The PBMR, Nuclear Power and Climate Change

Thomas Auf der HeydeTechnikon Witwatersrand

Nuclear power and the PBMR• Nuclear power industry in crisis

Politics and economics of PWRNuclear wasteFast breeder technology discreditedFusion a distant possibility only

• HTR has intrinsic advantagesHigh thermal efficiencyEfficient use of U, less wastePassive safety features

• HTRs subject of considerable R&D

International experience with HTRs• Poor international record

Long construction overrunsLong commercialisation leadtimesPoor load factorsIrregular performance

• Development largely abandonedUSA, Germany, UK, France, Russia no longer pursuingJapan: 30 MW non-electric prototypeChina: little indigenous development

• Technology poses considerable hurdles

Economics of nuclear power

• Nuclear power and electricity liberalisation

• The cost structure of nuclear power

• Overhead costs

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

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

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

• Fixed costs are major component (up to 75%)

PBMR economics• Eskom’s assumptions

Capex = US$1000/kW (£625)Plant life = 40 yearsDiscount rate = 6 %Load factor = 95% (8300 kWh/a)

FIXED COST = 0.4 p/kWhOPERATING COST = 0.6 p/kWhTOTAL 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

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) 0.47000kWh/a; £1250/kW;12%; 20yr 2.0

7000kWh/a; £1250/kW;15%; 15yr 2.5

Operating cost 0.6

TOTAL COST 3.1

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 licensingWestinghouse AP600: US$400m, 7 yearsPBMR “feasibility study” R432m, plus licensing R40m?

• Wide deployment of PBMR will require disproportionate regulatory overhead

The market for the PBMR

• Eskom’s assumption/rationaleAnnually: 10 units in SA, 20 for export

• Little real investment in nuclear expansionEurope - many committed to phase out

• North AmericaIn US no new orders since 1974Canadian technology under fire

• AsiaMostly committed to PWR (US or own manufacturers)

The market for the PBMR … contd.

• Barrier to nuclear market considerablePWR/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

The nuclear fuel chain

U mining & milling Conversion Enrichment

Waste management& disposal

Power reactor Fuel fabrication

Reprocessing

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 KatsEnergy Policy 1988

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 PasztorEnergy Policy 1999

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

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