> Framatome ANP GmbH · 2010. 10. 4. · Ukraine Bulgaria Czech Rep. Slovakia Hungary Romania...

> Framatome ANP GmbH <


Global Perspectivesfor Nuclear Power Generation

Dr. Ralf GüldnerManaging Director, Framatome ANP GmbH

Wolfgang BreyerCorporate Communications, Framatome ANP GmbH

> Framatome ANP GmbH < Dr. Ralf Güldner – Wolfgang Breyer, June 2004 3

Introduction of AREVA

Current Status of Nuclear Power Generation

Nuclear Power Market Trends

Evolution of Reactor Technologies

Nuclear Energy in the Public Debate


ReactorsEquipmentServicesNuclear MeasurementConsulting & Information SystemsMechanical SystemsTechnicatome

Reactors&

ServicesDivision

Back EndDivision

Transmission&

DistributionDivision

Front EndDivision

MiningChemistryEnrichmentFuel

ReprocessingRecyclingEngineering Nuclear CleanupLogistics

Energy

Communications Data Consumer AutomotiveElectrical Power InterconnectMicroconnections

Electrical DistributionSystemsTransmission ProjectsMedium VoltageHigh VoltageEnergy Automation & InformationT&D Services

ConnectorsDivision

Organization of the AREVA Group


Legal Structure of the AREVA Group

ENERGYENERGY

FRAMATOMEANP

FRAMATOMEANP COGEMACOGEMA FCIFCI Equity

interests

100%66%34% 100%

CONNECTORSCONNECTORS

Pro-forma figures, 2002:

€ 11.5 billion sales

75,000 employees

AREVA T&D

100%

Framatome ANP is an AREVA and Siemens Company


Legal Structure of Framatome ANP

intelligeNDT

66 %

Siemens AGSiemens AG

34 %

Framatome ANPS.A.S.France

Framatome ANP Inc.USA

100 %100 %

Framatome ANP GmbH

GermanyANF

JeumontIntercontrôleCERCACEZUSFBFC

100 %(Main French Subsidiaries)

AREVA S.A.AREVA S.A.

Framatome ANP DE&S, Inc.

Framatome ANP Canada Ltd.


Countries with Reactors in Operation

CanadaUSA

MexicoArgentina

Brazil

FinlandSweden

NetherlandsBelgium

FranceGermany

SwitzerlandSlovenia

SpainUnited

Kingdom

RussiaUkraineBulgariaCzech Rep. SlovakiaHungaryRomaniaLithuaniaArmenia

ChinaJapanSouth-KoreaTaiwanPakistanIndia

South-Africa

Power Generation worldwide by energy source, 2002

Nuclear energy

Natural gas

OilCoal

Hydro and other renewable

energies

16%

20 %

9%36 %

19%

Countries using nuclear power represent 2/3 of the world population

Sour

ce: I

AEA,

WEC


Nuclear Power Generation 1970-2002

TWh

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

WorldNorth AmericaWestern EuropeEastern EuropeAsia


World Nuclear Power Status, January 2004

Number of NPPs Total In operation Under

constructionPlants MW net

Americas - North America - Latin America

127 121 6

2 - 2

129 121 8

117 710 111 673 6 037

Europe - West - Central & Eastern

209 141 68

10 1 9

219 142 77

181 312 126 693 54 619

Asia 101 20 121 89 243

Africa 2 - 2 1 842

Total

439

32

471

390 107

Source: IAEA, WNA


Nuclear Power Generation (in TWh and %)in Leading Industrial (G8) Countries, 2002

811.9 TWh

GER

139.8 TWh

434.7 TWh JAP

164.8 TWh

20.4 %30.6 %

78.0 %

34.3 %

USA

FRA

RUS313.5 TWh

15.4%

GB89.6 TWh

21.9 %

CAN

75.9 TWh

11.8 % Sour

ce: M

cGra

w-H

ill


Installed NPP Capacity Worldwide by Reactor Types

0

50.000

100.000

150.000

200.000

250.000

300.000

350.000

400.000

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

Year

MW

LWRHWRGCR

LWR (incl. VVER)

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000


Cumulative Operating Experience with Large-Capacity* Light Water Reactors

5000

* PWRs and BWRs, Pel > 600 MWe1970 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 2000

Rea

ctor

yea

rs

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Harrisburg accident

Sour

ce: I

AEA,

200

2

13

303 of 439 NPPs worldwide are driven by PWRsand BWRs


Perspectives for New NPPs

PrerequisitesCompetitive NPPs

Safety enhancement (CDF < 10 -6/a)

Worldwide-acting vendors of NPPs with long-term commitment

Viable sub-supplier base

Ongoing R&D and education in nuclear technology

High-level waste repositories (long-term issue)

Public acceptance

Driving ForcesRising electricity demand and/or need for replacement of aging nuclear and fossil power plantsInstability of international markets for fossil fuelsOngoing commitment to improving the environment and combating climate changeNeed for dependable baseload power generationCompetitive power production costs


25 000 Bill. kWh

15 400 Bill. kWh

14 Bill. t HCE1)

6 Bill. Population8 Bill. Population

19 Bill. t HCE1)

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020

ElectricityPrimary EnergiesWorld Population

World Population, Primary Energy and Electricity Demand

Sour

ce: S

iem

ens

PG, e

igen

eBe

rech

nung

en

1) Hard Coal Equivalent


Billion tons of coal equivalent30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Hydro power

Natural gas

Oil

Coal

Nuclear energy

Other renewable energies2050

27,1

2020

19,4

1998

13,7

1990

12,6

1970

7,9

1980

10,4

World Primary Energy Demand (World Energy Council, Reference Scenario)

Sour

ce: W

EC/II

ASA


Age Structure of Power Plants in the EU-15(of steam turbine, nuclear and combined-cycle power plants)

138 GW installed capacity is 31 years or older and has to be replaced, starting in ~ 2010

Sour

ce: S

iem

ens

PG

6,3 8,5

18,9

39,6

64,665,6

72,0

83,5

39,0

52,947,8

0

20

40

60

80

100

51 -

55 Y

ears

46 -

50 Y

ears

41 -

45 Y

ears

36 -

40 Y

ears

31 -

35 Y

ears

26 -

30 Y

ears

21 -

25 Y

ears

16 -

20 Y

ears

11-1

5 Ye

ars

6-10

Yea

rs

1 - 5

Yea

rs

GW


1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

AEG

SiemensKWU

Siemens Power Generation

Framatome

Babcock & Wilcox

Framatome ANP

BNFL

Westinghouse

Combustion Engineering

BBC

ASEAABB

General Electric

Hitachi

ToshibaJapan Nuclear Fuel

Global Nuclear Fuel

Nuclear Vendors: A Consolidated Global Market

Year


USA: Plant Applications for License Renewal (Status 05/04)

Operating license for 40 years (16 unitshave already applied for renewal)

Operating licence for 60 years (26 units)

20

104 Units, Total Capacity: 111.880 MW

Pressurized Water Reactors

Boiling Water Reactors


China: Challenging Nuclear Program Continues

SHANDONGHaijang 6x 1000 MWJIANGSUTianwan 2x 1000 MWTianwan 6x 1000 MW

ZHEJIANGQinshan phase I 300 MWQinshan phase II 2x 600 MWQinshan phase III 2x 700 MWQinshan phase IV 2x 1000 MW

ZHEJIANGSanmen 6x 1000 MWFUJIANGHui An 2x 1000 MWGUANGDONGDaya Bay 2x 984 MWLing Ao 2x 984 MWLing Ao 2x 1000 MWGUANGDONGYangjiang 6x 1000 MW

( 1.3 billion inhabitants( Strong economic growth( Second-largest electricity market:< 1368 billion kWh in 2000< Demand growth rate 10 %/a< 310.000 MW installed capacity< (600.000 MW expected for 2015)< High CO2 emissions (coal production

1.4 billion t)

( Nuclear program (Status 12/2003):< 8 NPP units in operation< 3 units under construction< Another 4 units to be ordered shortly

for Qinshan and Ling Ao< Installed nuclear capacity to reach

about 32.000 MW by 2020


Japan: On the Way to Number 2 in Nuclear Power

22

( Fourth-largest energy market, after USA, China und Russia

( High dependence (80%) of primary energyimports

( Nuclear share of electricity > one third( 54 Reactors in operation, installed capacity

totals 45 500 MW( 3 units under construction, 12 more units

planned to go on line by 2015

( New Energy Policy Law of 2002:< Strives for balance between environment,

security of supply and market forces< Heavy reliance on nuclear to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions


Nuclear Power in India

> Non-signatory of the 1970 Nuclear Non-ProliferationTreaty (NPT)

Two 150 MW BWRs from USA and two smallCandu PHWRs are under safeguards

> Independent reactor technology and nuclear fuelcycle

> Program based on domestic heavy-water reactors, complemented by fast breeders and importedVVERs

> 14 NPPs (90-200 MWe) in operation, totalling2493 MWe

> 9 NPPs (200 – 950 MWe) under construction, totalling 3688 MWe

> Installed nuclear capacity planned for 2020 is ~ 20.000 MWe

> Nuclear share in electricity: 2001 3,7 %

2005 10 %


Russia banks on nuclear energy

50,0

41,1

32,0

21,226,2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000 2015 2020

Capacity,GW

Planned Installed Capacity (replacement and commissioning of additional NPPs)

Source: Concern Rosenergoatom

Ros

tov

1

Kal

inin

3

Ros

tov

2, K

ursk

5

Bal

akov

o5

Bel

oyar

sk4

Kal

inin

4, B

rest

Bal

.6, N

V N

PP 6

2005 2010


Sweden: Stop of Phase-out ?

Energy situation:Power intensive, export oriented industryNuclear power has important share 2002: 46 % (hydro 46 %, fossil 8 %)11 NPPs, capacity 8850 MW

Energy politics In 1980 decided: Phase-out to be completed by 2010Now: phase-out date lifted in 1998, no new date definedOnly 1 NPP (615-MW unit Barsebäck 1) shut down in 1999Power uprate of other 11 NPPs until 1999 by 620 MWNo sustainable concept for replacement of nuclear powerDiscussion on lifetime extension for existing NPPs (40 yrs +)Industry and trade unions are pro-nuclear67 % of population are against shut-down of Barsebäck 2Liberal party demands to allow construction of new units


New nuclear power plant

Covers partly the additional electricity demand and replaces old power plants

Enables, together with renewables, the fulfilment of the Kyoto commitments

Secures stable and predictable electrical price

Reduced the dependence on electricity import

Finland: Why additional Nuclear Power?


Finland: Political Steps to the Approval for the 5th NPP

> 1998 Finnish utilities announce intention to build new NPPto cover demand growth. Feasibility studies showthat nuclear is the most economical option

> 1999 Posiva selects Olkiluoto as site for final repositoryfor spent fuel assemblies

> 2000, Dec. 21 Government approves choice of Olkiluoto for final repository of spent fuel

> 2000, Nov. 15 Utility TVO applies for government approval („decision-in-principle“) of new PWR or BWR in the1000 – 1600 MW range at Olkiluoto or Loviisa

> 2001, March 27 Government decides „National Climate Strategy“ thatrecognizes the construction of new NPPs as an optionfor climate protection

> 2001, May 18 Parliament ratifies almost unanimously (includingmajority of Greens) government decision on spent-fuelrepository site

> 2002, Jan. 17 Government approves new NPP project> 2002, May 24 Parliament ratifies government approval


OLKILUOTO , 2009


New NPP Projects in Europe to Replace aging NPPs

FranceConstruction of EPR demo plant to be launched in 2004

Replacement of aging NPPs by EPRs starting 2015 - 2020

SwitzerlandUtilities plan to replace Beznau 1 + 2 and Mühleberg by 1 EPR-sized newNPP by 2025

BulgariaTo replace old Kozloduy units, government decided to restart Beleneproject

LithuaniaTo compensate for shut-down of Ignalina (RBMK type, 2 x 1300 MW), a new Western-type NPP project is under consideration


Programs for Final Repositoriesfor High-Activity Waste (selected countries)

TuffYucca Mountain

Yucca MountainSite selected in 2002. Licence application plannedfor 2004, start of operation 2010

USA

GraniteClayBenken

GrimselMont Terri

Feasability study for Benken (opalinus clay) completed in 2002

Switzer-land

GraniteGranite

ÖsthammarOskarshamn

Stripa (closed)HRL Äspö

Exploration of two sites underway. Site decisionplanned for 2007

Sweden

GraniteSalt, Clay

Open-Geological survey completed. Site decision after 2010Spain

Rock saltGorleben ?AsseGorleben Site exploration interrupted bymoratorium

Germany

ClayGranite

OpenBure Granite site open

Survey of potential sites underwayFrance

GraniteOlkiluotoSite approved by Parliament. Exploration underway

Finland

GraniteOpenURLConcept demonstrationCanada

ClayOpenHADES URF, MolHADES Underground Research Facility in operationBelgium

GeologyCandidate Site for Final

Repository

Underground Laboratory

Program StatusCountry


Forecasts for Worldwide Installed Capacity of NPPs

0

200.000

400.000

600.000

800.000

1.000.000

1.200.000

1.400.000

1.600.000

1.800.000

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Year

MW

WEC Reference Scenario, 1998WEC Scenario High Growth, Coal Intensive, 1998WETO Study, EU, 2003International Energy Outlook 2003, Reference CaseInternational Energy Outlook 2003, Low-Growth CaseInternational Energy Outlook 2003, High-Growth CaseDecommissioning of today's plants, lifetime 40 yearsDecommissioning of today's plants, lifetime 60 years

1,800,000

1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000


Reactor Generations

+Fusion?

1950 201019901970 2030 2050

EPR / SWR1000 +New Types

Early Prototype Reactors

CommercialPowerReactorsPWR, BWR, CANDU,VVER/RBMK

Reactors with further enhanced safety and increased competitive-ness: Advanced water cooled reactors,e. g. EPR, SWR 1000,ABWR, AP1000

Fusion

Generation IV

Generation III, Generation III+

Generation II

Generation I

FutureAdditional Reactorconcepts:e. g. HTR, FR

*

* incl.. modernization, power increase and life time extension


Certification in the U.S.for New Water-cooled Reactors

Reactor Design Lead Vendor(s) Design Category Status at NRC

System 80+ Westinghouse BNFL PWR CertifiedABWR GE, Toshiba, Hitachi BWR CertifiedAP600 Westinghouse BNFL PWR CertifiedAP1000 Westinghouse BNFL PWR CertificationESBWR GE BWR Pre-certificationSWR-1000 Framatome ANP BWR Pre-certificationACR-700 AECL PHWR Pre-certificationIRIS Westinghouse BNFL PWR Pre-certificationEPR Framatome ANP PWR No application decisionACR-1000 AECL PHWR No application decision

Sour

ce: U

S D

OE

EIA


EPR, the European 3rd-Generation Reactor

> The EPR results from a Franco-German cooperation since 1993 involving:

Safety Authorities

Utilities

Framatome and Siemens KWU (now merged into Framatome ANP)

> The EPR follows the rules of the French and German safety authorities

> The EPR takes into account the European Utility Requirements (EUR) as well as the Utility Requirements Document (URD) of the U.S. Electric Power Research Institute

> Two-fold goal:Further enhance safety

Improve economics


An Evolutionary Design Built on Experience from the Most Recent Reactors

-4060yearsService lifetime

193205241Number of fuel assemblies

444Number of primary loops

34,53437%Efficiency

~14001450~1600MweElectrical power

385042504300MWthThermal power

KonvoiSiemens

N4Framatome

EPR

Chooz 1-2Civaux 1-2

Neckar 2Emsland

Isar 2


The EPR Competitiveness

> A very cost-efficient designUnit power increased to about 1,600 MWe

Secondary-side pressure increased to 78 bar, leading to 37% efficiency

Better use of fuel, burn-up more than 60 GWd/t, lower consumption of uranium

Simplified maintenance: accessibility, standardization, in-service maintenance of equipment installed outside the reactor building

Shorter refueling outages for better availability

Lower radiation doses

Service life of 60 years

The EPR-generated MWh cost is 10% lower than in the most recent reactors in operation


The EPR Safety Improvements (1/2)

> Reinforced prevention of core meltdown accidentsIncreased water inventory of the primary coolant system Reduced probability of initiating events of internal origin Increased reliability of safeguard systems in particular, through the use of a 4-fold redundant, diversified and separate system

> Protection against the consequences of core meltdownElimination of the risk of core meltdown in the high-pressure reactor vesselSpreading of corium under the reactor vessel and protection of the concrete Hydrogen recombiners

> Protection against external (airplane crash) and internal risks (fire, flood)


Main safety systems of the EPR

Molten corespreading area

Containment heat removal

system

4-train redundancy

of mainsafety

systems

Double-wall containmentwith ventilation and filtering system

Water tank insidecontainment

The EPR Safety Improvements (2/2)


GoalsInnovative technical options for deployment in 20 - 30 years at the earliestUse of nuclear energy not only for power generation but also for process heat, desalination and H2 productionImprovement of economy, safety, proliferation resistance and minimization of nuclear wasteInclusion of industrialized and developing countries

ProceedingInternational cooperation in substantiating goals, predefinition of criterias Selection of promising reactor types and appropriate nuclear fuel cycles

International Programs for New Reactor Types


International Programs for New Reactor Types (cont.)

International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO)

IAEA special program under considerable Russian influence; participants comprise 12 countries plus the EU CommissionHolistic approach based on various demand scenarios; comprehensive catalog of criteria for economic efficiency, safety, safeguards and waste management currently being developed

Generation IV International Forum (GIF)10 countries, led by USA (Department of Energy)6 reactor types selected, all requiring considerable further development, although in some cases the basic concept has been known for decadesFormation of multilateral development partnerships is a key objective


Nuclear Power in Germany – Facts & Views


Nuclear Power in Germany - the Facts

Most important energy source for electricitygeneration: 31 % of overall power consumption,~ 50 % of baseload power production

Most cost-effective way to generate electricity, key asset in a competitive European Electricity market

Stands for about 40,000 jobs in the nuclear industryand 110,000 in other industries

Avoids about 160 million tons of CO2 every year

18 NPPs in operation, 22,400 MW installed capacityProduction in 2003: 165,1 TWh


Nuclear Policy in GermanyGovernment - Utilities Agreement of June 2001

• Lifetime of the 19 operating NPPs limited to 32 years translated into kWh. Total residual generation 2623 billion kWh

• Utilities are free to shift residual generation from older to newer plants

• Government assures politically undisturbed operation of plants

• Government ensures transport of spent fuel

• Utilities build on-site fuel storage facilities to minimize transports

• Exploration of the Gorleben salt dome as final disposal site will be stopped for at least 3 yearsbut not more than 10 years

• No changes in safety requirements, no discriminatory tax rules

• Utilities „take note“ that government intends to introduce legal ban on construction of newNPP


Nuclear Policy in GermanyIntentions behind the Government - Utilities Agreement

Government:

• Paying the price for government participation of Green party, while limiting damageto the economy

• „Pacifying“ a field of social conflict marked by violent demonstrations

Utilities:

• Protection of their investment in NPPs, continued profitable operation of their plantsfor maximum time period achievable in negotiations

• Escape from discriminatory treatment experienced in several Länder (German states) in the 1990s („pin-prick policy“)

• Keeping the door open for later change in nuclear policy (no demand for new NPP in this decade)


„Which energy sources will make the largest contributionto our energy supply in the next 20 to 30 years?“

[% of Germans interviewed, multiple answers allowed]

Quelle: Allensbach Studie Umwelt 1991, 04/2004

56

32

34

60

22

17

33

64

49

39

37

26

21

18

18

8

Solar

Wind

Hydro power

Natural gas

Nuclear power

Biomass

Oil

Electricity imports

Coal

19912004

*: 1994 nicht befragt


0

50

100B

DK

D

GR

ES

F

IRLI L

NL

A

P

FIN

S

UK Eurobarometer poll 2002

... this is what 47% of those interviewed in 2002

in the EU-15 believed

„Do NPPs contribute to global warmingand climate change?“


Q: Will we be able to manage the nuclear phase-out, or will it be impossible – also in the long term –to do without nuclear energy?

Source: Capital, November 2003

Germany Average

Industry and

CommercePolitics Admini-

stration

West East

able to manage 30.2 29.6 33.0 22.9 48.8 45.5

impossible 67.8 68.2 66.0 75.4 51.2 48.5

don't know 2.0 2.2 1.0 1.7 6.1

Top Manager

Germany

Views on Nuclear Power: Public Opinion Polls in Germany


Do you agree with the following statement?

„Nuclear power is an acceptable source of energy“

Views on Nuclear Power: Public Opinion Polls in Germany

45% 46%40%

58%

33%

55%

35%

42%

55%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

West East m f highest30 - 39

lowest40 - 49

onlyelementarySchool - leavingcertific.

University

Average Germany Sex Age Education

Source: P.M. Magazin / tns emnid, June 2003


Conclusions

Nuclear energy further expands in Asia and has maintained its position as a stable and economic basis for power supply in both the U.S. and Europe- even in the new context of the liberalized power markets

The leading industrialized countries count on nuclear power as acontribution for economic competitiveness and sustainable development

The nuclear vendors have developed advanced LWRs which are now ready for construction

Nuclear industry and research institutes develop innovative reactor concepts, which could expand the use of nuclear energy beyond its present boundaries in the long run

Besides technological enhancement, public programs for waste management and transparent performance of the nuclear industry are the key issues in order to (re)gain public acceptance for nuclear power


Any questions? Please go ahead!

> Framatome ANP GmbH · 2010. 10. 4. · Ukraine Bulgaria Czech Rep. Slovakia Hungary Romania...

Documents

Transcript of > Framatome ANP GmbH · 2010. 10. 4. · Ukraine Bulgaria Czech Rep. Slovakia Hungary Romania...