Fennovoimas första reaktor

8/3/2019 Fennovoimas frsta reaktor

1/26

First reactor Greenfield challengesElforsk seminarStockholm, January 25, 2011

Juhani Hyvrinen


2/26

2

Technology challenges

Site challenges

Initial challenge

Jan 25, 2011

Implementation challenges


3/26

3

The initial challenges

Fennovoima was established in 2007 to build a newnuclear power plant for undersupplied Finnish electricityusers, by 2020 New company, independent of existing nuclear operators in

Finland: needs top quality staff + competent technical

partners Needs a greenfield site The most modern technology by competent and reliable

providers desired

The first big milestone was the Decision-in-Principle (DIP)

Mainly a political challenge, on two levels Local level: needed acceptance of candidate site

communities, both decision makers and land owners National level: government and parliament approval

Jan 25, 2011


4/26


5/26

5

AGA Alajrven Shk Atria Boliden Harjavalta Boliden Kokkola Componenta E.ON Krnkraft Finland Esse Elektro-Kraft Etel-Savon Energia Finnfoam Haminan Energia Haukiputaan Shkosuuskunta Herrfors Hiirikosken Energia Imatran Seudun Shk It-Lapin Energia Jylhn Shkosuuskunta Jyvskyln Energia Kemin Energia Keminmaan Energia Keravan Energia Kesko Koillis-Satakunnan Shk Kokemen Shk

Porvoon Energia Raahen Energia Rantakairan Shk Rauman Energia Rautaruukki Rovakairan Tuotanto Sallila Energia Seinjoen Energia S-ryhm Talvivaaran Kaivososakeyhti Tammisaaren Energia Tornion Energia Turku Energia Uudenkaarlepyyn Voimalaitos Vakka-Suomen Voima Valio Valkeakosken Energia Vantaan Energia Vatajankosken Shk Vetelin Shklaitos Vimpelin Voima lands Elandelslag neseudun Energia

Kotkan Energia Kruunupyyn Shklaitos KSS Energia Kuopion Energia Kuoreveden Shk Kylin-Skyln Shk Lahti Energia Lammaisten Energia Lankosken Shk Lehtimen Shk Leppkosken Shk Myllyn Paras Mntsln Shk Naantalin Energia Nurmijrven Shk Omya Oulun Seudun Shk Outokummun Energia Outokumpu Ovako Bar Paneliankosken Voima Parikkalan Valo Pietarsaaren Energialaitos

70 Owners, 30% of Finnish electricityconsumption; large, diverse ownershipMetal, chemical, food and building materials industries; retail and

services; local energy companies

Jan 25, 2011


6/26

6

Fennovoimas owners are locate allover the country

Energy industry 2/3 of local Finnish electricity

companies

Serve two million Finnish customers

Foodstuff industryRetailChemical industryMetals and miningConstruction materials

Local electrical utilities

Biggest industrial and retail activities

Jan 25, 2011


7/26

7 Jan 25, 2011

Electricityfrom the

market

Owngeneration

Industryand retail

Powercompanies

TWh

Owners lack own generation capacityShareholders use in total 30% of the electricity in Finland


8/26

8 Jan 25, 2011

FennovoimaE.ON decommissioning

E.ON as minority owner

E.ON as licensee

Simo

Pyhjoki

Forsmark

RinghalsOskarshamn

Barsebck

Brunsbttel

UnterweserBrokdorf

Krmmel

Grohnde

Grafenrheinfeld

Isar

Emsland Stade

Gundgremmingen

Wrgassen

E.ON and Fennovoima

Experienced and competent energycompany Near 100.000 staff Over 200 big power plants in Europe

Europes second largest producerof nuclear electricity 21 nuclear reactors in Germany

and in Sweden 4.000 nuclear experts Nuclear generation 80 TWh/a

Strategic partnership

Fennovoima is committed to usingE.ONs nuclear expertise

E.ON has already committed bothfull-time secondments and tens ofpart time experts to the project


9/26

9

Schedule challenge

Jan 25, 2011

Site and mainsupplier selections

Land use plans inforce

Site preparatoryworks

Construction Licenseand other permits

Building the plant andsite facilities

Operating License

At least 60 years ofsafe and economicoperation

Waste disposal 2050-

Decommissioning anddismantling

Broad ownershipSite and technologyalternativesdeveloped

EIA

Municipality, STUKand otherstakeholderstatements

Decision in Principle

2011-2014 2015-2019 2020-2007-2010

Next steps: site and vendor selection = Contracting phase

OperationConstructionContractingPreparation


10/26

10


Site challenges

Initial challenge

Jan 25, 2011



11/26

11

Two suitable alternative greenfield sites inNorthern Finland

Site selection Site screening process started in 2007 with

~40 candidates Fennovoima will select the final site in early

2011

Sufficient land area acquired Planning process completed in fall 2010

Environment and safety EIA completed in Spring 2009

Both sites passed review of the nuclearregulator STUK

Regions support Fennovoima Both municipalities, regions, and majority of

local people support the project

Jan 25, 2011


12/26

12

Majority in the regions support the project

Jan 25, 2011

* Kalajoki, Merijrvi, Oulainen, Raahe, Vihanti

What is your opinion aboutFennovoimasplan to build a nuclear power plantin the region?

51 5356 60 61

8 55 1

8

42 42 38 3931

0 %

10 %

20 %

30 %

40 %

50 %

60 %

70 %

80 %

90 %

100 %

5/2008 11/2008 5/2009 1/2010 10/2010

Pyhjoki and surroundingmunicipalities*

47 48 5258 57

4 55

413

49 4743 38

30

0 %

10 %

20 %

30 %

40 %

50 %

60 %

70 %

80 %

90 %

100 %

5/2008 11/2008 5/2009 1/2010 10/2010

Simo and surroundingmunicipalities

Strongly disagree ordisagree

Neither agree or disagree

Agree or strongly agree

Ii, Kemi, Keminmaa, Ranua, Tervola


13/26

13

Pyhjoki site

Jan 25, 2011

Areva (EPR and Kerena) and Toshiba (ABWR) as reactor options


14/26

14

Simo site

Jan 25, 2011

Areva (EPR and Kerena) and Toshiba (ABWR) as reactor options


15/26

15


Site challenges

Initial challenge

Jan 25, 2011



16/26

16

Plant alternatives Toshiba ABWR, Areva EPR and Areva Kerena were

shortlisted for the Decision-in-Principle Preliminarily reviewed by STUK Each of these represent a balanced combination of proven

technology, licensability, and advanced features

Jan 25, 2011

Toshiba ABWR EPR Kerena

Vendor, country Toshiba/WESJapan/Sweden

Areva NPFrance/Germany

Areva NPFrance/Germany

Thermal MW 4300 4590 3370

Electric MW ~1600 ~1700 ~1250

Reactor type Boiling water Pressurisedwater

Boiling water

Safety system Active + Passive Active Passive + Active

Reference plant Hamaoka-5 Olkiluoto 3 Gundremmingen C


17/26

17

STUK comments on the EPR

Acceptability of reactorpower level 4590 MWth

Jan 25, 2011


18/26

18

STUK comments on the Kerena 1/2

Passive systems- functional tests- periodic testing concept

Fuel poolcooling

diversification

Containmentisolation valvediversification

Jan 25, 2011


19/26

19

STUK comments on Kerena 2/2

Aircraft crash protection ofcontrol building

Lessons learnedfrom Forsmarkincidents

Electrical and I&C system- separation principles- redundancy

Jan 25, 2011


20/26

20

STUK comments on the ABWR

Core catcherqualification

ECCSstrainerqualification

Containment

isolation valvediversification

Fuel pool

coolingdiversification

Lessons learnedfrom Forsmarkincidents

Independence of electrical and

I&C systems for core meltaccidents

Bringing the plantto safe statewithoutcomputerised I&C

Jan 25, 2011


21/26

21

Further technology challenges

ABWR Europeanisation in detailed design EPR lessons learned from earlier projects Kerena is first-of-a-kind Implementation of EON Fleet principles on designs

Adaptation technologies to site specific conditions Northern Finland is surprisingly seismic

TI challenges Optimisation for cold cooling water Meeting grid compatibility requirements, especially the

NORDEL 250 ms fault ride-out capability

Jan 25, 2011


22/26

22


Site challenges

Initial challenge

Jan 25, 2011



23/26

23

The DIP Phase

The first big milestone was the Decision-in-Principle (DIP) Preceded by a thorough EIA for three separate candidate

sites DIP Application covered 1 to 2 reactors + all other nuclear

facilities on site (storage, L/MLW disposal)

STUK review covering technology candidates, site candidates,and the company itself (competence) Political process where both local and national acceptance is

needed Hundreds of other authority and stakeholder comments filed

on first the EIA, then the DIP

Jan 25, 2011


24/26

24

Decision in Principle provides a solidfoundation

Goverment decision in Fennovoimas favour on May 6, 2010:According to the decision, Fennovoima Is authorised to build one nuclear reactor up to 1800 MWe Has to apply for a Construction License within five years Has to present next waste management plans within six years

Parliament approved the decision on July 1, 2010 Vote result 121-71 Parliament decision contains four motions; according to one of

them The Government shall bring, during 2010, Posiva and its owners

into negotiations with Fennovoima aiming at one national spent fuelmanagement solution

Jan 25, 2011


25/26

25

What next?

Continuing Fennovoima organisation build-up Site selection in first half of 2011 Commercial challenge: bidding process & technology

selection in 2012 Coping with the ongoing major revision of the whole set of YVL

Guides presents a challenge Parallel work on CL docs for competing technologies is needed

Licensing challenge: preparations for Construction Licenseapplication Ample time reserved for preparation between now and CL filing,

and subsequent STUK review Site preparation (road, power, water, ...)

Implementation challenge: construction and commissioning In 2020, 1250-1700 MWe up and running in Northern Finland

Jan 25, 2011


26/26

Thank you.

Fennovoima Oywww.fennovoima.fi020 7579 200Salmisaarenaukio 1, 00180 Helsinki

Dr. Juhani HyvrinenChief Nuclear [email protected]

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ollestal
View:	227 times
Download:	0 times

Fennovoimas första reaktor

Documents