Long-term operations set to dominate nuclear agendaWith European new-build programmes stalling, long-term operation of existing plants offers a simple and relatively cheap way to keep nuclear going for the greater good.
Cost and schedule overruns at Flamanville 3 in France and Olkiluoto 3 in Finland; Horizon handing its new-build programme to Hitachi in the UK; one thing seems certain about building new reactors in Europe: while possible, it is a complicated task. In the meantime, there are plenty of existing reactors out there. While consideration needs to be given to the risks of aging infrastructure, there is no clear limit to how long they could be kept running with due care and attention. And if building new plants is so tricky, would it not make more sense to focus on extending the lifespan of existing assets? “You don’t have to invest,” says Dr Alexey Lokhov, nuclear energy analyst at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Nuclear Energy Agency and the author of a 2012 report called ‘The Economics of Long-term Operation of Nuclear Power Plants.’ “Or you invest only to do refurbishment; those are small amounts compared to new-build. And you already have a licence, so you don’t need to ask for a new licence. Extensions of licences are usually easier than getting a licence for a new reactor. New build is always complicated.” Unsurprisingly, in his report Lokhov concluded it was cheaper to extend the lifetime of an existing nuclear power plant (NPP) by a few years than build a new one. Continued operations and benefits of economies of scale “The study found that in nearly all cases the continued operation of NPPs for at least 10 more years is profitable even taking into account the additional costs of post-Fukushima modifications,” surmised the report. In a number of nuclear markets, including France and Switzerland, there is no legal time limit on plant operating licences. Furthermore, if you are in a country that has a fairly uniform reactor fleet then you may be able to benefit from economies of scale when it comes to component manufacturing. However, long-term operation naturally comes with its own set of technical and regulatory issues. For example, plant owners have to prove to the regulator that their facilities can run safely over the proposed lifetime extension. Items such as steam generators and turbines may need to be replaced. And at some point, even if a lifespan is not limited by law, it may ultimately become too costly to carry out the upgrades needed. This already appears to be the case with US plants, such as Dominion Resources-owned Kewaunee in Wisconsin and Duke’s Crystal River in Florida. Nevertheless, long-term operation looks set to dominate the nuclear agenda over the next ten years and beyond as the bulk of power plants worldwide near the end of their original operating lives. LTO: why it is vital for Europe now “In 2011, 289 reactors in the world were older than 25 years and only 45 new units were connected to the grid in 2000-2011,” says Lokhov’s OECD report. “Projections of nuclear generating capacity to 2030 show that some 160 reactors globally could be retired in the next 10 years on the basis of their original design lifetimes. Without life extensions, nuclear capacity would thus fall dramatically in the next decade. “Refurbishments and long-term operation are therefore important to the competitiveness of the nuclear industry in OECD countries.” Long-term operation could be even more vital for Europe in the short term because of how long it is taking new-build programmes to gain critical mass. World Nuclear Association analyst Jeremy Gordon says: “We are only just getting into this renaissance. “We had the setback with Fukushima. There are a lot of countries that want to use nuclear in the long term and a lot of tenders out for new reactors, but how many of those will actually translate to new build we will just have to wait and see. “It is going to be a few years before we find out.” Two pronged lifecycle approach Gordon points to the UK as a prime example of where there is a growing mismatch between the decommissioning of old plants and the likely implementation of new ones. “You couldn’t ask for a more pro-nuclear government, but actually getting the [new-build] programme underway is proving very difficult,” he says. EDF Energy, which operates the UK’s advanced gas-cooled reactor (AGR) nuclear fleet, is seeking lifetime extensions at the same time as pursuing a new-build strategy. Stephen Walker, EDF Energy external communications assistant, says: "We continue to invest £300m each year on capital expenditure in the nuclear fleet, and we spend an additional £350m on plant operations, with 90% of the total being spent in the UK. “Extending the plants’ lives also brings significant training and employment opportunities for a new generation of nuclear engineers and operators as we seek to develop the UK’s position as a primary source for skills and expertise in the industry.” Lokhov believes this is a sensible approach for plant operators across Europe. “Both things are needed,” he says. “It’s unlikely that the AGRs will be extended for more than eight or 10 years. New-builds go for at least 60 years, with possible extensions. “In the UK if there is no natural gas produced domestically in 50 years from now then something is needed to replace this. I don’t think lifetime extension and new build in the UK are competing because they don’t appear in the same timeframes. “New-build reactors will come online probably 10 years from now; lifetime extension is happening now.”
© Nuclear Energy Insider |