the status of nuclear power technology-an...
TRANSCRIPT
INDUSTRY AND ENERGY DEPARTMENT WORKING PAPERENERGY SERIES PAPER No. 27
The Status of Nuclear PowerTechnology-An Update
April 1990
The.World Bank Industry arm
The~~~~., Wol Ban ndstr an Enrg Dea:mn,PR
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
THEi STATUS OF NUCLEAR POWER TECHNOLOGY -
AN UPDATE
by
Spyros Traiforos, A/
Achilles Adamantiades (EMTIE)
and Edwin Moore (IENED)
April 1990
Copyright (c) 1990The World Bank1818 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20433USA
This paper is one of a series issued by the Industry and Energy Department forthe information and guidance of World Bank staff. The paper may not be published orquoted as representing the views of the World Bank Group, nor does the Bank Groupaccept responsibility for its accuracy and completeness.
A/ President of SAT Consultants, Washington, D.C.
i
ABSTRACT
This paper traces the development of nuclear power over the past 30 years,briefly explains the presen- designs and new trends in nuclear power technology, and givesan overview of nuclear power costs.
As of the end of 1988 there were 429 nuclear reactors in operation and anadditional 105 units under construction or in planning around the world, providing almost20% of the world's electricity supply. In some countries, over half of the electricity isderived from nuclear power; in France it is 70%. Three reactor designs account for82% of the existing nuclear reactors--pressurized water reactors (PWRs), boiling waterreactors (BWRs) and pressurized heavy water reactors (PHWRs). Other reactor typesin use for power production include gas cooled reactors (GCRs) (10%), light-water-cooledgraphite-moderated reactors (LWGRs) (6%), and liquid metal fast breeder reactors(LMFBRs) (2%).
Development work is underway to both improve existing reactor designs anddevelop new concepts for nuclear reactors. The aim is to increase safety, improveavailability and simplify maintainability, including fail-safe features such as gravity supplyof emergency cooling water and natural circulation to provide core cooling even if pumpsfail to operate in case of accidents.
Over the past 30 years nuclear plant construction times have on averageincreased from less than four years to about nine years due to many factors includinglarger sizes, complexity of design and increasing regulatory action. Some reactors havetaken 14 years to construct from first concrete to grid connection. Capital costs haveincreased accordingly and typical estimates of base generating costs for future nuclearpower plants indicate a nuclear kWh cost would be higher than those for coal, oil, or gasthermal power, at least for the near term.
Given the heightened anxieties from the prospect of increasing fossil fuel use, theprospects of nuclhir power in industrialized countries have a modest potential. Theseprospects will be mainly determined by the increasing world concern over the globalwarming effect from carbon dioxide emissions, the development of new inherently safenuclear designs at a cost competitive with other options, and a publicly acceptableresolution of the radioactive waste management problem. In developing countriesprospects look much less promising owing to the ready availability of less expensivealternatives, the shortage of investible capital, and the stringent requirements with nuclearpower for competent, vigilant - .id effective management of plant operations and strictadherence to rules and regulations. The situation in developing countries may change ifmodular, factory assembled, inherently safe, operationally tolerant, and cost effectivedesigns appear in the market and gain wide public acceptability.
ii
ABBREVIATIONS
ABB ASEA BROWN BOVERI
AEG ALLGEMEINE ELEKTRICITAETS - GESELLSCHAFT
AGR ADVANCED GAS-COOLED REACTOR
BWR BOILING WATER REACTOR
CANDU CANADIAN DEUTERIUM URANIUM
DOE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (USA)
EPA US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (USA)
FBR FAST BREEDER REACTOR
FRG FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY
GAO GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE (USA)
GCHWR GAS-COOLED, HEAVY-WATER-MODERATED REACTOR
GCR GAS-COOLED REACTOR
GE GENERAL ELETRIC
HTGR HIGH-TEMPERATURE GAS-COOLED REACTOR
HWR HEAVY WATER REACTOR
IAEA INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY
IDC INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION
IEA INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY, AN ARM OF THEORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION ANDDEVELOPMENT (OECD)
kWh KILOWATr-HOUR
iii
LMFBR LIQUID-METAL FAST BREEDER REACTOR
LWGR LIGHT-WATER COOLED GRAPHITE-MODERATED REACTOR
LWR LIGHT WATER REACTOR
MHTGR MODULAR HIGH TEMPERATURE GAS COOLED REACTOR
MW MEGAWATTS
NEA NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY, AN ARM OF THE ORGANIZATIONFOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD"
NRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (USA)
ORNL OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
PAH POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS
PHWR PRESSURIZED HEAVY WATER REACTOR
PWR PRESSURIZED WATER REACTOR
RBMK RUSSIAN TERM EQUIVALENT TO LWGR
SNUPPS STANDARDIZED NUCLEAR UNIT POWER PLANT SYSTEM
THTR THORIUM HIGH TEMPERATURE REACTOR
TMI THREE MILE ISLAND
UK UNITED KINGDOM
U02 URANIUM OXIDE
US OR USAUNITED STATES OF AMERICA
WER RUSSIAN VERSION OF PWR
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage No.
Section 1. A Brief History of Nuclear Power ............. 1
Section 2. Nuclear Power Technology .. 7
2.1 Nuclear Power Statistics .... ............. . 72.2 Review of Existing Reactor Designs .......... 10
Section 3. New Trends in Reactor Designs .. 15
3.1 Improved Designs . 153.2 Evolutionary Designs .153.3 Passive Designs .163.4 Modular Designs .163.5 Standardization .16
Section 4. Nuclear Power Costs .. 18
4.1 Background . 184.2 Nuclear Plant Construction Times .184.3 Typical Nuclear Power Plant Cost Estimates 184.4 Comparison of Base Generating Costs .19
Section 5. The Future of Nuclear Power .20
References 22
Bibliography 23
Annexes 25
v
LIST OF TABLESPage No.
1.1 Fossil Plant Emission Decrease in France ............... 5
2.1 Nuclear Power Reactors in Operation Worldwide,30 MW or Over, by Reactor Type as ofDecember 31, 1988 .............................. 7
2.2 Nuclear Power in the Developing Countries as ofDecember 31, 1988 ........................... 10
LIST OF FIGURES
2 1 ..Nuclear Electricity Generation Share of TotalElectrical Energy Worldwide for the Period 1960-1988 8
2.2 Countries with Highest Nuclear Share of TotalElectricity Production in 1988. 9
LIST OF ANNEXES
1. Nuclear Power Reactors in Operation and UnderConstruction, December 31, 1988 .................... 25
2. PWR Nuclear Design ............................ 26
3. BWR Nuclear Design ............................ 28
4. CANDU Nuclear Design .......................... 30
5. Average Nuclear Unit Construction Time Span .... ....... 32
6. Estimated 1100 MW Nuclear Power Plant CapitalInvestment Costs in the US Based on Median andBetter Current Experience .33
7. Comparison of Base Generating Costs for Oil, Nuclear,Coal and Gas Power Plants .34
1
THE STATUS OF NUCLEAR POWER TECHNOLOGY - AN UPDATE
1. A BRIEF HISTORY OF NUCLEAR POWER
Nuclear fisbion--the production of energy from splitting the nucleus of a uraniumatom--was first achieved in an experiment conducted by Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmanin 1939 in Berlin. The event signaled the beginning of the era unleashing the power ofthe atom. Three years later another major breakthrough came in the US at theUniversity of Chicago's Stagg Field, where Enrico Fermi and his co-workers,experimenting with uranium spheres emplaced in a pile of graphite blocks, proved thata fission chain reaction in uranium nuclei could be sustained and controlled, making itfeasible to harness this energy. These two events marked the birth of the nuclear age.The history of the development and use of nuclear power since then can be divided intofour periods, as shown below.
Period One: Post World War II to Mid-1960s
During this period, development followed two paths: weapons production andcommercial reactor development. This paper focuses on the latter.
In the US, following World War II, a five-year nuclear power research anddevelopment program was launched. The program resulted in the first US nuclear powerplant tied to an electrical network--the 60 megawatt electric (MWe) Pressurized WaterReactor (PWR) at Shippingport, Pennsylvania, which began operation in 1957. Thisreactor, developed for the Atomic Energy Commission by Admiral Rickover's NavyReactor Group, was basically a large-scale version of the reactor deployed earlier in theUSS Nautilus, the world's first nuclear-powered submarine. The first commercial orderfor this type of reactor came from a US utility in 1963.
In Canada, the US McMahon Act, which denied enriched uranium to the US'swartime Manhattan project partners, led Canada, the UK, and France, to developtechnologies that allowed the use of natural instead of enriched uranium. This was madepossible by the introduction of a much more effective moderator than the regular (light)water used in PWRs. "Moderator" is a material that slows down (moderates) normallyfast-moving neutrons to make them more capable of causing chain-reaction fissions.While the European countries chose graphite (a form of crystalline carbon) as themoderator, Canada opted for heavy water 1. The first heavy-water prototype power
1 Heavy water is made of two atoms of deuterium (one proton plus one neutron)and one atom of oxygen.
z
reactor was completed in 1962. By 1966, this kind of reactor was in commercialoperation in Canada.
In France, indigenous Gas Cooled Reactors (GCRs), and Fast Breeder Reactors(FBRs) 2 were pursued until 1969, when it became apparent that, without significantdevelopment work, the GCRs could not compete with the US Light Water Reactors(LWRs). The decision was then made to build PWRs under license with Westinghouse.The French continued with breeders operating on the plutonium cycle and completedthe reactor Phoenix in 1976 and Superphenix in 1984.
In West Germany (FRG), the first commercial order for a Boiling Water Reactor(BWR) was placed in 1962. In the subsequent years Allgemeine Elektricitaets-Gesellschaft (AEG) supplied BWRs under a license from GE, and Siemens suppliedPWRs under license from Westinghouse. Other technologies, such as gas cooled reactors,were also investigated. The Germans initiated construction of the Thorium HighTemperature Reactor (THTR) at Schmehausen with pebble-bed fuel and helium coolant.The plant, which has operated quite successfully, will be closed down because ofbudgetary constraints.
In the UK, the first reactors, which began operation in the late 1950s, were smallGCRs used to produce both electrical power and plutonium. These reactors becameknown as Magnox reactors, owing to their use of magnesium cladding for uranium oxidefuel.
In the USSR, a 5 MWe plant with light-water cooled, graphite-moderated reactorwas deployed in 1954 as the world's first nuclear power plant to produce electricity forcommercial use.
Period Two: Mid-1960s to Mid-1970s
During this period, the vast majority of reactor orders in the world were placed.The nuclear power industry in France decided to pursue a standardized PWR designindependent of its US licensors. The nuclear power industry in the FRG also becameindependent of its US licensors. In the USSR the graphite-moderated, light-water cooleddesign was first adopted and deployed for power production (the Chernobyl station hadfour units of this design). Due to the safety problems and cost record of this design, theSoviets switched to a light-water moderated and cooled design, akin the PWR developedin market economies.
2 An explanation of the various reactor types is given in Section 2.2.
5
Period lTree: Mid-1970s to 1978
This was a time of mixed activity in the U' No new reactor orders were placed.While some new orders were placed worldwide, some older ones were cancelled, mainlyin the US. The reasons for the cancellations stemmed mainly from lower than expecteddemand for electricity, but included also growing opposition to nuclear power andescalating construction costs. This opposition was fueled by growing concerns aboutpublic health and safety, questions on radioactive waste disposal, mismanagement ofprojects, and a public identification of nuclear power with the proliferation of nuclearexplosives. In 1975, a fire at Browns Ferry 1 and 2 nuclear power plants in the US,although not resulting in damage to the reactors, raised concerns about how close thesereactors came to a core meltdown. An industry-wide reevaluation of fire protectionmeasures in nuclear power plants resulted in long outages and costly corrective actions.
Period Four 1979 to Present
In 1979 a watershed event occurred in nuclear power history: the Three MileIsland Unit 2 (TMI-2) accident in a reactor of a Pennsylvania nuclear power plant in theUS. It led to massive investigations, public hearings and regulatory actions. The recordshows that radioactive releases to the environment and hence impact on public healthwere minimal. However public concern grew to unprecedented height stemming fromineffectual, distorted, and conflicting messages in public communication; the perceivedinability of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to promptly and effectively controlthe crisis; shortcomings in design, operation and maintenance; and the violation of safetyprocedures. The accident led to a high degree of stress in the area's local population,to a reconsideration of emergency procedures, and to a series of costly design backfitsintended to prevent similar accidents from happening in the future.
Although there was no harm to the public's physical health, the accident was aneconomic disaster. An investment in the order of US$1 billion was lost within a fewhours; Unit 1 was placed out of operation for about eight years; and the cleanup effort,in which both the Federal Government and the US utilities participated, has cost morethan US$1 billion over 10 years, bringing the utility owner to the brink of bankruptcy.Cleanup operations will continue with no prospects that the damaged reactor will everreturn to service.
Clearly, the negative impact of the TMI-2 accident on the nuclear power industrywas very grave. Following the accident, many nuclear power plants were cancelled in theUS, including almost completed units. Among them were Perry 2, Grand Gulf 2, WNP-1, and WNP-3. Another blow was delivered to nuclear power in the US when theowners of Midland, a nuclear power plant 100% complete but plagued by qualityassurance and licensing problems, decided to convert the plant to a gas-burning co-generation station. Another significant setback to the deployment of nuclear power was
J1.
the decision of the Swedish people to phase out nuclear power by the year 2010, eventhough nuclear power provided 47% of the country's electricity in 1988. It should benoted, howwver, that the practical replacement of nuclear power in Sweden isproblematic, and it is not at all certain that the phaseout will take place.
The year 1986 was, however, the blackest year in the history of the nuclearpower industry. It was then that the most serious accident ever in a commercial nuclearpower plant occurred at Unit 4 of the Chernobyl Plant in the USSR. The cause of theaccident was gross violation of operating procedures and a design that lent itself tosudden increases of power (positive rather than negative feedback of reactivity) and thepresence of graphite that caught firr; and burned uncontrollably. Although the reactorwas equipped with some kind of containment structure, this was not sufficiently strongto contain the accident and limit the spread of radioactivity to the environment. Massiveamounts of radiation were released to the atmosphere causing the following dallage:
o Thirty-one people died from acute radiation exposure.
o The population subjected to long-term cancer effects from the accident wasestimated in the range of 10,000 to 40,000 although the method ofestimation is a matter of controversy, and the number could be lower.
o Large tracts of land became unusable.
O About 100,000 people were relocated.
o Radioactivity was transported as far as the UK, Italy, Spain, and Sweden,causing widespread public concern.
It must be noted that although a large amount of radioactivity (about two millioncuries) was released uncontrollably, the accident was less severe than other seriousindustrial accidents such as the Bhopal chemical accident in India that caused upwardsof 2,000 deaths and tens of thousands of injuries.
Although such a release of radioactivity caused serious local damage, it did nothave a significant or lasting impact on the world's global environment. However, it didhave a detrimental effect on the public's perception of nuclear power and seriouslychallenged the nuclear power industry's safety record. It is important to note that theflaws of this design had been known for some time. Since the accident, the Soviets havetaken several design and operational measures to correct these deficiencies. Moreover,this type of plant has been discontinued in the USSR, and a decision was made toproceed with the deployment of the PWR design.
The years following 1986 have been characterised by great uncertainty about thefuture of nuclear power. In the US, completion of ongoing nuclear units continued whilesome orders were placed in Korea, France and Japan. On the whole the nuclear powerindustry is in a period of stagnation. Another important event took place in June, 1989when the citizens of Sacramento, California, voted by a 53% majority to shut downRancho Seco, a nuclear power plant operating since 1975 but plagued with operationalproblems and poor performance. The significance of thic incident in the history ofnuclear power in the US is that the opponents of nuclear power attacked the keyprinciple that has helped the nuclear power industry in this country to survive 14referenda in 13 states. namely, that nuclear power is cheaper than other sources ofelectricity. In all previous referenda the debate focused primarily on purported threatsto human health and safety to the environment; in Rancho Seco the economics of nuclearpower were questioned.
Lately there has been some shift in the public's view of nuclear power. Thischange has been spurred by the growing concern over the greenhouse effect, and acidrain, which are caused, at least partially, by the burning of fossil fuels.
Recent French experience demonstrated the potential for reducing atmosphericpollution by switching from fossil plants to nuclear. In 1970 France's electricity supplywas about 50% fossil, 45% hydro and 5% nuclear. After the oil embargo of 1973,France embarked on a large-scale nuclear program. In 1988 the electricity supply was70% nuclear, 20% hydro and 10% coal. Table 1.1 shows there has been a ten-foldreduction in fossil power plant emissions in France over an 8-year period due to lowerfossil plant operation following the switchover to nuclear, even though the total electricitysupply in France grew about 50% during the same period.
Table 1.1
FOSSIL PLANT EMISSION DECREASE IN FRANCE
Emission Thousands of Tonnes1979 1987
Sulfur dioxide 978 83Nitrogen oxide 208 34Carbon dioxide 85 13Particulate matter 80 2
Total 1351 132
Source: Rl (see List of References).
6
At the present time, however, it appears that the environmental groups stillbelieve that nuclear power in its present form represents a worse alternative than fossilfuels. Nonetheless, for several reasons, including diversity of energy supplies, energysupply independence from oil exporting countries, hedging against future environmentalproblems with the burning of fossil fuels, and in some cases, national pride, the nuclearpower programs in several countries are continuing, albeit with caution. For example,in the first half of 1989 new nuclear power units were commissioned in the US, Japanand France. Meanwhile, China is also rigorously pursuing both an indigenous nuclearcapability and nuclear plant imports; its first indigenously designed and built unit, a 300-MW PWR Quinshan-1, is almost complete and scheduled on line in December 1990 whilethe second project, Guangdong Units 1 and 2, comprising two 900-MW PWRs importedfrom Framatome, France are 40% and 30% complete.
l
2. NUCLEAR POWER TECHNOLOGY
Over the last 40 years nuclear power has evolved into an important source ofelectrical power, providing today some 18% of the world's supply of electricity. ThisSection summarizes worldwide data on the status of nuclear power development and alsodescribes the major nuclear power plants in use today.
2.1 Nuclear Power Statistics
Over the years, many types of nuclear reactors have been used to generateelectrical power. The numbers of these reactors in operation and their capacity are listedin Table 2.1. This table also shows that the pressurized water reactor is by far thedominant design.
Table 2.1
NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS IN OPERATION WORLDWIDE, 30 MW OR OVER,BY REACTOR TYPE AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1988
No. of UnitsReactor Type of Operation
Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) 238BoiLing Water Reactor (BWR) 86Light Water CooLed, Graphite Moderated Reactor CLWGR) 26Pre -surized Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR) 28Gas CooLed Reactors, alL varieties (GCR) 45Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor CLMFBR) 6
TotaL 429
Source: R3 (see List of References) and Annex 1.
From 1960 to the early 1980s, the growth in nuclear electricity generation as ashare of total electrical energy has been quite steep, as shown in Figure 2.1. Thisremarkable growth has been followed, however, by a slowdown in the late 1980s.Although nuclear power accounted, in 1988. for an average of 17% of the total electricgeneration worldwide, this component is much higher in several countries as illustratedin Figure 2.2. In 1988, nuclear power accounted for 40% or more of total electricitygeneration in six countries: France (70%), Belgium (66%), Hungary (49%), Sweden(47%), the Republic of Korea (47%) and Taiwan, China (41%). A list of nuclear powerreactors in operation and under construction in the world, their capacities, the electricitythey supplied in 1988, as well as the total operating experience by country, appears inAnnex 1.
Figure 2. 1
20- IIAEA-NENP-89-141
19- 117 %
18-
17
16 I
15
14
13
4- 68B1. 4 TW.h12
a~~~~~~~~~~~er
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0
7 energy f
6 1~~~~797 =WhI
5 074 247 W.
3 10.1% c02 z7TI
1- I . . .IJ-
Years
Nuclear electricity generation and share of totalelectrical energy for the period 1960 to 1988
9
Figure 2.2
COUNTRIES WITH HIGHEST NUCLEAR SHAREOF TOTAL ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION IN 1988
FRANCE 70BELGIUM 66HUNGARY 49SWEDEN 47
REP. OF KOREA 47TAIWAN, CHINA (*)41
SWITZERLAND _ 37SPAIN 36
FINLAND 36BULGARIA 36
GERMANY, F.R. 34CZECHOSLOVAKIA 27
JAPAN 23USA 0UK 19
CANADA 6USSR 1 3
ARGENTINA 11GERMAN D.R. 10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
NUCLEAR SHARE (x)('): IAEA estimates LBOO1
Source: R8.
10
The status of nuclear power in the developing countries is summarized in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2
NUCLEAR POWER IN THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIESAS OF DECEMBER 31, 1988
In Operation Under Construction1987 1988
All Developing Countries, Units 41 42 37MW(e) 21,173 22,160 22,407
Countries in CPE-Europe, Units 17 17 17MW(e) 7,437 7,494 11,206
Countries outside CPE-Europe, Units 24 25 20MW(e) 13,736 14,666 11,201
Source: R4 (1987), R8 (1988).
2.2 Review of Existing Reactor Designs
As Table 2.1 above shows, PWRs, BWRs. and PHWRs together constitute 82%of all the operating power reactors in the world. Because of this, these designs will bereviewed in the following descriptions in more detail than the other reactor designs.
2.2.1 The Pressurized Water Reactor (PVR)
About 55% of the operating reactors in the world are PWRs. A schematicoutline for a PWR and typical design data are shown in Annex 2. The fuel used in thistype of reactor is uranium oxide (UO2 ) in the form of pellets, enriched to approximately3.5% Uranium-235. These pellets are encapsulated inside zircalloy tubes which form acladding. The fuel-cladding arrangement is called the fuel rod. A cluster of about 225of these rods forms the fuel assembly, and in a typical 1100-MWe reactor approximately200 of these assemblies form the reactor core. The reactor core is cylindrical, about 3.7meters high and 3.4 meters in diameter and contains about 90,000 kg of uranium. Thecore is placed in the reactor pressure vessel which is a massive piece of equipmentmeasuring, for a 1000-MW unit, over 12 meters in height by 4.7 meters in diameter witha wall thickness in excess of 20 cm. It is designed to withstand a pressure ofap- -- imately 175 bar and a temperature of 340°C. The total weight of a large reactorves.el could approach 450 metric tons. Transportation of the component from thefabrication ;hop to the site is a major undertaking and could take many weeks. Thereactor vessel and the piping attached to it constitute a barrier to any radioactive releasedue to fuel failu:e.
In a PWR the heat is generated in the core by the fission of uranium. Light(regular) water is used as both moderator of the fission neutrons and coolant. The term
11
"pressurized" derives from the fact that the water is kept at a very high pressure of about155 bars (2250 psia) so that, at the maximum prevailing water temperature, no boilingoccurs. The generated heat is transferred from the fuel to the coolant, which flows intoone side (primary) of a steam generator. There, it heats water kept at a lower pressureon the other side (secondary), boiling it to generate steam. This steam turns the turbineand the electric generator connected to it, generating electricity.
These reactors are equipped with a variety of engineered safety features toprevent and/or mitigate the consequences of an accident. The reactor, steam generatorsand associated auxiliary equipment are enclosed in a containment structure that servesas the last bairrier to any radiation release. The majority of the containment structuresare made of concrete and are cylindrical, about 37 meters in diameter and 60 metershigh. They are designed to withstand internal pressures from a design-basis accident ofup to 4 bars (60 psia).
2.2.2 The Boiling Water Reactor (BWR)
About 20% of the operating reactors worldwide are BWRs. A schematic outlinefor a typical BWR plant and typical design data appear in Annex 3. In a BWR, as ina PWR, light (regular) water is used as both moderator and coolant. The term "boiling"derives from the fact that due to the heat generated from fission, the water boils insidethe reactor vessel. This is because the water is kept at a pressure equal to the saturationpressure at the prevailing water temperature, namely 69 bars (1,000 psia). The generatedsteam turns a turbine connected to an electric generator, thus producing electricity.
The reactor core for a typical, large 1200-MW unit is cylindrical, about 3.7 metersin diameter and 4 meters high. The reactor vessel is even larger than that of PWRs.A typical vessel for the 1200-MW unit is over 22 meters in height and about 6.5 metersin diameter. The wall thickness is 15-18 cm; somewhat lower than that of a PWR vesselsince the pressure it is called to withstand is about half that of a PWR. The reactorpressure vessel and associated equipment are enclosed in a steel containment structure(not shown in Annex 3), called the "primary containment". The primary containment isequipped with a pressure-suppression compartment, partially filled with water, designedto absorb the heat generated after an accident, and serves as a "scrubber" of anyradioactive release. The primary containment is enclosed in a concrete structure calledthe "secondary containment" which serves as a last barrier of radioactive release in anaccident.
2.23 The Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR)
A schematic diagram for the PHWR, also known as CANDU (CANadian,Deuterium, Uranium) reactor, appears in Annex 4. This design was developed and ispromoted by Canada but has been deployed in other countries such as Argentina,
12
Pakistan, India and Korea. Approximately 6% of the operating reactors worldwide areof this type. In a PHWR heavy water, i.e. water in which the regular hydrogen atomshave been substituted by atoms of deuterium, serves as both coolant and moderator butthese functions are kepL separate through two separate loops. The term "pressurized"derives from the fact that t1ie heavy water coolant is kept at a high pressure so that atthe maximum prevailing heavy water temperature, no boiling occurs. The heavy watermoderator is kept at a relatively low pressure.
Heavy water has an advantage of being a much weaker absorber of neutronsthan light water. Thus, with a better "neutron economy" a reactor can be run withnatural instead of enriched uranium. In this way Canada avoided the need to constructcomplex and expensive uranium enrichment facilities. The disadvantages of heavy waterand natural uranium are that, because of the lower neutron flux, larger cores arerequired.
As with PWRs, steam generators are used to transfer the heat from the heavywater, which circulates in the primary side, into the light water which circulates in thesecondary side, thus causing it to boil. Because of its larger core, it has been estimatedthat a CANDU reactor is roughly 20% more expensive to construct than its equivalentLWR. However, this higher construction cost is compensated by a much lower fuel costfor the natural uranium fuel cycle, about one half that of the enriched uranium fuel cycle.A containment houses the reactor, steam generator, and the moderator loop. Designdata for CANDU reactors are also give in Annex 4.
2.2.4 The Gas-Cooled Reactor and its Variations
The Gas-Cooled Reactor (GCR) is a graphite-moderated unit using naturaluranium as a fuel. The majority of these reactors were built in the UK, at the start ofits nuclear program, originally to produce both plutonium for military purposes andelectrical power for commercial use. The choice of natural uranium as a fuel wasoriginally dictated by the unavailability of enriched uranium. But the rather poor capacityof graphite in slowing down neutrons and its relatively high neutron-absorptioncharacteristics resulted in very large core volumes. The choice of coolant for the firstgeneration of gas cooled reactors was carbon dioxide. The oxide fuel is clad with a thinlayer of magnesium alloy, hence the name Magnox for these reactors. The heat istransferred to a steam generator. The system uses a concrete pressure vessel and theprimary system and associated components are housed in a containment structure. Therelatively high percentage of GCRs in operation (10% of the world's reactors) despitetheir shortcomings, is the result of the initial push for this design by the UK, not areflection of current trends.
A strong motivation to increase the heat output per unit volume of the reactorcore led to the development of the Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor (AGR) in which
13
higher gas temperatures prevail. The AGR uses uranium fuel slightly enriched in U-235. Its coolant is carbon dioxide but at substantially higher temperatures and pressuresthan in the GCR. Because of the AGR's higher power densities and smaller corevolumes, the AGR is less costly than the GCR. But even with the AGR's improvementsover the GCR, the UK decided to abandon the gas cooled reactors and to adopt the USPWR design to UK conditions and criteria. The first British PWR, the Sizewell B, iscurrently under construction in the UK. A program to build more units of this type hasbeen recently postponed following the Government's decision to privatize the electricpower industry and to break up generation into three corporations.
Following successful development and deployment of the GCR concept in theUK, the US developed its own gas-cooled reactor, called the High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (HTGR). The first HTGR prototype was installed at Peach Bottom,Pennsylvania in 1968. Its fuel consisted of uranium and thorium carbides, its moderatorwas graphite, and its coolant was helium, an inert gas. It had a net output of 40 MWe.After eight years of successful operation, it was taken out of service in 1975 for economicreasons. The second HTGR, the Fort St. Vrain built in 1979, has a net output of 330MWe. Due to continued technical difficulties that forced the plant out of servicefrequently and limited its output, the owner utility plans to take it out of service in 1992after only 13 years of service.
Another type of gas-cooled reactor is the pebble-bed reactor, which evolved inthe FRG. Its fuel, encapsulated in ceramic spheres (1.5-2.5 cm wide) is fissile and fertilematerial in the form of very small particles (0.4mm) dispersed in graphite that serves asa moderator. Its coolant is helium gas. The design was demonstrated in a 15 MWeexperimnental reactor (AVR). The scaled-up version of it, a 300-MWe reactor atSchmehausen, FRG, called the Thorium High Temperature Reactor (THTR), has beencompleted and has demonstrated its technical features. However, it also had constructiondelays, funding and regulatory problems, so its future is uncertain. However, because ofimportant safety characteristics, this type of design, specifically a 100-MWe modular unitwhich exhibits passive safety features, is being considered as a candidate for futuredevelopment. This design can withstand a simultaneous failure of control rod insertionand loss of flow, without damage to the reactor core as has been demonstratedexperimentally at the AVR pilot plant in Julich, FRG. The USSR has shown interest inadopting the high-temperature reactor for its generation system and has recently enteredinto an agreement with the FRG for technology transfer in this area.
2.2.5 The Light-Water-Cooled, Graphite-Moderated Reactor (LWGR)
This is the first design commercially deployed in the USSR, under the Russian-equivalent abbreviation RBMK. Chernobyl, the plant that experienced the major accidentin 1986, is an RBMK Its fuel is contained in large tubes and cooled by light (regular)
14
water that flows through the tubes at high pressure. These tubes are embedded ingraphite, which serves as a moderator.
This design has several drawbacks which, though widely publicized after theChernobyl accident, were weli known to the technical community from the start. It isdifficult to control, can have a violent steam-graphite reaction following a pressure-tubeleak, and does not have a full containment structure. The Soviets corrected some ofthese drawbacks after the Chernobyl accident but these plants still operate without fullcontainments. The USSR is now postponing plans to deploy RBMKs in favor ofdeploying VVERs (USSR's version of the PWR) and enhancing their safety features.
2.2.6 The Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR)
The types of reactors reviewed so far are thermal reactors--reactors in whichfission is accomplished through neutrons slowed by their collisions with the moderatingmedium. But the ability of such neutrons to convert fertile material (e.g. Uranium-238),into fissile material (e.g. Plutonium-239), is limited. The "breeder" reactor is analternative design without this conversion shortfall. Tt produces more fissile material (i.e.fuel) than it consumes, hence the name "breeder'. Breeding is accomplished throughfission-generated neutrons that are "fast" (i.e., not slowed by moderators).
The Liquid Metal Fast Breeder React .- (LMFBR) which uses a liquid sodiumcoolant, is the only FBR design yet implemented. Seven LMFBRs are in operationworldwide, five of which are used for commercial power generation. Most are prototypes.A few more are under construction. The LMBFR design is not, however, favored forwidespread use because of its high cost, its massive production of fissile plutonium whichposes proliferation risks, and a perception that there is no shortage of uranium supplies.The US commercial prototype, the Clinch River reactor, was cancelled after a long andheated debate over its economic and safety performance. The first French FBR, thePhoenix, has operated successfully but its successor, the Superphenix, is experiencingtechnical problems; however, the USSR and Japan are still both cautiously pursuing thedevelopment and deployment of FBRs.
15
3. NEW TRENDS IN REACTOR DESIGNS
During the evolution of nuclear power over the past 30 years, its strengths andweaknesses have become clearer. The strengths include its insignificant pollution innormal operation, the abundance of nuclear fuel and fuel diversification, and its highelectricity output. The weaknesses include the requirement for stringent and costly safetyprovisions; the unpredictable nature of the regulatory process in the US; the large reactorsizes required for the economies of scale; and lastly, rapidly escalating costs especially inthe US, owing to long construction periods, changing safety requirements, and in severalcases, poor project management.
The nuclear industry has been addressing these problem areas and has proposedand/or implemented solutions to remedy them. They are categorized in five broad areas:
A. Improved DesignsB. Evolutionary DesignsC. Passive DesignsD. Modular DesignsE. Standardization
3.1 Improved Designs
Existing designs have been improved to incorporate features that enhance safety,reliability, availability and maintainability of the power plants. An example of animproved design is the British PWR (Sizewell B), the currently favored reactor in theUK. This is a modification of the Standardized Nuclear Unit Power Plant System(SNUPPS), originally built in the US. The UK design improves SNUPPS with moreemergency core-cooling injection pumps, more auxiliary feedwater-system backup pumps,more emergency diesel generators, and a larger containment to make maintenance easier.
In another move to improve nuclear designs Westinghouse, Mitsubishi, and theJapan Power Company have joined forces in an effort, now in progress, to incorporatepassive safety system features in existing "mature" nuclear reactor designs.
3.2 Evolutionary Designs
Proposed new designs would replace add-on safety features on existing reactorswith built-in ones. The result is a simpler design, higher reliability and bettermaintainability. These designs include control rooms with user-friendly diagnostics andother features based on the human factor considerations in research and development.One example is the advanced BWR Unit design by GE, Hitachi and Toshiba, which is
16
only 70% the size of current BWRs. One of the advantages of this design is the locationof coolant pumps inside the reactor pressure vessel.
33 Passive Designs
These are smaller and simpler than current generation reactors (about 600-MWe)that rely mainly on passive (rather than man-controlled) safety systems for "fail-safe"shutdown and heat removal. They use natural forces like gravity and convection insteadof active controls to ensure safety as used in the currently operating plants. The US hastwo such proposed designs: Westinghouse's AP-600 and GE's SBWR (Simplified BWR).In both, the emergency cooling water is stored above the reactor pressure vessel,eliminating the need for emergency coolant pumps. Asea-Atom (now part of ABB)'sProcess Inherent Ultimate Safety (PIUS) is a Swedish 660-MWe counterpart, andCombustion Engineering has joined forces with Stone and Webster and UK's Rolls Royceto design a passive 325-MWe PWR called Safe Integral Reactor (SIR). The advanceddesigns have set a goal of 36 months for plant -!onstruction at a cost competitive withthat of coal plants equipped with flue gas desulfurization.
3.A Modular Designs
These designs are small modular units that a utility can add to a system as thedemand for electricity increases. One such design is General Atomic's Modular HighTemperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (MHTGR). This is similar to the FRG's THTR-300,which is a 300-MWe "pebble-bed" reactor. General Atomic claims that with the passivesafety features of this design, it needs no containment. But there is a difference ofopinion in the technical community on this claim. Modular gas-cooled reactors are alsounder study in the USSR.
3.5 Standardization
Standardization is widely regarded as a remedy to many of the problems facingnuclear power because of three key benefits it promises:
1) Economies in manufacture2) Reduced regulatory procedures, and3) Lower construction costs.
However, those opposed to standardization argue that a single design error would alsobe standardized, threatening a host of units. Opponents also argue that it may encouragetechnological stagnation.
To date, several countries have implemented standardization in varying degrees.France's state-owned utility, Electricite de France has done so vigorously with very
I7
positive results. And since early 1970 the nuclear industry in FRG has usedstandardization to control costs and siplify licensing. In 1981, FRG initiated ;*s "convoy"system, designed to standardize requirements between similar PWR designs .t variousstages of construction and licensing. The main features of the convoy system are: (1) acommon set of engineering documents for all projects; and (2) only four licensing steps(three for construction and one for commissioning) in contrast to up to 15 steps thathave applied to previous projects. Using the convoy concept, FRG has been able tolicense several new plants since 1970.
In the US, the SNUPPS design, with two plants currently in operation, representsa positive but isolated step towards standardization. But even though nuclear reactorvendors have also proposed standardized designs (many approved by the US NuclearRegulatory Commission), standardization has not found general support in the US.
In the UK, however, standardization of a modified SNUPPS design in theSizewell B reactor and four planned units represents a serious move towardstandardization. Further experience in standardization's impact on construction time,licensing, operability and cost will be useful.
18
4. NUCLEAR POWER COSTS
4.1 Background
The question of future nuclear power costs is clouded by the uncertainties ofregulatory requirements varying by country, construction times affected accordingly. andthe possible impact of ongoing reactor design changes. It is meaningless to look backat past designs, schedule achievements, and actual nuclear costs, because nuclear plantconstruction delays in some countries, particularly the US, and public apprehensionfollowing the Three Mile Island and Chernobyl accidents, have established a newenvironment for any power system planning studies that include nuclear power as anoption. Any proposal to build a nuclear power plant now must necessarily faceopposition, both national and international, given the growing worldwide concern over allaspects of atmospheric degradation.
4.2 Nuclear Plant Construction Times
The lengthened nuclear construction times are apparent in Annex 5 which showsthe variations in construction time (first concrete to grid connection) for 450 nuclearunits constructed between 1956 and 1987. The extremes range from a little over threeyears achieved by France and the UK in the late 1950s to 14 years for an Indian nuclearunit completed in the mid-1980s. However, more important is the trend in constructiontimes. The average construction time was less than four years before 1960 and almostnine years for nuclear units connected to the grid in 1987, thus more than doubling overthe 30-year period.
43 Typical Nuclear Power Plant Cost Estimates
Given the great uncertainties concerning future nuclear unit designs, regulation,and construction times, any cost estimates for nuclear power can only be approximate.Nonetheless, many references are available (see Bibliography) presenting nuclear costestimates for a wide range of conditions and sites. One such estimate (by the USDepartment of Energy) is shown in Annex 6 and presents the "overnight" (excludingescalation and IDC) estimated capital cost for a 1100-MW nuclear unit to becommissioned in the year 2000. The results are $1600 per kW capital cost under idealconditions with an 8-year construction time, or $2700 per kW under typical US experienceand a 12-year schedule. If one adds allowances for escalation and interest duringconstruction the total investment requirements (in current dollars) would probably bemore than double the above $1600 to $2700 figures, clearly showing that nuclear powerplants, based on today's conditions and designs, are extremely capital intensive.
19
4.4 Comparison of Base Generating Costs
Some existing nuclear plants are producing electricity at very low generation costsof only a few US cents per kWh, reflecting the fast construction schedules, limitedregulatory action, and "turnkey" construction arrangements that characterized the earlynuclear units. However, future nuclear plants will not benefit from such ideal conditionsand the generation costs will accordingly be higher. Many generation cost comparis-'nsfor various plant types are available with widely differing results, depending to someextent on the particular bias of the estimator. Annex 7 shows a generation costcomparison prepared by the International Energy Agency (IEA), presented in a 1988report on "Emission Controls in Electricity Generation and Industry".
The IEA estimates show that future nuclear generation costs will be about 5 USe(1987)/kWh based on the assumptions shown in Annex 7 including a 10% discount rate,compared to about 4 US¢/kWh for coal, 5/2 USe/kWh for oil, and 41/2 USe/kWh for gas(presumably combined cycle). The assumed oil and gas prices seem high, but the IEAreference explains that these are average expected lifetime prices. Similarly the coalprice band of $40 to $60/tonne used in the report may be high.
Nevertheless, the IEA study shows that at 10% discount rate, nuclear is noteconomic relative to coal or gas thermal, based on the assumptions used, and probablynot even economic compared with oil thermal, if lower oil prices continue. However, theIEA figures also show that all the generation costs are in a 3 to 5/2 USe/KWh band, soany significant changes in nuclear construction times, nuclear capital costs or fossil fuelprices could easily change the order of merit in favor of nuclear.
20
S. THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR POWER
For the near and medium term, i.e., for plant commissioning in the next 10 years,the prospects of nuclear power depend strongly on conditions in and perspectives ofspecific countries. For certain countries such as France, with an excellent record of plantstandardization, construction and operation, the deployment of nuclear plants will continuealbeit at a reduced pace, given also the fact that, in that country, nuclear energy hasalready reached 75% of electricity market penetration. Japan, Korea and Taiwan(China), having good experience with their nuclear development will probably continueon this development path, in view also of their heavy dependence on imported energyresources and the need for secure and diversified supply sources. Other countries, suchas China, Pakistan, and India have also shown a strong determination to develop nuclearpower based on current technology, in particular French technology which, as mentionedearlier, has had an impressive record. These latter countries may have importantmotivations other than the electricity supply, such as national prestige and a strong desirefor indigenous technological development. Outside these specific cases, the prospectsof nuclear power based on current technclogy are indeed bleak, given the cost record andsafety con'rerns among the public.
' the long term, i.e., beyond the year 2000, the prospects of nuclear powerdeployere.]i may become much brighter, based on new designs, as described in Section3. If the new simplified and standardized designs, now being developed by internationalconsortia fc.r PWRs and BWRs, can '5tain a license in the time period 1995-96, ifconstructic(;; can be guaranteed at a fixed cost and within a reasonable time period ofthree to fi. years, if a solution (mostly political and institutional) for the radioactivewaste manag ment problem 3 can be established, and if the public and the utilities canbe convinced that the plants will be sufficiently robust and resistant to operationaltransients an-. r1malfunctions including human error, it is quite possible that nuclear powerwill once againi become a viable option for utilities around the world.
It has been argued by technical experts that although the evolutionary designsmentioned above, which will still require the functioning of safety systems for reactorshutdown and residual heat removal from the core to prevent plant damage and thespread of radioactivity to the environment, may be acceptable in developed countrieswhere the technical infrastructure and personnel competence exist at high levels, thiscould hardly be the case in developing countries where many more scenarios of
3 This is certainly a highly controversial matter. There are those who would arguethat the technical solutions proposed have not been adequately demonstrated andthat it is impossible to predict waste repository behavior and hence risks,hundreds of years into the future. A separate paper on radioactive wastemanagement is being prepared for publication.
21
equipment malfunction and human error, including the consequences of political instabilityand local conflicts, can be convincingly postulated. For this latter case, revolutionary newdesigns that can be demonstrated by actual test to sustain the worst possible equipmentfailure and human error or negligence without significant damage to the reactor core orplant, will be necessary. Such a possibility exists, based on a graphite-moderated, helium-cooled reactor design. The successful tests conducted at Julich, FRG, indicate that amodular, 100-MW (electric) reactor can be built that will satisfy the above stringentcriteria. If the cost of such a plant can be contained in the order of US$1,500 inconstant 1990 US$ and if its passive safety can be demonstrated by actually testing a fullsize unit, it is reasonable to assume that the confidence of both the public and investorscan be obtained. Although more development work, especially in the area of balance ofplant needs to be done, such a development may open the door for world-widedevelopment, including in developing countries, with wide public acceptance.
The thrust to develop such a nuclear design for large-scale deployment may,ironically, come from environmental concerns. More specifically from the escalatingworries concerning environmental damage from the burning of fossil fuels, particularly thegreenhouse effect. Massive environmental degradation from acid rain deposition has beendocumented and demonstrated beyond doubt in a number of areas including EasternEurope, Canada, the US, and the Scandinavian countries. Although acid deposition maybe controllable to a great extent, through a variety of methods to reduce sulphur andnitrogen oxide emissions, fossil fuels, particularly coal, emit a host of other noxioussubstances, including toxic trace metals (from arsenic to zinc!), radioactivity, polycyclicaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and carbon dioxide. This latter emission may prove tobe, in the long run, the most dangerous substance and the most difficult, if notprohibitively expensive, to control. With grave concerns for the possibility of a globalwarming trend that may drastically alter the earth's climate and cause massive economicand population dislocations, it seems quite possible that, "clean" and "safe" nuclear power,as defined above, may be found by the public a more acceptable solution and animportant component in the future fuel mix for electricity generation. With increasingelectrification of the economy, and particularly of the transportation and industrial sectorswhich are major contributors of greenhouse gases, nuclear power may also displace agood portion of fossil fuels used in these sectors. In this perspective, and assuming theadvent of a new generation of nuclear plants, the long-term prospects of nuclear powerseem much better than the short- to medium-term prospects. Technical developmentsin this area merit continuous and careful monitoring.
22
REFERENCES
RI. Power Engineering Magazine, Page 14, June 1989.
R2. World List of Nuclear Power Plants: Operable, Under Construction and On Order(30 MWe and over) as of December 31, 1989, Nuclear News/February 1990.
R3. Nuclear Power and Fuel Cycle: Status and Trends, IAEA, 1988.
R4. IAEA Presentation to the World Bank, November 8, 1988.
R5. A Guide to Nuclear Power Technology: A Resource for Decision Making, by F.J.Rahn, A.G. Adamantiades, J.E. Kenton and C. Braun, John Wiley, 1984.
R6. Nuclear Energy Cost Database, ORNL, DOE, NE-0078, December 1986.
R7. Emission Controls in Electricity Generation and Industry, International EnergyAgency, 1988.
R8. IAEA, Nuclear Power Reactors in the World, RDS No.2, April 1989.
23
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Developing Industrial Infrastructures to Support a Programme of Nuclear Power -A Guidebook.
2. The Economics of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Nuclear Energy Agency, OECD, Paris,1985.
3. Dollar Fact$ About the US Operating Nuclear Power Plant Market, as ofDecember 21, 1987. Study No. 8, American Nuclear Society.
4. The Economics of Nuclear Energy, edited by L.G. Brookes and H. Motamen,Chapman and Hall, 1984.
5. Nuclear Energy Prospects to 2000. International Energy Agency/Nuclear EnergyAgency, OECD, Paris, 1982.
6. Energy and Nuclear Power Planning in Developing Countries, Technical ReportSeries No. 245, LAEA, 1985.
7. ABB-Atom's BWR 30 is Based on Experience with Proven Design Features,Nuclear Engineering Inte:national, June 1988.
8. Japan Studies High Convertor Reactors, Nuclear Engineering International, June1988.
9. ISER: An International Inherently Safe Reactor Concept, Nuclear EngineeringInternational, June 1988.
10. AP600 Offers a Simpler Way to Greater Safety Operability and Maintainability,Nuclear Engineering International, November 1988.
11. Inherency, Safety Keynote Advanced Reactor Concepts, Power, November 1988.
12. Making Progress on PIUS Design and Verification, Nuclear EngineeringInternational, November 1988.
13. US ALV/R Programme Sets Out Utility Requirements for the Future, NuclearEngineerinIg International, November 1988.
14. The Next Generation, Nuclear Industry, July/August 1988.
24
15. Soviets Concentrate on the PWR and Work on Advanced Concepts, NuclearEngineering International, June 1988.
16. Review of Results Reported by an Expert Group of UNIPEDE (InternationalUnion of Producers and Distributors of Electrical Energy) at the UNIPEDECongress in Sorrento, Italy, June 1988. Nuclear News, September 1988, andNuclear Engineering International, October 1988.
17. 600 MWe APWR Forecast to Cost $762 million, Nuclear News, October 1988.
18. Nuclear Economi;, 2000, ORNL-6368, June 1987.
19. Energy Economic Database Program (EEDB-VIII), Phase VIII Update, UE&C,DOE, NE-0079, December 1986.
20. Technical Reference Book for Energy Economic Database Program (EEDB),UE&C, DOE, NE-0080, December 1986.
21. Cost Estimate Relations for Nuclear Power Plant O&M, ORNL TM-10563,November 1989.
22. Cost Estimate Guidelines for Advanced Nuclear Power Technology, ORNL TM-10071, Revision 0, July 1986 and Revision 1, July 1987.
23. US Construction Cost Rise Threatens Nuclear Option, Nuclear EngineeringInternational, June 1982.
24. Nuclear Energy Conversion by M.M. El-Wakil. Intext Educational Publishers, 1971.
ANNEX 1
25 Page 1 of 1
Nuclear Power Reactors In Operation and under Construction (31 December 1988)
In operation Under constuction Nuclear electricitysupplied in 1988 Total operating
Country Total Total experienceNumber of Number of it h Percentge (reactor-years)a
uis capacity uis capacity TW-h o oaunits (MW(e)) units (MW(e)) of total
Argentina 2 935 1 692 5.1 11.2 21Belgium 7 5 480 40.6 65.5 87Brazil 1 626 1 1245 0.6 0.3 7Bulgaria 5 2 585 2 1 906 16.0 35.6 44Canada 18 12 185 4 3 524 78.2 16.0 206China 3 2 148Cuba 2 816Czechoslovakia 8 3 264 8 5 120 21.7 26.7 44Finland 4 2 310 18.4 36.0 39France 55 52 588 9 12 245 260.2 69.9 488German Dem. Rep. 5 1 694 6 3 432 10.9b 9.9 72Germany, Fed. Rep. 23 21 491 2 1 520 137.8 34.0 279Hungary 4 1 645 12.6 48.9 14India 6 1 154 8 1 760 5.4 3.0 73Iran, Islam. Rep. 2 2 392Italy 2 1 120 78Japan 38 28 253 12 10 931 167.8b 23.4 394Korea. Rep. 8 6 270 1 900 38.0 46.9 36Mexico 2 1 308Netherlands 2 508 3.5 5.3 36Pakistan 1 125 0.2 0.6 17Poland 2 880Romania 5 3 300South Africa 2 1 842 10.5 7.3 8Spain 10 7 519 48.3 36.1 83Sweden 12 9 693 66.3 46.9 135Switzerland 5 2 952 21.5 37.4 69USSR 56 33 823 26 21 230 215.7 12.6 687UK 40 11921 2 1 833 55.5 19.3 811USA 108 95 273 7 7 689 526.9 19.5 1 262Yugoslavia 1 632 3.9 5.2 7
Total 429 310 812 105 84 871 1 794.9 5 041
Note: The totals include Taiwan. China. where at the end of 1988 there were six units with a total capacity of 4924MW(e) in operation and a total of 44 reactor-years' of operating experience had been gained. The six unitsgenerated 29.3 TW-h" altogether during 1988, amounting to 41.0% of the total electricity generated.
Figures are rounded to the nearest year.b IAEA estimate.
Source: RB.
26 ANNEX 2Page 1 of 2
PWR NUCLEAR DESIGN
Outer concrete Prmary| Secondary Side(containment shield) side
Steel liner
r Premare v essuozer econcrete i d S
stemg af Steam to trdto inera
Sore _ 4 Turbine: 7 (Multi~~~~~~~ geerto ndense
Pressur veslpuppm
Schematic PWR power plant. The primary reactor system is enclosed in z steel-linedconcrctc containment building. Stearn generated within the building flows to the turbine-generatorsystem (outside the building). after which it is condensed and returned to the steatn generators.
Source: R.5.
27 ANNEX 2
Page 2 of 2
3600 MW(t) STANDARD NSSS DESIGN DATA FOR PWR
Number of fuel assemblies 205Core power, MWt 3,600NSS power, MWt 3,618Linear power, kW/ft 5.43Steam pressure, psia 1,060Superheat, °F 50Net plant output, MWe 1/ 1,244Net plant heat rate, Btu/kWh 1/ 9,909Active fuel length, in. 143No. of control rod drivesU core 72Pu core 77Maximum 89
Reactor coolant system flow, 106 lb/hr 150.5Reactor vessel inlet temperature, OF 572.3Reactor vessel outlet temperature, °F 628.8Reactor vessel I.D., in. 182Reactor coolant hot leg I.D., in. 38Reactor coolant cold leg I.D., in. 28Pump suction I.D., in. 32Number of steam generator tubes 16,000Steam generator height, ft 75.4Reactor vessel-steam generator spacing, ft 34.0Core flooding tanks, number/volume, unit ft3 2/1,800Low-pressure injection pumps, number/flow, unit gal/min 2/5,000High-pressure injection pumps, number/flow, unit gal/min 3/700
1/ Estimated at 2 in. Hg backpressure, seven FW heaters.
Source: R5.
28
ANNEX 3Page 1 of 2
BWR NUCLEAR DESIGN
7 MPa (1040 psia)287C (549°F)
F Reactor o ng ~~~~~~~~Turbine generatorvessel <Z
l ~~~~~~~~Extraction X Condenser_ l i 1; Separators lines r .J
Core < Fand dryers 21(64°2C0°F) t t + X _ =; uCondensate
-1 i;; .5E1 Feed Heat n ~~~Heater drains i
pums 5Demineralizer ,¢
Recirculation pumps
BWR single-cycle power loop. (Courtesy General Electric Co.)
Source: R5.
29ANNEX 3Page 2 of 2
TYPICAL SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS OF A CURRENT BWR DESIGN
Rated core power (thermal) 3579 MWtElectric output 1252 MWeEfficiency 33.6%Steam flow rate 1.94 x 103 kg/sec (15.396 x 106 lb/hr)Steam pressure, nominal 7MPa (1040 psia)Average power density 56 kW/litesrCore coolant flow rate 13.24 x 1i kg/sec (105 x 106 kb/hr)Reactor feedwater rate 1.94 x 10 kg/sec (15.358 x 10 lb/hr)Feedwater temperature 2160C (4200F)Core inlet temperature 277*C (532°F)Core outlet temperature 288°C (550°F)Steam quality at core outlet(design) 14.88% steam by weight
Number of recirculation loops 2 (pipe material: carbon steel)Number of ;et pumps 20Number of steam lines 4
Source: R5.
30ANNEX 4Page 1 of 2
CANDU NUCLEAR DESIGN
STEAM PIPES
STEAMGENERATORS
PRIMARY PUMPSPRESSURIZER
HEADERS HEADERS
CALANDRIA
L .I. : BRACTOR
L FUEL .
3 LIGHTWATERSTEAM
o LIGHT WATER CONDENSATE MODERATOR PUMP
* HEAVY WATER COOLANT
o HEAVY WATER MODERATOR
MOOERATOR HEAT EXCHANGER
Source: R5.
31ANNEX 4Page 2 of 2
EVOLUV ION OF CANDU POWER REACTORS
Douglas Point Pickering A Bruce A Gentlily
Net output (MWe) 208 514 x 4 745 x 4 600Number of channels 306 390 480 380Core length (cm) 500 594 594 594Fuel Inventory (Mg U) 41,5 92.3 114 95.8iurnup (MWd/MG U) 8400 8000 9600 7500D20 Inventory (Mg) 179.5 403.69 568.1 467Inlet temperature (C) 249 249 252*C inner region 267
264-C outer regionOutlet temperature (-C) 293 293 299 312Number of pumps 10 16 (12 active) 4 4Number of boilers 8 12 8 4TurbineSteam temperature (C) 250 at throttle 250 at boiler 253 258Throttle pressure (MPa) 4.05 4.02 4.13 4.54
Source: R5.
AVERAGE NUCLEAR UNIT CONSTiUCT0IN TIME SPAN
Operating and Shutdown Reactors
(year of grid connection)
1956 to 1960 1961 to 1965 1966 to 1970 1971 to 1915 1976 to 1980 1981 to 1985 1986 1987
Country No. Months No. Months No. Months No. Months No. Months No. Months No. Months NO. Months
Argentina 1 69 i 108
Belgium 1 59 3 58 4 86
Brazil 1 131
Bulgaria 2 59 1 86 1 103 1 88
Canada 1 48 1 83 5 71 4 69 7 98 2 110 1 90
Czechoslavakia 1 172 2 64 3 92 2 95 1 107
Finland 4 69
France 2 39 2 76 4 63 3 59 13 63 24 67 6 83 4 85
German OR I 76 2 51 2 72
Germany, FR I 35 6 53 4 58 7 69 7 107 2 100
Hungary 2 111 1 83 1 94
India 2 54 1 95 1 149 2 167
italy 3 48 1 95
Japan 2 54 3 39 8 46 11 61 10 52 2 61 1 50
Korea, Rep. of 1 67 4 72 2 67
Netherlands 1 41 1 48
Pakistan 1 62
South Alcica 2 101
Spain 1 49 2 53 5 113 1 78
Sweden i 77 5 57 3 77 4 77
Switzerlan4 1 46 2 49 1 62 1 124
Taiwan, China 2 63 4 71
UK 8 39 14 72 5 62 3 95 4 105 6 190
USA 2 42 6 40L 13 58 39 66 18 95 25 128 6 147 8 143
USSR 4 64 5 i8 3 85 10 55 11 73 17 68 3 61 4 76
Yugoslavia 1 80
Total 16 45 36 64 41 59 93 63 86 76 131 95 26 97 22 104
, 0
Note: Construction time is measured from first pouring of concrete, usually for the base mat, to connection of the unit to the grld.
Source: R3.
33
ANNEX 6
Page 1 of 1
ESTIMATED 1100 MW NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CAPITAL INVESTMENT COSTSIN THE US BASED ON MEDIAN AND BETTER CURRENT EXPERIENCE 1/ 2/
(millions of 1987 dollars)
Median Better Experience 4/
Experience 3/ (Reference)
Direct CostsLand and land rights 5 5Structures and improvements 300 200Reactor/boilcr plant equipment 360 310Turbine plant equipment 250 220
Electric plant equipment 110 80Miscellaneous plant equipment 60 45Main heat rejection system 55 50
Subtotal (direct costs) 1140 910
Indirect CostsConstruction services 370 220Home office engineering and services 400 220Field office engineering and services 430 110
Owner's costs 240 140
Subtotal (indirect costs) 1440 690
Total CostsDlrec+ and indirect costs 2580 1600
Physical contingency allowance 390 160
Total "overnight" 5/ 2960 1760
1987 Dollars per kilowatt 6/ (1100 MW unit size) 2700 1600
1/ 2000 startup.
2/ Chicago area.3/ 12-year design and construction lead time and 26 craft manhours/kW(e).4/ 8-year design and construction lead time, 14 craft manhours/kW(e), and includes regulatory
reforms.
5/ Base cost plus physical contingencies but excluding escalation and IDC.6/ Changed to 1987 dollars from 1986 dollars in source, using Bank guidelines.
Source: R6.
34 ANNEX 7Page 1 of I
COMPARISON OF BASE GENERATING COSTS FOR OIL,NUCLEAR, COAL AND GAS POWER PLANTS
Base Generating Costs: 5% Real Discount Rate(1987 United States millstkWh)
0.1(1) NuClearPWR Coal(u) OGsn()
2.6WMW 2i I00MW 2 x 600 MW 2OOMWLead Time Coal Importing Rcpon Low Coal Priceltegion (3)
6 years 0o years 16011onne S(litonneconstant
Capital cost 7.6 18.9 20.7 10.7 11.3 6.9Operating cost (2) 2.6 5.5 5.5 3.0 3.0 3.6Fuel cost 38.7 8.0 8.0 20.1 14.3 32.0
Total cost 48.9 32.4 34.2 33.8 28.6 42.5
Reference:Capacity factor 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%/o 70%Construction leadtime 3 years - 6 years 10 years 4 years 4 years 3 yearsCapital investment (S/kW) 915 1867 2 044 1268 1324 680(Initial investment (S/kW ) (850) (I 500) (1500) ( 150) (1 200) (1035)(Interest during construction $/kW ) (65) (237) (414) (118) (124)(Cost of decommissioning $/kW ) - (130) (130) - -Fuel cost $180/toe specified above specified above S160/toeConversion efficiency (net) 38% 34% 34% 37% 35% 42%Heat Rate (kcaVkWh) 2260 2 500 2 500 2300 2450 2000
() Excdudes all control coats for SO, and NO..(2) Operating cost in thn study is diety incurred in a pant. Actu openrting cost coud be hugher with the distributable costs of overhead expenes. which differ by utility.(3) Inland location. lower convetmon efficiency.
Base Generating Costs: 10% Real Discount Rate(1987 United States' mills/kWh)
o0l(l) NudcearPWR Coal(l) Ga(t)
2 6O MW 2xI 100MW 2x6rOMW 2x6OOMWLead Timt Coal Importing Regton Low Coal Price Region (3)
6 years SC .'.ars S60tlonne S40/tonneconstant
Capital cost 12.7 33.5 38.0 18.3 19.2 10.7Operating cost (2) 2.6 5.5 5.5 3.0 3.0 3.6Fuel cost 38.7 9.0 9 0 20.1 14.3 32.0
Total cost 54.0 48.0 52.5 41.4 36.5 46.3
Reference:Capacity factor 70% 70% 70% 70% 70% 70%Construction leadtime 3 years 6 years 10 years 4 years 4 years 3 yearsCapital investment (S/kW) 986 2 127 2 547 1392 1 452 680(Initial investment (S/kW ) (850) (1 500) (1500) (1150) (1200) (1035)(Interest during construction /kW ) (136) (497) (794) (242) (252)(Cost of decommissioning S/kW) - (130) (1_.) - -Fuel cost $180/toe specified above specified above $160/toeConversion efficiency (net) 38% 34% 34% 37% 35% 42%Heat Rate (kcal/kWh) 2260 2 500 2 500 2 300 2450 2000
(II Excludes all control costs for so. and NO..(21 Operating cost tn this studv n directiv incurred in a plant. Actual operating cost could be hlghe s:.ilh the distnbutsble costs of overhead expenes. which diffel bv utility.(31 Itland location,lower cony-nin ett.iencv.
Source: R7.
35
ENERGY SERIES PAPERS
No. 1 Energy Issues in the Developing World, February 1988.
No. 2 Review of World Bank Lending for Electric Power, March 1988.
No. 3 Some Considerations in Collecting Data on Household Energy Consumption,March 1988.
No. 4 Improving Power System Efficiency in the Developing Countries throughPerformance Contracting, May 1988.
No. 5 Impact of Lower Oil Prices on Renewable Energy Technologies, May 1988.
No. 6 A Comparison of Lamps for Domestic Lighting in Developing Countries, June1988.
No. 7 Recent World Bank Activities in Energy (Revised October 1989).
No. 8 A Visual Overview of the World Oil Markets, July 1988.
No. 9 Current International Gas Trades and Prices, November 1988.
No. 10 Promoting Investment for Natural Gas Exploration and Production inDeveloping Countries, January 1988.
No. 11 Technology Survey Report on Electric Power Systems, February 1989.
No. 12 Recent Developments in the U.S. Power Sector and Their Relevance for theDeveloping Countries, February 1989.
No. 13 Domestic Energy Pricing Policies, April 1989.
No. 14 Financing of the Energy Sector in Developing Countries, April 1989.
No. 15 The Future Role of Hydropower in Developing Countries, April 1989.
No. 16 Fuelwood Stumpage: Considerations for Developing Country Energy Planning,June 1989.
No. 17 Incorporating Risk and Uncertainty in Power System Planning, June 1989.
No. 18 Review and Evaluation of Historic Electricity Forecasting Experience, (1960-1985), June 1989.
36
ENERGY SERIES PAPERS cont'd
No. 19 Woodfuel Supply and Environmental Management, July 1989.
No. 20 The Malawi Charcoal Project - Experience and Lessons, January 1990.
No. 21 Capital Expenditures for Electric Power in the Developing Countries in the1990s, February, 1990.
No. 22 A Review of Regulation of the Power Sectors in Developing Countries,February 1990.
No. 23 Summary Data Sheets of 1987 Power and Commercial Energy Statistics for100 Developing Countries, March 1990.
No. 24 A Review of the Treatment of Environmental Aspects of Bank Energy Projects,March 1990.
No. 25 The Status of Liquified Natural Gas Worldwide, March 1990.
No. 26 Population Growth, Wood Fuels, and Resource Problems in Sub-SaharanAfrica, March 1990.
No. 27 The Status of Nuclear Power Technology - An Update. April 1990.
Note: For extra copies of these papers please call Ms. Mary Fernandez on extension33637 in the morning between 10 am and 11 am and in the afternoon between1:30 to 2:30 pm. From outside the country call: Area Code (202) 473-3637.FAX No. (202) 477-0547.
37
INDUSTRY SERIES PAPERS
No. 1 Japanese Direct Foreign Investment: Patterns and Implications forDeveloping Countries, February 1989.
No. 2 Emerging Patterns of International Competition in Selected IndustrialProduct Groups, February 1989.
No. 3 Changing Firm Boundaries: Analysis of Technology-Sharing Alliances,February 1989.
No. 4 Technological Advance and Organizational Innovation in theEngineering Industry, March 1989.
No. 5 Export Catalyst in Low-Income Countries, November 1989.
No. 6 Overview of Japanese Industrial Technology Development, March 1989.
No. 7 Reform of Ownership and Control Mechanisms in Hungary and China,April 1989.
No. 8 The Computer Industry in Industrialized Economies: Lessons for theNewly Industrializing, February 1989.
No. 9 Institutions and Dynamic Comparative Advantage Electronics Industryin South Korea and Taiwan, June 1989.
No. 10 New Environments for Intellectual Property, June 1989.
No. 11 Managing Entry Into International Markets: Lessons From the EastAsian Experience, June 1989.
No. 12 Impact of Technological Change on Industrial Prospects for the LDCs,June 1989.
No. 13 The Protection of Intellectual Property Rights and IndustrialTechnology Development in Brazil, September 1989.
No. 14 Regional Integration and Economic Development, November 1989.
No. 15 Specialization, Technical Change and Competitiveness in the BrazilianElectronics Industry, November 1989.
38
INDUSTRY SERIES PAPERS cont'd
No. 16 Small Trading Companies and a Successful Export Response: LessonsFrom Hong Kong, December 1989.
No. 17 Flowers: Global Subsector Study, December 1989.
No. 18 The Shrimp Industry: Global Subsector Study, December 1989.
No. 19 Garments: Global Subsector Study, December 1989.
No. 20 World Bank Lending for Small and Medium Enterprises: Fifteen Yearsof Experience, December 1989.
No. 21 Reputation in Manufactured Goods Trade, December 1989.
No. 22 Foreign Direct Investment From the Newly Industrialized Economies,December 1989.
No. 23 Buyer-Seller Links for Export Development, March 1990.
No. 24 Technology Strategy & Policy for Industrial Competitiveness: ACase Study of Thailand, February 1990.
No. 25 Investment, Productivity and Comparative Advantage, April 1990.
No. 26 Cost Reduction, Product Development and the Real Exchange Rate,April 1990.
No. 27 Overcoming Policy Endogeneity: Strategic Role for DomesticCompetition in Industrial Policy Reform, April 1990.
No. 28 Ccnditionality in Adjustment Lending FY80-89: The ALCID Database,May 1990.
No. 29 International Competitiveness: Determinants and Indicators,March 1990.
No. 30 FY89 Sector Review Industry, Trade and Finance, November 1989.
No. 31 The Design of Adjustment Lending for Industry: Review of Current Practice,June 1990.
39
INDUSTRY SERIES PAPERS cont'd
No. 32 National Systems Supporting Technical Advance in Industry: The BrazilianExperience, June 26, 1990.
No. 33 Ghana's Small Enterprise Sector: Survey of Adjustment Response andConstraints, June 1990.
No. 34 Footwear: Global Subsector Study, June 1990.
No. 35 Tightening the Soft Budget Constraint in Reforming Socialist Economies,May 1990.
No. 36 Free Trade Zones in Export Strategies, June 1990.
No. 37 Electronics Development Strategy: The Role of Government, June 1990
No. 38 Export Finance in the Philippines: Opportunities and Const- ints forDeveloping Country Suppliers, June 1990.
No. 39 The U.S. Automotive Aftermarket: Opportunities and Constraints forDeveloping Country Suppliers, June 1990
Note: For extra copies of these papers please contact Miss Wendy Young onextension 33618, Room S-4101