La lectura generacional de los derechos humanos

Most nuclear power plants in operation today are based on fission of enriched uranium, with water as coolant and moderator. The term ‘moderator’ denotes that only part of the energy potential of uranium is used, viz. without using the potential of ‘fast’ neutrons. Development of an advanced fission reactor based on ‘fast’ neutrons needs more R&D, and may result in a reactor (‘Generation IV’) becoming available around 2030. The most widely used nuclear power plant is the Light Water Reactor (LWR) - as opposed to a Canadian type of reactor (Candu) which uses natural uranium (without uranium enrichment) and heavy water as coolant and

Page 103 of 192 WAB 500102 017

moderator. The LWR is a family of two types of reactors which are predominant around the world:

• The Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR), a representative of which is the 1,590 MWe

European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) of the company AREVA - a so-called ‘Generation III’ reactor. Two EPRs are currently under construction in Finland and France;

• The Boiling Water Reactor (BWR), an example of which is the 1,350 MWe Advanced Boiling

Water Reactor (ABWR) of GE Energy. Four ABWR units are in operation in Japan, and three units are under construction in Taiwan and Japan (Internet Source 28).

Experience curves nuclear power

Four studies describe nuclear power in the past few decades and possible learning effects: • Ostwald and Reisdorf (1979) analyse learning effects for 32 nuclear power plants built in the

USA in the period 1960-1973.

• Zimmerman (1982) analyses 41 nuclear power plants in the USA completed between 1968 and 1980 for which completed cost figures were available.

• Cowan (1990) reviews the history of nuclear power, shedding light on the dominance of currently used reactor types mentioned above (PWR and BWR).

• The University of Chicago (2004) carried out an in-depth study of the economic future of nuclear power, reviewing learning effects reported by other authors and showing evidence for progress ratios for nuclear power today.

Ostwald and Reisdorf (1979) focus on learning for 32 nuclear power plants built in the US in the period 1960-1973, with a cumulative capacity of approximately 20 GW. The authors report a Progress Ratio of 0.78-0.81 for the specific investment cost of these power plants. They acknowledge that specific investment costs of nuclear power plants in the US increased around 1973, probably due to more stringent safety regulations and corresponding capital costs.

Zimmerman (1982) analyses learning effects for 41 nuclear power plants (some with multiple reactors) in the US, completed between 1968 and 1980. Learning-by-doing - generally resulting in cheaper construction - is assumed to be partially internalised by the construction company and partially accruing to the industry as a whole. A construction firm with a great deal of experience can capture rents. Such a firm can change the price of its competitors and realise the lower cost as profit. Zimmerman (1982) indicates that completion of the first plant reduces the cost of the next plant by 11.8% (PR 88%), and that completing the second plant reduces cost by 4% (PR 96%). According to the University of Chicago (2004), this experience curve might be approximated by a constant average progress ratio of 95%.

Cowan (1990) indicates that the technology of choice in the early 1960s in the USA, the LWR, was based on learning effects from the US program focused on small pressurised water reactors for naval propulsion. This may be a situation in which potential superior technologies can disappear from the market. Because the superior technology is not being used, it cannot prove its superiority or advance along its experience curve. Theory suggests that events early in the process can be crucial in determining the long-term outcome, according to Cowan (1990). The University of Chicago (2004) reviews learning effects reported by other authors like Zimmerman (1982) and other studies on learning for nuclear power in the US from 1988 to 1996, as well as other evidence on learning ‘overseas’. Besides, they mention factors other than experience that researchers found to be significantly correlated with nuclear plant capital costs: • Regulation;

• In-house management, viz. the difference in costs between projects managed by construction firms and projects managed in-house by the utilities themselves;

• Multiple-unit sites;

• Economies of scale and construction-time effects; and

• Regional effects: input costs and inflation rates differ from region to region (US).

Table 3.13 shows a number of generic parameters of the experience curves in these studies. The data refer to prices of nuclear power plants. It is noted that the (positive) learning effects

Page 104 of 192 WAB 500102 017

observed do not rule out cost increases due to increased safety requirements, as will be explained.

Table 3.13 Overview of experience curves for nuclear power plants Source Cost factor

analysed (%) PR Period Region n

a _R2 _Data qual. Notes Ostwald and

Reisdorf, 1979 Specific investment cost 78-81 1960-1973 USA ~ 7 N/A I After 1973, specific investment costs of U.S. nuclear power plants increased

Zimmerman,

1982 Specific investment cost ~95 1968-1980 USA N/A N/A I Form of experience variable results in decreasing percent reductions at each doubling of experience, equivalent to a PR of approximately 0.95 (University of Chicago, 2004) University of

Chicago, 2004 Specific investment cost Up 2003 to Global N/A N/A Based on the literature with its mixed results and own considerations

‘Conservative’ 97 III Scenario in which regional demand for new capacity may be met by single new 1,000 MW reactors at a facility ‘Medium

learning’ 95 III More or less continuous construction, but little cases of multiple-unit sites

‘Aggressive

learning’ 90 III Continuous stream of orders, more instances of multiple-unit sites n number of doublings of cumulative capacity.

I Data based on prices of nuclear power plants in a period with stable regulatory environment. II Data based on prices of nuclear power plants in a period of changing regulatory environment. III Data assumed, based on different scenarios for regulatory environment (University of Chicago, 2004). Sources: Ostwald and Reisdorf, 1979; Zimmerman, 1982; University of Chicago, 2004.

Economics

Nuclear power is used since 50 years for base-load power generation. By the end of 2005, 443 nuclear reactors were in operation with a combined capacity of approximately 370 GW (IAEA, 2006a), and a cumulative experience of over 12,000 reactor years (Internet Source 29). Nuclear power contributes to worldwide electricity generation for approximately 16% (Figure 3.27).

Page 105 of 192 WAB 500102 017

Figure 3.27 Nuclear power generation and share of total electricity generation.

Source: Internet. Source 26

In the period 1965-1990, the specific investment cost of nuclear reactors built in Germany increased by a factor two, as exhibited by Figure 3.28 (Kim, 1991; Lako, 2006).

Figure 3.28 Specific investment cost (DM1991/kW) of nuclear reactors built in Germany Note: 1 € ≈ 2 DM.

Sources: Kim, 1991; Lako, 2006.

The cost escalation is essentially due to increased safety requirements, although problems with operating licenses and construction delays also contributed to cost escalations. Or, as (Zaleski, 2005) puts it for the US: ‘The second reason was the legal, regulatory and public opinion envi- ronment in the US - an unstable regulatory environment, changing rules during plant construction…’ (the main reason for cost escalation in the USA being too many players, vendors, utilities, architect-engineers, resulting in no standardisation). Figure 3.28 shows, that at the end, three ‘Konvoi’ Pressurised Water Reactors (Siemens) were built on schedule and within budget. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 KWO KWW KKS KWB-A GKN-1 KWB-B KKB KKI-1 KKU KKP-1 KKG KKK KRB-B KRB-C KWG KKP-2 KBR KMK KKI-2 KKE GKN-2

Page 106 of 192 WAB 500102 017

Williams (2003) presents a similar picture for the cost escalation of nuclear reactors built in France (Figure 3.29). The cost escalation due to increased safety requirements described by Williams (2003) is acknowledged by Teller of AREVA, in a recent presentation (Teller, 2007).

Figure 3.29 Specific investment cost (FF1998/kW) of nuclear reactors built in France.Note: Specific investment costs for nuclear power rose to $1,920/kW (US$2002) Source: Williams, 2003. The economics of nuclear power may be explained based on AREVA’s European Pressurised Reactor (EPR). The following is reported on construction of two EPRs in Finland and France: • Construction of the first EPR at Olkiluoto, Finland, started in February 2005. In October

2006, AREVA’s nuclear division experienced a substantial operating loss in the first half year of 2006 to the tune of € 266 million, due to a delay in the construction in Finland (NEI, 2006a). The loss attributed to the construction delay is estimated at € 300 million. As the original price tag for the EPR amounted to € 3 billion, the cost increase is 10%. As the EPR at Olkiluoto is a turnkey project, the price escalation is at the own expense of AREVA (AREVA, 2005). In November 2006, it was expected that construction would be completed by 2010 (NEI, 2006b). In August 2007, start of commercial operation was expected in 2011. De facto, the construction period will be 6 years, which is equal to the worldwide average construction time (Internet Source 30).

• In the first half of 2007, the Electricité de France (EdF) board of directors awarded AREVA the supply of the nuclear steam supply system for the planned EPR at Flamanville in France, with an estimated total investment cost of € 3.3 billion (€ 2,075/kW in €2005). Construction of

the second EPR (at Flamanville) is due to start in 2007, and completion is expected in early 2012.

• AREVA also signed a memorandum of understanding in China for the construction of two EPRs in partnership with China Guangdong Nuclear Power Company and the supply of fuel cycle services. The total investment of the EPR reactors is put at € 8 billion (€ 2,500/kW in €2007), including the first core (NEI, 2007; ATW, 2007).

Based on this overview and other publications, the main characteristics of a nuclear power plant (based on the EPR design) are summarised in Table 3.14. Taking into account (WEC, 2007), the current generation cost of an EPR is estimated at € 48-53.5/MWh (€2007). The CO2

avoidance cost of a new nuclear power plant compared to an old lignite-fired power plant is put at € 8-10/ton CO2 (RWE, 2007d). S pec ifi c i n ve st m enc os ts ( F renc h f ranc 1998 / k W )

Page 107 of 192 WAB 500102 017

Table 3.14 Main characteristics of nuclear power plant to be constructed in Europe

Reference plant EPR Flamanville 3, France

Category Unit Typical value Notes/Source

Technical characteristics

Thermal capacity [MWth] 4,300 (Goreaud, 2004)

Net generating capacity [MWe] 1,600

Electrical efficiency [%] 37

Service lifetime [year] 60

Burnup [GWd/tHM] 60

Start of construction Middle of 2007

Start of operation End of 2012

Construction schedule [year] ~ 5.5 Finland: ~ 6 years; France: ~ 5.5 years Economic characteristics

Investment cost [€2007] 4 billion (ATW, 2007)

Specific investment cost [€2007/kW] 2,500

Availability [%] 90 (Internet Source 31)

Generation cost Mostly based on (WEC, 2007)

Typical capital cost [€2007/MWh] 35 Typical O&M cost [€2007/MWh] 6-9 Typical front-end fuel cost [€2007/MWh] 3.5-4.5

Typical back-end fuel cost [€2007/MWh] 3-4 (WEC, 2007) applies a range of 1-4 Decommissioning cost [€2007/MWh] 0.5-1

Total generation cost [€2007/MWh] 48-53.5 46 €/MWh according to (Dupraz, 2007) Environmental characteristics

CO2 avoidance cost of nuclear

power plant [€/t CO2] 8-10 Calculation of costs (RWE, 2007d): - Compared to old lignite-fired units - Allocation of CO2 certificates not

taken into account Sources : Goreaud, 2004 ; ATW, 2007 ; WEC, 2007 ; RWE, 2007d ; Dupraz, 2007 ; Internet Source 31.

Policy measures

As nuclear power plants (LWR type reactors) are commercially available, governments do not need to further their development. However, nuclear power is important for European countries and the EU from the perspective of reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and security of supply - uranium is relatively widely available, also in countries like Canada and Australia. Figure 3.30 shows that the total nuclear R&D expenditures in IEA countries are declining in real terms, but still very substantial.

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Fus ion Breeder Conventional nuclear [mln $2004]

Figure3.30 Trend of IEA R&D expenditures on conventional nuclear, breeder and fusion Source: IEA, 2005.

Page 108 of 192 WAB 500102 017

Several EU countries are engaged in nuclear options ranging from the High Temperature Reactor (HTR) to ‘Generation IV’ reactors. The long-term (2050) option of fusion power is a typical example of R&D to which the EU has committed itself - the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), under construction at Cadarache, France, for R&D purposes. The EU is also committed to develop a common framework for safety standards and for repositories for (long-living) nuclear waste. Nevertheless, a number of other EU countries have committed themselves to abstain from nuclear power in the medium term (e.g., Germany).

Reasons for cost reductions / bottom-up assessments

In the past few decades, cost reductions were based on economies of scale (large generating capacities), series production, automation of operation and inspection, and increased availability. These effects resulted in competitive designs of LWRs around 1985-1995 in Germany and France, which were built in multiple units and were characterised by enhanced safety measures and generating capacities of 1,300-1,400 MWe.

Further cost reductions may be achieved by series production - AREVA is going to build at least four EPRs, two in Europe and two in China, and possibly more in the UK and the USA - and multiple unit sites, if applicable. The extent to which cost reductions may be achieved depends on the regulatory framework. If additional safety requirements or requirements with regard to, e.g., reduction of the amount of long-living nuclear waste would be imposed on the nuclear power generators, cost reductions might prove to be difficult if not impossible to achieve.

Future scenarios and cost reduction potentials

There are several future scenarios for nuclear power in various world regions. An example of a scenario for nuclear power on a global scale is (IAEA, 2006b), see Figure 3.31.

Figure 3.31 Installed nuclear power generating capacity worldwide and projection to 2030. Notes: The dark green bars show historical growth from 1960 through 2005. The light green bars show the Agency’s latest low projection for 2010, 2020 and 2030. The other colours show how much of the difference between the Agency’s low and high projections is attributable to different regions of the world.SEA = South-East Asia; LA = Latin America; ME&SA = Middle East and South Asia; NA = North America; EE = Eastern Europe; WE = Western Europe. Source:IAEA, 2006b.

Future cost reductions depend on the extent to which series production may be achieved. Also the development of new reactor types, e.g., the aforementioned High Temperature Reactor (HTR) is important. A typical example is the 168 MWe Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) - a

Generation III+ reactor - developed in South Africa. The design and safety review of a demonstration unit of the PBMR in South Africa has been completed and a licensing review is

Page 109 of 192 WAB 500102 017

underway. Commercialisation is expected after 2010. It has been noted that the regulatory framework - safety, long-living nuclear waste - may determine whether cost reduction will occur.

Lessons for policy makers

A number of EU countries consider nuclear power as indispensable for achieving their ambitions to reduce global warming - the greenhouse gas emissions of the fuel cycle (‘from cradle to grave’) are comparable to those of renewable power generation options like wind energy. Also, nuclear power contributes to security of supply. Other European countries, however, have committed themselves to abstain from nuclear power in the medium term.

The investment costs of nuclear power plants increased in the 1970s and 1980s due to increased safety requirements. Around 1990, several evolutionary LWRs with advanced safety features and reliable operation characteristics were commercially available. Nowadays, a few advanced LWR designs are commercially available which have been built in multiple units (e.g., in Japan) or are under construction. Whether further cost reductions for nuclear power will materialise depends inter alia on the regulatory framework, e.g., with regard to safety or reduction of the amount of long-living nuclear waste.

General discussion

The studies referenced with regard to learning for nuclear power signal differences in learning due to increased safety requirements in the 1970s and 1980s. Nowadays, nuclear reactors seem to have evolved to a stage at which safety requirements may be met in a straightforward way, e.g., by demonstrating a very low probability of a core-melt accident and even then warranting zero or very low radioactive emissions. Thus, catastrophic accidents become more and more exceptional for advanced nuclear reactors that are currently constructed in Europe and Asia.

Starting with advanced nuclear reactors like the ABWR and the EPR, it would be interesting to analyse what the potential cost reduction (specific investment cost, generation cost) because of series production would be. Also, the development of new reactor types like the PBMR deserves attention, as this type of modular reactor offers a larger potential of economies of series production than, e.g., the EPR. Such analysis should take into account developments on regulatory requirements, e.g., with regard to safety or reduction of long-living nuclear waste.