Transcript HISTORY OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IN FRANCE
HISTORY OF NUCLEAR ENERGY IN FRANCE
Christian NADAL President EDF INA [email protected]
Nuclear Energy in France Today
•
19 plants - 58 Units
•
Installed capacity: Total = 110 GW Nuclear = 63 GW (57%)
•
Net Electric generation: Total = 549 TWh Nuclear = 429 TWh (78%)
Sources: EIA, 2004 - IAEA,2006 - EDF
Nuclear Energy in France Today
•
Around 40% of total primary energy supply in 2006 (117 Mtep)
•
Low Carbon Intensity: 0.26 Metric ton/Thousand $2000 (US = 0.55) and less than 80 Metric tons of CO2 per GWh of electricity in 2004 (t CO2/GWh) CO2 intensity of power generation (t CO2/GWh) Nuclear share in generation mix Renewable share in generation mix
Source: International Energy Agency, 2004
THE PIONEERS
THE TRANSITION PHASE
THE INDUSTRIAL PHASE LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
1945 1960 1973 1974 1985 1990
ENERGY
•
France has no Natural Resources
•
Independence is key issue for French Politicians since WW I
–
e.g. Oil Sector Reorganization Act – 1928
•
Stability of Supply
–
Nuclear is no exception
Nuclear Energy
Pre WW II Uranium fission results in multiple neutron emission (F. Joliot & al 1939) Chain Reaction possible
Nuclear Energy
•
Pre WW II (Cont’d)
–
Patents describe main Features of a Nuclear Reactor
–
Young scientists hired for designing/building a nuclear reactor (F. Perrin – 1940)
–
Secure Heavy Water supply
THE PIONEERS THE PIONEERS
BUILDING THE INFRASTRUCTURE 1945 - 1973
KEY DECISIONS
•
End of WW II sees French economy left in shambles
•
Priority is rebuilding French Infrastructure
–
Crediting French Historical Tradition
•
Strong Government involvement
•
Centralized decisions
•
Create two Government-owned entities
–
CEA (Commissariat a l’Energie Atomique 10/18 1945)
–
EDF (Electricite de France 03/29 1946)
CEA and EDF
R&D
Science Industry
Defense CEA Radiation Protection Standards Raw Material Supply
Prospection Mining
Design, Build industrial Scale Nuclear Units Advise French Government for International Agreements EDF Monopolies
Generation Transmission Distribution Imports & Exports
Design Build Generating Units Operate
POLICY
• • •
Need Long-Term Vision Dictated by French Situation
–
Uranium Enrichment not Practicable
•
Industrial Capability not adequate
•
Funding unreasonable Natural Uranium is the only solution Confirmed by International Environment
–
Mc Mahon Act (08/01 1946)
POLICY
•
Consequence is Plutonium
–
Defense
–
Civilian use
•
Evaluate consequences of Strategic Orientations
–
Fuel Reprocessing
–
Interest for LMFBRs
POLICY
Practical Implemention Quinquennial Planning
–
General Trend constant
•
Natural Uranium
» »
Plutonium Separation as an objective LMFBRs contemplated as early as 1953
–
Periodic Reassessment
POLICY
Practical Implementation Quinquennial Planning
–
Marginal modifications tolerated
• •
Scheduling Technical
– –
Moderator type (Heavy Water [EL] or Graphite [G]) Output
No Standardization
The Gravelines site (early 80s) The Chinon site (mid 60s)
•
EDF’s APPROACH
Long-term priority is cost-effectiveness CONTROL PROCESS ENGINEERING CAPABILITY
•
General orientations MASSIVE DEPLOYMENT (PRICE PERMITTING) 1955 LEAD CONTRACTOR A.I. (1954) PAY OVERHEADS FOR FIRST UNITS BASELOAD ENTIRELY WITH NUCLEAR UNITS
INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT
The 50s open new perspectives
–
Atoms for Peace
–
Geneva Conferences
•
1953
•
1958
–
EURATOM Treaty (03/25 1957)
–
Open door for evaluating US technologies
KEY MILESTONES
• • • • • • • • • •
G1 (2 MWe – GG) G2 (40 MWe – GG) G3 (40 MWe – GG) Chinon 1 (70e MW - GG) Chinon 2 (180 MWe - GG) Chinon 3 (360 MWe - GG) SL1 (390 MWe – GG) SL2 (450 MWe – GG) Bugey 1 (540 MWe – GG) Brennilis (70 MWe – HW) 1956-1968 1959-1980 1960-1984 1963-1973 1965-1985 1967-1990 1969-1990 1971-1992 1972-1994 1967-1985
THE PIONEERS THE TRANSITION PHASE
THE TRANSITION PHASE TIME FOR DIFFICULT DECISIONS 1960 - 1974
THE NEW CONTEXT
The 60s confirm need for change
•
Development of Uranium Enrichment techniques is first step for contemplating LWRs (1967)
•
EURATOM treaty gives opportunity for testing US LWRs
– –
CHOOZ (beginning of construction - 1962) TIHANGE (1967)
•
Gas-Graphite technology limited to # 700 MWe
•
LMFBR technology (longer term)
– –
RAPSODIE (beginning of construction - 1961) PHENIX (beginning of construction- 1967)
STRATEGIC APPROACH
•
The PEON (1) Committee
–
Reevaluate available options and propose graded approach crediting
• • •
Security of Supply Political Independence Economic Independence (Hard Currency)
–
Instability of Fossil Fuel markets
•
French Economy Capabilities
– – –
Budget Industry Cost-effectiveness
(1) Committe advising the French Government for Nuclear
STRATEGIC APPROACH
•
Most Significant Conclusions
–
Keep all options open for further decision
–
Access to Plutonium remains an objective
•
Fast breeders development needed
–
Light Water Technology consistent with strategic issues
•
BWRs, PWRs potential candidates
•
Costs will govern decisions
–
Develop technologies for Front/Backend of the Fuel Cycle
MILESTONES
– – –
12/1967 – Authorization for two Gas Cooled Reactors (GCRs) at Fessenheim (FSH) 07/1968 – Appropriateness of GCRs at FSH questioned 05/1969 – PEON Committee recommends
• • •
Development of FBRs (Beyond PHENIX) Order for 4 to 5 LWRs before 1975 Decisions on GCRs and Heavy Water Reactors before 12/1970
•
Purchase licenses from US vendors
MILESTONES
–
11/1969: French Government decides for Light Water Reactors (LWRs)
• •
De facto stop for Natural Uranium GCRs Nuclear Leadership transfered to EDF
– – –
1970: 2 PWRs at FSH 1971: 1 PWR at Bugey (BGY) 1972: EDF decides for 2 nd PWR at BGY, instead of BWR
•
Cost was decisive
–
08/1975: French Government decides for PWRs
•
Cost is the most important parameter for decision
THE PIONEERS THE INDUSTRIAL
THE TRANSITION PHASE
PHASE THE INDUSTRIAL PHASE
THE PWR CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM 1973 – 1990
TIME FOR DECISIONS
• •
1973
– –
Oil share in energy consumption is OIl prices triple (unacceptably high) 69%
•
1974
–
Decision to develop a Nuclear Program
• •
Political Majority is pro-Nuclear Political Minority Reluctant
–
Objective is 30% Nuclear of primary energy supply by 1990 1975
–
08/06 French Government choose PWRs
FRENCH PWR PROGRAM
36 U + SPX (LMFBR) 12 U 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 6 U 4 U
TRENDS AND FLUCTUATIONS
• •
Before 1981
– – –
42 units decided by the French government Superphenix All orders confirmed except 1 (900 MWe) After 1981
–
Program Reevaluation
• •
Political Reasons (e.g. Plogoff canceled) Economics: Consumption Growth less than anticipated
–
Orders on a Need to Basis
•
Last 3 1400 MWe units delayed by EDF
FRENCH NUCLEAR PROGRAM
WHY WAS IT A SUCCESS?
•
Main reason is
Political
–
Government
•
Controlled CEA and EDF
–
Enforced key Decisions
• • • •
Made all decisions Kept program on track Provided help for enforcing decisions (at sites) Industrial Policy (Infrastructure)
–
French Society
•
Favored the Nuclear option
–
Though opposition did exist
WHY WAS IT A SUCCESS?
Creusot Workshop in the 70s
•
Second reason is
technical
Standardized Program (series)
•
Engineering and Construction cost
•
Construction time
•
Operating and maintenance cost
•
Safety
Fleet Standardization 32 3-Loop 900 MWe 20 4-Loop 1300 MWe 4 4-Loop 1450 MWe Gravelines Site Chooz Site Paluel Site
WHY WAS IT A SUCCESS?
•
Third reason is
EDF policy
–
Strong involvement in local development
•
Relationship with local authorities (information + development)
•
Contracts with small businesses
–
Public acceptance
• •
‘Open door’ policy / transparency Relations with opinion leaders and scientists Gravelines, France
–
Maintaining Infrastructure Capability
•
Maintenance policy
COMMENTS
•
French Government didn’t provide subsidies or tax credits
–
Program mostly financed by debt
–
‘Advised’ EDF towards loans in $
•
Huge financial impact
–
Authorized retail prices didn’t reflect real program costs (increases moderate)
THE PIONEERS LOOKING
THE TRANSITION
AT THE FUTURE
PHASE
THE INDUSTRIAL PHASE
THE REP 2000 PROGRAM 1985 – 2007 GEN IV
LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
The CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT (1986)
• • •
Huge impact on the european public
– –
Poor Communication by most organizations Increased NIMBY, BANANA Need to factor Severe Accidents into Design Realization that nuclear issues are transnational
PROGRAM SHAPING
•
Discussions with several Countries
–
Agreement with Germany (Political)
•
Design Approach (EPR)
•
Regulatory Approach
–
Agreements with Belgium, Germany, UK, Spain, Italy (others later)
•
International Programs (LWRs)
•
Common Utility Requirements (EUR)
NUCLEAR WASTES
– – –
Waste issue is key for nuclear Approach must credit former decisions Outcomes are
•
12/30/1991 Law (1 st Bataille Act)
– –
Defines R&D orientations Defines Administrative Measures
•
06/28/2006 Law (2 nd Bataille Act)
– –
Confirms R&D orientations Sets Deadlines
» » »
Technical Feasibility of Contemplated Solutions Site Selection Facility Commissioning
GEN IV
– – –
Objectives well in line with France’s strategy France decides to join GIF (2000) French proposals reflect constant strategy
• •
Fuel cycle closure (Gas-Cooled Fast Reactors) Waste management (Molten Salt Reactor)
–
Former President Chirac decides GEN IV Reactor connected to the grid by 2020
• •
Only available technology is LMFBR Renewed interests in LMFBRs
–
Agreements underway for
• •
Delineating R&D program Recreating industrial infrastructure
CONCLUSION
Nuclear Program was a success
• •
Expertise existed National Commitment
–
Long-term Strategy
•
Capability to build on experience
– –
Stick to fundamentals Accept failures in the approach(Gas-Cooled Reactors)
– –
Endorse alternatives when needed No stone unturned
»
Frontend / Backend of the Fuel Cycle
CONCLUSION
•
Program was a success (Cont’d)
–
Public support
•
But Chernobyl modified perspective
– –
Support for operating plants remained strong Less support for new constructions
–
EDF policy with small business and local communities
•
EDF’s Industrial Policy
–
Applied research on anticipated technologies
– –
Lead contractor / Vendors Standardization
CONCLUSION
•
Program remains a success
–
Financial performance / largest shareholder company in Europe
•
CONCLUSION
Program remains a success (Cont’d)
–
Stable electricity prices over long time period