Richard Ivens, Foratom

881 views

Published on

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

No Downloads
Views
Total views
881
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Finland: Olkiluoto 3, TVO, 1 unit, online by 2014France: Flamanville 3, EDF, 1 unit, online by 2016Slovakia: Mochovce 3 and 4, SlovenskéElektrárne/ ENEL, 2 units, online by 2012/2013Bulgaria: Belene 1 and 2, NatsionalnaElektricheska
  • Richard Ivens, Foratom

    1. 1. Status of the EU nuclear industry afterFukushimaRichard IvensDirector Institutional Affairs“Ukrainian Nuclear Forum 2012: plans and perspectives of the nuclear power industrydevelopment”, Kiev, 27-28 March 2012 1
    2. 2. Content about FORATOM Fukushima: a very specific accident safety & risk reassessment: timeline / technical scope / methodology / some insights a set of diversified political reactions nuclear developments in Europe public opinion conclusions 2
    3. 3. Who are we? FORATOM is the Brussels-based association of nuclear industry in Europe:  17 national nuclear associations active across Europe  3 corporate members (PGE Nuclear, CEZ, Slovenska Elektrárne)  800+ firms represented (vendors, utilities, nuclear fuel cycle, engineering, transport, waste storage, lawyers, consultants, insurers) ENISS (European Nuclear Installations Safety Standards) was set up in 2005 under the umbrella of FORATOM  ENISS currently represents the nuclear utilities and operating companies from 16 European countries with nuclear power programmes, including Switzerland 3
    4. 4. FORATOM Membership 4
    5. 5. What do we do? act a voice of nuclear energy industry in EU energy policy debate enhance relations between nuclear industry and EU institutions deliver information on nuclear energy to EU institutions, media and the public inform members about developments emerging from EU institutions interact with intergovernmental organisations (IAEA, OECD/NEA, IEA, WANO, etc.) communicate latest science and technology developments in co- operation with the European Nuclear Society (ENS) 5
    6. 6. Fukushima accident (1) the plant design did not take into account a tsunami of the size of the one which occurred in March 2011 the accident resulted in an almost total loss of safety functions:  electrical supply  heat sink the consequences of the tsunami and the impact of radiation hampered the accident management several reactor units on the same site were directly involved in the accident the cooling of the spent fuel pools (located in each reactor building) was a special concern 6
    7. 7. Fukushima accident (2) the most striking nuclear-related event since Chernobyl a combination of natural and man-made events which questions again our ability to accept and manage severe hazards and accidents global impacts on the economy: in Japan, indirectly in Europe (Germany, others), worldwide contradictory humanitarian outcome: no direct casualties, but unprecedented human/psychological consequences and a wide set of political reactions: emotional - hysterical – short-minded – opportunistic - concerned – balanced – wise? a demonstration of the influence of media in crisis situation (Germany vs. ROW) an opportunity to demonstrate industrys ability to learn from experience through a continuous improvement strategy 7
    8. 8. EU actions in response to Fukushimao Decision to undertake voluntary “stress tests” (safety reassessments) of EU nuclear facilitieso Stress test scope proposed by National Regulators (ENSREG) in co- operation with industry (FORATOM/ENISS)o Tests to proceed in two phases: 1. Natural disasters: earthquakes, flooding, extreme cold and heat, snow, ice, storms, tornados, heavy rain and other extreme natural conditions 2. Man-made failures and malevolent actions: airplane crashes, fires, explosions, terrorist attacks 827/03/2012
    9. 9. Stress Test timetable• Licensee self assessments, to be reported to national regulators by 15 August 2011• National reports to be submitted by the regulators to the European Commission (EC) by 31 December 2011• Interim EC report, 24 November 2011• Peer reviews (technical topic and country specific) by multinational teams, Jan – Apr 2012• Final report by ENSREG, 30 April 2012• EC to report to European Council, 28/29 June 2012 927/03/2012
    10. 10. Safety reassessment: technical scope to focus on issues highlighted by the Fukushima accident: initiating events, loss of safety functions, accident management initiating events:  earthquake  flooding and other extreme natural conditions consequential loss of safety functions:  prolonged total loss of electrical power  prolonged total loss of the main ultimate heat sink  combination of both situations accident management issues:  prevention of some accident conditions  core melt accident management 10
    11. 11. Proposed improvements (1) case by case (because of each NPP particularities), better protect the safety functions (from flood, earthquake):  protection of buildings (sealed perimeters)  reinforcement or rising of dams, dikes organizational & human factor: even in the case of natural hazards, human beings stay at the core (which implies to deeply care for design, training, procedures, emergency planning, etc.) possible design improvements:  further diversify electrical supply  provide for additional water  heat sink  emergency center 11
    12. 12. Proposed improvements (2) portable components / plug and play systems and equipment severe accident management: (in particular, keep enough flexibility to be able to deal with different situations):  multi reactor unit crisis management (organization and features – e.g. FARN Nuclear Rapid Action Force in France)  H2: passive catalytic recombiners  containment filtered venting specific features for spent fuel pool: instrumentation, water sources 12
    13. 13. the Reports of the National Regulators European NPPs have substantial margins and robustness the measures implemented so far provide further margins to protect the public and the environment assessment by the Regulators :  the nuclear installations subject to the Safety Reassessment are sufficiently safe to continue operation  the safety level must continuously be improved 13
    14. 14. European Commission is reviewing the Safety Legislation• EC considering: • Minimum technical requirements (safety margins, siting, design, construction, operation) • Independence of the national regulators • Frequency and scope of peer reviews • Cross-border emergency response • 3rd party nuclear liability (e.g. min. insurance levels, claims handling, harmonisation)• Possible proposal for revision of 2009 EU Nuclear Safety Directive by 2013 14
    15. 15. Other EU initiatives in the nuclear field• EC 2050 Energy Roadmap, Dec 2011 (collection of 7 possible scenarios aiming at 80-95% decarbonisation of the EU economy by 2050)• Proposal for EU research programme “Horizon 2020” 2014-2020, overall budget €80 billion, nuclear fusion + fission €1.8 billion• ITER• European Nuclear Energy Forum ENEF (broad stakeholder dialogue on the opportunities, risks and transparency of nuclear energy)• Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform SNETP (coordinating R&D work on existing reactors, Generation IV, HTRs/cogeneration, fuel cycle, safety, etc)• Implementing Geological Disposal Technology Platform IGDTP (R&D work to support the operation of a first HLW repository by 2025) 15
    16. 16. Reactors in Europe • 138 reactors in operation in the EU27 + Switzerland (+15 in Ukraine) • 6 reactors under construction (+2 in Ukraine) (source: PRIS, IAEA) • 27,8% of EU27’s electricity production (source: Eurostat) Reactors in operation Reactors under construction (source: Swiss Nuclear Forum)27/03/2012 16
    17. 17. Nuclear developments, early 2011 (1) under construction:  Finland: EPR-1600 (TVO: Olkiluoto) online by 2014  France: EPR-1600 (EDF: Flamanville) online by 2014/15  Slovakia: 2 VVER-440 units (Slovenské Elektrárne/ ENEL: Mochovce) online by 2013/2014 • Russia: 11 units (VVERs) under construction (8.3 Gwe) • Ukraine: 2 units (VVER) under construction (Khmelnitsky 3/4) 17
    18. 18. Nuclear developments, early 2011 (2) under consideration/planned:  Bulgaria: 2 new units considered (Belene/Kozloduy)  the Czech Republic: tender received for 2 reactors at Temelin  Finland: two more units online by 2020 (TVO, Fennovoima*)  France: a second EPR unit online by 2017 at Penly  Hungary: government wants 2 more units by 2025  Italy: at least 4 EPR units by 2020  Lithuania: new unit considered (Ignalina)  Poland: first NPP by 2022 (Zarnowiec identified) 18
    19. 19. Nuclear developments, early 2011 (3) under consideration/planned:  the Netherlands: a second unit considered (begin 2015, Borssele)  Romania: two more units planned (Cernavoda 3 & 4)  Slovenia: a second unit considered (Krško)  Slovakia: government and CEZ considering a fifth reactor (Bohunice)  Sweden: no new units considered yet (replacement policy)  UK: 8 sites identified in draft Government Policy Statement (the first unit on line by 2018)  Croatia, Russia and Switzerland: new units also under consideration 19
    20. 20. Nuclear developments, early 2011 (4) long-term operation:  the Netherlands: Borssele (10 years)  Spain: Garoña (4 years), Cofrentes (10 years); legal reference to the 40-year life of nuclear reactors recently removed  Belgium: Doel and Tihange (10 years); government’s decision pending  Germany: 8 more years for older NPPs and 14 years for younger ones beyond 2021; new fuel tax; fund for the development of renewable energy 20
    21. 21. Nuclear developments, early 2012 (1)o No (significant) change in nuclear policies across 15 EU countries:  Bulgaria  Lithuania  Hungary  Slovakia  UK  Czech Republic  Netherlands  Slovenia  (Croatia)  Finland  Poland  Spain  France  Romania  Sweden 2127/03/2012
    22. 22. Nuclear developments, early 2012 (2) Negative developments: new Belgium government maintains 2003 decision (law) to start the phase-out of nuclear power beginning in 2015; also decided to raise a tax imposed on the nuclear energy industry to 550 M€/year immediate closure of eight NPPs that started operating before 1980; Germany become a net importer of electricity; industrial giant Siemens closes its nuclear business Italy voted against a return to nuclear power, repealing a regulation that would have allowed for the construction of new reactors in a national referendum (June 2011) Swiss government announced that it would not replace the country’s five NPPs after they reached their lifetimes between 2019 and 2034 27/03/2012 22
    23. 23. Public acceptance: support for nuclear industryBefore Fukushima• 56% of EU citizens wanted nuclear energy to be maintained or increased (Eurobarometer on Nuclear Safety, April 2010)After Fukushima• Impact country specific • Germany, Switzerland and Belgium: opposition to nuclear has risen • Other countries like UK, France, Sweden, Poland: support for nuclear held up well• In 9 (Belgium, France, Germany, UK, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Spain and Sweden) out of the 27 EU Member States less than 1/5 of those opposed to nuclear have been influenced by the accident (Ipsos MORI, May 2011) 2327/03/2012
    24. 24. Public acceptance: recovery in a number of EU countries• In a number of countries like the UK, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and France, after a dip just after the accident, public acceptance of nuclear has recovered.27/03/2012 24
    25. 25. New build worldwideThe total amount of nuclear reactors under construction• worldwide 66• European Union 6 (Finland, France, Slovakia, Bulgaria)• rest of the world 60 (India, Brazil, Argentina, China, Iran, South Korea, USA, Taiwan, Japan, Russia and Ukraine)27/03/2012 25
    26. 26. Impact of Fukushima - Germany turns its back on nuclear“German decision: politically correct? economically sustainable?environmentally right?” (The Guardian, 1 June 2011)“Germanys phase-out of nuclear power may compromise the security andsustainability of the European Union. Power will be more costly, and lesssecure, and even greater and more urgent investment in renewables isneeded.” Nobuo Tanaka, International Energy Agency (IEA) ExecutiveDirector (EURELECTRIC annual conference in Stockholm: 13 June 2011)27/03/2012 26
    27. 27. Impact of Fukushima - Germany turns its back on nuclear“If [we dont remain] competitive in comparison with other countries, acompany of global stature like Bayer can think about moving its production tocountries where energy costs are lower.” Marijn Dekkers, CEO of Bayer(France 24, 6 August 2011)27/03/2012 27
    28. 28. Impact of Fukushima“There hasnt been a strong debate after Japan (nuclear accident) that weshould change our decision. I think Finns are very rational, pragmatic. Weexpect that in the existing plans, the security level is high. And also, on thosewhich are under process, they will be. Security is an important factor but Imnot worried. ” Jyri Hakamies, Finnish Economy Affairs Minister (Reuters, 2September 2011)27/03/2012 28
    29. 29. Securing the future of new build• Fukushima represents an opportunity for the nuclear industry to show it can learn from experience through “continuous improvement strategy”• Nuclear is a trump card in the EU Energy mix, meeting low-carbon, competitiveness and security of supply requirements• EU needs: legal framework for nuclear safety, harmonisation of licensing procedures and reactor design clearance• Greater co-operation between industry and international organisations• Do more to convince the public about safety27/03/2012 29
    30. 30. Conclusions• Every human activity involves some risk (forces of nature, medical treatment…)• No-one can guarantee that accidents will never occur. The industry’s duty and commitment is to ensure safety, to reduce the possibility of an accident and mitigate its consequences. The resources committed to safety are huge, but more will have to be done.• Stringent, independent nuclear safety regulation is essential• We cannot afford to lose nuclear energy in Europe – it is a cost effective and low carbon energy source• Electricity production and distribution doesn’t stop at EU’s borders - need to promote a common pan-European energy market27/03/2012 30

    ×