used at the same time directly by the local
consumers, the grid losses diminish very significantly, as
transport to consumers further afield is not necessary.
In reality, however, weather-dependent power output
from renewable energies frequently lead to situations in
which decentrally generated electricity cannot be used
­locally at the same time, resulting in backflows in the
network which increase the grid losses. Wind farms, too,
are often not in the direct vicinity of centres of consumption.
Their power output has to be fed into extra high
and high voltage networks and in some cases transported
over long distances, as a result of which grid losses
­increase. Here, too, the influence of the synchronicity of
generation and consumption is not negligible.
The example of the Spanish distribution system
operator Viesgo [29] illustrates how grid losses can
­increase significantly with a high share of decentralised
power generation. This operator found that electricity
generation from wind power in his distribution network
led to grid losses significantly increasing at high voltage
level (132 kV). Depending on the power flows in his grid
area or power outputs transferred between two grid nodes,
the distribution system operator registered an increase in
Serial | Major Trends in Energy Policy and Nuclear Power
Wind Energy in Germany and Europe ı Thomas Linnemann and Guido S. Vallana

10
atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
grid losses generally in the region of 2 to 4 % of the total of
load and export-import balance to higher and extreme
­values of up to 20 % in cases where net electricity imports
into his grid area were necessary.
These findings illustrate that grid losses in con­nection
with further expansion of electricity generation from wind
power with interconnection throughout Europe cannot be
considered negligible, especially against the backdrop of
European efforts to increase ­efficiency.
In a scenario according to the motto “everyone helps
everyone else”, it is true to state for the grid losses
with enhanced interconnection across Europe that in the
producing nation, the power output from all wind turbines
would, in a first step, have to be collected and transformed
to the appropriate voltage level before, in a second step,
the long-distance transport either to the domestic consumer
or to the country of destination over an average
­distance of 1,500 km could take place. In a third step,
the power output would then have to be transformed there
to a lower voltage level and finally distributed further to
the end consumer. As a simplified engineering estimate,
the grid losses over all three stages in this scenario could
add up to around one fifth to one third of the aggregate
output fed into the grid (producing nation: ≈ 7 %,
long-distance transport: ≈ 10 to 15 %, country of destination:
≈ 7 %).
On the question of the secured capacity of wind power
available throughout Europe, this means that, in reality,
lower values should result from the total power output of
all wind turbines in 18 European countries with greatly
idealising disregard of the transport and distribution
network losses.
Discussion
Analyses of cumulative power time series of the European
wind fleet in the high-wind years 2015 and 2017 suggest a
secured capacity of around 5 % of the nominal capacity in
Normalised power P/P N in %
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
each case for the European wind fleet, on the assumption
of linear expansion during the course of the year. The less
windy year 2016 led to a secured capacity of the European
wind fleet of 4 % of the nominal capacity (Figure 12).
During the period 2015 to 2017 the power output of the
European wind fleet ranges from 4 to 63 % of the nominal
capacity and is highly volatile. The trend lines for the
­power time series of the European wind fleet of these three
years are included for clarity, and illustrate that changes
are essentially determined by the annual availability of
wind. The seasonal pattern of electricity generation from
wind power familiar in Germany − higher aggregate
­output in the winter than in the summer − also applies
with distribution of wind turbines throughout Europe.
Effects on the annual power output minimum of an
expansion-induced increase in the distribution of wind
turbines throughout Europe are not apparent, although
the nominal capacity of 141,000 MW at the start of 2015
increased by one third to just under 170,000 MW at
year-end 2017.
This means that even if, from a European perspective,
statistically significant smoothing effects are to be seen,
these effects clearly only help to achieve secured capacities
to a limited extent, since 4 to 5 % of the nominal capacity
with consideration of the grid losses means that, even at
European level, dispatchable backup capacity of practically
100 % of the nominal capacity of the European wind
fleet has to be maintained, as long as its nominal capacity
has not yet exceeded the cumulative annual peak load of
all countries concerned plus reserves.
In 2017 the European wind fleet supplied a total
339 TWh of electricity, in 2016 and 2015 just under
287 TWh and 285 TWh respectively. The capacity factor of
the European wind fleet varied between 22 and 24 %. The
results of the linear regression analysis described previously
enable the capacity factor of a wind fleet in an
individual European country to be determined with good
Real data 2017
Real data 2016
Real data 2015
Trend line 2015
Trend line 2016
Trend line 2017
Capacity factor: ≈ 22 bis 24 %
Hourly resolution
SERIAL | MAJOR TRENDS IN ENERGY POLICY AND NUCLEAR POWER 143
10
Secured: ≈ 4 bis 5 %
Jan
Feb Mrz Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Dec
Month
Source: ENTSO-E
| | Fig. 12.
Cumulative time series of normalised power output of the European wind fleet for the years 2015 to 2017 with three trend lines illustrating the seasonal character
of electricity generation from wind power, on the assumption of a linear increase in nominal capacity during the course of the year. The secured capacity of the
European wind fleet is 4 to 5 % of its nominal capacity and the capacity factor 22 to 24 %.
Serial | Major Trends in Energy Policy and Nuclear Power
Wind Energy in Germany and Europe ı Thomas Linnemann and Guido S. Vallana

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
Monday, 8 February 2016 Tuesday, 7 June 2016
SERIAL | MAJOR TRENDS IN ENERGY POLICY AND NUCLEAR POWER 144
H
1005
1000
T
1030
995
990
1025
1010
985
T
980
975
T
985 990
980
995 1000 1005
1010
T
970 T
1015
∆p Max
≈ 65 hPa
1020
| | Fig. 13.
Isobar maps of 8 February 2016 (winter day) and 7 June 2016 (summer day) as examples of pronounced high-wind and low-wind phases across much of Europe.
approximation to an average of 18 %. European interconnection
therefore indicates a capacity factor benefit of
a few percentage points of the nominal capacity.
In July 2017, researchers from ETH Zurich and Imperial
College London concluded, on the basis of European
weather data from the past 30 years and iRES model
calculations [23], that weather regimes with spatial scales
of around 1,000 km and temporal scales of more than five
days regularly occur in Europe resulting in an extensive
lack of power output of wind fleets of neighbouring
European countries.
Grams et al. recommended that expansion of wind
power in Europe be better coordinated and account be
taken of the fact that in peripheral European regions like
the Iberian Peninsula, northern Scandinavia, the Balkan
region or the Aegean, opposite wind conditions frequently
prevail with which variations in the aggregate power
output can be compensated at an overall European level.
Expansion of wind power should thus focus more on
peripheral European countries in order to balance
electricity generation from wind power. Were the European
nations to coordinate their expansion strategy even more
closely, they could stabilise the generation of electricity
from wind power, and it would then also be easier to
integrate it into the energy system.
Grams et al. state that photovoltaics could also be used
at a local level (during the daytime) to achieve pan­
European balance. However, the currently available
­nominal capacity of around 114,000 MW at year-end 2017
in Europe [15] would have to be increased at least ten-fold.
As weather reports on television have shown, extensive
weather regions can regularly occur throughout the whole
of Europe with distinct phases in which strong wind or
weak wind prevails across many European countries at the
same time. The driving force behind the wind are largescale
differences in air pressure, from which conclusions
can be drawn about continental wind conditions on the
basis of isobar maps (lines at constant pressure), as
illustrated in Figure 13 with the example of a winter day
(8 February 2016) with good wind over much of Europe
and a summer day (7 June 2016) with weak wind over
much of Europe.
1025
H
1030
1035
H
Surface level pressure in hPA
1025
1015
1020
H
T
H
1020
1020
∆p Max
≈ 20 hPa
T
H
H
1020
1020
T
T
1015
H
1020
T
T
H
H
H
H
T
1025
H
H
On 8 February 2016, maximum differences in air
pressure Dp Max up to around 65 hPA occurred across
Europe. The isobar lines for this winter day run closely
staggered next to each other. This indicates high gradients
and good wind conditions. Wind turbines in the 18
European countries considered here as European wind
fleet supplied around 86,000 MW or 57 % of their nominal
capacity of around 152,000 MW on daily average (prerequisite:
copper plate across Europe, no grid losses).
Between 20:00 and 21:00 in the evening, the power output
of the European wind fleet reached its annual peak (hourly
resolution) at 89,100 MW [13].
On 7 June 2016, maximum differences in air pressure
Dp Max of around 20 hPA occurred across Europe. In Figure
13, comparatively few isobars are apparent, indicating
low gradients and weak wind conditions across much of
­Europe. The European wind fleet supplied around
12,200 MW or 8 % of its nominal capacity on daily ­average.
Between 06:00 and 09:00 in the morning, its power output
fell to around 6,500 MW or 4 % of its nominal capacity
(prerequisite: copper plate across Europe, no grid losses)
[13].
These examples illustrate that situations can occur
again and again in which electricity generation from wind
power is simultaneously strong or weak throughout much
of Europe. In such cases this means: if wind conditions in
Germany are favourable, then this is also often the case
in neighbouring countries and vice versa. This is compounded
by the fact that demand for electricity in
European countries is also temporally correlated in
many cases, so that a cross-border balancing effect is
demon strably not a given certainty at the most critical
point in the year for the load [31].
According to the analyses carried out by Grams
et al. [23], synchronicity and correlation of electricity
generation from wind power in neighbouring European
countries could be avoided by connecting up very remote
countries at the peripheries of continental Europe. In view
of an increased need for transport of electricity over very
long distances of several thousand kilometres and average
iRES capacity factors of currently typically around 21 % for
onshore wind power, 32 % for offshore wind power and
1015
T
1015
1010
T
1005
1010
T
1005
H
Surface level pressure in hPA
Serial | Major Trends in Energy Policy and Nuclear Power
Wind Energy in Germany and Europe ı Thomas Linnemann and Guido S. Vallana

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
11 % for photovoltaics, this would raise justified questions
as to the grid losses to be expected with expansion
strategies of this kind, the capacity factor of the new
­infrastructure required with a focus on intensified pan-­
European long-distance transport of electricity and as to
their profitability. The average capacity factors given above
are calculated from hourly ENTSO-E power output data of
18 European countries from 2015 to 2017 accounting for
95 % of Europe’s wind power and photovoltaic nominal
capacity.
Even if China, for example, today has numerous HVDC
routes for transport distances of one to two thousand
kilometres, these are all designed to transmit electric
power of several gigawatts from the large inland hydropower
plants to supply the consumption centres on the
country’s coasts with electricity. This electricity transmission
technology is also referred to as bulk transmission
of electric power, an indicator of continuous power transmission
and consistently high capacity factors of such
transmission routes – criteria which neither wind nor solar
power has any prospect of fulfilling at a European level.
At the beginning of March 2018, the German National
Meteorological Service (DWD) published results of a study
[24] showing that through the combined use of wind
power and photovoltaics in the European power grid, risks
due to wind lulls and phases with little sun could be
­significantly reduced. With measurement data on the spatial
and temporal structure of the weather conditions from
1995 to 2015 and models to estimate electricity ­generation
of representative wind power and photovoltaic systems,
uniformly distributed across Europe without restrictions
and disregarding any grid losses, the meteorologists determined
how often the aggregate output of this iRES plant
fleet would have been less than 10 % of the nominal capacity
over a continuous period of two days in each case.
The result for Germany: with restriction to onshore
wind power, 23 cases per year would be probable. If
offshore wind power in the German North and Baltic Seas
is added, this number is reduced to 13 cases per year, while
further addition of photovoltaic systems brings a reduction
to two cases per year and, if Europe is considered as a
whole, the result is just 0.2 cases per year. However, as the
weather pleases itself, it can never be ruled out that an
­extreme lull could occur in conjunction with a phase of
little sun across Europe. Responsible energy policy must
therefore not only be about expanding wind power and
photovoltaic systems, but also ensuring sufficient reserve
power plant capacities.
In view of the grid being required to maintain a
permanent balance between electricity generation and
consumption, it is necessary here to point out that, contrary
to taking into account two-day periods in the cited study,
already a fraction of a second or minutes can be sufficient
to cause a blackout.
What would the consequences be, were wind turbines
to be distributed in balanced form across Europe as
recommended by Grams et al. [23] and Becker [24]?
As Figure 3 illustrates, many countries have a considerable
amount of catching up to do in relation to
Germany: all 13 countries in the nominal capacity of their
winds fleets ranking after Italy, for instance, would have to
increase their wind fleet’s nominal capacity sixteen-fold on
average with as balanced distribution of locations as
­possible, in order to reach Germany’s level of development.
When all 17 countries are considered, a total new
­nominal capacity of around 840,000 MW would have to be
established. With the already existing nominal capacity of
wind turbines in these 18 countries, a nominal capacity of
the balanced European wind fleet of around 1,000,000 MW
in total could therefore be expected.
By comparison: in 1995, power plants with a nominal
capacity of around 620,000 MW were in operation in the
18 European countries considered here [32]. This had
­already risen to around 970,000 MW nominal capacity in
2015, 47 % of which was accounted for by conventional
power plants, followed by hydropower plants (16 %), wind
turbines (14 %), nuclear power plants (12 %) and photovoltaic
systems (10 %).
With a long-term annual yield of the European wind
fleet averaged across the 18 countries of around
2,000 MWh electricity per megawatt of nominal capacity
[15] and on the assumption that yield-boosting factors
such as ever larger plants and hub heights as well as
yield-reducing factors like ever lower potential wind yields
of remaining wind turbine locations roughly maintain a
balance in the course of further expansion, the annual
­generation of around 2,000 TWh of electricity could be
­assumed for the imaginary European wind fleet. In
comparison, the gross power generation of the 18
­European countries considered amounted to just under
3,300 TWh in 2017 [15].
With specific investment costs of 1.5 million euros ­per
megawatt onshore nominal capacity [33] and 4.0 million
euros per megawatt offshore nominal capacity [34], total
investments of about 1,500 billion euros would have to be
factored in for expansion of the European generation of
electricity from wind power of this order, on the assumption
that 90 % of the nominal capacity to be added would
still be accounted for by onshore wind turbines and the
rest by offshore wind turbines. Compared with the gross
domestic product of the 18 countries in 2015 of almost
11,500 billion euros, this is a considerable sum.
At the same time, further investments worth billions
would have to be factored in for still necessary dispatchable
backup systems and in order to enhance the network
infrastructure [35],[36]. According to ENTSO-E estimates,
around four fifths of grid congestion problems identified
throughout Europe are attributable to renewable energies.
ENTSO-E puts the costs for enhancing and strengthening
the European grid for further integration of renewable
­energies at just under 130 billion euros [36].
Another aspect to be considered: Assuming that today’s
wind turbines have an operational lifespan of an average
25 years, a renewal rate of 40,000 MW per year would be
required with a plant level of around 1,000,000 MW
nominal capacity. By comparison, wind turbines with an
average nominal capacity of 12,000 MW per year went into
operation in the 18 countries in the last six years, while in
2017 the figure was slightly over 15,000 MW [15].
Evaluations of long-term operating data from the
United Kingdom and Denmark for 2002 to 2012, the
­results of which indicate the influence of material ageing
and an economic operational lifespan more in the region of
twelve to fifteen years, demonstrate that the operational
lifetime of wind turbines can, in reality, be considerably
lower [37].
This was confirmed, for example, in March 2018 [38]:
the Danish energy company Ørsted identified unexpected
damage to around 2,000 wind turbines in Danish and
British waters which had only been in operation since
2013. The leading edges and tips of the rotor blades were
so severely damaged by the impact of salt particles and
rain that they had to be replaced.
SERIAL | MAJOR TRENDS IN ENERGY POLICY AND NUCLEAR POWER 145
Serial | Major Trends in Energy Policy and Nuclear Power
Wind Energy in Germany and Europe ı Thomas Linnemann and Guido S. Vallana

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
SERIAL | MAJOR TRENDS IN ENERGY POLICY AND NUCLEAR POWER 146
Further confirmation followed in April 2018 [39]: in
the offshore wind park Alpha Ventus around 45 kilometres
off Borkum, half a nacelle of a wind turbine, together with
the plastic casing, plunged into the depths from a height of
around 90 meters. At the time the damage occurred, the
turbine was around eight years old. The wind farm
operator reported a broken retaining bolt of the nacelle
carrier as being the cause. No information was given as to
whether this was an isolated incident or a case of serial
damage. As a precautionary measure, the remaining five
undamaged Alpha Ventus turbines have since run in idle
mode and been closed for maintenance.
Even if damage to offshore wind turbines, as a
comparatively new technology, is not unusual, the German
television channel NDR interpreted this incident as being
major damage possibly in connection with material
­fatigue, and called for speedy clarification of the cause of
the damage, since more than 120 turbines of this type are
currently in operation in the North Sea.
Wind turbines do not only transport the wind intermittency,
i.e. briefly occurring strong gusts of wind into
the power grid, they also even intensify it when converting
it into electrical output [40],[41],[42],[43].
Measurement data with high temporal resolution
­substantiate strong fluctuations in wind speed and ­changes
in power output of a 2 MW wind turbine by 80 % of its
nominal capacity in eight seconds, and of a wind farm
comprising twelve 2 MW wind turbines by 50 % of its
nominal capacity in two minutes at a northern German
onshore location [40]. Within a quarter of an hour, therefore,
wind turbines can pass through power outputs from
almost zero up to the nominal capacity according to their
power curve.
The working conditions of wind turbines are characterised
by intermittent, turbulent air flows which are
­reflected in turbulent power output fluctuations of both
individual wind turbines and larger turbine fleets [41].
Peinke et al. [40] report that with individual wind
­turbines and large wind farms alike, extreme fluctuations
which would only be to be expected every three million
years with normal distribution could occur once a month
on statistical average. This property is particularly relevant
for grid stability analyses and the design of wind turbines,
as these face immense changes of load – comparable with
those of an aeroplane in an imaginary landing approach
lasting several years with severe wind turbulence.
This is caused by turbulences impacting the turbines
within a matter of seconds, the footprint of which is also
reflected in the electric power output. Grid instabilities
caused by power fluctuations of this kind would likely
increase with the expansion of wind power – as too would
the regulatory effort involved in compensating them [41].
Redispatching measures on the part of transmission
system operators are an indicator of grid instabilities and
resulting regulatory network intervention. This is to be
understood as intervention in the market-based original
power plant schedule in order to relocate power feed-in so
as to prevent or eliminate overloading in the power grid.
During the period 2010 to 2015, the annual redispatched
power output from domestic measures increased
by more than 36 times to 11.2 TWh, then fell by one third
in 2016 to 7.5 TWh before climbing to another new peak of
11.3 TWh in 2017 [44]. The annual redispatched power
output generated by the power plants in neighbouring
countries and in the context of cross-border trade as of
2014 amounting to around 25 to 50 % of the corresponding
domestic annual power output has to be added to this.
The development over the past years invites com parison
with the electricity generation from wind power: 2015 and
2017 were very windy years, while 2016 was considerably
less windy. Overall, the development of the mean value P µ
from 2010 to 2017 as shown in Figure 1 as a measure of
the annual electricity supplied is similar to the development
of the annual redispatched power output, which
could indicate causal relationships [44].
On account of massively increasing interventions in grid
operation, the German Federal Network Agency introduced
quarterly reports on grid and system security measures as
of 2015 [45], pointing out that in view of the drastic
increase in grid and security interventions, annual recording
was no longer sufficient, and that measures for
securing grid stability had become more important, as the
transmission system operators were facing ever greater
challenges in view of the changing power generation
landscape. This change, it was stated, was characterised
above all by the expansion and regional distribution of
wind turbines with impacts on the conventional power
plant fleet. Weather effects like low-pressure systems or
long sunny periods additionally led to high peaks in power
output from wind power and photovoltaics – a development
which also becomes clear from a glimpse into the
control rooms of the transmission system operators: whereas
grid control engineers had to actively intervene twice in
the whole of 2003 to adjust the grid operation, three to four
interventions per day have now become the norm.
Apart from the fact that with each intervention the
probability of human error by nature increases, this
development also indicates that exceptional circumstances
in the power grid necessitating intervention have
drastically increased since 2003.
Statements made in June 2017 by Dr. Klaus Kleinekorte,
Technical Managing Director at Amprion GmbH in
Dortmund, verify the occurrence of at times extreme loads
in the transmission grid [46]. He stated that between
December 2016 and February 2017 there were repeated
occurrences of hours on various evenings during which the
grid was at its limit and on several occasions had been on
the verge of a large-scale collapse. Had just one large line
shut down due to overload during these times, a deluge
of shutdowns and power outages might have been
­unavoidable. Moreover, on 18 January 2017, three days
prior to the start of the ten-day dark doldrums in Germany,
his company had written to the Federal Ministry for
Economic Affairs and Energy and the Federal Network
Agency, warning them of the temporary loss of (n-1)
secure grid control. At the latest when the nuclear power
plants in southern Germany cease to operate, high power
transmission requirements will become the norm. The
necessary grid expansion must therefore be pushed ahead
with rapidly.
Summary
VGB PowerTech has carried out a plausibility check of
electricity generation from wind power in Germany and
17 neighbouring European countries and in the process
explored questions as to whether adequate possibilities
for mutual balancing exist within the interconnected
European grid true to the motto “the wind is always
blowing somewhere”.
In the current energy policy environment which,
against the backdrop of the international climate protection
commitments facing Germany, seeks to abandon
the power plant technology proven over decades and
create extensive provision of electricity from renewable
Serial | Major Trends in Energy Policy and Nuclear Power
Wind Energy in Germany and Europe ı Thomas Linnemann and Guido S. Vallana

GNS Gesellschaft für Nuklear-Service mbH
Frohnhauser Str. 67 · 45127 Essen · Germany · info@gns.de · www.gns.de

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
SERIAL | MAJOR TRENDS IN ENERGY POLICY AND NUCLEAR POWER 148
energies, photovoltaics and wind power remain the only
scalable technologies capable of further development for
the Energiewende in the short to medium term. However,
they are always reliant on complementary technologies.
Looking back at the past year in Germany, it can be
­concluded that additional operating experience confirms
the statements made in the first part of the VGB Wind
Study: from the perspective of security of supply, wind
power, despite concerted efforts to expand since 2010, has
for all practical purposes not replaced any conventional
power plant capacity. Furthermore, offshore wind power
at its current level of development is shown to be not
capable of serving as a reliable source of baseload power
and cannot replace conventional power plant capacity.
Wind turbine locations spread throughout Germany are
not a solution for a reliable and secure supply of electricity.
Dispatchable complementary technologies are always
­necessary in conjunction with wind power.
From a European perspective, it can be concluded on
the basis of 18 countries observed here that although
­statistically significant smoothing effects are to be seen,
these only help to a limited extent when it comes to security
of supply: 4 to 5 % of the nominal capacity means with
consideration of unavoidable grid losses that, even at a
European level, dispatchable backup capacity of almost
100 % of the nominal capacity of all European wind
turbines has to be maintained, as long as this has not yet
exceeded the annual peak load in Europe plus reserves.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Friedrich
Wagner from Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics in
Greifswald for his valuable suggestions and contributions
to this publication.
Literature
1. Linnemann, Th.; Vallana, G. S.: Wind energy in Germany and Europe: Status, potentials and
challenges for baseload application, Part 1: Developments in Germany since 2010. VGB
PowerTech 97 (2017), No. 8, pp. 70 bis 79.
2. Linnemann, Th.; Vallana, G. S.: Wind energy in Germany and Europe: Status, potentials and
challenges for baseload application, Part 1: Developments in Germany since 2010. atw 62
(2017), No. 11, pp. 678 to 688.
3. Weber, H.: Versorgungssicherheit und Systemstabilität beim Übergang zur regenerativen
elektrischen Energieversorgung. VGB PowerTech 94 (2014), No. 8, pp. 26-31.
4. Bericht der deutschen Übertragungsnetzbetreiber zur Leistungsbilanz 2016 bis 2020.
Version 1.1 dated 30 January 2018. www.netztransparenz.de
5. BMWi-Zeitreihen zur Entwicklung der erneuerbaren Energien in Deutschland von 1990 bis 2016.
www.erneuerbare-energien.de
6. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Energiebilanzen (AGEB): Bruttostromerzeugung in Deutschland ab 1990
nach Energieträgern. www.ag-energiebilanzen.de
7. BDEW: Stromerzeugung und -verbrauch 2017 in Deutschland. BDEW-Schnellstatistik dated
14 February 2018. www.bdew.de
8. Bundesnetzagentur: Monitoringbericht 2017. www.bundesnetzagentur.de
9. Wagner, F.: Surplus from and storage of electricity generated by intermittent sources.
European Physical Journal Plus 131 (2016): 445. https://epjplus.epj.org
DOI 10.1140/epjp/i2016-16445-3
10. Wagner, F.: Überschussstrom und Stromspeicherung unter den Bedingungen intermittierender
Produktion. Tagungsband zur Frühjahrssitzung des Arbeitskreises Energie der Deutschen
Physikalischen Gesellschaft (DPG), Münster, 2017, pp. 54 to 74.
www.dpg-physik.de/veroeffentlichung/ake-tagungsband/tagungsband-ake-2017.pdf
11. VDE-Infoblatt Störungsstatistik 2016. www.vde.com
12. Wagner, F.: Considerations for an EU-wide use of renewable energies for electricity generation.
Eur. Phys. J. Plus 129 (2014): 219. https://epjplus.epj.org
DOI 10.1140/epjp/i2014-14219-7
13. Rodriguez, R. A. et al.: Transmission needs across a fully renewable European power system.
Renewable Energy, 63 (2014), pp. 467 to 476.
DOI 10.1016/j.renene.2013.10.005
14. ENTSO-E Transparency Platform. https://transparency.entsoe.eu
15. Vaughan, A.: UK summer wind drought puts green revolution into reverse.
Article dated 27 August 2018. www.theguardian.com
16. BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2018 − data workbook: www.bp.com
17. 50 Hertz, www.50hertz.com
18. Amprion, www.amprion.net
19. Tennet TSO, www.tennet.eu
20. Transnet BW, www.transnetbw.de
21. EEX Transparency, www.eex-transparency.com
22. Online database on the global wind power market: www.thewindpower.net
23. Buttler, A.; Dinkel, F.; Franz, S.; Spliethoff, H.: Variability of wind and solar power. An assessment
of the current situation in the European Union based on the year 2014. Energy 106 (2016),
pp. 147 to 161. DOI 10.1016/j.energy.2016.03.041
24. Grams, C. M. et al.: Balancing Europe’s wind-power output through spatial development informed
by weather regimes.
Nature Climate Change 7 (2017), pp. 557 to 562, DOI 10.1038/nclimate3338.
25. Becker, P.: Wetterbedingte Risiken der Stromproduktion aus erneuerbaren Energien durch kombinierten
Einsatz von Windkraft und Photovoltaik reduzieren. Deutscher Wetterdienst (DWD), 6
March 2018, Berlin. www.dwd.de
26. Baïle, R.; Muzy, J.-F.: Spatial Intermittency of Surface LayerWind Fluctuations at Mesoscale
Range. Physical Review Letters 105 (2010), pp. 254501-1 to 254501-4.
DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.254501
27. Wilms, J.: Das SüdLink-Projekt. Technische Optionen für eine Hochspannungsgleichstromübertragung.
Dialogue procedure for the SüdLink project Brunsbüttel-Großgartach on 21 May 2015 in
Schwäbisch-Hall.
28. Krontiris, A.: Von HGÜ zu UHGÜ. Entwicklungen und Perspektiven in der großräumigen Gleichstromübertragung.
Vortrag zur Herbstsitzung des Arbeitskreises Energie der Deutschen
Physikalischen Gesellschaft (DPG), Bad Honnef, 20 October 2017
29. CEER Report on Power Losses. Reference C17-EQS-80-03, www.ceer.eu
30. U.S. Energy Information Administration: www.eia.gov/beta/international
31. Energy performance report 2015 of the German transmission system operators pursuant to
EnWG § 12(4) and (5). Updated in February 2016,
www.netztransparenz.de
32. European Commission: EU energy in figures. Statistical pocketbook 2017.
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/data-analysis/energy-statistical-pocketbook
33. Lüers, S.; Wallasch, A.-K.; Rehfeldt, K.: Kostensituation der Windenergie an Land in Deutschland,
Update. Varel, 2015, www.windguard.de
34. Hughes, G.; Aris, C.; Constable, J.: Offshore wind strike prices behind the headlines. Global
Warming Policy Foundation Briefing 26, 2017, www.thegwpf.org
35. Hirschhausen, C. et al.: Europäische Energiewirtschaft. Hoher Investitionsbedarf für Nachhaltigkeit
und Versorgungssicherheit. DIW-Wochenbericht No. 27, 2014.
36. ENTSO-E Ten-year network development plan 2012. www.entsoe.eu
37. Hughes, G.: The Performance of Wind Farms in the United Kingdom and Denmark. Renewable
Energy Foundation, 2012. www.ref.org.uk
38. Wolff, R.: Haltbarkeit von Windkraftanlagen. Erodierende Rotoren. taz edition dated 5 March
2018. www.taz.de
39. Schürmeyer, J.: Windpark Alpha Ventus vor Borkum. Abgestürzte Windpark-Gondel vor Austausch.
NWZ online edition dated 27 July 2018. www.nwzonline.de
40. Milan, P.; Wächter, M.; Peinke, J.: Turbulent character of wind energy. Physical Review Letters
110 (2013), pp. 138701-1 to 138701-5.
DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.138701
41. Peinke, J.; Heinemann, D.; Kühn, M.: Windenergie − eine turbulente Sache? Physik Journal 13
(2014) No. 7, pp. 35 to 41.
42. Anvari, M.; Lohmann, G.; Wächter, M. et al.: Short term fluctuations of wind and solar power systems.
New Journal of Physics 18 (2016) 063027, pp. 1 to 14.
DOI 10.1088/1367-2630/18/6/063027
43. Schmietendorf, K.; Peinke, J; Kamps, O.: On the stability and quality of power grids subjected to
intermittent feed-in. https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.08235
44. Laux, M.: Redispatch in Deutschland. Evaluation of transparency data, April 2013 to January
2018. www.bdew.de
45. Bundesnetzagentur: Quartalsbericht zu Netz- und Systemsicherheitsmaßnahmen für das dritte
Quartal 2015. www.bundesnetzagentur.de
46. Mihm, A.: Energiewende, Stromnetz kurz vor dem Zusammenbruch. FAZ edition dated 9 June
2017. www.faz.net
Authors
Dipl.-Ing. Thomas Linnemann
Dipl.-Phys. Guido S. Vallana
VGB PowerTech e.V.
Deilbachtal 173
45257 Essen
Serial | Major Trends in Energy Policy and Nuclear Power
Wind Energy in Germany and Europe ı Thomas Linnemann and Guido S. Vallana

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
Verlängerte Zwischenlagerung – Auswirkungen auf die
Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung?
149
Tobias Leidinger
Die in Deutschland erteilten Genehmigungen für die Aufbewahrung von Kernbrennstoffen sind auf 40 Jahre – gerechnet
ab Einlagerung des ersten Behälters – befristet. Für die zentralen Zwischenlager Gorleben und Ahaus laufen die § 6
AtG-Genehmigungen im Jahre 2034 bzw. 2036, für die dezentralen Zwischenlager an den KKW-Standorten in den
Jahren danach aus. Angesichts einer – mangels Endlagerverfügbarkeit – zu erwartenden verlängerten Zwischenlagerung
in Deutschland stellt sich die Frage, ob es im Zuge der „Verlängerung“ der Aufbewahrungsgenehmigungen der
Durchführung einer Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung nach Maßgabe des Gesetzes über die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung
(UVPG) bedarf.
I. Ausgangslage
Durch das „Gesetz zur Neuordnung der Verantwortung in
der kerntechnischen Entsorgung“ vom 27. Januar 2017
wurden die organisatorischen und finanziellen Rahmenbedingungen
für die Entsorgung der radioaktiven Abfälle
neu geregelt. Für den Betrieb der Zwischenlager wurde
2017 die bundeseigene BGZ Gesellschaft für die Zwischenlagerung
mbH gegründet, die ab August 2017 die Verantwortung
für die Zwischenlager Ahaus und Gorleben und
ab 1. Januar 2019 auch den Betrieb der zwölf dezentralen
Standort-Zwischenlager übernommen hat. Angesichts
der ab Anfang der 2030er-Jahre auslaufenden § 6 AtG­
Genehmigungen ist – mit hinreichendem zeitlichen Vorlauf
– zu klären, ob eine verlängerte Zwischenlagerung
nach Ablauf der jeweiligen Befristung der bisherigen
Genehmigungen die Durchführung einer UVP erfordert.
Denn ein solches Verfahren ist mit erheblichem sachlichen
und zeitlichen Aufwand verbunden.
II. Zwischenlagerung bleibt – auch im Fall
der Verlängerung – Zwischenlagerung
Eine Zwischenlagerung im Sinne von § 6 AtG ist solange
gegeben, wie die Überbrückung der Zeit bis zur Inbetriebnahme
eines Bundesendlagers dauert. Eine bestimmte
zeitliche Grenze sieht der Gesetzgeber für die Einordnung
als Zwischenlagerung nicht vor. Werden die bislang auf
40 Jahre befristeten Genehmigungen also anschließend
„verlängert“, ändert dies nichts daran, dass auch eine verlängerte
Aufbewahrung „Zwischenlagerung“ im Rechtssinne
bleibt (vgl. OVG Münster, Urt. v. 30.10.1996 – 21 D
2/89.AK, Rn. 93).
III. Verfahrensrechtliche Ausgestaltung
einer verlängerten Zwischenlagerung
Eine „Verlängerung“ der Zwischenlagerung kommt im
Ergebnis auf zwei unterschiedlichen Wegen in Betracht,
die sich auf die UVP-Thematik auswirkt: Entweder als
„ Änderungsgenehmigung“ oder als „Neugenehmigung“.
Die Rechtsprechung lässt grundsätzlich beide Möglichkeiten
zu. Die Verlängerung der Geltungsfrist der Genehmigung
kann durch eine Neugenehmigung erfolgen oder
durch eine bloße Änderung der der Genehmigung bislang
schon beigefügten Frist, also durch eine Änderung der
zeitlichen Erstreckung ihrer Geltungswirkung.
Die inhaltlichen Zulassungsvoraussetzungen für eine
Erteilung einer Änderungsgenehmigung oder einer
Neugenehmigung unterscheiden sich grundsätzlich nicht:
In beiden Fällen ergeben sie sich aus § 6 Abs. 2 AtG (vgl.
dazu im Einzelnen: Leidinger, in: Frenz, Atomrecht, 2019,
§ 6 Rn. 23 ff.). Unterschiedlich ist grundsätzlich der
Genehmigungsgegenstand: Gegenstand einer Änderungsgenehmigung
sind zunächst nur die Teile, für die aus
Anlass der Änderung die Genehmigungsfrage erneut
aufgeworfen wird. Bei qualitativen Änderungen, die sich
auf die gesamte Anlage beziehen, sind auch die unveränderten
Anlagenteile Gegenstand der Änderungsgenehmigung,
soweit sich die Änderung darauf auswirkt.
Das führt dazu, dass sämtliche Umweltauswirkungen
unmittelbarer Prüfungsgegenstand des Änderungsgenehmigungsverfahrens
sind. Bei einer Verlängerung der
Zwischenlagerung handelt es sich nicht um eine quantitative
Erweiterung, sondern um eine qualitative –
nämlich zeitliche – Änderung. Dies führt dazu, dass grundsätzlich
sämtliche materiellen Zulassungsvoraus setzungen
des § 6 Abs. 2 AtG erneut zu prüfen sind, denn die
Änderung betrifft den gesamten Inhalt der Genehmigung.
Das entspricht der Situation bei der Erteilung einer Neugenehmigung,
durch die die Verlängerung der Aufbewahrungsdauer
bewirkt werden soll: Sie verändert nicht
die Aufbewahrung, sondern erlaubt sie über den bisherigen
Befristungszeitraum hinaus neu. Mithin sind
sämtliche Genehmigungsvoraussetzungen nach § 6 Abs. 2
AtG auch dann zu prüfen.
IV.
Auswirkungen auf die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung
nach UVPG
Unterschiede zwischen Änderungs- und Neugenehmigung
im Fall einer verlängerten Zwischenlagerung ergeben
sich indes im Hinblick auf die Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung,
denn das UVPG unterscheidet zwischen Neuund
Änderungsvorhaben.
1. Neuvorhaben
Für Neuvorhaben folgt die UVP-Pflichtigkeit aus § 6 S. 1
UVPG i.V.m. Nr. 11.3 der Anlage 1 des UVPG. Danach
bedarf es einer UVP, wenn es um die Lagerung bestrahlter
Kernbrennstoffe oder radioaktiver Abfälle für mehr als
zehn Jahre an einem anderen Ort als dem Ort geht, an dem
diese Stoffe angefallen sind. Das ist sowohl bei zentralen
als auch bei dezentralen Zwischenlagern der Fall, wenn
die „Verlängerung“ für mehr als 10 Jahre erfolgen soll.
Die danach zwingend durchzuführende UVP ist unselbständiger
Teil des atomrechtlichen Genehmigungsverfahrens
nach § 6 AtG. Zur Durchführung der UVP
verweist § 2a Abs. 1 S. 2 AtG auf die Vorschriften der AtVfV,
in denen die näheren Vorgaben zur UVP – entsprechend
den Regelungen im UVPG selbst – speziell bestimmt sind.
2. Änderungsvorhaben
Ist hingegen von einem Änderungsvorhaben auszugehen,
richtet sich die UVP-Pflicht nach § 9 UVPG. Hier ist zu
unterscheiden zwischen Vorhaben, für die bereits eine
UVP durchgeführt worden ist (§ 9 Abs. 1 UVPG) und
Vorhaben, für die bislang keine UVP durchgeführt worden
ist (§ 9 Abs. 2, Abs. 3 UVPG). Beide Fälle sind in der Praxis
anzutreffen.
SPOTLIGHT ON NUCLEAR LAW
Spotlight on Nuclear Law
Extended Interim Storage – Impact on the Environmental Impact Assessment? ı Tobias Leidinger

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
SPOTLIGHT ON NUCLEAR LAW 150
a) UVP ursprünglich bereits durchgeführt
Wurde für das Änderungsvorhaben ursprünglich bereits
eine UVP durchgeführt, besteht nach § 9 Abs. 1 S. 1 Nr. 1
UVPG nur dann eine UVP-Pflicht, wenn allein die Änderung
die Größen- oder Leistungswerte für eine unbedingte
UVP-Pflicht erreicht oder überschreitet. Die Lagerdauer
eines Zwischenlagers ist aber kein Größen- oder Leistungswert
im Sinne von § 6 S. 2 UVPG, denn die in Nr. 11.3 des
Anhangs 1 UVPG genannte Lagerdauer dient allein der
näheren Beschreibung der Art des Vorhabens. Gemäß
§ 9 Abs. 1 S. 1 Nr. 2 UVPG besteht für das Änderungsvorhaben
eine UVP-Pflicht aber dann, wenn eine allgemeine
Vorprüfung ergibt, dass die Änderung zusätzliche
erhebliche nachteilige oder andere erhebliche Umweltauswirkungen
hervorrufen kann. Das ist Tatfrage und im
Einzelfall insbesondere davon abhängig, ob die Aufbewahrung
geänderten technischen oder verschärften
normativen Anforderungen unterliegt.
b) UVP bislang noch nicht durchgeführt
Wird ein Vorhaben geändert, für das noch keine UVP
durchgeführt worden ist, so besteht für das Änderungsvorhaben
nach § 9 Abs. 2 S. 1 Nr. 2 UVPG die UVP-Pflicht,
wenn eine Vorprüfung ergibt, dass die Änderung erhebliche
nachteilige Umweltauswirkungen hervorrufen kann.
Auch insoweit kommt es auf die Gegebenheiten im
Einzelfall im Zeitpunkt der „Änderung“ an.
sofern die Genehmigung nicht schon direkt als UVPpflichtige
Neugenehmigung beantragt wird. Im Fall einer
Änderungsgenehmigung kann der Antragssteller die UVP
nach § 7 Abs. 3 UVPG selbst beantragen und damit Risiken
im Hinblick auf sonst verbleibende Auslegungsspielräume
– bei einer bloßen UVP-Vorprüfung – ausschließen. Bei der
UVP-Prüfung selbst ist darzulegen, dass die „verlängerte“
Zwischenlagerung nicht zu nachteiligen Umweltauswirkungen
führt. Wird die Aufbewahrung nach Ablauf der
ursprünglichen Befristung fortgesetzt und belegt, dass die
erforderliche Schadensvorsorge weiterhin gewährleistet
ist, wird dieser Nachweis im Ergebnis erfolgreich zu führen
sein.
Autor
Prof. Dr. Tobias Leidinger
Rechtsanwalt und Fachanwalt für Verwaltungsrecht
Luther Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft
Graf-Adolf-Platz 15
40213 Düsseldorf
c) Prüftiefe im Rahmen der Vorprüfung
Ist eine Vorprüfung erforderlich, ist diese nach § 7 Abs. 1
S. 2 UVPG als überschlägige Prüfung – mit eingeschränkter
Tiefe – durchzuführen. Die Vorprüfung darf nichts von
der eigentlichen UVP vorwegnehmen. Andererseits darf
sie sich nicht mit einer oberflächlichen Abschätzung
begnügen. Damit sind Wertungsspielräume eröffnet und
Fragen, die Rahmen einer gerichtlichen Nachprüfung zu
Streit und – im schlechtesten Fall – zur Aufhebung der
Änderungsgenehmigung führen können.
V. Konsequenzen aus Sicht
des Antragstellers
Angesichts der Auslegungsspielräume im Hinblick auf die
richtige Vorgehensweise bei einer verlängerten Zwischenlagerung
(Neu- oder Änderungsgenehmigung mit UVP
oder mit Vorprüfung zur UVP) ist der Vorhabenträger im
Zweifel gut beraten, die Durchführung einer UVP von
sich aus für ein „Neuvorhaben“ zu beantragen. Diese
­Möglichkeit eröffnet ihm § 7 Abs. 3 S. 1 UVPG, wenn die
zuständige Behörde das Entfallen der Vorprüfung als
zweckmäßig erachtet. Dann wird das Vorhaben nach § 7
Abs. 3 S. 3 UVPG als UVP-pflichtig behandelt. Vorteil ­dieser
Vorgehensweise ist ein Gewinn an Zeit und Rechtssicherheit:
Der Zeitbedarf für eine u.U. aufwendige
Vorbereitung und die eigentliche Durchführung der Vorprüfung
der UVP-Pflicht bei Antragssteller und Genehmigungsbehörde
entfällt. Zugleich kann das Risiko
vermieden werden, dass die Entscheidung im Rahmen der
UVP-Vorprüfung – UVP-Pflicht ja oder nein – Gegenstand
eines späteren Rechtsstreits wird, mit der Folge, dass
eine unterbliebene UVP möglicherweise noch nachgeholt
werden muss – sofern dann noch rechtlich zulässig.
VI. Fazit
Für eine über die ursprünglich befristet genehmigte
Zwischenlagerung hinausgehende „verlängerte“ Aufbewahrung
nach § 6 AtG ist – im Zweifel – nicht nur eine
UVP-Vorprüfung, sondern eine UVP durchzuführen,
Spotlight on Nuclear Law
Extended Interim Storage – Impact on the Environmental Impact Assessment? ı Tobias Leidinger

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
The German Quiver Project
Quivers for Damaged and Non-Standard Fuel Rods
Sascha Bechtel, Wolfgang Faber, Hagen Höfer, Frank Jüttemann, Martin Kaplik, Michael Köbl,
Bernhard Kühne and Marc Verwerft
1 Introduction and background of the German Quiver Project During the operational
phase of a nuclear power plant, damaged fuel rods are usually collected separately in the spent fuel pool for a later
disposal after the plant’s final shut-down. In Germany the initially planned disposal path for damaged fuel rods was
reprocessing. However, as part of the agreement on the first nuclear phase-out in 2000 in Germany (“Atomkonsens”),
also transports of spent fuel to reprocessing plants were banned effective July 2005. With the first NPP to be shut-down
in 2011 (KKI-1), its operator E.ON Kernkraft (EKK, now PreussenElektra) started a project in 2005 to establish a
solution for the dry interim storage of their failed fuel rods in the on-site storage facilities, that had to be erected due to
the end of reprocessing. Since the collected failed fuel rods were to be taken out of the pools only after the last regular
fuel assemblies, a feasible storage solution for the failed fuel rods would have been needed by about 2016.
In 2006 EKK asked GNS Gesellschaft
für Nuklear-Service mbH to join the
project to ensure compatibility with
the requirements of the transport and
storage casks. By early 2007 two companies,
one of them already Höfer &
Bechtel, provided first design ideas
and drawings. In 2009 the four German
utilities jointly asked GNS to take
over one of the concepts and develop
it towards cask-licensing. In June 2010
this quiver solution was presented to
Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung
und -prüfung (BAM) to obtain a first
authority feedback, in order to create
a licensing documentation for transportation
and storage.
After the political decision to again
extend the operating times of the
German NPPs later in 2010, the focus
in the back-end activities of the
utilities temporarily shifted to the
regular cask licenses to ensure undisturbed
operation by timely caskloading
campaigns. The first plant to
be closed was still KKI-1, but now only
in 2020. Hence the licensing of the
quiver solution was temporarily
suspended in favour of the ongoing
licensing processes of transport and
storage casks.
The second and final German
phase out decision of June 2011 again
revived the demand for a solution for
failed fuel rods. Since the oldest
plants, that had been taken off the
grid only days after the Fukushima
accident, were to remain shut down
permanently, suddenly the development
of a failed-fuel-rod solution was
on a five-year time schedule.
As early as July 2011, the utilities
asked GNS to resume the efforts
with a special focus on the new time
constraints. Regarding these new
boundary conditions, GNS revised the
requirements for such a quiver solution,
now aiming at a very robust
licensing concept as first priority,
which was expected to reliably pass
the licensing process faster than an
economically optimized concept.
During a workshop in August 2011
GNS and the utilities discussed this
concept in detail and until November
2011 a specification was drafted.
Based on that, five potential developers
were invited to present their
concepts in early 2012. Out of these
five, the utilities finally agreed to
adopt a hot-vacuum drying system
with a quiver being able to accommodate
several fuel rods as it was
presented by Höfer & Bechtel. The
quiver would regulatorily be treated
as part of the cask and, to facilitate
timely licensing, a cask-loading with
only quivers was foreseen. In order to
reduce the overall risk of the project,
however, the utilities had also decided
to pursue a second, different approach
at the same time – hot-gas drying of
individually capsuled fuel rods and
assembling several capsules to a
­quasi-assembly – until the major challenges
in the Höfer & Bechtel concept
have been overcome.
At the time of the actual project
start in mid-2012, there was very
­limited scientific information available
on irradiated fuel rods containing
water after a cladding perforation
during operation occurred. EKK then
decided to launch a research project
with the Belgian nuclear research
center SCK•CEN in Mol. As an additional
partner SYNATOM, the company
responsible for the front and the
back end of the nuclear fuel cycle
in Belgium, decided to join the socalled
WETFUEL project. As will be
described in more detail later, hydraulic
properties were measured, proof of
principle for temperature assisted
vacuum drying was provided and
­finally water removal rates were
determined. During this intensive
research programme the overall concept
could be validated and the industrial
feasibility was shown.
Based on these results GNS in
cooperation with Höfer & Bechtel
developed two quivers for non standard
fuel rods to fit into the basket slots
of the existing cask types CASTOR®
V/19 (PWR) and CASTOR® V/52
(BWR). The customizable internal
baskets of the quivers facilitate the
disposal of a large variety of nuclear
inventory. Furthermore, the quiver
features a robust design and a unique
welded closure system, to provide a
second cladding for the damaged fuel
rods. This design and the accompanying
dispatch equipment have been
verified by a series of tests and qualification
processes supervised by the
German authorities, and have proven
to be a reliable solution within the
specified period of only five years.
The package design approvals for
the quiver for CASTOR® V/19 and
V/52 have been issued by the German
authorities in 2017 and 2018, respectively.
This first of its kind quiver
solution is thus able to assure the dry
interim storage of all non-standard
fuel rods from the German NPPs in
standard transport and storage casks.
In April 2018, the first three
PWR-quivers were loaded at Unterweser
NPP, while their final dispatch
campaign including drying and
welding was successfully carried out
in October and November 2018. The
next dispatch campaign has already
started at Biblis NPP.
2 The Quiver – Design
and function
The quiver for non standard fuel rods
has been designed to be accommodated
by the standard baskets of the
CASTOR® V/19 or CASTOR® V/52.
151
DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
Decommissioning and Waste Management
Quivers for Damaged and Non-Standard Fuel Rods ı Sascha Bechtel, Wolfgang Faber, Hagen Höfer, Frank Jüttemann, Martin Kaplik, Michael Köbl, Bernhard Kühne and Marc Verwerft

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 152
| | Fig. 1.
PWR-quiver with head- and foot-piece, inner basket, 32AR (upper-) and
6AR (lower picture), lid of BWR-quiver (upper-), welded lid (lower picture) –
(from left to right).
The boundary conditions for the
design of the quiver were:
pp
restoring the limited or missing
barrier of the damaged fuel
pp
equivalence to the size and weight
of standard fuel assemblies to fit
into the CASTOR® baskets
pp
full compliance with CASTOR®
license, regarding
pp
criticality
pp
dose rate
pp
heat dissipation
pp
no negative impact especially on
the CASTOR® lid system, regarding
accident conditions
pp
ability to dry the fuel, that might be
wet, due to cladding failure
pp
ability to get the license for processing
the damaged fuel from the
spent fuel pool to the loading of the
final CASTOR®
The quiver (Figure 1) comprises the
following parts:
pp
A forged stainless steel body with
the central cavity to accommodate
the inner basket. The body is made
of one single piece, comparable to
the body of the CASTOR®.
pp
The inner basket, which accommodates
the damaged fuel rods or
even parts of fuel rods and thus
provides a defined and calculable
geometry. Furthermore, the inner
basket is designed to facilitate the
drying of the damaged fuel. There
are different types of inner baskets
to accommodate even geometrically
distorted fuel rods.
pp
A lid that is screwed into the top of
the body, after the cavity and the
fuel have been successfully dried.
Additionally, the lid is welded to
the body, to provide the gas tight
barrier for the fuel.
pp
The head- and foot-pieces are
designed as shock absorbers to
limit the impact on the quiver itself
and on CASTOR® lid in case of an
accident. The head-piece also
serves as load attachment point.
The inner basket of the PWR-quiver
is licensed in two different variants.
The most common type called 32AR
features 32 tubes of three different diameters
for fuel rods or encapsulated
fuel rods of different diameters. The
second type is called 6AR and is suited
for geometrically distorted fuel rods.
It is possible to load more than one
fuel rod into one of the six tubes of the
6AR inner basket.
For the BWR-quiver three different
types of inner baskets have been
licensed. These are 18AR and 14AR
for 18 resp. 14 fuel rods of different
diameters as well as 8AR for geometrically
distorted fuel rods. The 8AR can
take up one or two fuel rods in each of
its eight tubes.
Unlike a fuel assembly, which
bends under mechanical loads, the
quiver is a much more rigid and stiff
structure. One of the biggest challenges
was the design and qualification
of the head- and foot-pieces
regarding their shock absorber functionality
to prevent additional stress
to the CASTOR® lid system under accident
conditions of transport.
To prove the effectiveness of the
head- and foot-pieces, first the design
was optimized using static loads of a
hydraulic press with maximum force
of 300 tons. Later on, the final design
was proven in several drop tests. For
that, the equipment for the drop tests
was set up and qualified at the Höfer &
| | Fig. 2.
Drop test at -40°C, just before impact.
Bechtel site at Mainhausen. All equipment
for the drop tests of the 880 kg
prototype quivers onto a rigid foundation
was qualified in cooperation
with BAM. Drop tests were performed
at temperatures between -40°C
( Figure 2) and +90°C (PWR) and
-40°C to +110°C (BWR). The optimized
design of the head- and footpieces
was able to keep the maximum
load to the quiver itself as well as the
force on the lid system of the CASTOR®
within the specified limits.
Manufacturing of the quivers and
all of its components is performed
under supervision of different authorities
in order to assure quality specifications
laid down in the license.
A second major challenge was the
qualification of the drying process of
the quiver cavity and even more so of
potentially wet damaged fuel. Based
on theoretical calculations and published
experience with drying of
damaged fuel, the drying concept was
developed. Starting with a mock up
for simulating a single damaged fuel
rod up to the 1:1 original drying
equipment, the qualification process
for the drying was performed under
supervision of BAM. The ability to
monitor the drying process and to
measure and verify dryness is as
important as the drying process itself,
as the test rods could be weighed and
inspected for dryness, but the original
damaged fuel rods can not.
Fruitful discussions with the
­experts of BAM led to the final design
of the drying equipment and to the
approved drying procedures. Participation
in the international WETFUEL
research program, which took place at
SCK•CEN, Mol, Belgium, during the
time of the development of the quiver
drying system, was also a great opportunity
to transform the experience
from test rods to real fuel rods.
3 The Quiver as part of the
CASTOR® Cask and its
licensing implications
The disposal of spent nuclear fuel in
Germany is essentially based on the
established CASTOR® V casks. These
casks consist of a thick-walled, monolithic
cask body made of ductile cast
iron with radial cooling fins, a basket
for the spent fuel assemblies and an
in-line double lid system. In case
of CASTOR® V/19 for PWR-FA, the
basket offers 19 positions while in case
of CASTOR® V/52 for BWR-FA, the
basket has 52 positions. Figure 3
displays the design features using the
example of CASTOR® V/52 in storage
configuration.
Decommissioning and Waste Management
Quivers for Damaged and Non-Standard Fuel Rods ı Sascha Bechtel, Wolfgang Faber, Hagen Höfer, Frank Jüttemann, Martin Kaplik, Michael Köbl, Bernhard Kühne and Marc Verwerft

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
| | Fig. 3.
Design Features of the CASTOR® V/52
(Storage configuration).
In order to provide a comprehensive
disposal concept also for damaged
fuel rods, the quiver for damaged
fuel rods had to be licensed as inventory
for transport and storage in
CASTOR® V casks. To achieve a
straightforward and fast licensing
process, the quiver was designed to be
very robust and to comply with the
existing boundary conditions of the
CASTOR® V cask:
pp
equivalence of size and weight of
standard fuel assemblies to fit into
the CASTOR® baskets
pp
no negative impact on the cask,
especially on the CASTOR® lid
system under accident conditions
pp
ability to dry the damaged fuel
rods to an extent, that no extra
measures in the cask or quiver
design are necessary.
The licensing approach was further
optimized regarding the situation of
shut-down NPPs with the need for a
fast track disposal concept for a
complete removal of nuclear fuel from
their spent fuel pools. This led to a
two-step approach:
1. Fast track concept featuring:
pp
Robust quiver design with significant
safety margins
pp
Conservative cask loading pattern
(quiver only)
pp
Safety report with very conservative
boundary conditions
pp
Substantial experimental tests to
accelerate the safety evaluation
process
2. Optimized concept featuring:
pp
Robust quiver design with higher
load capacity
pp
Optimized cask loading patterns
(quiver and spent fuel assemblies)
pp
Safety report with adequate
boundary conditions
The first approach proved successful:
The first transport license for the
leading PWR-quiver in CASTOR®
V/19 casks was granted on schedule
in April 2017, subsequently the first
storage license for Biblis NPP in June
2018. The transport license for the
BWR-quiver in CASTOR® V/52 casks
was granted in April 2018, the first
storage license for Krümmel NPP in
December 2018.
In order to economically optimize
the use of the quiver system, GNS
works on improving the capacity of
the quivers and enabling also mixed
cask loadings with both quivers and
regular fuel assemblies. First feasibility
studies have been started.
4 Quiver handling and
service equipment
The quiver project is divided into
three subprojects. One of these subprojects
was the development and
manufacturing of equipment for
handling and preparation of damaged
fuel rods for the loading into the
quivers.
4.1 First step: Loading of
damaged spent fuel into
the Quiver
Using trusted under water handling
tools the damaged fuel rods are
loaded under water into the quivers.
This process is schematically shown
in Figure 4 left.
For the loading of the fuel rods
with minor damages (e.g. gastight
with reduced cladding thickness or
gastight with deformations) the fuel
rod is gripped at its upper pin by
means of a plier. The operator lifts the
tool with the crane and positions the
attached fuel rod above the quiver.
Subsequently, the fuel rod is lowered
into a free loading position of the
internal basket of the quiver. Examples
of customized internal baskets for
different kinds of damaged fuel rods
are shown in Figure 4 right.
Before loading into the quiver,
heavily damaged fuel rods or even
fuel rod sections down to the size of
pellets, are placed in small handling
tubes. The handling tubes are handled
with a dedicated gripper (Figure 5).
| | Fig. 4.
Damaged fuel rods and handling tubes with fuel rod sections are placed in a receptacle, which is
positioned in the fuel assembly storage rack. Next to that the quiver is waiting for the loading (left).
Different internal baskets for varying kinds of bent damaged fuel rods (right).
| | Fig. 5.
Handling tube for the collection of heavily damaged fuel rods, smaller sections of fuel rods or even
broken pieces down to the size of pellets (left). In analogy to the loading of fuel rods with an intact
upper pin, the handling tubes are placed in the internal basket of the quiver (right). Example for a
gripper to collect fuel debris for placement in cartridges before loading into the quiver (bottom).
DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 153
Decommissioning and Waste Management
Quivers for Damaged and Non-Standard Fuel Rods ı Sascha Bechtel, Wolfgang Faber, Hagen Höfer, Frank Jüttemann, Martin Kaplik, Michael Köbl, Bernhard Kühne and Marc Verwerft

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 154
| | Fig. 6.
The quiver is still placed in the fuel-assembly rack with the transfer-head piece already attached. The
primary shielding is inside the loading station at the usual loading position of the CASTOR® V cask (left).
The quiver is lifted out of the rack and positioned inside the primary shielding (center). After removal of
the transfer-head piece the primary shielding is closed with a top shielding. Now the shielding basket is
ready to be lifted out of the pool and handled on the reactor floor (right).
| | Fig. 7.
The quiver inside the primary shielding is lifted out of the pool and into the handling station on the
reactor floor (left). Dewatering of the quiver inside the handling station (center). View into the mobile
hot cell on top of the handling station (right).
The actual process of loading the
handling tubes into the internal basket
of the quiver remains unchanged compared
to the fuel rods with minor
damages, which are directly loaded
into the quiver.
4.2 Second step: Dispatch
of the Quiver
In contrast to the regular dispatch of
spent fuel assemblies under water in
the spent fuel pool, the dispatch of the
quiver is performed outside the spent
fuel pool on the reactor floor. This
approach is motivated by the possibility
to use much simpler technology
than would be required for underwater
processing in the spent fuel
pool. This also yields an increase
in process stability. However, this
approach requires some additional
equipment especially with regard to
shielding.
After loading of the quiver with
damaged fuel rods a transfer-head
piece is attached to the top of the
quiver for handling purposes. This
transfer­ head piece allows the handling
of the quiver like a standard fuel
assembly with a gripper. The quiver is
lifted out of the storage rack and is
placed into a shielding basket on the
bottom of the pool. The shielding
basket is the primary shielding of the
quiver during handling outside of
the spent fuel pool. In the pool it is
positioned in a loading station waiting
to take up the quiver. As shown in
Figure 6 the loading station is located
at the position in the spent fuel pool,
where the CASTOR® V casks are
usually loaded during a standard
defueling campaign. It consists of a
stable base plate with welded lateral
guide and support elements for the
shielding basket. The loading station
and the shielding basket are handled
with the same crane system of the NPP.
After transferring the quiver into
the shielding basket, the transfer-head
piece is removed and a top shielding,
closing the top of the shielding basket
is attached to the primary shielding.
The shielding basket including the
quiver is now lifted out of the pool and
positioned into a handling station on
the reactor floor (Figure 7).
The handling station is where the
actual dispatch of the quiver takes
place. It consists of a secondary
shielding system, an operating platform
and a mobile hot cell, which is
operated by remote control. The
shielding block as the secondary
shielding system for the quiver consists
of a sandwich structure of polyethylene
and steel. One side can be
opened for placing the shielding
basket with the traverse into the
shielding block. An operation platform
is fitted to the shielding block,
enabling access to the upper part of
the shielding block and for inspection
works. Inside the mobile hot cell
the drying and welding of the quiver
is performed. The mobile hot cell provides
a barrier between the damaged
fuel rods in the quiver and the atmosphere
of the controlled area in the
NPP, retaining particles etc. The atmosphere
inside the mobile hot cell is
monitored and can be replaced with
an inert gas atmosphere. The exhaust
line from the mobile hot cell is
connected to the building ventilation
system via a particle filter, providing
further contamination control.
Now the dewatering and drying of
the quiver can take place. While the
dewatering is performed by suction of
the water the drying process is more
sophisticated: while the quiver is
heated to temperatures above the
boiling point of water by hot air from a
heating unit, a vacuum drying device
operates using a special throughput of
hot air, utilizing humidity sensors to
monitor the residual moisture in the
quiver and its inventory.
After drying, the quiver is filled
with helium for helium leak testing
and to provide inert conditions. The
lid of the quiver is screwed in using
remote manipulation tools. In order to
provide the gas tightness of the quiver,
a welding seam is produced by means
of a remote welding machine. The
welding process had to be qualified by
the German authorities and it was
shown that the automated process
generates a gastight welding seam
­fulfilling the design specifications.
Finally, after the welding a leak tightness
test of the welding seam is performed
inside the mobile hot cell.
As mentioned above, all the operations
inside the mobile hot cell are
performed by remote control and are
monitored by video. This significantly
reduces the radiation exposure of
the personnel. Figure 8 shows the
Decommissioning and Waste Management
Quivers for Damaged and Non-Standard Fuel Rods ı Sascha Bechtel, Wolfgang Faber, Hagen Höfer, Frank Jüttemann, Martin Kaplik, Michael Köbl, Bernhard Kühne and Marc Verwerft

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
| | Fig. 8.
The remote controlled handling device inside the mobile hot cell with one of the six cameras inside
the cell (top, left). The remote control terminal which is placed next to the handling station (top, right).
The remote controlled automatic welding device (bottom).
manipulation device and one of the
six cameras inside the mobile hot cell.
The remote control station is positioned
beside the handling station and
is connected to the mobile hot cell.
After the dispatch, the quiver – still
inside the primary shielding – is transferred
back to the loading station in
the pool. Here the quiver is lifted out
of the shielding and put back into the
storage rack, where it remains until
being loaded into the CASTOR® cask.
5 Drying spent nuclear fuel
5.1 Boundary conditions
for drying fuel
Both the defining criteria of damaged
fuel and the procedures for handling
damaged spent nuclear fuel vary from
country to country depending on
the regulatory requirements [1]. For
intact fuel assemblies, the transfer
from wet to dry storage goes generally
without problems as the intact cladding
of the fuel rods ensures that all
water is “easily accessible”. For
non-intact fuel rods, one may expect
that the inner parts of the rod such as
the plenum, fuel-cladding gap, cracks
and fissures in the UO 2 , pellet-pellet
dishes etc. are partially or completely
filled with water. Extraction of the
water that has seeped into the fuel
may be difficult. As-fabricated fuel
rods have a fuel-cladding gap of
several tens of micrometers, but
progressively, the cladding creeps
towards the fuel while the fuel undergoes
thermal expansion and swells
due to fission product accumulation
and after a certain period of time, the
fuel­ cladding gap is closed in hot
operating conditions. In cold stage,
the gap re-opens due to the larger
thermal contraction of the fuel, but
the gap size of spent fuel is much
smaller than the as-fabricated gap.
Already for non-failed fuels, the gas
connectivity in an irradiated fuel rod
is a complex phenomenon to describe
quantitatively. Upon cladding breach,
the fuel rod internals are exposed to
the primary coolant and later to the
spent fuel pool water. After cladding
breach, e.g. as a result of debris
fretting causing a pinhole defect,
secondary cladding defects rapidly
develop due to hydrogen uptake by
the Zircaloy cladding [2, 3]. Furthermore,
UO 2 potentially oxidizes to
higher oxides upon exposure to oxidizing
conditions (UO 2 → UO 2+x →
U 4 O 9 → U 3 O 7 → U 3 O 8 ). Compared to
UO 2 , the higher oxides which essentially
keep the fluorite arrangement of
the parent UO 2 structure (UO 2+x ,
U 4 O 9 and U 3 O 7 ) show a net contraction
of their structure [4-6], but when
the U 3 O 8 phase forms, a huge expansion
(36 %) occurs [7]. For non-intact
fuel, one must thus take into account
that water has interacted with the
UO 2 fuel, and that hydriding and
inner wall oxidation of zircaloy cladding
may have occurred, which
further complicates a theoretical prediction
of water removal kinetics.
5.2 Hot laboratory drying
tests of real spent nuclear
fuel segments (WETFUEL
Project)
In order to reduce the uncertainties of
water removal rates from damaged
irradiated spent fuel rods, an experimental
setup was developed to perform
wetting and drying tests under
well-controlled conditions. The setup
further allowed to measure the
hydrau­lic resistance for gas flow as
well as the removal rate of water
through a spent fuel segment of
variable length. The device consisted
of two instrumented vessels holding a
fuel rod segment in between them,
sealed in such a way that any
water, gas or vapor flow had to pass
through the clamped fuel rod segment
(Figure 9).
Spent fuel samples were taken
from a failed fuel rod and from a
nearly identical unfailed fuel rod
with a rod average burnup around
50 GWd/tHM irradiated in the ­Belgian
Tihange 1 PWR. Tested fuel samples
showed the typical crack pattern for
irradiated nuclear fuel (Figure 10).
For analytical studies, fuel rod
segments of various lengths were
investigated. In this article the results
obtained from two segments of 50 cm
and one of 10 cm length are discussed.
| | Fig. 9.
Hot-cell installation for wetting and drying experiments on spent nuclear fuel segments: Design drawing
of the two vessels: a large bottom vessel and a much smaller top vessel (left). 3D cutout view of the
equipment with schematic indication of a mounted spent fuel segment (center). View of the equipment
installed in hot-cell (right).
DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 155
Decommissioning and Waste Management
Quivers for Damaged and Non-Standard Fuel Rods ı Sascha Bechtel, Wolfgang Faber, Hagen Höfer, Frank Jüttemann, Martin Kaplik, Michael Köbl, Bernhard Kühne and Marc Verwerft

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 156
| | Fig. 10.
Cross section of the spent fuel segment WET1, taken from the failed fuel.
The cracks and gap do not show any particular severe degradation. The
missing part on the bottom side is caused by sample preparation. Inset:
detail of the gap region, with an overlay of a Scanning Electron Microscopy
(SEM) image. The greater depth of view of the SEM allows one to better
assess the width of irregular areas such as cracks and the pellet-clad gap
than observations made from optical micrographs.
Prior to tests on real spent fuel rod
segments, mock-up tests were performed
with a segment filled with fine
Al 2 O 3 powder and sealed on both ends
with a porous filter plug.
The test setup allowed various
types of tests:
pp
Hydraulic resistance for dry gas
flow
pp
Wetting-Drying sequence
pp
Water pocket drying
The hydraulic resistance can be
­derived by measuring a gas flow at
constant pressure difference, which
works well for low hydraulic resistance
samples, or by measuring the
rate of pressure change in either of the
two vessels as a function of pressure
difference over the sample, which
proved to be more accurate for
samples with high hydraulic resistance.
Under conditions of laminar
flow, the molar flow rate Q m (t) is
equal to:
length, R is the universal gas constant.
From (Eq. 1), the effective hydraulic
radius can be readily calculated (see
also column 3 of Table 1:
(2)
A complete wetting and drying
sequence consisted of inserting an
excess amount of water in the lower
vessel such that the lower part of the
fuel rod segment would be completely
immersed. The gas cushion above the
water was then pressurized such that
the sample segment was progressively
filled with water until the moisture
readout in the top vessel indicated the
presence of liquid water i.e. full percolation
did occur. The system was
then soaked for a minimum period of
2 hours to allow finer cracks and gaps
to be wetted as well. The lower vessel
was then drained and both top and
bottom vessels were heated to a preset
temperature while being pumped.
During the pumping sequence, the
pressure was monitored as well as the
moisture content in the exhaust line.
After reaching pressures below 1 mbar
in both top and bottom vessel, a pressure
rebound test was performed [8].
To this end, the exhaust lines were
shut and the pressure increment was
monitored for 30 minutes. If the pressure
would not exceed 4 mbar, the test
was considered complete. The drying
sequence, plotted in Figure 11, clearly
showed several phases: in a first
phase, the pressure rapidly dropped
until ~10 mbar, at which point the
pressure stabilized while liquid water
was slowly removed from the fuel
column. The humidity in the exhaust
lines remained elevated (dew point
between 10 °C and 20 °C). Once the
liquid water was removed from the
segment, the pressure and humidity
further dropped. Considering the performance
of the pumping system,
the vacuum was expected to asymptotically
approach ~0.5 mbar. In the
example shown in Figure 11, the first
pressure rebound test was nearly successful
after around 6 h. Upon further
drying, the pressure and humidity
gradually evolved to 0.3 - 0.4 mbar
and 40 °C. A successful dryness test
was performed after 24 h. Further
drying did not result in any significant
changes in vessel pressure or relative
humidity of the exhaust gas. The
test was concluded after 96 h with a
third dryness test, which was again
successful.
The wetting and drying sequence
yielded a successful demonstration of
the feasibility of the drying principle
but was difficult to quantify. Quantification
of water removal rates was
approached by two methods. At first,
the hydraulic resistance of a fuel rod
segment was assessed under dry conditions
(see above), and in a second
stage, “water pocket tests” were performed
at different temperatures. To
this end, 10 ml of water was poured
into the top vessel which was then
sealed, the whole system was heated
and pumping was performed from the
bottom vessel. Depending on the
drying temperature, the drying time
was shorter or longer and correspondingly,
the lower vessel pressure
was at a higher or lower equilibrium
during the drying process: ~4 mbar
for 3 h when drying at 130 °C and at
~2.5 mbar for more than twelve hours
when drying at 110 °C.
(1)
where Q m (t) is the instantaneous
mass flow rate (expressed in g.s 1 )
through the segment, P 1 (t) and P 2 (t)
are the top and bottom pressures as a
function of time, V 1 is the volume of
the top vessel, r is the radius for an
­effective capillary for the gas flow
path, η(T) is the dynamic viscosity of
a certain gas at temperature T (e.g. Ar,
air or H 2 O), M is the molar mass of
the considered gas, L is the flow path
| | Fig. 11.
Drying sequence with monitoring of pressure evolution in both top and bottom vessel and evolution of the
pressure during a 30 minutes dryness test, performed after approximately 6 h of drying, 24 h and 96 h.
Decommissioning and Waste Management
Quivers for Damaged and Non-Standard Fuel Rods ı Sascha Bechtel, Wolfgang Faber, Hagen Höfer, Frank Jüttemann, Martin Kaplik, Michael Köbl, Bernhard Kühne and Marc Verwerft

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
Sample ID Length Effective
hydraulic radius
| | Tab. 1.
Hydraulic radius of different samples.
From the same water pocket drying
experiments, vapor flow rates can
be determined by shortly closing the
valves of the bottom chamber and
monitoring the instantaneous pressure
increment (see Eq. (1)). Once the
macroscopic amounts of water were
removed from the top vessel in a water
pocket test, the pressure in the top
vessel dropped and the system evolved
to an apparently dry state. Although
both pressure and relative humidity
indicated that the system reached
near perfect dryness, further tests indicated
that the top vessel continued
to contain a minute amount of water
vapor at a pressure of about 60 mbar
that could not escape through the fuel
rod. This can be interpreted as leaving
the laminar flow regime, for which
the Knudsen number (Kn, i.e. the ratio
of gas mean free path l¯ to the lateral
­dimension w of the flow path) is less
than 0.01.
(3)
The mean free path is proportional to
the temperature and inversely proportional
to the pressure (see e.g. [9]):
Water removal rate
(g/day)
110 °C 120 °C 130 °C
WET1 50 cm 89 ± 2 µm 15 ± 2 28 ± 2 44 ± 5
WET2 50 cm 103 ± 2 µm 33 ± 4 63 ± 7 89 ± 10
WET3 10 cm 85 ± 1 µm 73 ± 8 133 ± 15 207 ± 23
WET5b 17 cm 102 ± 2 µm 90 ± 10 164 ± 18 321 ± 36
drying times, thus substan tially reducing
risks for the utilities. Furthermore,
the amount of residual water not
accessible with the technique of
hot-vacuum drying can be quantified,
showing a huge margin to design
assumptions.
6 The first Quiver
Campaign and outlook
on the industrial use
6.1 Preparation and cold trial
at Unterweser NPP
Before the very first dispatch campaign
at Unterweser NPP could start
in October 2018, an extended work
program had to be successfully completed.
This comprised the loading of
the damaged fuel rods into the quivers
as well as the installation and site
acceptance testing of the complete
dispatch equipment (Figure 13).
The loading of the PWR quivers
(Figure 14) with the fuel rods was
carried out according to a clearly
­defined loading plan. Each loading
step was precisely documented.
| | Fig. 12.
Vapor mass flow rates determined directly for different segments (symbols)
and calculated on the basis of dry hydraulic resistance measurement (thin
solid lines).A calculated release rate for a 4 m long rod with a hypothetical
80 µm hydraulic radius is also calculated (thick red line).
Before the dispatch campaign, the
equipment had to be set up in the
reactor building, where the site
acceptance test was carried out. In
addition, various supporting documents
were submitted to the supervisory
authority for approval. In order
to prove that the welding equipment
was set up correctly and in accordance
with the requirements, a trial weld
was carried out prior to the actual
campaign.
6.2 First Quiver Campaign –
Sequence of Handling and
Service Activities
As described in chapter 4, the handling
of the quivers takes place at two
different levels inside the containment:
The loading station is positioned
in the spent fuel pool, while the
DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 157
(4)
Herein, k B is Boltzman’s constant, T the
absolute temperature, expressed in
Kelvin, P the pressure, expressed in Pa
and d the diameter of the gas molecules
(d = 0.4 nm for H 2 O). With a vapor
pressure of 60 mbar (6,000 Pa) at
120 °C (393 K) and typical crack width
of 15 µm the Knudsen number is
Kn = 0.09, well in the transition ­regime
to molecular flow. Within that flow
­regime, mass-flow is con­siderably ­lower
and vapor-removal effectively stops.
Mass flow rates were calculated
from the hydraulic radius as derived
from the dry hydraulic resistance
measurements (Figure 12 and Table
1). The excellent agreement between
the different water removal ap proaches
provided a sound scientific basis,
allowing quantitative assessment of
| | Fig. 13.
Preparation, cold trial and dispatch at Unterweser NPP.
| | Fig. 14.
Measuring the length for the spacers (left), insertion of the spacers into the quiver (right).
Decommissioning and Waste Management
Quivers for Damaged and Non-Standard Fuel Rods ı Sascha Bechtel, Wolfgang Faber, Hagen Höfer, Frank Jüttemann, Martin Kaplik, Michael Köbl, Bernhard Kühne and Marc Verwerft

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 158
| | Fig. 15.
Shielding basket and loading station in the spent fuel pool (left) and the service station with mobile hot
cell positioned on the shielding block and equipment on the reactor floor (right).
| | Fig. 16.
Storage rack and quiver (left), top shielding on shielding basket (right).
| | Fig. 17.
Transport of the shielding basket to the shielding block (left), mobile hot cell (right).
service station is located at the reactor
floor outside of the pool (Figure 15).
After mounting the transfer head
piece, the loaded quivers were lifted
up out of the storage rack and transferred
to the loading station into the
shielding basket. Here the head piece
was removed and a top shielding was
installed to close the shielding basket
(Figure 16).
The shielding basket containing
the loaded quiver was then lifted up to
the reactor floor. Once the shielding
basket is inside of the shielding block,
in a first step the quiver was dewatered.
Next, the mobile hot cell was
mounted on top of the shielding block
(Figure 17). Prior to drying the
quiver, the top shielding was replaced
with the multi cover, which provides
connections to the drying device and
the heating device.
The quiver was then evacuated
using vacuum pumps, the humidity
was removed from the quiver and was
recovered as condensate in a condenser.
The operating data of the
drying device were recorded and
stored in a stationary computer. After
finishing the drying procedure, the
­interior of the quiver was filled with
helium.
Next, the lid screwing device
( Figure 18) was positioned on the
base body of the quiver. It screws the
lid into the base body automatically,
while all the parameters can be monitored
remotely by the operator.
Afterwards the welding machine
was positioned, that automatically
connected the lid and the base body of
the quiver by means of a qualified
welding procedure (Figure 19). As
last step, the leak tightness of the
welding seam was tested.
Finally, the quiver could be transferred
back to the storage rack in the
spent fuel pool.
| | Fig. 18.
Close-up of the lid screwing device (left), welding machine and lid screwing device (right).
| | Fig. 19.
Welding device (left), welded lid (right).
6.3 First Quiver campaign –
Main results
The dispatch of the first quiver started
in Unterweser NPP on 12 October and
was completed on 21 October 2018.
The drying process lasted about
6 days. The maximum dose rate at
the service station was less than
70 mSv/h. The second quiver dispatch
started on 23 October and was completed
on 01 November 2018. Again
the drying process lasted 6 days. The
third dispatch started on 02 November
and lasted until 16 November. The
drying process took about 11 days.
The dose rate of the second and the
third dispatch were comparable to the
first dispatch.
Decommissioning and Waste Management
Quivers for Damaged and Non-Standard Fuel Rods ı Sascha Bechtel, Wolfgang Faber, Hagen Höfer, Frank Jüttemann, Martin Kaplik, Michael Köbl, Bernhard Kühne and Marc Verwerft

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
The major results of the first three
dispatch cycles are:
pp
The qualified processes for
handling, drying and welding are
robust and reliable.
pp
The “out of pool”-handling results
in very low radiation exposures for
the service personnel.
pp
It has been shown that it is feasible,
to dry damaged fuel in an industrial
process on site.
6.4 Outlook on the upcoming
Quiver Campaigns at Biblis
and Krümmel NPP
Meanwhile, the second PWR quiver
campaign has already started at Biblis
NPP, comprising 9 PWR quivers.
After installation of the handling
and service equipment, the test of
the welding device by a trial weld
was completed in December 2018.
The actual campaign has started in
­January 2019 and the first quiver was
dispatched by January 20 th .
The first BWR quiver campaign is
planned at Krümmel NPP. The storage
license has already been granted.
Currently the preparations are mainly
focused on the required documents.
The campaign is scheduled for
summer 2019 and will comprise 9
BWR quivers.
With the Krümmel campaign, the
GNS quiver system will provide
conclusive proof, that it can be used
industrially for failed fuel rods both
from PWR- as well as from BWR
reactors.
References
[1] IAEA, Management of Damaged Spent Nuclear Fuel, NF-T-3.6
IAEA Nuclear Energy Series. Vienna, IAEA, 2009.
[2] Lewis, B.J., Macdonald, R.D., Ivanoff, N.V., Iglesias, F.C., Fuel
performance and fission-product release studies for defected
fuel elements, Nuclear Technology, 1993, 103: p. 220-245.
[3] Olander, D.R., Kim, Y.S., Wang, W.E., Yagnik, S.K., Steam
oxidation of fuel in defective LWR rods, Journal of Nuclear
Materials, 1999, 270: p. 11-20.
[4] Leinders, G., Cardinaels, T., Binnemans, K., Verwerft, M.,
Accurate lattice parameter measurements of stoichiometric
uranium dioxide, Journal of Nuclear Materials, 2015, 459:
p. 135-142.
[5] Willis, B.T.M., Structures of UO 2 , UO 2+x and U 4 O 9 by neutron
diffraction, Journal de Physique I, 1964, 25: p. 431-439.
[6] Leinders, G., Delville, R., Pakarinen, J., Cardinaels, T.,
Binnemans, K., Verwerft, M., Assessment of the U 3 O 7 Crystal
Structure by X-ray and Electron Diffraction, Inorganic Chemistry,
2016, 55: p. 9923-9936.
[7] McEachern, R.J., Taylor, P., A review of the oxidation of
uranium dioxide at temperatures below 400°C, Journal of
Nuclear Materials, 1998, 254: p. 87-121.
[8] ASTM, C1553-16, Standard Guide for Drying Behavior of Spent
Nuclear Fuel, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2016.
[9] Jitschin, W., Gas Flow, In: Jousten K, editor. Handbook of
Vacuum Technology. Weinheim, Wiley-VCH, 2016.
Authors
Dr. Frank Jüttemann
Martin Kaplik
Michael Köbl
Bernhard Kühne
GNS Gesellschaft für Nuklear-
Service mbH
Frohnhauser Straße 67
45127 Essen, Germany
Sascha Bechtel
Hagen Höfer
Höfer & Bechtel GmbH
Ostring 1
63533 Mainhausen, Germany
Dr. Wolfgang Faber
PreussenElektra GmbH
Tresckowstraße 5
30457 Hannover, Germany
Dr. Marc Verwerft
Belgian Nuclear Research Centre
(SCK•CEN), Institute for Nuclear
Materials Science
Boeretang 200
B-2400 Mol, Belgium
Advertisement
DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 159
Theoretisch
ist die Energiewende
eine Jahrhundertaufgabe.
Praktisch
ist sie unser
täglicher Job.
Gemeinsam bringen wir die Dinge voran: Wir von
der EnBW Kernkraft GmbH kümmern uns an den
Standorten Philippsburg, Neckarwestheim und
Obrigheim um Betrieb, Stilllegung und Abbau
unserer Kernkraftwerke. Bei allem, was wir tun,
hat die Sicherheit stets oberste Priorität. Der
Rückbau ist ein Mega-Projekt mit langfristiger
Perspektive.
Hierfür suchen wir Menschen, die mit viel Engagement,
Einfallsreichtum und Know-how den Rückbau
mit uns voranbringen und in die Tat umsetzen.
Im Gegenzug bieten wir abwechslungsreiche Aufgaben
und vielfältige Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten.
Machen Sie jetzt mit:
www.enbw.com/jobmarkt
Decommissioning and Waste Management
Quivers for Damaged and Non-Standard Fuel Rods ı Sascha Bechtel, Wolfgang Faber, Hagen Höfer, Frank Jüttemann, Martin Kaplik, Michael Köbl, Bernhard Kühne and Marc Verwerft

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 160
Advanced Sectorial Gamma Scanning
for the Radiological Characterization
of Radioactive Waste Packages
M. Dürr, M. Fritzsche, K. Krycki, B. Hansmann, T. Hansmann, A. Havenith, D. Pasler and T. Hartmann
The management of radioactive waste is under strict regulatory control to ensure the compliance with safety guidelines.
For the disposal in the Konrad geological repository for non-heat generating radioactive waste in Germany,
acceptance criteria for radioactive waste packages have been derived from the safety case. The waste designated for
disposal is subject to product control which is conditional for approval of the waste package by the operator of the
disposal facility. The non-destructive assay using gamma radiation detection techniques is a cost-effective measure to
characterize radioactive waste and serves to verify the conformity with the acceptance criteria. In the past decades, the
pre-dominantly used method is segmented gamma scanning of waste drums, which is based on simplifying assumption
of a uniformly distributed activity and a homogeneous waste matrix. The simplification reduces the accuracy of the
measurement leading to large conservative estimates for the activity content which in turn leads to an excessive and
inefficient exhaustion of activity limits for waste packages and to higher costs for disposal. An Advanced Sectorial
­Gamma Scanning (ASGS) method is developed, which includes a software module for the efficiency calculation of
inhomogeneous activity distributions (ECIAD) to reconstruct the spatially resolved activity distribution from the
acquired measurement data. This method can be applied for a wider range of the composition of the radioactive waste,
which is of relevance in the qualification of legacy waste and the increasing stream of waste from decontamination and
decommissioning of nuclear installations.
Introduction
The safe disposal of radioactive waste
is one of the key factors in the sustainable
and safe usage of nuclear energy
for electric power generation. From
the waste that is generated during
operation of a nuclear power plant,
the largest amount of radioactivity
(99 %) is contained within the spent
fuel for which dedicated waste management
strategies are developed.
The largest part (95 %) of the waste
volume that is classified as radioactive
waste, however, contains only approximately
1 % of the radioactivity produced
in the process of nuclear power
generation [1]. The safe disposal is
subject to regulatory control and strict
safety requirements which have led to
various approaches for the engineered
disposal facility designs ranging from
emplacement in constructed subsurface
structures like caverns, vaults or
silos to repositories in deep geological
formations [2]. With a significant portion
of the nuclear power reactors
nearing the end of their licensed operation
time and due to the decision of
several countries for a nuclear phase
out, the number of nuclear power
installations under decontamination
and decommissioning (D&D) is expected
to increase significantly in the
coming two decades [3]. Even if a
large fraction of the material arising
from dismantling of nuclear power
plant can be classified as conventional
waste after clearance, a fraction
remains which cannot be released into
the conventional waste management
streams. Compared to normal operation,
the decommissioning of reactors
leads to a significant increase of the
volume of radioactive waste with a
higher diversity in material composition,
activity and isotope content.
Moreover, countries with early nuclear
programs are confronted with the
problem of significant inventories of
radioactive waste, which were conditioned
when the current regulatory
requirements had not yet existed. For
such kind of so-called ‘legacy waste’
the main issue is in the lacking documentation
of the waste contents such
the composition of the waste is essentially
unknown. In Germany, a geological
repository is currently being
set into operation in a former iron-ore
mine which is operated by the federal
company for radioactive waste disposal
BGE (Bundesgesellschaft für
Entsorgung). The regulatory requirements,
which are derived from the
site-specific safety case, have led to
the formulation of acceptance criteria
for the radioactive waste designated
for disposal in the geological repository
[4]. These criteria are derived
from safety considerations for the
operational safety during waste emplacement,
and for the long-term disposal.
To this end, radioactive waste is
processed and packaged where the
conformity with the acceptance criteria
has been approved under a qualification
process (‘Product control’) [5].
The main hazard is caused from the
radionuclide content of the waste, and
therefore the deliverer is obliged to
declare the radioactive inventory of
each waste package based on the
characterization of the waste product
contained within the waste package.
According to international safety
guidelines the compliance of waste
packages is to be verified [2]. If
measure ments are evaluated in the
process of verification, this implies the
application of the current norms,
standards and procedures. Since the
operator of the disposal facility is
obliged to adhere to upper limits for
the radionuclide inventories, the
uncertainty of the waste package data
declared for the individual waste
package needs to be considered and is
subject to inspection by the operator
of the repository. Such uncertainties
are inherent to the measurement
process and international guidelines
exist on the quantitative evaluation of
the uncertainty in measurement [6].
Based on such a quantitative evaluation,
a conservative value for the
measurement results is determined
for which a degree of confidence of
95 % is stated based on the degree of
information available during evaluation
of the measurement result.
Whereas a statistical (random) nature
is inherent to measurements, so­ called
Type A uncertainties, additional
sources for the uncertainty are considered,
so-called Type B uncertainties,
such as the uncertainty of the
calibration used for the measurement
method. Mathematically, the evaluation
framework is based on the
Bayesian statistics, an example of its
Decommissioning and Waste Management
Advanced Sectorial Gamma Scanning for the Radiological Characterization of Radioactive Waste Packages ı M. Dürr, M. Fritzsche, K. Krycki, B. Hansmann, T. Hansmann, A. Havenith, D. Pasler and T. Hartmann

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
| | Fig. 1.
Probability distribution describing the degree of knowledge in a measurement
of a quantity value. The conservative estimate CE1 and CE2 depends
on the total measurement uncertainty of the applied measurement method.
application being the evaluation of
radiation measurements and the
determination of characteristic limits
laid down in the Norm DIN ISO 11929
[7]. Here, the prior information on
the non-negativity of the radionuclide
activity is included in the quantification
of the degree of confidence associated
with the measured quantity.
For the evaluation of measurement
results obtained in non-destructive
assay using radiation measurements,
the prior information on the physical
and chemical characteristics of the
waste is used and in consequence also
its uncertainties need to be accounted
for in accordance with the guidelines
given in DIN ISO 11929.
In the situation of unknown properties
of the waste product, e.g.
shielding properties or the lack of
knowledge on the localization of the
activity within the waste package, the
conservative estimate is determined
under assumption of a worst-case
scenario which in many cases leads to
a large uncertainty and therefore a
much higher conservative estimate.
This leads to large inventories of
­‘virtual activity’ declared for the radioactive
waste. On the other hand, if
information can be acquired through
the measurement or by other means,
this Type B uncertainty can be reduced
significantly, leading to a much lower
conservative estimate (Figure 1). This
facilitates the adherence to activity
limits for the individual waste packages
and helps to avoid exhaustion of
permissive limits with the benefit of
lower cost for the waste producer.
Gamma scanning
of waste drums
In terms of dose minimization and
economy, non-destructive testing and
more specifically, gamma scanning, is
a widespread and established method
for characterization of radioactive
waste. Typically, gamma scanning
systems are used to simultaneously
identify and quantify radioisotopes in
cylindrical waste drums by measuring
the gamma radiation emitted by
radio nuclides using cooled highpurity
germanium (HPGe) detectors,
which offer high energy-resolution.
The underlying assumptions for
most gamma scanning measurement
methods are the following:
pp
Uniform chemical composition and
density of the active matrix
pp
Homogenous spatial distribution
of the gamma emitting isotopes in
the matrix
In general, gamma scanning relies
on the evaluation of the gamma spectrum
obtained during the measurement.
During its radioactive decay,
the isotope emits gamma radiation
with one or several characteristic lines
in the gamma spectrum which is used
to identify the nuclide inventory of the
waste. The peak intensity of each line
is used to determine the amount of the
radionuclide activity through the correlation
with the ­photopeak efficiency,
which is determined for the specific
measurement configuration. This
photopeak efficiency reflects the physical
inter actions of the gamma radiation
including the self-attenuation
within the active matrix, the attenuation
in the drum wall and the collimator,
and finally, the absorption of the
entire photon energy in the detector
crystal. This quantity is therefore
termed the ‘efficiency calibration’
which is spe­cific to the measurement
object.
Integrated and Segmented
Gamma Scanning
Several different scanning methods
have been developed in the past
decades. The Integrated Gamma
Scanning (IGS) records a single
gamma spectrum for the entire waste
drum with a HPGe detector without
collimation [8]. The data is recorded
| | Fig. 2.
Characterization of a waste drum using Segmented Gamma Scanning (left)
and Advanced Sectorial Gamms Scanning (right) with a partitioned model of
the active matrix.
during a full rotation of the waste
drum. The rotation serves two purposes:
firstly, it ensures that any
localized activity that is potentially
unilaterally shielded by the waste
matrix is registered by the detection
system to the largest extent possible,
and, secondly, the rotation leads to an
averaging effect in case the spatial
­homogeneity is not fulfilled. The
so-called Segmented Gamma Scanning
(SGS) represents the standard
method for characterization of waste
drums containing the waste product
[9]. In the SGS method, a collimated
detector is positioned in varying
vertical positions of the waste drum,
where for each vertical position
gamma spectra are acquired while the
drum is rotated (Figure 2). Hereby a
full surface scan of the waste drum is
achieved to ensure complete coverage
of the volume. The field of view of the
detection system is confined by the
collimator opening angle, such that
predominantly the gamma radiation
emitted along the central axis of the
detector is registered during the scan.
The evaluation is performed on the
summed spectrum obtained during a
rotation scan and can be performed
for each individual segment. The
evaluation in IGS and SGS, however,
is made using the ‘efficiency calibration’
which is calculated using the assumption
stated earlier, namely for a
uniform matrix and for homo genous
activity distribution of the isotopes. In
its initial form, the ­efficiency calibration
(photopeak efficiency) was determined
by formu lating analytical expressions
which are derived using
reasoned simpli­fications and have
been validated in experimental studies
[10, 8]. With increasing computer
processor speeds available, calculations
for the collimated geometry
in SGS are performed numerically,
and the initial simpli­fications can be
dropped leading to higher accuracy of
DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 161
Decommissioning and Waste Management
Advanced Sectorial Gamma Scanning for the Radiological Characterization of Radioactive Waste Packages ı M. Dürr, M. Fritzsche, K. Krycki, B. Hansmann, T. Hansmann, A. Havenith, D. Pasler and T. Hartmann

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 162
the efficiency ­calculation [11, 12].
Alternatively, the so-called mathematical
efficiency ­calibration can be
determined numeri cally using geometric
modeling of the measurement
object and using a parametrization
of the detector specific photopeak
­efficiency determined in an experimental
characterization procedure
[13, 14]. With a software tool the
mathematical efficiency ­calibration is
calculated using prior information on
the measurement ­configuration and
the measurement object, i.e. the parameters
of the waste drum, external
shielding and the active matrix. In
principle, such a calibration can be
calculated for a specific spatial activity
distribution and for a non-uniform
composition of the active matrix, if
the information is available from the
documentation or from other characterization
methods.
Advanced Gamma Scanning
Methods
Information on the spatial distribution
is determined from measurements
by using other scanning modes
in gamma scanning. The so-called
‘swivel scan’ is a scan mode which is
realized by a slight modification of a
segmented gamma scanner, where
gamma spectra are recorded while the
collimated detector performs an
angular sweep perpendicular to the
waste drum central axis [15]. Hereby,
additional information on the radial
localization of the isotope activity is
obtained. Advanced scanning systems
such as the tomographic gamma
scanner (TGS) scan the waste drum to
probe the attenuation properties of
the drum content with an active
source in the so-called transmission
mode. Hereby, the mass attenuation
coefficient of the active matrix and
shielding structures is obtained with
3D spatial information using tomographic
reconstruction. In combination
with the passive emission scanning
mode in addition the spatial
activity distribution of gamma emitting
nuclides can be determined. Such
scanners significantly increase the
information on the waste drum
content, and, since the determined
activity inventory is measured without
assumptions on the spatial distribution
and the matrix, the overall
performance surpasses that of SGS
regarding measurement uncertainties
where TGS reaches accuracies in the
range of 14 % [16]. The drawback of
tomographic systems are the high
system costs, increased measurement
time, and the increased effort required
for the analysis of the extensive
amount of acquired measurement data.
Given the large stock of waste
drums awaiting qualification, a cost
effective and robust measurement
method that can reach a throughput
of several waste drum per day with an
automated analysis is required. Moreover,
the acquired measurement data
should be such that it can be easily
reviewed and inspected to provide
quality-controlled measurement results.
The SGS method fulfills these
criteria with one major drawback that
the actual measurement conditions
deviate from the calibration conditions
used for the efficiency calibration.
Advanced Sectorial Gamma
Scanning – ASGS
In this paper, we present a novel gamma
scanning method which addresses
the reconstruction of radionuclide
inventories with inhomogeneous distribution
within the waste drum. To
this end, a spatially resolved reconstruction
method is developed which
uses a partitioned model of a cylindrically
shaped active matrix of a waste
package instead of cylindrical segments
(Figure 2 – right). In Advanced
Sectorial Gamma Scanning (ASGS)
the waste drum is scanned in the
so­ called multi-rotation mode in a
similar fashion as in SGS: At a fixed
vertical position of the collimated
HPGe detector, the drum is rotated in
30° steps and a gamma spectrum is
acquired separately at each static
measurement position. The rotation
scan is then repeated after the detector
has been translated to the next
vertical scanning position. As a result,
measurement data is acquired for
each individual sector and the additional
spatial information is used for
the evaluation of the measurement
data.
System overview
An open collimator geometry is used
where with an automated collimator
changing unit different aperture sizes
can be realized. The opening view
angle of the collimation is such, that a
full sector of the cylindrical drum is
covered and therefore a full surface
scan of the drum is accomplished
within the entire scanning procedure.
The collimator design choice was
made to maximize efficiency of the
detector at the same time maintaining
a spatial selectivity for a sectorial
partial volume of the waste drum. An
interchangeable collimator permits
switching to varying aperture sizes
which in combination with the
| | Fig. 3.
Technical design of the ASGS.
| | Fig. 4.
Software used for the ASGS included the ECIAD module for reconstruction of inhomogeneous activities.
Decommissioning and Waste Management
Advanced Sectorial Gamma Scanning for the Radiological Characterization of Radioactive Waste Packages ı M. Dürr, M. Fritzsche, K. Krycki, B. Hansmann, T. Hansmann, A. Havenith, D. Pasler and T. Hartmann

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
horizontal translation to larger distances
between detector and waste
drum increases the dynamic range
with respect to the activity inventory
of the waste drum. The entire hardware
design features industrial grade
components offering reliable and stable
operation in controlled areas and
industrial facilities (Figure 3). The
gamma scanner has an operation
software which controls the entire
gamma scanning and data analysis
process (Figure 4). The hardware of
the gamma scanner consisting of the
mechanical drive for the translation of
the detector, the rotation table and
the drive for the interchangeable collimator
are controlled via a Programmable
Logic Controller (PLC). The
system control also manages the
readout of the sensor units consisting
of a weighing scale integrated in the
rotation table, dose rate sensors and
the HPGe detector. The ASGS operation
software itself is operated on a
standard PC and provides means of
user interaction to initialize the scanning
process and to indicate the status
of the gamma scanner hardware. In
addition, a connection to a database
with the waste drum data can be
implemented whereby the manual
data entry is kept at a minimal level. A
multi-rotational step-wise sectorial
scan is performed, and the acquired
gamma spectra are analyzed automatically
using well established spectrum
analysis algorithms (GENIE
2000) and the information from the
gamma peak in each spectrum is
extracted for the radionuclides of
interest.
Photopeak-efficiency calculation
An essential core element is the
mathematical calculation of the
­efficiency and the reconstruction of
activities using the newly developed
software ECIAD module (‘Efficiency
Calculation for Inhomogeneous Activity
Distributions’). The calculation
of photopeak efficiencies (‘efficiency
calibration’) is performed using the
a-priori information for the waste
drum to be scanned, such as composition
of the active matrix and geometrical
dimensions. ECIAD creates a
partitioned model of the active matrix
and calculates the mathematical efficiency
calibration for the specific
detector setup of the measurement
system. The partitioned model consists
of sub-volumes of the active
­matrix, where the efficiency calculation
is performed under the
assumption of a uniform spatial distribution
of radionuclides and for a
| | Fig. 5.
Comparison of partial peak efficiencies calculated with ECIAD (dots) and MCNP (solid lines)
for a partitioned model of a cement matrix with density 2 g cm -3 .
homo genous composition and density
only on the level of the sub-volumes.
This way, the model can reflect a non-­
homogeneously distributed activity
within the waste drum. The attenuation
is determined using a ray-tracing
approach where a set of straight-line
paths are generated which originate
from randomly sampled positions
within the source volume with random
directions. For all paths that
cross the detection volume, the attenuation
is determined deterministically
for all objects along the straight path
from the source to the detector
volume. The gamma interaction
physics within the detector crystal is
implemented using a Monte-Carlo
sampling approach. For the path
length within the detection volume
the probability of interactions is determined
for the gamma interaction by
photo-absorption, inelastic scattering,
pair-creation as well as generation of
bremsstrahlung based on sampling
distributions derived from physics
cross section data. For each path the
probability for full energy deposition
is considered for the extraction of the
peak efficiencies, which is obtained by
averaging all sampled trajectories.
The modeling and the efficiency
calculation in ECIAD are validated for
a n-type HPGe detector (40 % efficiency)
for the energy range of 50 –
1500 keV. A benchmark study was
performed for several test cases
( Figure 5). For the test case a cement
active matrix with a simplified chemical
composition with 60 wt. % O,
35 wt. % Si and 5 wt. % Ca and a
­density of 2 g/cm 3 was assumed. The
radius of the drum is 28.15 cm, the
height of the drum is 40.4 cm which is
half the height of a 200-l waste drum.
For the benchmark it is sufficient to
simulate a reduced model of a waste
drum. The thickness of the drum wall
is 1.5 mm and pure iron was taken for
material. The benchmark was performed
for a single measurement
position of the detector at the bottom
of the drum. The partitioned model
consists of three layers of 13.6 cm in
height which are subdivided in 30°
sectors and where each sector is subdivided
radially at a radius of 14 cm.
The benchmark shows very good
agreement between the values obtained
with the MCNP simulation
with 1∙10 9 photons and the ECIAD calculation
up to energies reaching
3000 keV. As ECIAD is based on a
semi-deterministic model, very low
photo peak efficiencies can be calculated
numerically, where with MCNP
a much higher sampling statistics
would be needed to calculate photopeak
efficiencies below 1∙10 -8 with a
sufficiently low uncertainty. In this
respect, the ECIAD tool outperforms
MCNP, where ECIAD require less computation
time than MCNP by a factor
of at least 5000. The calculation in
Figure 5 was performed in less than
5 minutes on a regular desktop PC
which demonstrates that the efficiency
calculation with ECIAD can be
performed well within the duration of
the scanning process.
Reconstruction of activities
The peak efficiency for a given radioactive
source distribution links the
DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 163
Decommissioning and Waste Management
Advanced Sectorial Gamma Scanning for the Radiological Characterization of Radioactive Waste Packages ı M. Dürr, M. Fritzsche, K. Krycki, B. Hansmann, T. Hansmann, A. Havenith, D. Pasler and T. Hartmann

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 164
| | Fig. 6.
Left part: Modeled activity distribution with the form of a cylindrical 30°sector (red). The dots indicate the
locations for which a localized point source was assumed in simulated measurements of SGS and ASGS.
Right part: The field of view of the collimation geometry shown in comparison between Segmented
Gamma Scanning (SGS) and Advanced Sectorial Gamma Scanning (ASGS).
content in activity with the peak count
rate for an individual gamma line
determined from the gamma spectrum
obtained during the measurement.
Each single partial volume contributes
additively to the count rate
such that the total peak count rate for
a given measurement position P i is
expressed by the sum over all partial
peak efficiencies weighted with the
activity of the partial volume P i =
∑ k ε ik · A k . With a source model consisting
of 6 layers and 12 sectors, for
example, this results in 72 summands
for each measurement position. The
number of measurement positions is
determined by the scan mode, where
the default mode is a scan of 12 angular
sectors and 6 segments leading to
in total 72 equations for all count rates
obtained from the spectra that were
recorded for each position. In its basic
form, the reconstruction is based on a
linear system of equations which is
fully determined and can be solved for
all partial activities A k , k = {1,..,m}
using the P i , i = {1,..,n} obtained
| | Fig. 7.
Ratio of true to assumed efficiency in Segmented Gamma Scanning for a
non-uniform activity distribution localized in a cylindrical sector for individual
sectors (left) and after averaging over a rotation scan (right).
during the measurement and the
m × n calculated partial efficiencies.
If the model is chosen with additional
radial subdivisions, the number
of volume partitions and the number
of activities A k which need to be determined
increases, whereas the number
of equations remains the same. In this
case, the system of equations is undetermined
and special solvers are
­needed. Mathematically, the problem
becomes an optimization (minimization)
problem for which several
mathe matical algorithms exist. The
use of non-negative least-squares solver
determines the A k with the additional
constraint that A k >0 for all k.
The solution of this method therefore
automatically fulfills the positivity
condition for the activity because
negative values would mean an
unphysical result. The total activity of
the radionuclide is obtained from the
sum of partial activities obtained from
solving the linear equations. The underdetermined
set of equations has
some additional degrees of freedom
and the lack of information can lead to
spurious results for the reconstructed
activity distribution and the total activity.
If more than one gamma line is
emitted by the isotope of interest,
however, the additional information
can be used in the set of equations
which provides a stable solution for
the sum activity even for a large number
of radial subdivisions of the source
model.
Performance assessment
of ASGS
The performance of the reconstruction
method is compared using simulated
measurements for the standard
method SGS and the novel method
ASGS. The test object has the material
composition of a waste drum with a
homogenously filled cement matrix,
i.e. the same material composition of
the benchmark case used for the
­ECIAD efficiency calculation.
Reconstruction of a localized
activity distribution
A test case was defined, where a hotspot
activity is located at the drum
bottom where an activity of 78 MBq
Eu-152 is located within a shape of a
30° sector of a cylinder with 14 cm
radius (Figure 6). The activity is
uniformly distributed within the
cylindrical sub-volume. For SGS a
typical setup with a cylindrical collimator
with 20 cm length and a hole
diameter of 4 cm was simulated
( Figure 6 – uppper right) using the
validated 40 % n-type detector model.
The resulting segment that is scanned
during every single rotation scan has
the corresponding height of 4 cm and
therefore in total 10 segments are
scanned to cover the entire height of
the test object. In SGS a simplified
evaluation is performed on the basis
that the matrix and the activity distribution
is homogenous. In this case,
the activity can be derived from a
single expression A reco =
P r/
e hom ,
where A reco is the reconstructed activity,
P r is the peak rate and e hom is
the assumed efficiency for the homogeneous
activity distribution within
the volume. Even if the activity is not
equally distributed within the matrix
an average peak rate is determined
from the sum spectrum obtained
during the rotation scan and the
­evaluation is performed using the efficiency
determined for homogeneous
distribution. The error expressed as
the ratio of the reconstructed to the
true activity is related to the ratio of
the true efficiency e true to the assumed
efficiency for a homogeneous activity
distribution e hom and therefore is
determined by A reco/A true
= e true/e hom .
The true efficiency e true is calculated
in a simulation for the assumed activity
distribution with the entire
activity located uniformly within a
single sector-shaped volume. A strong
deviation between e true and e hom is
observed where the true efficiency is
strongly underestimated when the
­actual activity is not within the field of
view during the scan, whereas a
strong overestimation occurs when
the activity is within the view of
the detector (Figure 7). In SGS, the
individual segments are evaluated
which is performed on the sum
of the registered events recorded
during rotation, divided by the total
Decommissioning and Waste Management
Advanced Sectorial Gamma Scanning for the Radiological Characterization of Radioactive Waste Packages ı M. Dürr, M. Fritzsche, K. Krycki, B. Hansmann, T. Hansmann, A. Havenith, D. Pasler and T. Hartmann

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
measurement time for the individual
segment. This results in an average
over the ­angular profile for each segment,
where the ratio of true to assumed
­efficiency at a gamma energy
of 1408 keV is reduced to maximally
3.3 and therefore the activity of this
segment would be overestimated by
this factor. At this gamma energy, the
summation over all 10 segments
­results in a ratio of 0.95, which means
that SGS reaches the true value of
the activity. This, however, is pure
coincidence and depends on the
gamma energy of the line used for
evaluation and the density of the
matrix: at the gamma energies of 122,
344, 779, 964, 1112 keV the ratio of
reconstructed to true activity for SGS
amounts 0.09, 0.32, 0.66, 0.75, 0.82,
respectively.
To evaluate the ASGS method, a
MCNP model of the 78 MBq Eu-152
activity distribution and the waste
drum was implemented, where full
gamma spectra for the 40 % n-type
detector were simulated for every
measurement position (Figure 8). A
full sectorial scan for three segments
and 12 sectors per layer was simulated
with in total 36 measurement positions,
where the measurement time
for each position is 120 seconds. For
the ASGS geometry, the collimator
design is such that it covers a larger
area of the drum surface in the vertical
direction and therefore less vertical
scan positions are needed (see Figure
6 bottom-right). The spectra were
analyzed using a gamma spectrum
analysis software and the peak area
was evaluated for six Eu-152 gamma
lines at 122, 344, 779, 964, 1112, and
1408 keV. The peak efficiencies were
calculated for different source partition
models using the ECIAD tool
which were used as an input for the
reconstruction using the non-negative
least squares reconstruction algorithm.
Using the analysis of two of the
in total six gamma lines of Eu-152, the
reconstruction algorithm can assign
the activity to the correct location in
the partitioned model and the total
activity is reconstructed to 77.1 MBq
(using the 1112 and 1408 keV lines),
which is an underestimation of 1.3 %
of the true activity. The result for the
reconstructed activity did not vary
strongly with the choice of gamma
lines used and the deviation ranges
from -1.3 % to +4.7 % of the true
activity. The reconstruction algorithm
leads to a solution, where a small part
of the activity is assigned to the neighboring
layers of the source partitions,
however, this is only a minor effect
| | Fig. 8.
Simulated spectra for sectorial scanning of the simulated test case containing a localized Eu-152 activity distribution.
and is attributed to the noise in the
gamma spectrum. This showcase
demonstrates, that the partitioned
source model can reconstruct a
non-uniform activity distribution.
Uncertainties, decision
threshold and detection limit
For gamma scanning the largest
uncertainty contribution stems from
the unknown location of the uncertainty
which is attributed as ‘model
uncertainty’. These errors are evaluated
by assuming worst-case scenarios
for a non-homogeneous activity distribution
and are treated as Type B
­uncertainties according to the GUM
and DIN ISO 11929. For the cement
waste matrix used in the previously
mentioned test case, single point
sources located in various positions of
the waste drum were simulated and
evaluated with SGS and the ASGS
reconstruction method. In ASGS a
­finer radial subdivision was chosen
with 6 radially subdivided partitions
for each 30° sector. Hereby, an improved
spatial resolution can be
reached to reconstruct a localized
activity distribution. With ASGS the
reconstruction method localizes the
point source and therefore this
information reduces the ‘model uncertainty’
relative to SGS. For ASGS
the reconstruction is made for the
evaluation of several combinations of
two gamma lines of Eu-152. Even
though the linear system of equations
is underdetermined the reconstruction
algorithm was able to solve the
minimization problem. A comparison
of the ratio for A reco/A true
is shown for
four different point source locations
(indicated as green dots in Figure 6)
representing locations where the
radiation from the source experiences
maximal and minimal self-attenuation
within the active matrix (Table 1
– Ratios of true to reconstructed
activities for simulated point source
activities located at four different
positions within the waste drum for
SGS and ASGS.). In SGS this ratio
strongly depends on the gamma line
chosen for evaluation and for the
worst case for the gamma line at
122 keV the activity is underestimated
up to a factor of 50 and overestimated
by a factor of 4. In ASGS multiple lines
are used in the analysis, where
the reconstruction of the simulated
measurement of point source activity
was performed using two lines, three
lines, and six lines. For the line energy
combinations shown in Table 1 the
largest spread is observed when the
122 and 1408 keV lines is chosen for
the reconstruction with an underestimation
by a factor of approximately
1.2 and an overestimation
by a factor of approximately 1.8. This
spread represents also the worst case
in ASGS for all line combinations of
the six strongest Eu-152 lines. Therefore,
ASGS reconstruction reduces the
bandwidth of errors which is potentially
caused by the unknown activity
distribution and therefore this lack
of information leads to lower model
uncertainties and correspondingly
much lower conservative estimates
than in SGS.
The ASGS system relies on the
spatial reconstruction of the activity
and therefore uses the spatial information
of the gamma count rate recorded
at the different measurement
positions of the waste drum. The decision
threshold determines the minimum
amount of the radionuclide
DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 165
Decommissioning and Waste Management
Advanced Sectorial Gamma Scanning for the Radiological Characterization of Radioactive Waste Packages ı M. Dürr, M. Fritzsche, K. Krycki, B. Hansmann, T. Hansmann, A. Havenith, D. Pasler and T. Hartmann

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
DECOMMISSIONING AND WASTE MANAGEMENT 166
E [keV] Center Drum wall
activity for a given gamma line which
can be detected with a high degree of
certainty in the gamma scan. In ASGS,
the evaluation of the decision threshold
and the detection limit is performed
based on the individual spectra
and not on the averaged gamma
spectrum as in conventional SGS.
When a ‘hot spot’ of localized activity
is present in the drum, the evaluation
of the characteristic limits applied in
SGS then becomes invalid whereas
the variation in the count rate in
different measurement positions is
accounted for in the ASGS analysis of
the measurement data. In terms of
­increasing the detection efficiency,
ASGS uses a larger aperture than the
typical collimator geometry used for
SGS which results in a photopeak
­efficiency which is by a factor 50
higher. Assuming the background
emanates from the activity within the
waste drum to be measured, the decision
threshold for detection of radionuclides
scales with the square root of
the efficiency, such that a significant
reduction by an order of magnitude
can be reached for the ASGS system as
compared to the SGS method within
the same time for the measurement.
Summary
ASGS offers a measurement method
for characterization of radioactive
waste which significantly reduces the
model uncertainty based on a spatially
resolved reconstruction. The
ASGS software is designed to permit
the automated operation of the
gamma scanning system which
includes the analysis of the data. The
dedicated ECIAD software module is
developed for the calculation of
Bottom Middle Bottom Middle
SGS 122 0.02 0.04 2.76 4.08
344 0.19 0.37 1.78 2.40
779 0.59 1.13 1.26 1.99
964 0.70 1.33 1.09 1.72
1112 0.78 1.50 0.98 1.63
1408 0.97 1.89 0.92 1.52
ASGS 122 - 1408 0.82 0.99 1.56 1.79
344 - 1408 0.85 1.03 1.16 1.41
779 - 1408 0.83 1.01 1.02 1.27
964 - 1408 0.80 0.97 1.01 1.25
1112 - 1408 0.79 0.95 1.00 1.25
122 - 779 - 1408 0.78 1.37 1.02 1.60
all Lines 0.81 1.17 1.01 1.38
| | Tab. 1.
Ratios of true to reconstructed activities for simulated point source activities located at four different
positions within the waste drum for SGS and ASGS.
­mathematical efficiencies for a partitioned
source model, the reconstruction
of spatially resolved activities,
and the uncertainty calculation. The
ECIAD software operates without
user­ guidance in an automated fashion
using a priori information on the
waste drum. With a suitable interface,
this information can be retrieved by
the software prior to the analysis from
a database. As a result, lower conservative
estimate can be reached
than in conventional gamma scanning
systems, since the spatial information
on the activity distribution is used for
the evaluation of the measurement
data. Therefore, ASGS provides a far
more accurate characterization of the
true activity which facilitates a better
use of the allowed activity limits. With
ASGS, the evaluation is performed
in a consistent manner and will be
coupled with the calculation of uncertainties
according to the current
norms and guidelines for the evaluation
of uncertainties. The evaluation
model for the activity is based on a
reconstruction algorithm which precludes
the propagation of uncertainties
using the general law of error
propagation. Therefore, the propagation
of uncertainties is calculated
­using Monte-Carlo based methods for
the determination of characteristic
limits according to the requirements
of the current guidelines. An experimental
validation of the measurement
method for various measurement
­configurations for the active matrix
compositions and density and for
different activity distributions is
planned for the near future using the
newly designed gamma scanning
system.
References
[1] VGB PowerTech e.V., Waste disposal for nuclear power
plants, Essen, Germany: Working Panel Waste
Management, VGB PowerTech e.V., 2012.
[2] International Atomic Energy Agency, Disposal of Radioactive
Waste – Specific Safety Requirements, IAEA Safety
Standards Series No. SSR-5, International Atomic Energy
Agency, Vienna, 2011.
[3] International Atomic Energy Agency, Energy, Electricity and
Nuclear Power Estimates for the Period up to 2050, Vienna,
Austria: International Atomic Energy Agency, 2018.
[4] P. Brennecke, Requirements on Radioactive Waste for
Disposal (Waste Acceptance Requirements as of December
2014) – Konrad Repository, BfS – Federal Office for
Radiation Protection, Salzgitter, 2015.
[5] S. Steyer, Produktkontrolle radioaktiver Abfälle, radio logische
Aspekte – Endlager Konrad – Stand: Oktober 2010, BfS –
Federal Office for Radiation Protection, Salzgitter, 2010.
[6] ISO, Uncertainty of measurement – Part 3: Guide to the
expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM:1995) ISO/
IEC Guide 98-3:2008, 2010.
[7] ISO, Determination of the characteristic limits (decision
threshold, detection limit and limits of the confidence
interval) for measurements of ionizing radiation – Fundamentals
and applications (ISO 11929:2010), 2011.
[8] P. Filß, Relation between the activity of a high-density
waste drum and its gamma count rate measured with an
unshielded Ge-detector, Applied Radiation Isotopes,
vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 805-812, 1995.
[9] E. Martin, D. F. Jones and J. L. Parker, Gamma-Ray
Measurements with the Segmented Gamma Scan –
LA-7059-M, 1977.
[10] P. Filß, Specific activity of large-volume sources determined
by a collimated external detector, Kerntechnik, vol. 54, no.
3, pp. 198-201, 1989.
[11] M. Bruggeman and R. Carchon, Solidang, a computer
code for the computation of the effective solid angle and
correction factors for gamma spectroscopy-based waste
assay, Applied Radiation and Isotopes, vol. 52, no. 3,
pp. 771-7776, 2000.
[12] T. Krings, C. Genreith, E. Mauerhofer and M. Rossbach, A
numerical method to improve the reconstruction of the
activity content in homogeneous radioactive waste
drums, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research
A, vol. 701, pp. 262-267, 2013.
[13] Venkataraman, Improved detector response characterization
method in ISOCS and LabSOCS, Journal of Radioanalytical
and Nuclear Chemistry, vol. 264, p. 213, 2005.
[14] D. Nakazawa, F. Bronson, S. Croft, R. McElroy, W. F. Mueller
and R. Venkataraman, The efficiency calilbration of
non-destructive gamma assay systems using semi-analytical
mathematical approaches, in Proceedings of the WM2010
Conference, Phoenix, AZ, 2010.
[15] T. Bücherl, Synopsis of Gamma Scanning Systems, European
Commision, Garching, 1998.
[16] R. Venkataraman, S. Croft, M. Villani, R. D. McElroy und
R. J. Estep, Total Measurement Uncertainty Estimation for
Tomographic Gamma Scanner, in Proceedings of 46 th
Annual INMM Meeting, Phoenix, AZ, 2005.
[17] R. Venkataraman, F. Bronson, V. Abashkevich, B. M. Young
und M. Field, Validation of in situ object counting system
(ISOCS) mathematical efficiency calibration software, Nuclear
Instruments and Methods in Physics Research A,
pp. 450-454, 1999.
[18] T. Goorley, MCNP6.1.1-Beta Release Notes, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Los Alamos, 2014.
Authors
M. Dürr
K. Krycki
B. Hansmann
T. Hansmann
A. Havenith
Aachen Institute for Nuclear
Training GmbH
M. Fritzsche
D. Pasler
T. Hartmann
Mirion Technologies (Canberra)
GmbH
Decommissioning and Waste Management
Advanced Sectorial Gamma Scanning for the Radiological Characterization of Radioactive Waste Packages ı M. Dürr, M. Fritzsche, K. Krycki, B. Hansmann, T. Hansmann, A. Havenith, D. Pasler and T. Hartmann

Kommunikation und
Training für Kerntechnik
Export in der Praxis
Seminar:
Export kerntechnischer Produkte und Dienstleistungen
– Chancen und Regularien
In diesem Seminar lernen Sie die ausfuhrrechtlichen Grundlagen unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung der neuen Dual-Use-Verordnung sowie die organisatorischen und
operativen Rückwirkungen auf Unternehmen kennen.
Sie erhalten einen umfangreichen Überblick über die internationalen Märkte, ausgewählte
regionale Spezifika und die unterschiedlichen Zertifizierungsregime ISO und ASME.
Seminarinhalte
ı Ausfuhrrechtliche Grundlagen
ı zentralen Ausfuhrbestimmungen für Produkte und Dienstleistungen
ı Verfahrensschritte und Zeitabläufe im Antragsverfahren
ı Veränderungen in der neuen Dual-Use-Verordnung
ı Märkte und regionale Spezifika
ı Die Welten von ISO und ASME
ı Organisatorische Rückwirkungen des Exportgeschäfts
Zielgruppe
Das Seminar richtet sich an Fach- und Führungskräfte, Projektverantwortliche sowie Mitarbeiterinnen
und Mitarbeiter in den Bereichen Außenwirtschaft/Exportkontrolle, Organisation,
Qualitätsmanagement, Vertrieb, Marketing, Recht oder Personalwesen, welche künftig für den
Export von Produkten, Dienstleistungen und Projekten verantwortlich sind.
Maximale Teilnehmerzahl: 12 Personen
Referenten
Lily Kreuzer
RA Kay Höft M. A.
Dr. Ing. Wolfgang Steinwarz
Wir freuen uns auf Ihre Teilnahme!
ı ehem. Rechtsanwältin, Ausfuhrspezialistin
ı Syndikusrechtsanwalt und Compliance-Verantwortlicher
für Außenwirtschaftsrecht
ı ehem. Geschäftsführer Technik,
Siempelkamp Ingenieur und Service GmbH
Bei Fragen zur Anmeldung rufen Sie uns bitte an oder senden uns eine E-Mail.
Termin
2 Tage
12. bis 13. Juni 2019
Tag 1: 10:00 bis 18:00 Uhr
Tag 2: 09:00 bis 12:45 Uhr
Veranstaltungsort
Geschäftsstelle der INFORUM
Robert-Koch-Platz 4
10115 Berlin
Teilnahmegebühr
998,– € ı zzgl. 19 % USt.
Im Preis inbegriffen sind:
ı Seminarunterlagen
ı Teilnahmebescheinigung
ı Pausenverpflegung,
inkl. Mittagessen
Kontakt
INFORUM
Verlags- und Verwaltungsgesellschaft
mbH
Robert-Koch-Platz 4
10115 Berlin
Petra Dinter-Tumtzak
Fon +49 30 498555-30
Fax +49 30 498555-18
seminare@kernenergie.de

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
Special Topic | A Journey Through 50 Years AMNT
168
SPECIAL TOPIC | A JOURNEY THROUGH 50 YEARS AMNT
Am 7. und 8. Mai
2019 begehen wir
das 50. Jubiläum
unserer Jahrestagung
Kerntechnik. Zu
diesem Anlass öffnen
wir unser atw-Archiv
für Sie und präsentieren
Ihnen in jeder
Ausgabe einen
historischen Artikel.
Ansprache des
Ministerpräsidenten
des Landes Baden-
Württemberg
anläßlich der
Eröffnung der JK ’82
am 4. Mai 1982
Jahrestagung in Mannheim:
Kernprobleme 1982 – Offenere
Diskussion alter und neuer Erkenntnisse
und Hemmnisse
Das Deutsche Atomforum (DAtF) und die Kerntechnische Gesellschaft (KTG) hielten die Jahrestagung Kerntechnik
1982 vom 4. bis 6. Mai 1982 in Mannheim ab. Die nach verschiedenen Änderungen im Vorjahr festgelegte Struktur der
Tagung wurde auch in diesem Jahr beibehalten und sollte durchaus auch noch für weitere Tagungen maßgebend sein:
Drei Plenarsitzungen am Dienstag vormittag sowie Donnerstag vor- und nachmittag, drei parallele Fachsitzungen am
Mittwoch vormittag und Technische Sitzungen in neun Sitzungsreihen (Sektionen) am Dienstag und Mittwoch
­nachmittag. Mit der Kürzung auf drei Tage ist sicherlich eine für eine so breit angelegte Tagung maximale Konzentration
erreicht worden. Allerdings konnte auch durch ein attraktives Vortragsthema und die Ankündigung der
Teilnahme des Bundesinnenministers an der Abschlußsitzung der früher am Freitag beobachtete Schwund der
anwesenden Teilnehmer am Tagungsende nicht verhindert werden.
Die Jahrestagung Kerntechnik hat zwei Hauptziele: Zum
einen, einer größeren Zahl von Wissenschaftlern Gelegenheit
zu geben, über eigene Arbeiten vorzutragen; zum
anderen, in Plenarsitzungen usw. Überblicke über größere
Fachgebiete und Orientierungen zur allgemeinen Situation
der Kernenergie zu geben. Die JK ’82 zeichnete sich vor
allem dadurch aus, daß hier aktuelle Probleme angesprochen
und alte und neue Hemmnisse und Erkenntnisse
wesentlich offener behandelt wurden als in den letzten
Jahren, nicht zuletzt auch solche mit Relevanz für
Genehmigungsverfahren und -politik. Dies zeigte sich
nicht nur in der Thematik verschiedener Plenarvorträge
und Referate der Fachsitzungen, sondern erfreulicherweise
auch in ihrem Inhalt. Es zeigte sich sogar bei der
Verleihung des erstmals vergebenen Günter-Wirths­ Preises
für Arbeiten auf dem Gebiet des nuklearen Brennstoffkreislaufes,
die als „heißes Eisen“ bezeichnet wurden.
Es zeigte sich schließlich auch in Ansprachen und Reden,
die sich auf die politische Situation der Kernenergie in der
Bundesrepublik bezogen: der Rede des Minister­präsidenten
von Baden-Württemberg, L. Späth, in der Eröffnungssitzung
und den Ansprachen des Präsidenten des
Deutschen Atomforums, R. Guck, sowie des wissenschaftlichen
Tagungsleiters, H.-H. Hennies, in der Abschlußveranstaltung
der JK ’82. Um so mehr wurde es deshalb
bedauert, daß der Bundesminister des Innern, G. Baum,
nicht selbst an der Abschlußsitzung teilnahm, sondern von
seinem parlamentarischen Staatssekretär, A. von Schoeler,
vertreten wurde.
Politik ohne Vertrauen in die Wissenschaft
ist nicht möglich
Lothar Späth
Herr Vorsitzender, meine sehr verehrten Damen und
Herren, ich habe mir lange überlegt, was ich als Grußwort
hier sagen könnte. Normalerweise, wenn ich auf einer
Veranstaltung bin, in der es um Energieversorgung
geht, versuche ich die Leute immer von der Kernkraft zu
überzeugen. Endlich eine Veranstaltung, bei der ich mir
das sparen kann.
Dann versuche ich den Leuten immer klarzumachen,
warum wir mehr Energie brauchen und preisgünstige
Energie brauchen. Das kann ich mir auch sparen. Dann
versuche ich den Leuten immer klarzumachen, daß selbst
die Bundesregierung – das will immerhin was heißen –
festgestellt hat, daß wir, wenn wir statt Kernkraft nur
Kohle hätten, 100.000 Tonnen mehr Schwefeldioxid in der
Luft hätten und, ich glaube, 83.000 Tonnen Stickoxid und
73.000 Tonnen mehr Asche.
Und dann lese ich wieder eine Umfrage, daß die Leute
die Kernkraft immer noch für sehr viel umweltfeindlicher
halten als Kohlekraftwerke. Das wird sich zwar ändern,
wenn wir mit der selben Intensität jetzt die Zerstörung
unserer Wälder durch die Kohlekraftwerke proklamieren.
Ich habe die Sorge, daß wir eines Tages die Schwierigkeit
haben, daß die Kernkraft im politisch-psychologischen
Rahmen auf dem jetzigen Stand bleibt und wir die
Kohlekraftwerke auch nicht mehr bauen können mit der
­Begründung, das sei ja nun auch gefährlich. Und da wir es
in der Politik zwar schaffen, viel Wind zu machen, aber
nicht so viel, daß wir mit der alternativen Windenergie das
ganze Problem lösen können, haben wir die ganz große
Schwierigkeit, daß das Problem für mich nicht die marktwirtschaftliche
Durchsetzung ist – ich meine vor allem der
jetzt im Bau befindlichen oder geplanten Reaktoren –,
sondern das hier ein Feld ist, das politisch fast nicht mehr
kalkulierbar ist. Deshalb möchte ich die Bemerkung des
Politikers auf dieses Feld konzentrieren.
Ich glaube zuerst einmal: Der Satz, der vorhin gesprochen
wurde, „die Entwicklung muß wieder kalkulierbar
sein“, ist der entscheidende Gesichtspunkt. Und was
wir in der Politik wieder schaffen müssen, ist, daß wir alle
Einwände ernst nehmen, aber daß, wenn wir Einwände
erörtert haben nach allen Richtungen, Entscheidungen,
die getroffen sind, stehen müssen. Durch Wiederholung
der Erörterung ist der Fortschritt nicht zu erzeugen. Das ist
unser eigentliches Problem. Wir können ununterbrochen
Special Topic | A Journey Through 50 Years AMNT
Core Problems 1982 – More Open Discussion on Old and New Insights and Barriers to Progress ı M. Dürr, M. Fritzsche, K. Krycki, B. Hansmann, T. Hansmann, A. Havenith, D. Pasler and T. Hartmann

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
diese Frage weiterdiskutieren. Oder wir können ununterbrochen
die Entsorgungsproblematik neu diskutieren.
Aber Tatsache ist doch, daß die Entwicklung, die für
uns in Karlsruhe begonnen hat und jetzt in Frankreich im
großen weitergeführt wird, im Grunde eine Struktur ist,
„Ein Feld, das politisch
fast nicht mehr
kalkulierbar ist.“
mit der wir zurechtkommen
können. Daß, wenn wir
über Gorleben diskutieren,
wir wissen, daß wir dort
alles sorgfältig prüfen müssen,
aber daß es technische
Möglichkeiten einer Endlagerung gibt mit Wiederzugriff
zu dem Material; das ­führen uns die Franzosen vor. Und
wir wissen, daß wir in den Kraftwerken Kompaktlagermöglichkeiten
schaffen können und daß wir Zwischenlagermöglichkeiten
schaffen können. Und wir wissen, daß
wir Wiederaufbereitung technisch bewältigen können.
Und dann fahren alle Leute nach Frankreich und kommen
zurück und erklären, die französische Umwelt sei völlig
anders. Ich kann nur feststellen, der Unterschied liegt
vor allem darin, daß die Franzosen für richtig erkannte
Lösungen konsequent angehen und sich nicht ununterbrochen
von pseudowissenschaftlichen Leuten dreinreden
lassen, sondern für richtig Erkanntes auch tun.
Und ich glaube, wir müssen langsam den Mut haben,
auch all den Leuten, die Lübbe mit dem Begriff Technosoziologen
umschreibt, einmal in aller Offenheit sagen,
daß Wissenschaft ein Gebiet ist, in
dem sehr viele Grenzwerte erörtert
und diskutiert werden müssen, aber
daß es zum Schluß anerkannte
­Meinungen und Positionen gibt – und
dann gibt es ein paar Minderheitspositionen
–, aber daß wir nicht die
Fragen, die wir aus der Diskussion der Soziologie und der
Philosophie kennen, bedingungslos auf die Naturwissenschaften
übertragen können.
Wir müssen einmal in aller Klarheit als Politiker sagen:
Das kann die Wissenschaft nicht leisten. Wir müssen als
Politiker einmal zu einem richtig erkannten Weg stehen,
und wir müssen erklären, daß da eine Grundfrage aufkommt,
nämlich die Frage des gegenseitigen Vertrauens.
Ich will noch einmal ganz präzise festhalten: Politik ohne
Vertrauen in die Wissenschaft und in die fachlichen
Erkenntnisse ist nicht möglich.
Der Politiker muß auf hören, politische Entscheidungen
zu treffen, wenn er die nur noch treffen kann, wenn er
persönlich beweisen kann, daß die ihm gegebenen Daten
„Politik ohne Vertrauen
in die Wissenschaft
und in die fachlichen
Erkenntnisse ist nicht
möglich.“
„Durch Wiederholung
der Erörterung ist
der Fortschritt nicht
zu erzeugen.“
richtig sind. Und das ist
nämlich diese verrückte
Diskussion. Die Kernkraftgegner
in Whyl fragen
mich immer, können Sie
beweisen, daß die Kernkraftwerke
sicher sind.
Ich kann das nicht. Ich
­begegne der Technik jeden Tag, nutze sie und kann immer
persönlich noch nicht beweisen, daß das vernünftig ist,
was da geschieht, z.B. Fliegen. Aber ich sage das aus einem
ganz bestimmten Grund. Wenn die Diskussion so läuft,
daß das Vertrauen in technische Erkenntnisse von der
Politik nicht mehr umgesetzt werden darf, dann bekommt
eine Diskussion die Oberhand, die deshalb lebensgefährlich
ist in dieser Bundesrepublik, weil dann in der Politik
das Prinzip gilt, daß Unbefangenheit erst möglich ist durch
Inkompetenz. Mit anderen Worten, der Politiker wird dann
in eine Entwicklung gedrängt, bei der er aufpassen muß,
daß er von nichts was versteht, denn sonst gilt er als befangen.
Und der Wissenschaftler, der heute sagt, er kommt
heute zu dem Ergebnis, Kerntechnik sei in Ordnung, wird
verdächtigt, er sei Lobbyist. Kommt derselbe Wissenschaftler
zu dem Ergebnis, Kerntechnik sei Unsinn, ist er
ein geachteter Mann in der Gesellschaft, er braucht auch
nichts mehr weiter beweisen, denn er stimmt mit der
herrschenden Unsicherheit überein. Nur – ich will auch
dieses einmal erwähnen – es geht weit
über die Frage der Entwicklung in
diesem speziellen Bereich hinaus und
treibt Blüten, die wir auf die Dauer
in dieser Gesellschaft ohne großen
Schaden nicht verkraften.
Wenn Sie sich überlegen, daß jetzt
die Leute, wenn sie von Frankreich
zurückkommen, durchaus anderer
­Meinung sind, aber nur bis sie wieder
eingebettet sind in die Umwelt, in der sie sich wohl fühlen.
Meistens sind sie bis zu 24 Stunden irritiert von der Realität
in Frankreich. Es hält aber nie lang an. Seit neuestem
haben wir einen neuen Tourismus, den ich eigentlich für
die beachtenswerteste Entwicklung halte. Da gibt es jetzt
z.B. eine Studienfahrt der Technischen Universität Berlin
und wohin? An den geplanten Standort einer Wiederaufbereitungsanlage
in Rheinland-Pfalz. Da ist zwar noch
nichts; aber dort lassen sich heute die Zukunftsprobleme
der Wiederaufbereitung schon abschließend
mit den Bürgerinitiativen erörtern. Oder
noch interessanter: Schwedische Schriftsteller
reisen nach Schwandorf, um dort aus ihrer
Erkenntnis der Gesamt zusammenhänge den
Honoratioren vor Ort zu erklären, daß sie
großes Verständnis für die Widerstände gegen
die Wiederaufbereitung hätten.
Nun habe ich nichts gegen Schriftsteller. Ich habe auch
nichts gegen Leute, die Wissenschaft nicht mögen. Aber
es geht nicht, daß langsam die Wissenschaftler aus der
Wissenschaft verdrängt werden und Behauptungen in
den Raum gestellt werden, die nicht mehr nach dem
wissenschaftlichen Ergebnis, das kontrollierbar ist, beurteilt
werden, sondern nach der gesellschaftspolitischen
Relevanz. Das ist, glaube ich, z.Z. der gängige Ausdruck
in diesem Sektor.
Die Folge – das gilt nicht nur für die
Kernkraft – ist, daß wir gegenwärtig
eine besorgte Diskussion um die
Zukunfts arbeitsplätze einer Industriegesellschaft
haben. Und immer, wenn
ich die Leute frage, „wo sind denn die
Arbeitsplätze der Zukunft?“, dann ist
großes Schweigen. Wenn wir davon
reden, daß unser Lohn- und Sozialniveau
erhalten bleiben muß, ist der
Beifall noch da. Wenn man aber sagt,
daß dieses hohe Niveau nur durch die
Steigerung der Produktivität und die
Innovation haltbar ist und auch
gehalten wird, werden die Gesichter
schon bedenklicher. Und wenn man
dann noch erklärt, daß dieses Niveau
dazu führt, daß immer mehr Betriebe
immer mehr Arbeitskräfte freisetzen
und damit die Arbeitslosigkeit steigt! Wer die Gutachten
der fünf Weisen heute gelesen hat, der konnte gar nicht
überrascht sein, denn das ist exakt die Entwicklung. Nur,
wo sollen denn die neuen Arbeitsplätze herkommen?
„Der Politiker wird in eine
Entwicklung gedrängt,
bei der er aufpassen muß,
daß er von nichts etwas
versteht, denn sonst gilt
er als befangen.“
| | 1982: Inbetriebnahme des Kernkraftwerks
Grafenrheinfeld.
169
SPECIAL TOPIC | A JOURNEY THROUGH 50 YEARS AMNT
Special Topic | A Journey Through 50 Years AMNT
Core Problems 1982 – More Open Discussion on Old and New Insights and Barriers to Progress ı M. Dürr, M. Fritzsche, K. Krycki, B. Hansmann, T. Hansmann, A. Havenith, D. Pasler and T. Hartmann

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
170
SPECIAL TOPIC | A JOURNEY THROUGH 50 YEARS AMNT
Wir haben zum ersten Mal die Erkenntnis, daß es der
Staat nicht leisten kann. Ich will zwar nicht bestreiten,
daß unsere wissenschaftliche Entwicklung so gegangen
ist, daß der Umfang der Diskussionswissenschaft im Verhältnis
zu den Naturwissenschaften einen Umfang erreicht
hat, bei dem im Grunde eine Entwicklung im Gange ist, die
nur vom Staat gelöst werden könnte. Aber der Staat kann
sie nicht bezahlen. Wenn wir jetzt den gesamten Zukunftsbereich
der Technik vernachlässigen – und das ist die
einzige zentrale Frage –, dann werden wir in große
Bedrängnis kommen, weil wir neue Strukturen von
Arbeitsplätzen nicht bereitstellen können, obwohl wir das
könnten von unserem technischen Wissen her. Das gilt
nicht nur für die Kernenergie, das gilt für die neue
Kommunikationstechnologie genauso.
Jeder, der beobachtet, was Frankreich, England, die
USA und Japan machen, sieht, daß in dem, was die
Amerikaner „Communications“ nennen, eine enorme
Innovationswelle im Gange ist. Selbst die Umweltschützer
müßten jetzt endlich einmal Hurra rufen, weil Kupfer
gegen Sand ausgetauscht wird im Rahmen der Glasfasertechnologie
und weil diese Technologiekommunikation
zuletzt die Transporte erspart. Keine Spur. Es hat bei uns
genau ein Jahr gedauert, dann hatten wir das Problem
konzentriert auf die Frage, ob wir einen fernsehfreien Tag
brauchen oder nicht. Wobei sich den jeder machen kann;
es gibt immer noch keine Apparate ohne Knopf. Aber wir
sind in einer freien Gesellschaft so weit, daß wir eine freie
Bürgerinitiative aufbauen, die den Staat bittet, den Bürger
daran zu hindern, solche Entscheidungen treffen zu
müssen.
Ich will damit zum Kern des Problems kommen:
Dem, was sich abspielt im Rahmen der Diskussion um die
Kernenergie. Da gibt es viele ernste Bedenken – vorhin
wurde das ange sprochen. Und über diese Bedenken muß
man dis kutieren und man muß sie
ausräumen. In Whyl machen wir
das seit acht Jahren. Wir sind jetzt
erst in der zweiten Instanz. Wir
haben auch schon Urteile, nur
noch keine Begründung, und wissen
ganz genau, daß wir auf die
Baulinie 80 gehen müssen mit
alldem, was da an neuen Unsicherheiten
zusammenhängt.
Aber wenn Sie einmal überlegen,
wie wir es tun – und Sie können es im Grunde noch
mit Sarkasmus betrachten –, oder wenn sie überlegen, daß
wir alle über Beseitigung von Investitionshemmnissen
reden – und ich hätte es viel lieber gesagt, wenn der Herr
Bundesinnenminister hier wäre –, und während die
Bundesregierung dieses laut erklärt, geht der Bundesinnenminister
her, vorbei an Reaktorsicherheitskommission,
und macht neue Auflagen und freut sich diebisch
darüber, daß das Durcheinander wieder größer geworden
ist. Ich kann hier nur warnen, weil in einer Gesellschaft, in
der wir nun wirklich über den Rechtsweg und über die
Abwicklung von Verfahren einen Weg eingebaut haben,
der ja von denen, die ihn gehen müssen, nur noch mühsam
akzeptiert und verstanden wird. Aber jetzt, behaupte ich,
können wir nicht mehr mehr tun, weder in der Art, wie wir
Verfahren abwickeln im Zeitalter der Entbürokratisierung
oder wie wir die Entsorgungsfrage dauernd formulieren
und neu pro­blematisieren, obwohl im Grunde jeder weiß,
wie es geht. Mehr ist nicht mehr zu machen außer einer
rigorosen Ablehnung der Kerntechnik. Wer sich dazu
bekennt, muß dafür die Verantwortung übernehmen. Nur
„Wenn wir jetzt den gesamten
Zukunftsbereich der Technik
vernachlässigen, werden wir
in große Bedrängnis kommen,
weil wir neue Strukturen
von Arbeitsplätzen nicht
bereitstellen können.“
| | 1982: Baubeginn für die Urananreicherungsanlage Gronau. Bundesminister
für Forschung und Technologie A. von Bülow (Mitte) mit den
Geschäftsführern der Uranit GmbH bei der Grundsteinlegung für die UAG
um 23. 9. 82 in Gronau. Foto: Heinr. Niehoff
wäre das ehrlicher als die dauernde Erklärung, wieviel
Kernenergie wir brauchen, und die stillschweigende Übereinstimmung,
daß man jeden Tag was Neues erfindet, um
diesen Weg so zu verunsichern, daß irgendwann alle
­Beteiligten die ­Möglichkeit verlieren, ihn konsequent zu
gehen.
Mir ist es gleich, ob man über die eine oder andere
Technik so oder so entscheidet. Ich sage das für die
­Neuentwicklung. Ich bin persönlich der Meinung, daß wir
viel zuwenig Geld indie Forschung stecken und daß die
Milliarden für die Entwicklung des Schnellen Brüters und
des Hochtemperaturreaktors richtig ausgegeben sind.
Ich bin der Meinung, daß wir heute viel mehr sparen
müssen, um die Forschungsinvestitionen auch in anderen
Bereichen zu verstärken – denken Sie mal an die Gentechnik
und an alle diese Bereiche. Überall dort, wo es
um die Zukunft der Arbeitsplätze geht nämlich um die
Grundlagenforschung, bauen wir ab und verbrauchen die
Substanz unserer Gegenwartssicherung. Nur, was nicht
passieren darf ist, daß die Politik öffentlich Forschungsruinen
demonstrativ vorführt und glaubt, daß sie damit
atmosphärisch bei der Bevölkerung das Gefühl erwecken
könnte, wir seien in der Technologie auf einem guten Weg.
Es ist auch eine Über forderung der öffentlichen
­Meinung, wenn ich als Politiker den Leuten erkläre, Reaktoren
in Deutschland
sind besonders sicher,
technisch ist alles klar.
Der Mann kann doch
gar nicht unterscheiden,
wenn er in der
Zeitung gelesen hat,
der Reaktor wird jetzt
stillgelegt, die Baustelle
funktioniert nicht
mehr, dort ist alles offen.
Und wenn der den
Streit verfolgt, daß die
„Die rigorose Ablehnung der
Kerntechnik wäre ehrlicher
als die dauernde Erklärung,
wieviel Kern energie wir
brauchen, und die stillschweigende
Übereinstimmung,
daß man jeden
Tag etwas Neues erfindet,
diesen Weg zu verunsichern.“
Elektrizitätswirtschaft den Schnellen Brüter bezahlen soll,
aber der Deutsche Bundestag gegenwärtig nicht in der Lage
sei, die politischen Vorbehalte aufzulösen, und dann würde
die Bundesregierung zur Sicherung der nicht vorhandenen
eigenen Mehrheit eine Bürgschaft geben, daß erst dann
bezahlt wird, wenn sie sich entschließe, das zu tun, was sie
vorhabe! Dann versteht draußen der Maier und der Müller
überhaupt nicht mehr, was in dieser Republik los ist.
Special Topic | A Journey Through 50 Years AMNT
Core Problems 1982 – More Open Discussion on Old and New Insights and Barriers to Progress ı M. Dürr, M. Fritzsche, K. Krycki, B. Hansmann, T. Hansmann, A. Havenith, D. Pasler and T. Hartmann

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
Und ich will folgendes eigentlich zu Beginn dieser
Tagung einbringen, zu Beginn einer Tagung, in der Fachleute
leidenschaftslos abwägen, was geht und was nicht
geht, in der sich ein Forschungs- und Wissenschaftspotential
trifft, das groß ist: Nach meinem Eindruck beginnt
jetzt der dynamische Teil der Forscher und der Wissenschaftler
auch in unseren Hochschulbereichen zu
ermüden; und zwar deshalb zu ermüden, weil wir nicht
mehr die politischen, ordnungspolitischen und Sach
„Der dynamische Teil
der Forscher beginnt
zu ermüden, weil
wir nicht mehr die
politischen und
Sachvoraussetzungen
bereitstellen.“
Voraussetzungen bereitstellen,
um dem Forscher
die ­Möglichkeit zu geben,
die Dinge weiterzuentwickeln.
Und ich will hinzufügen,
das gilt auch zunehmend
für die Strukturen
des Forschungs- und
Hochschulbereiches insgesamt.
Wir haben mit den
Strukturplänen in unseren
Hochschulen, bis hin zu den sogenannten Discountprofessoren,
eine Entwicklung eingeleitet, bei der eine
große Zahl von Menschen sich lebenslang auf eine relativ
sichere Staatsstelle verlassen kann. Wir haben aber auch
dafür gesorgt, daß dies so umfassend geschah, daß ich
jetzt bange bin, ob der ­wissenschaftlich hochqualifizierte
Nachwuchs an unseren Universitäten ausreichend Platz
finden kann. Und ich ­sage auch dies zur Politik selbst:
Wenn wir nicht bald korrigieren und dafür sorgen, daß
wissenschaftliche Projekte dadurch entwickelt ­werden,
daß wir strukturelles Personal und wissenschaftliches Zusatzpersonal
zusammenführen und nach Abschluß einer
Forschungsaufgabe auch wieder ausein ander nehmen und
neuen Dingen zuführen, dann werden wir eine Verkrustung
unserer Wissenschaft bekommen, bei der wir das
nicht leisten können, was eine Industrienation leisten
muß.
Und wenn wir die Energieversorgung der Welt als eine
Betrachtung nehmen und endlich aufhören über den
Strombedarf in der Bundesrepublik als abschließendes
Weltproblem zu diskutieren – wobei wir immer den Strombedarf
aus der Rezession rechnen und die Sozialverteilung
aus der Hochkonjunktur, und die Staatsverschuldung verbindet
beides –, dann, meine ich, wird die Generation, die
vielleicht heute mit großem Idealismus am lautesten argumentiert,
die Folgen am schlimmsten spüren.
Und ich sage das auch im Verhältnis der Generationen.
Ich gebe jungen Leuten das Recht, aus einem Idealismus
heraus radikal zu argumentieren. Das
ist nicht das eigentliche Problem. Sondern
das Problem sind die Leute, die
es besser wissen und aus opportunistischen
oder anderen Erwägungen sich
vor diese Strömungen stellen und an
der Spitze solcher Strömungen marschieren
in dem Glauben, sie könnten
den Idealismus dieser jungen Generation
zu einer mißbräuchlichen Position
nützen. Das ist das eigentliche
Problem. Die Auseinandersetzung mit den jungen
­Menschen schaffen wir. Da bin ich gar nicht skeptisch –
und ich weiß von was ich rede, ich führe viele Diskussionen.
Und ich habe oft das Gefühl, daß junge Leute,
wenn sie erbitterten Widerstand merken, sachlich argumentiert,
daß sie viel sprechbereiter sind als wir glauben.
Aber wenn sie natürlich in Massen auftreten und vorne die
marschieren, die ganz anderes im Sinn haben als diesen
„Das Problem sind die
Leute, die glauben,
sie könnten den
Idealismus der jungen
Generation zu einer
mißbräuchlichen
Position nützen.“
Idealismus, dann könnte sein, daß diese junge Generation
ihre Zukunft sich selbst verbaut.
Ich will noch einmal sagen: Auch wer die Gerechtigkeit
im Nord-Süd-Bereich haben will, muß sich darauf einstellen,
daß wir in vielen Bereichen Arbeitsplätze abgeben.
Von was soll denn die Dritte Welt leben? Doch von den
Produktionen, die lohnintensiv sind und die wir abgeben
und importieren müssen und die wir dadurch bezahlen
müssen, daß wir in der hochqualifizierten Technologie,
wo wir über Generationen einen Vorsprung haben, neue
Produkte zum Export entwickeln. Es ist im Grunde eine
ganz einfache Philosophie. Aber wie so oft bei einfachen
Dingen, sie sind meistens richtiger als die komplizierten
oder die kompliziert gemachten. Zweitens, wir stehen ja
nicht auf einer Insel, auch nicht in der Dritten Welt,
sondern wir stehen in hartem Wettbewerb mit Industrienationen,
die wie Japan oder die Vereinigten Staaten oder
andere angetreten sind, eine schnellere technologische
Entwicklung voranzubringen.
Noch haben wir die Potentiale, um unseren Platz in der
Zukunft zu behaupten. Meine größere Sorge ist, ob
wir auch noch die politische und gesellschaftliche Kraft
haben, der Vernunft eine Gasse in diesem Durcheinander
zu schaffen. Was ich mir wünsche, was ich Ihnen
wünsche und vielleicht dieser bundesrepublikanischen
Gesellschaft, ist, daß wir wieder lernen, miteinander so
umzugehen, wie es in einer freien Gesellschaft sein muß.
Eine freie Gesellschaft funktioniert nicht nach dem
­Prinzip: „Mir ist kein Opfer zu groß, das andere für mich
bringen“; sondern eine freie Gesellschaft funktioniert,
wenn Menschen wieder Vertrauen zueinander haben: die
Politik zur Wissenschaft, die Menschen zur
Politik. Dann bin ich überzeugt, könnte Ihre
Tagung und unsere gesamte Diskussion
wieder ein Stück dazu beitragen, daß wir auf
den Boden der Vernunft zurückkehren.
Wenn wir auf dem Boden der Vernunft
eine große Anstrengung machen – ich halte
uns dazu für fähig –, bin ich der ­Meinung, daß
wir auch dort, wo wir in den letzten Jahren
zurückgefallen sind, unseren Platz wieder
erobern können. Wenn wir uns aber aus der
Logik, aus der Vernunft verabschieden und selbstzu frieden
die Tatsachen beschimpfen nach dem Prinzip „Wir lassen
uns durch Tat sachen und Fakten nicht länger draus
bringen“, dann könnte es ein bitteres Erwachen geben,
und ich bin dann nicht so sicher, ob nicht diejenigen,
die heute am lautesten rufen, die Empfindlichsten wären,
wenn es um die öko nomischen und die s ozialen
Konsequenzen einer solchen Entwicklung
ginge.
„Eine freie Gesellschaft
funktioniert, wenn
Menschen wieder
Vertrauen zueinander
haben: die Politik zur
Wissenschaft, die
Menschen zur Politik.“
171
SPECIAL TOPIC | A JOURNEY THROUGH 50 YEARS AMNT
Special Topic | A Journey Through 50 Years AMNT
Core Problems 1982 – More Open Discussion on Old and New Insights and Barriers to Progress ı M. Dürr, M. Fritzsche, K. Krycki, B. Hansmann, T. Hansmann, A. Havenith, D. Pasler and T. Hartmann

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
172
KTG INSIDE
Inside
Klausurtagung der Jungen Generation der KTG in Bochum
Auf dem „Campus Kerntechnik“ des AMNT 2019 in
Berlin (ehemals „Kernenergie Campus“) wird es in diesem
Jahr mehr Stationen geben, um die Interaktion mit den
Schülern zu erhöhen. Zudem ist die Durchführung eines
Experiments zur Strahlenmessung geplant und sowohl
dabei als auch während des weiteren Campus-Programms
das Smartphone integriert.
| | Der Vorstand der Jungen Generation der KTG in Bochum (v.l.): Florian Gremme, Natalija Cobanov,
Sebastian Alexander Hahn, Jan Peschel und Jonathan C. J. Schade
Vom 9. bis 10. Februar 2019 kam der Vorstand der Jungen
Generation der KTG in Bochum an der Ruhr-Universität,
nach der vorangegangenen, jährlichen Vorstandssitzung,
zu einer Klausurtagung zusammen. Neben der Diskussion
zu organisatorischen und inhaltlichen Fragen wurden
­konkrete Aufgaben zur Erreichung der definierten Ziele
umgesetzt. Dabei wurden z.B. Logos überarbeitet,
die Website neu konzipiert, unsere Auftritte bei Facebook
(https://www.facebook.com/KTGJungeGeneration)
und ­Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/ktg_junge_­
generation) aktualisiert und Konzepte für unsere jährlichen
Aktivitäten weiterentwickelt.
Ziel ist es, Menschen nachhaltig über unsere Aktivitäten
zu informieren und mit Fakten kerntechnischer
­Themen zu erreichen. Die Informationsaufnahme findet
zunehmend, besonders bei jüngeren Menschen, über die
sozialen Medien statt. Daher möchten wir die Nutzung
dieser Kanäle für uns ausbauen, um so auch die bestehenden
Inhalte z. B. auf www.ktg.org zu verbreiten.
| | Hydraulikstempel und Abbaumaschine
Im Rahmen der Tagung wurde zudem das Deutsche
Bergbaumuseum in Bochum besichtigt. Hier können in
den Ausstellungen und einem Anschauungsbergwerk die
Montanindustrie erlebt und der Einfluss einer sicheren
Energieversorgung auf gesellschaftliche Entwicklungen
nachvollzogen werden. Dabei wurde auch die Geschichte
der Abbautechniken erläutert. Angefangen beim Schürfen
von Hand und dem Einsatz von Pferden zum Transport der
abgebauten Kohlemengen, hin bis zum modernen Kohlebergbau
mit Hydraulikstempeln und Abbaumaschinen, die
mehrere Meter Kohleflöz in Stunden abbauen können.
Beim Abbau eines Flözes und dem damit verbundenen
Aufrücken der Hydraulikstempel und der Abbaumaschine
kommt es zum Zusammenbruch des sog. „toten Mannes“,
der Raum, der bereits abgebaut wurde. Die Folge sind
oberflächliche Senkungen. Die Kumpel waren hohen
Arbeitsbelastungen ausgesetzt, vor allem durch das
„­Wetter“ unter Tage, da in der Regel etwa 50 °C während
der Arbeit herrschten.
Der Einsatz der Kohle zur Stromerzeugung hat in
Deutschland stark zum wirtschaftlichen Aufschwung
beigetragen und bildet eine historische Grundlage für die
heutige wirtschaftliche Situation Deutschlands.
Florian Gremme
Sprecher Junge Generation
Kerntechnische Gesellschaft e.V. (KTG)
| | „Telefonkonferenz“ unter Tage
KTG Inside

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
Herzlichen Glückwunsch!
Die KTG gratuliert ihren Mitgliedern sehr herzlich zum Geburtstag
und wünscht ihnen weiterhin alles Gute!
April 2019
55 Jahre | 1964
08. Dipl.-Ing. Frank Ambos, Alsheim
77 Jahre | 1942
09. Prof. Dr. Hans-Christoph Mehner,
Dresden
79 Jahre | 1940
18. Dipl.-Ing. Norbert Granner, Bergisch
Gladbach
80 Jahre | 1939
08. Dr. Siegbert Storch, Aachen
81 Jahre | 1938
04. Prof. Dr.-Ing. Klaus Kühn,
Clausthal-Zellerfeld
05. Dr. Hans Fuchs, Gelterkinden/CH
09. Dr. Carl Alexander Duckwitz,
Alzenau-Kälberau
28. Prof. Dr. Georg-Friedrich Schultheiss,
Lüneburg
82 Jahre | 1937
13. Dr. Martin Peehs, Bubenreuth
84 Jahre | 1935
05. Prof. Dr. Hans-Henning Hennies,
Karlsruhe-Bergwald
88 Jahre | 1931
09. Dr. Klaus Penndorf, Geesthacht
20. Dezember 2018 ı
Dr. Hans Mohrhauer
Jülich
2. Januar 2019 ı
Dr. Hein-Jürgen Kriks
Braunschweig
Die KTG verliert in ihnen langjährige
aktive Mitglieder, denen sie ein
ehrendes Andenken bewahren wird.
Ihren Familien gilt unsere Anteilnahme.
Wenn Sie künftig eine
Erwähnung Ihres
Geburtstages in der
atw wünschen, teilen
Sie dies bitte der KTG-
Geschäftsstelle mit.
KTG Inside
Verantwortlich
für den Inhalt:
Die Autoren.
Lektorat:
Natalija Cobanov,
Kerntechnische
Gesellschaft e. V.
(KTG)
Robert-Koch-Platz 4
10115 Berlin
T: +49 30 498555-50
F: +49 30 498555-51
E-Mail:
natalija.cobanov@
ktg.org
www.ktg.org
173
NEWS
Top
Only nuclear energy can save
the planet
(nei) Nuclear energy is key to any
effort to protect the climate, so we
must take action to support it, say
Joshua Goldstein and Staffan Qvist in
The Wall Street Journal. In their
op-ed, Goldstein and Qvist urge that
nuclear’s ability to scale quickly to
meet worldwide demand and produce
carbon-free power around-the-clock,
regardless of the weather, offers the
best means to reduce emissions as
soon as possible. They also argue
that opposition to nuclear is based
more in preconceptions than in fact,
debunking several common arguments
against nuclear energy.
“All the reasons put forward to
oppose nuclear power amount to overhyped
fears that in no way stack up to
the real dangers facing humanity from
climate change.”
The op-ed is adapted from the authors’
new book on climate change, “A
Bright Future: How Some Countries
Have Solved Climate Change and the
Rest Can Follow.”
| | www.brightfuturebook.com
www.nei.org
World
IAEA: Construction progresses
on Bangladesh’s first nuclear
power plant
(iaea) As 2019 starts, authorities in
Bangladesh have presented in Vienna
this week their progress towards
­nuclear power at a Technical Meeting
on Topical Issues in the Development
of Nuclear Power Infrastructure, with
more than one hundred participants
from 40 IAEA Member States.
This country of 160 million plans to
produce 9% of its electricity from
nuclear power and reduce its dependence
on fossil fuels by the middle
of the next decade when both reactors
of the new power plant will have gone
into operation.
“By 2040 we estimate that Bangladesh
will need to generate about
78,000 megawatt of electricity in a
high-demand scenario and about
69,000 in a low one, and nuclear
­power will play a significant role,” said
Mohammad Shawkat Akbar, Project
Director of the nuclear power plant
construction project and Managing
Director of Nuclear Power Plant Company
Bangladesh Limited, an enterprise
of the Bangladesh Atomic Energy
Commission (BAEC).
This, Akbar said, is according to
the revised Power System Master Plan
for Bangladesh from 2016. “We are
confident that the first unit will be
commissioned in 2023 and the second
in 2024,” he said.
The plant, being built in Rooppur,
about 160 kilometers northwest of the
capital, will have the capacity to generate
2,400 megawatts of electricity.
The construction project is being
implemented by a subsidiary of
­Russia’s State Atomic Energy Corporation
ROSATOM. It is high on the Bangladeshi
government’s agenda, all the
way up to the Prime Minister’s office.
| | NIA: Wylfa remains strong site for vital new nuclear. Artist´s view of the Wylfa site.
Bangladesh is expected to be one of
the countries to suffer the most from
climate change. The Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) anticipates that sea level rise
from climate change is expected to
subsume a large portion of its coastal
land by 2080.
The government has designed
several national policies and actions
to adapt to this threat. These focus on
food security and health, as well as on
energy security – an area where the
construction of the nuclear power
plant in Rooppur, which is not in
coastal land, is expected to help.
“All site-specific conditions, including
protection from flooding and
earthquakes, had to be addressed
before getting the relevant licenses,”
said Naiyyum Choudhury, Chairman
of the Bangladesh Atomic Energy
Regulatory Authority.
| | www.iaea.org
FORATOM announces priorities
for 2019: Climate change,
sustainability and jobs
(foratom) FORATOM President
Teodor Chirica and Director General
News

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
Operating Results November 2018
174
NEWS
Plant name Country Nominal
capacity
Type
gross
[MW]
net
[MW]
Operating
time
generator
[h]
Energy generated, gross
[MWh]
Month Year Since
commissioning
Time availability
[%]
Energy availability
[%] *) Energy utilisation
[%] *)
Month Year Month Year Month Year
OL1 Olkiluoto BWR FI 910 880 720 664 826 6 320 039 260 974 225 100.00 87.16 100.00 86.15 101.47 86.64
OL2 Olkiluoto BWR FI 910 880 710 647 514 6 910 879 251 210 060 98.57 94.88 97.59 94.08 97.75 93.71
KCB Borssele PWR NL 512 484 720 366 579 3 134 944 161 341 863 99.49 77.45 99.49 77.10 99.67 76.49
KKB 1 Beznau 7) PWR CH 380 365 720 276 818 2 301 439 127 047 526 100.00 76.76 100.00 76.24 101.23 75.47
KKB 2 Beznau 7) PWR CH 380 365 720 275 293 2 900 460 134 065 333 100.00 96.07 100.00 95.93 100.62 95.14
KKG Gösgen 7) PWR CH 1060 1010 720 767 570 7 886 369 313 080 956 100.00 93.56 99.98 93.20 100.57 92.81
KKM Mühleberg BWR CH 390 373 720 763 481 7 477 328 246 501 752 100.00 88.54 99.91 88.26 99.05 86.97
CNT-I Trillo PWR ES 1066 1003 579 287 626 3 236 347 111 866 829 80.42 82.00 80.01 81.52 79.90 80.75
Dukovany B1 PWR CZ 500 473 720 357 357 3 241 110 107 863 647 100.00 82.52 99.90 82.03 99.27 80.87
Dukovany B2 PWR CZ 500 473 720 346 763 3 805 576 106 428 003 100.00 97.13 99.41 96.78 96.32 94.95
Dukovany B3 PWR CZ 500 473 367 145 306 2 794 998 106 066 740 50.97 71.78 39.97 70.48 40.36 69.74
Dukovany B4 PWR CZ 500 473 720 782 566 7 069 910 113 551 204 100.00 82.06 99.94 81.79 100.64 81.57
Temelin B1 PWR CZ 1080 1030 720 788 510 6 966 311 108 456 257 100.00 80.65 99.98 80.48 101.22 80.43
Temelin B2 PWR CZ 1080 1030 0 0 1 229 715 135 444 462 0 33.69 0 33.67 0 33.78
Doel 1 2) PWR BE 454 433 0 0 1 549 672 133 801 939 0 42.42 0 42.29 0 42.50
Doel 2 2) PWR BE 454 433 720 778 160 3 158 439 254 327 660 100.00 37.52 100.00 36.82 101.79 37.12
Doel 3 PWR BE 1056 1006 0 0 5 638 809 260 184 650 0 64.70 0 64.58 0 64.21
Doel 4 2) PWR BE 1084 1033 455 432 201 7 231 373 298 070 249 63.19 90.81 59.08 90.22 59.48 89.56
Tihange 1 2) PWR BE 1009 962 0 0 5 702 393 254 651 930 0 68.12 0 67.39 0 67.80
Tihange 2 2) PWR BE 1055 1008 0 0 2 332 443 271 227 273 0 26.67 0 26.64 0 26.70
Tihange 3 2) PWR BE 1089 1038 744 813 597 813 597 - 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.68 99.68
Plant name
Type
Nominal
capacity
gross
[MW]
net
[MW]
Operating
time
generator
[h]
Energy generated, gross
[MWh]
Time availability
[%]
Energy availability
[%] *) Energy utilisation
[%] *)
Month Year Since Month Year Month Year Month Year
commissioning
KBR Brokdorf DWR 1480 1410 720 956 085 9 423 645 349 615 704 100.00 89.73 94.31 84.37 89.42 79.05
KKE Emsland 4) DWR 1406 1335 720 1 018 214 10 488 388 345 811 671 100.00 94.30 100.00 94.18 100.69 93.07
KWG Grohnde DWR 1430 1360 720 983 443 9 933 236 376 560 815 100.00 92.15 100.00 90.84 94.91 86.06
KRB C Gundremmingen SWR 1344 1288 720 952 292 9 356 367 329 936 260 100.00 89.52 97.96 88.90 97.81 86.36
KKI-2 Isar DWR 1485 1410 720 1 070 654 11 042 736 352 641 059 100.00 95.04 100.00 94.80 99.94 92.46
KKP-2 Philippsburg DWR 1468 1402 720 989 567 9 925 255 365 092 771 100.00 89.76 99.85 89.58 91.97 82.91
GKN-II Neckarwestheim 2) DWR 1400 1310 551 763 500 8 678 300 328 801 434 77.21 79.62 75.71 79.23 76.04 77.48
*)
Net-based values
(Czech and Swiss
nuclear power
plants gross-based)
1)
Refueling
2)
Inspection
3)
Repair
4)
Stretch-out-operation
5)
Stretch-in-operation
6)
Hereof traction supply
7)
Incl. steam supply
8)
New nominal
capacity since
January 2016
9)
Data for the Leibstadt
(CH) NPP will
be published in a
further issue of atw
BWR: Boiling
Water Reactor
PWR: Pressurised
Water Reactor
Source: VGB
Yves Desbazeille highlight the association’s
priorities for 2019.
2018 ended on a high for the
nuclear industry. At international
level, the IPCC made it clear that
nuclear power is essential if the world
is to keep global warming to below
1.5 degrees. The IEA also issued a stark
warning to the EU that, whilst nuclear
is a low-carbon source of baseload
electricity capable of ensuring security
of supply, current EU policies are discouraging
investments in new nuclear
power plants and the long-term operation
of existing reactors. And the European
Commission (EC) confirmed
that nuclear will form the backbone of
a carbon-free European power system,
together with renewables.
But our work is certainly not over.
Many political changes are coming
over the next 12 months, most notably
Brexit, the election of a new European
Parliament and the appointment of a
new European Commission, all of
which will change the EU landscape.
In the longer term, it is important for
our industry to work together with
decision makers to develop an investment-friendly
framework which will
encourage a significant nuclear new
build programme.
Going forward, we see many opportunities
to engage on key issues of
importance to the EU, and our three
main policy priorities for the year can
be summarised as follows:
Climate Change: With the publication
of both the EC’s ‘A Clean Planet for
All’ communication and the FTI-CL
­Energy Consulting study ’Pathways to
2050: role of nuclear in a low-carbon
Europe‘ commissioned by FORATOM
at the end of 2018, the foundations
have been laid for future actions on
climate change. We are delighted that
the EU now recognises the important
role of nuclear in the electricity mix as
part of the solution to a low­ carbon
future. Over the next 12 months we
will continue to feed into dis cussions at
EU level, providing reliable facts and
data which demonstrate how nuclear
will help Europe reduce its CO 2 emissions,
whilst at the same time providing
people with the affordable electricity
they need when they need it.
Sustainability: Broader environmental
impacts, including land use,
raw materials and air pollution are
key questions which FORATOM plans
to tackle over the next 12 months.
When assessing whether an energy
source is sustainable or not, it is essential
that a whole life cycle approach be
considered to better account for all
environmental impacts. Nuclear has a
lot to offer, as it does not require vast
volumes of land nor raw materials to
produce significant amounts of
energy. We will also be working hard
to ensure that decisions relating to
News

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
sustainable finance are based on
­objective criteria, rather than an
ideological list of what people think
are, or are not, sustainable.
Jobs: As one of the flagship areas
of the current EC, FORATOM will
continue to promote nuclear as a
European industry which generates a
significant number of jobs throughout
its value chain. To demonstrate this,
FORATOM has engaged an external
consultant to conduct a study which
will identify exactly what the sector
has to offer in terms of jobs in Europe.
At the same time, the industry is concerned
about the increasing skills
shortage.We will therefore work
together with our members, and via
EU funded projects such as ENEN+, to
attract the young generation towards
a career in the nuclear field.
We have many opportunities ahead
of us and, as an industry, we will work
together with policymakers and stakeholders
to ensure the best possible
future for Europe and its citizens.
| | www.foratom.org
Reactors
Strategic French civil nuclear
industry contract: Framatome
is a committed actor of the
sector in France and abroad
(framatome) The French nuclear
industry reached an important milestone
on January 28 with the signature
of a strategic contract covering
the period 2019-2022, by French
­Minister for an Ecological and Solidarity
Transition François de Rugy,
French Minister of Economy and
­Finance Bruno Le Maire, and the
­major industrial actors of the sector,
among which Framatome.
The strategic contract is structured
around six actions:
pp
Guarantee necessary skills and
expertise for an attractive, safe and
competitive nuclear sector
pp
Structure, with the help of the
digital technologies, the supplychain
and the innovation approach
within the sector
pp
Promote a circular economy within
the sector
pp
Define nuclear reactors of tomorrow
and tools for the future
pp
Have a global sector strategy available
worldwide
pp
Launch a sector approach to
accelerate the transformation of
the industrial structure towards
the industry of the future.
| | www.framatome.com
NIA: Wylfa remains strong site
for vital new nuclear
(nia) Hitachi has announced (17 January
2019) that it has suspended work
on the Wylfa Newydd project on Anglesey.
This follows formal discussions
between Hitachi and the UK Government
and the Government of Japan on
the financial structure of the project to
ensure it would deliver for both investors
and the UK electricity consumer.
Hitachi has announced today that
it has suspended work on the Wylfa
Newydd project on Anglesey. This
follows formal discussions between
Hitachi and the UK Government and
the Government of Japan on the
­financial structure of the project to
ensure it would deliver for both investors
and the UK electricity consumer.
Tom Greatrex, chief executive of
the Nuclear Industry Association, said:
“Today’s news is disappointing, not
just for the Wylfa Newydd project but
for Anglesey and the nuclear industry
as a whole. Wylfa remains a strong site
for vital new nuclear power for the UK.
“It’s regrettable that this project
has been suspended, especially as a
considerable amount of groundwork
has already taken place on the Wylfa
project, including creating a supply
chain to deliver the project. Nuclear at
Wylfa has local support, and the
­Horizon project would provide 60
years of reliable, secure, low carbon
power for homes, businesses and
public services – with a strike price
much below any offshore wind project
generating power now and cost
competitive with all low carbon
generation. It is imperative that new
nuclear at this site goes ahead and the
barriers to that are removed.
“Wylfa is part of the UK’s nuclear
new build programme, which is proceeding
with Hinkley Point C build
which is on track, with more than
3,600 people currently working on the
construction site. A third round of consultation
for Sizewell C is underway
and the approval process for the reactor
design at Bradwell B is proceeding.
“The urgent need for further new
nuclear capacity in the UK should not
be underestimated, with all but one of
the UK’s nuclear power plant due to
come offline by 2030. If we want a
balanced generation mix, Government
must work with industry to
deliver that vital capacity on this site.
At stake are our ability to provide
bulk, low carbon power, energy security,
and the potential loss of the
chance of thousands of highly skilled,
well paid jobs in Wales and North
West England.
“Without a diverse low carbon mix
and with increasing demand to power
electric vehicles, we run the risk of
becoming more reliant on burning
fossil fuels to produce our electricity.”
Nuclear power plays an important
role in our energy mix, currently
­providing 21 % of the UK’s electricity
mix, and 40 % of the low-carbon
electricity generated in the UK.
New nuclear is an integral part of a
future decarbonised power supply. For
prolonged periods both this summer,
in June and then again in December
and the early days of January
this year, wind produced less than
7.5 % of our electricity demand. Relying
exclusively on intermittent and
variable sources of low carbon power
alone will increase, not reduce, overall
emissions.
| | www.niauk.org
Company News
Framatome receives $49
million grant to accelerate
enhanced accident tolerant
fuel development
(framatome) Framatome recently received
a $49 million, 28-month grant
from the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) to accelerate the development
and commercialization of enhanced
accident tolerant fuel (EATF). These
fuel designs enhance performance
during normal operations at nuclear
power plants and provide operators
with more time to respond in the
event of loss of active cooling.
“EATF designs represent the next
evolution in technologies that will support
today’s and tomorrow’s ­nuclear
reactors and unlock value in Framatome’s
products and the ­existing nuclear
fleet,” said Bob Freeman, vice president,
Contracts and Services, North
America, Framatome Fuel Commercial
and Customer Center. “With the support
of DOE, Congress and our industry
partners, we are ahead of schedule
in making this fuel technology available
to nuclear power plants so that
they can continue to provide clean,
efficient electricity.”
Framatome is developing both nearand
long-term EATF solutions for all
types of nuclear power plants. The integrated
near-term solution incorporates
both chromia-enhanced pellets
and chromium-coated cladding. These
fuel pellets and clad coating have
characteristics that, when combined
with other recent advancements, will
deliver value to the existing fleet of
| | Framatome
receives
$49 million grant
to accelerate
enhanced accident
tolerant fuel
development
175
NEWS
News

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
176
NEWS
reactors through a variety of measures,
including operator flexibility and fuel
efficiency.
In addition to this near-term work,
Framatome continues research on a
silicon carbide-based cladding with
even greater potential. The ongoing
research and development of these
state-of-the-art materials and related
manufacturing processes are critical
to safe, clean and more efficient power
generation.
The funds from this DOE grant
build on a $10 million, two-year grant
that Framatome received from the Department
in 2016, and will contribute
to the advancement of laboratory testing
and data collection, as well as irradiation
test programs. Additionally,
the grant will support further development
of advanced manufacturing
processes and the acceleration of
long-term EATF solutions, including
silicon carbide fuel cladding.
Framatome’s EATF program is
built on the collective knowledge,
skills and expertise of leaders across
the global nuclear sector, including
U.S. national laboratories, utilities,
university programs, industry organizations,
and European research and
worldwide partners. DOE’s accident
tolerant fuel program has been a driving
force in Framatome’s efforts to accelerate
product development to better
support the existing nuclear fleet.
These additional funds are possible
because of the recognition by Congress
over the past two fiscal years of
the importance of this program.
| | www.framatome.com
ROSATOM starts testing
of accident tolerant fuels
for light water reactors
(rosatom) First Russian-made experimental
nuclear fuel assemblies based
on accident-tolerant fuel (ATF) have
been loaded for testing into the water
loops of MIR research reactor at the
State Research Institute of Atomic
Reactors in Dimitrovgrad, Ulyanovsk
Region. This work is a part of the
­project of TVEL Fuel Company of
­ROSATOM to develop Russian accident
tolerant fuel resistant to severe
beyond-design basis accidents, and
bring it to the market.
Two experimental fuel assemblies,
manufactured at Novosibirsk Chemical
Concentrates Plant (a subsidiary of
TVEL Fuel Company), consist either of
VVER or PWR geometry fuel rods with
four different combinations of cladding
materials and fuel matrix. Fuel
pellets are made of one of the two
materials, either traditional uranium
dioxide or uranium-molybdenum
alloy with increased density and
thermal conductivity. The fuel rods
cladding is either a zirconium
alloy with chromium coating or a
chromium­nickel alloy.
Each fuel assembly contains 24
fuel rods with different combinations
of materials. Fuel assemblies are being
tested in the MIR reactor under conditions
as close as possible to the
operational ones, including the
parameters of the VVER and PWR
coolant. The research reactor design
enables parallel studies in separate
loops, which is especially important
given the simultaneous fuel testing for
reactors of Russian and foreign design.
“The fabrication of the first accident
tolerant fuel followed the largescale
work of scientists and design
­engineers of ROSATOM’s fuel unit,
including in-depth materials research,
introduction of new coating technologies
and resistance butt-welding, and
successful laboratory testing of the
samples. Besides the research analysis,
the choice of materials was based
on the long-time experience of the
Russian nuclear industry, considering
that some of the materials are successfully
used for research reactor nuclear
fuels or the core of power and propulsion
reactors,” Alexander Ugryumov,
Vice President for Research and
Development at TVEL JSC, commented.
The first phase of the reactor tests
and post-reactor studies of ATF will be
completed in 2019. Based on the data
obtained, it will be necessary to select
the optimal combination of cladding
materials, calculate and validate the
neutron-physical characteristics of
light water reactors cores. The next
important stage includes loading
experimental fuel assemblies with
some ATF fuel rods into a commercial
power reactor in Russia.
ATF is nuclear fuel resistant to
severe beyond-design basis accidents
at NPPs with the loss of coolant in the
reactor. Even in case of heat removal
failure in the core, ATF is supposed to
keep its integrity for a long enough
time without a zirconium-steam reaction
inducing hydrogen release. ATF is
of critical importance for further improvement
of the integral safety and
reliability of nuclear power. Research,
design and testing of the accident
tolerant fuel in TVEL Fuel Company is
provided and coordinated by the
­Bochvar High-Technology Scientific
Research Institute of Inorganic Materials
(Moscow).
| | www.rosatom.ru
Westinghouse awarded
$ 93.6 million for accident
tolerant fuel development
(west) Westinghouse Electric Company
has been awarded $93.6 million
in funding from the U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE) in support of their
accident-tolerant fuel program,
EnCore® Fuel.
The EnCore Fuel program includes
the development of both short- and
long­ term products that provide
advanced safety features, enhanced
fuel cycles and economic advantages.
The first phase of the program will
deliver chromium-coated zirconium
cladding for enhanced oxidation and
corrosion resistance, and higher
density ADOPT pellets for improved
fuel economics. The second phase will
introduce silicon carbide com posite
cladding and high-density uranium
­silicide pellets to offer sig­nificantly
higher safety and economic benefits.
“We are very pleased to be a technology
leader in the accident-tolerant
fuel initiative and to have been chosen
by the DOE to receive this funding,”
said Ken Canavan, Westinghouse’s
chief technology officer. “This is a
testament to the capabilities of
Westinghouse as well as to the impact
that these types of investments can
make in bringing the safest and most
advanced technologies to market.”
The funding will be used by
Westinghouse, in partnership with
General Atomics, as well as our
national laboratory and university
partners to accelerate the introduction
of lead test rods of silicon
carbide cladding into a U.S. commercial
reactor by 2022. The funding will
also support the implementation of
the first load fuel assemblies containing
lead test rods of Encore Fuel,
currently scheduled to be inserted in
Exelon Generation’s Byron Unit 2 in
spring of 2019.
| | www.westinghousenuclear.com
Market data
(All information is supplied without guarantee.)
Nuclear Fuel Supply Market Data
Information in current (nominal)
­U.S.-$. No inflation adjustment of
prices on a base year. Separative work
data for the formerly “secondary
market”. Uranium prices [US-$/lb
U 3 O 8 ; 1 lb = 453.53 g; 1 lb U 3 O 8 =
0.385 kg U]. Conversion prices [US-$/
kg U], Separative work [US-$/SWU
(Separative work unit)].
News

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
Uranium
Prize range: Spot market [USD*/lb(US) U 3 O 8 ]
140.00
) 1
Uranium prize range: Spot market [USD*/lb(US) U 3 O 8 ]
140.00
) 1
120.00
120.00
177
100.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
Yearly average prices in real USD, base: US prices (1982 to1984) *
80.00
60.00
40.00
NEWS
20.00
20.00
0.00
Year
* Actual nominal USD prices, not real prices referring to a base year. Sources: Energy Intelligence, Nukem; Bild/Figure: atw 2019
2015
2018
* Actual nominal USD prices, not real prices referring to a base year. Year
Sources: Energy Intelligence, Nukem; Bild/Figure: atw 2019
| | Uranium spot market prices from 1980 to 2018 and from 2008 to 2018. The price range is shown. In years with U.S. trade restrictions the unrestricted uranium spot market price is shown.
0.00
Jan. 2012
Jan. 2013
Jan. 2014
Jan. 2015
Jan. 2016
Jan. 2017
Jan. 2018
Jan. 2019
Separative work: Spot market price range [USD*/kg UTA]
180.00
160.00
140.00
120.00
100.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
Conversion: Spot conversion price range [USD*/kgU]
16.00
) 1
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Jan. 2012
* Actual nominal USD prices, not real prices referring to a base year.
Jan. 2013
Year
Jan. 2014
Jan. 2015
Jan. 2016
Jan. 2017
Jan. 2018
Jan. 2019
Source: Energy Intelligence, Nukem; Bild/Figure: atw 2019
| | Separative work and conversion market price ranges from 2008 to 2018. The price range is shown.
)1
In December 2009 Energy Intelligence changed the method of calculation for spot market prices. The change results in virtual price leaps.
0.00
Jan. 2012
Jan. 2013
* Actual nominal USD prices, not real prices referring to a base year. Year
Source: Energy Intelligence, Nukem; Bild/Figure: atw 2019
Jan. 2014
Jan. 2015
Jan. 2016
Jan. 2017
Jan. 2018
Jan. 2019
2014
pp
Uranium: 28.10–42.00
pp
Conversion: 7.25–11.00
pp
Separative work: 86.00–98.00
2015
pp
Uranium: 35.00–39.75
pp
Conversion: 6.25–9.50
pp
Separative work: 58.00–92.00
2016
pp
Uranium: 18.75–35.25
pp
Conversion: 5.50–6.75
pp
Separative work: 47.00–62.00
2017
pp
Uranium: 19.25–26.50
pp
Conversion: 4.50–6.75
pp
Separative work: 39.00–50.00
2018
January to June 2018
pp
Uranium: 21.75–24.00
pp
Conversion: 6.00–9.50
pp
Separative work: 35.00–42.00
February 2018
pp
Uranium: 21.25–22.50
pp
Conversion: 6.25–7.25
pp
Separative work: 37.00–40.00
March 2018
pp
Uranium: 20.50–22.25
pp
Conversion: 6.50–7.50
pp
Separative work: 36.00–39.00
April 2018
pp
Uranium: 20.00–21.75
pp
Conversion: 7.50–8.50
pp
Separative work: 36.00–39.00
May 2018
pp
Uranium: 21.75–22.80
pp
Conversion: 8.00–8.75
pp
Separative work: 36.00–39.00
June 2018
pp
Uranium: 22.50–23.75
pp
Conversion: 8.50–9.50
pp
Separative work: 35.00–38.00
July 2018
pp
Uranium: 23.00–25.90
pp
Conversion: 9.00–10.50
pp
Separative work: 34.00–38.00
August 2018
pp
Uranium: 25.50–26.50
pp
Conversion: 11.00–14.00
pp
Separative work: 34.00–38.00
September 2018
pp
Uranium: 26.50–27.50
pp
Conversion: 12.00–13.00
pp
Separative work: 38.00–40.00
October 2018
pp
Uranium: 27.30–29.00
pp
Conversion: 12.00–15.00
pp
Separative work: 37.00–40.00
November 2018
pp
Uranium: 28.00–29.25
pp
Conversion: 13.50–14.50
pp
Separative work: 39.00–40.00
December 2018
pp
Uranium: 28.50–29.20
pp
Conversion: 13.50–14.50
pp
Separative work: 40.00–41.00
| | Source: Energy Intelligence
www.energyintel.com
Cross-border Price
for Hard Coal
Cross-border price for hard coal in
[€/t TCE] and orders in [t TCE] for
use in power plants (TCE: tonnes of
coal equivalent, German border):
2012: 93.02; 27,453,635
2013: 79.12, 31,637,166
2014: 72.94, 30,591,663
2015: 67.90; 28,919,230
2016: 67.07; 29,787,178
2017: 91.28, 25,739,010
2018
I. quarter: 89.88; 5,838,003
II. quarter: 88.25; 4,341,359
III. quarter: 100.79; 5,135,198
| | Source: BAFA, some data provisional
www.bafa.de
News

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 3 ı March
178
NUCLEAR TODAY
John Shepherd is a
journalist who has
covered the nuclear
industry for the past
20 years and is
currently editor-in-chief
of UK-based Energy
Storage Publishing.
Links to reference
sources:
Horizon Nuclear
Power statement:
https://bit.ly/2U1IH2b
Is the UK Ready to See Nuclear Fade
Before It Can Shine?
John Shepherd
What a mess the UK is in – and it’s nothing to do with Brexit. It’s all to do with energy policy (or the apparent lack
of it) and a nuclear industry that is at risk of fading away before the ‘renaissance’ we had hoped for has gathered pace.
Thirteen years ago it was all so very different. After what
seemed an eternity in the energy doldrums, in July 2006, a
UK government energy policy review concluded that a
new fleet of nuclear power plants would be needed as an
essential part of the country’s long-term energy mix.
In November of that year, just over 12 months after
leading his Labour Party to an historic third consecutive
election win, prime minister Tony Blair put his full political
weight behind a UK nuclear revival.
Cleverly, and correctly, Blair played the climate change
card to hammer home his message. He said the UK had to
put nuclear energy back on the national agenda because,
without it, the country would not be able to meet its
climate change commitments or guarantee energy security.
Blair told the House of Commons that in 15 years, the
UK would move from a position of being about 80 % or
90 % self-supportive and not reliant on imports on account
of its own self-sufficiency in oil and gas, to one in which the
country is importing 80 or 90 %.
To combat the retirement of ageing nuclear power plants,
he said “we need to put nuclear power back on the agenda
and at least replace the nuclear energy that we will lose”.
His pitch for nuclear came in the wake of the ‘Stern
­Review’, produced by a former World Bank chief ­economist,
Sir Nicholas Stern, for the UK government. Stern said the
scientific evidence was overwhelming that climate change
was a serious global threat and demanded an urgent
response.
However, it was left to a subsequent prime minister, the
Conservative David Cameron, to announce in 2013 a deal
with France’s EDF to build what would be the first new
British nuclear power station in 20 years – HInkley Point C.
But it took an extra three years for Cameron’s successor,
the now Brexit-beleaguered Theresa May, to finally sign off
on building Hinkley Point C.
She had ordered a ‘review’ of the project before finally
allowing it to go ahead, causing what was a further
unnecessary and damaging delay. No.10 Downing Street
had let it be known there were ‘security concerns’ about
China’s involvement in the project and May told French
leaders she needed more time to consider the issue.
Needing ‘more time’ has sadly become a disappointing
trait seen in the current resident of No.10 (although she
has recently bowed to internal Conservative Party pressure
and confirmed she will not contest another general ­election
as Tory leader). She is on borrowed time.
As I write, completion of the 4,500 tonne concrete
platform on which the Hinkley Point C reactor buildings sit
is scheduled for this year.
Following May’s controversial intervention in the ­project,
ministers said the government would impose a new legal
framework for future foreign investment in UK’s critical
infrastructure, to include nuclear and apply after Hinkley.
The statement led everyone to understand that the
British government would in future take a ‘special share in
all future nuclear new-build projects. The aim, we were
told, was to ensure that significant stakes could not be sold
without the government’s knowledge or consent. Really..?
Then how do you explain the mess the UK is in now?
Time is something nuclear in the UK does not have. In
the run-up to Christmas, Toshiba Corp confirmed what
many had feared – that the company would withdraw from
its UK nuclear new-build project at Moorside. Toshiba said
that, “notwithstanding negotiations with multiple companies”,
it was unable to anticipate being able to complete
the sale of its NuGeneration (NuGen) company during
­fiscal year 2018, which ends in March 2019.
Formed in 2009, NuGen had planned to build a nuclear
power plant of up to 3.8 gigawatts-electric gross capacity
at Moorside in West Cumbria, using AP1000 nuclear
reactor technology provided by Westinghouse. That
reactor design completed the UK regulatory assessment
process in March 2017. At that time, Toshiba owned
­Westinghouse – which filed for Chapter 11 protection with
US courts the same month.
Then, last month, another hammer blow. Horizon
Nuclear Power said it would suspend its UK nuclear
development programme, following a decision taken by its
Japanese parent company Hitachi. Horizon had been
developing the Wylfa Newydd nuclear plant on Anglesey
in North Wales and has a second site at Oldbury on Severn
in South Gloucestershire.
Horizon Nuclear Power CEO Duncan Hawthorne said
despite “close discussions” with the UK and Japanese
­governments, talks had failed on the financing and
associated commercial arrangements needed.
In the 1992 UK general election, popular tabloid
­newspaper ‘The Sun’ ran an infamous front page article
deriding the then opposition Labour leader, Neil Kinnock,
with the headline: “If Kinnock wins today will the last
person to leave Britain please turn out the lights?”
Kinnock did not win. And despite all the elections since,
nuclear has not been a real winner either. Political leaders
who have come and gone (in government or opposition)
have consistently failed to demonstrate real leadership in
terms of nuclear. They should all be condemned if (or
when) the lights go out. The nuclear zeal expressed by
Blair towards the end of his term of office was bold but not
substantial enough to last.
So what does the future hold? UK regulators confirmed
last November that they had started the third step in a
four-step independent generic design assessment process
to seek approval for the French-Chinese ‘UK HPR1000’
nuclear technology. This is the Hualong One design that
General Nuclear Services, a subsidiary of EDF and China
General Nuclear, proposes to use at a prospective new
nuclear plant in England.
But it will take more than regulatory acceptance to get
that project – and others – on track. It will take clear
political will and commitment too.
Mrs May will soon be gone. Will a sensible successor
emerge with the courage to take a leap of faith and invest
capital and commitment in next generation nuclear
technologies for the UK? Only time will tell, but the
Doomsday Clock is ticking towards a catastrophe for
security of electricity supply and the climate.
John Shepherd
Nuclear Today
Is the UK Ready to See Nuclear Fade Before It Can Shine? ı John Shepherd

7 – 8 May 2019
Estrel Convention Center Berlin, Germany
www.amnt2019.com
#50AMNT
The 50 th AMNT offers a great variety
of high level sessions showing
the high competence in the nuclear
technology industry.
Hear from international experts about current issues and relevant
developments. Expand your professional network in meetings
with experts and decision-makers working in industry, utilities,
research and development as well as politics and administration.
Register now at
› www.amnt2019.com
Media Partners
Celebrate with us our 50 th anniversary!

VPC - EXPANDING INTO NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY
Repository Documentation Rethought – A comprehensive approach
from untreated waste to packages for final disposal
You can find out more about it VPC‘s in our Nuclear article in Services this magazine if you scan this QR code:
VPC - FOR BETTER RESULTS...
www.vpc-group.biz
Want to keep up with the latest news from our company?
Then follow us on: