Скачать презентацию The Future of Nuclear Energy for Electricity Generation Скачать презентацию The Future of Nuclear Energy for Electricity Generation

703c0682e4c3e6eac39f74e8c2358b69.ppt

  • Количество слайдов: 60

The Future of Nuclear Energy for Electricity Generation in Belgium W. D’haeseleer University of The Future of Nuclear Energy for Electricity Generation in Belgium W. D’haeseleer University of Leuven Energy-Institute ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Relative Proportion Energy Basket Electricity Generation in Belgium Nuclear Fuel Gaseous fuel 26, 8% Relative Proportion Energy Basket Electricity Generation in Belgium Nuclear Fuel Gaseous fuel 26, 8% Solid fuels 11, 5% Hydraulic 1, 8% Others 1, 1% Liquid fuels ENERGY INSTITUTE 57, 8% 1% KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Orders of magnitude Belgian electricity system (2000) Installed power 16 000 MWe Peak power Orders of magnitude Belgian electricity system (2000) Installed power 16 000 MWe Peak power (winter) 12 à 13 GWe Min power (summer) 7 GWe Electricity consumption 80 TWhe ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Present Situation Nuclear Energy in Belgium l Installed capacity l Commercial nuclear electricity generation Present Situation Nuclear Energy in Belgium l Installed capacity l Commercial nuclear electricity generation ~ 50 à 60% of ~ 80 TWhe l Power Plants Doel 1, 2 Doel 3, 4 ENERGY INSTITUTE ~ 5700 MWe ~ 2 × 400 MWe ~ 2 × 1000 MWe Tihange 1 ~ 900 MWe Tihange 2, 3 ~ 2 × 1000 MWe KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Evolution Nuclear Capacity in Phase-Out Scenario ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN Evolution Nuclear Capacity in Phase-Out Scenario ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Co-generation (CHP) ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN Co-generation (CHP) ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Cogeneration potential in Belgium l Based on VITO/IW study (also AMPERE) PPS > 5 Cogeneration potential in Belgium l Based on VITO/IW study (also AMPERE) PPS > 5 % w. r. t. separate generation Only Pe > 85 k. W No district heating l Energetic potential ~ 4000 MWe + 500 MWe economic potential ~ 2700 MWe + 400 MWe market potential ~ 2000 MWe + 300 MWe l Remaining mkt potential ~ 1000 MWe + 500 MWe ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Renewable Energy Potential Solar PV l Theoretically: 3000 TWh/a at 10% efficiency l ~ Renewable Energy Potential Solar PV l Theoretically: 3000 TWh/a at 10% efficiency l ~ 100 km 2 via roofs, streets, . . . => 10 – 20 TWh/a technical pot => 7. 6 GW installed l Problem: day/night cycle; seasons ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Renewable Energy Potential Wind; on shore l Theoretical potential - 340 TWh/a total - Renewable Energy Potential Wind; on shore l Theoretical potential - 340 TWh/a total - 190 TWh/a > 5 m/s - 50 TWh/a > 6 m/s l 5% surface: - 16 TWh/a total technical - 9. 5 TWh/a > 5 m/s - 2. 5 TWh/a > 6 m/s ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Renewable Energy Potential Wind; on shore l Several detailed studies (Wind Atlas Vlaanderen, TEE, Renewable Energy Potential Wind; on shore l Several detailed studies (Wind Atlas Vlaanderen, TEE, Van Leuven) l Prognosis Commission Ampere: 1 à 2 TWh ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Renewable Energy Potential Wind; off shore l l l ± 120 km 2, 10 Renewable Energy Potential Wind; off shore l l l ± 120 km 2, 10 to 30 km away from coast ± 1000 MW installed ± 3 TWh ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Renewable Energy Hydro l l l Theoretical potential ± 0. 6 TWh/a Technical potential Renewable Energy Hydro l l l Theoretical potential ± 0. 6 TWh/a Technical potential ± 0. 4 TWh/a Already 0. 3 TWh in use ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Renewable Energy Generation Cost l l l PV cells: 15 – 25 BEF/k. Wh Renewable Energy Generation Cost l l l PV cells: 15 – 25 BEF/k. Wh Wind: 2 – 5 BEF/k. Wh (or more) Biomass: 2 – 6 BEF/k. Wh (or more) Hydro: 3. 6 – 11 BEF/k. Wh Need green certificates to come to some sort of pseudo-economical potential ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Renewable Energy Total Technical Potential l Total electricity consumption Belgium ~ 80 TWh (1998); Renewable Energy Total Technical Potential l Total electricity consumption Belgium ~ 80 TWh (1998); perhaps ~ 100 TWh (2020) l Total renewable: max ~ 8 TWh l 3 – 4 TWh realistic (horizon 2020) l Without waste fraction: 2 – 3 TWh ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Nuclear Power l l l well designed nuclear plants very reliable & safe - Nuclear Power l l l well designed nuclear plants very reliable & safe - new generation of plants even safer (AP 600, ABWR, System 80+, EPR, …) - interesting new concepts (GT-MHTR) - generation iv (Gen-iv) Nuclear fuel only valuable for electricity production Nuclear route without GHG emission Unreasonable fear of nuclear waste & ionizing radiation Nuclear power not perfect, but quite valuable ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Nuclear power; contd New nuclear power stations l Nuclear plants are capital intensive - Nuclear power; contd New nuclear power stations l Nuclear plants are capital intensive - long Pay Back Time l Uncertainty for investors - electricity markets: preference for short PBT - pressure from public opinion & policy makers (NIMTO, NIMBY, BANANA)) ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Nuclear power; contd New power stations; contd l Attitude of utility executives - struggle Nuclear power; contd New power stations; contd l Attitude of utility executives - struggle for life; cost cutting predominant - no long term responsibility for electricity provision - no longer guaranteed delivery produced electricity - political climate (Sweden, Germany, Belgium) - but reverse evolution in Finland France - if nuclear plant proposed today, no guarantee to get operation license ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Nuclear power; contd New power stations; contd l Presently “only” expansion in Far East Nuclear power; contd New power stations; contd l Presently “only” expansion in Far East - transfer of know how West East - later, we’ll import from Japan! ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Nuclear power; contd Existing Nuclear Plants l Continue to operate “good” power stations - Nuclear power; contd Existing Nuclear Plants l Continue to operate “good” power stations - clean bill of health on safety aspects - positive contribution to GHG-issue - economically competitive ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Nuclear power; contd Existing nuclear plants; contd l No predetermined design life power station Nuclear power; contd Existing nuclear plants; contd l No predetermined design life power station - original “estimates” based on guess for thermal transients - all components replaceable; but safety level to be kept - ten-yearly overhaul - translated in economic price tag ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Nuclear power; contd Existing nuclear plants; contd l No technical arguments for premature closure Nuclear power; contd Existing nuclear plants; contd l No technical arguments for premature closure but in a democracy, government can impose limitations l Careful with “subtle” opposition against further operation - delays & heavy administration for permits replacements/modifications - heavy procedures for transport & management of nuclear waste ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Nuclear power; contd Uncertainties for energy efficiency & renewables necessary to keep nuclear technology Nuclear power; contd Uncertainties for energy efficiency & renewables necessary to keep nuclear technology - replace present generation by future generation - re-activate & improve breeding concept l necessary to invest in development “alternative” concepts - GT-MHTR, ADS l necessary to keep investing in R&D nuclear fusion research - unexhaustible and “clean” source - given political will, almost certain to succeed l ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

CO 2 emissions due to electricity generation ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN CO 2 emissions due to electricity generation ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Climate and Human Activity Conclusions Ampere climate expert: There is little doubt that the Climate and Human Activity Conclusions Ampere climate expert: There is little doubt that the measured increase of the CO 2 -eq emissions lead to an enhanced greenhouse effect ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Climate and Human Activity Conclusions consistent with IPCC 2 -nd assess. : “The balance Climate and Human Activity Conclusions consistent with IPCC 2 -nd assess. : “The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate” IPCC 3 -rd assess. : “In the light of new evidence … most of the observed warming up over the last 50 years is likely (chance > 0. 66 - 0. 90) to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations” ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

GHG “reductions” Kyoto Protocol ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN GHG “reductions” Kyoto Protocol ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Climate and Human Activity Further Ampere observations: • Kyoto Protocol will have “negligible” impact Climate and Human Activity Further Ampere observations: • Kyoto Protocol will have “negligible” impact • We will not be able to prevent global warming; we will have to prepare for adaptation • Kyoto is only the beginning; later, much more stringent reductions will be necessary ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Climate and Human Activity CO 2 emissions in EU: ~ constant between 1990 -1996 Climate and Human Activity CO 2 emissions in EU: ~ constant between 1990 -1996 but, * Germany: DDR * UK : massive switch coal gas CO 2 emissions in Belgium: + 13, 7 % between 1990 -1996 ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

CO 2 emissions due to electricity generation Preliminary figures 1996 for Belgium: 150 Mt CO 2 emissions due to electricity generation Preliminary figures 1996 for Belgium: 150 Mt GHG 130 Mt CO 2 118 Mt CO 2 due to combustion 22 Mt CO 2 electricity generation < 20 % CO 2 due to combustion European average ~ 30 % ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Emission scenarios Promix l l Promix simulation till 2012 Nuclear generation frozen IEA fuel Emission scenarios Promix l l Promix simulation till 2012 Nuclear generation frozen IEA fuel prices No tax (energy, nor CO 2) Demand evolution A : + 2 %/a till 2005; + 1. 5 %/a till 2012 B : + 0. 5 %/a till 2005; 0 %/a till 2012 C : + 3. 5 %/a till 2005; + 3 %/a till 2012 ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

PROMIX Simulation CO 2 -evolution 1998 -2012 38000 A_GPiea_N=_T 0 + 2%/a till 2005, PROMIX Simulation CO 2 -evolution 1998 -2012 38000 A_GPiea_N=_T 0 + 2%/a till 2005, then + 1, 5%/a 36000 B_GPiea_N=_T 0 +0, 5%/a till 2005, then 0% 34000 C_GPiea_N=_T 0 + 3, 5%/a till 2005, then + 3% 30000 28000 26000 24000 220000 ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 18000 1998 CO 2 -eq. [kton/a] 32000

Emission scenarios Reversed scenario What would have been the CO 2 emissions in Belgium Emission scenarios Reversed scenario What would have been the CO 2 emissions in Belgium if we never had any nuclear electricity generation? ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Historic CO 2 -emissions Electricity Generation, and MARKAL Simulation CO 2 -evolution without Nuclear Historic CO 2 -emissions Electricity Generation, and MARKAL Simulation CO 2 -evolution without Nuclear Power ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision? State of Affairs January 31, 2003: • • Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision? State of Affairs January 31, 2003: • • • Nuclear phase out after 40 years in governmental declaration (July 1999) Law is orthogonal to then installed AMPERE Commission Nuclear Phase-Out Law - implements phase out in period 2015 – 2025 - prohibits construction new nuclear plants ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision? State of Affairs March 6, 2002; contd l Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision? State of Affairs March 6, 2002; contd l Explanatory Memorandum / Phase-Out Bill: - suggests no conflict between phase out and GHG commitments “uses” Ampere figures to “demonstrate reasonableness” of energy savings explicit reference to “Triptique Approach” - incorporates “texts” that should guarantee security of supply indicative plan international electricity exchanges ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision? State of Affairs March 6, 2002; contd - Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision? State of Affairs March 6, 2002; contd - specifies that AMPERE requested to keep nuclear option open keep up competences for operation of facilities keep up scientific knowledge follow up new developments - exceptional “Act of God” in case of threat of the security of supply (at competitive prices), a Royal Decree can halt automatic phase out ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision? Problems with Planned Phase Out Observation: AMPERE “Conclusions Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision? Problems with Planned Phase Out Observation: AMPERE “Conclusions & Recommendations” too diplomatic Must read between the lines! Suggests potential “routes” in case of nuclear phase out But does not address the consequences of such phase out AMPERE document “Synthesis Report” provides all elements to demonstrate risks related to nuclear phase out ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision? Problems with Planned Phase Out; contd Enhanced GHG Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision? Problems with Planned Phase Out; contd Enhanced GHG effect / Climate Change - Electricity Generation in B: moderate CO 2 emitter thanks to NE - Bill manipulates AMPERE figures to “demonstrate” reasonableness of energy savings - Simple computation shows difficulties for 2012 (Kyoto) and quasi-impossibility after 2012 - Post-AMPERE analysis with MARKAL shows magnitude of penalty - Triptique Approach: simply non-defendable! ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Historic CO 2 -evolution and Nuclear Electricity Generation ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN Historic CO 2 -evolution and Nuclear Electricity Generation ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Typical emissions electricity generation Belgium France Sweden Norway Germany NL UK Spain Denmark Italy Typical emissions electricity generation Belgium France Sweden Norway Germany NL UK Spain Denmark Italy EU USA JPN World (1994) ENERGY INSTITUTE 307 g/k. Whe 56 g/k. Whe 42 g/k. Whe 588 g/k. Whe 603 g/k. Whe 521 g/k. Whe 471 g/k. Whe 791 g/k. Whe 521 g/k. Whe 399 g/k. Whe 610 g/k. Whe 350 g/k. Whe 544 g/k. Whe KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

PROMIX Simulation CO 2 -evolution 1998 -2012 38000 A_GPiea_N=_T 0 + 2%/a till 2005, PROMIX Simulation CO 2 -evolution 1998 -2012 38000 A_GPiea_N=_T 0 + 2%/a till 2005, then + 1, 5%/a 36000 B_GPiea_N=_T 0 +0, 5%/a till 2005, then 0% 34000 C_GPiea_N=_T 0 + 3, 5%/a till 2005, then + 3% 30000 28000 26000 24000 220000 ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 18000 1998 CO 2 -eq. [kton/a] 32000

Historic CO 2 -emissions Electricity Generation, and MARKAL Simulation CO 2 -evolution without Nuclear Historic CO 2 -emissions Electricity Generation, and MARKAL Simulation CO 2 -evolution without Nuclear Power ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Back of Envelope Calculation GHG versus Nuclear Phase Out l l 1990 -1996 increase Back of Envelope Calculation GHG versus Nuclear Phase Out l l 1990 -1996 increase in C 02 emission Simulation scenario A 1998 -2012 Required Kyoto reduction + 13. 7 % + 8 % 7. 5 % 30 % compared to A Most voluntaristic attempt : • + 1000 MWe CHP CO 2 reduction with + 1500 MWe wind CO 2 reduction with 2 -3 % 8% • + 4 % el. generation bio mass CO 2 reduction with 8% • 20 % In 2012 still 10 % - pts short! ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Back of Envelope Calculation GHG versus Nuclear Phase Out; contd l Post-Kyoto with nuclear Back of Envelope Calculation GHG versus Nuclear Phase Out; contd l Post-Kyoto with nuclear phase out …. very difficult “squaring the circle” - nuclear phase out from 2015 - need for storable fuel (coal) - all potential CHP, bio mass and wind exhausted; still too early for PV ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Post-Ampere MARKAL; hypotheses l analysis performed by ETE research group K. U. Leuven (S. Post-Ampere MARKAL; hypotheses l analysis performed by ETE research group K. U. Leuven (S. Proost, D. Van Regemorter) l period 1990 – 2030, intervals of 5 years l technology database compatible with Ampere data l max. installed nuclear power in 2030 is 8000 MWe min. electricity production with coal: 4 TWh l Kyoto extrapolated until 2030 (-15% w. r. t. 1990) ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Scenario 1 No Kyoto constraint; no nuclear phase out 2010 2020 2030 Demand ELEC: Scenario 1 No Kyoto constraint; no nuclear phase out 2010 2020 2030 Demand ELEC: 84 TWh Demand ELEC: 99 TWh Demand ELEC: 113 TWh Nuclear 43 TWh Nuclear 60 TWh Coal: 4 TWh Coal: 9 TWh Coal: 33 TWh Gas: 19 TWh Gas: 10 TWh Gas: 1 TWh Cogeneration: 17 TWh Cogeneration: 19 TWh Renewables: 1 TWh Cost: - 0. 1% of GDP 2000 Cost: - 0. 7% of GDP 2000 Cost: -0. 5% of GDP 2000 ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Scenario 2 No Kyoto constraint; nuclear phase out 2010 2020 2030 Demand ELEC: 84 Scenario 2 No Kyoto constraint; nuclear phase out 2010 2020 2030 Demand ELEC: 84 TWh Demand ELEC: 88 TWh Demand ELEC: 106 TWh Nuclear 43 TWh Nuclear 30 TWh Nuclear 4 TWh Coal: 16 TWh Coal: 74 TWh Gas: 20 TWh Gas: 23 TWh Gas: 9 TWh Cogeneration: 17 TWh Cogeneration: 19 TWh Renewables: 1 TWh Cost: -0. 1% van GDP 2000 Cost: -0. 7% van GDP 2000 ENERGY INSTITUTE Cost: -0. 4% van GDP 2000 KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Scenario 3 Kyoto; nuclear phase out 2010 2020 2030 Demand ELEC: 81 TWh Demand Scenario 3 Kyoto; nuclear phase out 2010 2020 2030 Demand ELEC: 81 TWh Demand ELEC: 86 TWh Demand ELEC: 98 TWh Nuclear 43 TWh Nuclear 30 TWh Nuclear 4 TWh Coal: 4 TWh Gas: 17 TWh Gas: 27 TWh Gas: 62 TWh Cogeneration: 17 TWh Cogeneration: 20 TWh Cogeneration: 22 TWh Renewables: 1 TWh Renewables: 5 TWh Cost: -0. 3% van GDP 2000 Cost: 0. 1% van GDP 2000 Cost: 2. 7% van GDP 2000 ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Scenario 4 Kyoto; no nuclear phase out 2010 2020 2030 Demand ELEC: 82 TWh Scenario 4 Kyoto; no nuclear phase out 2010 2020 2030 Demand ELEC: 82 TWh Demand ELEC: 95 TWh Demand ELEC: 100 TWh Nuclear 43 TWh Nuclear 60 TWh Coal: 4 TWh Gas: 17 TWh Gas: 12 TWh Gas: 11 TWh Cogeneration: 17 TWh Cogeneration: 18 TWh Cogeneration: 21 TWh Renewables: 5 TWh Cost: -0. 3% van GDP 2000 Cost: -0. 4% van GDP 2000 Cost: 0. 6% van GDP 2000 ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Buying emission certificates from Russia ? ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN Buying emission certificates from Russia ? ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision? Problems with Planned Phase Out; Contd Security of Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision? Problems with Planned Phase Out; Contd Security of Supply - See MARKAL Analysis: “all gas basket” - Indicative Plan: is only indicative! liberalised market has problems with new investments (California, New Zealand, Spain) - international electricity exchanges: flawed argument other countries could think similarly lack of transmission capacity ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision? Problems with Planned Phase Out; Contd Postponement Clause: Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision? Problems with Planned Phase Out; Contd Postponement Clause: - in case of “Act of God” - due to international threat security of supply - how about commitments GHG-reduction? Final decision on phase out? No, future parliament can change law but very uncertain context for investors; future nuclear investments not evident ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision? Conclusion If Belgium is serious about GHG reductions Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision? Conclusion If Belgium is serious about GHG reductions e. g. , - 15% in 2030 compared to 1990 and automatic nuclear phase out goes ahead Major problems for security of “affordable” supply due to - geopolitical instability - price fluctuations - non-transparant behavior liberalised market - limited availability renewable sources - insufficient impact energy efficiency reorientation taxes (CO 2 -tax, energy tax) may help but careful economic analysis needed (competitiveness industry) ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision? Conclusion; contd Because of major uncertainties, deciding now Nuclear Phase Out; A “wise” Decision? Conclusion; contd Because of major uncertainties, deciding now to automatically close NPP’s seems irresponsible Better alternative: evaluate energy and environmental context continually; set appropriate safety and environmental standards and let the market choose whether NE is an option ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

General Conclusion Commercial Nuclear Energy is “sustainable” can be applied continually to benefit future General Conclusion Commercial Nuclear Energy is “sustainable” can be applied continually to benefit future generations and third world prohibiting nuclear energy does away with prosperity effects Government & parliament have erred with phase-out law - based on ideological considerations - likely very “expensive” (GHG, higher prices, interruptions, deny “clean” technology for later generations) - creates uncertainty for future investors Belgium will pay considerable penalty! ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

Cost of electricity production by technologies producing only electricity in 2010 in constant 2000 Cost of electricity production by technologies producing only electricity in 2010 in constant 2000 BEF/k. Whe ENERGY INSTITUTE KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN