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

531 views
393 views

Published on

Continuing on describing what could be the future of nuclear industry, Gilles MATHONNIERE, economical expert at the I-tésé (CEA) explained the place of nuclear energy in 2050 and 2100 and the importance of Fast Reactors in the energy mix for electricity generation.

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
531
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

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

  1. 1. TECHNICAL AND ECONOMICAL ASPECTS OF FUTURE NUCLEAR ENERGY ON THE HORIZON 2100 GILLES MATHONNIERE DEN/DANS/I-TÉSÉ Atoms for the Future 2013, SFEN October 22nd 2013 | PAGE 1
  2. 2. CONTEXT NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPETITIVENESS THE PLACE OF THE NUCLEAR ENERGY IN SCENARIOS ON THE HORIZON 2050 NUCLEAR ENERGY IN 2100 CONCLUSIONS
  3. 3. DETERMINING FACTORS FOR THE NUCLEAR ENERGY IN THE FUTURE ENERGY MIX • • • National Policy Economy Complémentarity with the other forms of energy :  The grid will be shared all the energies SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 3
  4. 4. 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, …. SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 4
  5. 5. 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) SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 5
  6. 6. CONTEXT NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPETITIVENESS THE PLACE OF THE NUCLEAR ENERGY IN SCENARIOS ON THE HORIZON 2050 NUCLEAR ENERGY IN 2100 CONCLUSIONS
  7. 7. 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 postFukushima 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 Main result from la Cour des Comptes (French National Audit) : LCOE for nuclear is about 50€/MWh  Historic nuclear power is economically «unbeatable » SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 7
  8. 8. 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 SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 8
  9. 9. THE DIRECTIONS TO LOWER THE COSTS • Changes registered in the logic of the industrial projects on shortaverage 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, … SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 9
  10. 10. NUCLEAR COMPETITIVENESS : FORWARD LOOKING COSTS CEA Estimates and calculations Construction Electricity Costs (€/kWe) production Costs (€/MWh) Hypothesis New nuclear power : high range 4000 (6,4 Md€) 75 25% gain compared with FOAK Flamanville New nuclear 3000 power : low range (4,7 Md€) 60 45% gain compared with FOAK Flamanville Source CEA I-tésé SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 10
  11. 11. IN GENERAL, CONSTRUCTION COSTS HAVE NOT BEEN IN LINE WITH INFLATION 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 % SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 11
  12. 12. IT’S PARTICULARLY TRUE FOR ELECTRICAL INVESTMENTS SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 12
  13. 13. COMPETITIVENESS OF VARIOUS KINDS OF PLANTS : THE FORWARDLOOKING COSTS IN FRANCE €/MWH GIVEN BY ANCRE TO DNTE 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 Figures are still under discussion Data used in the DIV scénario examinated in the framework of the National Debate on the Energy Transition (DNTE) Source ANCRE By 2030 and beyond, the costs of the main means of Low carbon Production can converge SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 13
  14. 14. 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 SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 14
  15. 15. CONTEXT NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPETITIVENESS THE PLACE OF THE NUCLEAR ENERGY IN SCENARIOS ON THE HORIZON 2050 NUCLEAR ENERGY IN 2100 CONCLUSIONS
  16. 16. FROM UNIT COSTS TO THE SCENARIOS GLOBAL COSTS OF ELECTRICITY €/MWH IN 2030 (TAX EXCLUDED) 100,0 90,0 €2011/MWh CO2 80,0 Wind 50 €/tCO2 70,0 Solar PV 60,0 Other renewables 50,0 Classical Thermal 40,0 New nuclear 30,0 Historic nuclear 20,0 10,0 0,0 Extension of EPR historic nuclear accelerated Partial exit from nuclear Exit from nuc. Exit from nuc. RE strong fossile strong Source : Energies 2050 French Strategical Analysis Center (CAS) (Costs for reducing the demand and for the grid are not included)  A fast transition leads to important additional costs SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 16
  17. 17. CO2 EMISSIONS IN 2030 FOR DIFFERENT SCENARIOS CO2 Emissions for various options - Mt - 2030 90,0 Cogeneration 80,0 50 €/tCO2 70,0 60,0 Ways for the peak demand (fuel) 50,0 40,0 30,0 CCG (Gas) 20,0 10,0 Coal Exit from nuclear fossile strong Exit from nuclear RE strong Partial exit from nuclear EPR accelerated extension of historic nuclear 0,0 Source : Energies 2050 French Strategical Analysis Center (CAS) 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 SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 17
  18. 18. 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 ? • 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 16 octobre 2013 SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 18
  19. 19. THE USE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IS VERY CONTRASTED IN THE DNTE SCENARIOS Total consumption of electricity in France (TWh) • 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 SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 19
  20. 20. 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 3,0 2,8 2,6 PE.baseline PE.BLUE 2,4 2,2 2,0 Elec.baseline Elec.BLUE IEA 2008 1,8 1,6 1,4 1,2 1,0 2005 2030 2050 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. SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 20
  21. 21. 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) SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 21
  22. 22. 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 o o o o Innovate and Strengthen the effort of R&D in the field of the energy and better coordinate it in the European plan, Target medium to long-term "breakthrough technologies", without being limited by those choices proposed in the scenarios,  Employment in the long-term will depend on the innovations made in the medium term. Strengthen demonstration projects at the national and local level by interaction with both industry and population, 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 SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 22
  23. 23. 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 SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 23
  24. 24. WHAT CRITERIA TO ESTIMATE CHOICES? (EX OF THE CURRENT ACTION WITHIN ANCRE) Criteria evaluation : 3*6 criteria  Reference costs for the various plants and average cost for the fleet Micro & Macro economics Environment Climate Science Technology Prospective  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 SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 24
  25. 25. CONTEXT NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPETITIVENESS THE PLACE OF THE NUCLEAR ENERGY IN SCENARIOS ON THE HORIZON 2050 NUCLEAR ENERGY IN 2100 CONCLUSIONS
  26. 26. 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 " SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 26
  27. 27. 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 SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 27
  28. 28. 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 SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 28
  29. 29. SUSTAINABILITY : WORLD URANIUM RESOURCES (RED BOOK) Conventional ressources (MtU) Identified Undiscovered Reasonably Assured Resources (RAR) Inferred < 40 $/kg U 0.5 0.2 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 Total Prognosticated Speculative 1.6 7.1 MtU 7.6 10.4 MtU • 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 ?) SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 29
  30. 30. IS NUCLEAR SUSTAINABLE ? LWR ONLY U Consumption versus resources Consumption Two scenarios A3 C2 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 … Demand Production 6 Mt Production 20 Mt Production 38 Mt Production 90 Mt A3 Scenario SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France C2 Scenario DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 30
  31. 31. SFR ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS LWR Production cost LWR Fuel cycle LWR Fuel cycle cost reprocessing 16% f abrication 11% natural uranium 40% Natural U represents today 7% of a LWR kWh cost enrichment 29% conversion 3% 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 Competitiveness depends also on the country : labor cost, recycling policy, regulation, … SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 31
  32. 32. 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 …) • SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 32
  33. 33. WORLD DEMAND IIASA Scénarios A2 2010 A3 B C2 2500 TWhe 2030 X 2.8 X 2.4 X 2.0 2050 X 1.9 X 4.7 X 4.7 X 3.0 2150 SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France X 1.2 X 30 X 29 X 23 X 10 DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 33
  34. 34. WORLD DEMAND Scénarios used IIASA Scénarios A2 2010 A3 B C2 2500 TWhe 2030 X 2.8 X 2.4 X 2.0 2050 X 1.9 X 4.7 X 4.7 X 3.0 2150 SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France X 1.2 X 30 X 29 X 23 X 10 DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 34
  35. 35. HYPOTHESES : SUPPLY CURVE AND WORLD DEMAND 3 Supply curves for uranium 2500 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX Uncertainties on Uranium extracted from sea water XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 2000 4 World demand hypotheses Cost €/kg U 1500 A hypothesis B hypothesis C hypothesis 1000 500 0 Mt U 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 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 SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 35
  36. 36. WORLD SCENARIO : RESULTS Uranium cost evolution €/kg U years Uranium cost evolution Supply curve Nuclear electricity demand scenario a b g d A B B C A3 A3 C2 C2 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 SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 36
  37. 37. SCENARIOS FOR FRANCE : RESULTS Uranium cost evolution Supply curve Nuclear electric demand scenario Competitiveness Moment a b g d A B B C A3 A3 C2 C2 ≈2040 ≈2080 ≈2100 ≈2140 SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 37
  38. 38. 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. SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 38
  39. 39. CONTEXT NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPETITIVENESS THE PLACE OF THE NUCLEAR ENERGY IN SCENARIOS ON THE HORIZON 2050 NUCLEAR ENERGY IN 2100 CONCLUSIONS
  40. 40. WHAT TO CHOOSE? SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 40
  41. 41. 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. SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 41
  42. 42. 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 SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 42
  43. 43. 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 SFEN Atoms for the Future October 22nd, 2013 Paris, France DEN/DANS/I-tésé Page 43
  44. 44. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION CEA | 10 AVRIL 2012 | PAGE 44 October 22nd, 2013

×