Climate News Network

Paris fails to revive the nuclear dream

December 31, 2015, by Paul Brown

Reactor at Qinshan: Many experts doubt that China can go far to meeting its needs with nuclear power.
Image: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited via Wikimedia Commons

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Charlatans, or planetary saviours? Post-Paris views on the nuclear industry suggest few experts believe it will bring closer a world rid of fossil fuels.

LONDON, 31 December, 2015 – In Paris, in early December, the advocates of nuclear power made yet another appeal to world leaders to adopt their technology as central to saving the planet from dangerous climate change.

Yet analysis of the plans of 195 governments that signed up to the Paris Agreement, each with their own individual schemes on how to reduce national carbon emissions, show that nearly all of them exclude nuclear power.

Only a few big players – China, Russia, India, South Korea and the United Kingdom – still want an extensive programme of new–build reactors.

To try to understand why this is so the US-based Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists asked eight experts in the field to look at the future of nuclear power in the context of climate change.

One believed that large-scale new-build nuclear power “could and should” be used to combat climate change, and another thought nuclear could play a role, although a small one. The rest thought new nuclear stations were too expensive, too slow to construct and had too many inherent disadvantages to compete with renewables.

Industry in distress

Amory Lovins, co-founder and chief scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute, produced a devastating analysis saying that the slow-motion decline of the nuclear industry was simply down to the lack of a business case.

The average nuclear reactor, he wrote, was now 29 years old and the percentage of global electricity generated continued to fall from a peak of 17.6% in 1996 to 10.8% in 2014. “Financial distress stalks the industry”, he wrote.

Lovins says nuclear power now costs several times more than wind or solar energy and is so far behind in cost and building time that it could never catch up.

The full details of what he and other experts said are on the Bulletin’s site, with some of their comments below.

Professor Jeff Terry, of the physics department at Illinois Institute of Technology, was the greatest enthusiast for new nuclear build: “Nuclear energy is a reliable, low carbon dioxide source of electricity that can and should be used to combat climate change.

“China, India, Russia, and South Korea are all building nuclear plants both at home and in other countries. Therefore, nuclear energy will continue to play a role in mitigating the effects of climate change for the next 80 years.

Too slow

“Why are these countries turning to nuclear energy? Mainly due to the versatility and stability of nuclear generation. Nuclear power has the highest capacity factor of any low carbon dioxide-emitting power source.”

Another potential enthusiast was Seth Grae, president and CEO of the Lightbridge Corporation, who believes light water nuclear reactors “must increase globally” if the world is to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement.

However, new technologies that could have a major impact on decarbonising global electricity generation, including advances such as grid-level electricity storage, more efficient wind turbines and new types of nuclear reactors, are not being developed fast enough, he argues.

”Unfortunately, these technologies are not economically competitive enough for utilities to deploy at a large enough scale to prevent catastrophic climate change”, Grae writes. ”Sufficient improvement in economic competitiveness might not be achieved in time to prevent the worst effects of climate change.”

M.V. Ramana, of the Nuclear Futures Laboratory and the Program on Science and Global Security at Princeton University, was dismissive. “There are still some who hope that nuclear power will magically undergo a massive expansion within a relatively short period of time.

”The evidence so far suggests that this is a false hope, one that is best abandoned if we are to deal with climate change with the seriousness the problem demands.”

“Nuclear power is important if China is to address concerns about air pollution and climate change, but it is only one piece of a huge puzzle”

Peter Bradford, adjunct professor at Vermont Law School, and former Nuclear Regulatory Commission member, agreed: “Climate change, so urgent and so seemingly intractable, has become the last refuge of nuclear charlatans throughout the Western world.”

He said James Hansen, perhaps the most visible of the climate scientists who advocate heavy reliance on breeder or other innovative reactor designs, did so without paying any attention to their track record of long and costly failure.

Hui Zhang, physicist and senior research associate at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, said China had a big programme to build nuclear power stations. But they currently generated only 1% of the nation’s huge electricity needs, and even if the target of 110 power reactors by 2030 were achieved, they would produce only 5%.

“While a fleet of nuclear reactors with 130 GWe by 2030 would represent a substantial expansion (over four times China’s current capacity of 30 GWe, and more than the current US capacity of about 100 GWe), it would account for only 5% of total energy use in the country and would constitute just one quarter of the non-fossil energy needed.

“In practice, the total energy use will likely be higher than the planned cap, so the share of nuclear power in the overall energy mix would be even less.

“Eventually, nuclear power is important if China is to address concerns about air pollution and climate change, but it is only one piece of a huge puzzle.” – Climate News Network

Print Friendly
2 comments Show discussion Hide discussion
  • “Nuclear power has the highest capacity factor of any low carbon dioxide-emitting power source.”
    Prof Terry’s assertion is patently untrue. Both Geothermal and Offshore Wave provide higher capacity factors – the latter being site-dependent.

    It is not simply the lack of a business case that has gutted the prospects of the ‘nuclear renaisance’ that we were promised – it is the routinely dishonest hype used by the industry’s proponents that repels confidence.
    Walter Marshall, nuclear engineer and head of the CEGB, was the exemplar of this dishonesty. He was found to have completely falsified the UK nuclear fleet’s performance and costs when Thatcher attempted its privatization and the City demanded to see the books. Thatcher dismissed him on the spot, and as a sop to the industry’s wrecked financial credibility gave him a year’s salary and a peerage – but the City still won’t touch nuclear power with a barge pole.

    Regards,
    Lewis Cleverdon

  • The NRC’s quaterly puiblc meeting with the TVA Browns Ferry Unit 1 Restart Project Management was on Thursday. Here are a few notes I took (I am not an engineer, so sorry for mistakes!):- The nuclear fuel arrived on site on July 17 from GE.- Expecting a December 2006 fuel load.- Power generation is on schedule for May 2007. There was some hinting that this might happen earlier.- The $1.8 billion restart project is on budget.- Browns Ferry staffing was at 898 persons prior to restart. They are at 1015 now. They forecast a need for 1047 staff members to support 3-unit operation.- About 2,300 contractor employees on site.- Stone & Webster is the prime construction contractor.- Bechtel is the prime design contractor.- NRC will have an additional permanent on site inspector (2 -> 3), since it is their custom to have the same number of resident inspectors as operating units.- There is a tremendous amount of testing and inspection, and internal and external approvals required as each of the many subsystems are turned over to the plant operators. (The subsystems of the Unit 1 are “owned” by the restart project, and the restart project sort of has to “prove” that the subsystems are appropriately designed and constructed and inspected/tested before the “operating plant” will accept them for operation.)- The project involved 605,529 feet of cabling, of which 83% is installed.- There are 41,038 cable terminations, of which 89% are complete.- There is 15,137 feet of small bore piping, of which 96% are complete.- I gathered that much of the unit’s active equipment was either replaced or sent to the vendor for refurbishment.

Add a comment