NUCLEAR-ELECTRICITY IN CHILE: HOW FAR, HOW CLOSE

NUCLEAR-ELECTRICITY IN CHILE: HOW FAR, HOW CLOSE

Marcelo Tokman R.Minister of Energy of Chile

International Atomic Energy Agency TM/WS on Topical Issues on Infrastructure Development:

Managing the Development of a National Infrastructure for Nuclear Power VIENNA, FEBRUARY 10TH, 2010

INDEX

BACKGROUND

IS NUCLEAR ENERGY CONVENIENT FOR CHILE?

IS CHILE PREPARED TO IMPLEMENT A NPP?

CONCLUSIONS

INDEX

BACKGROUND World Energy Context The Climate Challenge Nuclear Rebirth



CONCLUSIONS

BACKGROUND: World Energy Context

It is estimated that primary energy consumption by 2030 in the

world will double the one in 1990. This consumption growth will

be boosted by Non-OECD countries mainly.

Source: IEA, WEO 2009.

Primary energy demand forecast

0

2.000

4.000

6.000

8.000

10.000

12.000

14.000

16.000

18.000

1990 2007 2015 2020 2025 2030

MTo

e

Carbón Petróleo Gas Natural Nuclear Hidro Biomasa Otros Renovables


The installation of more than 3,000 extra GW’s is required by

2030. This demand will be covered mainly by coal and natural

gas.


Global electricity demand growth


Increase and greater volatility in fossil fuel prices.

2004-2030 Fossil fuel prices forecast

Source: IEA, WEO 2009, Base Price October 2009, Purvin & Gertz Report September 2009.

0,0

50,0

100,0

150,0

200,0

250,0

300,0

Carbon

GNPETROLEO

Note: 2004-2009 data are effective prices, while 2010-2030 data are forecasted prices.


A strong expansion in fossil fuels consumption involves higher greenhouse gases emissions.

Emissions per type of technology

Source: Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI)

BACKGROUND: The Climate Challenge

Strategy of emission reduction of the IEA, WEO (2009)

To limit the global temperature increase to 2ºC, world emissions

from energy sector must fall 35% by 2030.


BACKGROUND: The Climate Challenge

Nuclear energy is not the solution to climate change; however,

there is no solution without nuclear energy.

“Nuclear energy is the only green solution. We have no time

to experiment with visionary energy sources.” – James

Lovelock.

“Nuclear energy, together with hydro (which usually has a

limited potential), is the only large-scale generation source,

supplying baseload demand, and with a near-zero carbon

footprint.” – WEO 2009 IEA.

BACKGROUND: Nuclear Energy Rebirth

Due to reasons of cost, energy security and emissions, a nuclear

energy rebirth can be observed around the world.

Source: IAEA, 2009.

Reactors under construction in the world

BACKGROUND: Nuclear Energy Rebirth

: Countries with nuclear power : Countries considering nuclear option : Countries which have expressed interest in nuclear option

Although nuclear-electricity is part of the global solution, each

country needs to assess if it is convenient for the local reality.

Source: IAEA, 2009.

INDEX

BACKGROUND



CONCLUSIONS

INDEX BACKGROUND


Technical-Economic Convenience

Impact on emissions Local environmental impacts Waste Safety


CONCLUSIONS

IS NUCLEAR ENERGY CONVENIENT FOR CHILE?: Technical-Economic Convenience

Some assumptions: Progressive increase in fuel prices (fossil fuels and uranium).

Constant costs of investment in conventional technologies.

Decrease in costs of investment of the NCRE.

Forecast of the demand considers efficient energy use.

In the case of nuclear energy, costs of dismantling and waste

management are included, and the interconnection of SIC and SING

systems is considered.

The electrical system expansion was modeled until 2035, minimizing the

present value of the expected total costs. For this purpose, models and

assumptions from the IAEA, IEA and CNE were used.


Forecasted installed capacity (SIC and SING)

For most likely scenarios, from the technical-economic perspective, nuclear-electricity would be convenient for Chile from 2024 on.

Source: CNE Modeling.


Nuclear energy replaces coal plants, which results in a positive

impact in terms of costs, and greenhouse gases emissions as

well.


Impact of the introduction of nuclear energy in SIC + SING

Capacidad instalada al 2035 sin opción nuclear

Carbon27,91%

GNL10,84%

Hidro32,74%

Mini Hidro2,34%

Eolica12,25%

Solar0,03%

Geotermia5,14%

Biomasa1,90%

Petroleo6,85%

Capacidad instalada 2035 con opción nuclear

Geotermia5,54%

Biomasa2,05%

Solar0,00%

Petroleo7,39%

Mini Hidro2,53%

Eolica4,26%

Nuclear15,39%

Carbon15,84%

GNL11,69%

Hidro35,32%

IS NUCLEAR ENERGY CONVENIENT FOR CHILE?: Impact on emissions

CO2 Emissions Comparison (SIC + SING)

In 2035, greenhouse gases emissions by electricity sector are

43% lower compared to a scenario without nuclear energy.


0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

[Mill

on T

on C

O2]

Escenario de Referencia

Escenario Nuclear + inteconexión

IS NUCLEAR ENERGY CONVENIENT FOR CHILE?: Local environmental impacts

Although a local impact assessment is required for each case, in

general terms nuclear energy has a low impact.

Local impacts of different energy sources

Source: CNE Estimates.

Energy Source

Greenhouse Gases

Emission

Local Pollutants Emission

Ecosystems Alteration

Land Use and Landscape Alteration

Coal High High Low Low

Oil High High Low Low

Natural Gas Medium Medium Low Low

Geothermal Low Low Low Low

Nuclear Low Low Low Low

Wind Low Low Low High

Hydro Low Low High High

Solar Photovoltaic Low Low Low Medium

Solar Thermal Low Low Low High

IS NUCLEAR ENERGY CONVENIENT FOR CHILE?: Waste

Waste generated per type of technology

Source: Electrical Nuclear Corporation, 2009.

Nuclear energy generates reduced volumes of waste, and the

international experience shows that used fuel can be managed in

a safe way.

Note: Waste include those produced during fuel fabrication and plant operation.

IS NUCLEAR ENERGY CONVENIENT FOR CHILE?: Safety

The current technological development minimizes the

probability of severe accidents, even in countries with high

seismic activity like Chile.

Safety elements in a nuclear plant

Source: Electrical Nuclear Corporation, 2009.

IS NUCLEAR ENERGY CONVENIENT FOR CHILE?: Safety

The historical record of severe accidents, with casualties,

shows the safety of this type of generation.

Accident rate per energy source (1969 – 2000)

Source: Burgherr et al., 2004.

Energy Source Number of severe accidents

Number of direct casualties per GW year

World OCDE Non-OCDE

Coal 1,221 0.876 0.185 1.576

Coal (without considering China) 177 0.69 0.589

Oil 397 0.436 0.392 0.502

Natural Gas 125 0.093 0.091 0.096

Hydro 11 4.265 0.003 10.285

Hydro (without considering Banqiao/Shimantan) 10 0.561 1.349

Nuclear 1 0.006 0 0.048

IS NUCLEAR ENERGY CONVENIENT FOR CHILE?: Preliminary Results

For most likely scenarios, from the

technical-economic perspective, nuclear-

electricity would be convenient for Chile

from 2024 onwards. It would also allow

the reduction of greenhouse gases

emissions and other local impacts.

International experience shows that, in

compliance with the highest safety

standards, it does not represent a hazard

for the population or the environment.

INDEX

BACKGROUND



CONCLUSIONS

INDEX

BACKGROUND



Technical and institutional gaps

Lack of broad national agreement

CONCLUSIONS

IS CHILE PREPARED TO IMPLEMENT A NPP?: Technical and institutional gaps

Today, the country is NOT prepared to implement a Nuclear

Power Program with the safety standards required.

IAEA’s methodology application: It identifies legal, regulatory, and HR-related

gaps, which needs to be closed in order to

assure the safe operation of a nuclear plant. It also shows that the country would be able

to close the gaps in a timely manner, given

its institutional strength and gained

experience with research reactors.

Currently, the country is not ready; however, there is time to

close the gaps.

IS CHILE PREPARED TO IMPLEMENT A NPP?: Technical and institutional gaps

Important milestones in a NPP development

Note: Indicated dates are reference estimates.

IS CHILE PREPARED TO IMPLEMENT A NPP?: Lack of a broad national agreement

Currently, public opinion is NOT favorable to the nuclear energy

development in Chile.

The IAEA and international

experience show that it is

critical to have a broad

national agreement

(investors certainty, future

generations responsibilities,

etc.)

Note: Caorso Plant (Italy) and Zwentendorf (Austria).

IS CHILE PREPARED TO IMPLEMENT A NPP?: Lack of a broad national agreement

Public opinion studies show:

Fear of technology and distrust of the national capacity to implement a NPP in a safe way.

A lack of knowledge and information about nuclear matters and, in general, about energy.

Disposition to learn about and discuss the nuclear option for Chile.

INDEX

BACKGROUND



CONCLUSIONS

CONCLUSIONS

Most likely scenarios show that, due to costs reasons, as well as

for climate change matters, Chile will require nuclear energy in

the next decade.

Currently, the country is not ready to implement a NPP in a safe

way; however, there is time to close the gaps.

An essential condition to develop a NPP is to have a broad

citizen support, which we currently lack.

According to most likely scenarios, it would not be necessary to

decide to call for bids until 2016, nor start the construction of a

nuclear plant until 2018. Until then, there is enough time to:

Reassess the convenience for the country of moving forward

towards a NPP development, depending on market conditions,

technological advances and potential environmental restrictions.

Check the advance of the closing of gaps and assess if the

country is really prepared to implement a NPP in a safe way.

The nuclear option is not a one-way road.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is still time to call for bids and start construction,

we need to start closing the gaps and to generate an informed

public discussion soon. Not doing so represents risks for the

country:

If the need of adding nuclear power to the mix is proved, it

would not be able to enter timely.

Or else, its fast introduction could be forced, without complying

with the highest safety standards.

Keeping the nuclear option open by closing the gaps is a responsible decision of public policy: it is equivalent to buying an energy insurance.

CONCLUSIONS

In order to have enough time to close the gaps it is essential to

have a broad citizen support within the next years.

This required citizen support is to keep the option open, it is not

to make a definitive decision. In other words, in this stage it is

necessary to decide if we buy the insurance, and not if we buy a

nuclear plant.

The above mentioned requires providing all the necessary

information to allow a serious public discussion.

CONCLUSIONS

Important milestones in a NPP development

Note: Indicated dates are reference estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

NUCLEAR-ELECTRICITY IN CHILE: HOW FAR, HOW CLOSE

Marcelo Tokman R.Minister of Energy of Chile

International Atomic Energy Agency TM/WS on Topical Issues on Infrastructure Development:

Managing the Development of a National Infrastructure for Nuclear Power VIENNA, FEBRUARY 10TH, 2010

Documents

NUCLEAR-ELECTRICITY IN CHILE: HOW FAR, HOW CLOSE