Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Giancarlo Aquilanti
Giancarlo Aquilanti
Giancarlo Aquilanti
Giancarlo Aquilanti
Giancarlo Aquilanti
Giancarlo Aquilanti
Giancarlo Aquilanti
Giancarlo Aquilanti
Giancarlo Aquilanti
Giancarlo Aquilanti
Giancarlo Aquilanti
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Giancarlo Aquilanti

623

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
623
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Transcript

    • 1. The New Nuclear Wave: Perspectives for the 21 st century <ul><li>Brussels – 2 nd July 2008 </li></ul>
    • 2. Commodities price Oil 1 Coal 3 <ul><li>Brent Spot Crude Price </li></ul><ul><li>Gas Italia price forecast </li></ul><ul><li>CIF Northwest Europe </li></ul><ul><li>Spot U 3 O 8 </li></ul>($/Tep) Uranium 4 Gas 2
    • 3. Production cost Comparison with other base load technologies Jan 2002 Jan 2004 Jan 2006 Jan 2008 18.5 €/tCO2 22.5 €/tCO2 CO2 Range
    • 4. Production mix and electricity cost Italy and France Production Mix 2007 ** Electricity price to Industrial Clients €/MWh *** * Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas, Commission de régulation de l’énergie ** Enel analysis based on anticipatory data from Enel, Eurostat, Terna, IEA data. 2007 *** Electricity price to industrial clients (24GWh/y) Electricity generation market * Italy France -52% 17% 11% 14% 5% 60% 9% 78% 4% 2% Italy France nuclear oil/others gas coal renewable
    • 5. CO2 emissions Technology driven Source: Spadaro, Joseph V., Lucille Langlois, and Bruce Hamilton, 2000: “Assessing the Difference: Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Electricity Generating Chains”, IAEA Bulletin, Vol. 42, No. 2, Vienna, Austria <ul><li>Nuclear </li></ul><ul><li>Renewables </li></ul><ul><li>Hydro </li></ul><ul><li>Carbon Capture and Storage </li></ul>
    • 6. CO2 avoided emissions Nuclear contribution Portugal Source: Enel elaboration on data from IEA statistics, electricity information 2007 e WNA, Table of world nuclear power reactors, March 2008 Source: Enel analysis based on anticipatory data from Enel, Eurostat, Terna, IEA data. 2007 CO2 specific emissions (g/kWh) * - 84% In the EU Nuclear is the most prominent energy source without GHG emissions. Compared with the substitutive fossil source with the least GHG emission (CCGT), avoided emissions amount to nearly 410 Mton/year (10% European total) 197 reactors in operation 31% of produced electricity in Europe comes from nuclear 4 European countries produce more than 50% of their electricity with nuclear technology % nuclear Other sources Greece France 78% Ireland United Kingdom 19% Spain 26% Sweden 48% Finland 29% Netherlands 4% Germany 28% Russia 16% Norway Slovakia 56% Czech Rep. 30% Bulgaria 42% Romania 9% Slovenia Lithuania 72% Belgium 54% Ukraine 47% Switzerland 40% Austria Italy
    • 7. Generation cost of low-CO2 technologies Nuclear * Source: Padua University - 2007
    • 8. Some points on Nuclear Safety New Operating Procedures and advanced HMI have improved operator response in any Plant condition, including the most severe ones International cooperation : WANO , IAEA , WENRA ensures sharing of best practices and that there are no operators or plants with sub-standard performances Over 11.000 reactor*years of Nuclear industry operating experience Operational Nuclear Safety <ul><li>Some principles of Nuclear Safety Culture (WANO): </li></ul><ul><li>Everyone is personally responsible for nuclear safety </li></ul><ul><li>Leaders demonstrates commitment to safety </li></ul><ul><li>Trust permeates the organization </li></ul><ul><li>Decision-making reflects safety first </li></ul><ul><li>A questioning attitude is cultivated </li></ul><ul><li>Nuclear safety undergoes constant examination </li></ul>All Nuclear Operators adhere to commitment of “ strong nuclear safety culture ” and to the personal and collective responsibility for the Nuclear safety (WANO) Technological innovation through research and engineering <ul><li>Significant safety enhancement of the Nuclear Plants currently under construction : </li></ul><ul><li>probability of Core Damage Frequency – CDF – decreased by a factor of 10 to 100 </li></ul><ul><li>Even in case of accident event, consequences are confined within the Plant boundaries and exclusion zone. Target is to have no significant effects on neighboring population and human activities. </li></ul>Technology
    • 9. Some points on Nuclear Decommissioning <ul><li>Decommissioning funds are created during Plant operation </li></ul><ul><li>Several NPPs have been decommissioned and brought green field : Big Rock Point, Maine Yankee, Saxton, Trojan, Yankee Rowe in USA, Greisfswald in Germany </li></ul><ul><li>Costs are now predictable with good accuracy (350-600 €/kW, including waste disposal) </li></ul><ul><li>Due to the financial lever and the time lag between Plant shut-down and de-commissioning phase to finance costs, decommissioning component only amounts to 5% of the nuclear generation cost </li></ul><ul><li>Reactors currently under construction are designed also for the decommissioning phase </li></ul><ul><li>Improved reactor design and technological development are expected to significantly lower decommissioning costs </li></ul>
    • 10. <ul><li>Deep geological repository is the available technical solution for final disposal of HL wastes </li></ul><ul><li>At least one repository is under construction ( Finland ) and other are under authorization or development </li></ul><ul><li>Quantities to be disposed are small </li></ul><ul><li>Alternative strategies are considered by the different Countries in order to take into account technological developments in the fuel cycle and NPP’s (permanent disposal, temporary storage for full recycle) </li></ul><ul><li>Funds for final disposal of HL wastes are created during Plant operation </li></ul><ul><li>Due to the small quantities of HL wastes, financial lever and the time lag between Plant shut-down and final disposal of HL wastes, final disposal repository only amounts to 3 % of the generation cost </li></ul><ul><li>Radwaste for 8 billion kWh produced (1 year production of 1000 MWe NPP) (1.700.000 households): </li></ul><ul><li>300 m 3 of low and intermediate level waste (cube of 6.7 m side) </li></ul><ul><li>30 tonnes of HL solid waste (~20 m 3 ; 28 to 75 m 3 after encapsulation) </li></ul><ul><li>If generated by fossil fuels: </li></ul><ul><li>1.5 billion m3 NG or 2.5 million tons of coal consumed </li></ul><ul><li>2.6 to 5.4 million tons of CO2 emitted </li></ul>Some points on Nuclear Radioactive wastes
    • 11. * ‘Red Book’ IAEA-NEA 2006 ** CISAC 2005 Geographical Distribution of U Reserves (*) <ul><li>Existing resources ( * ) </li></ul><ul><li>RAR & EAR I (cost <130 $/kg) 4,7 Mt </li></ul><ul><li>EAR II & SR 9,7 Mt </li></ul><ul><li>Total 14,4 Mt </li></ul><ul><li>Other existing resources ( ** ) </li></ul><ul><li>Disposed spent fuel: 1,2 Mt </li></ul><ul><li>M to M: 2,0 kt </li></ul><ul><li>Duration at present utilization rate </li></ul><ul><li>Ore reserves: 70 years </li></ul><ul><li>Ore and other </li></ul><ul><li>existing reserves (MOx): 360 years </li></ul><ul><li>Ore reserves with IV Gen: 4200 years </li></ul>Some points on Nuclear Uranium reserves Thorium reserves have not been considered (approx.: 3 times Uranium reserves) RAR: Reasonably Assured Resources EAR: Estimated Additional Resources SR: Speculative Resources

    ×