The 2×981 MW, GE-BWR/6-Mark III Montalto plant was commissioned in the late 1970s by the Italian Public Utility (ENEL), in a context—the “Nuclear Option Plan,” “PUN”1—which called for the construction of about 10 nuclear powerplants of various types in several sites across Italy, to cover approximately a 15 percent share of the baseload requirements by the year 2000. For several reasons, both technical and political, the ambitious PUN failed, to a point in which, following a National Conference on Energy Generation Systems and Strategies (Feb. 1987), the citizens were called to decide in a national ballot whether they wanted such a plan to be discontinued or enforced (Nov. 1987). The decision having been to discontinue the PUN (by a 66-percent to 34-percent margin), the problem arose about the destination of the two plants which were under construction: “Trino 2”—midway between Torino (Turin) and Milano (Milan)—and “Montalto”—about 70-km from Roma (Rome). Trino, being in the initial construction stages, was promptly halted. The decision about Montalto (70 percent completed) was a more difficult one. Six alternatives were formally presented to a specially appointed Government Committee: (i) the original nuclear option as envisioned by the PUN; (ii) and (iii) two different reconversions to a gas-fired, combined cycle plant, both of which have been proposed earlier (1986) on the basis of objections to the safety procedures related to the reactor’s operation; (iv) a substitution with a series of 7 modular, gas-fired combined cycle plants (also proposed before the national ballot); (v) a reconversion to a multi-fuel, custom-design steam powerplant (also proposed before the national ballot); (vi) a substitution with four modular units, each standard steam multi-fuel (proposed by the Public Utility as the only valid alternative to the completion of the nuclear plant). This paper presents an independent, comparative analysis of the six alternatives, taking into account both technical and economical issues. On the basis of a cost structure deduced by the Public Utility’s published data, an average cost for the kilowatthour is determined for each of the six options, and compared to that corresponding to the completion of the nuclear plant. The final decision of the Italian Government was made public in June 1988 and is also discussed in this final version of the paper.
Skip Nav Destination
Article navigation
June 1989
Research Papers
The Non-Nuclear Conversion of the Montalto BWR/6-Mark III Plant: A Technical and Economical Assessment of the Proposed Options
Enrico Sciubba
Enrico Sciubba
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering, University of Roma I, Italy
Search for other works by this author on:
Enrico Sciubba
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering, University of Roma I, Italy
J. Energy Resour. Technol. Jun 1989, 111(2): 77-89 (13 pages)
Published Online: June 1, 1989
Article history
Received:
May 5, 1988
Revised:
March 15, 1989
Online:
October 22, 2009
Connected Content
Citation
Sciubba, E. (June 1, 1989). "The Non-Nuclear Conversion of the Montalto BWR/6-Mark III Plant: A Technical and Economical Assessment of the Proposed Options." ASME. J. Energy Resour. Technol. June 1989; 111(2): 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3231409
Download citation file:
Get Email Alerts
Cited By
Fuel Consumption Prediction in Dual-Fuel Low-Speed Marine Engines With Low-Pressure Gas Injection
J. Energy Resour. Technol (December 2024)
A Semi-Analytical Rate-Transient Analysis Model for Fractured Horizontal Well in Tight Reservoirs Under Multiphase Flow Conditions
J. Energy Resour. Technol (November 2024)
Experimental Investigation of New Combustion Chamber Geometry Modification on Engine Performance, Emission, and Cylinder Liner Microstructure for a Diesel Engine
J. Energy Resour. Technol (December 2024)
Downdraft Gasification for Biogas Production: The Role of Artificial Intelligence
J. Energy Resour. Technol (December 2024)
Related Articles
The Fabulous Nuclear Odyssey of Belgium
J. Pressure Vessel Technol (June,2009)
A New Thermoeconomic Method for the Location of Causes of Malfunctions in Energy Systems
J. Energy Resour. Technol (March,2007)
Current Status of Reactors Deployment and Small Modular Reactors Development in the World
ASME J of Nuclear Rad Sci (October,2020)
The Plant Feature and Performance of Double MS (Modular Simplified and Medium Small Reactor)
J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power (January,2010)
Related Proceedings Papers
Related Chapters
Lessons Learned: NRC Experience
Continuing and Changing Priorities of the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Codes and Standards
Combined Cycle Power Plant
Energy and Power Generation Handbook: Established and Emerging Technologies
Use of PSA in Lisencing of EPR 1600 in Finland (PSAM-0160)
Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment & Management (PSAM)