Showing posts with label Watt. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Maintain nuclear perspective, China told

China should 'keep a clear head' on nuclear power, concentrate more on Generation-III reactors and keep its new build ambitions for 2020 to around 100 GWe, said a state body yesterday.

The advice came from the State Council Research Office (SCRO), which makes independent policy recommendations to the State Council on strategic matters. It appeared officially in Xinhua's weekly Outlook publication.

Thursday, December 30, 2010

China Guangdong Nuclear Plans Two Reactors in Lufeng in Southern Province

Guangdong Nuclear to develop 2 reactors in China
China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group will construct two 1,000-megawatt reactors in Lufeng, China, to help cover the increasing demand for power in Guangdong province. The company is also carrying out studies for 25 reactors with more than 28,000 megawatts of capacity. Bloomberg

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Foreign uranium to feed 60 pct of China nuclear sector-research

China may need foreign uranium supply by 2020
China may depend on a foreign supply to secure at least 60% of the uranium needed for its power plants by 2020, researchers said. The country initially set a goal of 40 gigawatts of nuclear generating capacity, but it is considering doubling the value to achieve emissions-reduction goals. If this happens, China would need to boost investments and increase local production capacity because the supply is enough for only the 40-gigawatt target, the study suggests. Reuters http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFTOE6BK02620101221

Friday, December 10, 2010

Security of Supply By Richard (Rick) Mills Ahead of the Herd As a general rule, the most successful man in life is the man who has the best information

Below are five examples of production shortfalls looming or already existing:

Uranium

Today, there are some 441 nuclear power reactors operating in 30 countries. These 441 reactors, with combined capacity of over 376 Gigawatts (One GWe equals one billion watts or one thousand megawatts), require 69,000 tonnes of uranium oxide (U3O8).

According to the World Nuclear Association, about 58 power reactors are currently being constructed in 14 countries. In all there are over 148 power reactors planned and 331 more proposed. Each GWe of increased capacity will require about 195 tU per year of extra mine production – three times this for the first fuel load. Let's also consider the fact that no one builds a $4 to $6-billion dollar reactor just to watch it go idle. They will order one or perhaps several year’s worth of fuel supply to guarantee it doesn’t.

In 2008, mines supplied 51,600 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate containing 43,853 tU, which means mining supplied roughly 75% of nuclear utility power requirements. The remaining supply deficit used to be made up from stockpiled uranium held by nuclear power utilities, but their stockpiles are pretty much depleted. Mine production is now primarily supplemented by ex-military material - the Megatons to Megawatts program which ends in 2013 - the Russians have stated that the agreement will not be renewed.

Thursday, December 9, 2010

China & India's Nuclear energy plans to drive global Uranium demand

Australia, Canada, Namibia wait in the wings as India's nuclear market is projected to grow to around $40 billion by 2020 with 18 new nuclear plants planned before 2020http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page72103?oid=116592&sn=Detail&pid=102055

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

2.8-megawatt fuel cell to anchor Energy Innovation Park

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-megawatt-fuel-cell-anchor-energy.html

December 8, 2010 By Rex Graham 2.8-megawatt fuel cell to anchor Energy Innovation Park

UC San Diego's 2.8-megawatt fuel cell is being manufactured by FuelCell Energy, Inc. UC San Diego's Energy Innovation Park has a compressed natural gas fueling station for campus vehicles.

Construction of a fuel cell with enough capacity to power 2,800 homes has begun on the UC San Diego campus as part of a renewable energy project with the city of San Diego and BioFuels Energy to turn waste methane gas from the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant directly into electricity without combustion.

Monday, December 6, 2010

Chinese group offers speedy nuclear plant

China Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding Corporation says the commissioning of new nuclear power could be pushed forward to 2020.

CHINA’s state-owned energy group, China Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding Corporation (CGNPC), said on Friday that the commissioning of new nuclear power could be pushed forward to 2020, instead of the 2023 deadline proposed in the Department of Energy’s second integrated resource plan (IRP2010).

An earlier commissioning of new power will require a quick decision on the nuclear programme.

The IRP2010 makes provision for an additional 9500MW of nuclear power by 2030. According to the plan, which directs the expansion of electricity supply over the next 20 years, new nuclear capacity can come on stream in 2023.

But in a presentation at the d epartment’s hearings on IRP2010, CGNPC said the first new nuclear power plant could come on line in 2020, instead of 2023.

The government is expected to make a decision on the nuclear programme next year once the current IRP process is completed. The government has said that preparatory work must commence more than 12 years before a single watt of power is produced from a new nuclear plant.

This makes commissioning of new capacity by 2020 unlikely.

One of the presenters at Friday’s hearings, Paul White of the Fossil Fuel Foundation, said there was a concern that 12- 13 years was not a "long enough lead time" for the ordering, design, supply, construction and commissioning of a plant.

CGNPC said nuclear power was a practical way to meet SA’s energy demand and was "the most mature and reliable base-load energy option, with the least life-cycle cost".

Paul Eardley-Taylor, head of energy, utilities and infrastructure coverage at Standard Bank , said nuclear providers such as CGNPC and South Korea’s state-owned Korea Electric Power Corporation could build nuclear plants at lower engineering, procurement and construction costs.More at:http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=128640

Friday, December 3, 2010

China raises 2020 nuclear capacity target by 62 per cent to 114 GW

Published: Dec 3, 2010

China has reportedly raised its target for the construction of new nuclear reactor to 114 GW by 2020, a 62.8 per cent rise on an earlier target of 70 GW.

The figures released by the National Development & Reform Commission represent a significant increase from a prior target of 70 GW issued last May by Zhang Guobao, head of China’s National Energy Administration, according to an American Nuclear Society blog.

Reuters reported that the China Nuclear Energy Association, headed by Zhao Chenkun, said that the 70 GW target is too low. China currently has a reported 23 reactors under construction and another 140 on drawing boards in various stages of readiness to proceed. Chinese nuclear energy officials, however, later said that 80 GWe was a more likely target.

According to the China Daily, Geng Zhicheng, a spokesman for the commission, told a nuclear energy conference in Beijing that if this target (114 GW) is met, nuclear power will account for just 7 per cent of the nation’s estimated need for 1600 GW of power by 2020.

According to Steve Kidd, of the World Nuclear Association, speaking at the same conference, China has targeted increasing total non-fossil energy to 15 per cent of the total by 2020.

china-raises_2020.html

Sunday, November 28, 2010

China Builds Nuclear Reactor for 40% Less Than Cost in France, Areva Says

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/11/china-builds-nuclear-reactor-for-40.html

4Share

Areva SA said the EPR (1700MWe) nuclear reactor costs 3 billion euros ($4 billion) to build in China, 40 percent less than the price tag Electricite de France SA has put on building one in Normandy.

Chinese nuclear builders’ grasp of the technology is “very worrying” for European companies, Areva Chief Executive Officer Anne Lauvergeon told a hearing at the French Senate today in Paris. She also said Chinese companies are more efficient.

I translate "very worrying" by the CEO of the French nuclear company as "Areva will be toast when China starts exporting". China 40% price advantage is for Areva most advance 1700 MWe version. China has even more price advantage for the 1000MWe version of the 900MWe french reactor.

Talks on developing two more of the reactors in China in addition to two already under construction are “near completion,” Lauvergeon said. Areva is also in the final stages of negotiating the sale of two EPRs in India, plus a nuclear fuel contract, she said.

Nuclear Townhall talks about China nuclear advantage and Russian plans.

China and Russia have agreed to drop the U.S. dollar in their bi-lateral trade, and China has revealed ambitious plans to start exporting reactors by 2013 and develop an integral fast breeder program that will complete its nuclear fuel cycle.

All this has extraordinarily implications for America’s economic future. Approximately 40 percent of the dollar’s value comes from its use as the world’s international currency. Yet inflation and U.S. debt have eroded that value and China and Russia are catching on. If the world follows their lead in dropping the dollar, every American will lose 40 percent of his or her net worth overnight.

Chinese technicians have already reversed-engineered Areva 900-MW reactors built at Daya Bay into the CPR-1000 and have 16 under construction, the first scheduled to open next September. Zhang said that once certain intellectual property issues are cleared up with Areva, Guangdong would begin exporting, probably by 2013. Chinese engineers are already doing the same thing with the Westinghouse AP1000 as well.

State-run EDF has a 30 percent stake in Taishan Nuclear Power Joint Venture Co. to develop and operate two 1,700- megawatt EPRs with China Guangdong Nuclear Power Group. Areva, also run by the government, is supplying components.

Construction of Taishan 1 began in November 2009 while Taishan 2 started in April. The reactors are expected to start at the end of 2013 and 2014, according to EDF.

The EPR being developed in Finland will take 86 months to complete due to the country’s “very demanding regulator and a complicated” client, Lauvergeon said. The Flamanville reactor in Normandy will take 71 months while Taishan 1 and 2 are targeting 46 months, she said.

Taishan 1 is on schedule and Taishan 2 is ahead, according to Lauvergeon. Progress at Taishan is being kept six months behind Flamanville deliberately in order to benefits from experience

Thursday, November 25, 2010

China prepares to export reactors

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-China_prepares_to_export_reactors-2511101.html
Starting from French reactors imported in the 1980s, Chinese engineers have developed their own large reactor systems to the point that exports appear possible from 2013.

Zhang Shanming, president of China Guangdong Nuclear Power Corporation (CGNPC), revealed the company's future export potential to delegates at the China International Nuclear Symposium, organised in Beijing this week by the World Nuclear Association and China Nuclear Energy Association.

Having imported two 900 MWe pressurized water reactors for the Daya Bay nuclear power plant, CGNPC engineers embarked on a development program that led to the CPR-1000 design. The first of these began operation at Ling Ao Phase II in September, while 16 are under construction and many more planned. A domestic supply chain has been built up with each project and now only about ten percent of components need to be imported.

By 2013, Zhang said, a further design evolution will clear certain areas of intellectual property retained by Areva, resulting in a Generation III design called the ACPR-1000 that CGNPC could market in other countries.

The current CPR-1000 design sits roughly between today's mainstream Generation II reactors and the latest Generation III units, with digital instrumentation and control systems and a design life of 60 years. Standard construction time is 52 months, and the unit cost for Chinese units so far has been under CNY 10,000 ($1500) per kilowatt.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

China nuclear body recommends 2020 target of 70 GW

The China Nuclear Energy Association has recommended the government adopt a 2020 target of 70 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity, but companies in the sector are pushing for more, association Vice-Chairman Zhao Chenkun told Reuters on Wednesday.
China is expected to unveil a development plan for its alternative energy sector in coming months, updating 2020 targets for nuclear energy, and renewables such as hydropower and wind.
The country's rapid expansion of nuclear energy means it is expected to easily surpass the existing target of 40 GW, and officials have said the government could raise that to 80 GW or more. [ID:nTOE68F079] (Reporting by David Stanway; Editing by Chris Lewis)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBJI00247420101124

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

FACTBOX-China's nuclear power plants and plans Reuters Africa The following lists China's nuclear power plants already operating, under construction, approved by the government or planned.

BEIJING, Nov 16 (Reuters) - China National Nuclear Corp
(CNNC) started commercial operation of a 650-MW nuclear
generating unit in Qinshan in coastal Zhejiang province last
month, in line with earlier Reuters report. [ID:nBJK000071]

China now has 13 working reactors with 10.8 gigawatts
of total generating capacity.

China's official nuclear capacity target for 2020 remains 40
GW, less than 5 percent of its current total installed capacity,
or enough to power Spain. However, officials said China is
considering raising the goal to 80 GW or more for 2020.

The following lists China's nuclear power plants already
operating, under construction, approved by the government or
planned. More at:

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFTOE68F07920101116

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Charles Forsberg's views on Generation IV nuclear costs from The Nuclear Green Revolution by Charles Barton

http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2010/11/charles-forsbergs-views-on-generation.html

ORNL MSR development work focused almost exclusively on MSBRs, although Ed Bettis's reactor design shop did design some deep burn MSR converters. The AEC was interested in breeder reactors, so the ORNL focus was on the development of a MSBR, rather than on possibly simpler converters. During the 1960's the cost of Light Water Reactors (LWRs) was believed to be low. Indeed by the time the dramatic reactor cost inflation of the 1970's had taken place, the MSR was no longer in the picture, and thus its potential for competing with the LWR on costs never became a topic for discussion. ORNL designers during the early 1970's had concluded that the cost of the MSBR was competitive with the cost of LWRs, but no attempt had been made to compare the cost of a MSR converter, to LWR costs.

In retrospective the failure to view the MSR as a potential replacement to the LWR, was an unfortunate product of faulty assumptions based on incomplete information. The incomplete information pertained to Light Water Reactor costs, and the faulty assumptions had to do with the desirability of the LWR as a competitor of coal fired power plants. As it turned out the LWR was by the early 1980's at a definite cost disadvantage compared to coal fired power plants, and was widely seen by the public as suffering from disadvantages with respect to the environment, and human health and safety. In retrospective the health and safety issues appear to have been largely solved by 1980. The Three Mile Island accident showed that even a major reactor accident would produce no casualties or environmental costs. Thus Three Mile Island demonstrated that the health, safety and environmental protection approaches philosophy adopted by American reactor manufacturers was sound. However, the technology protecting health, safety and the environmental came at a considerable monetary cost, a cost which was to cripple prospects for further growth of the nuclear industry for over a generation.

In the meantime Molten Salt Reactor technology languished, although a small group of ORNL staff members and a similarly small group of MSR international fans sought to revive interest in Molten Salt Nuclear technology.

It was only after the beginning of the 21st century that the use of Molten Salt coolants began to be seen as a low cost alternative Generation IV approach to nuclear power. This view emerged from Charles Forsberg one of the ORNL MSR old hands. Forsberg's view appears to have been that breeder technology was an encumbrance on Molten Salt development, and that a marriage of technology used for gas cooled reactors and molten salt based coolants had many attractive features. While the development of Molten Salt Reactor technology had largely stood still for a generation, the development of gas cooled reactors had advanced, and that technology was ready for implementation. Yet Gas cooled reactors suffered from a technical flaw, that would lead to high costs. Gasses are relatively unsatisfactory reactor coolants, especially when compared to liquid coolants like water, sodium, of molten salts. As a consequence, a lot of gas is required to cool a reactor core, and consequently the core must be large. This means a lot of material will go into gas cooled reactor construction compared to reactor power output. Liquid salts used in the Molten Salt Reactor are excellent coolants. What Forsberg noticed that aside from the size differences, there were a lot of structural similarities between Molten Salt Reactors and Gas Cooled Reactors. Both reactor types featured a coolant flowing through a graphite nuclear core. The graphite provided both core structure and neutron moderation.

The largest difference between the Gas Cooled Reactor and the Molten Salt Reactor was

the placement of the nuclear fuel. In the gas cooled reactor the fuel was embedded in the graphite, while in the MSR, the fuel (U-233, U-235. or Pu-239) was mixed with the molten salt coolant. The classic MSR was useful for a nuclear economy that assumed a limited or expensive uranium supply. Uranium and possibly thorium mixed with the MSR carrier salts, could be easily processed along with their nuclear byproducts. Processing uranium or thorium embedded in core graphite, while not impossible, was potentially more complicated. Forsberg's view only made since if nuclear breeding would be unnecessary for the next century or so. As it turned out this is Forsberg's view. Thus Forsberg concluded that it was not only possible to build a hybrid reactor using already mature Molten Salt and graphite embedded fuel technologies. Not only was it possible, but the resulting reactor, the Advanced High Temperature Reactor (AHTR) was very attractive. Forsberg did not directly compare the AHTR to the LWR but he did offer comparisons between the AHTR and other Generation IV reactor types. Forsberg compared variants of the AHTR with two other Generation IV reactor designs, an IFR, the General Electric sodium-cooled S-PRISM, and the gas cooled General Atomic Modular High-Temperature Reactor (GT-MHR). Forsberg argued that the AHTR would cost between 55% and 49% of the cost of the S-PRISM, and 61% and 53% of the GT-MHR.

Foorsberg noted that several factors would would contribute to the lower AHtR cost:

• Higher efficiency. The higher temperature implies higher efficiency (~50% vs 42%). This results in lower costs per kilowatt (electric) because of the smaller power conversion equipment, cooling systems to reject heat from the power cycle, and smaller decay-heat-removal systems.

• Passive decay heat removal. The higher AHTR temperatures, combined with the high-temperature fuel, enable the development of passive safety systems for large reactors. Passive safety systems have the potential for lower costs.

• Reduced containment requirements. The molten salt coolant avoids the potential for steam−sodium interactions, absorbs radionuclides that escape the fuel, and eliminates highly energetic accidents, all of which lower containment requirements.

• Reduced equipment sizes. Volumetric heat capacities for molten salts are several times larger than those for sodium. This reduces the size of pipes, valves, and heat exchangers per unit of energy transferred.

• Transparent coolant. Unlike liquid metals, molten salts are transparent. This simplifies maintenance and inspection of the primary system with significant cost advantages.

it should be noted that Forsberg's thinking did not extend to the potential cost savings advantages of small modular reactors. But Per Peterson was shortly to refine Forsberg's analysis in a number of respects, and his findings. in my next post I intend to review Peterson's analysis.

It should be noted, however, that Forsberg's cost estimates are far too low. Thus it is not the cost estimate but the relationship between reactor costs for different nuclear technologies. It should be noted that TVA rebuilt its Browns Ferry unit 1 reactor between 2002 and 2007 at a cost of $1.9 billion, $1720 per kW, that is higher than Forsberg's estimate of new Generation IV reactor costs. Despite these difficulties, it would appear that Forsberg's hybrid reactor offered a promising rout to lower nuclear power costs.

Monday, November 8, 2010

Nuclear Power in China

Mainland China has 12 nuclear power reactors in operation, 24 under construction, and more about to start construction soon.
Additional reactors are planned, including some of the world's most advanced, to give more than a tenfold increase in nuclear capacity to 80 GWe by 2020, 200 GWe by 2030, and 400 GWe by 2050.
China is rapidly becoming self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle.

Most of mainland China's electricity is produced from fossil fuels (80% from coal, 2% from oil, 1% from gas in 2006) and hydropower (15%). Two large hydro projects are recent additions: Three Gorges of 18.2 GWe and Yellow River of 15.8 GWe. Rapid growth in demand has given rise to power shortages, and the reliance on fossil fuels has led to much air pollution. The economic loss due to pollution is put by the World Bank at almost 6% of GDP.¹ In 2009 power shortages were most acute in central provinces, particularly Hubei, and in December the Central China Grid Co. posted a peak load of 94.6 GW.
Domestic electricity production in 2009 was 3643 billion kWh, 6.0% higher than the 3,450 billion kWh in 2008, which was 5.8% more than in 2007 (3,260 billion kWh) and it is expected to rise to 3,810 billion kWh in 2010. Installed capacity had grown by the end of 2009 to 874 GWe, up 10.2% on the previous year's 793 GWe, which was 11% above the previous year's 713 GWe.² Capacity growth is expected to slow, reaching about 1600 GWe in 2020. At the end of 2007, there was reported to be 145 GWe of hydro capacity, 554 GWe fossil fuel, 9 GWe nuclear and 4 GWe wind, total 713 GWe. In 2008, the country added 20.1 GWe of hydro capacity, 65.8 GWe coal-fired capacity, and 4.7 GWe wind.
These capacity increase figures are all the more remarkable considering the forced retirement of small inefficient coal-fired plants: 26 GWe of these was closed in 2009, making 60 GWe closed since 2006, cutting annual coal consumption by 69 million tonnes and annual carbon dioxide emissions by 139 Mt.
The grid system run by the State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC) is sophisticated and rapidly growing, utilising ultra high voltage (1000 kV AC and 800 kV DC) transmission. By 2020, the capacity of the UHV network is expected to be some 300 GW, which will function as the backbone of the whole system, having 400 GWe of clean energy sources connected, of which hydropower will account for 78 GW, and wind power from the north a further significant portion (wind capacity by 2020 is planned to be 100 GWe). Also by 2020, operational transmission losses are expected to be 5.7%, down from 6.6% in 2010. At the end of 2009, China had budgeted to spend $600 billion upgrading its grid.
Among the main listed generators, Huaneng Power produced 203.5 billion kWh from its domestic plants in 2009, 10.2% up on 2008. Datang Power produced 141.9 billion kWh, 12% up on 2008. Huadian Power produced 107.5 billion kWh, 6.75% above 2008. CPI Development produced 43.9 billion kWh, 2.0% above 2008 level.
While coal is the main energy source, most reserves are in the north or northwest and present an enormous logistic problem – nearly half the country's rail capacity is used in transporting coal. Because of the heavy reliance on old coal-fired plant, electricity generation accounts for much of the country's air pollution, which is a strong reason to increase nuclear share. China recently overtook the USA as the world's largest contributor to carbon dioxide emissions. The US Energy Information Administration predicts that China's share in global coal-related emissions will grow by 2.7% per year, from 4.9 billion tonnes in 2006 to 9.3 billion tonnes in 2030, some 52% of the projected world total. Total carbon dioxide emissions in China are projected to grow by 2.8% per year from 6.2 billion tonnes in 2006 to 11.7 billion tonnes in 2030 (or 28% of world total). In comparison, total US carbon dioxide emissions are projected to grow by 0.3% per year, from 5.9 billion tonnes in 2006 to 7.7 billion tonnes in 2030.³
Nuclear power has an important role, especially in the coastal areas remote from the coalfields and where the economy is developing rapidly. Generally, nuclear plants can be built close to centres of demand, whereas suitable wind and hydro sites are remote from demand. Moves to build nuclear power commenced in 1970 and the industry has now moved to a rapid development phase. Technology has been drawn from France, Canada and Russia, with local development based largely on the French element. The latest technology acquisition has been from the USA (via Westinghouse, owned by Japan's Toshiba) and France. The Westinghouse AP1000 is the main basis of technology development in the immediate future.
Government targets for nuclear power have been increasing. As of June 2010, official installed nuclear capacity targets are understood to be 80 GWe by 2020, 200 GWe by 2030 and 400 GWe by 2050.
In September 2010, the China Daily reported that China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) alone plans to invest CNY 800 billion ($120 billion) into nuclear energy projects by 2020. Total investment in nuclear power plants, in which CNNC will hold controlling stakes, will reach CNY 500 billion ($75 billion) by 2015, according to CNNC. In order to fund the company's expansion target, CNNC plans to list its subsidiary, CNNC Nuclear Power Co Ltd in 2011, to attract strategic investors.

Nuclear power reactors in mainland China

Much more at: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.html

Friday, October 29, 2010

China's Nuclear Reactors and Bridges and budgets and schedules

China's nuclear reactors are getting built for about US$2 billion per gigawatt of reactor. Nuclear skeptics have a tough time believing that China, South Korea and Asia in general can build for far about half cost of Europe and the USA. They think either the low cost estimates will not be realized in actual construction completion or that safety and other factors are compromised. I will review the recent costs of actual completions. I will also compare the situation with bridges. The cost and schedule of the Bay bridge with China's bridges. More at:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/10/chinas-nuclear-reactors-and-bridges-and.html

Monday, October 25, 2010

India's NTPC scouts globe for reactor suppliers for independent nuke power foray

from Pimagazine Asia news feed

Mr Arup Roy Choudhury Anil Sasi New Delhi, Oct. 23 NTPC Ltd is scouting for tie-ups with global reactor manufacturers for setting up nuclear power projects on its own. The thermal power major, which already has a minority stake in a partnership with its state-owned counterpart Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) for setting up nuclear units, also plans to firm up independent collaborations with global reactor vendors to set up imported Light Water Reactor-based atomic projects. NTPC's 49:51 joint venture with NPCIL is slated to commence operations with a 700-MWe indigenous Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor-based project. “The Indo-US (nuclear) deal has opened up opportunities… We will enter the nuclear business with the NPCIL joint venture. But in the light of the opportunities, we would want to go on our own and will scout for tie-ups with global reactor firms,” NTPC's Chairman and Managing Director, Mr Arup Roy Choudhury, said.

India has broadly shortlisted four reactor technologies for future Light Water Reactor-based projects — Westinghouse Electric Company's AP1000 series of reactors, GE-Hitachi's ESBWR reactor series, Areva 1,650 MWe European Pressurised Reactors and the Russian state-owned firm Atomstroyexport's VVER reactor series. The Atomic Energy Act, 1962 “requires nuclear power generation to be done by a government company in which at least 51 per cent of shares are held by the Central Government.”

A state-owned utility such as NTPC, where the Centre has an 84.5 per cent stake, automatically qualifies to set up nuclear projects on its own. The company hopes to draw from its initial exposure to the sector through its joint venture with NPCIL.NTPC had earlier this year signed the pact with NPCIL for incorporating a joint venture company for setting up nuclear projects. The venture is likely to take up a 700-MWe indigenous reactor-based project shortly.

Currently, NPCIL and its sister firm BHAVINI are the two companies that are in the business of setting up nuclear power plants in the country. There are 19 nuclear power reactors with a capacity of 4,560 MWe in operation in the country at present. India has drawn up an ambitious plan to have an installed nuclear capacity of 63,000 MWe in 2032, of which about 40,000 MW will be generated through Light Water Reactors sourced through international cooperation.

http://www.pimagazine-asia.com/index.php?page=shownews&news=2781

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Blog Post: India to Sell Fast Breeder Reactors

from Nuclear Power Industry News by Nuclear Street News Team

"We have reached a stage where we can sell 500 MWe fast breeder reactors to the world," said Baldev Raj, director, Indira Gandhi Centre For Atomic Research in India

Monday, September 20, 2010

Nuclear Power in the USA

US Nuclear Fuel Cycle

The USA is the world's largest producer of nuclear power, accounting for more than 30% of worldwide nuclear generation of electricity.
The country's 104 nuclear reactors produced 799 billion kWh in 2009, over 20% of total electrical output.
Following a 30-year period in which few new reactors were built, it is expected that 4-6 new units may come on line by 2018, the first of those resulting from 16 licence applications to build 24 new nuclear reactors made since mid-2007.
Government policy changes since the late 1990s have helped pave the way for significant growth in nuclear capacity. Government and industry are working closely on expedited approval for construction and new plant designs.

The USA has 104 nuclear power reactors in 31 states, operated by 30 different power companies. In 2008, the country generated 4,119 billion kWh net of electricity, 49% of it from coal-fired plant, 22% from gas and 6% from hydro. Nuclear achieved a capacity factor of 91.1%, generating 805 billion kWh and accounting for almost 20% of total electricity generated in 2008. Total capacity is 1,088 GWe, less than one tenth of which is nuclear.
Annual electricity demand is projected to increase to 5,000 billion kWh in 2030. Annual per capita electricity consumption is currently around 12,400 kWh.
There are 69 pressurized water reactors (PWRs) with combined capacity of about 67 GWe and 35 boiling water reactors (BWRs) with combined capacity of about 34 GWe – for a total capacity of 101,263 MWe (see Nuclear Power in the USA Appendix 1: US Operating Nuclear Reactors). Almost all the US nuclear generating capacity comes from reactors built between 1967 and 1990. There have been no new construction starts since 1977, largely because for a number of years gas generation was considered more economically attractive and because construction schedules were frequently extended by opposition, compounded by heightened safety fears following the Three Mile Island accident in 1979. A further PWR – Watts Bar 2 – is expected to start up by 2012 following Tennessee Valley Authority's decision in 2007 to complete the construction of the unit.
Despite a near halt in new construction of more than 30 years, US reliance on nuclear power has continued to grow. In 1980, nuclear plants produced 251 billion kWh, accounting for 11% of the country's electricity generation. In 2008, that output had risen to 809 billion kWh and nearly 20% of electricity, providing more than 30% of the electricity generated from nuclear power worldwide. Much of the increase came from the 47 reactors, all approved for construction before 1977, that came on line in the late 1970s and 1980s, more than doubling US nuclear generation capacity. The US nuclear industry has also achieved remarkable gains in power plant utilisation through improved refuelling, maintenance and safety systems at existing plants.

Michele Kearney's Nuclear Wire

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Related articles

Thursday, December 30, 2010

Related articles

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

Related articles

Friday, December 10, 2010

Related articles

Thursday, December 9, 2010

Related articles

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Related articles

Monday, December 6, 2010

Friday, December 3, 2010

Related articles

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Related articles

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Related articles

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Related articles

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Related articles

Monday, November 8, 2010

Friday, October 29, 2010

Monday, October 25, 2010

Related articles

Thursday, October 14, 2010

Related articles

Monday, September 20, 2010

Nuclear Power in the USA