atw - International Journal for Nuclear Power | 10.2020

atw Vol. 65 (2020) | Issue 10 ı October
Commitments made under the
2016 Paris Agreement on climate
change and other initiatives could
support nuclear power development,
provided the necessary energy policies
and market designs are established to
facilitate investments in dispatchable,
low carbon technologies. Furthermore,
nuclear power could provide
solutions for electricity consumption
growth, air quality concerns, the
security of energy supply and price
volatility of other fuels.
The report lays out that about two
thirds of nuclear power reactors have
been in operation for over 30 years,
highlighting the need for significant
new nuclear capacity to offset retirements.
Uncertainty remains regarding
the replacement of the large number
of reactors scheduled to be retired
around 2030 and beyond, particularly
in North America and Europe. Ageing
management programmes and long
term operation are being imple mented
for an increasing number of reactors.
Operating Results July 2020
Since it was first published 40 years
ago, the IAEA projections have been
continually refined to reflect an evolving
global energy context. Over the
past decade, nuclear power development
has remained within the range of
projections described in prior editions.
| www.iaea.org (202621420)
World
FORATOM underlines key
role of nuclear in achieving
ambitious climate targets
(foratom) FORATOM welcomes the
European Commission’s proposal to
increase its 2030 CO 2 emission reduction
target to at least 55 %. This is
essential if the EU is to achieve carbon
neutrality by 2050. The nuclear sector
stands ready to play its part by providing
a stable supply of low-carbon
electricity, as well as other energy
carriers (e.g. hydrogen).
In terms of decarbonising the
electricity sector, FORATOM has
identified two challenges: ensuring
security of supply and costs.
“It is clear that by supporting an
energy mix which combines both
nuclear power and variable renewables,
the EU will have access to a
low-carbon supply of electricity, 24/7”
states Yves Desbazeille, FORATOM
Director General. “Such a combination
will contribute not only ensuring
security of supply, but also keeping the
costs of the transition to a minimum”.
According to the conclusions of
an FTI-CL Energy Consulting study
commissioned by FORATOM (“Pathways
to 2050: role of nuclear in a
low-carbon Europe”), Europe could
save more than 440 bn € between
2020 and 2050 by supporting a 25 %
share of nuclear in the 2050 electricity
mix. Customers would save around
350 bn € in costs, with 90 % of these
savings occuring before 2035 thanks
primarily to the life-time extension of
*)
Net-based values
(Czech and Swiss
nuclear power
plants gross-based)
1)
Refueling
2)
Inspection
3)
Repair
4)
Stretch-outoperation
5)
Stretch-inoperation
6)
Hereof traction supply
7)
Incl. steam supply
BWR: Boiling
Water Reactor
PWR: Pressurised
Water Reactor
Source: VGB
527
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 910 880 744 674 376 4 199 829 273 665 299 100.00 92.30 100.00 89.28 98.52 89.32
OL2 Olkiluoto BWR FI 910 880 744 667 275 4 406 011 263 770 096 100.00 94.75 99.93 94.11 97.49 93.70
KCB Borssele PWR NL 512 484 653 321 983 2 291 828 170 273 262 86.84 88.67 86.91 87.70 84.42 87.69
KKB 1 Beznau 7) PWR CH 380 365 744 273 800 1 621 859 131 930 679 100.00 83.55 100.00 83.30 96.72 83.40
KKB 2 Beznau 7) PWR CH 380 365 744 271 729 1 932 929 139 229 712 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.90 96.00 99.55
KKG Gösgen 7) PWR CH 1060 1010 744 775 109 4 928 686 327 044 921 100.00 91.83 99.99 91.23 98.28 90.97
CNT-I Trillo PWR ES 1066 1003 744 782 497 4 395 367 260 143 393 100.00 84.29 100.00 83.50 97.80 80.05
Dukovany B1 PWR CZ 500 473 744 360 826 2 530 955 118 415 138 100.00 100.00 100.00 99.94 97.00 99.04
Dukovany B2 PWR CZ 500 473 738 349 089 2 504 515 113 547 833 99.19 99.88 97.88 99.62 93.84 98.00
Dukovany B3 PWR CZ 500 473 744 359 231 1 347 758 111 599 495 100.00 54.57 100.00 53.89 96.57 52.74
Dukovany B4 PWR CZ 500 473 744 363 372 2 041 751 112 748 708 100.00 80.36 100.00 80.29 97.68 79.90
Temelin B1 PWR CZ 1080 1030 744 799 584 3 730 962 125 645 775 100.00 67.72 99.97 66.72 99.33 67.47
Temelin B2 1) PWR CZ 1080 1030 0 0 4 326 302 121 808 920 0 76.93 0 76.88 0 78.23
Doel 1 PWR BE 454 433 744 345 072 571 238 138 307 298 100.00 24.91 99.95 24.07 99.44 23.93
Doel 2 PWR BE 454 433 744 342 203 668 170 137 003 640 100.00 29.49 99.07 28.80 98.25 28.44
Doel 3 2) PWR BE 1056 1006 403 357 244 5 008 404 268 120 054 54.22 93.34 53.92 93.29 44.82 92.30
Doel 4 PWR BE 1084 1033 694 719 111 4 833 232 274 471 507 93.31 87.24 89.61 86.36 87.39 85.77
Tihange 1 2) PWR BE 1009 962 0 0 0 307 547 424 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tihange 2 PWR BE 1055 1008 540 541 079 5 096 411 263 150 929 72.61 96.01 70.66 95.64 69.41 95.39
Tihange 3 2) PWR BE 1089 1038 0 0 4 096 335 284 658 911 0 74.24 0 74.16 0 74.04
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 744 988 479 6 665 841 367 386 864 100.00 100.00 94.31 94.11 89.33 87.75
KKE Emsland DWR 1406 1335 744 1 025 986 6 284 415 363 884 616 100.00 89.40 100.00 89.28 98.07 87.44
KWG Grohnde DWR 1430 1360 744 995 246 5 472 514 393 747 360 100.00 90.87 98.98 90.59 92.93 74.40
KRB C Gundremmingen 1) SWR 1344 1288 494 618 401 5 293 448 346 617 000 66.36 78.85 62.62 77.19 61.35 76.47
KKI-2 Isar 1,2) DWR 1485 1410 240 332 429 6 466 222 372 228 691 32.27 90.14 31.41 90.01 29.91 84.78
GKN-II Neckarwestheim 1,2) DWR 1400 1310 373 508 100 6 054 800 346 293 044 50.13 87.42 48.87 87.21 48.87 84.71
News