The OECD The Nuclear Energy Agency

Transcription

1 The OECD The Nuclear Energy Agency Janice Dunn Lee OECD/NEA Deputy Director-General WNU Summer Institute July 14,

2 Overview The OECD/NEA The Work of the NEA The NEA and Other International Organisations NEA in the Aftermath of Fukushima Why the NEA? 2

3 The OECD General Features Budget for 2009: EUR 320 million Location: Paris, France Secretariat staff: ,000 experts contributing through 250 committees Secretary-General: Angel Gurría Publications: 250 new titles/year Official languages: English/French 3

4 OECD/NEA Membership Australia Austria Belgium Canada Chile Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States Not member of NEA 4

5 Nuclear Energy in OECD Countries More than 300 Gwe providing ~ 25% of electricity supply More than 10,000 reactor years of operating experience Large, diversified industrial sector Robust R&D infrastructure Highly qualified manpower 5

6 % 80 Nuclear Power Share of Total Electricity Production in OECD Countries (2009)

7 NEA Characteristics Small size and budget (80 staff members; budget of 14 million euros). Large representation (85% of the world s nuclear power capacity) (nuclear energy supplies 1/4 of total OECD electricity). Non-political forum; climate of mutual trust. Pools world s best nuclear expertise among developed countries. Narrow focus: in-depth scientific, technical, legal work. 7

8 NEA Committees 8

9 Notable Work of the NEA GENERATION IV International Forum (GIF) Multinational Design Evaluation Programme (MDEP) Projected Cost of Generating Electricity (EGC) Medical Radioisotopes School of International Nuclear Law 9

10 Generations of Nuclear Energy Generation I Early Prototypes Reactors Generation II Commercial Power Reactors Generation III Advanced Power Reactors Generation III+ Evolutionary Designs Generation IV Revolutionary Designs Shippingport Dresden Magnox PWRs BWRs CANDU CANDU 6 System 80+ AP600 ABWR ACR1000 AP1000 APWR EPR ESBWR Enhanced safety Minimization of waste and better use of natural resources More economical Improved proliferation resistance and physical protection Gen I Gen II Gen III Gen III+ Gen IV 10

11 Generation IV International Forum (GIF) Charter Signed in July 2001 for 10 years. Extension under preparation. Currently 13 Signatories, 3 of them non-active Framework Agreement (Intergovernmental) (Signed 28 February 05 in Washington) Entered into force for Canada, China, Euratom, France, Japan, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Switzerland, USA OECD s SG Depositary Systems Arrangements SFR China, Euratom, France, Korea, Japan, Russia, USA SCWR Canada, Euratom, Japan GFR Euratom, France, Japan, Switzerland VHTR Canada, China, Euratom, France, Korea, Japan, Switzerland, USA 11

12 Multinational Design Evaluation Programme NEA serves as Technical Secretariat 10 Safety authorities participating o Canada, China, Finland, France, Japan, Russian Federation, South Africa, South Korea, United Kingdom, United States Establish reference regulatory practices for new reactors Increase international cooperation between regulators to improve new reactor assessments Working Groups on specific topics and general issues o EPR Working Group o AP1000 Working Group o Digital I&C Standards Working Group o Pressure Boundary Component Codes and Standards Working Group o Vendor Inspection Cooperation Working Group 12

13 Projected Costs of Generating Electricity (EGC) No technology holds a consistent economic advantage at a global level under all circumstances Key parameters costs of raising financial capital price of carbon Liberalisation of electricity markets increases some business risks Differences between the study findings and the market preference for gas-fired plants 13

14 Annual six-day curies EOP High-level Group on the Security of Supply of Medical Radioisotopes (HLG-MR): June Current Supply vs. Demand 1,800,000 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000, , , , ,000 0 Demand from NEA study Demand at 5% annual growth Normal supply from current reactor fleet Some key findings: Economic structure unsustainable: does not support investment Demand will grow out to 2030 (albeit slowing) Shortages in next few years as current infrastructure reaches end of life 14

15 School of International Nuclear Law 15

16 NEA Interface With Other International Organisations International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) International Energy Agency (IEA) 16

17 NEA Strenghts Depth and quality of technical work Target specific needs of member countries Flexibility and ability to respond to problems on a timely basis 17

18 NEA Unique Forum Availability of world s best nuclear expertise at relatively little cost Climate of mutual trust and collaboration Full and frank discussion of issues Unfettered by political and bureaucratic constraints 18

19 Extensive Collaboration and Cooperation Annual coordination meetings at senior management level. IAEA represented in all NEA Standing Technical Committees and most Working Parties. Frequent contacts among task administrators. Jointly sponsored activities, mainly workshops and conferences. New entrants. 19

20 NEA Activities in the Aftermath of Fukushima Focus on Improvements of Safety 20

21 21

22 22

23 23

24 Reaction of the International Community Political reaction Domestic in-depth safety reviews Political decision to shut down G8 extended NEA meeting IAEA Ministerial meeting on June

25 Priority Areas for Fukushima Related Work Extreme natural events and resilience Plant design and safety systems Emergency response and management capabilities Crisis communication Site recovery 25

26 Impact to the Future of Nuclear Power Medium term accident will slow development Public opinion Lessons learned Enhanced safety measures Longer term Electricity demand Status of renewables GEN IV reactors 26

27 Why the NEA? Ability to mobilize quickly Rapid consensus Renown reference source Mission focussed 27