• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Private Content
Nuclear Power on Top of European Energy Agenda, despite Embargoes
 

Nuclear Power on Top of European Energy Agenda, despite Embargoes

on

  • 860 views

The aftermath of Fukushima has raised two key questions in Europe. One: is nuclear power with its attendant waste and safety issues worth having? And, two: can Europe, in the absence of nuclear power ...

The aftermath of Fukushima has raised two key questions in Europe. One: is nuclear power with its attendant waste and safety issues worth having? And, two: can Europe, in the absence of nuclear power generation, reduce its dependency on oil and gas imports and meet its climate targets? New analysis from Frost & Sullivan (http://www.energy.frost.com), European Nuclear Power Sector, finds that nuclear energy is the answer to meeting aggressive EU targets on carbon dioxide emissions and fossil fuels. Despite the environmental risks, nuclear energy shows potential to reduce emissions and dependence on fossil fuels, and therefore, will be a major contributor to the European energy mix in 2020.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
860
Views on SlideShare
860
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Nuclear Power on Top of European Energy Agenda, despite Embargoes Nuclear Power on Top of European Energy Agenda, despite Embargoes Presentation Transcript

    • European Nuclear Power Sector - Trends and OpportunitiesDespite Fukushima, Nuclear will Play an Active Role in Europe’s Energy MixM7D5-14October 2012
    • ContentsSection Slide Numbers Executive Summary 3 Market Overview 8 Nuclear Electricity Production by Individual Country 11 Consequence of Fukushima 53 Geographical Analysis 59 • Country Deep Dive, Finland 60 • Country Deep Dive, France 66 • Country Deep Dive, Germany 74 • Country Deep Dive, Poland 82 • Country Deep Dive, United Kingdom 88 Levelised Cost Of Electricity (LCOE) and Cost Comparison 97 Equipment Specifics 103 Appendix 166 About Frost & Sullivan 177M7D5-14 2
    • Executive SummaryM7D5-14 3
    • IntroductionThe nuclear sector awoke across the early 2000s with the steadily increasing price of oil which peaked inJuly 2008. The nuclear renaissance, as it was termed, gained momentum until the Fukushima incidentwhich dissuaded borderline countries from entering or maintaining nuclear capacity. Nevertheless, the oilprice is only going to increase in the long term, and with it the relative cost of producing electricity with ahigh share of fossil-fuelled plants. With renewables becoming competitive, but not yet able to provide thevast amount of electricity needed to sustain global growth, nuclear remains one of the cleanest and morereliable power sources available. Below are some of the key takeaways from the research: The number of nuclear new build projects, despite Fukushima, is still higher now than across the last 1 two decades – although Asia is leading in numbers, the US has approved its first new build since 1970, and the UK, France, Finland and Poland are about to build or are building new units . The increasing price of oil and the weather dependence of renewables still makes nuclear an 2 attractive option for low carbon electricity at a levelised electricity cost competitive with fossil fuels Nuclear plant life extensions represent a bigger market across the next 20 years, than new build for 3 the current nuclear supply chain The wind levelised cost of electricity for onshore applications is now in line with nuclear’s levelised 4 cost of electricity across many wind parks in Europe 5 Although uranium price levels are increasing, the availability of nuclear fuel is not a long term issueM7D5-14 4
    • Introduction (continued) Nuclear Power Sector: Status of Nuclear Plants by Country, Global, 2011 Russia & CIS 10 18 Units = 73 45 Europe Units = 30 6 10 33 9 14 21 China Units = 63 1 0 Middle East Asia (Other)The United States 4 Units = 5 Units = 33Units = 24 6 14 India 10 16 Units = 23 7 4 6 10 7 Countries/Regions Using Nuclear Power Countries/Regions Planning for Nuclear Power Nuclear Power Plants Under Construction Nuclear Power Plants Planned Source: IAEA PRIS and Frost & Nuclear Power Plants Proposed Sullivan AnalysisM7D5-14 5
    • Introduction (continued) Nuclear Power Sector: Distribution of Reactors By Age, Global, 2011 198 plants for major Distribution of Global Reactors by Age maintenance 35 33 32 30 25 24Number of Units 22 21 20 20 20 19 18 15 14 13 13 13 12 11 11 11 10 10 10 9 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 0 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 Age of Units (Years) Source: IAEA and Frost & Sullivan AnalysisM7D5-14 6
    • Introduction (continued)Nuclear Power Sector: Distribution of Reactors By Age - Explanation These can cover some of the Life extensions (Nuplex) are need for extra GW shown in the given and approved by the local forecast but due to nuclear assessor, and can extend refurbishment, they also will the design life by 10 years or constrain some of the supply more chain Every plant goes for Another method to planned maintenance alleviate demand is to every 2 years for 30 increase plant load days and every 5 factors. However, years for 30-60 days. these are already at Worldwide average 89% globally and are These plants up for life plant life is 27 years, predicted to decrease extension and the average design rather than increase maintenance and life is 43 years due to the increasing license represent 132 age of plants, as well GW as increasing the number of PSRs* * NuPLEx = Nuclear Plant Life Extension, *PSR = Periodic Safety Review Source: Frost & Sullivan Analysis M7D5-14 7
    • Market OverviewM7D5-14 8
    • Market Overview (continued) Nuclear Power Sector: Power Generation by Fuel Nuclear Power Sector: Per cent of Electricity Type, Europe, 2010 Produced Using Nuclear Energy by Country, Europe, 2010 4500 Coal Oil Gas Nuclear Hydro Wind Other Renewables 4000 3,832 TWhPower Generation in TWH 408 3500 3,338 TWh Hungary 124 2% Romania Finland Czech 119 647 1% 3% Republic 3000 327 Lithuania 3% 1% Belgium 392 5% 2500 Germany 937 16% Sweden 7% 2000 910 Spain France 7% 48% 1500 786 UK 1000 105 934 7% 500 24 940 517 0 2010 2020 Year Source: Frost & Sullivan Analysis Note: Other Renewables may include Solar, Biomass, Geothermal , Wave, Tidal etc. M7D5-14 9
    • Market Overview (continued) Germany will have the biggest gap in generation following the announced shut down of its nuclear fleet by2022. The country’s recent energy strategy is to increase generation from renewable sources from 17 per cent to25 per cent and reduce carbon emissions by 40 per cent by 2020. Anti - nuclear moves were announced by Switzerland and Italy. Switzerland plans to phase out its five ageingnuclear plants between 2019 and 2034. Italy which was in plans of new nuclear build, post Fukushima disaster, derailed its potential plans due to lackof public support. Belgium’s political parties have reached a conditional agreement to phase out nuclear power in a two-stepphase out approach, by closing its oldest reactors by 2015 and the remainder by 2025. France, Finland, UK and Sweden have reaffirmed their commitment to nuclear power. Central and EasternEuropean countries such as Poland, Romania, and the Czech Republic would push ahead with new units,following increased safety assessments. Source: Frost & Sullivan Analysis Region Committed to Nuclear Development Region Opting for Nuclear Phase Out M7D5-14 10