Platts - Thursday, January 18, 2007 http://www.platts.com ------------ Senior Areva official criticizes EC's energy policy package London (Platts)--18Jan2007 A senior Areva official criticized the EC for not promoting nuclear power more openly in its recent energy policy package, proposed January 10. Jean- Pol Poncelet, adviser to Areva CEO Anne Lauvergeon and a former Belgian vice premier and energy minister, spoke January 17 at a Paris conference organized by the Energy and Development Club. Poncelet said that the European Commission's decision not to challenge EU countries that are planning to phase out nuclear reactors lacked "rationality" in light of nuclear's contribution to stemming climate change. Poncelet said nuclear power is one of the few available technologies that can really make a difference in the EU's carbon emissions between now and 2020, the planning period for the EC package. But, he said, the EC's refusal to make a "complete" case for more nuclear and to remove the political obstacles to new reactor construction means that Areva's competitors will get a head start in the coming world nuclear market. In the US, for example, the government is proposing financial incentives for new reactors. ------------ DOE won't drop repository work due to budget constraints: Sproat Washington (Platts)--17Jan2007 The US Department of Energy has no plans to "zero out" any aspect of its nuclear waste repository program as it "rebalances" the program's fiscal 2007 budget to reflect funding under a year-long continuing budget resolution, DOE waste program director Edward Sproat said Wednesday. Speaking at an Institute of Nuclear Materials Management annual spent fuel conference in Washington, Sproat said that some work associated with the repository project at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, might be slowed, but that no work would be eliminated as the program proceeds with a FY-06 funding level. Sproat declined to say what work might be affected, but said funding for "critical path" work, such as work on the repository design or on a repository license application that DOE intends to submit to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in June 2008, would not be trimmed. Meanwhile, DOE is looking to the nuclear industry to ensure its waste program has the right skill sets needed to oversee and manage the Yucca Mountain repository as its prepares for the future prospect it will be an NRC licensee, Sproat said. --Elaine Hiruo, elaine_hiruo@platts.com ------------ US nuclear refueling outages stable at 40-day average in H2 2006 Washington (Platts)--17Jan2007 Major maintenance and big-ticket component replacements continued to keep US nuclear refueling outages around a 40-day average in the second half of 2006, with a quarter of the 33 units refueling completing their outages in less than 30 days, according to Platts analysis. All but three units refueled in less than 60 days, with two of those replacing their steam generators. The shortest outage in the six months was conducted by Exelon at Braidwood-2, whose 424-hour turnaround was slightly longer than its previous 410-hour outage. In between, the reactor ran for a plant-record 528 days without going offline. The average capacity factor between refuelings for all 33 units was 96%. Operators typically perform major maintenance and heavy component replacement at refueling outages, when nuclear reactors must be shut down. More work has been needed in recent years as operators manage the aging of their plants, and the average time offline has settled at around 35-40 days for the last three years, with units refueling every 18-24 months. In the early 1990s, US units were commonly shut for 90-120 days for each refueling, but operators drove the time offline down to control the costs of both the outage itself and lost generation. If power is selling for $40/MWh, a typical 1,000-MW nuclear unit loses nearly $1 million every day it is shut. ------------ Doomsday clock advanced, signaling increased danger Washington (Platts)--17Jan2007 The atomic "doomsday clock" has been moved two minutes closer to midnight, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists said January 17. The move, which was announced at press conferences in Washington and London, puts the clock at five minutes before midnight. On the clock, midnight indicates "the figurative end of civilization," according to the Bulletin. The clock has traditionally been used to indicate the danger to the world from the threat of destruction by nuclear weapons. But the just-announced move also is due to the threat posed by climate change, the Bulletin said. "The dangers posed by climate change are nearly as dire as those posed by nuclear weapons," the Bulletin said in a press release. The Bulletin calls for "a serious and candid discussion about the potential expansion of nuclear power worldwide." Nuclear energy has been promoted in some quarters as part of the solution to climate change, but the Bulletin said that it raises "significant concerns." ------------ Benefits seen from Olkiluoto-3 management changes Stockholm (Platts)--16Jan2007 The Olkiluoto-3 project seems to be getting back on track, thanks to changes in Areva's management of the 1,600-MW EPR project, a senior Finnish regulator, Petteri Tiippana, told Platts January 15. Tiippana, head of the reactor project for the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority met with Areva NP Senior Vice President Xavier Jacob, Philippe Knoche, Areva's new OL3 project manager, and Knoche's deputy, Dominique Lanchet, on January 12. They discussed changes being made to improve quality control and information flow to subcontractors, Tiippana said. Both are areas that led to a 17-month delay on the project, according to turnkey supplier Areva and customer Teollisuuden Voima Oy. ------------ EC policy report links nuclear's future, emission reductions London (Platts)--16Jan2007 The future of nuclear power generation in the European Union will depend on the extent it is needed to avoid carbon emissions, according to a report issued this week by the European Commission toward a common EU energy policy. The EC stopped short of advocating nuclear power for the EU's 27 members, but it termed nuclear energy "one of the cheapest sources of low carbon energy that is presently produced in the EU." In making its assessment, the EC cited an estimate by the International Energy Agency's 2006 World Energy Outlook that "new nuclear power plants could produce electricity at a cost of less than 5 [US] cents per kWh if construction and operating risks are appropriately managed by plant vendors and power companies." At $10/ton of carbon dioxide emitted, that "makes nuclear competitive with coal-fired power stations," the IEA said. The report said each member state must decide whether to rely on nuclear electricity. "However, in the event that the level of nuclear energy reduces in the EU, it is essential that this reduction is phased in with the introduction of other low-carbon energy sources for electricity production; otherwise the objective of cutting emissions will be doubly difficult to meet." "It is therefore an inescapable conclusion that a significant reduction in the level of nuclear electricity produced in the EU compared to present levels will make the core objective of cutting emissions in a manner compatible with its competitiveness and security of supply even more challenging," the report said. The report said that, because worldwide use of nuclear energy is expected to increase, "there are therefore economic benefits in maintaining and developing the technological lead of the EU in this field." In recent months, nuclear advocates in industry and government had encouraged the EC to endorse the use and expansion of reactors to generate electricity in EU states. In Germany, some nuclear proponents had hoped that the EC report would provide support for a legal petition against the German phase-out on grounds of constitutional law (NW, 4 January, 5). Other European nuclear proponents hoped that, by setting challenging and binding emissions limits through 2020, the EC would de facto force Germany and other EU states to generate nuclear power to meet the targets. According to Brussels experts closely following preparation of the EC report, however, during the drafting of the report the EC made clear it would not formally endorse nuclear power. That's because governments in certain EU states ? particularly Italy, Ireland, Spain, and Austria ? are critical of nuclear power. Only a few states, including the Czech Republic and Lithuania, made formal statements to the EC during the negotiations clearly indicating that they were planning on increasing nuclear power production to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, sources said. Emissions limits Until the eleventh hour, member states battled fiercely over emissions limits and their enforcement. A draft version of the report leaked shortly before the final version was released on January 10 did not specify the EC's target for greenhouse gas emissions reductions to 2020. Thus far, the EU has committed itself only to a reduction of greenhouse gases by 8% from 1990 levels to 2012. Drafters of this week's EC report had proposed a reduction of 30% by 2020. According to Brussels sources, some European generators relying heavily on burning fossil fuels, supported by their governments, strongly objected to the 30% target. These sources said on January 8 that an EU consensus would be possible on a reduction target of no higher than 20%. The final report on January 10 established a target of 20%. While member states and their industries objected to strict targets, sources said that the EC will not give in easily. The EC is now battling with German utilities over enforcement of targets for the period 2008-2012. German utilities last fall agreed to reduce emissions credit volume from 499 million tons of carbon, for the current four-year period through 2007, to 465 million tons for 2008-2012. That was contingent on new, more efficient power plants being exempted from additional limits on emissions credits for 14 years. The German government supported the utility proposal; the EC opposes it. Last month, the EC decreed that German emission credits be limited to no more than 453 million tons, and it refused to exempt any new German power plants from the accounting system. According to German sources, nuclear advocates thereafter renewed their plea that the EC openly advocate nuclear generation for member states and criticize the phase-out, since during the period 2008-2112 seven German reactors are scheduled to be shut down and be replaced with fossil-fueled plants. "The EC wouldn't go that far," one Brussels lobbyist said. "And the German government itself wouldn't advocate that step." German Chancellor Angela Merkel signaled in a January 3 television statement that she would not urge her antinuclear coalition partner, the Social Democratic Party, or SPD, to postpone or overturn the phase-out. That policy stands until the next election in 2009, regardless of pressure from industry and pronuclear political parties in her coalition government, she said. "It doesn't look as if the SPD is going to change its view on this point," Merkel said. Regardless of pleas by utility management since her government took power late last year, Merkel said, the utility companies had agreed to the phase-out and must uphold their end of the bargain unless there is a new agreement. It would be counterproductive, she said, "to debate this issue anew every morning." EC proposals The EU's biggest nuclear generators in France and Germany during the negotiations strongly objected to plans by the EC to unbundle gas and power grids from big utility companies. Those proposals were pressed hard by competition commissioner Neelie Kroes, and by energy commissioner Andris Piebalgs. During the negotiations, Piebalgs proposed two options: forced separation of the grids, ("ownership unbundling"), or a separation of the grids into transparently separate subsidiary companies of the utility owners, or "independent system operators." According to industry sources, all four vertically-integrated German utilities have objected to the plan. German industry representatives in Brussels warned the EC that, if the EC forced an "ownership unbundling" upon German grid owners, the companies would not agree to invest billions of Euros in the grid in coming years. "If the EC makes the grid investments unprofitable, we won't make them," one utility lobbyist said. During the negotiations, the EC "made absolute maximum demands," he said. Should the EC after the final report is published insist on ownership unbundling, he said, it could be "assumed" that the German utilities would sue the EC. That may also be the case if, after the report is final, the EC insists on establishing a centralized EU regulatory agency for gas and power, instead of settling for an EU coordinating role among national regulatory bodies. The gas and power grids in France are already formally separated. However, one EC official said that the French government, like Germany, had made objections to competition-related items in the EC draft document following internal deliberation with Electricite de France and Gaz de France. ------------ US nuclear generation credited for CO2 emissions reductions Washington (Platts)--12Jan2007 US nuclear generation prevented the emission of 142 million metric tons of CO2 in 2004, the latest year for which data are available, according to a new report prepared by Edison Electric Institute. That figure represents about 54% of the electric power sector's total carbon dioxide reductions that year, the report said. The report includes avoidances and sequestrations as greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions reductions. The report said improved performance at US nuclear plants, beginning in the 1990s, has made "a substantial contribution" to reducing the sector's GHG emissions. The report was prepared as part of the Power Partners program. Under that voluntary initiative, the electric power industry signed a memorandum of understanding with DOE that pledged to reduce the power sector's GHG gas emissions during 2010-2012. ------------ Nuclear power saves France Euro 16 billion import costs in 2006 London (Platts)--12Jan2007 Nuclear power saved France 16 billion Euros (about US$20 billion) in energy import costs and at least 128 million tons of CO2 emissions in 2006, the French industry ministry said January 11. France's nuclear electricity production in 2006 was about 430 terawatt-hours. Had that generation come from combined-cycle gas-fired plants instead, the ministry's Energy Observatory calculated, the country's 2006 energy import outlays would have been Eur 62 billion, or 3.6% of gross domestic product, instead of Eur 46 billion (2.7% of GDP). The total extra cost includes Eur 13.5 billion for additional natural gas imports and a loss of Eur 2.6 billion in electricity export revenues. The carbon emissions savings equal the annual emissions allocated to French industry over the period 2008-2102, and half of the credits to German industry, Industry Minister Francois Loos said at a press briefing. Had coal-fired power replaced the French nuclear kWh, the additional CO2 emissions would have amounted to 250 million to 300 million tons, Loos said. Counting exported electricity, French nuclear saved the European Union 150 million tons of CO2 last year, he said. ------------ Nuclear power saves France Euro 16 billion import costs in 2006 London (Platts)--12Jan2007 Nuclear power saved France 16 billion Euros (about US$20 billion) in energy import costs and at least 128 million tons of CO2 emissions in 2006, the French industry ministry said January 11. France's nuclear electricity production in 2006 was about 430 terawatt-hours. Had that generation come from combined-cycle gas-fired plants instead, the ministry's Energy Observatory calculated, the country's 2006 energy import outlays would have been Eur 62 billion, or 3.6% of gross domestic product, instead of Eur 46 billion (2.7% of GDP). The total extra cost includes Eur 13.5 billion for additional natural gas imports and a loss of Eur 2.6 billion in electricity export revenues. The carbon emissions savings equal the annual emissions allocated to French industry over the period 2008-2102, and half of the credits to German industry, Industry Minister Francois Loos said at a press briefing. Had coal-fired power replaced the French nuclear kWh, the additional CO2 emissions would have amounted to 250 million to 300 million tons, Loos said. Counting exported electricity, French nuclear saved the European Union 150 million tons of CO2 last year, he said. ------------ Entergy says new siren system for Indian Point delayed Washington (Platts)--11Jan2007 Entergy says it expects a 2.5-month delay before its new siren system within the 10-mile emergency planning zone of Indian Point is fully operational. The system was to have been installed by January 30, but Entergy said January 11 it won't be running until April 15. The delay is primarily because an engineering analysis has not been completed for one of the four radio transmission towers that will be used to send a signal to activate the sirens if there is an emergency, the company said. Entergy said it expects the analysis will be completed in another four to six weeks. In an extension request submitted to NRC, Entergy said that the 470-foot tower needed to be modified in order to add the necessary antennae. Entergy also said obtaining local permits for the new locations of the sirens contributed to the delay. There are 150 sirens, each containing their own backup battery, as required by a federal law enacted in 2005 and enforced by NRC. ------------ Norway protests Thorp reprocessing plant reopening Stockholm (Platts)--10Jan2007 The Norwegian government January 10 strongly protested reopening of the Thorp reprocessing facility. The UK Nuclear Installations Inspectorate said January 10 it has given restart permission to Thorp's manager, British Nuclear Group. The plant has been shut for the past 21 months following the discovery of leakage of highly active liquid into a concrete processing cell. Norwegian Environment Minister Helen Bjoernoey said in a statement that "Thorp should be closed for good." She said that Thorp has been plagued by technical problems and poor management, adding that the risk of highly radioactive waste from reprocessing of spent fuel at Thorp "can have serious consequences for Norway." Led by the Norwegians and the Icelandics, the Nordic countries have long protested Thorp's operations. They say that fears about radioactivity in fish caught in the North Atlantic can hurt commercial fisheries' business. ------------