Gilles MATHONNIERE I-tésé CEA (Atoms for the Future 2013)

TECHNICAL AND

ECONOMICAL ASPECTS OF

FUTURE NUCLEAR

ENERGY

ON THE HORIZON 2100

GILLES MATHONNIERE

DEN/DANS/I-TÉSÉ

| PAGE

1

Atoms for the Future 2013, SFEN October 22nd 2013

CONTEXT NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPETITIVENESS

THE PLACE OF THE NUCLEAR ENERGY IN

SCENARIOS ON THE HORIZON 2050

NUCLEAR ENERGY IN 2100

CONCLUSIONS

SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 3

• National Policy

• Economy

• Complémentarity with the other forms of energy : The grid will be shared all the energies

DETERMINING FACTORS FOR THE NUCLEAR

ENERGY IN THE FUTURE ENERGY MIX


THE ENERGY OBJECTIVES OF FRANCE

International objectives :

• Mainly climate related

European objectives :

• The European Energy-Climate Plan

and the 3x20 rules

National objectives :

• The Grenelle debate on the environment

• Post Grenelle government commitments of various natures:

• Additional technical measures for reaching 2020

objectives

• The committments of the current government :

• Nuclear share

• Renovation and building of new housing…

these objectives are declined in very important set of

economic, legal, statutory, fiscal devices, R&D programs, ….


TOWARDS NEW USES OF ELECTRICITY AND NUCLEAR

ENERGY

Electricity traditionnal market will progress :

•From the « energy transition » to the « productive recovery »

To relocate strongly energy-consuming industries

Electricity will develop for new uses :

• Substitution for fossile energies and efficiency improvement policy in

Industry

• Electric buildings with very high energy performance

•Mobility

• Information, Communication, Digital Society

The (new) nuclear energy will meet new uses :

• District heating (ex. Paris by Nogent nuclear plant)

• Hydrogen massive production

• Silicium PV grade massive production

• Help to the grid (Reactors dedicated to electrolysis which can

momentarily switch to electricity production in order to anwer the demand

peak ; short and medium term storage through reversible electrolysis)

CONTEXT

NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPETITIVENESS




CONCLUSIONS


Main result from la Cour des Comptes (French National Audit) :

LCOE for nuclear is about 50€/MWh

Historic nuclear power is economically «unbeatable »

COMPETIVITY OF THE EXISTING NUCLEAR FLEET :

REPORT BY LA COUR DES COMPTES JANUARY 2012

€2010/MWh Operating expenses Cost connected to

the capital

Total

ARENH 2012 33

(25+5 maintenance

+ 3anticipation post-

Fukushima

6 to 9 42

Accounting cost 29 4,4 33,4

Champsaur

Commission

27,1 6 33,1

Full Accounting cost

for production

23,4 16,4 39,8

LCOE (Variant

French National

Audit)

29,1 20,4 49,5


NUCLEAR POWER OF FUTURE: ORDER OF

MAGNITUDE FOR THE NEW REACTORS COSTS

• Costs are usully difficult to compare, as

many factors are playing a role :

– DesignS

– Specificities of countries (local costs,

constraints of sites, labor law, taxes …)

– Local share in the global costs

– Exchange rate parities

– Number of reactors on a site

– Etc…

• Order of magnitude for « overnight » costs :

– EPR (Flamanville) ~8,5 billion euros (FOAK in France)

– EPR (Chinese) ~4 billion euros


THE DIRECTIONS TO LOWER THE COSTS

• Changes registered in the logic of the industrial projects on short-

average term

• The experience feedback

• Serie effect (including supply chain, scale effect, ..)

• Duplications on the same site (ex: Taishan)

Cost cutting and reduction of deadlines

• Changes connected to the economic situation with short-average term

• Lesser pressure on raw materials

• Less tension concerning numbers of high level skill engineers

• But interest rate must be watched

• In the long term: R&D, the factor of technical progress

• Many examples from the past : burn-up increase, waste volumes…

• Numerous tracks are under investigation: simulation, materials, fuel

cycle, …


NUCLEAR COMPETITIVENESS : FORWARD LOOKING COSTS

Source CEA I-tésé

CEA Estimates

and calculations

Construction

Costs (€/kWe)

Electricity

production

Costs (€/MWh)

Hypothesis

New nuclear

power : high

range

4000

(6,4 Md€)

75 25% gain compared

with FOAK

Flamanville

New nuclear

power : low range

3000

(4,7 Md€)

60 45% gain compared

with FOAK

Flamanville


INSEE Index of the construction costs INSEE (National Institute for statistics and economic studies)

1995-2008:

+60 %

While at the same time, the reference index of the prices

increased by only 24 %

IN GENERAL, CONSTRUCTION COSTS HAVE NOT BEEN IN

LINE WITH INFLATION


IT’S PARTICULARLY TRUE FOR ELECTRICAL

INVESTMENTS


COMPETITIVENESS OF VARIOUS KINDS OF PLANTS : THE FORWARD-

LOOKING COSTS IN FRANCE €/MWH GIVEN BY ANCRE TO DNTE

Source ANCRE

Figures are still under

discussion

Data used in the

DIV scénario examinated in

the framework of the

National Debate on the

Energy Transition (DNTE)

By 2030 and beyond, the costs of the main means of Low

carbon Production can converge

Energy 2020 2030 2050

Coal 70 109 260

Gas 90 101 168

Nuclear 42 46 60

Onshore Wind 70 65 60

Offshore Wind 140 120 110

Solar PV 150 100 70


NECESSARY TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SYSTEM COSTS

OECD Study 2012 (US$/MWh)

System and CO2 costs will be factors of the highest importance for the MIX

in the future

CONTEXT


THE PLACE OF THE NUCLEAR ENERGY IN SCENARIOS ON THE HORIZON 2050


CONCLUSIONS


FROM UNIT COSTS TO THE SCENARIOS GLOBAL COSTS OF

ELECTRICITY €/MWH IN 2030 (TAX EXCLUDED)

(Costs for reducing the demand and for the grid are not included)

A fast transition leads to important additional costs

Source :

Energies 2050

French

Strategical

Analysis

Center (CAS)

50 €/tCO2

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

90,0

100,0

Extension of historic nuclear

EPR accelerated

Partial exit from nuclear

Exit from nuc. RE strong

Exit from nuc. fossile strong

CO2

Wind

Solar PV

Other renewables

Classical Thermal

New nuclear

Historic nuclear

€2011/MWh


CO2 EMISSIONS IN 2030 FOR DIFFERENT SCENARIOS

One part of CO2 emissions comes from the back-up of the

renewable energies

An exit from nuclear will made very difficult the committment

« facteur 4 »

A fast transition increase significantly CO2 emissions

50 €/tCO2

Source :

Energies 2050

French

Strategical

Analysis

Center (CAS)

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

90,0exte

nsio

n o

f h

isto

ric

nu

cle

ar

EP

R

accele

rate

d

Part

ial exit

fr

om

nu

cle

ar

Exit

fro

m

nu

cle

ar

RE

str

on

g

Exit

fro

m

nu

cle

ar

fossil

e

str

on

g

CO2 Emissions for various options - Mt - 2030

Cogeneration

Ways for the peak demand (fuel)

CCG (Gas)

Coal


FRENCH NATIONAL DEBATE ON THE ENERGY

TRANSITION (DNTE)

The questions :

• What energy for the next 10, 20, 30 or

40 years ?

• What amount of investments is required

today?

• How to develop renewable energies ?

16 octobre 2013

• How to optimise(reduce) the demand, and use the available

energy?

• What are the advantages and the inconveniences of the energy

transition from an économic point of view?

http://www.transition-energetique.gouv.fr/

The synthesis of the debate was presented at the Environmental

conference held in Paris in september 2013

A new program act in 2014






THE USE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IS VERY CONTRASTED IN

THE DNTE SCENARIOS

• Horizon 2050 in France : Electric demand between -30% and +80%

according scenarios presented in the debate

The trend is an increase of the electricity demand

Total consumption of electricity in France (TWh)


THE ELECTIC DEMAND REMAINS INCREASING

Augmentation relative par rapport à 2005 des productions d'énergie

primaire et d'électricité pour les scénarios Baseline et Blue

1,0

1,2

1,4

1,6

1,8

2,0

2,2

2,4

2,6

2,8

3,0

2005 2030 2050

PE.baseline

PE.BLUE

Elec.baseline

Elec.BLUE

Even in the the Blue scenario from the International Energy Agency, which is a sober

scenario with a Primary Energy (PE) flat, the electricity demand is still growing.

IEA 2008


ANCRE Scenarios

• ANCRE is the National Alliance of Coordination of the Research

for the Energy

• ANCRE groups all the public institutions of education and

research for the domain and works in dialogue with the poles of

competitiveness

• It wished to take part in the debate on the energy transition and

suggested to the Minister in charge of Energy building energy

scenarios on the 2050 horizon. The Minister showed her deep

interest for this work of ANCRE.

• ANCRE has defined the 3 following scenarios :

• « Strenghtened Sobriety » (ou SOB)

• « Décarbonisation by the electricity » (ou ELE)

• « Diversified vectors » (ou DIV)


The innovation, in the

heart of the successes

of tomorrow

Without large-scale technological progress, the achievement of the factor 4 on GHG emission, is not realistic :

o Innovate and Strengthen the effort of R&D in the field of the energy and better coordinate it in the European plan,

o Target medium to long-term "breakthrough technologies", without being limited by those choices proposed in the scenarios,

o Employment in the long-term will depend on the innovations made in the medium term.

o Strengthen demonstration projects at the national and local level by interaction with both industry and population,

o Formalize a decision making in a step by step manner according results achieved and the context.

This is true for nuclear energy and ANCRE identified domains of key technological progress for future: safety, duration of operation, nuclear cogeneration, flexibility of reactors, massive production of hydrogen, development of concepts of 4th generation in particular


ANCRE SCENARIOS: MAIN RESULTS FOR 2025

• Independent of the scenarios, even with a high electricity

demand, changing to 50 % of nuclear energy generated in 2025

will lead to the closure of a significant number of reactors:

between 5 and 30 reactors will be closed.

• These closures come along with an important increase of the

renewable energies (of the order of 20 % of the park in energy).

• Such a dynamic raises 3 questions: • How "to accommodate" so quickly a strong part of intermittent

renewable energies in the network (ANCRE answers it essentially by

"Game Changers“).

• How to finance these renewable energies, since the “income" of

historic nuclear power will have been greatly reduced ?

• How to finance the early final shut-down of reactors ? As order of

magnitude, to stop 20 reactors would cost from 20 to 60 billion €,

according to the estimations


WHAT CRITERIA TO ESTIMATE CHOICES? (EX OF THE

CURRENT ACTION WITHIN ANCRE)

Science

Technology

Prospective

Micro &

Macro

economics

Environment

Climate

Criteria evaluation : 3*6 criteria

Reference costs for the various plants and average cost for the fleet

Employement (direct, indirect and inferred)

Trade balance (raw materials, equipment and services)

Consumer energy prices (Industry and Households)

Trajectory of investment and financing terms

Public debts taking into account fiscal receipts and financing

Local environment (Atmosphéric pollution, water, grounds)

Industrial and accidental risks

Global environment (CO2, CH4,…)

Influences on grounds and biodiversity

Raw and strategic materials

Vulnerability in the geopolitical crises

Maturity of the technologies (availability, cost, industrial capacities)

Needs in R&D (Roadmaps, R&D programs to launch, financing)

Experimental projects

Long-term instruments of incentive (rates of repurchase, calls for tender,)

Innovation diffusion strategy

Relationship between technological and industrial developments

CONTEXT




NUCLEAR ENERGY IN 2100 CONCLUSIONS


THE VISION OF THE OPECST(PARLIAMENTARY OFFICE

OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL CHOICES)

Published report " The energy transition from the innovation and

decentralization points of view “

Released in september 2013

Main conclusions:

• Justification of a strong nuclear base in France

• Call to diversify the MIX of generated electricity

• Identification of the role of renewable, storage, Gen IV

• Importance of the R&D on the long-term horizon

• Recommendations for the transition (in particular with regard to

the dynamics)

• Suggestion for a long-term nuclear scenario: " logical trajectory "


THE REASONS FOR CHOOSING FAST REACTORS

Make nuclear energy sustainable for several thousand years

Energy independance: depleted uranium stocks

Economic competitiveness Natural uranium price evolution

Waste management

plutonium with bad isotopic composition from the burnt MOX may be used.

Better capability than LWR to possibly transmute minor actinides.

Industrial politics and leadership (State or maker level)

Developping Sodium Fast Reactors will be

possible in France from 2040


A MAIN DRIVER : THE DEMAND

Nuclear energy is both economically competitive and CO2 free Large increase of the nuclear fleet is expected in the world

Fukushima : a rather limited

impact on the horizon 2100


SUSTAINABILITY : WORLD URANIUM RESOURCES (RED BOOK)

• Unconventionnal ressources :

– Mainly U associated to phosphates: 3,9 MtU (with only 10000 tU/year as a

phosphate by-product)

– Sea water… 4 000 MtU (> 1800 $/kgU ?)

Conventional ressources (MtU)

Identified Undiscovered

Reasonably

Assured

Resources (RAR)

Inferred Prognosticated Speculative

< 40 $/kg U 0.5 0.2 1.6

40-80 $/kg U 1.5 0.9

80-130 $/kg U 1.4 0.8 1.1

130-260 $/kg U 0.9 0.8 0.1

subtotal 4.4 2.7 2.8 7.6

Total 7.1 MtU 10.4 MtU


IS NUCLEAR SUSTAINABLE ? LWR ONLY

A3 Scenario

Hypotheses for U resources : •6 Mt identified resources (2009)

•20 Mt identified + undiscovered + 4 Mt phos

•38 Mt identified + undiscovered + 22 Mt phos

•90 Mt very optimistic …

C2 Scenario

Consumption

Two scenarios

A3

C2

U Consumption versus resources

Demand

Production

6 Mt

Production

20 Mt

Production

38 Mt

Production

90 Mt


SFR ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS

Natural U represents

today 7%

of a LWR kWh cost

LWR Production cost

SFR Production cost SFR Fuel cycle cost

LWR is the most

competitive nuclear reactor

today, but the increase of

Uranium cost will allow

SFR to become cheaper

natural uranium

40%

conversion3%

enrichment29%

fabrication11%

reprocessing16%

LWR Fuel cycleLWR Fuel cycle cost

Competitiveness depends also on the country : labor cost, recycling policy,

regulation, …


SFR COMPETITIVENESS : THE FRENCH CASE

Two steps are necessary:

Study at a world level in order to determine the uranium price

evolution

Study at the France level to determine the fleet evolution

Simplifying hypothesis : competitiveness occurs at the same time

in all the countries

(even if some features may differ by a significant amount :

Labor cost,

Recycling policy

Regulation

…)

•


WORLD DEMAND

IIASA Scénarios A2 A3 B C2

2010 2500 TWhe

2030 X 1.2 X 2.8 X 2.4 X 2.0

2050 X 1.9 X 4.7 X 4.7 X 3.0

2150 X 30 X 29 X 23 X 10


WORLD DEMAND

IIASA Scénarios A2 A3 B C2

2010 2500 TWhe

2030 X 1.2 X 2.8 X 2.4 X 2.0

2050 X 1.9 X 4.7 X 4.7 X 3.0

2150 X 30 X 29 X 23 X 10

Scénarios used


HYPOTHESES : SUPPLY CURVE AND WORLD DEMAND

Uncertainties about resources (3 hypotheses = supply curves A, B, C)

Uncertainties about nuclear electricity demand (4 hypotheses = world demand)

3*4 world scenarios to calculate

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Co

st €

/kg

U

3 Supply curves for uranium

A hypothesis

B hypothesis

C hypothesis

Mt U

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX Uncertainties on Uranium extracted from sea water XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

4 World demand

hypotheses


Uranium cost evolution

Supply curve Nuclear electricity demand scenario

a A A3

b B A3

g B C2

d C C2

WORLD SCENARIO : RESULTS

€/kg U

years


As an example, the a uranium cost evolution (Alpha curve) is obtained through a world scenario having

as hypotheses the A supply curve and the A3 electricity demand


SCENARIOS FOR FRANCE : RESULTS


Supply curve Nuclear electric demand scenario

Competitiveness Moment

a A A3 ≈2040 b B A3 ≈2080 g B C2 ≈2100 d C C2 ≈2140


RNR MARKET : TWO SEPARATE PHASES

If reaching microeconomic competitiveness will mark a key stage in the

development of SFR, the incentive for the first purchasers will be political

considering other criteria :

Safety Energy self-sufficiency of the country Secure energy supply Guarantees relative to the pressure on the natural uranium market Positioning in the high-technology industry Plutonium management Waste management (MA transmutation) Integration of non-proliferation issues …

In the first phase, the incentives will be rather political than economical

and a small number of SFR will be built in India, Russia, China or

France… At the end of this phase a few standards will be ready for an

industrial development.

This industrial development will appear in a second phase when SFR will

be economically competitive in comparison with LWR. The number of

units built per year will increase significantly limited only by the Pu

availability.

CONTEXT





CONCLUSIONS


WHAT TO CHOOSE?


CONCLUSIONS

New paradigms:

• The globalization (know how, GHG, products…)

• The rise of the uncertainties and the crises

• Removal of the usual balance offer-demand

• Synergies nuclear/renewable energies

Report N°1: Historic nuclear power is by very far the cheapest

means of production " Go out in a precipitated way " of nuclear

power would be very expensive and emitting of CO2

Report N°2: Nuclear power and renewable energies can develop in

harmony (it is even the easiest way). It is also necessary to lower

the costs of system for the renewable energies .

Report N°3: Renewable energies progress and an increasing price

of the CO2 is probably going to bring several electrical energy low

carbon in zones of comparable costs towards (or after) 2030.


CONCLUSIONS

Report n°4: Nuclear power in the years 2030 to 2050 will

significantly have evolved: safety, use, cost (?), acceptability, in a

context where the consideration of the climate is inevitable, arrival

of the IVth generation …

Report n°5: The R&D on " low carbon " energies is essential to give

room to manoeuvre( open choices) to a very (too much ) restrained

energy system

A very open future for long-term nuclear power in

France ( announced relative decrease) and in Europe

(eventually opportunities for a redeployment for the

moment on hold)

These technologies have undeniable assets but have

to evolve to continue to show their ability


CONCLUSIONS

Report n°6: Nuclear on the horizon 2100

SFR will be present and very likely economically

competitive The competitiveness moment is difficult to predict due to

uncertainties on natural uranium resources and LWR

development in the world.

The most likely hypothesis is the second half of the century.

The SFR investment overcost is less sensitive.

However, a smaller market will start before the

economic competitiveness for political and

strategical considerations

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

October 22nd, 2013

| PAGE 44

CEA | 10 AVRIL 2012

Date post:	01-Nov-2014
Category:	Technology
Upload:	societe-francaise-denergie-nucleaire
View:	363 times
Download:	2 times