Environmental Impacts of Different Energy Technology Options for Slovenia

Transcription

1 International Conference Nuclear Energy for New Europe 2009 Bled / Slovenia / September Environmental Impacts of Different Energy Technology Options for Slovenia Marko Giacomelli 1, Gregor Omahen 1, Tomaž Žagar 2, Samo Fürst 2 1 ZVD Institute of Occupational Health Chengdujska cesta 25, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia marko.giacomelli@zvd.si, gregor.omahen@zvd.si 2 GEN energija d.o.o. Cesta 4. julija 42, SI-8270 Krško, Slovenia tomaz.zagar@gen-energija.si, samo.furst@gen-energija.si ABSTRACT A preliminary report was prepared to investigate the environmental consequences of different electrical power producing energy technologies for Slovenia. Electrical power production from four potential nuclear reactor designs, imported coal-fired power generation, combinedcycle gas-fired generation, and renewable power generation sources are considered. The electrical energy generation technologies were evaluated for environmental impacts on climate, air quality, surface water and groundwater, noise, land and agriculture, the landscape, nature and natural areas, waste management, human and environmental health, impacts from ionizing radiation, impacts on inhabitants and the environment, cumulation or cumulative impacts with other projects, impacts on cultural heritage, and impacts on protected areas and zones. In the article the main findings are presented and comparison tables and selection criteria are given. 1 INTRODUCTION A preliminary report was prepared for GEN energija and consequently the public to investigate the environmental consequences of different electrical power producing energy technologies for Slovenia [1] (hereafter referred to as PREI Report). Electrical power production from four potential nuclear reactor designs, imported coal-fired power generation, combined-cycle gas-fired generation, and renewable power generation sources are considered. In terms of potential siting process of facilities of national importance and coresponding documentation such a report is difficult to position and is indeed a self-initiative action by GEN Energija. If one can distinguish several steps and important safety and environmental documentation required by Slovenian legislation, e.g. Environmental Report, Environmental Impact Assessement, and by nuclear legistation, e.g. Special Safety Analysis and Safety Analysis Report, the PREI report is a precedent case in Slovenia, whereas there exist no legal obligations for the investor for its making

2 1.1 Methods Data utilized in the study were collected from available sources, analyzed and interpreted according to best practices for completion of environmental impact studies and environmental impact assessments. The PREI report is intended to be a preliminary energy technology impact study to be used as a resource document for a future energy alternatives analysis as part of an environmental impact assessment for new electrical power generation for Slovenia. 2 ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES There were four nuclear designs evaluated with nominal power output in the range between 1000 and 1600 MWe. The imported coal power plant and combined-cycle natural gas power options assumed an output of 1100 MWe for both technologies. The nuclear, imported coal, and natural gas options are assumed to have a 90% availability (Baseload Capacity Factor). Renewable options considered are hydroelectric generation, solar photovoltaic generation, wind generation, biomass cogeneration, and geothermal electric generation. The combined renewable options are assumed to have 34% Baseload Capacity Factor. Additionally, a No-action option (electricity import) was evaluated. 2.1 Nuclear GEN energija is currently considering four different nuclear reactor designs for possible use. All are Light Water Reactor (LWR), Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) technologies. This is the most commonly used design globally for nuclear powered electricity generation. The four designs specifically under consideration are as follows: Westinghouse AP1000 TM, Mitsubishi EU Advanced PWR (MHI EU APWR), AREVA-MHI ATMEA-1 TM, and AREVA EPR TM. These designs represent a mix of evolutionary and advanced technologies. The evolutionary technologies are based on improvements to existing designs. These improvements are based on operational experience, reliable design techniques, and improved materials. Advanced technologies go beyond evolutionary improvement using new systems that rely on natural forces such as gravity and convection to increase reliability and simplify the design. 2.2 Imported Coal Under the imported coal option, electrical energy would be produced by importing coal. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that electricity is generated in a pulverized coal combustion plant with air pollution control systems typical of systems compliant with EC requirements (i.e., plants having flue gas cleaning and other air pollution control technologies) with a typical daily coal consumption of the order of metric tons (mt) per day (Table 5-1, MIT 2007, and Gabbard 1993). Typical pulverized coal electricity generating plants generate two primary high-volume coal combustion residues: flue gas cleaning (FGC) wastes, and ash (both bottom ash and fly ash). 2.3 Combined Cycle Natural Gas A CCNG power plant configuration rated at 1,100 MWe with the design would be based on a market-ready technology that is assumed to be commercially available in time to support a 2012 start-up date. The design consists of two advanced, F class, combustion turbine generators

3 (CTG), two HRSG s and one steam turbine generator (STG). A system for CO 2 capture was not included, but could be added to the plant. The Rankine cycle portion uses a single reheat steam cycle. For the purposes of this study it was also assumed that the gas would be imported from outside Slovenia and delivered to the plant custody transfer point. 2.4 RES Mix Option For this report, a hypothetical scenario is postulated involving a mixture (combination) of RES that would provide 1,100 MWe base load electricity for Slovenia with 90% availability by the year One such scenario, which is considered in this report, is a proposed RES mix consisting of sources of energy in the form of approximately 32% hydroelectric energy generation, 36% utility-scale wind power generation, and 32% biomass energy generation, while negligible solar and geothermal power contribution is postulated. For purposes of evaluating impacts, the RES mixture is based on an assumed aggregate capacity factor of approximately 34%. Several constraints would limit the full establishment of RES to achieve the goal of 1,100 MWe due to the need to locate RES generating facilities and/or associated infrastructure components where the resources are available. Some of the most suitable/optimal areas for developing wind and hydroelectric energy at the scale required for the RES mix option are not currently available for development in Slovenia due to the lands being protected under the Natura 2000 program as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1: Hydropower Development Potential and Wind Density Distribution overlayed by Natura 2000 Protected Areas [2, 3] 2.5 Zero Option The No-action option consists of importing electrical energy from electrical generating stations outside of Slovenia. Under the No-action option, major impacts would occur to Slovenia s society and energy policy adherence as result of Slovenia s complete dependence on imported energy and foreign sources of energy.

4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The electrical energy generation technologies were evaluated for environmental impacts to climate, air quality, surface water and groundwater, noise, land and agriculture, the landscape, nature and natural areas, waste management, human and environmental health, impacts from ionizing radiation, impacts to inhabitants and their environment, cumulation or cumulative impacts with other projects, impacts to cultural heritage, and impacts to protected areas and zones. Also the current state of the environment was analyzed for all 14 above mentioned elements and thus serves as the initial characterization of the environment. 3.1 Comparative Table The impacts for each technology option or technology component of a combination of technologies (for RES) are summarized in Table 1, based on the evaluations presented in the PREI report. The degree of impacts associated with implementation of each technology option are estimated below on a scale ranging from negligible, low, moderate, to high in terms of expected life cycle impacts of the technology option(s). The summary scale includes six categories, no impact/or a positive impact; insubstantial impact; insubstantial impact with mitigation; substantial impact; destructive impact; and, establishing an impact was not possible. The letters do not correspond to numerical values and represent qualitative ranking. The integrated ranking for each technology is included at the bottom of Table 1 and is based on a qualitative evaluation of all factors presented in the impact assessment. A number of conclusions may be drawn from the information presented in Table 1: The nuclear technology option has comparable impacts to the No-action option, as well as the geothermal, wind, solar, and hydroelectric options; The nuclear technology option has a substantially lower impact than gas or coal options; The nuclear technology option has a lower impact than the RES mix option; and, Amongst the energy options capable of providing baseload capacity, the lowest impact technology is nuclear power. 3.2 Decision Making Factors As a means of aiding decision-makers in discriminating between and selecting from among the different energy technology options, the primary energy technology options described in the PREI report have also been evaluated and ranked for their relative feasibility and favorability (desirability) by comparing them against a set of potential decision criteria (decision factors). A variety of decision criteria have been considered, including the following: Land area requirements; The degree to which the technology option or set of options would comply with established National, EU and global requirements and environmental directives, such as greenhouse gas reduction goals and requirements and adherence to established pollution prevention and emission control requirements;

5 Table 1: Summary of Climate Change Impacts Energy technologies Nuclear Coal Natural Gas Features impacted Climate B E D A-B B-C C C C X C Air B D D A A B C B A C Surface water and groundwater C C C B A A C B B C Noise C B B B B C B B A C Ground and Agricultural Surfaces B C-D C A A-D C C-D B-D B D Landscape C C C A A-B C C C B C Nature and Natural Areas C B-D B C-D B B-D B-D B B D Waste Management System C D A A A A C A A C Human and Environmental C B B A A-B D-E B B B E Health Risks Ionizing Radiation C C-D B A-B A A A A-B X B Inhabitants and their Environment A-B E C-D A D-E A C-D A D-E A-C Cumulations with other Regional B D C A A-D B-D B-D C-D A D Projects Cultural Heritage B C B B B B B B B B Protected Areas and Zones B C B D B D B B X D Integrated Ranking C D D C C D D C C D A - no impact/positive impact; B - an insubstantial impact; C - an insubstantial impact with mitigation measures; D - a substantial impact; E - a destructive impact; X - establishing an impact was not possible Hydro Solar Wind Biomass Geothermal Zero RES Mix 1 The extent to which the technology option/set of options complies with established National and EU goals and objectives for achieving energy independence and security of energy supply; Baseload demand/baseload capacity factors; The likelihood that the facility or facilities for the technology option/set of options could be sited within the primary Region of Influence area considered (10-km radius prescribed area around the existing Krško NPP site); Relative costs; Associated infrastructure requirements; Potential uncertainties and risks associated with the technology option or set of options; Economic/technological feasibility; and, The overall (aggregate) assessed environmental impact for that technology option or set of options. Considerations involved in the evaluation included, among others, the following:

6 A qualitative comparison of the relative cost per kwhr of electricity produced for each energy technology option or set of options considered; An evaluation of each technology option with respect to whether the economic incentives that may be needed to implement the technology option currently exist; An assessment of whether the technology option is anticipated to have a high, moderate, or low degree of associated uncertainty/risk with respect to siting, permitting, and construction and operation of the facility or facilities at the scale required to meet the specified capacity, resource potential/resource availability, and the likelihood of complying with applicable environmental guidelines; and, An assessment of whether or not prior significant technological enhancements/improvements in the technology component(s) associated with the technology option would be required before the technology option could be implemented at the scale required. Table 2 provides a summary of the decision factors used for assessing and ranking the relative feasibility and desirability of the four primary energy technology options evaluated in this report. A ranking has been assigned to each technology option for each criterion listed across the top of the table. For example, the nuclear option is assigned an Excellent ranking for the criterion Ability to Site in Region of Influence because the small footprint size needed for a new nuclear power plant and the feasibility of siting a second nuclear plant within a 10-km radius around the existing Krško NPP site are both ranked very high. Results of the environmental impacts assessment of the technology components of the different energy technology options from Table 1 are incorporated into Table 2 (in the second to last column) in terms of an assigned aggregate environmental impacts ranking for each component associated with each technology option. A relative overall ranking of each technology component for each energy technology option, derived from consideration of all listed decision factors, is provided in the last column of Table 2. The overall ranking results indicate the following relative hierarchical ranking: Good - Nuclear Option; Fair - Hydroelectric power; Biomass cogeneration power; Poor - (Imported coal) modern coal-fired power plant; Modern combined cycle natural gas power plant; Solar (photovoltaic) power; and, Undesirable - Wind power; Geothermal power. 4 CONCLUSIONS GEN Energija is an independent provider of integral and competitive supply of electricity in Slovenia, with its current energy portfolio consisting of nuclear, hydro, natural gas and solar power. GEN Energija is also a potential investor in future energy facilities in Slovenia, hence the preliminary report on environmental impacts of different energy technology options has been produced to enable future decision-making. The overall conclusion of the PREI report is that the nuclear technology option offers minimal environmental impacts along with economic, long-term, baseload energy for the Republic of Slovenia. However the main purpose of the document is not to show the best or the worst

7 Option Table 2: Summary of Decision Factors and Recommendations for Technology Selection Installed Capacity (MWe) Land Requirements (ha) per kwh GHGs per kwhr Energy Supply Security Baseload Capacity Factor Ability to Site in Region of Influence Cost per kwhr Existing Infrastructure Uncertainty/ Risk Economic/ Technological Feasibility Aggregate Environmental Impacts Relative Ranking for All Factors Nuclear X X G X X X X G X G G Imported Coal 1100 X U F G G F P P X P P Combined Cycle Natural Gas 1100 X P P F G F G P G P P RES Mix Option a 1100 Hydroelectric b 352 G F G S P c X G F X F F Wind d 392 P G F P U e P F U F F U Biomass Cogeneration 352 F F G G P F F F G F F Solar (Photovoltaic) f 30 P F F P U P F P P F P Geothermal g 0 X F G G U P F P P F U No-action Option h 1100 N S U G N S F S N F N X - Excellent; G - Good; F - Fair; P - Poor; U - Undesirable; N - Not Available/Applicable; S - Depends on Source a RES Mix is assumed to be 32% hydro, 36% wind, 32% biomass. b Production based on proportion of RES Mix option. c Ability to site a 352 MWe hydro plant in the 10-km Region of Interest is N d Production based on proportion of RES Mix option. e Ability to site a 392 MWe wind farm in the 10-km Region of Interest is N f Production based on ARM report 2008 [4]. g Production based on geothermal resources within the 10-km Region of Influence. h Assumes 1100 MWe of imported capacity.

8 technology option, but to evaluate their various impacts and to recognize or eliminate unacceptable options with substantial or destructive impacts. The PREI report is a precedent case of large environmental projets in Slovenia and enables an early possibility of discussion and participation in dialogue. As often experienced in the past, such environmental project can reach a standstill just before their end, thus prolonging or even abandoning them. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The present paper has been written based on the findings of the main report as a result of a joint project with URS corporation Washington division that was financed by GEN energija d.o.o. REFERENCES [1] M. Beaumont, D. Wyatt, G. Omahen, and M. Giacomelli. Preliminary report on environmental impacts of different energy technology options for slovenia. Report by URS Corporation, USA, and ZVD Institute of Occupational Health, Ljubljana, Slovenia, WSMS-OPS :1 287, April [2] Agencija Republike Slovenije za okolje. Pregled, podnebje, karte [3] Geodetska uprava Republike Slovenije. Območja natura [4] Z. Košnjek, T. Sirk, M. Bugeza, A. Kragelj, J. Verdnik, M. Adamič, S. Merše, and A. Urbančič. Analysis of development potential of the slovenian power sector on the basis of energy-economic and environmental evaluation of scenarios by Report by ELEK, Slovenia, Ljubljana, pages 1 235, November 2008.