First reactor Greenfield challenges

Transcription

1 First reactor Greenfield challenges Elforsk seminar Stockholm, January 25, 2011 Juhani Hyvärinen

2 Initial challenge Site challenges Technology challenges Implementation challenges 2

3 The initial challenges Fennovoima was established in 2007 to build a new nuclear power plant for undersupplied Finnish electricity users, by 2020 New company, independent of existing nuclear operators in Finland: needs top quality staff + competent technical partners Needs a greenfield site The most modern technology by competent and reliable providers desired The first big milestone was the Decision-in-Principle (DIP) Mainly a political challenge, on two levels Local level: needed acceptance of candidate site communities, both decision makers and land owners National level: government and parliament approval 3

4 Fennovoima s ownership structure Operates as a cooperative, producing to owners at cost (non-profit) 54 local energy utilities 15 industrial and trade companies 55% 45% Voimaosakeyhtiö SF 66% E.ON Nordic 34% Fennovoima 4

5 70 Owners, 30% of Finnish electricity consumption; large, diverse ownership Metal, chemical, food and building materials industries; retail and services; local energy companies AGA Alajärven Sähkö Atria Boliden Harjavalta Boliden Kokkola Componenta E.ON Kärnkraft Finland Esse Elektro-Kraft Etelä-Savon Energia Finnfoam Haminan Energia Haukiputaan Sähköosuuskunta Herrfors Hiirikosken Energia Imatran Seudun Sähkö Itä-Lapin Energia Jylhän Sähköosuuskunta Jyväskylän Energia Kemin Energia Keminmaan Energia Keravan Energia Kesko Koillis-Satakunnan Sähkö Kokemäen Sähkö 5 Kotkan Energia Kruunupyyn Sähkölaitos KSS Energia Kuopion Energia Kuoreveden Sähkö Köyliön-Säkylän Sähkö Lahti Energia Lammaisten Energia Lankosken Sähkö Lehtimäen Sähkö Leppäkosken Sähkö Myllyn Paras Mäntsälän Sähkö Naantalin Energia Nurmijärven Sähkö Omya Oulun Seudun Sähkö Outokummun Energia Outokumpu Ovako Bar Paneliankosken Voima Parikkalan Valo Pietarsaaren Energialaitos Porvoon Energia Raahen Energia Rantakairan Sähkö Rauman Energia Rautaruukki Rovakairan Tuotanto Sallila Energia Seinäjoen Energia S-ryhmä Talvivaaran Kaivososakeyhtiö Tammisaaren Energia Tornion Energia Turku Energia Uudenkaarlepyyn Voimalaitos Vakka-Suomen Voima Valio Valkeakosken Energia Vantaan Energia Vatajankosken Sähkö Vetelin Sähkölaitos Vimpelin Voima Ålands Elandelslag Ääneseudun Energia

6 Fennovoima s owners are locate all over the country Energy industry 2/3 of local Finnish electricity companies Serve two million Finnish customers Foodstuff industry Retail Chemical industry Metals and mining Construction materials Local electrical utilities Biggest industrial and retail activities 6

7 Owners lack own generation capacity Shareholders use in total 30% of the electricity in Finland TWh Industry and retail Electricity from the market Power companies Own generation 7

8 E.ON and Fennovoima Simo Experienced and competent energy company Near staff Over 200 big power plants in Europe Pyhäjoki Europe s second largest producer of nuclear electricity 21 nuclear reactors in Germany and in Sweden nuclear experts Nuclear generation 80 TWh/a Strategic partnership Fennovoima is committed to using E.ON s nuclear expertise E.ON has already committed both full-time secondments and tens of part time experts to the project Brunsbüttel Unterweser Emsland Stade Forsmark Brokdorf Grohnde Würgassen Krümmel Grafenrheinfeld Isar Gundgremmingen Ringhals Oskarshamn Barsebäck E.ON as licensee E.ON as minority owner E.ON decommissioning Fennovoima 8

9 Schedule challenge Next steps: site and vendor selection = Contracting phase Preparation Broad ownership Site and technology alternatives developed EIA Municipality, STUK and other stakeholder statements Decision in Principle Contracting Site and main supplier selections Land use plans in force Site preparatory works Construction License and other permits Construction Building the plant and site facilities Operating License Operation At least 60 years of safe and economic operation Waste disposal Decommissioning and dismantling 9

10 Initial challenge Site challenges Technology challenges Implementation challenges 10

11 Two suitable alternative greenfield sites in Northern Finland Site selection Site screening process started in 2007 with ~40 candidates Fennovoima will select the final site in early 2011 Sufficient land area acquired Planning process completed in fall 2010 Environment and safety EIA completed in Spring 2009 Both sites passed review of the nuclear regulator STUK Regions support Fennovoima Both municipalities, regions, and majority of local people support the project 11

12 Majority in the regions support the project What is your opinion about Fennovoima s plan to build a nuclear power plant in the region? Pyhäjoki and surrounding municipalities* Simo and surrounding municipalities 100 % 100 % 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % % 80 % 70 % 60 % 50 % 40 % 30 % 20 % Strongly disagree or disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree or strongly agree 10 % 10 % 0 % 5/ /2008 5/2009 1/ / % 5/ /2008 5/2009 1/ /2010 * Kalajoki, Merijärvi, Oulainen, Raahe, Vihanti Ii, Kemi, Keminmaa, Ranua, Tervola 12

13 Pyhäjoki site Areva (EPR and Kerena) and Toshiba (ABWR) as reactor options 13

14 Simo site Areva (EPR and Kerena) and Toshiba (ABWR) as reactor options 14

15 Initial challenge Site challenges Technology challenges Implementation challenges 15

16 Plant alternatives Toshiba ABWR, Areva EPR and Areva Kerena were shortlisted for the Decision-in-Principle Preliminarily reviewed by STUK Each of these represent a balanced combination of proven technology, licensability, and advanced features Toshiba ABWR EPR Kerena Vendor, country Toshiba/WES Japan/Sweden Areva NP France/Germany Areva NP France/Germany Thermal MW Electric MW ~1600 ~1700 ~1250 Reactor type Boiling water Pressurised water Boiling water Safety system Active + Passive Active Passive + Active Reference plant Hamaoka-5 Olkiluoto 3 Gundremmingen C 16

17 STUK comments on the EPR Acceptability of reactor power level 4590 MWth 17

18 STUK comments on the Kerena 1/2 Fuel pool cooling diversification Passive systems - functional tests - periodic testing concept Containment isolation valve diversification 18

19 STUK comments on Kerena 2/2 Electrical and I&C system - separation principles - redundancy Aircraft crash protection of control building Lessons learned from Forsmark incidents 19

20 STUK comments on the ABWR Fuel pool cooling diversification Containment isolation valve diversification Independence of electrical and I&C systems for core melt accidents Core catcher qualification ECCS strainer qualification Lessons learned from Forsmark incidents Bringing the plant to safe state without computerised I&C 20

21 Further technology challenges ABWR Europeanisation in detailed design EPR lessons learned from earlier projects Kerena is first-of-a-kind Implementation of EON Fleet principles on designs Adaptation technologies to site specific conditions Northern Finland is surprisingly seismic TI challenges Optimisation for cold cooling water Meeting grid compatibility requirements, especially the NORDEL 250 ms fault ride-out capability 21

22 Initial challenge Site challenges Technology challenges Implementation challenges 22

23 The DIP Phase The first big milestone was the Decision-in-Principle (DIP) Preceded by a thorough EIA for three separate candidate sites DIP Application covered 1 to 2 reactors + all other nuclear facilities on site (storage, L/MLW disposal) STUK review covering technology candidates, site candidates, and the company itself (competence) Political process where both local and national acceptance is needed Hundreds of other authority and stakeholder comments filed on first the EIA, then the DIP 23

24 Decision in Principle provides a solid foundation Goverment decision in Fennovoima s favour on May 6, 2010: According to the decision, Fennovoima Is authorised to build one nuclear reactor up to 1800 MWe Has to apply for a Construction License within five years Has to present next waste management plans within six years Parliament approved the decision on July 1, 2010 Vote result Parliament decision contains four motions; according to one of them The Government shall bring, during 2010, Posiva and its owners into negotiations with Fennovoima aiming at one national spent fuel management solution 24

25 What next? Continuing Fennovoima organisation build-up Site selection in first half of 2011 Commercial challenge: bidding process & technology selection in 2012 Coping with the ongoing major revision of the whole set of YVL Guides presents a challenge Parallel work on CL docs for competing technologies is needed Licensing challenge: preparations for Construction License application Ample time reserved for preparation between now and CL filing, and subsequent STUK review Site preparation (road, power, water,...) Implementation challenge: construction and commissioning In 2020, MWe up and running in Northern Finland 25

26 Thank you. Dr. Juhani Hyvärinen Chief Nuclear Officer Fennovoima Oy Salmisaarenaukio 1, Helsinki