Nuclear Power Now and in the Future Nuclear Power ...

5 downloads 0 Views 3MB Size Report
Apr 25, 2006 - 3. 3.5. 4. 4.5. 5. '92. '94. '96. '97. '98. '99. '00. U.S. Nuclear. Plants ... Three Mile Island Unit 2 Accident ... Radiation Exposure & Health Effects.
Nuclear Nuclear Power Power Now Now and and in in the the Future Future American Physical Society Dallas, TX April 25, 2006 William E. Burchill, Ph.D. Department Head & HTRI Professor Nuclear Engineering Dept. Texas A&M University

U. S. Electricity Generation by Fuel (2005)

Oil 3.0%

Gas 18.6% Nuclear 19.4%

Hydro 6.4% Coal 49.9% Source: DOE EIA Updated 4/06

Renewable and Other 2.7%

~20% of U.S. Electricity Is Supplied by Nuclear Energy

U. S. Nuclear Power Plants

Nuclear Electricity Generation by Country (2004) 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Percent of Electricty Generated France

Lithuania Slovak RP

Belgium

Sweden Ukraine

Bulgaria

Switzerland Armenia

Slovenia

Korea Hungary

Germany Czeck Japan

Finland Spain USA

UK

Russia Canada

Romania Argentina S. Africa

Mexico

Netherlands Brazil

India

Pakistan China

15.6 15.0

22.9 19.9 19.4

33.8 32.1 31.2 29.3 26.6

41.6 40.0 38.8 38.8 37.9

10.1 8.2 6.6 5.2 3.8 3.0 2.8 2.4 Source: International Atomic Energy Agency - Updated 6/05 2.2

51.8 51.1

55.2 55.1

72.1

78.1

90

Nuclear Energy Safety Record No member of the public has ever been killed or injured in 40 years of nuclear energy use in the U.S. No nuclear power plant worker has ever been killed or injured due to nuclear energy causes in the U.S. U.S. Manufacturing

5 4.5

4.3 4.7

4.7

4.2

4.2

4

4

4 3.5

OSHA Accident Rates

3

U.S. Finance, Insurance, Real Estate

2.5

Accidents per 200,000 worker-hours

2 1.5

1.1

1 0.5

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Nuclear Energy Institute

0.9

0.8

0.8 0.6

0.77

0.64

0 '92

'94

0.7

0.46

0.45

0.29

0.34

'96

'97

'98

'99

0.7

U.S. Nuclear Plants

0.26

'00

It’s safer to work in a nuclear plant than in an office

Radiation During Normal Operation Worker Exposure 5.0

Annual dose limit under current regulations

Average Radiation Exposure Is Currently 25 Times Lower Than Regulated Limits

Avg. Measurable Dose (rem)

1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

19 7 19 3 7 19 4 7 19 5 7 19 6 7 19 7 7 19 8 7 19 9 8 19 0 8 19 1 8 19 2 8 19 3 8 19 4 8 19 5 8 19 6 8 19 7 8 19 8 8 19 9 9 19 0 9 19 1 9 19 2 9 19 3 9 19 4 9 19 5 9 19 6 9 19 7 9 19 8 9 20 9 0 20 0 0 20 1 0 20 2 03

0 Source: NRC; Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2003 (NUREG-0713). Updated 11/04

LWR

PWR

BWR

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Accident March 28, 1979

Major Causes of TMI-2 Accident* • Pre-existing plant equipment problems • Inadequate operator training • Inadequate instrumentation • Communication failures _________________ *”Report of the President’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island,” J. G. Kemeny, Chairman, U. S. Library of Congress Catalog Number 79-25694 (1979).

TMI-2 Accident Radiation Exposure & Health Effects • • • • •

Average dose within 50 miles = < 0.1 chest X-ray* Max possible off-site dose = ~ 4 chest X-rays* Max actual off-site dose = ~ 2 chest X-rays* Theoretical excess cancer fatality = 1/2,000,000 Normal cancer fatalities = 325,000/2,000,000 ____________ *1 chest X-ray ≈ 7% of annual average background radiation exposure per person in United States R. A. Knief, Nuclear Engineering – Theory and Technology of Commercial Nuclear Power, Hemisphere Publishing Corp. (1992)

TMI-2 Accident Consequences • • • • • • • • •

No deaths No injuries No significant radioactivity releases Ruined plant Billion $$ cleanup TMI Unit-1 shutdown for 6+ years Utility was near bankruptcy Major delays in new plant construction Loss of public confidence

Industry Improvements after TMI-2 Accident • Improved operator training – INPO* & NANT* formed; training programs accredited – Plant-specific training simulators installed at all plants

• Improved technical communications among owners, operators, equipment suppliers and regulators – Daily electronic messaging and databases

• New and improved equipment – New instrumentation for boiling, reactor water level, and reactor temperature – Many other equipment improvements and additions

• Improved emergency communications and planning – Technical Support Centers & Emergency Operations Facilities – Emergency Preparedness plans and organizations ____________________________ * INPO

– Institute for Nuclear Power Operations – grades plant performance NANT – National Academy for Nuclear Training – grades operator training

Chernobyl Accident April 26, 1986

Major Causes of Chernobyl Accident • Reactor Design (could not be licensed in U.S.) – – – –

Unstable response to power increase – multiplies power Slow reactor shutdown systems Safety systems easy to disable Very weak containment building

• Management (no effective independent regulator) – – – –

No review and approval of test plan Test manager knew nothing of reactor design problems Little/no reactor operator accident training Complacent-to-arrogant management attitudes

• Operator Errors (did not apply lessons learned from TMI) – Ignored warnings of plant instrumentation – Operated reactor outside of allowable limits – At least nine violations of operating procedures and limits

Chernobyl Accident Health Consequences Population

Number

• Early fatalities (non-radiation)

2 (immediate)

• Early fatalities (radiation)

28 (within 4 m)

• Late adult fatalities (radiation)

19 (as of 9/05)

• Late child fatalities (radiation)

9* (as of 9/05)

• Clinical psychological effects

~ 5,000,000

• Potential additional cancer deaths

4,000 (3% ∆ )

_____________ *All

thyroid cancer deaths in population of 4000 identified and treated cases.

Chernobyl Accident Economic Consequences • Unit 4 Recovery (Unit 4 entombment, site cleanup, area

decontamination, construct 21,000 houses & 15,000 apartments, evacuee compensation): ~$7B

• Replacement electric power: ~$7B (through 1997) • Chernobyl-type reactor (RBMK) modifications: ~$1B • Direct costs outside USSR: ~$1B • Chernobyl Units permanently shutdown • • • • • •

Unit 2 1991 Unit 1 1997 Unit 3 2000 Units 5 & 6 construction cancelled 2 RBMKs (Ignalina 1 & Leningrad 1) shutdown in 2004 11 other RBMKs scheduled to be shutdown from Feb. 2006 to July 2023

Chernobyl Accident Lessons Applied • Chernobyl-type reactor design • Design improvements made to improve safety of all Chernobyl-type plants • All Chernobyl reactors shutdown • All remaining Chernobyl-type reactors (RBMKs) to be shutdown

• Severe disciplinary actions • 10-year jail terms for Station Director, Chief Engineer, Deputy Chief Engr. • Lesser sentences for others

• International assistance • • • •

Major safety analyses of USSR reactor designs Operator training simulators and training programs Emergency operating procedures upgrades “Sister plant” exchanges

• Operations improvements • Management oversight • World Association of Nuclear Operators formed (similar to INPO on worldwide basis)

Nuclear Energy Cost Record Nuclear Energy cost is competitive with other generation 12.0

2004 cents per kilowatt-hour

Nuclear 1.68 Coal 1.92

10.0

Gas 5.87 8.0

Oil 5.39

6.0 4.0 2.0

20 04

20 03

20 02

20 01

20 00

19 99

19 98

19 97

19 96

19 95

0.0

Nuclear Energy costs less than any fossil fuel generation Source: EUCG and Energy Velocity Updated: 6/05

Nuclear Energy Capacity Factor Record Overall NPP capacity factor is steadily increasing

90.5%

Capacity Factor (%)

95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

Increases in capacity factor at 103 plants in the last 15 years is equal to building 26 new 1,000-MW plants Nuclear Energy Institute

Factors that Determine the Future • Operating record of current plants – safety: can not have another major accident – economics: continue to be competitive – community: continue to be “good neighbors” All required for public confidence to continue to increase

• Solution of currently-perceived issues – high-level radioactive waste disposition – security against potential terrorist attack – non-proliferation of potential weapons material

• Public understanding of risk – nuclear risk versus risk from other fuels – nuclear risk versus commonly accepted risks

Factors that Determine the Future • Advanced reactor designs (Generation III) – safety improvements provided by • evolutionary designs – improve reliability by redundant systems • passive designs – improve reliability using “forces of nature”

– must have no “first-of-a-kind” problems – must gain public acceptance as “good neighbors”

• Future reactor designs (Generation IV) – – – –

improve safety (reliability) by at least order of magnitude reduce high-level radioactive waste to be negligible eliminate potential for proliferation operate at much higher temperature • support hydrogen production

Operating Record – Safety

Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data

4.00 3.38 3.30

3.50

3.52

3.63

3.53

3.44 3.17

3.05

3.00

2.98 2.91

2.84

2.81 2.55 2.49

2.54

2.50

2.40

2.54 2.33 2.09

2.00

1.94

1.85 1.77 1.77

1.68

1.50 1.00 0.50

Source: FERC/EUCG – Updated 6/05

04

20

03

20

02

20

01

00

20

99

20

19

98

19

97

19

96

19

95

19

94

19

93

19

92

91

19

90

19

19

89

19

88

19

87

19

86

19

85

19

84

19

83

82

19

19

81

0.00 19

U.S. Average Nuclear Production Cost, 2004 ¢/kw-hr

Operating Record – Economics

Operating Record – Community

Source: Presentation by Richard Knapik, Mayor, Bay City, Texas about South Texas Project at 2005 Annual Meeting of Texas Institute for Advancement of Chemical Technology, Houston, Texas, April 29, 2005.

Public opinion on nuclear energy is improving 80

Favor

Oppose 61

49

51

52

50 49 50

51 51

54 52 54

46

58

42

65

67 70

70%

49 46

45 44 44

43

63 62

55

48 47 40

65

62

60

39

41 36 35

38 39

24%

36

34 30

29

31

33 29 26 24

20 M ay-05

Oct-04

April-04

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

Bisconti Research Inc.

1990

1989

1988

1987

1986

1985

1984

1983

Percent who favor or oppose use of nuclear energy in U.S.

Nuclear Energy Public Opinion Record

Issues – Radioactive Waste Disposition

Short-Term On-Site Storage at Nuclear Power Plants LongTerm Storage Yucca Long-Term Storage at Mountain Yucca Mountain

Ultimate Options: • Fuel Reprocessing ¾Recycle Fissile Material ¾Transmute High Level Waste ¾Vitrify Residual Waste

• As demonstrated currently in France, UK, Russia, Japan and India and previously in USA.

Issues – Security

Barriers

Guards

No-Man Zones

Gates

Surveillance

Guns

Issues – Non-Proliferation • What is proliferation? – diversion of weapons-grade (>90% enrichment) fissile (fissionable) material to make weapons – potential destinations: terrorists, rogue states

• What are current proliferation barriers? – international treaties – inspections, e.g., by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) under the United Nations – material accountability – physical protection – surveillance – co-mingling with highly radioactive material

Issues – Non-Proliferation • What are future solution options? – continue current barriers – prohibit reprocessing facilities in additional countries – prohibit enrichment facilities in additional countries – establish centralized world-oversight, e.g., U.N., of all weapons-grade material – reduce inventory of weapons-grade material by fission in power reactors – remove inventory of weapons-grade material from the biosphere • e.g., disposal in geologic formations, e.g., Yucca Mountain

Relative Risk Occupational Risk from Fuel Cycles Used for Electricity Production Fuel Cycle

Worker Impact, per GWyr

Public Impact, per GWyr

Fatal

Non-fatal

Fatal

Non-fatal

Coal

0.2 – 4.3

63

2.1 – 7.0

2,018

Oil

0.2 – 1.4

30

2.0 – 6.1

2,000

Gas

0.1 – 1.0

15

0.2 – 0.4

15

Nuclear

0.1 – 0.9

15

0.006 – 0.2

16

Source: Energy Systems and Sustainability, G. Boyle, et al, Oxford University Press, Table 13.4, page 527 (2003)

Relative Risk

Source: “Reactor Safety Study,” WASH-1400, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1975)

Nuclear Power Plant Development Timeline

U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth in One Decade Equivalent to 18 new 1,000-megawatt power plants

789

Million MWh

800

700

640 600

500 Source: EIA – Updated 3/05

1994

2004

Plant Applications for License Renewal 40 35

39 29

30 25 20 15

10

10 5 0 License Applications

License Applications

License Applications

Granted

Under NRC Review

Announced

Source: NRC – Updated 12/05

Currently Announced Applications for New NPP Licenses

New NPP License Applications Company

Design

Units

Date for Filing COL Application

Dominion

ESBWR

1

2007

NuStart Energy (TVA)

AP1000

2

2007

NuStart Energy (Entergy)

ESBWR

1

2007/2008

Entergy

ESBWR

1

2008

Southern Co.

AP1000

2

2008

Progress Energy

AP1000

4

2007/8

South Carolina Electric & Gas

AP1000

2

2007

Duke Energy

AP1000

2

2008

UniStar Nuclear

U.S. EPR

1 – (4)

2008

Schedule for New NPP Licenses

Current Nuclear Power Plant Construction World Nuclear Power Reactors Under Construction - 2006 Country

Units

Total MWe

Argentina

1

692

China

2

2,000

China, Taiwan

2

2,600

Finland

1

1,600

India

8

3,602

Iran

1

915

Japan

1

866

Pakistan

1

300

Romania

1

655

Russia

4

3,775

Ukraine

2

1,900

24

18,905

Total Source: International Atomic Energy Agency (Updated 1/06)

U.S. Generation IV Nuclear Reactor Plan

Nuclear Power in the Near Future

CONCLUSIONS • Current NPPs are operating safely and economically • Lessons from TMI-2 & Chernobyl have been applied • Several key factors determine nuclear energy’s future – Excellent operating record of currents plants – Solutions of currently-perceived issues – Public understanding of risk

• Current evidence indicates increased use of nuclear – Growing public acceptance – Announced applications for new NPP licenses – DOE/Industry plans for advanced reactor designs