Guest Speaker: Janne Wallenius
Janne Wallenius is Professor of Reactor Physics at KTH - Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden.
He holds a PhD in quantum chemistry from Uppsala University. His research interests are transmutation of nuclear waste, subcritical core design, nuclear fuel development and modelling of radiatio... Profile
Discussion - June 2009
What role should nuclear technology play in our future energy mix?
26 Comments from our contributors
Loading ...
Twitter
RSS
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
Twitter
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
RSS
Member
Kurchatov Institute
said: On 01/06/2009
We are living in a specific historical period, when the mankind has already spent a considerable amount of natural resources of good quality. This allowed people to multiply greatly and get a ruling position on the Earth. But in the same time the mankind has created huge problems of too fast exhaustion of the planet’s resources, including environmental ones.
In the last three decades of the XX century, the global energy consumption increased more than twice and currently exceeds 10 billion tons of oil equivalent. Fossil fuels (traditional and renewable ones) contribute about 90% to the total primary energy consumed by the world. Analysis of the growing energy demand (by mid-century, for instance) dictated by demographic growth and leveling of energy consumption in the “two worlds” and the possibilities of extending the resources basis of the main present-day energy sources gives the results that aren’t very optimistic. According to our assessments, unsatisfied demand would make almost one-third of all energy to be consumed by the mid-century. It would be a cause of permanent international tension, and the ways to eliminate this tension are yet uncertain. Demand of all kinds of energy resources is most likely to grow. This situation comes close to “non-market” redistribution of resources known from the times of pyramids. Thus, the energy industry isn’t the ring for different energy technologies competing for their place under the Sun any more. The scale of global energy development is so large that all sources capable to make a contribution meet their demand.
The current scale of emission-free nuclear energy, as well as its technological resource, allows the conclusion that it can really become a system capable of sustainable and sufficiently fast development. The XXI century’s world energy demand projections impose no upper limit on nuclear energy development. Its scale would be determined by the opportunities of development and implementation of the necessary technical innovations. But the technology development is not the only one to set new tasks for the nuclear community. Nuclear energy must meet a number of requirements put forward by the mankind, which – especially its most prosperous part was seriously frightened by the history of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy will be inevitably joined by dozens of newcomer countries having no experience of development and regulation in this field. Nuclear energy cornerstones, such as nuclear and physical safety culture, radioactive waste management and non-proliferation, should become mandatory conditions of the New Nuclear Era. This would certainly require broad international cooperation between countries with advanced nuclear energy programs and new participants of the Nuclear Renaissance in fact, a new international policy.
Nevertheless, this is an offer we cannot refuse. The mankind will have to accept nuclear energy as a vital prerequisite of our future; it will also have to assure its fast development.
Consultant
Independent
said: On 01/06/2009
Since the two nuclear accidents TMI (1979) and Chernobyl (1986), the nuclear community worked together to increase the safety of nuclear power plants world wide. Although the cost of nuclear safety is high, involving increases in the additional requirements for design, operation, quality assurance and regulatory supervision, it should be maintained and enhanced further. The concerns for increased prices for fossil fuels as well as green house gases justify the economic and environmental viability of nuclear power in the energy mix of today and the future.
Independent International Consultant
International Energy and Nuclear Policy Consultancy
said: On 01/06/2009
Nuclear power provides less than 14% of electricity or 6% of commercial primary energy and therefore only around 2% of final energy to the consumer on this planet, as the World Nuclear Industry Status Report shows. The role of nuclear energy is negligible and has been on the decline for years. Today there are 31 units less operating in the EU than twenty years ago.
France, the only country that generates more than three quarters of its power by nuclear, still only gets about 15% of its final energy from atomic fission but close to three quarters from fossil fuels. Furthermore, France consumes more oil per capita than Germany, the UK, Italy or the EU on average.
We are facing an environmental crisis of unprecedented dimensions that requires fast, widely applicable and affordable solutions. This is not a resource crisis because we have to radically reduce consumption before we run out of resources. Nuclear power is the opposite of what is needed; it is extremely slow and so costly that it has already been kicked out of the market place. In the year 2008, for the first time since the beginning of the nuclear age, no new nuclear plant has been connected to the grid in the world. In the same year, for the first time, more wind capacity has been started up in the EU than natural gas or any other power plants.
Nuclear’s competitors are not coal and gas but intelligent energy services based on conservation, efficiency and small power plants connected to smart grids. The mice have already won over the dinosaurs, even if the latter keep noisily waving their tails.
Member
European Parliament
said: On 01/06/2009
The nuclear lobby wants to make us believe that a nuclear renaissance is about to begin. But the reality looks quite different. Nuclear power provides 14% of the world’s electricity and approximately 2% of the final energy consumption – with a downward trend. For the first time in the history of nuclear energy in 2008 no new power plant was connected to the grid. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) lists 45 reactors as “under construction”. One fourth of these have been on this list for over 20 years. Only 5 projects are outside of Asia and Eastern Europe, three quarters are in intransparent countries like China, Russia or South Korea. In the US no power plant has been ordered since the nuclear accident in Harrisburg in 1979.
Also in Europe the number of nuclear power plants is declining. 20 years ago 177 reactors were operating in today’s EU 27 – today the number is down to 145. During the last 4 years 16 reactors have been shut down. Only one new power plant was connected to the grid during that time – in Romania after 25 years of construction. The two nuclear projects in Western Europe are suffering from management problems and are developing into financial disasters. The Olkiluoto3 reactor in Finland is already more than 3 years behind schedule and 55% over budget.
This does not look like a renaissance to me.
There are good reasons to oppose nuclear power. Nuclear power comes with extreme risks. The nuclear waste problem is still unsolved, nuclear catastrophes like in Chernobyl in 1986 can’t be excluded and the spread of nuclear material over the world increases the risk that a nuclear bomb will end up in the hands of someone who wants to use it.
Nuclear will not solve the climate problem. On the contrary – the old centralized energy system with big inflexible power plants obstructs the growth of renewable technologies.
Instead of clinging on to yesterdays dirty and dangerous energy technologies, we should invest in a sustainable energy future based on energy savings, energy efficiency and renewables. In some areas these changes are already happening. While the nuclear industry struggles with cost overshoots and delays, in 2008 more wind capacity was connected to the grid than gas. Wind energy grew by 29% globally. Over all the share of renewables in the energy mix has doubled since the year 2000.
Our future energy system has to be based on intelligent and efficient use of clean renewable energies instead of wasteful consumption and dangerous and dirty technologies. We are already on a good way. Turning back to the wrong ideas of the past is not an option.
Research Professor
Economic and Social Research Institute
said: On 01/06/2009
The question “What role should nuclear energy play in our future energy mix?” cannot be answered as “our” and hence “should” are not defined. So let us have a look at some aspects of nuclear power instead.
Nuclear power requires a large upfront investment and, as shown by Olkiluoto 3, an unpredictable investment at that. With the price of capital sky high, a rational investor would think twice before building a new nuclear power plant. Hopefully, this is a consideration in the short term only. In the medium term, order will probably return to the financial markets. That said, chances are that economic output will be permanently below what we expected it to be before the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Some economists argue that the potential growth rate of the world economy has fallen too. This implies that the demand for electricity too will be lower than predicted, and that new power generating capacity is less needed. This undoubtedly reduces the demand for new nuclear too.
Nuclear provides base load electricity. As wind and solar power are likely to take an increasing share of the market, other power plants should become more flexible. This means that gas is the fuel of choice.
Coal is the main competitor of nuclear on the base load market. The suppliers of both coal and uranium are reliable, but there are other problems. Greenhouse gas emissions are among main issues with coal power. Carbon capture and storage has shown to be more elusive than expected, and may not be feasible at the required scale. Sulphur and other emissions remain a large problem in countries with lax environmental regulation, which unfortunately are home to the majority of the world population. While the problems around nuclear waste and accidents are by and large under control at the technical level, perception lags behind and this implies substantial costs for liability insurance and for the protection of facilities. Proliferation remains a big problem for nuclear. As the number of nuclear power plants increases, so do the number of experienced engineers and the amount of fissile material – and this can only increase the probability of nasty people getting their hands on a dirty bomb or worse.
In sum, nuclear power is a problematic source of energy, but so are its alternatives. It would therefore seem wise to keep nuclear as a part of the energy mix. No-nuclear or all-nuclear are unlikely and probably undesirable, but nuclear surely has a role to play.
Associate Editor
Global Politician
said: On 01/06/2009
More than 70% of contracts for new nuclear power plants were cancelled between 1970 and 1990. Nuclear energy has proven to be by far too expensive, partly the outcome of meager investment in research and development. But why didn’t this promising industry seek efficiency and productivity gains? Why didn’t it increase its capacity to remove production bottlenecks (for instance of containment vessels)? Why did the entire civilian nuclear sector capitulate even in the face of volatile oil prices which should have rendered it more of an attractive energy option? The short answer is: the malignantly romantic (not to mention highly lucrative) cult known as “environmentalism”.
Nuclear energy is a prime example of how environmental hype and spin can and does become self-defeating. Chernobyl aside, nuclear power is by far the safest and cleanest of sustainable energy sources. Yet, instead of embracing it wholeheartedly, well-paid and self-promoting activists used a lethal cocktail of data – both wrong and misinterpreted – to derail its deployment with scare tactics and apocalyptic, headline-grabbing “analyses”, sometimes even maliciously or erroneously conflating nuclear power with atomic weapons!
Their egos sated with media exposure and their wallets fattened by grants and contributions from gullible governments and individuals, environmental “scholars” then proceeded to leverage public ignorance, prejudices, and superstitions to press for legislation (often via litigation) that has retarded the industry, stunted its growth, and indirectly enhanced emissions of greenhouse gases. Today, less than one seventh of the world’s electricity (and 2.5% of total energy consumed) is produced by nuclear fission. The environmental conspiracy theorists have prevailed yet again.
Happily, this is fast changing. Electricity shortages, brownouts and blackouts have grown increasingly common in many developing countries; the prices of fossil fuels – even after the recent precipitous fall – are still expensive; global warming is real; even more ominously, our atmosphere is suffused with heavy metals emitted by burning coal and oil. All these conspire in favor of the nuclear option. So do new safety and green radiation technologies (e.g., passively safe plants and, in the near future, fourth generation reactors); rising concerns regarding national energy security; and commercial by-products of nuclear power generation which render it more feasible (examples being: desalination; heating; and the production of hydrogen).
Countries like France and Japan (and, to a lesser extent, the United States) serve as role models. Thanks to its nuclear policy, according to various media, France has the cleanest air of any industrialized country and the cheapest electricity in Europe. Nuclear power plants are in operation or being constructed in 43 countries. Nuclear energy produced by 2015 (in the pipeline) will exceed 400 GW (and 800 GW by 2030). Europe is the continent most open to nuclear technology, though some members of the European Union have yet to overcome their environmental propaganda hangover.
Still, it is a steep incline. Even under the most optimistic of scenarios, four years hence (in 2013), the nuclear power generation segment in North America is likely to amount to a fraction (less than 20%) of the gas and coal industries, not to mention the petroleum complexes. Wind energy may surpass nuclear sources within 20 years. The International Atomic Energy Agency predicted, in 2008, that the share of nuclear-generated power in the global energy mix will remain stable in the next 20 years, even under the most optimistic assumptions.
President
SE2T International, Ltd
said: On 01/06/2009
If one looks at the market penetration curves of energy sources over time for firewood, coal, petroleum, gas, nuclear and modern biofuels, they all fit into an S-shaped probabilistic curve. That means at least two things. First, at any point in time different energy sources co-exist. And second, the relative importance of an individual source of energy varies with time. When nuclear energy came into commercial use in the 1950s, there were great hopes for it to play a key role in the cast of energy sources. Some even said that it would be so cheap and abundant that it would not be worth measuring and charging for the electricity generated! Despite these auspicious expectations, nuclear energy has not lived up to expectations, for many reasons. Key among them is the public perception about the environmental risks of the nuclear energy cycle, from mining to generation to disposal of radioactive wastes. Concerns over nuclear materials proliferation add to this negative public image. This has made it difficult for the nuclear industry to fulfill expectations, with the exception of a few countries, such as France, where it plays a major role in power generation. On the other hand, Germany and Sweden have, in the past, decided to ban nuclear energy altogether. However, concerns over the global environment, climate change in particular, may offer nuclear energy a window of opportunity. In the struggle to limit emissions of greenhouse gases, nuclear energy has a persuasive case to make. And it is happening at a time when nuclear technology has advanced from its early days and can address satisfactorily the public concerns. Nevertheless, the nuclear industry has a hard sell ahead, despite the much sought contribution it could make to meet demand for electricity and subtract greenhouse gases emissions that cause global warming.
Publisher
Idaho Samizdat
said: On 01/06/2009
The primary value of nuclear energy is to supply electricity to meet baseload demand. This is important because this type of electricity supply is what keeps the lights on in our homes, factories, and cities. Second, nuclear energy does not generate greenhouse gases. We should be replacing fossil-fuel baseload plants with nuclear plants for this reason alone.
Wind and solar energy can benefit from baseload electricity because, as variable sources, they cannot support a profitable economic model by themselves over transmission and distribution (T&D) networks. However, if a nuclear plant can use two-thirds of a T&D network, then the remaining one-third can be paid for, in terms of transmission capacity, to deliver electricity from these “alternative sources” to customers.
The energy density of uranium compared to coal is very significant. To put this in the perspective of an ordinary consumer in western Europe, a kilogram of coal can run a 100W lightbulb for about 4 days while a kilogram of natural uranium can run it for 182 years!
Nuclear energy does not produce any greenhouse gas emissions the reduction of which is a global priority. Every 1000 MW coal plant that is not built removes enormous quantities of CO2, SO2, and NO2 from our atmosphere and our lungs.
Want to do a little math? Consider these numbers – according to US EPA, for every kilowatt hour a coal plant produces, the emissions per KwH are 800-1,200 grams C02, 1,000-3,000 grams SO2, and 700-5,300 grams NO2. So take the total electricity generation for the year by a 1,000 MW plant, in KwH, and multiply. You will get some very large numbers. Now consider how many coal plants supply electricity in your country and you will begin to get the idea of their “carbon foot print.”
Arguements about nuclear waste ignore the fact that 95% of the energy value that was in the original fuel bundles is still there. Reprocessing of nuclear fuel will supply uranium for use in nuclear reactors for such a long time that even your greatest grandchildren will never want for warmth.
Government need not fund directly the construction of nuclear power plant if instead it will provide sufficent loan guarantees. In the U.S. demand for loan guarantees for just 13 new nuclear power plants (19 reactors) works out to about $188 billion in new construction which could take place. Note that loan guarnatees are not direct government spending, but provide insurance for loans much like any nation does for agricultural crops. This single act by the government can significantly reduce the cost and financial risk of building new reactors without spending any taxpayer dollars. Utilities that want the insurance pay premiums the same way you do to buy insurance to protection your home or car.
Another way government can reduce the cost and financial risk of new nuclear power plants is to allow utilities to recover the construction costs from the rate base as the plant is being built. This way the significant costs of interest from loans do not accumulate over the four-to-six years it takes to complete one.
In summary, there are significant advantages associated with building new nuclear power plants, including some that benefit solar and wind energy. Also, there are things government can do to reduce financial risk without massive new spending.
Utilities Professional
Independent
said: On 01/06/2009
A defining role, indeed. It is long overdue that we start to use nuclear power overwhelmingly.
Today we live in an exciting time when the world’s political events have a defining effect on the price of nuclear reactor fuel. It is commonly known that during the cold war years, enormous inventories of nuclear weapon materials—highly enriched uranium and plutonium—were piled up on both sides, in the Soviet Union and in the United States of America. The destruction (reduction) of these inventories was the subject of numerous intergovernmental contracts, which are in effect today.
Also, during the production of nuclear weapons, large inventories of high- or medium-enrichment nuclear fission materials were collected that are not suited for use in the weapons. These all can be reworked into nuclear power plant fuel, and we have to rework them in order to achieve their final destruction as weapons. The experimental burning of such fuels in all three of the prospective nuclear power plant reactors has been accomplished successfully. The technology is ready for mass production and use. Only the nuclear power plants still have to be built to take this fuel and convert it to electricity in these enormous amounts. We can double the benefit from that: we eliminate the dangerous inventories of already declared useless nuclear weapons and stop the increase of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere with the goal to return it into the range where the humans developed for 800 thousand years, or about the half where the concentration is now.
I envision the future as follows: in the next centuries people will generate electricity necessary for common good living in nuclear power plants of designs already established today. After the nuclear fission materials piled up for weapons are used up, the mining of uranium ore will restart (there are considerable inventories of good quality uranium ores in Hungary as well), and our children will use the easily accessible uranium from the oceans as a by-product of drinking water production.
In turns of numbers we have about 440 nuclear power plant units generate about 16% of the electricity consumed. We need about 2500 new generating units to replace all the fossil electricity generating units and we will have to place our transportation of goods on the electricity driven trains and we will have to use electrical cars for transport in order to eliminate the runaway atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration increase.
The caveat is the presence of dangerous Chernobyl type nuclear power plants in the mix used in Russian Federation. So the first step in the nuclear power plant building program must be the shut down and demolition of 11 still in use today RBMK reactors on the territory of Russian Federation.
Vice President and Global Leader of the Energy, Utilities and Chemicals Global Sector Un
Capgemini
said: On 01/06/2009
Global warming is a real threat to our planet, this is why we need to move to low carbon emissions energy generation technologies.
Nuclear energy is today with hydropower the only schedulable carbon free technology able to provide large amounts of electricity in a competitive way. This is why it has to have together with clean coal and renewable energies a significant share in the energy mix. Nuclear programs should be implemented in all regions and countries able to operate safety the reactors and to comply without restrictions the “Non Proliferation Treaty” obligations.
Founder and Managing Director
Energy Probe Research Foundation
said: On 01/06/2009
Half a century since nuclear power was first introduced, the technology remains uncompetitive — no private company, anywhere in the world, is willing to build a nuclear plant without government subsidy. As long as this technology remains uncompetitive, no new nuclear plants should be built and existing plants should be phased out as they reach the end of their economic lives. Nuclear power’s so-called renaissance is based on the mistaken notion that there is a need to reduce CO2 emissions. Contrary to conventional wisdom, there is no consensus that CO2 does harm. To the contrary, most scientists believe the opposite.
Deputy Reactor Manager of the BR2 Research Reactor
SCK•CEN
said: On 01/06/2009
At present, nuclear fission is providing an very significant part of the electricity production in the European Union (31%) and it is very likely that this share will remain within this range for the coming decades. The production of electricity by nuclear fission, using the common technology of light water cooled reactors, as applied in the EU countries, has a number of obvious benefits:
• It is a concentrated way of energy production, which is well suited for application in the EU where population densities are high and transmission distances are relatively small. The nuclear units are especially fit for covering the baseload part of the electricity demand.
• The nuclear electricity production occurs with virtually no emission of greenhouse gasses. This has led to the recognition of nuclear fission as a substantial contributor towards the establishment of a low carbon energy mix in the EC, where very ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas emission have been set (see also the EU Strategic Energy Technology vision document http://www.snetp.eu/home/liblocal/docs/sne-tp_vision_report_eur22842_en.pdf).
• Due to the increase in prices of fossil fuels and the optimised management of plant life, the production of electricity by nuclear fission is economically very competitive for the current fleet of reactors.
• Thanks to continuous investment in research, maintenance and training of staff, the overall safety record of the nuclear power industry in the western world is very good. The robustness of the design of the installations is also very likely to limit the radilogical consequences for staff and population in the unlikely case of an accident to a minimum (this was actually proven in the case of the Three Mile Island accident).
As any human activity, the use of nuclear fission for energy production gives rise to a number of concerns:
• The process of nuclear fission produces highly radiotoxic waste, which requires long term storage to prevent their release in the biosphere. However, research and technology are indicating the feasibility of long term geological storage as final solution to the waste problem. Technologically, it is also proven that the volume of high level waste, requiring geological disposal, can be minimised by recycling part of the waste in nuclear reactors by spent fuel reprocessing. The Swedish approach shows that geological dispal can be a technologically and socially acceptable option for high level nuclear waste.
• The overall safety level of plants can be further improved in order to reduce the chance on a severe accident and to limit further the radilogical risk to the population and environment. The evolutionary design of the power plants, currently under construction in the EU and in other parts of the world (the so-called third generation) has an improved safety record.
• Despite the fact the the materials, used in light water reactors for electricity production, cannot be misused for the production of nuclear weapons, the enrichment technology for producing the reactor fuel can potentially be misused to produce fissile material for military use. However, the worldwide collaboration and supervision in the framework of the International Atomic Eenergy Agency has proven that the concept of “atoms for peace” is workable. The IAEA was awarded to Noble Prize for Peace in 2005 for its continued efforts.
• A final concern is linked to the question of the supply of natural resources to sustain a large scale use of nuclear fission on a long term. It has been pointed out that with the current use of the uranium in light water reactors, the world’s known supplies of uranium are sufficient for about one century. This is a quite limited period, especially in the view of the design life time of the new reactors, which is sixty years (but which technically could probably be longer). Therefor the use of different reactor concepts, making a better utilisation of the available uranium and-or using other, more abundant, fuels, such as thorium, is a requirement for the future use of nuclear fission as a sustainable form of large scale energy production.
Taking into consideration the concerns, linked to the current use of nuclear fission for electricity production, it is obvious that a complementary effort is required in the future. Currently, reactor systems of the so-called fourth generation are being studied to counter the challenges of the future energy production, which is to be safe, reliable, economic, low in greenhouse gas emissions and sustainable. These reactor concepts face the challenge to combine the benefits of large scale, emission free energy production with an improved safety (both in terms of plant safety as in terms of resistance against proliferation of nuclear weapons) and a strong increase in the efficiency of the use of natural resources. Whereas the current reactors use only about 1 percent of the uranium to produce energy, with an efficiency of about 35% in the conversion of heath to electricity, generation four reactors could use up to 30 to 50% of the natural resources of uranium and also the more abundant thorium. This implies that this technology offers the potential of being used over a very long period of time (theoretically hundreds to thousands of years). Moreover, a number of concepts of generation four reactors offer the opportunity to transform the part of the high level nuclear waste of the current light water reactors. By doing so, the period over which the isolation of the nuclear waste from the biosphere has to be guaranteed can be drastically reduced. In this way, the development of generation four reactors can also significantly contribute to the solution of the current nuclear waste issue, by reducing the uncertainty on the behaviour of an engineered construction and a geological formation during one million years to the uncertainty on the behaviour of a construction over a few centuries (which is much easier to grasp by the general public, as there are numerous constructions of this age in Europe).
Looking back at the historic development of nuclear energy production, it is obvious that the time period between the construction of the first prototypes of nuclear electricity plants and their large scale deployment in the western economies took 20 to 25 years. If we consider the current fleet of Europen nuclear power plants, who’s average age is about 30 years, a replacement of a significant fraction of the European power generation capacity in the coming decades is imminent (even considering the fact that, given sufficient investments and preventive maintenance, the current plants could, from a technical point of view, be operated at least 20 years longer than the often quoted “design” life time). Considering the projected growth of electricty demand over the coming 50 years, which will be in the order of 50-100% and the pressure to reduce the utilsation of fossil fuels, it is likely that the share of nuclear power in the energy mix will remain at the current level or even increase. If we look outside the EU, where the pressure on energy demand is even larger and where environmetal awareness is also growing, the expansion of the use of nuclear fission as option for electricity production on a large scale. This consideration indicates that now is the time to start investing in the develoment of advanced nuclear reactors of the fourth generation, in order for them to be ready for deployment around 2030-2050. This has also been recognised at a European level, resulting in the formulation of the research objectives for the development of prototype reactrs of the fourth generation in the coming 15 to 20 years, in order to keep Europe at the leading edge in the development of this sustainable option for large scale production of energy.
To summarise, I would conclude that the reality of nuclear fission as an important fraction in the energy mix within the European union is very likely to persist in the short and mid-term future. Given the economical and environmental tendencies of increased demand for energy and requirement to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions, the share of nuclear is more likely to increase rather than to decrease, especially on a global level. This increase in demand for nuclear fission will inevitably put pressure on the supply of the natural resources that can be used as fuel in these power plants. Therefor, on the longer term, the develomment of alternative technologies to make better use of the nuclear fuel resources is imperative in order to sustain the contribution of nuclear fission to the energy mix at an optimal level. The development of these new technologies will also offer opportunities to answer to a number of other issues related to the current use of nuclear power.
These conclusions are not contrary to the need for parallel development of the other energy resources at our disposal. As a divers mix of production technologies is required in order to meet the demands for electric and other energy, which is likely to increase over the years but also to vary substantially on a daily basis. Therefor developments both in the field of the application of conventional fossil fuels as well as renewable energy resources have to go hand in hand with further developments to sustain nuclear energy production to ensure the sustainability of the global society.
Member of the Technical Cabinet of the Nuclear Energy Division
ENDESA
said: On 01/06/2009
In the fame of a European growing energetic and environmental problem, we must be able to provide electricity continuously to all our citizens, with a reasonable and stable cost, minimizing the European external dependency, avoiding as much as possible the emission of Greenhouse gases, managing adequately the waste resulting from the electricity generation, of any kind, and by means of safe plants with a positive impact in their influence areas.
Given this, Nuclear Energy may be one of the tenets of a European sustainable energy policy, in conjunction with renewals, efficiency and energy saving.
In the other hand, the goal of the professionals of the nuclear field should be to combat the irrationality, the ignorance and the lack of sincerity that tend to appear sometimes in the energy debate in regards to nuclear energy. We should aim at clearing the energy debate from any unfounded rejection, based on political ideologies or lack of education.
Researcher
European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN)
said: On 01/06/2009
I am very much in favour of alternative energies, especially the renewable ones, but I fear that they will be never able to cover our ever-growing energetic needs. If we want to reduce the greenhouse-gas production and our negative impact on the environment in general, we need to turn to the nuclear power to complement the alternatives. I believe the contemporary nuclear power plants are very safe during their operation, and the Chernobyl was an unfortunate accident which is extremely improbable nowadays. There are many countries for which the nuclear is one of the prime sources of energy since decades without any health- or environment-threatening incidents. France is the prime example, where over 80% of energy (as of 2008) comes from this source. Furthermore, many countries which were opposed to this energy source at some times, including Britain, are turning towards it again.
The issue which is mostly debated is the nuclear waste, especially several long-lived fission products and transurarium elements with half-lives of thousands or even millions of years. However, intense studies are presently underway to transmute the long-lived waste to other, less-harmful forms. My Laboratory, CERN, is one of the centres where such research is actively conducted using a neutron beam to induce fission of the long-lived nuclei. Similar studies will be also conducted in the Myrrha reactor which is presently under construction in Belgium. Also, a new research program called ACTINET has been started in the EU to make transmutation possible on a large, industrial scale.
In parallel to transmutation, much effort is put into an alternative way of gaining energy from nuclear reactions: instead inducing fission of heavy nuclei one can fission very light ones together. This approach has the advantage that it doesn’t leave behind any radioactive waste, but only stable helium. The worldwide activities in this field are presently focused on the construction of ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) in Cadarache (France), which should start actual fusion around 2016. Even though industrial applications of fusion are several decades away, ITER is the first step towards waste-free nuclear power.
To sum up, in my opinion the nuclear technology will and has to play an increasing role in the future energy mix. With the intense research underway the future reactors will be even more safe and will produce much less or even no nuclear waste. Even the biggest opponents of nuclear power will have fewer and fewer arguments against it.
Member
American Nuclear Society
said: On 02/06/2009
Almost everyone seems to agree that global warming is upon us, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) released from burning various fossil fuels is a major cause of this potentially very harmful change in the earth’s climate. There is considerably less agreement on what to do about it. That part of the discussion, as it has appeared in the popular media outlets and even some purportedly learned journals, continues to amaze me, in that nuclear energy, a proven, reliable, economic, safe and CO2-free source of energy for electric power is hardly ever mentioned. The control of CO2 is a serious global problem. To attempt it without using nuclear power would be like entering the ring with Mohammed Ali with one hand tied behind your back.
Carbon dioxide is a direct result of combustion and the gas produced weighs almost 4 times the amount of carbon consumed. To capture and sequester the huge amounts of this gas released from a fossil powered generating plant (9 million tons a year for a large coal plant), even if possible, would greatly increase the price of electricity. Wind and solar generators produce no CO2, but are expensive to build, and only produce electricity some of the time. In order to provide a reliable power system, a completely capable, parallel generating system would have to be provided for those times when the sun was not shining and the wind not blowing; another big addition to the cost of electricity. Biomass fuels themselves are CO2 -neutral, but require lots of energy for their production and collection, and they use land that would otherwise be used for food production or CO2 -absorbing rain forests. Ethanol production has already driven up the price of corn. Regarding the equally daunting, CO2 problem resulting from automobiles, many believe that could best be addressed by the introduction of plug-in hybrid or hydrogen-powered cars. Those options only work if the charging electricity or hydrogen fuel is produced by CO2- free sources.
Some of these expensive and exotic options might work in the US and other wealthy nations, as would energy conservation. And no alternative should be ignored! Nevertheless, for the majority of the world’s population, conservation is not a realistic option and paying more for electricity and food will only add to existing burdens. They need economic and social development, and these come hand and glove with available electric power.
Nuclear energy produces 20% of the electric power used in the US, and 75% of France’s electricity. In countries around the globe over 400 nuclear plants generate about 15% of the world’s electric power. They do this safely and at costs that are equivalent to, or in many cases, lower than, other fuel sources. Nuclear power plants are costly to build and operate, but their fuel costs are low, thus they are insulated from price variations and escalations that plague the fossil generators.
Nuclear power does not result in the production and release of CO2, or any of the other chemical pollutants associated with fossil fuel combustion. Fission energy, however, comes with the production of radioactive waste and in today’s reactors, significant amounts of plutonium and other transuranic elements. Some of these may be weapons useable and some have extremely long lives. Plutonium, however, can also be used to fuel reactors, and if used reactor fuel is recycled, it has the potential for greatly amplifying nuclear fuel resources. Reprocessing the fuel and removing the plutonium also simplifies the radioactive waste storage requirements by decreasing its volume and vastly reducing the time that the waste must be sequestered.
Many nations do not have the industrial infrastructure to build and operate nuclear power plants, but still they need the electricity. Also there is reluctance to allow the spread of certain aspects of nuclear fuel technology, uranium enrichment, reprocessing and fuel fabrication in particular, for fear of nuclear weapons capability getting to the wrong hands. These challenges, though severe, are far less so than those associated with attempts to control CO2 emissions. The international community could come together to establish several regional, internationally controlled, centers for nuclear fuel reprocessing and fabrication operations. Nuclear plants and their fuel could be made available on easy financial terms to nations that need this assistance, and these plants might be operated by their suppliers until local operators become trained and qualified. The Administration’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership is a first step in this direction.
Such a program combined with advanced information and transportation technology make it possible to have secure nuclear power throughout the world. It will take such innovation and a heretofore unparalleled degree of international cooperation to make it happen. But this effort would be in the cause of providing economic, CO2 -free electricity, a major tangible step toward preserving our climate.
Researcher
Institute of Physics Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences
said: On 04/06/2009
I think, very high and important role.
Nuclear Energy is most ecological pure and clean Energy. Now and in future only Nuclear Energy is and will be basis of our life. Among of all renewable kinds of Energy Nuclear Energy is most perspective on a wide international scale for emerging industry, agriculture, clean water etc. But along with this, the problems of Nuclear Forensics, Illicit Traffics of Nuclear materials, Nuclear Threat Risk Assessment are very important for us too.
Group Leader Materials Science and Technology Division
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
said: On 08/06/2009
Nuclear energy needs to play a pivotal role in our future energy mix. It is by far the largest non-carbon emitting source of electricity in the world. There are two fundamental reasons for the necessity for greatly expanding nuclear supplied electricity. The first is the importance of greater electrification of our energy systems. The only means for reducing fossil fuel use is to replace it with non-fossil generated power. That means electric vehicles to replace petroleum. There is already a very good start on those with the growing hybrid market, and these vehicles provide the framework for the eventual all electric vehicle fleet. Plug-in hybrids will bridge that gap, but as the name implies that means having electrical supplies for charging the vehicles. To a lesser extent industrial/commercial and residential needs will be met by electricity, as is already the case to a significant extent. Thus the demand for electricity will and should grow substantially replacing direct fossil fuel use.
The second reason is answering the question, where will the power come from? Europe is already learning the lessons of being overly enthusiastic about wind power, with stability problems on the grids requiring stabilization with coal-generated power. It is questionable how much more wind energy some nations can impose, and others can actually generate. Thus the options for base-load power in substantial quantities are limited largely to nuclear and whatever alternatives can be fit into their respective niches. Nuclear also has the great advantage of the enormously successful example of the French where it dominates their electrical supply system. Other European nations also get large fractions of their electricity from nuclear, with the US having the largest total capacity. Asia is also building significant new nuclear capacity. So if electrical demand grows at a significant rate, nuclear must lead that growth if we are to avoid carbon-emitting sources.
Such discussions always raise the issue of controlling energy use through conservation/efficiency. Certainly there are substantial economic opportunities to reduce energy use and should be pursued. The question always remains how much can be implemented on a voluntary basis, and is there interest in reducing standards of living? There is every reason that added nuclear generation, replacing fossil fuel burning if not adding to total capacity, is worthwhile regardless of achievements in controlling demand. Thus the basic answer, again, is that nuclear should play a substantial and growing role in meeting energy demand in the future.
The comments here are mine alone and do not necessarily represent those of the U. S. Department of Energy or the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Professor
National Defense University/ Georgetown
said: On 09/06/2009
Nuclear electric power is an important part of the energy systems of many countries, including the United States, France, Germany, Japan, and many others. Western Europe is the most reliant of all areas on nuclear power for electricity production, with France accounting for 45% of Western Europe’s nuclear electricity capacity. Nuclear power accounts for about 16% of the world’s electricity needs, and about 6% of all commercial primary energy needs.
Indeed, there are fewer nuclear reactors for electricity production in both the EU and the US than in the recent past. Many of the closed down reactors in Europe were those that existed in East Germany prior to its merging with West Germany, Some were due to the shutting down of Italian, German, and other plants due to the then increasingly anti-nuclear politics of some countries in Western Europe after the Chernobyl incident in the Ukraine.
On the other hand, there are many countries who are building up their nuclear power capacities in rather quick fashion, such as India, South Korea, and China. Others are considering starting for the first time to really focus on nuclear power for their energy and water desalinization needs, such as the UAE, Jordan, Morocco, Egypt, Qatar, and others.
The most extensive and intensive growth in nuclear power may be expected to occur in East Asia. That, of course, makes sense given the expected electricity demands, most particularly in China. Some growth is expected, with some serious caveats, in the Middle East. (The problems that have been caused by, and have beset, Iran in its quest for nuclear power are too complex to cover here, and could be part of another question.) Latin America may also see some growth in nuclear electricity generation, especially in Brazil, which is a major source of uranium to the world.
The US and the EU are big question marks right now, even if, for example, there have been requests to build 30 plants in the US by various companies, there is a huge plant being built in Finland, and that the Italians are now seriously thinking about restarting their nuclear electricity program. (Italy is now the world’s largest importers of electricity.) The Germans are reconsidering the nuclear futures, after many years of anti-nuclear trends. There are many countries in the EU also having serious debate about where their nuclear future may be. However, the major question for the US and the EU is whether the new plants, if there are to be many of them, can be built fast enough to replace the plants that will need to go out of service. Another question is whether they should be built, rather than have that capacity replaced by other sources of electricity.
A very curious thing has been happening in the US. Even with the decline in the number of reactors in the US production of nuclear energy has increased over the years due mostly to increases in capacity factors and efficiency. Nuclear power is a very efficient and, under certain circumstances, a competitive way of making electric power compared to coal, oil, and gas.
There have been many studies of the relative costs and benefits of nuclear power. Some are mostly scientifically based. Others take on almost a religious tone either supporting of rejecting nuclear power. (I have read dozens of these cost-benefits analyses, competitiveness reports and the like and am so far not convinced of their comprehensiveness. Most do not consider ALL alternative power sources, which is the way a proper opportunity costs comparison should be made. Much more needs to be done, and without the advocacy tone that most of these reports have for one side or the other.)
One fact is clear in all of them: nuclear power is one of the slowest technologies to deploy for electricity generation historically. In China there seems to be a different story developing. Nuclear power is also the most expensive technology to build in terms of upfront capital costs to get the plant in operating shape from scratch. Some of these plants can be in the $10-15 billion range after interest payments, delays, and more are built in. However, there are many smaller, modular nuclear technologies being developed and perfected that could be much cheaper, even less capable of being a proliferation problem, and could be used for desalinization as well as electricity production. Much cheaper plants are possible. It is also possible to spread the costs of the plants over many activities and outputs of the plants.
Co-generation of many outputs may be the key to making the future of nuclear power more viable than it might otherwise be. Nuclear power could be used to make hydrogen from water. It could be used to clean up and desalinate water. It could also be used for municipal and other heating. There are numerous uses for the massive power that could be produced from nuclear. Many developing countries have been looking at these options. Also some developed countries and developing countries could turn themselves from being net energy importers into net energy exporters if they develop the right sorts of mixes of energy systems. Such financial and other security concerns need to be brought into the cost-benefit mix.
Take for example the case of Jordan. They are energy and water poor in the extreme. They are looking to nuclear power to help resolve both of those issues. They are also, at the same time, looking at solar, wind and other technologies to help resolve both their energy and water needs. When a country reconfigures its energy and water systems many other changes can result, including increasing export revenues, reducing import costs (about 25% of Jordan’s import costs are energy imports), and, even more important in many ways, industry and jobs can be developed and the country can move to better prosperity, as well as water and energy security.
Nuclear power plants require a lot of water. One of Jordan’s answer to this is to desalinate water from the Gulf of Aqaba via the power and heat from the nuclear plant, and use part of that desalinated water in the cooling system of the reactor, and send a much larger part of the now de-salted water up north from Aqaba to be used for farming, industry and households. There is also some discussion about connecting it nuclear power program with the Red Sea-Dead Sea Project.
Jordan has already contracted out studies looking into its nuclear power options. It has contracted out uranium exploration in the country. Jordan is not considering reprocessing or enrichment as far as I can tell.
They are clearly looking at nuclear power for peaceful purposes to help develop their country as part of an overall energy and water security strategy that considers many other technologies as well.
This project will need a lot of Jordanian government support, as well as technical and financial aid from the outside. It may also need a more peaceful regional environment to make this a long-term viable venture. It will need expertise to run the plants, and human capital development in its country to make this a long run proposition.
Jordan will also need to build in infrastructure before the plant comes on line, if it indeed does, in order to make its relatively low kilowatt capacity transmission lines much higher capacity in order to move the electricity from Aqaba in the south to the much higher population centers in the north. Jordan will also have to build in a much better electricity distribution network and many more substations, etc. to make sure that the electricity is moved properly and efficiently from the plant to the end users.
Jordan wants to export this electricity to its neighbors and beyond. This will require electricity agreements, as well as significant further investment in the Jordanian as well as other electricity infrastructures. The Jordanians also have to consider what to do with the nuclear waste from the plant, how to secure the plant, and how to make sure that the plant is safe. I wish them well, but this will not be easy.
However, many other countries will be facing these decisions and, possibly, massive investments in nuclear electricity in the future. The International Atomic Energy Agency has a program to help them understand what they need to do, and also to help explain the complexities involved in developing the plant, as well as the basic up-front infrastructure outside of the plant.
There are also many programs inside and outside of the IAEA to help countries understand the security, safety and proliferation-control requirements of developing nuclear power. Jordan and most other countries considering an increase in their nuclear power are signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and are also signatories to many, if not most, of the other safeguards arrangements with the IAEA and others.
Nuclear power is a very complex and potentially dangerous technology. One of the most complex machines on earth is likely a nuclear power plant in its totality. The dangers come when such a complex plant it not properly managed and maintained, and when the fuels supply chains are not secure and closed-loop. Wherever nuclear power is going in the future industry, governments, and international organizations need to make sure that along with providing the massive benefits that nuclear power can accrue, that its potential costs and drawbacks, especially in safety, security and proliferation issues are minimized.
One of the complexities and costs of nuclear power is involved in the decommissioning of old plants when their lifetimes are over, or when politics requires that they shut down. Decommissioning costs are, according to the World Nuclear Association and the IAEA, about 10-15% of the total cost of the plant. Most plants that now exist have originally registered and calculated lifetimes of about 40 years, but many plants’ lives are being extended through refitting and other technological and management upgrades to as much as 60 years. There will be lots of decommissioning costs coming around the bend, and fairly soon.
One of the biggest problems the nuclear industry faces is the combination of the required decommissioning of the older plants and the long times it often takes to get new plants online, and up to full power. Sometimes, given political, plant siting, and other reasons, this could take 5-20 years (or even more). If new plants are not built to replace the old ones than the nuclear industry will simply fade into the sunset of energy technologies. Some would like to see this happen, but for the overall energy needs of some countries in some regions, and given the energy import vulnerabilities of these countries, and given the relatively carbon-free nature of nuclear power (as well as solar, wind, etc) compared to coal, oil and gas, some countries would be ill-served to allow nuclear power to fade away. Other countries might be ill-served, under some circumstances, to allow nuclear power to not be a part of the future energy mix, even if these nuclear generators were small, modular varieties that used, for example, thorium or other such non-uranium fuels. This could be particularly so for those looking at co-generation of water, electricity, and jobs.
Then there is the giant nuclear elephant in the room. What do we do with all of the waste from nuclear plants? The US, for example, has had great difficulty getting the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Repository online. Almost all the nuclear waste from nuclear electricity plants in the US is stored in dry casks on the properties of the nuclear facilities. The nuclear industry and electricity customers have been charged over $28 billion for this facility’s development. Yet it is not allowed to fulfill its purpose and the waste pods are gradually filling up the backyards of many nuclear plants.
There are ways of reducing the nuclear waste stockpiles in the US and elsewhere via reprocessing of the nuclear fuel. This is part of the program of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). However, there can be proliferation issues associated with reprocessing. Most nuclear energy facilities produce plutonium and highly enriched uranium (HEU) as part of the fission process in the plants. These are by-products of producing energy through many of the nuclear technologies that exist, but not all. The US stopped its reprocessing during the time of Presidents Carter and Ford.
There are also nuclear technologies that use non-enriched uranium, such as the CANDU reactors developed by Canada and the thorium-based reactors being used and developed by India. (India has huge thorium reserves found in its south and southeast, mostly in minerals sands deposits.) There are also other technologies, such as fast-breeder and accelerator reactors that can reduce the amount of waste produced per kilowatt hour by having a much larger burn percentage of the uranium or other fuels used. This can reduce the amount of waste produced, and can also lead to less fuel being used for each unit of electricity produced.
Dealing with the nuclear waste is a huge issue that could keep the industry back for years. However, in many ways the nuclear industry is sui generis when it comes to the way its waste is treated, and for good reason: this waste, especially the high-level waste, is dangerous and unhealthy. However, the nuclear power industry is the only industry that has to keep control over its waste fully in the entire energy system of the world.
Imagine how different the world would be if the oil, gas and coal industries, and their associated electricity industries had to keep full control over their waste products. Consider how costly that would have been. Consider how much fewer billions of tons of CO2 would not be in the atmosphere warming the planet. Consider the massive health effects that have occurred from present-day coal mining in China and India, coal mining in the earlier days in the UK and the US, and more. Consider the health, quality of life and other costs that the world’s population has carried for the coal, gas, and oil industries as part of their external costs that were never “paid for” by the industry and its consumers directly, and you get a clearer sense of why nuclear seems to be more expensive per MWh when one looks at the costs of the entire nuclear fuel cycle.
In retrospect, and after some more thought on this, it might seem to some that the nuclear industry has done a very good job of controlling its waste and the results of those wastes in comparison to many other industries inside and outside of the overall energy industry. Still, it is imperative that if there is to be a future for the nuclear industry that the waste issues be dealt with properly. That, however, is also the case for the oil, gas and coal industries, but world politics and civil society are only just starting to get a handle on that issue.
Related to the internalizing of the external costs of oil, gas, and coal we have the growing potential for the further developments of cap-and-trade systems for CO2. Once the costs of C02 and the overall storage costs of C02 are calculated into the production and use of fossil fuels for generation of electricity and transportation then nuclear energy and its smaller energy cousins, such as solar, wind, ocean energy, tidal energy, geothermal, and more look even better.
One of the biggest missing elements in the overall energy security strategies of countries, and of the world, is the incorporation of the true costs of the use of energy sources and energy systems into the overall costs and benefits that are used to decide how to set up energy mixes in the future.
For the US and others who have oil-intensive transport systems (99% of US transport is fueled by oil-based products) and who also import most of their oil, and this includes the US, the EU, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, China, and many others, electric cars are an alternative to the oil-fueled internal combustion engine of today. In order to shift to many more electric cars we need more electricity. Nuclear power is but one of the options available to produce that energy in the whole framework or future smart-grid systems.
There will be a portfolio of new and presently-known energy technologies incorporated into the smart grids. Nuclear, being mostly carbon free is a potential alternative to consider.
One of the major debates and discussions about transport futures is about how the electricity industry can be merged with the transport industry. If this happens, and there is a good chance it will to some extent, there will be huge increases in demand for electricity production. That will require increased investments in a mix of nuclear power, gas-fired electricity generation, coal-fired electricity generation, renewable energy technologies (such as solar, wind, geothermal, etc.) to ensure that we can keep up with the needs. Over time the coal and gas generation, and the oil generation you find in some countries, will have to pay much higher costs for dealing with their externalities via carbon sequestration, the development of more efficient and “super-critical” technologies and more. If they don’t keep up with the new external costs game they will loose out as sources of electricity in many places.
One also needs to consider the historical variability in the prices of hydrocarbons in some areas. When the price of gas doubles the cost of producing that gas-fired electricity goes up 70%. When the price of uranium doubles the cost of producing that nuclear electricity goes up only about 10%. When the price of carbon goes up the electricity produced by the most carbon intensive fuels, such as lignite and other types of coal, could increase dramatically. Carbon sequestration is not cheap. “Clean coal” electricity plants are much more expensive to build per MW of capacity than the coal-fired plants normally used today. We need to take a look at all of these options in order to figure out better energy strategies in the future.
For the US coal is very abundant. It will likely remain the biggest fuel to produce electricity for decades to come. Natural gas will be second. So far nuclear is third. How the politics, economics, business and other decisions will work out in the next decades will determine whether nuclear keeps its third-place position, or whether it falls behind others in the coming decades as plants close down, and new ones may or my not be built.
In the very long run there will be peak gas. Already the US has been increasing its imports of LNG. It will be interesting to see how the import dependency of the US on natural gas works itself out. There is lots of coal-bed methane. Coal can be converted to gas. Waste can be converted to gas. But there are economic and technical uncertainties there that many seem to disregard.
The geopolitical risks of oil importation are well known. The geopolitical risks of relying on outside sources of natural gas are also well known, especially for the EU with its reliance on natural gas from Russia and North Africa. Uranium is more geographically and strategically securable than oil and gas. Canada, Australia, the US and Brazil are hardly unstable countries with chokepoints around them, like the Straits of Hormuz, etc. Uranium sources in Niger, Kazakhstan, Russia and the like could be problematic in the future, but nowhere near as problematic as the major oil transport chokepoints and other oil supply-chain insecurities.
The present use, and potentially increased use, of former nuclear weapons as a source of uranium and other nuclear fuels should not be dismissed as a benefit to society. It is a classic case of turning swords into ploughshares. If the world turns even more so against nuclear weapons, and this seems to be the case in the public statements of many world leaders, then there could even be a glut of nuclear fuel from weapons on the world markets.
So far in places like China and some other countries renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind are growing faster in generating capacity than nuclear, the “other carbon-free source of energy”. However, nuclear power stations are lumpy investments and take longer times to get on line than these other renewable energy sources. Getting one of two 1500MW nuclear stations up to full power could soon dwarf many of these other renewable sources. We shall have to see how this all works out. The future of energy in China could be very interesting indeed.
But this is not just a race amongst energy sources. It is really a race against the ticking clocks of energy security and global climate change. We need to think as systematically, logically and objectively as possible. Far too much is at stake to make mistakes that could cost future generations more than we could ever imagine today.
However, even if the world were to build another 400 reactors in the next 30 years we would likely not even dent the global warming issues. Nor would many countries have their energy security situations in much better control if this is seen as the only solution.
The future of nuclear power, the future of energy security, the future of global climate change will require much more than the myopic focus on one set of technologies or another as some do, or the myopic focus on one set of policy options or another as some do, but on a full-scale, multi-pronged, multi-technology, wise and thoughtful approach to many systematic changes that need to occur in our energy systems, our treatment of the environment, and in our societies. There needs to be a more comprehensive approach to measuring one set of technologies and policies against another that goes way beyond the parochial approaches that seem to dominate such studies, debates and discussions.
There must also be a huge focus on energy, other resource, and environmental efficiencies, wherein we might find some of the most effective solutions to the many problems we face.
All opinions are the authors alone.
Publisher
Space Media Network
said: On 09/06/2009
I support strong waste management technology R&D and expanded robust nuclear science research and new generation reactor development.
For legacy reasons I remain unconvinced that nuclear should be encouraged beyond top tier developed nations who have the regulatory capacity to manage nuclear at this time. That includes Sweden but not Greece and Turkey. Japan yes, but not Thailand and Indonesia. etc. China is a superpower and will do what it pleases.
I don’t think Climate Change at this time warrants an urgent shift to nuclear. However future developments might change that scenario, and dangerous climate change might eventuate and warrant an immediate energy shift.
The long term question is whether fusion will beat out solar by the end of this century – or will electricity production be so plentiful from many different clean cheap sources that it be too cheap to meter!
Head of the Development Division
Nuclear Energy Agency
said: On 10/06/2009
Let me start by saying that the body for whom I work, despite its title, is not an organisation for promoting nuclear energy. As a specialised agency within the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), we support 28 member governments which range from the very pro-nuclear (e.g. France and Japan) to the very anti-nuclear (e.g. Austria). Our job is to provide the unbiased factual studies with which our member countries can make up their own minds.
Last October we published a major study, the Nuclear Energy Outlook (NEO), bringing together much of the work the agency and others have done over recent years and adding a significant amount of new material. Let me give you some of the facts from this work:
• Global electricity demand is expected to grow by a factor of 2.5 by 2050. Electricity production is the largest and fastest growing contributor to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. If climate change is to be controlled, it is extremely important that electricity generation is virtually decarbonised.
• On a full life cycle basis (i.e. including uranium mining and power plant construction), nuclear energy ranks alongside the best of the renewables in terms of CO2 emissions per unit of energy produced. It does not suffer from the difficulties of intermittency that many renewable technologies demonstrate.
• World uranium reserves are abundant and could sustain a significant expansion of nuclear energy using the currently deployed reactor systems. Uranium also comes from a diverse range of countries and can help alleviate concerns with respect to security of energy supply as fossil fuels become scarcer and more concentrated in limited geographical areas.
• Moving to fast reactor systems (a technology that already exists at full scale but has never needed to be commercialised thus far) results in roughly a factor of 60 increase in the energy available from a given quantity of uranium. Known uranium resources would then last for thousands of years. The available amount of virtually CO2 free energy is vast.
• Statistics on real energy accidents in the full energy chain gathered over the last few decades show that the safety performance of nuclear power is, contrary to many people’s expectations, considerably better than fossil energy chains. Although large accidents can and do occur in fossil chains, they attract much less attention and are relatively quickly forgotten.
• While the number of latent deaths from Chernobyl (i.e. deaths that occur many years later from ingestion of radioactivity) are significant and have attracted two decades of media attention, they only amount to the same number of prompt deaths from the world’s worst hydro-electric accident. What is more, the number of latent deaths resulting from fossil fuel emissions is much higher in any single year than those that will result in a generation from Chernobyl. But latent deaths from fossil fuel use attract little attention.
• Nuclear power plants could be built in significant numbers if countries around the world wanted to make much more use of this technology; there have been rapid build rates in the past.
• Based on current policies, the world is heading, for around 60Gt/year of CO2 emissions in 2050. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said that this needs to be reduced to around 14Gt/year if climate change is to be constrained to tolerable levels. Nuclear power could make a significant contribution to meeting this extremely demanding challenge.
In the NEO, we also deal with the issues of generation costs (which are quite competitive), waste disposal (not as big a problem as many would lead you to believe), the controls to prevent the abuse of civil nuclear technologies for military uses and a number of other issues. As the publication says in the final paragraph of the conclusions, “It [nuclear energy] will not be for every society in every situation but, when the contribution that it could make is not adopted, this should be on demonstrably rational grounds. How the alternatives will fill the need and are better are valid questions that deserve valid answers. This book is intended to provide a lasting, quality resource to inform that debate.”
I am encouraged that some have selectively used the content to write very pro-nuclear articles, whilst others have selectively used the material to write very anti-nuclear articles. I hope the perspectives that we have presented are therefore balanced. What matters is that energy policy makers are, themselves, not selective, but objective and genuinely compare like with like. If you want to know more, you can obtain a copy of the Nuclear Energy Outlook from the OECD online bookshop, http://www.oecdbookshop.org.
Senior Manager - Institutional Affairs & Executive Advisor to the Director General
FORATOM
said: On 17/06/2009
Nuclear energy will have an increasingly important role to play in the European Union’s future energy mix alongside other low-carbon sources. It is clear that the EU needs to maintain a diversified and flexible energy mix in order to meet the combined challenges of security of energy supply, greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions and delivery of energy at stable and competitive prices.
In an effort to move towards a low-carbon energy future, the EU has already committed to reduce GHG emissions by 20% in 2020 compared to 1990 levels and by 30% provided other developed countries commit themselves to comparable reduction targets. The EU also intends to increase energy efficiency by 20% and increase the share of renewable energy to at least 20% and biofuels to 10% by 2020.
Nuclear power is the single most significant means of limiting the increase in GHG concentrations in the power generation sector. At present, low-CO2 emitting sources (nuclear and renewable energies) produce 45% of the EU’s electricity representing 17% of total energy consumption. Nuclear energy accounts for more than three quarters of this low-carbon electricity, and nearly one third of total electricity generated.
Nuclear energy already prevents nearly 675 million tonnes of CO2eq emissions a year in the EU, equivalent to nearly all the emissions emitted by Europe’s entire private car fleet. To put things into perspective, the overall Kyoto GHG emission reduction target of the EU is approximately 446 million tonnes CO2eq.
It is clear that without nuclear energy, meeting the EU’s GHG reduction targets will be virtually impossible to achieve. Any reduction in the share of nuclear energy in the EU’s energy mix will also lead to increases of energy prices as existing nuclear reactors represent one of the most competitive energy generation technologies. Nuclear produces base load electricity which provides stability to the system; it also provides for price predictability as it is relatively insensitive to fuel price fluctuations – without nuclear, energy security of energy supply in the EU would be significantly diminished.
In the midst of rising energy demands and more stringent environmental objectives in the EU, the energy sector will need to invest approximately €1.8 trillion by 2030 in order to replace ageing plants and develop the grid. In fact, almost the entire EU power-generation fleet will need to be replaced by 2030. This will provides a unique opportunity to move towards a low-carbon economy by 2050.
In order to orchestrate a transition to an EU low-carbon economy by the middle of the century, we need to encourage more investment in low-carbon power generation technologies, including nuclear energy, renewables, carbon capture and sequestration and energy efficiency. A new policy framework needs to be launched which provides suitable incentives for investments to take place in low-carbon energy technologies which are competitive and enhance EU security of energy supply. The EU should present a roadmap for nuclear energy investment which will contribute to EU goals of achieving a low-carbon economy.
Project Leader on Spent Fuel and Separation
Enresa
said: On 19/06/2009
In Europe I think that the nuclear energy must play a very important role, increasing the present share (20%in Spain) in the energy mix as a way of decreasing the CO2 emissions and the external dependency. The share on the mix would be different in each country, as a function of its own resources, but around 30% or higher for economical reasons.
Others free CO2 energies as solar and wind should be increasing its share on the energy generation mix, too.
By other hand, countries as Spain need lowering the gas, carbon and fuel share as a way of decreasing the external dependence,(80%) now and as a way of decreasing the generation of greenhouse gases and contribute to the sustainability.
The high level waste management final solution adopted in USA will be play n important role in the nuclear “renaissance”. In Europe the selection of a play in Sweden for a final repository in Forsmark and the licensing and construction of a repository in Finland are a good news.
The main problem in our country is the public opinion contrary to this energy technology.
This opposition needs to be changed, by information to the public and political parties and media.
Life extension up the design life (60 years) or beyond and power increasing in the nuclear power plants in operation could be the best way to increase the mix up to the public opinion change.
These comments represent my own vision and particular point of view on the matter and are not the official position of my company.
Chief Scientific Officer and Director
Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission
said: On 23/06/2009
In my opinion nuclear technology should play an important role in the future energy mix because of the necessity of decarbonizes the worldwide electricity generation. Greenhouse gases, climate change and global warming are the major threat for the present world. As production of electricity by using fossil fuel is the largest contributor to anthropogenic CO2 emission, so CO2 free electricity is a major tangible step toward preserving world’s climate. Also as it is a proven fact that nuclear energy is reliable, economic, safe and CO2 free source of energy so the International community including IAEA should raise their voice strongly in favour of nuclear energy. By arranging regional, international seminars with the participation of representatives of all spheres of life such as social workers, coloumist journalists, media personnel etc they should transmit this message worldwide especially for those countries that are in power crisis but hesitant to accept nuclear technology. The Administration’s Global nuclear Energy Partnership is a first step in this direction. Regional and Internationally controlled centres should be established to make nuclear plants and their fuel available on easy financial terms to nations that need this assistance and provide training facilities for the local operators so that they become trained and qualified enough to run their plants independently. Also steps should be taken for nuclear fuel reprocessing and fabrication operations, to carry on intense research to make the future nuclear reactors much cheaper, will produce much less or even no nuclear waste and at the same time of higher life-time.
said: On 24/06/2009
It plays NO part in future energy mix. By the time we convert pylons into wind turbines, and invest in Desertec.org projects, so buy your fibre optic now, make our own solar panels (from glass, cost you $30ish from earth4earth.com) the only things we will need are transformers and proper flow-counting calibration.
All the money invested in Nuclear – and it will be mostly taxpayers money, see RBS EdF and British Energy – plus the £164Billion cleanup bill – could easily pay for these other solar energies, and we could reduce the risk of Nuclear weapons, if everyone went to solar.
Senior Editor
The Free Press
said: On 26/06/2009
As the prospective price of new reactors continues to soar, and as the first “new generation” construction projects sink in French and Finnish soil, Republicans are introducing a bill to Congress demanding 100 new nuclear reactors in the US within twenty years. It explicitly welcomes “alternatives” such as oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and “clean coal.” Though it endorses some renewables such as solar and wind power, it calls for no cap on carbon emissions.
According to the New York Times, this is the defining GOP alternative to a Democratic energy plan headed for a House vote later this month.
But niggling questions like who will pay for these reactors, who will insure them, where will the fuel come from, where will waste go and who will protect them from terrorists are not on the agenda. Given recent certain-to-prove-optimistic estimates of approximately $10 billion per reactor, the plan envisions a trillion-plus dollar commitment to a newly nuke-centered nation.
With this proposed legislation the GOP makes atomic energy the centerpiece of its strategy to deal with climate change.
Nuclear power requires energy-intensive activities such as uranium mining, milling, fuel enrichment, plus other carbon expenditures for plant construction, waste management and more. Reactors also convert buried uranium ore into huge quantities of heat, much of which becomes hot water and steam emitted into the environment. Reactors in France and elsewhere have been forced to shut because adjacent rivers have been taken to 90 degrees Farenheit by hot water dumped from reactor cooling systems.
None of this troubled GOP hearings this week on the future of atomic energy. There were no answers to how new reactors would be insured. Since 1957 the federal treasury has been the underwriter of last resort for potential reactor disasters. Renewed in the 2005 Bush energy plan, the commitment applies to all new reactors.
So reactors licensed to operate through 2057—as would be virtually certain under the GOP plan—would extend to a full century the atomic industry’s inability to cover its own risks. Neither the Obama Administration nor the GOP has presented detailed plans for dealing with such disasters, or explained how they would be paid for.
Despite the GOP’s endless focus on the terror attacks of 9/11/2001, no significant structural upgrades have been made to protect the currently licensed 104 US reactors from an air attack. The new reactors will be required to demonstrate an ability to resist a jet crash, but testing that requirement remains an open issue.
The ability to fuel this new fleet of reactors remains questionable. Reprocessing used fuel into re-usable Mixed Oxide rods has proven dirty, expensive and dangerous.
The initial experience with building new reactors runs parallel. As reported in the New York Times and elsewhere, French-financed construction projects at Flamanville, France, and at Okiluoto in Finland have soared hugely over budget and behind schedule. Much of the economically catastrophic experience endured by utilities and rate payers in building the first generation of reactors in the 1960s-1990s appears to be repeating itself with even bigger deficits. The French government’s front-group Areva, which is building the new plants, has sunk into serious financial and political chaos, with potentially devastating implications for this much-touted “new generation” technology.
Recent radioactive leaks in Vermont and Illinois have underscored bitter disputes over re-licensing the 104 “first generation” US reactors. Some could now operate past the 60-year mark, even though most were originally designed to operate just 30, and all have serious issues ranging from frequent leaks to structural decay, unworkable evacuation plans and much more.
Meanwhile, with the apparent cancellation of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, the industry is no closer to dealing with its radioactive waste than it was 50 years ago.
None of which seems to daunt the industry or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has yet to turn down a proposed re-licensing. Two states—Florida and Georgia—have now passed rate hikes aimed at funding new reactor construction. And Obama’s Department of Energy may soon dole out $18.5 billion in construction loan guarantees put in place by the Bush 2005 Energy Plan. The DOE has identified four prime candidates for the money.
Nonetheless, since 2007 reactor opponents have three times defeated proposals for $50 billion in loan guarantees for new reactor construction. There is no indication from Wall Street and what’s left of the private banking community that without heavy government guarantees, investments in nuclear power plants are at all attractive.
But while billing itself as the party of free enterprise—especially when it comes to health care—the GOP has made itself the unabashed champion of a technology that can’t raise private capital without taxpayer backing, can’t get private insurance, can’t manage its wastes, and shows no sign of offering a meaningful solution to the problem of carbon emissions.
What the nuclear power industry does seem to have, however, is unlimited funding to push its product in the corporate media and Congress. This latest GOP proposal for 100 new nukes may not fly in this House session.
Sadly, Democratic-sponsored legislation is not nuke-free. The situation in Congress remains fluid and unpredictable, often changing from day to day. Various aspects of bills supported by various Democrats include hidden subsidies, disguised loan guarantees, counting nuclear power as “green” in proposed renewable portfolio standards, backdoor handouts and more. Sometimes the boosts are buried in obscure corners of sub-clauses that border on the indecipherable.
But surface they do, again and again. Thus far the anti-nuclear movement has done a remarkable job of blocking the worst of them. Continuing to do that will require eternal vigilance, endless grassroots action and the steadfast belief that in the long run, our species has the will and foresight to somehow avoid radioactive self-extinction.
Research Professor
The George Washington University
said: On 30/06/2009
The question of what role should nuclear technology play in our future energy mix has two levels. The first is the role of the multiple nuclear energy technologies relative to all other sources of energy. The second level of the nuclear mix question is what type of nuclear power will be used in the coming decades.
It is increasingly accepted that energy released by fission of heavy nuclei will be a growing part of the energy picture in the coming decades. There are three major reasons. The safety record of the nuclear fission industry is certainly not spotless, but the US nuclear submarine Navy shows that even mobile reactors can be operated safely very close to people for long periods. The development of increasingly safe reactors is another reason for the renewed interest in fission power. And, because of the great and growing concern over climate change due to anthropogenic activities, the fact that nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gases is very attractive. These three factors currently out weigh the problems with production and storage of radioactive waste during operation of fission reactors. However, there are schemes for the further use of what is now nuclear waste to produce additional power and simultaneously reduce the stock of radioactive materials. While the ideas need much engineering and testing, they do offer the promise that even the radioactive waste problem can be ameliorated, although not eliminated. It seems clear that the increasing global need for energy and the long record of power production by fission in many countries will lead to growth in the number of reactors.
What about generating power from fusion of light nuclei for commercial energy production? Does nuclear fusion have a chance to be part of the picture in the first half of this century? It is well known that energy can be released by fusion of the nuclei of light elements using two fundamental approaches. In both, the nuclei of hydrogen isotopes are strongly heated, so that they collide with enough momentum to overcome their natural electric repulsion. The first hot fusion method, which has been studied for over half a century, is magnetic confinement fusion of very hot plasmas. The high temperatures, over 100 million degrees centigrade, make the particles move fast enough for them to approach each other within nuclear distances (one thousandth of a millionth of a millionth of a meter). Very strong magnetic fields with complex shapes confine the charged nuclei at densities high enough and for times long enough to produce net power. Research on magnetically confined hot fusion for the past 50 years has cost over $20B. The next experiment, called the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), will cost in excess of $15B. The magnetic design for ITER is called a Tokamak. The ITER web site states that it is being designed “to produce 500 MW of output power for 50 MW of input power”. It will operate for minutes, not hours, days or longer. ITER will be built in the south of France, with the date for first operation being after 2020. The escalating costs and delays for ITER, and the projected costs of subsequent magnetic fusion power plants, make this version of hot fusion very challenging. There are also major technical uncertainties. Hence, seems unlikely that hot fusion power plants based on Tokamaks will be on the grid before the middle of this century, at best. During operation, they will produce significant radioactive waste.
The second approach to hot fusion is based on the fact that the inertia of light ions means that they have limited, albeit high velocities, even when they are hot enough to fuse. The idea here is to heat up the light-ion nuclear fuel to multi-million degree temperatures so fast that fusion will occur before the ions fly apart and cool. The heating times are shorter than about one-millionth of a second. There are three ways to do this on earth, each using a different source of energy to achieve the necessary very fast heating. The first method is to use an atomic fission device, that is, an A bomb, for heating. This is how fusion occurs in an H bomb. The second means of heating is to use very high power (multi-megavolt and multi-mega amp) electrical currents, called pulsed power, which provide not only heating but also transient magnetic confinement. The very large machines are called “Z-pinches” because of the ion confinement geometry and results of the multi-terawatt currents. Sandia National Laboratory is an international leader is Z-pinch fusion technology (http://www.sandia.gov/pulsedpower/facilities/index.html). The third method for triggering inertial hot fusion is to employ extremely large laser systems. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory built the National Ignition Facility to study laser inertial fusion (https://lasers.llnl.gov/programs/nif/). The system has 192 laser beams, is housed in a building roughly the size of a football field and cost well over $1B. The laser pulses, less than 25 billionths of a second, will strike the interior of centimeter-sized gold cylinders, heating them very rapidly to temperatures so high that x-rays are emitted. The x-rays heat and compress a few millimeter sphere containing isotopes of hydrogen. The sphere will reach temperatures greater than 100 million degrees and pressures 100 billion times the earth’s atmosphere. As a result, fusion reactions will occur briefly with the emission of numerous energetic particles, notably neutrons. Both pulsed power and laser inertial approaches to hot fusion will produce radioactive waste. It is, at least, very unclear now if either type of inertial fusion will ever produce power commercially. A major problem is the need to fire the large machines at fast repetition rates for practical power generation. Work on inertial fusion serves to maintain US skills for the design of thermonuclear weapons.
So, nuclear fission reactors will proliferate, while research is proceeding on both magnetic and inertial versions of hot fusion. But, it is uncertain if any method for hot fusion will lead to a power production capability, even decades from now. What other possibilities are there for production of nuclear power? Are there other phenomena that offer any hope of producing practical nuclear energy sources? The answer is yes, and various methods are being touted. Most of them have little or no experimental foundation. Only one of the possibilities now has a broad and robust database for its existence and promise. That one is Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR), which was initially and poorly called “cold fusion”. In the twenty years since its discovery, a great deal of work has been done in a dozen countries. At the moment, there is a richness of both progress and problems with the field.
First the good news! Based on many measurements by credentialed scientists with good equipment, proper calibrations, adequate controls, and good signal-to-noise ratios, we now know that:
• It is possible to initiate nuclear reactions, each of which gives energies of about one million electron volts, by using chemical energies on the order of one electron volt.
• High temperatures are not needed to produce LENR, greatly simplifying the experimental study of the phenomenon and its potential applications.
• There are four approaches to LENR experiments, namely the use of liquids, gases, plasmas and beams to load hydrogen isotopes into certain solids, notably Palladium.
• Four types of measurements, heat that cannot be explained by chemistry, nuclear reaction (transmutation) products, low intensities of energetic particles and some low-energy phenomena, all point to the occurrence of nuclear reactions.
• Power gains in excess of ten have been observed in a few experiments
• Power densities exceeding those within nuclear fission fuel rods by 100 times have been measured.
• Values of generated energy (in electron volts per atom of the metal catalyst) in excess of 20,000 have been observed in LENR experiments.
• The experiments do not emit dangerous radiation during their operation
• No significant radioactive waste has been observed after LENR experiments
• LENR do not produce greenhouse gases.
As a result of this empirical knowledge, it is reasonable to envision safe and green sources of nuclear power for homes, free of carbon emissions, which also will relieve stress on the power grid, because they might be small and distributed. LENR could be the basis for portable nuclear power sources, maybe even batteries. The production of clean drinking water by desalination or by purification of polluted river waters is one of the many attractive potential applications of LENR. The world health implications of clean water would be momentous.
Now for the bad news. The same experiments that gave us the strong database summarized above have also shown the following:
• Most fundamentally, the mechanisms at the heart of the production of heat by LENR are not understood, despite about two dozen theories.
• Unknown material properties apparently play a key role in producing LENR.
• The characteristics of the nanometer-scale locations at which LENR occur are unknown.
• Reproducibility of LENR is still below 100% in almost all experiments
• While significant factors are known for triggering LENR, the controllability of experiments to date is unsatisfactory.
• The net power levels from experiments to date are only on the order of 10 watts, so scaling to higher levels is needed for most applications.
• Continuous power production from the past experiments rarely exceeds one month.
• Optimization of the output of LENR experiments is still well below what is needed for profitable commercialization
• Adequate government funding is not available for research on LENR using modern tools, such as synchrotron radiation and atomic-force microscopes.
• Major journals and science magazines still refuse to publish papers from the field because it is still haunted by an early and poor reputation.
• The US Patent and Trademark Office will not approve patents on LENR based devices and processes, which deters investments by venture capitalists.
The last three problems are all due to the scientific community, which alone can legitimize the study of LENR, continuing to ignore the field for a variety of reasons. Negative statements by some prominent ex-scientists exacerbate the inattention problem. Because the study of LENR is still only a science and not yet a technology, products based on nuclear reactions at ordinary temperatures are not likely to appear for one or two decades. Those of us who work on LENR find it an exciting and challenging field of research with considerable practical promise.
Much additional information on LENR is available at http://www.leng.org and http://www.newenergytimes.com. Videos from a recent symposium on LENR are at http://research.missouri.edu/news/stories/090527_seminar.htm. Fifty questions and answers about LENR are at: http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/nagel.pdf. The 14th International Conference on LENR, held in Washington DC in August of 2008, attracted 180 scientists from 15 countries: http://www.iccf-14.org/ The next such conference is scheduled to occur in downtown Rome during October 2009: http://www.iccf15.frascati.enea.it/.