atw - International Journal for Nuclear Power | 10.2020

More documents

Info

atw Vol. 65 (2020) | Issue 10 ı October 472 INSIDE NUCLEAR WITH NUCNET ‘Tumult and Challenge’ as the US Nuclear Energy Faces Fight to Prosper Countries are turning to China and Russia while the US ‘sits on the sidelines’ The US wants to build nuclear power plants that will work on the Moon and Mars, and has put out a request for ideas from the private sector on how to build a fission surface power system that could allow humans to live for long periods in harsh space environments. “The prospect of deploying an advanced reactor to the lunar surface is as exciting as it is challenging, and partnering with the most forward-thinking companies in the private sector and national laboratory system will help us get there,” said Mr John Wagner, associate laboratory director of Idaho National Laboratory’s nuclear science and technology directorate. While the nuclear industry as a whole remains bullish about prospects for the next generation of reactors – plants that can be deployed in space, for the military and in remote areas – uncertainty surrounds the long-term future of the traditional, commercial nuclear industry The US has the largest number of nuclear plants in the world – 95 in commercial operation providing 20 % of its electricity generation – but its leadership in the sector is said by many to be declining as efforts to build a new generation of large reactors have been plagued by problems, and aging plants have been retired or closed in the face of economic, market, and financial pressures. Only two commercial nuclear plants are under construction in the US, at Vogtle in Georgia (this compares to 11 in China and four in Russia). The author of a think-tank report told NucNet these plants, both Westinghouse AP1000s, could become the last large-capacity reactors to be built in the US, with small modular reactors and other Generation IV advanced reactors taking over as key technologies. Mr William Magwood, director-general of the Parisbased Nuclear Energy Agency, said cost is one of the issues driving the market to consider smaller reactors. He said compe tition in the nuclear industry – including from China and Russia – is leading to more choice in terms of reactor technology, but financing and contract terms are often the determining issue for many customers, with SMRs attracting attention because of their affordability, Competition in the overseas new-build sector from state-backed corporations in China and Russia is often cited by the industry as a major impediment to its potential. Energy secretary Mr Dan Brouillette said many countries of geopoli tical importance are pursuing nuclear energy for their domestic electricity needs. Those countries are largely turning to Chinese and Russian state-owned enterprises for the technological support needed to build reactors, while the US sits on the sidelines. “In effect, China and Russia are gaining geopolitical leverage by exporting nuclear expertise and building 100-year bilateral relationships,” he said. There are two elements to the industry’s perceived woes: an inability to build new, large-megawatt nuclear plants at home because financing for nuclear can be difficult to secure; and an inability to compete abroad because China and Russia can offer project terms backed by their respective governments. The problem with financing new nuclear, in essence, is that payback periods are notoriously long and uncertain. Government-backed enterprises in China and Russia are in a better position than US private enterprise to mitigate any uncertainties. The industry has long argued that electricity markets in the US should be reformed to recognise the ability of traditional baseload generation with onsite fuel supplies – including nuclear power plants – to provide grid resiliency during extreme events like hurricanes or extreme winter weather. A report by the Washington-based think-tank the Atlantic Council issued a stark warning, arguing that the US nuclear energy industry is facing a crisis that the Trump administration must immediately address. The good news is that the Trump administration recognises the problem, supports nuclear energy, and sees new generation nuclear technology such as small modular reactors as a key part of its energy strategy. The Nuclear Fuel Working Group report, requested by Mr Trump and published in April, proposes a series of actions to improve nuclear power as a baseload source of energy, revive the uranium industry strengthen American technology supremacy, and drive US exports of advanced nuclear reactors and fuel technology. Last month, in a move welcomed by the nuclear industry as a boost for export opportunities, the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) announced it will lift its legacy prohibition on funding nuclear energy projects, recognising the vast energy needs of developing countries and the potential of new and advanced technologies such as small modular reactors and microreactors in these markets. Four US nuclear plants have shut down since 2018 (six since 2013) and at least five more are slated to retire over the next five years, resulting in a total loss since 2013 of around 10 GW of generation from the grid. The Washington-based Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents the nuclear industry in the US, said the US electricity grid is enduring “unprecedented tumult and challenge” because of the loss of thousands and thousands of megawatts of carbon-free, fuel-secure generation that nuclear plants represent. Closing nuclear plants makes electricity prices go up and is putting emissions reduction targets hopelessly out of reach, NEI president and chief executive officer Maria Korsnick said. The Atlantic Council said the decline of the nuclear power industry in the US is “an important policy problem” that is not receiving the attention it deserves. The report was made public in March 2018, in the same week that Ohio-based utility FirstEnergy announced plans to permanently shut down its three nuclear power stations – Davis-Besse, Perry and Beaver Valley – within the next three years without some kind of state or federal relief. Author NucNet – The Independent Global Nuclear News Agency Editor responsible for this story: David Dalton Avenue des Arts 56 2/C 1000 Bruxelles, Belgium www.nucnet.org Inside Nuclear with NucNet ‘Tumult and Challenge’ as the US Nuclear Energy Faces Fight to Prosper
atw Vol. 65 (2020) | Issue 10 ı October Did you know...? No Harm to the Environment – Progress and Solutions in the Management of High-level Radioactive Waste Recently the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) of the OECD published the Report Radioactive Waste Management 2020 with the title “Management and Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste: Global Progress and Solutions”. The report is characterized by the NEA as a policy-level compendium of the current status of knowledge, technological developments, safety standards, rules and requirements applicable to evaluating the feasibility of DGRs (=Deep Geological Repositories). It summarises how the international scientific community has intensively collaborated to bring sound arguments and evidence into the debate that SNF/HLW will not cause harm to either humans or the environment. In this sense the report relates directly to the current European policy debate about the evaluation of nuclear energy as a sustainable low-carbon contributor to the mitigation of climate change or as harmful to the environment as was pointed out by the NEA Director- General, Mr William D. Magwood, IV during a NEAwebinar. (see also the article “Sustainable Finance Initiative of the EU and Taxonomy – How green is Nuclear?” in this issue of atw) In its arguments the NEA points to the long tradition of radiation protection dating back to the creation of the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), an independent nongovernmental organisation in 1928 to advance the science of radiological protection and some 70 year of scientific investigation and research concerning nuclear waste management. The ICRP (1998) recommends a maximum radiation exposure of not more than 0.3 mSv per year for people living near the DGR ( Germany requires 0.1 mSv for unlikely and 0.01 mSv for likely developments of the DGR). The annual global average dose from natural background radiation is 2.4 mSv. Concerning the EU/ Euratom, the NEA reminds of the first Basic Safety Standard (BSS) Directive that was adopted in 1959 to ensure the highest possible protection of workers and members of the public from exposure to ionising radiation. The Directive has been amended regularly and the most recent BSS Directive was adopted in 2014. Concerning management of nuclear waste at EU level, the Euratom Waste Directive (Council Directive 2011/70/ EURATOM of 19 July 2011 establishing a Community framework for the responsible and safe management of spent fuel and radioactive waste) refers to the Euratom Basic Safety Standards for Radiation Protection. Besides regulation the report shows that from the early days of commercial nuclear power some 70 years ago, the nuclear sector has responsibly addressed the life cycle of its materials and their impacts, including the use of advanced technology for waste management. In all cases i.e. whether spent nuclear fuel (SNF) is recycled or not, the final disposal of the high-level radioactive waste (HLW) has been a matter requiring attention. Policy makers and scientists at the national and international level have been proposing, studying and implementing the safe disposal of SNF/ HLW. The NEA report demonstrates that the scientific consensus today, that has developed for more than a half century, is that DGRs are a safe and effective approach to permanently dispose of SNF/HLW. Independent national regulators have endorsed their effectiveness to isolate SNF/HLW from humans and the environment and the safety principles and technological solutions for the long-term management of SNF/HLW are well established. The NEA also points out that the effective and decades long implementation of safe interim storage in respect of all regulatory requirements concerning radiation protection, safety, security and non-proliferation has granted experts the time necessary to develop robust technical solutions within a democratic and transparent decision-making process for the final management of SNF/HLW without the need to rush to disposal. To this end underground research laboratories (URL) have been constructed and operated and in situ experiments performed and replicated in many locations. As a result, there is now a robust basis for the design and constructability of safe DGRs. The accumulated scientific results, technological evidence and safety demonstrations have been presented openly and were critically reviewed by internationally recognised experts to reach the current level of maturity. Below you can find a table showing the timeline for countries further along in the DGR process for SNF/HLW. Source: Radioactive Waste Management 2020 Management and Disposal of High-Level Radioactive Waste: Global Progress and Solutions, OECD 2020, NEA No. 7532 For further details please contact: Nicolas Wendler KernD Robert-Koch-Platz 4 10115 Berlin Germany E-mail: presse@ KernD.de www.KernD.de DID YOU EDITORIAL KNOW...? 473 Timeline for countries further along in the Deep Geological Repositories (DGR) process Country Feasibility and site investigations begin Site selected Begin construction of underground Rock Laboratory Application submitted Construction license granted Construction begin Total years prior to application Projected operational period Finland 1983 2000 2004 2012 2015 2016 29 100 years France 1991 1998 2000 2021 (estimate) 2022 (estimate) 30 100 years Sweden 1976 2009 1990 (Äspö) 2011 Early 2020s (estimate) United States (Yucca) United States (WIPP) 1982 1987 1993 (Exploratory Studies Facility) 34 45 years (routine operation) 2008 2048 (estimate) 28 100 years or longer 1955 1974 1979 1981 24 35 years China 1985 2018 2020 2041 (estimate) Canada 1978 2023 (estimate) 1982 (AECL) 2028 (estimate) 2032 (estimate) 50 40 years or more Germany 1965 2031 (estimate) 1986 (Gorleben) Switzerland 1978 2022 (estimate) 1984 (Grimsel) 1996 (Mont Terri) Japan 1976 2027 (estimate) 2002 (Mizunami URL) 2005 (Horonobe URL) 2024 (estimate) 2031 (estimate) 46 ~ 30 years ~ 50 years Did you know...?
Page 1 and 2: nucmag.com 2020 10 ISSN · 1431-525
Page 3 and 4: atw Vol. 65 (2020) | Issue 10 ı Oc
Page 5 and 6: Kommunikation und Training für Ker
Page 7: atw Vol. 65 (2020) | Issue 10 ı Oc
Page 59 and 60:
atw Vol. 65 (2020) | Issue 10 ı Oc
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Kommunikation und Training für Ker
show all

atw - International Journal for Nuclear Power | 10.2020

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

Delete template?

Save as template?