http://www.cnbc.com/id/37632317
By: The Associated Press | 11 Jun 2010 | 03:33 AM ET Tonga -
The impoverished South Pacific island nation of Tonga should move quickly toward nuclear power as its main source of electricity, its king said Friday.
Opening the nation's Parliament, King George Tupou V said while energy-hungry Tonga is planning to produce half its electricity from renewable energy within three years, "nature is dictating that we must look to nuclear energy."
King George said his government is following a U.S. plan aimed at developing small 30-megawatt nuclear plants to curb electricity costs and reduce dependence on expensive imported fuels.
"Should this development prove successful, it would be of enormous value in protecting our environment and reducing our use of diesel fuel," he told the lawmakers.
He did not indicate how the near-bankrupt nation would fund a nuclear power plant.
Late last year, officials produced a "Tonga Energy Road Map" that sets a goal of producing 50 percent of the country's electricity from renewable energy sources, including solar and wind. Nuclear power was not part of their planning.
Currently 95 percent of Tonga's 20 to 30 megawatts of annual power consumption is produced by generators using high-cost diesel fuel. Just 5 percent of the electricity is produced by small solar plants located on outer islands of the archipelago.
While no South Pacific states, including Australia and New Zealand, have nuclear power plants, King George noted that building a nuclear station in Tonga would also help solve its need for clean drinking water through desalination.
Tonga's main water sources are underground and have been polluted in recent years by fertilizers and pesticides, he said.
"The government maintains that nuclear power is our best hope of resolving our water problem as we can produce abundant supplies through desalination very cheaply," he said. "The quicker we move in this direction the better."
King George was widely known as a rich and eccentric playboy during the reign of his father, King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV, who died in September 2006.
He has since implemented democratic reforms in the near-feudal monarchy, with the country's voters set to choose a new government in elections later this year.
However, Tonga faces mounting poverty and unemployment among its youth, and relies heavily on aid and money remitted by citizens living abroad. The World Bank has said 40 percent of the nation's 101,000 people live near or below the poverty line.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
How to rid reactors of uranium risk
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100525/full/465408a.html
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty talks grapple with legacy of highly enriched fuel.
Declan Butler
As the month-long conference reviewing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty comes to an end this week in New York, efforts to minimize the world's nuclear arsenal are centre stage.
But many countries at the meeting, held every 5 years, are calling for action on an underappreciated but pressing risk: getting rid of the legacy of hundreds of research reactors, mainly civilian, that use weapons-grade highly enriched uranium (HEU).
The total quantity of HEU in research reactors is small compared with military stocks, but still amounts to a few hundred tonnes — more than enough to pose a threat, as a nuclear bomb can be made with just a few dozen kilograms. Security can often be lower at research reactors, which are typically operated by universities and civilian labs, raising fears that nuclear material could fall into the hands of terrorists.
The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been helping countries convert their reactors to use low-enriched uranium (LEU), but cannot force them to do so. Nations including the United States want a renewed worldwide effort to speed up this process; in April, President Barack Obama hosted an international nuclear security summit in Washington DC, which agreed in principle to the ambitious goal of locking down unsecured civilian nuclear material within 4 years.
Yet progress in converting HEU reactors to LEU has been slow (see map). Despite the renewed momentum for change, many of the resolutions supporting reactor conversion at this month's conference contained key caveats, such as "where this is technically and economically feasible".
Nature discussed the problem and possible solutions with Pablo Adelfang, head of the IAEA Research Reactor Section.
Pablo Adelfang.How important are HEU reactors for research?
Very. Research reactors are the cornerstone of nuclear science and a stepping stone towards nuclear power. They are unique tools for testing materials and fuel, and for training scientists and engineers. Other civilian HEU reactors, which share many of the design characteristics of HEU research reactors, produce vital medical radioisotopes.
How secure are HEU stocks against theft?
Security standards have improved widely. Some of the HEU is so highly irradiated that it would quickly kill anyone trying to steal it. But there is a dispute over what levels of irradiation make HEU self-protecting. Some material that has been cooling in a pool is less lethal, and one could imagine terrorists taking the risk of stealing it.
Why are reactors difficult to convert?
HEU reactors used for research and to produce medical radioisotopes have uranium enrichment levels of the order of 90% fissile uranium-235 atoms and just 10% uranium-238. [Unenriched uranium is largely non-fissile, containing about 99% uranium-238.] The problem is that the volume of the core of these existing HEU reactors, and their component fuel elements, are fixed by their initial design. You cannot increase the size of the core, which would be one way to achieve almost the same number of uranium-235 atoms in the core using LEU (typically about 20% enriched). In any case, that would amount to designing a new reactor.
So the only option for conversion is to design LEU fuels with higher densities of uranium. The challenge has been to increase fuel density while ensuring that fuels can be easily fabricated and will perform properly under irradiation to accommodate released fission gases, for example. Fortunately, almost all HEU research reactors were designed as relatively low-power, low-fuel-density reactors. That means the high-density LEU fuels already available are adequate for converting them. But that leaves 20 or so higher power, higher performance HEU reactors, which would require LEU fuel of much higher density to match the uranium-235 loading of their HEU cores.
How are researchers trying to create higher density LEU fuels?
The highest possible density for a uranium fuel is pure uranium metal, but it is unstable under reactor conditions. So it is alloyed with other elements, typically molybdenum at 7–8%. The density of a uranium–molybdenum alloy is very close to that of pure uranium.
But in tests in 2003, the first promising next-generation LEU fuel — in which the uranium–molybdenum powder was dispersed in a heat-conducting aluminium matrix — failed badly. The fuel reacted with the matrix, became amorphous, and was unable to retain fission gases, which gathered together in big bubbles, causing breakaway swelling of the fuel and pillowing of the fuel plates. One solution was to add pure silicon to either the fuel or the aluminium. Another, the main route being pursued, was to use aluminium as a cladding rather than a matrix, with a thin layer of zirconium separating it from a sheet of uranium. Final development and qualification of this latter fuel should take just a couple of years. It would allow conversion of all but about ten HEU reactors.
Is cost an obstacle to conversion?
Converting a reactor can cost from US$1 million to $10 million, depending on its type. The main expenses are purchasing new fuels and making changes to the reactor's safety and operating systems. These costs are met by most countries, although the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, a programme launched in 2004 by the US energy department to improve nuclear security worldwide, provides technical and funding support to lower-income countries.
The IAEA cannot demand conversion, but should countries wish to convert, we will provide technical support. There is some reluctance from scientists because they fear that conversion might reduce reactor performance. To reassure them, the IAEA does a detailed reactor assessment, including calculating any changes in performance.
What's happening with medical reactors?
Less progress has been made in converting the targets used for medical radioisotope production to LEU, although South Africa is converting one. Other countries, including Argentina and Australia, are already using LEU for this purpose. I think that the companies who produce radioisotopes are inclined to convert, but they are concerned about costs and the effect on the price of their products. A 2009 report by the US National Academies, however, found that there was no technical obstacle to converting, and that it would cause at most a 10% increase in the cost of medical imaging.
What should happen next?
We need to move on from debating whether it is economically or technically viable to convert HEU reactors and targets, and push ahead with doing it. The non-proliferation stakes are too high to do otherwise.
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty talks grapple with legacy of highly enriched fuel.
Declan Butler
As the month-long conference reviewing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty comes to an end this week in New York, efforts to minimize the world's nuclear arsenal are centre stage.
But many countries at the meeting, held every 5 years, are calling for action on an underappreciated but pressing risk: getting rid of the legacy of hundreds of research reactors, mainly civilian, that use weapons-grade highly enriched uranium (HEU).
The total quantity of HEU in research reactors is small compared with military stocks, but still amounts to a few hundred tonnes — more than enough to pose a threat, as a nuclear bomb can be made with just a few dozen kilograms. Security can often be lower at research reactors, which are typically operated by universities and civilian labs, raising fears that nuclear material could fall into the hands of terrorists.
The Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been helping countries convert their reactors to use low-enriched uranium (LEU), but cannot force them to do so. Nations including the United States want a renewed worldwide effort to speed up this process; in April, President Barack Obama hosted an international nuclear security summit in Washington DC, which agreed in principle to the ambitious goal of locking down unsecured civilian nuclear material within 4 years.
Yet progress in converting HEU reactors to LEU has been slow (see map). Despite the renewed momentum for change, many of the resolutions supporting reactor conversion at this month's conference contained key caveats, such as "where this is technically and economically feasible".
Nature discussed the problem and possible solutions with Pablo Adelfang, head of the IAEA Research Reactor Section.
Pablo Adelfang.How important are HEU reactors for research?
Very. Research reactors are the cornerstone of nuclear science and a stepping stone towards nuclear power. They are unique tools for testing materials and fuel, and for training scientists and engineers. Other civilian HEU reactors, which share many of the design characteristics of HEU research reactors, produce vital medical radioisotopes.
How secure are HEU stocks against theft?
Security standards have improved widely. Some of the HEU is so highly irradiated that it would quickly kill anyone trying to steal it. But there is a dispute over what levels of irradiation make HEU self-protecting. Some material that has been cooling in a pool is less lethal, and one could imagine terrorists taking the risk of stealing it.
Why are reactors difficult to convert?
HEU reactors used for research and to produce medical radioisotopes have uranium enrichment levels of the order of 90% fissile uranium-235 atoms and just 10% uranium-238. [Unenriched uranium is largely non-fissile, containing about 99% uranium-238.] The problem is that the volume of the core of these existing HEU reactors, and their component fuel elements, are fixed by their initial design. You cannot increase the size of the core, which would be one way to achieve almost the same number of uranium-235 atoms in the core using LEU (typically about 20% enriched). In any case, that would amount to designing a new reactor.
So the only option for conversion is to design LEU fuels with higher densities of uranium. The challenge has been to increase fuel density while ensuring that fuels can be easily fabricated and will perform properly under irradiation to accommodate released fission gases, for example. Fortunately, almost all HEU research reactors were designed as relatively low-power, low-fuel-density reactors. That means the high-density LEU fuels already available are adequate for converting them. But that leaves 20 or so higher power, higher performance HEU reactors, which would require LEU fuel of much higher density to match the uranium-235 loading of their HEU cores.
How are researchers trying to create higher density LEU fuels?
The highest possible density for a uranium fuel is pure uranium metal, but it is unstable under reactor conditions. So it is alloyed with other elements, typically molybdenum at 7–8%. The density of a uranium–molybdenum alloy is very close to that of pure uranium.
But in tests in 2003, the first promising next-generation LEU fuel — in which the uranium–molybdenum powder was dispersed in a heat-conducting aluminium matrix — failed badly. The fuel reacted with the matrix, became amorphous, and was unable to retain fission gases, which gathered together in big bubbles, causing breakaway swelling of the fuel and pillowing of the fuel plates. One solution was to add pure silicon to either the fuel or the aluminium. Another, the main route being pursued, was to use aluminium as a cladding rather than a matrix, with a thin layer of zirconium separating it from a sheet of uranium. Final development and qualification of this latter fuel should take just a couple of years. It would allow conversion of all but about ten HEU reactors.
Is cost an obstacle to conversion?
Converting a reactor can cost from US$1 million to $10 million, depending on its type. The main expenses are purchasing new fuels and making changes to the reactor's safety and operating systems. These costs are met by most countries, although the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, a programme launched in 2004 by the US energy department to improve nuclear security worldwide, provides technical and funding support to lower-income countries.
The IAEA cannot demand conversion, but should countries wish to convert, we will provide technical support. There is some reluctance from scientists because they fear that conversion might reduce reactor performance. To reassure them, the IAEA does a detailed reactor assessment, including calculating any changes in performance.
What's happening with medical reactors?
Less progress has been made in converting the targets used for medical radioisotope production to LEU, although South Africa is converting one. Other countries, including Argentina and Australia, are already using LEU for this purpose. I think that the companies who produce radioisotopes are inclined to convert, but they are concerned about costs and the effect on the price of their products. A 2009 report by the US National Academies, however, found that there was no technical obstacle to converting, and that it would cause at most a 10% increase in the cost of medical imaging.
What should happen next?
We need to move on from debating whether it is economically or technically viable to convert HEU reactors and targets, and push ahead with doing it. The non-proliferation stakes are too high to do otherwise.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Mexico eyes up to 10 new nuclear plants by 2028
http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINN1220778320100512
Thu May 13, 2010 2:12am
LA JOLLA, Calif., May 12 (Reuters) - Mexico may build up to 10 new nuclear power stations by 2028 under one scenario being evaluated by the state electricity monopoly, the company said in a presentation on Wednesday.
Mexico's Federal Electricity Commission, or CFE, currently has four scenarios for new power generation capacity from 2019- 28 that range from a heavy reliance on coal-fired power plants to meet growing demand to a low-carbon scenario that calls for big investments in nuclear and wind power, said Eugenio Laris, who is in charge of investment projects at the company.
Mexico currently operates a single nuclear power station at Laguna Verde in the state of Veracruz along the Gulf of Mexico.
Construction of the plant, which entered commercial operation in the 1990s, took nearly 20 years and the high cost of developing nuclear power stations has so far deterred the CFE from building another.
However, the government of President Felipe Calderon has made tackling climate change a priority. Calderon has promised to make voluntary cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by reducing natural gas flaring and through more efficient use of energy. He has indicated his willingness to further cut Mexico's carbon emissions with financial assistance from wealthier nations.
Under the most aggressive scenario, nuclear energy would supply nearly a quarter of Mexico's power needs by 2028, which would allow the country's carbon emissions from power generation to remain virtually unchanged from 2008 despite projections of substantially higher demand.
By contrast the coal-reliant scenario calls for the building of 14 coal-fired generation stations that would double carbon emissions over the same period. (Reporting by Robert Campbell; Editing by David Gregorio)
Thu May 13, 2010 2:12am
LA JOLLA, Calif., May 12 (Reuters) - Mexico may build up to 10 new nuclear power stations by 2028 under one scenario being evaluated by the state electricity monopoly, the company said in a presentation on Wednesday.
Mexico's Federal Electricity Commission, or CFE, currently has four scenarios for new power generation capacity from 2019- 28 that range from a heavy reliance on coal-fired power plants to meet growing demand to a low-carbon scenario that calls for big investments in nuclear and wind power, said Eugenio Laris, who is in charge of investment projects at the company.
Mexico currently operates a single nuclear power station at Laguna Verde in the state of Veracruz along the Gulf of Mexico.
Construction of the plant, which entered commercial operation in the 1990s, took nearly 20 years and the high cost of developing nuclear power stations has so far deterred the CFE from building another.
However, the government of President Felipe Calderon has made tackling climate change a priority. Calderon has promised to make voluntary cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by reducing natural gas flaring and through more efficient use of energy. He has indicated his willingness to further cut Mexico's carbon emissions with financial assistance from wealthier nations.
Under the most aggressive scenario, nuclear energy would supply nearly a quarter of Mexico's power needs by 2028, which would allow the country's carbon emissions from power generation to remain virtually unchanged from 2008 despite projections of substantially higher demand.
By contrast the coal-reliant scenario calls for the building of 14 coal-fired generation stations that would double carbon emissions over the same period. (Reporting by Robert Campbell; Editing by David Gregorio)
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Saudi Arabia to Create First Nuclear City in Kingdom
http://www.us-sabc.org/custom/news/details.cfm?id=640
April 18, 2010 – Saudi government officials recently announced plans to build the first ever peaceful nuclear energy program in the Kingdom. The King Abdullah City for Nuclear and Renewable Energy will be located in Riyadh and is designed to meet Saudi Arabia’s growing needs for energy and desalinated water. Nuclear reactors built on the site will provide renewable, clean energy while simultaneously desalinating drinking water for the country’s citizens. The use of nuclear energy also means more sustainable and export-oriented plans for the Kingdoms’ vast hydrocarbon resources. In an effort to encourage private investment in the new city, all machinery and equipment imported for scientific activities will be exempted from taxes and tariffs. The new King Abdullah City for Nuclear and Renewable Energy will be supervised by a 13-member council, which will be responsible for national policy on nuclear energy development, supervising all commercial use of nuclear power, and handling of radioactive waste, as well as representing Saudi Arabia to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
April 18, 2010 – Saudi government officials recently announced plans to build the first ever peaceful nuclear energy program in the Kingdom. The King Abdullah City for Nuclear and Renewable Energy will be located in Riyadh and is designed to meet Saudi Arabia’s growing needs for energy and desalinated water. Nuclear reactors built on the site will provide renewable, clean energy while simultaneously desalinating drinking water for the country’s citizens. The use of nuclear energy also means more sustainable and export-oriented plans for the Kingdoms’ vast hydrocarbon resources. In an effort to encourage private investment in the new city, all machinery and equipment imported for scientific activities will be exempted from taxes and tariffs. The new King Abdullah City for Nuclear and Renewable Energy will be supervised by a 13-member council, which will be responsible for national policy on nuclear energy development, supervising all commercial use of nuclear power, and handling of radioactive waste, as well as representing Saudi Arabia to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Several African States actively preparing to join the nuclear energy club
http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/several-african-states-actively-preparing-to-join-the-nuclear-energy-club-2010-04-01
By: Keith Campbell
1st April 2010
How many countries in Africa have operational nuclear reactors? And just how many operational reactors are there on the continent? The answers are seven and eleven. Not many, but more than generally realised. The countries concerned are Algeria, Egypt, Ghana, Libya, Morocco, Nigeria and South Africa.
South Africa has three reactors – one research reactor, at Pelindaba, west of Pretoria and two pressurised water reactors which power the French-designed and built Koeberg nuclear power plant (NPP) near Cape Town. The other countries operate only research reactors, one each, except for Algeria and Egypt, which have two each. (Research reactors do not generate electricity and are much smaller and simpler than the reactors used in NPPs). But this situation is set to change quite significantly over the next 20 years.
All these countries, except Ghana and Libya, attended last month’s International Conference on Access to Civil Nuclear Energy, in Paris, as did Namibia, Senegal and Tunisia. All, except South Africa, were represented by Ministers. And all these countries, including Ghana and Libya, are interested in developing or, in the case of South Africa, expanding, nuclear power.
Indeed, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been providing assistance to Algeria, Egypt, Ghana, Libya, Morocco, Nigeria and Tunisia, besides other African states, for studies regarding the adoption of nuclear energy as a means of generating electricity by these countries.
Further, during the past 20 or so months, the governments of Algeria, Libya and Tunisia have signed agreements with the government of France establishing frameworks within which France will provide these countries with the expertise necessary to allow them to add nuclear power to their national energy matrices. Egypt has had such an agreement with France for some time now – although dormant for a number of years, it has more recently been reactivated.
The agency responsible for implementing these assistance programmes is the French International Nuclear Agency (abbreviated to AFNI in French), which was set up in June 2008 and is an institution of the country’s Atomic Energy Commission. The AFNI is responsible for for bilateral relations between France and countries which are starting nuclear energy programmes. It does not handle relations with countries which already have nuclear energy. Thus, the AFNI is not involved in French nuclear energy relations with South Africa.
The main role of the AFNI is to build the nuclear capacity in the partner countries. It identifies competences that these new nuclear energy countries already have, and what they lack. Assistance is set up according to each partner country’s needs. The AFNI is a governmental organisation and not a company and is run on a not-for-profit basis. It is not an aid agency – the partner country, not France, pays for the AFNI’s services.
Algeria and Libya are at the very beginning of this cooperation process and have not yet made specific requests for assistance. Egypt and Tunisia are more advanced in the process. Egypt is seeking help in the training of personnel in the nuclear energy field. Although it signed the framework agreement with France in April 2009, Tunisia has already made specific requests of France, apparently focused on matters regarding nuclear energy infra- structure. The AFNI has responded with proposals and is awaiting Tunisian agreement.
AFRICA'S ASPIRANT NUCLEAR CLUB MEMBERS
At least four African Ministers addressed last month’s conference in Paris. “The use of energy is important, especially for countries in development,” stated Namibian Mines and Energy Minister Erkki Nghimtina. “Nuclear power plants are one of the options to produce energy and water. A growing number of countries recognise the role of nuclear energy,” pointed out Egyptian Electricity and Energy Minister Hassan Younes. “Civil nuclear power is increasingly a viable alternative to fossil fuels, which are very polluting,” affirmed Moroccan Energy, Mines, Water and Environment Minister Amina Benkhadra. “Our energy production is mainly [fossil fuel] thermal. It has been hit hard by the volatility in energy prices,” reported Senegalese Energy Minister Samuel Amete Sarr. “Alternative forms of energy, in parti-cular nuclear, will play an important role in the future.”
Egypt should have had NPPs decades ago. Younes explained that his country first considered nuclear energy in the 1960s and by the 1980s had developed ambitious plans for NPPs. However, this programme was brought to a complete halt by the 1986 nuclear disaster at Chernobyl, in Ukraine.
But times have changed. “Egypt is a medium-sized energy user and a regional hub. Electricity reaches 99% of the Egyptian population. Egypt has been motivated to reconsider nuclear power because of our limited fossil fuel resources and near [full] capacity on hydropower,” elucidated Younes. “Nuclear is technically and economically viable and will help reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Egypt has a programme to establish 4 000 MW of nuclear power by 2025.” (For comparison, South Africa’s Koeberg NPP has a design capacity of 1 800 MW from its two 900-MW reactors).
The Egyptian government is, in cooperation with the IAEA, taking the necessary steps to inaugurate its NPP programme, and will establish an independent nuclear regulatory authority. The country supports all initiatives to increase access to nuclear energy, provided it is done in accordance with the requirements and regulations of the IAEA and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). (Egypt signed the NPT in 1981). “Egypt appreciates the assistance from the IAEA to developing countries,” affirmed Younes.
Namibia also plans to adopt nuclear power as a source of energy over the next 15 to 20 years. “We have made a decision to build a nuclear power plant,” confirmed Nghimtina. “We’re saying it will be built in the future. It will be a long process. But we have to start preparing now. Our policy is that, by 2030, Namibia will be an industrial country, and to be an industrial country you need energy.” There is no firm target date yet for the commissioning of the projected nuclear power plant; however, this is likely to happen in the second half of the next decade, although an earlier date is not impossible.
In his address to the Paris conference, Nghimtina pointed out that “Namibia produces large quantities of uranium, but struggles to meet its electricity needs”. The country currently generates about 400 MW of electricity, but this figure falls by some 35% during the dry season because of the country’s dependence on hydroelectricity and the reduction in the river flow during the dry period.
“There is a significant shortfall between local generation and local demand,” he pointed out, with the result that Namibia imports as much as 60% of its power from South Africa and other Southern African Development Community countries. “Namibia has decided to diversify its energy mix.”
The country’s variable rainfall and frequent droughts (as well as occasional floods) were factors causing Namibia to look at the option of nuclear energy. Namibia is now seeking to create a comprehensive legal framework for nuclear energy and set up an independent nuclear regulator.
“Morocco, a developing country that is growing fast, does not have energy sources,” highlighted Benkhadra in her speech. “We would like to diversify our energy mix, including renewables and energy efficiency, but we hope, by 2020 to 2030, to have nuclear energy.”
The country’s electricity demand is increasing at 8% a year and its generating capacity will have to increase threefold to fivefold by 2030.
“We have voted a number of laws which have legislated for the [nuclear] sector,” she reported. “We intend to set up a nuclear safety commission.” Morocco believes that developing countries, provided they adhere to the NPT, must have access to the new nuclear technologies, which are characterised by greater safety and security.
The country has a nuclear study centre and, thanks to its 2-MW research reactor, some training and experience in nuclear. “Human resources are vital to the development of this form of energy,” she pointed out. “We have been working with universities and a number of our universities now have nuclear power training courses.” Moroccans are also taking practical training courses in partner insti- tutions abroad.
“We realise that launching nuclear power for electricity generation will require greater efforts still. We think that training is absolutely vital. It is part of a long-term vision. Govern-ment must take responsibility. We need to develop skills, linked with know-how transfer from [NPP] vendor countries.” Benkhadra paid tribute to the IAEA, France and the US for their support for Morocco in the nuclear sphere.
Senegal ratified the major international conventions of the IAEA in 2008 and has adhered to the NPT. The country plans on implementing an infrastructure development programme between 2012 and 2020 (until 2012 Senegal is focused on reducing its debt). Hopefully, this will see the commissioning of an NPP in 2020.
“We have already produced our first report on nuclear safety and the disposal of nuclear waste,” said Sarr. “We have established a legal framework for the use of radioactive sources. We have shown our determination to move towards civil nuclear energy in a rational way.”
The country is interested in international cooperation in order to strengthen its human resources. Sarr also emphasised that nuclear has been recognised as an alternative source of energy for Africa by the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (better known as Nepad).
MODERN NUCLEAR: CAPITAL INTENSIVE AND LONG TERM
NPPs are major and long-term investments. “The timescale is almost a hundred years from planning to decommissioning,” said Benkhadra of Morocco’s NPP project.
Gérard Mestrallet, CEO of the Paris Bourse-listed French energy group GDF-Suez also stressed that a modern NPP programme would last a century, from the start of planning to the finishing of post-decommissioning clean-up. “Nuclear projects are extremely capital intensive, but their operating costs are much lower. Their construction time is two to four times longer than conventional plants, but their operational life is also much longer – two to three times longer.” Given such a timescale, some kind of government involvement or support in an NPP programme is necessary, as, over such a period, “only governments can provide stability”.
For many developing countries, the capital investments required for NPPs are very big in comparison with the size of their economies. As French President Nicholas Sarkozy pointed out in his speech opening the conference, the fact that civilian nuclear power required an initial investment of billions of euros followed by very low operating costs necessitated long-term funding at reasonable rates.
“The conditions of financing can have a major impact on the final cost of the electri- city – hence, the importance of State credit financing agencies,” stated the head of the Bilateral Relations and International Business Development Service of the French Ministry of the Economy, Industry and Employment, Jean-Marie Paugam. “France has 30 years of experience, starting from South Africa in the 1970s. We have learnt some lessons. You have to start thinking of finance very early in the process, especially countries with no experience in nuclear. Second, you need a straightforward approach. You need a good balance between debt and capital and risk-sharing between the government and the private sector.”
Paugam argued that the best solution to the financing issue seemed to be export credit guarantees from the NPP vendor countries, although, he added, this was not the only solution. An alternative was private finance backed by government guarantees.
A major problem for developing countries seeking to adopt nuclear energy was that, currently, the major international financing agencies and regional development banks did not fund nuclear projects.
In his speech, Sarkozy announced that he was going to push international financial institutions to “eliminate the ostracism of nuclear energy in international financing”. He said: “Civil nuclear energy is an economic choice . . . . Frankly, I do not understand why international financial institutions and development banks do not finance civil nuclear energy projects. The current situation means that countries are condemned to rely on more costly energy that causes greater pollution. I propose to change all this. The World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the regional development banks must make a wholehearted commitment to finance such projects.”
He also attacked the fact that, currently, countries using nuclear energy could not obtain carbon credits through the Clean Development Mechanism, describing this situation as a “scandal” and blaming it on “outdated ideology”. These carbon credits could only be used to finance the other forms of decarbon-ised energy. As a consequence, developing countries’ investment choices were distorted. “We have a complete bias in investment decisions, which impact on the poorest countries. Therefore, I propose that carbon dioxide credits be used to finance all forms of decarbonised energy under the new global architecture after 2013.
“The quasi-theological opposition between nuclear energy and renewable-energy sources is out of date,” he asserted. “We need both. Of course, nuclear energy cannot reverse climate change on its own, but it will be necessary. It is a lie or an illusion to say otherwise.”
•Keith Campbell attended the International Conference on Access to Civil Nuclear Energy in Paris as a guest of the French government.
By: Keith Campbell
1st April 2010
How many countries in Africa have operational nuclear reactors? And just how many operational reactors are there on the continent? The answers are seven and eleven. Not many, but more than generally realised. The countries concerned are Algeria, Egypt, Ghana, Libya, Morocco, Nigeria and South Africa.
South Africa has three reactors – one research reactor, at Pelindaba, west of Pretoria and two pressurised water reactors which power the French-designed and built Koeberg nuclear power plant (NPP) near Cape Town. The other countries operate only research reactors, one each, except for Algeria and Egypt, which have two each. (Research reactors do not generate electricity and are much smaller and simpler than the reactors used in NPPs). But this situation is set to change quite significantly over the next 20 years.
All these countries, except Ghana and Libya, attended last month’s International Conference on Access to Civil Nuclear Energy, in Paris, as did Namibia, Senegal and Tunisia. All, except South Africa, were represented by Ministers. And all these countries, including Ghana and Libya, are interested in developing or, in the case of South Africa, expanding, nuclear power.
Indeed, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been providing assistance to Algeria, Egypt, Ghana, Libya, Morocco, Nigeria and Tunisia, besides other African states, for studies regarding the adoption of nuclear energy as a means of generating electricity by these countries.
Further, during the past 20 or so months, the governments of Algeria, Libya and Tunisia have signed agreements with the government of France establishing frameworks within which France will provide these countries with the expertise necessary to allow them to add nuclear power to their national energy matrices. Egypt has had such an agreement with France for some time now – although dormant for a number of years, it has more recently been reactivated.
The agency responsible for implementing these assistance programmes is the French International Nuclear Agency (abbreviated to AFNI in French), which was set up in June 2008 and is an institution of the country’s Atomic Energy Commission. The AFNI is responsible for for bilateral relations between France and countries which are starting nuclear energy programmes. It does not handle relations with countries which already have nuclear energy. Thus, the AFNI is not involved in French nuclear energy relations with South Africa.
The main role of the AFNI is to build the nuclear capacity in the partner countries. It identifies competences that these new nuclear energy countries already have, and what they lack. Assistance is set up according to each partner country’s needs. The AFNI is a governmental organisation and not a company and is run on a not-for-profit basis. It is not an aid agency – the partner country, not France, pays for the AFNI’s services.
Algeria and Libya are at the very beginning of this cooperation process and have not yet made specific requests for assistance. Egypt and Tunisia are more advanced in the process. Egypt is seeking help in the training of personnel in the nuclear energy field. Although it signed the framework agreement with France in April 2009, Tunisia has already made specific requests of France, apparently focused on matters regarding nuclear energy infra- structure. The AFNI has responded with proposals and is awaiting Tunisian agreement.
AFRICA'S ASPIRANT NUCLEAR CLUB MEMBERS
At least four African Ministers addressed last month’s conference in Paris. “The use of energy is important, especially for countries in development,” stated Namibian Mines and Energy Minister Erkki Nghimtina. “Nuclear power plants are one of the options to produce energy and water. A growing number of countries recognise the role of nuclear energy,” pointed out Egyptian Electricity and Energy Minister Hassan Younes. “Civil nuclear power is increasingly a viable alternative to fossil fuels, which are very polluting,” affirmed Moroccan Energy, Mines, Water and Environment Minister Amina Benkhadra. “Our energy production is mainly [fossil fuel] thermal. It has been hit hard by the volatility in energy prices,” reported Senegalese Energy Minister Samuel Amete Sarr. “Alternative forms of energy, in parti-cular nuclear, will play an important role in the future.”
Egypt should have had NPPs decades ago. Younes explained that his country first considered nuclear energy in the 1960s and by the 1980s had developed ambitious plans for NPPs. However, this programme was brought to a complete halt by the 1986 nuclear disaster at Chernobyl, in Ukraine.
But times have changed. “Egypt is a medium-sized energy user and a regional hub. Electricity reaches 99% of the Egyptian population. Egypt has been motivated to reconsider nuclear power because of our limited fossil fuel resources and near [full] capacity on hydropower,” elucidated Younes. “Nuclear is technically and economically viable and will help reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Egypt has a programme to establish 4 000 MW of nuclear power by 2025.” (For comparison, South Africa’s Koeberg NPP has a design capacity of 1 800 MW from its two 900-MW reactors).
The Egyptian government is, in cooperation with the IAEA, taking the necessary steps to inaugurate its NPP programme, and will establish an independent nuclear regulatory authority. The country supports all initiatives to increase access to nuclear energy, provided it is done in accordance with the requirements and regulations of the IAEA and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). (Egypt signed the NPT in 1981). “Egypt appreciates the assistance from the IAEA to developing countries,” affirmed Younes.
Namibia also plans to adopt nuclear power as a source of energy over the next 15 to 20 years. “We have made a decision to build a nuclear power plant,” confirmed Nghimtina. “We’re saying it will be built in the future. It will be a long process. But we have to start preparing now. Our policy is that, by 2030, Namibia will be an industrial country, and to be an industrial country you need energy.” There is no firm target date yet for the commissioning of the projected nuclear power plant; however, this is likely to happen in the second half of the next decade, although an earlier date is not impossible.
In his address to the Paris conference, Nghimtina pointed out that “Namibia produces large quantities of uranium, but struggles to meet its electricity needs”. The country currently generates about 400 MW of electricity, but this figure falls by some 35% during the dry season because of the country’s dependence on hydroelectricity and the reduction in the river flow during the dry period.
“There is a significant shortfall between local generation and local demand,” he pointed out, with the result that Namibia imports as much as 60% of its power from South Africa and other Southern African Development Community countries. “Namibia has decided to diversify its energy mix.”
The country’s variable rainfall and frequent droughts (as well as occasional floods) were factors causing Namibia to look at the option of nuclear energy. Namibia is now seeking to create a comprehensive legal framework for nuclear energy and set up an independent nuclear regulator.
“Morocco, a developing country that is growing fast, does not have energy sources,” highlighted Benkhadra in her speech. “We would like to diversify our energy mix, including renewables and energy efficiency, but we hope, by 2020 to 2030, to have nuclear energy.”
The country’s electricity demand is increasing at 8% a year and its generating capacity will have to increase threefold to fivefold by 2030.
“We have voted a number of laws which have legislated for the [nuclear] sector,” she reported. “We intend to set up a nuclear safety commission.” Morocco believes that developing countries, provided they adhere to the NPT, must have access to the new nuclear technologies, which are characterised by greater safety and security.
The country has a nuclear study centre and, thanks to its 2-MW research reactor, some training and experience in nuclear. “Human resources are vital to the development of this form of energy,” she pointed out. “We have been working with universities and a number of our universities now have nuclear power training courses.” Moroccans are also taking practical training courses in partner insti- tutions abroad.
“We realise that launching nuclear power for electricity generation will require greater efforts still. We think that training is absolutely vital. It is part of a long-term vision. Govern-ment must take responsibility. We need to develop skills, linked with know-how transfer from [NPP] vendor countries.” Benkhadra paid tribute to the IAEA, France and the US for their support for Morocco in the nuclear sphere.
Senegal ratified the major international conventions of the IAEA in 2008 and has adhered to the NPT. The country plans on implementing an infrastructure development programme between 2012 and 2020 (until 2012 Senegal is focused on reducing its debt). Hopefully, this will see the commissioning of an NPP in 2020.
“We have already produced our first report on nuclear safety and the disposal of nuclear waste,” said Sarr. “We have established a legal framework for the use of radioactive sources. We have shown our determination to move towards civil nuclear energy in a rational way.”
The country is interested in international cooperation in order to strengthen its human resources. Sarr also emphasised that nuclear has been recognised as an alternative source of energy for Africa by the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (better known as Nepad).
MODERN NUCLEAR: CAPITAL INTENSIVE AND LONG TERM
NPPs are major and long-term investments. “The timescale is almost a hundred years from planning to decommissioning,” said Benkhadra of Morocco’s NPP project.
Gérard Mestrallet, CEO of the Paris Bourse-listed French energy group GDF-Suez also stressed that a modern NPP programme would last a century, from the start of planning to the finishing of post-decommissioning clean-up. “Nuclear projects are extremely capital intensive, but their operating costs are much lower. Their construction time is two to four times longer than conventional plants, but their operational life is also much longer – two to three times longer.” Given such a timescale, some kind of government involvement or support in an NPP programme is necessary, as, over such a period, “only governments can provide stability”.
For many developing countries, the capital investments required for NPPs are very big in comparison with the size of their economies. As French President Nicholas Sarkozy pointed out in his speech opening the conference, the fact that civilian nuclear power required an initial investment of billions of euros followed by very low operating costs necessitated long-term funding at reasonable rates.
“The conditions of financing can have a major impact on the final cost of the electri- city – hence, the importance of State credit financing agencies,” stated the head of the Bilateral Relations and International Business Development Service of the French Ministry of the Economy, Industry and Employment, Jean-Marie Paugam. “France has 30 years of experience, starting from South Africa in the 1970s. We have learnt some lessons. You have to start thinking of finance very early in the process, especially countries with no experience in nuclear. Second, you need a straightforward approach. You need a good balance between debt and capital and risk-sharing between the government and the private sector.”
Paugam argued that the best solution to the financing issue seemed to be export credit guarantees from the NPP vendor countries, although, he added, this was not the only solution. An alternative was private finance backed by government guarantees.
A major problem for developing countries seeking to adopt nuclear energy was that, currently, the major international financing agencies and regional development banks did not fund nuclear projects.
In his speech, Sarkozy announced that he was going to push international financial institutions to “eliminate the ostracism of nuclear energy in international financing”. He said: “Civil nuclear energy is an economic choice . . . . Frankly, I do not understand why international financial institutions and development banks do not finance civil nuclear energy projects. The current situation means that countries are condemned to rely on more costly energy that causes greater pollution. I propose to change all this. The World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the regional development banks must make a wholehearted commitment to finance such projects.”
He also attacked the fact that, currently, countries using nuclear energy could not obtain carbon credits through the Clean Development Mechanism, describing this situation as a “scandal” and blaming it on “outdated ideology”. These carbon credits could only be used to finance the other forms of decarbon-ised energy. As a consequence, developing countries’ investment choices were distorted. “We have a complete bias in investment decisions, which impact on the poorest countries. Therefore, I propose that carbon dioxide credits be used to finance all forms of decarbonised energy under the new global architecture after 2013.
“The quasi-theological opposition between nuclear energy and renewable-energy sources is out of date,” he asserted. “We need both. Of course, nuclear energy cannot reverse climate change on its own, but it will be necessary. It is a lie or an illusion to say otherwise.”
•Keith Campbell attended the International Conference on Access to Civil Nuclear Energy in Paris as a guest of the French government.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
U.S., Vietnam sign nuclear energy agreement
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/world/world_govtpolitics/article/VIETGAT30_20100330-061201/333898/#When:10:12:01Z
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 30, 2010
HANOI, Vietnam -- The United States and Vietnam signed an agreement today that may pave the way for U.S. firms to help build nuclear plants in the Southeast Asian country as it strives to meet booming energy demand.
The new agreement addresses nuclear safety and nonproliferation concerns and is a prerequisite to a deal that could allow companies like Westinghouse and General Electric to participate in Vietnam's nuclear energy sector.
"This is an important moment in our bilateral relations," U.S. Ambassador Michael Michalak said during a signing ceremony with Le Dinh Tien, Vietnam's vice minister of science and technology.
Michalak also announced that Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung will attend a nuclear security summit hosted by President Barack Obama in Washington next month.
Today's agreement was a "key step" in advancing nonproliferation goals and developing the peaceful use of nuclear energy in Vietnam, Michalak said.
Vietnam's demand for power is expected to grow by 16 percent a year until 2015, according to government projections, and the country's booming economy has made it difficult for supply to keep pace with demand.
Vietnam has already signed nuclear energy cooperation agreements with Russia, China, France, South Korea, India and Argentina, Tien said.
"This is an important step to further cooperation between Vietnam and the U.S. on nuclear energy," Tien said.
In November, Vietnam's National Assembly approved the construction of two nuclear power plants in the central province of Ninh Thuan.
Last year, Vietnam signed a deal with Russia under which a Russian firm will help build the first plant. Construction is to start in 2014 and be completed in 2020.
Michalak said it could take six months to a year to negotiate a broader agreement that would facilitate the participation of U.S. firms in Vietnam's nuclear power sector.
"U.S. companies can provide the most efficient technology, the most advanced equipment and the most comprehensive services available," Michalak said.
Michalak said it was "only fitting" for the former foes to deepen their cooperation this year, 35 years after the end of the Vietnam War and 15 years after they re-established diplomatic ties.
-- The Associated Press
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 30, 2010
HANOI, Vietnam -- The United States and Vietnam signed an agreement today that may pave the way for U.S. firms to help build nuclear plants in the Southeast Asian country as it strives to meet booming energy demand.
The new agreement addresses nuclear safety and nonproliferation concerns and is a prerequisite to a deal that could allow companies like Westinghouse and General Electric to participate in Vietnam's nuclear energy sector.
"This is an important moment in our bilateral relations," U.S. Ambassador Michael Michalak said during a signing ceremony with Le Dinh Tien, Vietnam's vice minister of science and technology.
Michalak also announced that Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung will attend a nuclear security summit hosted by President Barack Obama in Washington next month.
Today's agreement was a "key step" in advancing nonproliferation goals and developing the peaceful use of nuclear energy in Vietnam, Michalak said.
Vietnam's demand for power is expected to grow by 16 percent a year until 2015, according to government projections, and the country's booming economy has made it difficult for supply to keep pace with demand.
Vietnam has already signed nuclear energy cooperation agreements with Russia, China, France, South Korea, India and Argentina, Tien said.
"This is an important step to further cooperation between Vietnam and the U.S. on nuclear energy," Tien said.
In November, Vietnam's National Assembly approved the construction of two nuclear power plants in the central province of Ninh Thuan.
Last year, Vietnam signed a deal with Russia under which a Russian firm will help build the first plant. Construction is to start in 2014 and be completed in 2020.
Michalak said it could take six months to a year to negotiate a broader agreement that would facilitate the participation of U.S. firms in Vietnam's nuclear power sector.
"U.S. companies can provide the most efficient technology, the most advanced equipment and the most comprehensive services available," Michalak said.
Michalak said it was "only fitting" for the former foes to deepen their cooperation this year, 35 years after the end of the Vietnam War and 15 years after they re-established diplomatic ties.
-- The Associated Press
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Bill Gates, Toshiba in early talks on nuclear reactor
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100323/ts_afp/japannuclearusgatescompanytoshiba
Tue Mar 23, 1:37 am ET
TOKYO (AFP) – A company backed by Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Toshiba are in early talks to jointly develop a small nuclear reactor, the Japanese electronics giant said Tuesday.
The Nikkei business daily earlier reported that the two sides would team up to develop a compact next-generation reactor that can operate for up to 100 years without refueling to provide emission-free energy.
The daily said the joint development would focus on the Traveling-Wave Reactor (TWR), which consumes depleted uranium as fuel. Current light-water reactors require refueling every few years.
"Toshiba has entered into preliminary talks with TerraPower," said Toshiba spokesman Keisuke Ohmori. "We are looking into the possibility of working together."
Gates is the principal owner of TerraPower, an expert team based in the US state of Washington that is investigating ways to improve emission-free energy supplies using small nuclear reactors.
Unlike the current reactors at mega power plants, the smaller types could be introduced by cities or states or in developing countries more easily.
Ohmori said Gates, together with other TerraPower executives, had visited a Toshiba laboratory for nuclear power research near Tokyo last year.
"TerraPower is developing a small nuclear reactor and Toshiba is developing a different kind of small reactor. They were interested in Toshiba's technology and aiming at practical realisation" of small reactors, he said.
Ohmori said the two sides had just begun to "exchange information" but stressed that "nothing concrete has been decided on development or investment."
Gates is expected to use his personal wealth to back the development of TWRs and his investment could reach several billion dollars, the Nikkei said.
The news boosted Toshiba's share price by around four percent Tuesday.
The Nikkei said TerraPower had decided to join hands with Toshiba as it lacks the know-how to manufacture nuclear power equipment.
Toshiba, which owns US nuclear plant maker Westinghouse, has developed a design for an ultracompact reactor that can operate continuously for 30 years.
The company is preparing to apply for US approval to start constructing the first such reactor as early as 2014 and put it into practical use by the end of the decade, Ohmori said.
Tue Mar 23, 1:37 am ET
TOKYO (AFP) – A company backed by Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Toshiba are in early talks to jointly develop a small nuclear reactor, the Japanese electronics giant said Tuesday.
The Nikkei business daily earlier reported that the two sides would team up to develop a compact next-generation reactor that can operate for up to 100 years without refueling to provide emission-free energy.
The daily said the joint development would focus on the Traveling-Wave Reactor (TWR), which consumes depleted uranium as fuel. Current light-water reactors require refueling every few years.
"Toshiba has entered into preliminary talks with TerraPower," said Toshiba spokesman Keisuke Ohmori. "We are looking into the possibility of working together."
Gates is the principal owner of TerraPower, an expert team based in the US state of Washington that is investigating ways to improve emission-free energy supplies using small nuclear reactors.
Unlike the current reactors at mega power plants, the smaller types could be introduced by cities or states or in developing countries more easily.
Ohmori said Gates, together with other TerraPower executives, had visited a Toshiba laboratory for nuclear power research near Tokyo last year.
"TerraPower is developing a small nuclear reactor and Toshiba is developing a different kind of small reactor. They were interested in Toshiba's technology and aiming at practical realisation" of small reactors, he said.
Ohmori said the two sides had just begun to "exchange information" but stressed that "nothing concrete has been decided on development or investment."
Gates is expected to use his personal wealth to back the development of TWRs and his investment could reach several billion dollars, the Nikkei said.
The news boosted Toshiba's share price by around four percent Tuesday.
The Nikkei said TerraPower had decided to join hands with Toshiba as it lacks the know-how to manufacture nuclear power equipment.
Toshiba, which owns US nuclear plant maker Westinghouse, has developed a design for an ultracompact reactor that can operate continuously for 30 years.
The company is preparing to apply for US approval to start constructing the first such reactor as early as 2014 and put it into practical use by the end of the decade, Ohmori said.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Nuclear press confirmed for Sheffield Forgemasters
[This article presents a good snapshot of the state of ultra-forging capabilities around the globe.]
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Nuclear_press_confirmed_for_Sheffield_Forgemasters_1703101.html
17 March 2010
A UK manufacturer will be able to supply ultra-heavy forgings for nuclear power plants after a strategic government loan announced today.
The crucial addition of an £80 million ($122 million) loan was the final part of a two-year effort to finance a 15,000 tonne press at Sheffield Forgemasters capable of producing and finishing the largest reactor pressure vessels.
The government support, from the £950 million ($1.4 billion) Strategic Investment Fund, makes the up largest portion of the £140 million ($210 million) cost of the press. Other contributions came from reactor vendor Westinghouse and Lloyds Banking Group.
Sheffield Forgemasters already holds the 'N-Stamp' accreditation from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, "enabling it to roll out production of the largest forgings within as little as three years from the press' installation," according to chief executive Graham Honeywell.
With plans in the UK for a new Areva EPR to operate at the end of 2017, and three more following at 18-24 month intervals, it is conceivable that even early units could feature main forgings made in Britain.
The rest of the UK's build program comes later, with perhaps another by six to eight reactors by 2025. Reactor designs for the these units are yet to be selected, and Westinghouse is hopeful of some contracts. It said the new press "Puts the UK at the heart of its supply chain" and is consistent with its "buy where we build" approach to business. It has already used Sheffield Forgemasters to make main pump casings for Chinese projects.
According to a report by the Nuclear Industry Association, UK companies could supply about 50% of components for the country's forthcoming reactors but this figure could reach 70% with the right investments, the new press being one key example.
The UK government is pleased that major components could be made domestically, but both it and Sheffield Forgemasters are also looking at exports. The company said it is now in 'pole position' to capitalize on worldwide demand for new reactors in coming years. Only a few other companies have the same kind of capability, it said. Firms such as Japan Steel Works, Doosan Heavy Industries of South Korea and China First Heavy Industries.
However, Doosan is planning a new large press to operate from around 2012, as is OMZ Izahora of Russia. Other entrants in the ultra-heavy market could include India's Bharat Heavy and Larsen & Toubro as well as Shanghai Electric.
Sheffield Forgemasters was not troubled by the future plans of other suppliers, commenting of other firms that "none will be able to achieve production in the same timescales..." in part due to the accreditation and experience some of them need to successfully supply the nuclear industry. Another factor will be the state-controlled nature of some firms and that domestic demand in China, Russia and India could keep their manufacturers fully booked.
The supply chain investment comes as part of the UK government's Low Carbon Transition Plan, which has already seen the establishment of the Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Centre and a 'Low Carbon Economic Area' for civil nuclear in the north west of England. The government said: "Together, these will create a region of excellence in the civil nuclear supply chain."
Researched and written
by World Nuclear News
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Nuclear_press_confirmed_for_Sheffield_Forgemasters_1703101.html
17 March 2010
A UK manufacturer will be able to supply ultra-heavy forgings for nuclear power plants after a strategic government loan announced today.
The crucial addition of an £80 million ($122 million) loan was the final part of a two-year effort to finance a 15,000 tonne press at Sheffield Forgemasters capable of producing and finishing the largest reactor pressure vessels.
The government support, from the £950 million ($1.4 billion) Strategic Investment Fund, makes the up largest portion of the £140 million ($210 million) cost of the press. Other contributions came from reactor vendor Westinghouse and Lloyds Banking Group.
Sheffield Forgemasters already holds the 'N-Stamp' accreditation from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, "enabling it to roll out production of the largest forgings within as little as three years from the press' installation," according to chief executive Graham Honeywell.
With plans in the UK for a new Areva EPR to operate at the end of 2017, and three more following at 18-24 month intervals, it is conceivable that even early units could feature main forgings made in Britain.
The rest of the UK's build program comes later, with perhaps another by six to eight reactors by 2025. Reactor designs for the these units are yet to be selected, and Westinghouse is hopeful of some contracts. It said the new press "Puts the UK at the heart of its supply chain" and is consistent with its "buy where we build" approach to business. It has already used Sheffield Forgemasters to make main pump casings for Chinese projects.
According to a report by the Nuclear Industry Association, UK companies could supply about 50% of components for the country's forthcoming reactors but this figure could reach 70% with the right investments, the new press being one key example.
The UK government is pleased that major components could be made domestically, but both it and Sheffield Forgemasters are also looking at exports. The company said it is now in 'pole position' to capitalize on worldwide demand for new reactors in coming years. Only a few other companies have the same kind of capability, it said. Firms such as Japan Steel Works, Doosan Heavy Industries of South Korea and China First Heavy Industries.
However, Doosan is planning a new large press to operate from around 2012, as is OMZ Izahora of Russia. Other entrants in the ultra-heavy market could include India's Bharat Heavy and Larsen & Toubro as well as Shanghai Electric.
Sheffield Forgemasters was not troubled by the future plans of other suppliers, commenting of other firms that "none will be able to achieve production in the same timescales..." in part due to the accreditation and experience some of them need to successfully supply the nuclear industry. Another factor will be the state-controlled nature of some firms and that domestic demand in China, Russia and India could keep their manufacturers fully booked.
The supply chain investment comes as part of the UK government's Low Carbon Transition Plan, which has already seen the establishment of the Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Centre and a 'Low Carbon Economic Area' for civil nuclear in the north west of England. The government said: "Together, these will create a region of excellence in the civil nuclear supply chain."
Researched and written
by World Nuclear News
Monday, March 15, 2010
Joining the Nuclear Club
[This is an interesting perspective on the UAE project and it even discusses the economic indifference line with respect to oil exports vs nuclear construction costs]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704187204575101542782683412.html
Despite an embarrassment of hydrocarbon riches, the U.A.E. is having trouble meeting domestic energy demands
By OLIVER KLAUS
It may seem odd for a country sitting on one of the world's largest oil and gas reserves, but the United Arab Emirates has an energy problem—one that it hopes to solve by building nuclear power plants.
Most of the power stations in the U.A.E. run on natural gas at present. But the country is running short of this commodity. Much of the gas that the country produces has already been sold through long-term export contracts or is being used to help extract oil or produce petrochemicals. The U.A.E. is already importing gas from neighboring Qatar, the only country in the region that doesn't face a gas shortage.
On top of this, every barrel of oil or cubic meter of natural gas that the country burns to meet its own energy needs is a barrel or cubic meter that it can't sell. With oil prices hovering around $70 to $80 a barrel, that adds up to quite an opportunity cost. Far better to export the country's hydrocarbon wealth and use some of the proceeds to invest in new energy sources to meet growing domestic demand.
Eckart Woertz, chief economist at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, says: "The idea behind developing nuclear energy is to have nuclear power for the base load [the minimum level of demand on an electrical supply system over 24 hours] and save gas, which is needed for petrochemicals, reinjection into oil fields and peak load generation."
The recently formed Emirates Nuclear Energy Corp., or Enec, the government body in charge of implementing the U.A.E.'s nuclear plans, predicts that domestic energy demand will rise by 9% a year between 2007 and 2020 to reach 40,858 megawatts (see accompanying chart). That is more than double the installed capacity now.
In recent years, the U.A.E., like its Gulf neighbors, has spent billions of dollars on developing infrastructure and industries such as aluminum, steel and petrochemicals to diversify the local economy and create jobs. This has increased energy demand. A growing population, combined with the region's harsh climate, where temperatures can easily exceed 50 degrees Celsius in the summer, has led to a surge in the use of air conditioning and water desalination plants.
This has prompted the U.A.E. to review its energy. In 2006, Abu Dhabi launched the Masdar green initiative to establish the emirate as a hub for alternative-energy resources and sustainable technologies. The aim is to generate 7% of Abu Dhabi's energy needs from renewables by 2020. However, this won't be sufficient to address the shortfall the country is facing in base load power.
Other options were studied but not considered feasible. Coal-fired power plants were ruled out because of their impact on the environment and the supply risks created by having to ship large amounts of coal through the narrow Strait of Hormuz. Another option, burning liquid fuels such as diesel or crude oil, was also rejected.
"Running power plants on fuel oil or crude oil is expensive and environmentally damaging," says Mr. Woertz of the Gulf Research Center. "The opportunity costs are considerable. It's more profitable to sell the oil on international markets."
According to Hans-Holger Rogner, head of the planning and economic studies section at the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.A.E.'s nuclear-power plans will be economically feasible despite the high construction cost if crude prices stay above the $70-a-barrel mark. The price tag for the country's first complex of four nuclear reactors, each with 1,400 megawatts of capacity, is $20.4 billion.
"If they sell the oil that they don't use on the world market for $70 a barrel, then a nuclear reactor is feasible," says Mr. Rogner. "It's clear, however, that if oil drops below $30 or $40, then it won't be as economical."
The country's nuclear-energy aspirations come at a critical time. Tensions in the region have been heightened by the controversial nuclear program in Iran, which is believed to harbor ambitions to develop atomic-weapon capabilities.
Unlike the Islamic republic, the U.A.E. has gone a long way to allay fears over nuclear security. The government has ruled out any fuel enrichment or reprocessing in the country, the two activities that could lead to the weaponization of nuclear fuel. The policy is enshrined in the U.A.E. Nuclear Law signed in October 2009.
"They don't have any fuel-cycle ambition, which is important for proliferation, and of course reduces anxieties in the whole region," says Mr. Rogner.
Last year, the U.A.E. and the IAEA signed the Additional Protocol to the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement, which establishes a procedure for inspecting nuclear facilities and operations. Bilateral nuclear cooperation pacts were signed with the U.S. and France. Separately, the government has set up a regulatory body headed by William Travers, the former executive director for operations of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Last month, the U.A.E. also announced that it had appointed former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix as the head of the country's new nuclear advisory board of experts.
Late last year, Enec awarded the contract to build the four nuclear plants to a team comprising Korea Electric Power Co., units of Samsung and Hyundai, and Westinghouse. The group beat off competition from U.S. and French companies. The first reactor, based on existing Korean plants, is due to be operational in 2017.
"These are leading companies that have construction experience with the design, and as such we look at it confidently," Mr. Rogner says.
Still, some questions remain, notably where the fuel for the nuclear plants will come from, especially in the long term.
"Just as countries in the West mull over where to get their crude from, people here will have to think about where to get the uranium from 20 to 30 years from now," says Mr. Woertz. "Uranium supplies are short, only 60% of world-wide demand is satisfied by mine production. The rest comes from dwindling stockpiles. If reprocessing facilities are not expanded rapidly, there is a problem."
The U.A.E. is seeking to conclude long-term arrangements with "reliable and responsible governments and contractors" for the secure supply of fuel. And Padraic Riley, Enec's director of external affairs and communications, says the government body is "developing fuel strategies and will have a robust supply chain."
If it fails, the U.A.E. may find itself searching for new electricity sources once again.
— Mr. Klaus is assistant managing editor, Middle East, for Dow Jones Newswires in Dubai. He can be reached at oliver.klaus@dowjones.com.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704187204575101542782683412.html
Despite an embarrassment of hydrocarbon riches, the U.A.E. is having trouble meeting domestic energy demands
By OLIVER KLAUS
It may seem odd for a country sitting on one of the world's largest oil and gas reserves, but the United Arab Emirates has an energy problem—one that it hopes to solve by building nuclear power plants.
Most of the power stations in the U.A.E. run on natural gas at present. But the country is running short of this commodity. Much of the gas that the country produces has already been sold through long-term export contracts or is being used to help extract oil or produce petrochemicals. The U.A.E. is already importing gas from neighboring Qatar, the only country in the region that doesn't face a gas shortage.
On top of this, every barrel of oil or cubic meter of natural gas that the country burns to meet its own energy needs is a barrel or cubic meter that it can't sell. With oil prices hovering around $70 to $80 a barrel, that adds up to quite an opportunity cost. Far better to export the country's hydrocarbon wealth and use some of the proceeds to invest in new energy sources to meet growing domestic demand.
Eckart Woertz, chief economist at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, says: "The idea behind developing nuclear energy is to have nuclear power for the base load [the minimum level of demand on an electrical supply system over 24 hours] and save gas, which is needed for petrochemicals, reinjection into oil fields and peak load generation."
The recently formed Emirates Nuclear Energy Corp., or Enec, the government body in charge of implementing the U.A.E.'s nuclear plans, predicts that domestic energy demand will rise by 9% a year between 2007 and 2020 to reach 40,858 megawatts (see accompanying chart). That is more than double the installed capacity now.
In recent years, the U.A.E., like its Gulf neighbors, has spent billions of dollars on developing infrastructure and industries such as aluminum, steel and petrochemicals to diversify the local economy and create jobs. This has increased energy demand. A growing population, combined with the region's harsh climate, where temperatures can easily exceed 50 degrees Celsius in the summer, has led to a surge in the use of air conditioning and water desalination plants.
This has prompted the U.A.E. to review its energy. In 2006, Abu Dhabi launched the Masdar green initiative to establish the emirate as a hub for alternative-energy resources and sustainable technologies. The aim is to generate 7% of Abu Dhabi's energy needs from renewables by 2020. However, this won't be sufficient to address the shortfall the country is facing in base load power.
Other options were studied but not considered feasible. Coal-fired power plants were ruled out because of their impact on the environment and the supply risks created by having to ship large amounts of coal through the narrow Strait of Hormuz. Another option, burning liquid fuels such as diesel or crude oil, was also rejected.
"Running power plants on fuel oil or crude oil is expensive and environmentally damaging," says Mr. Woertz of the Gulf Research Center. "The opportunity costs are considerable. It's more profitable to sell the oil on international markets."
According to Hans-Holger Rogner, head of the planning and economic studies section at the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.A.E.'s nuclear-power plans will be economically feasible despite the high construction cost if crude prices stay above the $70-a-barrel mark. The price tag for the country's first complex of four nuclear reactors, each with 1,400 megawatts of capacity, is $20.4 billion.
"If they sell the oil that they don't use on the world market for $70 a barrel, then a nuclear reactor is feasible," says Mr. Rogner. "It's clear, however, that if oil drops below $30 or $40, then it won't be as economical."
The country's nuclear-energy aspirations come at a critical time. Tensions in the region have been heightened by the controversial nuclear program in Iran, which is believed to harbor ambitions to develop atomic-weapon capabilities.
Unlike the Islamic republic, the U.A.E. has gone a long way to allay fears over nuclear security. The government has ruled out any fuel enrichment or reprocessing in the country, the two activities that could lead to the weaponization of nuclear fuel. The policy is enshrined in the U.A.E. Nuclear Law signed in October 2009.
"They don't have any fuel-cycle ambition, which is important for proliferation, and of course reduces anxieties in the whole region," says Mr. Rogner.
Last year, the U.A.E. and the IAEA signed the Additional Protocol to the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement, which establishes a procedure for inspecting nuclear facilities and operations. Bilateral nuclear cooperation pacts were signed with the U.S. and France. Separately, the government has set up a regulatory body headed by William Travers, the former executive director for operations of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Last month, the U.A.E. also announced that it had appointed former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix as the head of the country's new nuclear advisory board of experts.
Late last year, Enec awarded the contract to build the four nuclear plants to a team comprising Korea Electric Power Co., units of Samsung and Hyundai, and Westinghouse. The group beat off competition from U.S. and French companies. The first reactor, based on existing Korean plants, is due to be operational in 2017.
"These are leading companies that have construction experience with the design, and as such we look at it confidently," Mr. Rogner says.
Still, some questions remain, notably where the fuel for the nuclear plants will come from, especially in the long term.
"Just as countries in the West mull over where to get their crude from, people here will have to think about where to get the uranium from 20 to 30 years from now," says Mr. Woertz. "Uranium supplies are short, only 60% of world-wide demand is satisfied by mine production. The rest comes from dwindling stockpiles. If reprocessing facilities are not expanded rapidly, there is a problem."
The U.A.E. is seeking to conclude long-term arrangements with "reliable and responsible governments and contractors" for the secure supply of fuel. And Padraic Riley, Enec's director of external affairs and communications, says the government body is "developing fuel strategies and will have a robust supply chain."
If it fails, the U.A.E. may find itself searching for new electricity sources once again.
— Mr. Klaus is assistant managing editor, Middle East, for Dow Jones Newswires in Dubai. He can be reached at oliver.klaus@dowjones.com.
Friday, March 12, 2010
EB to have a hand in development of future U.S. nuclear power plants: Groton submarine builder tapped for its expertise in design, engineering work
http://www.poten.com/NewsDetails.aspx?id=10409855
Mar, 12, 2010 10:30 AM - Day, The (New London, CT)
Mar. 12--GROTON -- Electric Boat is part of a team that will propose a design for the next generation of U.S. nuclear power plants.
Building new nuclear reactors that can provide a source of clean energy is a key element in President Barack Obama's climate-change strategy.
U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced earlier this week that General Atomics in San Diego and Westinghouse Electric Co. in Pittsburgh would each be awarded $20 million for conceptual designs and planning for a smaller nuclear power plant capable of producing electricity and processing heat for industrial applications.
The results will help the Obama administration decide whether to proceed with the effort and build a demonstration plant.
EB has a tentative agreement with General Atomics to provide its expertise in modular design and manufacturing for the proposal.
"This is a relatively small effort that could involve a limited number of EB engineers and designers through this summer, whose task would be to ensure that any design is produceable and affordable," EB spokesman Robert Hamilton said in a statement. "We continue to look at commercial nuclear power as an adjacent market that might present some opportunity to the highly-skilled design and manufacturing work force resident at Electric Boat."
EB President John P. Casey has said in the past that he would look at nonmilitary endeavors as options for future work, including what role the company could play in the growing nuclear power industry.
About 16 percent of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions come from industrial-process heat applications. Steam from nuclear reactors could help reduce those emissions.
"This investment reflects President Obama's commitment to building the next generation of nuclear reactors that will create thousands of jobs and supply the clean energy to power our economy," Chu said in a statement. "It's time for America to recapture the lead in the nuclear energy industry and lay the foundation for a stronger, cleaner and more competitive economic future."
U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, said it was exciting to see that "Connecticut could be part of our country's energy solutions." He added that it was important to develop an energy system that is carbon-free and not dependent on foreign oil, to "help solve a lot of America's energy problems."
The conceptual designs are expected to be complete by Aug. 31.
j.grogan@theday.com
Mar, 12, 2010 10:30 AM - Day, The (New London, CT)
Mar. 12--GROTON -- Electric Boat is part of a team that will propose a design for the next generation of U.S. nuclear power plants.
Building new nuclear reactors that can provide a source of clean energy is a key element in President Barack Obama's climate-change strategy.
U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced earlier this week that General Atomics in San Diego and Westinghouse Electric Co. in Pittsburgh would each be awarded $20 million for conceptual designs and planning for a smaller nuclear power plant capable of producing electricity and processing heat for industrial applications.
The results will help the Obama administration decide whether to proceed with the effort and build a demonstration plant.
EB has a tentative agreement with General Atomics to provide its expertise in modular design and manufacturing for the proposal.
"This is a relatively small effort that could involve a limited number of EB engineers and designers through this summer, whose task would be to ensure that any design is produceable and affordable," EB spokesman Robert Hamilton said in a statement. "We continue to look at commercial nuclear power as an adjacent market that might present some opportunity to the highly-skilled design and manufacturing work force resident at Electric Boat."
EB President John P. Casey has said in the past that he would look at nonmilitary endeavors as options for future work, including what role the company could play in the growing nuclear power industry.
About 16 percent of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions come from industrial-process heat applications. Steam from nuclear reactors could help reduce those emissions.
"This investment reflects President Obama's commitment to building the next generation of nuclear reactors that will create thousands of jobs and supply the clean energy to power our economy," Chu said in a statement. "It's time for America to recapture the lead in the nuclear energy industry and lay the foundation for a stronger, cleaner and more competitive economic future."
U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, said it was exciting to see that "Connecticut could be part of our country's energy solutions." He added that it was important to develop an energy system that is carbon-free and not dependent on foreign oil, to "help solve a lot of America's energy problems."
The conceptual designs are expected to be complete by Aug. 31.
j.grogan@theday.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
