The PBMR, Nuclear Power and Climate Change

1
The PBMR, Nuclear Power and Climate Change

• Thomas Auf der Heyde
• Technikon Witwatersrand

2
Nuclear power and the PBMR

• Nuclear power industry in crisis
• Politics and economics of PWR
• Nuclear waste
• Fast breeder technology discredited
• Fusion a distant possibility only

• HTR has intrinsic advantages
• High thermal efficiency
• Efficient use of U, less waste
• Passive safety features

• HTRs subject of considerable RD

3
International experience with HTRs

• Poor international record
• Long construction overruns
• Long commercialisation leadtimes
• Poor load factors
• Irregular performance

• Development largely abandoned
• USA, Germany, UK, France, Russia no longer
  pursuing
• Japan 30 MW non-electric prototype
• China little indigenous development

• Technology poses considerable hurdles

4
Economics of nuclear power

• Nuclear power and electricity liberalisation
• The cost structure of nuclear power
• Overhead costs

5
Nuclear power and electricity liberalisation

• Electricity generation is a risky business
• Monopoly situations give rise to over-investment
  in plant (cost/risk passed to consumers)
• Liberalised markets do not allow costs/risks to
  be passed on to consumers
• Risks minimised through proven technology
• Liberalisation accompanied by turning away from
  nuclear power

6
Nuclear power cost structures

• Crucially depend on discount rates, loan periods,
  assumed lifetime of plant

• In liberalised economies these are more onerous
  than in monopoly situations

• Fixed costs are major component (up to 75)

• Operating costs difficult to establish
• US average in 1998 was 1.3p/kWh (US 2.1c)
• About 25 fuel, 75 non-fuel costs

7
PBMR economics

• Eskoms assumptions
• Capex US1000/kW (625)
• Plant life 40 years
• Discount rate 6
• Load factor 95 (8300 kWh/a)
• FIXED COST 0.4 p/kWh
• OPERATING COST 0.6 p/kWh
• TOTAL COST 1.0 p/kWh
• Total cost of coal-fired power station 3.5
  p/kWh
• Total cost of gas power (1996) 2.2 p/kWh

8
PBMR economics contd.

• Assumption Fixed cost (p/kWh)
• 625/40yr 6 0.4
• 625/20yr 12 0.8
• 625/15yr 15 1.1
• 95 load factor (8300kWh/a) 0.4
• 7000kWh/a 1250/kW12 20yr 2.0
• 7000kWh/a 1250/kW15 15yr 2.5
• Operating cost 0.6
• TOTAL COST 3.1

9
Overhead costs for the PBMR

• Direct costs of engineering barriers, costs of
  licensing, cost of nuclear regulation
• Safety requirements are being continuously
  sharpened - long construction delays

• Direct costs of licensing
• Westinghouse AP600 US400m, 7 years
• PBMR feasibility study R432m, plus licensing
  R40m?

• Wide deployment of PBMR will require
  disproportionate regulatory overhead

10
The market for the PBMR

• Eskoms assumption/rationale
• Annually 10 units in SA, 20 for export
• Little real investment in nuclear expansion
• Europe - many committed to phase out
• North America
• In US no new orders since 1974
• Canadian technology under fire
• Asia
• Mostly committed to PWR (US or own
  manufacturers)

11
The market for the PBMR contd.

• Barrier to nuclear market considerable
• PWR/BWR the dominant technology
• On world power market the PBMR competes with gas
• US safety license likely to be costly German
  license no option
• Innate conservatism of power market militates
  against technological innovation

12
The nuclear fuel chain
U mining milling
Conversion
Enrichment
Waste management disposal
Power reactor
Fuel fabrication
Reprocessing
13
Under highly favourable assumptions for nuclear
power we find that even if large nuclear
plants (1 000 MW) could be built every one to
three days from now until 2025 (which is
impossible in the Third World), global CO2
emissions would still continue to grow. In the
USA - the world's largest producer of CO2 -
each dollar invested in electric efficiency
displaces nearly seven times as much CO2 as a
dollar invested in nuclear power. Even if the
most optimistic aspirations for the future
economics of nuclear power were realised today,
efficiency would still displace between 2.5 and
10 times more CO2 per unit investment. We
conclude that revitalising nuclear power would
be a relatively expensive and ineffective
response to greenhouse warming, and that the key
to reducing future C02 emissions is to improve
the energy efficiency of the global
economy. Bill Keepin Gregory Kats Energy
Policy 1988
14
Although nuclear energy is a low CO2 energy
system, it is not a very efficient tool for
rapidly reducing carbon emissions. Global
climate change does not justify a considerably
increased global nuclear programme for the next
two to three decades. Even if for other
political or socioeconomic reasons such an
intensive global nuclear programme were
initiated, its impact on CO2 emissions would be
only marginal. This is true irrespective of the
costs and feasibilities of alternative emission
reduction strategies, such as energy efficiency
measures, or the availability of other low CO2
energy supplies. Janos Pasztor Energy Policy
1999
15
The nuclear industry and climate change

• Key strategy to renew industry
• Only contributes to CO2 reduction where nuclear
  is major component of energy system
• Studies suggest nuclear power is a very
  inefficient substitute for increased energy
  efficiency

16
Conclusion

• HTR technology not yet fully developed
• Discrepancies in cost modelling could have strong
  impact on viability of project
• Market for nuclear power and innovative
  technology is not favourable
• Nuclear power is unlikely to make meaningful
  contributions to CO2 reduction
• Dispassionate and independent review of PBMR
  should be commissioned