U.S. Nuclear Industry Life in the Fast Lane
Transcript of U.S. Nuclear Industry Life in the Fast Lane
Organization of AREVA
Mining Business
Group
Reactors & Services Business
Group
Engineering & Projects Organization
Executive Board& Committee
Renewable Energies Business
Group
Back End Business
Group
Front End Business
Group
Functional Departments
AREVA
World leader in the energy business
� N°1 in the entire nuclear cycle
Our mission
� Enabling everyone to have access to ever cleaner, safer and more economical energy
Our strategy
� To set the standard in CO2-free power generation.
x Capitalize on our integrated business model to spearhead the nuclear revival:- Build one third of new nuclear generating capacities- Make the fuel secure for our current and future customers
x Expand our renewable energies offering.
AREVA - The Leader of the Nuclear Industry
W
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
AREVA FAAE Westinghouse& Toshiba
MHI Hitachi USEC GE Nuclear URENCO CAMECO AECL
Front End (excl. fuel) Reactor & Services + Fuel Back End
W
Ź No. 1 worldwide; No. 1 in Europe and the USŹ No. 1 in Plants / FuelŹ No. 1 in the Back End
Ź No. 3 WorldwideŹ No. 2 in Plants / Fuel
Relative Sales in the nuclear business
T
M$
AREVA across the globe100 countriesMarketing & Sales
Two-thirds of AREVA’s sales revenuecame from outside France
43 countriesProduction & Manufacturing
Bridging the Gap: Workforce CertaintyResources for existing and new build projects
Hiring Integration Training
Hiring
Investing in human capital: more than one new hire every hour
2006
8 600
2007
11 50015 000
2008
»Goal of 12 000
»2009 (e)
The Energy Highway
Recession impacted U. S. energy demand and pricingFuel costs
x Dropped for the most part, although oil is reboundingx Due to reduced demand, coal inventories at utilities are high which will depress coal
pricesx Natural Gas Prices dropped from $8/MMBtu in 2007 to $4/MMBtu
Electricity prices dropped due to recessionx Electricity demand will increase as economy improves
New generation delayedIncreasing environmental obligationsPersonnel resource shortages
Energy is a key issue facing the Obama Administration
Current U.S. Plant Capacity and Age
100 - 499 500 - 999 1000+Natural Gas 19 12 8
Coal 43 33 32Nuclear 35 26
Average Age of Plants (years)
“New” gas, “Old” Coal
and Nuclear
583
272
12
937
270
1448 57
0
200
400
600
800
1000
100-499 500-999 1000+
Nameplate Capacity
Num
ber o
f Uni
ts
CoalGasNuclear
Source: Global Energy Decisions
New Coal Plant Construction Slowed Due to Regulatory Uncertainty
141
175 13 15
113
020406080
100120
Propos
ed
Feasib
ility
App P
endin
g
Permitte
d
Under C
onst.
Postpo
ned
Canceled
No. o
f Pla
nts
Current status of 500+ MW coal-fired plants since 2000
Utilities are closing coal-fired plants in anticipation of more stringent emission standards
Source: Global Energy Decisions
Coal Production Cost Example
• 2 coal-fired units @ 1300MWs each
• Both on line in 1973
• Burns pulverized #9 bituminous coal (3% sulfur & 10% ash)
Nitrogen oxide Sulfur Dioxide
TVA’s Cumberland plant is one of their largest baseload plants
Clean Coal Backfits Substantially Raise Their Costs of Production; eg – TVA Cumberland Coal
Plant (1265 MWe X 2)
2000 avg. production costs ($/MWh)
Fuel $10.32Variable $ 0.46Fixed $ 1.85
Total prod. costs $12.62
2009 avg. production costs ($/MWh) (after backfits)
Fuel $27.00Variable $ 1.74Fixed $ 6.80
Total prod. costs $35.54
Results of DOE Carbon Capture Costs StudyCompared thermal efficiency & costs of supercritical & ultra-supercritical pulverized coal plants
Thermal efficiency reduced by 13%Capital costs increased by 73% - 90%Increased costs of electricity produced by 60% to 70%
Source: Global Energy Decisions
Emissions Reductions = SOX – 93% , NOX – 78%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Coal Nuclear
$/M
Wh
17
17.1
17.2
17.3
17.4
17.5
17.6
17.7
17.8
Coal Nuclear
$/M
Wh
Nuclear vs. Coal Production Costs2000
2007
2015 – Gen III
Small
Substantial Financial Advantage For Gen III
Nuclear Production Cost
Coal costs have increased
010
20304050
6070
Coal Nuclear
$/M
Wh
CO2
Nuclear costs reduced 30%
Uncertain coal production
Source: Global Energy Decisions
Reserve margins get dangerously low
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Perc
ent
PJM East PJM W ERCOT VACAR SERC
New baseload neededSource: Global Energy Decisions
PJM Daily Loads and Locational Marginal Pricing
(LMP)
Source: Global Energy Decisions
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
8/9/09
8/9/09
8/10/0
9
8/11/0
9
8/12/0
9
8/13/0
9
8/14/0
9
8/15/0
9
8/16/0
9
PJM
Loa
d M
Ws
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
LMP
$/M
Whr
LoadPrice $/MWh
Value of a Nuclear Power Plant
2015
2010
Estimated 2015 Curve
2007
Peak Load Price Value of Nuclear Source: Global Energy Decisions
PRODUCTS
BIOENERGIES
SOLAR
ENERGY CARRIER AND STORAGE
�Wind 2 ADAGE projects generating revenue for AREVA
�As an equity owner
�As the EPC for $400M
�Wind one Thermal Power plant project of 15 MW ($100M+)
�Purchased AUSRA, now AREVA Solar, and build a US EPC
practice
� Identify a US customer ready to invest in pilot
Renewable storage solutions
WIND POWER
AREVA’s growing renewables activities• Wind in 2010 one pilot project of 20 to 30 MW operational by 2012 ( $ 40M to $60 M) leading to a larger Wind farm of 200MW + by 2014/1015
• Finalize an industrial scenario to manufacture in the US
AREVA is entering the utility scale solar market with both CSP and CPV
20
Concentrating Solar Power (CSP)
Concentrated Photovoltaics (CPV)
• Equipment/ OEM•Solar Steam Plants
•CPV Arrays
•Turnkey Solar Steam & CPV Power Plants
• Specific projects •Hybrid solutions
•Storage
• Distributed generation
• “Beyond steam with AREVA” •Operations and maintenance
AREVA portfolio of technologies AREVA portfolio of services
AREVA announced its acquisition of Ausra –a US solar company
Renewable Energy Should be a Part of the New Energy Mix
Continued R&D can provide technologies to:� Improve efficiency� Lower costs
Storage options can address intermittent capacity factors� Wind power peaks in non-peak usage times
Presents challenges to grid due to intermittent generation� Often in locations where no existing grid� Difficult to predict capacity
Useful for peaking and intermediate power production needs
Requires larger footprint than nuclear or other baseload generation
Requires back-up carbon-producing generation
Renewables Footprint Much Larger Than Other Generation Types
For 1000 MW plantSolar: 40 sq. miles of land
Wind: 40 sq. miles of land
Nuclear: 1/3 sq. mile
Renewables Must Be Part of Energy Mix But for Baseload?
The Reality of Renewables
Method Needed for 1000 MW Capacity
Land Area (sq. miles)
Wind 300 - 1000 Wind Turbines 40-70
Biogas 60 million pigs or,800 million chickens
2,400
Bioalcohol potatoes corn
wheat
2,8006,200
104,000
Solar @ 10% efficiency 40
Biomass wood 12,000
Nuclear 1 plant 1/3
Renewables Should be Part of the Electricity Mix
Nuclear Energy: the Only Available Baseload Technology That Can Replace Fossil Fuels
9 Electricity
9 Hydrogen
9 Desalinization
9 Heating
Source: Patrick Moore
Historical US Nuclear Plant Construction Costs Were Out of Control Due to Regulatory Changes
and Escalating Costs
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
Con
stru
ctio
n C
osts
$/k
We
DresdenQuad Cities
Oconee
McGuire 1 & 2
Catawba
LaSalle 1
Palo Verde 1
Braidwood
Perry
Vogtle
Hope Creek
Wolf Creek
Beaver Valley 2
March 1979TMI Accident
Diablo Canyon
From 10CFR 52.63(a)(4): “ for issuance of a combined license the Commission shall treat as resolved those matters resolved in
connection with the issuance of a design certification”
Old vs. New NRC Licensing Process
Early Site Permit
DesignCertification
Combined LicenseIssued Construction ITAAC
Verification Operation
Apply forConstruction Permit Construction
Apply for Operating License
Operating License Issued
Operation
Construction Permit Issued
Announced COL Projects in U.S. MarketTechnology (Qty.) Company Site # Units
AP1000(14)
Duke Power William Lee, SC 2
NuStart (TVA) Bellefonte, AL 2
Progress EnergyHarris, NC 2
Levy County, FL 2
SCE&G V.C. Summer, SC 2
Southern Vogtle, GA 2
FPL (COLA Review Not Yet Scheduled) Turkey Point, FL 2
US EPRTM
(4)
UniStar Nuclear Energy Calvert Cliffs, MD 1
Ameren UE (COLA review suspended) Callaway, MO 1
PPL Bell Bend, PA 1
UniStar Nuclear Energy Nine Mile Point, NY 1
ESBWR(1)
Dominion (Reselecting technology) North Anna, VA (1*)
Entergy (COLA Review Suspended) River Bend, LA 0
NuStart (Entergy) ( COLA Review Suspended) Grand Gulf, MS 0
DTE Fermi, MI 1
ABWR (2) NRG South Texas Project, TX 2
APWR (2) Luminant Comanche Peak, TX 2
Unspecified(4+)
Transition Power (Expect COLA 2010) Blue Castle Generation, UT 1
2 Unannounced Applicants (Expect COLA 2010) Unspecified 2 or 4
Southern (Expect COLA 2011) Unspecified Greenfield Site 1 or 2
COLA filed with NRC Selected For DOE Loan Guarantee*Reselecting TechnologyRef. U.S. NRC New Reactors Data 10/13/09
Each safety train is independent and located within a physically separate building.
Four Train Concept
Four-Train Concept
On-line maintenance without entering action statementsRadial arrangement simplifies layout and reduces pipingActive cross-connects eliminated� Simplifies systems� Minimizes components� Reduces operator burden in case of accident
Reduced component sizesSeparate safeguards buildings� Physical separation� Improved hazards mitigation
x fire, flood, external events
SYSTEMEPR Westinghouse 4-Loop
Pump HX Tank Valve Pump HX Tank Valve
SI / RHR 8 4 4 335 4 6 5 351
CVCS incl. Boration, Demin/Seal Water 11 6 8 397 11 13 14 751
CCW 8 14 6 404 7 13 7 758
Total 27 24 18 1136 22 32 26 1860
5 More Pumps8 Less HX
8 Less Tanks724 Less Valves
Aircraft Hazard ProtectionNRC Website – New Reactors Rule MakingsNRC proposed a modification to the ruling for "Consideration of Aircraft Impacts for NewNuclear Power Reactor Designs," that would require new plants applicants to incorporate“design features and functional capabilities that avoid or mitigate, to the extent practical andwith reduced reliance on operator actions, the affects of the aircraft impact on core coolingcapability, containment integrity, spent fuel cooling capability, and spent fuel pool integrity.” Ingeneral, the staff said , the aircraft impact would be considered on a large commercial aircraftused for domestic flights and fueled for such a flight. This new ruling would apply to all newlicense applicants.
BASEMAT
Post-Tensioned Concrete ContainmentBuilding
Reinforced Concrete Shield
Building
Annulus
4.3 FT
Steel Liner
4.3 FT*
6 FT
*Exposed section of Shield Building (above surrounding buildings) is 5.8 ft thick
BASEMAT
Post-Tensioned Concrete ContainmentBuilding
Reinforced Concrete Shield
Building
Annulus
4.3 FT
Steel Liner
4.3 FT*
6 FT
*Exposed section of Shield Building (above surrounding buildings) is 5.8 ft thick
EPR the FIRST Generation III+ under construction: Nth of a Kind
Predictability based on experience
Olkiluoto 3, Finland Flamanville 3, France
Under Construction
Calvert Cliffs 3, U.S.
Project Preparation
P6 –S1
Taishan 1&2, China
Under Construction
U.S. EPR Reference Project Schedule
Updated 3/20/2008
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
EPR Design Certification
DC Application Preparation & Review DC Rule(Review - 24 mos, rulemaking - 10 mos)
COL Licensing
Site Selection
COL Application Preparation & Review(preparation - 24 mos, review including hearing - 36.5 mos)
Project Execution
Procurement Long-lead Component/Fabrication
Procurement & Related Engineering
Detailed engineering for Construction
Simulator Procurement / Installation(Simulator required operational 12 months before fuel load)
Plant Construction, Commissioning(Construction - 54 months) Site Prep
Detailed engineering for Construction (Generic and Site Specific)Planning
NRC Review
Hearing
DCA Prep & NRC Interactions
Procure/Fabricate/Deliver
2014 2015 20162013Activity 20122008 2009 2010 20112005 2006 2007
COLA Prep, NRC Mtgs NRC COLA Reviews
Plant Construction, Start-up Testing
Long lead component procurement and fabricationPlanning
Planning
Planning
Plng Manufacture, Test & Install
Complete
NSSS Components On-Site
Simulator Order Placed Start Software Development
Simulator Operational
First Safety Related Concrete Pour
Start Fuel Load
DC Rule Issued
COL Issued
Provisional Turnover
DC Application Submitted
COL Application Submitted
Elect. Mech.
CPCN Approved
Estimated 2008 Production Costs
$14.0
$31.4
$23.4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
4-Loop Plant US EPR Coal
$/M
Wh
New build will cost less to operate than existing plants
Investing in the U.S.AREVA Newport News, LLCThe First New Nuclear Heavy Component
Manufacturing Facility in the U.S.
¾ Ground-breaking in summer 2009¾ Manufacturing operations commencing
in January 2012
¾ Groundbreaking in 2011
¾ Capacity 3 MSWU/yr
¾ Centrifuge technology
¾ First production in 2014
Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility
In Summary - It’s an Exciting and Challenging Time
This is a critical time in the energy generation industry –demand supports the Nuclear RenaissanceWe face greater economic and environmental challenges than ever beforeNuclear is making a comeback� Environmentally friendly� Energy independence
We have the new technologies but success depends on� New approaches, innovation, enthusiasm and dedication� A new generation of “employees”
Our business is growing fast –we’ll be here for a long time
Combined Cycle Power Plant
Source: Duke Energy
Pollutant Potential to Emit(tons per year)
Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) 219 *Carbon Monoxide (CO) 108 *
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)
30
Particulate (as PM 10) 117 *Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 22
Formaldehyde 1Benzene 0.2
H2SO4 Mist 6Ammonia 212
500 – 600 MW Class CC: Air Emissions
Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy
“Because we were so focused on the destructive aspect of nuclear technology and nuclear war, we made the mistake of lumping nuclear energy in with nuclear weapons, as if all things nuclear were evil. that's as big a mistake as if you lumped nuclear medicine in with nuclear weapons.”
“A lot of people are stuck in the '70s. people haven't caught up with the fact that climate change has changed the whole climate of the environmental debate on this planet. The one technology that is contributing most to reducing greenhouse gases in America today is nuclear energy, and we could do a tremendous amount to increase that.”
—Patrick MooreCo-founder, GreenpeaceCo-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
“We have a choice to make: We can either continue the 30-year emotional debate about whether we should embrace nuclear energy, or we can accept its practical advantages. Love it or not, expanding nuclear energy makes both environmental and business sense.”
—Christine Todd WhitmanFormer Environmental Protection Agency administratorCo-chair, Clean and Safe Energy Coalition
North American Operating Nuclear Sites
Original Equipment ManufacturersB&W 7W 48CE 14GE 34
A small part of the US is deregulated
New Build Scope Yesterday and Today
10%
90%
1970s - 1980s Typical Scope
2010 – 2020 Typical Scope
AREVA scope will be 50% of total plant contract
NSSS, Equip. RV, SG, RCP
Nuclear system design & licensing
I & C , NSSS
Fuel handling equipment
Reactor containment: equipment design &
supply
Nuclear auxiliary building: equipment design &
supply
Emergency diesel generator: building
design & supply
Safeguards buildings equipment supply &
design
Total Plant Contract
50%50%
Total Plant
EPR the first Generation III+ under construction: AREVA never stopped
buildingGeneration I Generation III+ Generation IV
4 PWR & BWR 1 unit, France 3 units, Germany PHWR1 unit, Argentina
85 PWR & BWR(up-to 1400 MWe) 54 units, France16 units, Germany 15 units, exportFBR (Gen IV prototype) 1 unit, France
7 PWR (1300 to 1500 MWe) 4 units, France3 units, Germany
4 PWR under construction(1600+ MWe) 1 unit, France1 unit, Finland2 units, China
Under development
1950 1970 1988 2010 2040EPR, ATMEA1
& SWRN4, KONVOI .
Proven project and operational experience by building 102 new plants and maintaining existing nuclear fleet
7 models
P12 -S1
5 models
Generation II