Nuclear energy for Baltic region

Vilnius, 6.2.2013
Nuclear energy
for Baltic region
Grzegorz Wrochna
National Centre for Nuclear Research,
Świerk, Poland
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
1
Nuclear power development
What will be the futre
after Fukushima earthquake?
End of the atom era,
[email protected]
or nuclear renesans?
BRILLIANT project
2
Earthquake reported as „atomkatastrophe”
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
3
Lessons from Fukushima earthquake
Public (mis)perception:
 „Nuclear disaster”
happened in Fukushima
 There was a danger
of nuclear explosion
 Release of radioactivity
threatened the lives
of thousands of people
 Nuclear power plants
can explode any time
 We better get rid of them
all together, at any cost
[email protected]
Facts:
 In spite of terrible natural
disasters which lead to
damage of 6 reactors, no
one was seriously hurt
 40 reactors provided
electricity while other
type of plants could not
 It was „experimental”
proof of nuclear safety
 Stress tests checked
gen. II reactors
 Safety features already
implemented in gen. III
BRILLIANT project
4
Nuclear power plans
Continuation
Hesitation
Freezing
Phase-out
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
5
Nuclear reactors 3.2011-9.2013
20 reactors shut down
Germany 8, Japan 4, UK 3, USA 4, Canada 1
10 - connected to grid
China 5, South Korea 2, Iran 1, Pakistan 1, Russia 1
14 - construction started
China 4, India 2, South Korea 2, Pakistan 2, USA 2,
Arab Emirates 1, Russia 1
Currently 69 reactors under
constrution all over the world
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
6
Why the world still attached to NP?
Physics constraints (independent off technology):
Uranium (nuclear power) – huge energy density
Gas, oil, biomass (chemical en.) – medium density
Wind, solar – very low energy density
Fuel for GW/year (1 big power plant)
needs: Poland 36 GW, Lithuania 5 GW, EU27 650 GW
Biomass
2 000 km2 fields
Wind
486 km2 area
2700 windmills of 1,5 MW
Solar
23 km2 panels at equator
2555 football fields
Biogas
20 000 000 pigs
Natural gas 45 MJ/kg
1,2 km3
Oil 46 MJ/kg
1 400 000 tons
10 000 000 barrels
Coal 10-30 MJ/kg
2 500 000 tons
26 260 rail cars
= 2 trains / day
Uranim 500 000 MJ/kg
35 tons of UO2
a few trucks
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
7
Electricity demand in Poland will grow
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
8
Age structure of power plants in Poland
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
9
Electric energy mix in Poland
TWh
180
160
nuclear
140
120
100
5%
5%
80
20
wind+bio+hydro
17%
nat.gas+oil
11%
35%
lignite
60
40
17%
55%
hard coal
34%
21%
0
2008
2030
Energy mix fixed ±5% by available resources
 Keep coal ~constant: new plants to replace old,
○ more lignite, less hard coal
 Match increase of demand by more gas, wind & nuclear
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
10
Polish Nuclear Power Programme
Decision taken 13.01.2009:
PGE indicated as the first investor
○ largest Polish energy company
 2 plants, 3000 MW each, by 2030
○ the first unit by 2020, now delayed to 2024
Program approved 28.01.2014:
Plan for the first unit:
 2015 – technology choice
 2016 – request for permit
 2018 – licence issued
 2024 – in operation
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
11
Polish Nuclear Power Programme
5 (five!) years from the decision
to the program approval
Why so long?
 There was public acceptane ~60%
 There was political consensus
Similar situation is in other countries of the region
What are the barriers?
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
12
Bariers for nuclear programs
Bariers specific to the Baltic region:
 Relatively small power systems
○ Not suitable for >1000 MW reactors (except Poland)
○ Amount of spend fuel & nuclear waste too small to justify
reprocessing and repositories in each country
 Post-industrial landscape (closed shipyards etc)
○ Basic technical level of heavy industry & diminishing
number of qualified workers
 Weak research sector
○ Poor nuclear research infrastructure
○ Competence gap between old and new nuclear programs
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
13
Think regionaly!
Local problems
 Relatively small power systems
 No justification for autonomous
handling of nuclear wastes
 Basic technical level of heavy
industry & diminishing number of
qualified workers
 Poor nuclear research
infrastructure & competence gap
between old and new nuclear
programs
[email protected]
require regional solutions
 Analysis of electric power
systems
 Regional cooperation on
nuclear waste and fuel cycle
 Macroeconomic impact of
nuclear programs
 Nuclear R&D capacity
building
BRILLIANT project
14
Countries involved:
○ Estonia,
○ Latvia,
○ Lithuania,
○ Poland,
○ Sweden
Goal:
 Identify bariers in developing nuclear power,
specific to the Baltic region.
 Find regional solutions for local problems.
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
15
Brilliant in Euratom
 The BRILLIANT idea was officialy presented
at Euratom conferece FISA 2013 in Vilnius
under Lithuanian EU presidency
 Ministerial letters from Lithuania, Poland and
Hungary have been sent to the EU Commision
in support for regional nuclear initiatives
 In response, EC modified the 2014-2015
Euratom Workprogramme to inlcude dedicated
topic for such initiatives
 Call for proposals was announced Dec 2013
with submision deadline September 2014
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
16
Euratom Fission 2007-2011
EST
Are we in the same continent?
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
17
Euratom Workprogramme 2014-2015
Regional initiative aiming at nuclear
research and training capacity building
Specific challenge: Maintaining competence in
fission safety remains of interest for a number of
Member States especially in the Baltic and
Eastern European region. Discussions have
started at these various regional levels with the
aim to develop jointly sustainable applications of
fission for e.g. new and safer research reactor
technology, radio-active waste management and
training and education in these fields.
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
18
Euratom Workprogramme 2014-2015
Scope: The aim is to support the exchange of scientific
staff and the sharing of equipment, knowledge and
competences between private and/or public research
laboratories within the region and with similar
organisations in other EU Member States. This action
should take advantage of and develop synergies with ongoing and future Euratom projects in particular those
offering access to research infrastructures in conjunction
with education and training. A strong involvement of
appropriate public bodies from the Member States
concerned is essential, as well as links with relevant
platforms such as SNETP and IGD-TP. This action should
also aim at examining how Structural Funds could
possibly be mobilised to further develop regional
cooperation in the area.
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
19
Euratom Workprogramme 2014-2015
Expected impact: The capacity building at regional level
for nuclear research and training through cooperation and
networking will reduce regional disparity in the European
Union. Such effort will reinforce the EU excellence in
fission relevant applications and in particular in nuclear
safety and radioactive waste management.
Type of action: Coordination and Support Actions.
Additional information: In line with the nature of the
action, the Commission considers that proposals
requesting a contribution from the Euratom of between
EUR 1 and 3 million would allow this specific challenge to
be addressed appropriately. Nonetheless, this does not
preclude submission and selection of proposals
requesting other amounts.
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
20
Brilliant proposal
WP0. Coordination
○
leader: LEI Lithuania.
WP1. Nuclear Research Capacity building
○
leader: NCBJ Poland
WP2. Regional cooperation on nuclear waste and fuel
cycle
○
leader: Estonia/ KTH Sweden
WP3. Macroeconomic impact of nuclear programs
○
leader: Latvia LU/LE
WP4. Study of energy system issues for deployment of
nuclear energy
○
○
leader: LEI Lithuania
possible invitation for Fortum, Finland to provide their input
WP5. Public Communication
○
leader: KTH Sweden
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
21
Brilliant proposal
WP1. Nuclear Research Capacity building
 Education and training
 Mobility of researchers and students
 Access to research infrastructures
 Upgrade of research infrastructures
 Research programs on issues listed in WP2
and WP4
 Concept of regional training centre for
advanced nuclear technologies
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
22
Brilliant proposal
WP2. Regional cooperation on nuclear waste and
fuel cycle
 Regional forecast of the need for nuclear
waste treatment
 Conceptual study of regional fuel reprocessing
center
 Study on regional scheme of close fuel cycle
with gen.4 reactors
 Identification of regulatory issues.
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
23
Brilliant proposal
WP3. Macroeconomic impact of nuclear programs
 Estimation of possible participation level of national
and regional industries in the nuclear power programs
in the region
 Analysis of different properties of nuclear programs
(financing options, regional cooperation etc.) and their
impacts
 Assessment of macroeconomic impact of nuclear
programs implementation
 Training programs for workers to grow new
competencies and for companies to meet most
demanding certification for large steel structures
fabrication.
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
24
Brilliant proposal
WP4. Study of energy system issues for
deployment of nuclear energy
 Behavior of electric power systems with
operation ≥1000 MW units
 Optimization of unit flexibility for different
power systems, grid analysis.
 Study of interplay between power systems in
Baltic countries
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
25
National Centre for Nuclear Research, Poland
Reactor MARIA
1100
employees
[email protected]
[email protected],
Nuclear research in Poland
Nuclear Centre at Swierk
30 km from Warsaw
44 ha area
BRILLIANT project
www.ncbj.gov.pl
Washington, 2010-06-23 26
Research reactor MARIA at Świerk
 neutron beam research,
material irradiation,
radioisotope production
 99Mo for medical use
18% of world production
 export of radioisotopes
to 78 countries worldwide





built 1974, upgrade 1992
pool type
H2O, Be moderated
30 MW thermal power
neutron flux:
○ thermal 4·1014 n/cm2s
○ fast 2·1014 n/cm2s
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
27
NCBJ - material research
Hot cells
Reactor MARIA
for irradiation
30 MW, high n flux
Structural analysis and modelling
50000
30000
10
20000
5
vierge
0
400
4
2
600
800
6
8
10
-2
2
cm
1
12
10000
10
COUNTS
40000
0
RAMAN SHIFT (cm -1
)
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
28
Nuclear Energy Division

Safety Analyses:
○

○
New Reactor Technologies:
○
○

○
○
Spectrometrical Laboratory



Nuclear fuel composition measurement
Environmental tests
Detection of composition of archeological objects and geological materials
Participation in radiological waste repository planning and design
program
IPPA Project
Centre of Excellence MANHAZ;
○

Participation in Thorium project;
Transmutation of a nuclear wastes – collaboration with JINR Dubna;
 Use of ADS and fast reactors;
Radiochemistry and Environmental Analyses:
○

Calculation done for polish research reactor MARIA;
Validation of neutronic calcultaion in collaboration
with Argonne National Laboratory;
Nuclear Fuel Cycle;
○
○

Polish projects: HTR PL;
International projects: Allegro,
NC2I-R (Nuclear Cogeneration Industrial Initiative);
Reactor Core Neutronic Analyses:
○
○

DSA (Currently used codes: CATHARE 2 v25_2 mod8.1, RELAP5 –
projects made in collaboration with IAEA and CEA experts)
PSA (work done for NAEA)
Modelling of the weather, atmospheric releases of hazardous substances
(RODOS system) and radioactive ground contamination, CFD calculations;
CIŚ – high performance computing centre;
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
29
In the nuclear
world we have
common goals
[email protected]
BRILLIANT project
30