[Update 08/16/08]
French utility EDF said this week it started building the nuclear block of its first 1,650-megawatt new generation reactor in Flamanville. Work at Flamanville in northwest France is expected to last for another four and a half years with the E$3.6 billion plant scheduled to start production in 2012, EDF said.
EDFs costs for Flamanville are significantly higher than the cost per kilowatt announced by NRG in September for its two new reactors in Texas.
- Coming in at 1,650 MWe, Areva's EPR will cost E$3.6 billion which equals E$2,182 per Kw. At current conversion rates (WSJ 12/04/07; E$1=US$1.473) it comes out to US$3,215 per kW.
- That's US$1,200/Kw higher than NRG's estimate in their COL filing to the NRC last September.
- The total capacity of the two new NRG units is expected to be 2,700 MWe. NRG said the plants will cost $5.5 billion which brings them in at $2,000 per kW. The NRG plants will be GE-Hitachi ABWRs.
So what we have here is a considerable competitive gap. Toshiba has four reactors under its belt and Areva is struggling with a 'first-of-a-kind' effort. NRG's reactors are estimated to come in at $2,000/kW and Flamanville's are reported to be $1,200/kW more. Now, here comes a kicker. Areva is contracted with Constellation Energy to build a standardized EPR in the U.S. once the reactor design is ok'd by the NRC. Wait for it . . . what's an Areva EPR going to cost in the U.S.?
As it turns out the price per Kw cited by NRG in September 2007 has gone up as have costs for all new reactors. Still a price of $3,200/Kw is high and Areva has its work cut out for it to prevent the costs from escalating. That said more recent costs cited by Progress Energy for two new Westinghouse AP1000s in Florida make the Areva plants look like a bargain. Nuclear reactors aren't supermarket commodities and price comparisons alone do not complete differentiate them. Areva has great global ambitions to sell the EPR reactor. It must prove the cost competitiveness of the product to achieve its goals.
* * *
France is Europe's top producer of nuclear power with 80 percent of its electricity nuclear-generated. The Flamanville nuclear reactor will be EDF's 59th, but only the 2nd EPR.
Under the terms of a deal inked last week with EDF, Italy's Enel will take a 12.5 percent stake (E$450 million) in the new-generation reactor and will also have an option to take part in the next five new generation reactors, that are not yet planned.
EDF plans to add 6,000 MWe of power capacity in France by 2012, split between 1,650 MWe of nuclear power and 4,000 MWe in thermal power. The Flamanville site already hosts two 1330 MWe pressurized water reactors (PWRs), which began operating in 1986 and 1987, respectively.
Update 08/16/08
The New York Times has published a profile of the Famanville reactor project and the French government's strong commitment to nuclear energy. The newspaper reported,
"Flamanville is a vivid example of the French choice for nuclear power, made in the late 1950s by Charles de Gaulle, intensified during the oil shocks of the 1970s and maintained despite the nightmarish nuclear accidents of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.
Nuclear power provides 77 percent of France’s electricity, according to the government, and relatively few public doubts are expressed in a country with little coal, oil or natural gas. "
The article also goes into some detail about recent leaks of radioactive materials at french nuclear sites, but points out that the incidents were relatively minor on a scale that measures them.
Areva TV Commercial Video
Getting the nuclear industry to tell its story is sometimes a perplexing quest. Video is becoming more common as a primary means of getting a message across. This video from Areva has achieved something of a folk following because of its effective use of animation to tell the complicated story of the nuclear fuel cycle.
6 comments:
What is with the French? Earlier this year Westinghouse contracted with the Chinese to build 4 AP-1000 reactors for $5.3 billion. Of course, there is considerable savings because the local construction will use low cost Chinese labor, but the French somehow have not figured this out. The Westinghouse deal gets the Chinese 4,4 GW of powerm for $1,200 per-KW. The French sold the Chinese two rather larger reactors for $11.9. Thus the French reactors cost the Chinese $3,500 per-KW, or 3 times the westing house price. The Chinese want to start laying reactors as fast as possible, so they are willing to pay the French price now, but once AP-1000 Production gets ramped upm how many French reactors will the Chinese buy?
Actually, in the China deal Areva's reactors are $6.4Billion of the $11.8Billion. The rest is uranium enrichment and nuclear fuel production as well as services.
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2007/11/flash-areva-seals-119-b-china-deal.html
That is correct, the Chinese are paying much less because labor costs are almost zilch and, as important, lisencing, regulatory an other paperwork costs are a lot less.
However, it's true that on a cost-per-kilowatt hour, Westhinghouse beats Areva hands down. I've NEVER been able to figure out, then, the advantages of an EPR? Even the EBWR from GE/Toshiba, same size as the EPR, come in cheaper!
I'm still waiting for Westhinghosue to come out with a "AP1700" to compete in that market!
David Walters
David, the AP-1000 is actually a scaled up AP-600. I seriously doubt that the AP-1000 could be scaled up to go to 1700 MW, without a new design from scratch. But as long as you are going to create a new AP-XXXX design, why not make it as large as possible, say 2200 MW or even 2500 MW?
But are such large reactors really cost effective? Does the mass production potential, and not putting all your eggs in one basket approach of the AP-1000, work to lower costs? With LWRs, you will need multiple units, because of refueling.
Charles there are two aspects of this. Marketing and engineering. Clearly Westinghouse is going for what is now considered 'mid-range size' reactors: the 900 to 1200 MWs market. They assume they can sell, and *prove* this technology in a faster more marketable way than anything bigger.
The second is engineering. They can certainly, and in fact *easily* scale up the reactor end of the AP series. But it's still a big investment, obviously, even if Westhinghouse no longer manufacturers the complements themselves.
Thirdly, engineering wise, I don't believe there are any generators larger than 1800MWe gross...which has to do with rotor-sag, size of the windings, etc. I think 1800 is the absolute limit for 60/50hz machines.
David Walters
I believe Westinghouse has limited itself to a power of 1100 MWe in order to be able to cool a core melt by natural convection (thus the core melt would never destroy the primary vessel). This is what makes it a Gen-III+ design, with an extremely low probability for radioactive releases. EPR on the other hand has too large decay heat to avoid a core melt to go through the primary vessel, which is why they rely on a tungsten core catcher. EPR is therefore Gen-III, not Gen-III+
Post a Comment