Skip to main content

OECD and The Slowdown that Wasn’t

Nuclear energy, you may have heard, is not universally beloved and some countries would like to banish it from their shores. (Switzerland is an outlier, of course, having no shore.) It has always been disfavored in a few countries (Australia, for example, though not as strongly these days), some of which used it anyway and some of which never did. So be it – try as you might, that’s how it goes.

After the accident at Fukushima Daiichi, there were plenty of stories anticipating a wide-scale abandonment of nuclear energy or at least a dramatic slow down. From April of last year:
The future of nuclear power was bleak, even before the Fukushima disaster, said energy expert Mycle Schneider Wednesday at a press conference in Berlin, where he previewed an upcoming Worldwatch report on the outlook of nuclear power.
"The industry was arguably on life support before Fukushima. When the history of this industry is written, Fukushima is likely to introduce its final chapter," said Schneider, the lead author of the new report, which was previewed in Berlin today at an event hosted by the Heinrich Böll Foundation.
That “arguably” in “arguably on life support” provides an out, but Schneider certainly doesn’t seem very alert to the world he’s watching. I suspect that report gathers dust even at Worldwatch HQ.
Closing plants pell-mell and cancelling all plans seemed unlikely, more so after several countries announced they would take the lessons from Fukushima Daiichi and apply them to their facilities. And that’s what happened, still is happening in fact. So the dire stories receded.

Now, even while Germany struggles to find a way to turn off its plants, the rest of the world has settled in. Case in point: the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (the much quoted OECD, which includes among its membership most first world countries) has issued an annual report on uranium that includes a forecast on nuclear energy:
Strong expansion of nuclear power as a carbon-free energy source in Asia is expected to press ahead despite the Fukushima accident in Japan that soured sentiment in some countries, a benchmark report said on Thursday.
Expansion, good. But it must be considerably lower than OECD has previously projected, right?
World nuclear capacity is, however, expected to grow by 44 percent to 99 percent by 2035, according to a biennial report from the United Nations nuclear body [the IAEA] and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
This was little changed from the range of growth of 37 percent to 110 percent in the edition two years ago of the report on uranium resources, production and demand, known as the "Red Book."
I think that’s what they call a statistical blip. This is actually very heartening news, because some of these countries are industrializing quickly and they could easily have favored carbon-emission-rich fuel sources (and admittedly, some still do, even with the nuclear facilities in the mix.)
Nuclear capacity is due to expand in East Asia by 125 percent to 185 percent by 2035, the report said. The strongest growth is expected in China, India, South Korea and Russia.
South Korea was (essentially) economically made by nuclear energy and Russia is Russia, but China and India, the two neighbors, have the potential choke off any hope at carbon reduction as they industrialize. Again, nuclear isn’t the only energy source used in those countries, but it will provide a boost to their environmental profiles.

Somewhat surprisingly, given the coverage given to the report, it is much less about nuclear energy than about uranium and its projected availability. You can look at the story to see what the spot price of uranium is (spoiler: about $50 per pound).

The OECD does say that there is enough uranium to power the expansion it describes for about 100 years and it’s fair, as long as we’re talking about the future, to wonder what happens to that figure if thorium, MOX fuel and/or a recycling regime enters the picture. “To infinity and beyond?” to quote Buzz Lightyear.

Let’s acknowledge that OECD is working with a large set of unknowns – not to mention that the future is inherently unknown. People who use such reports understand that, but also know that the projections are set on a solid baseline and carry it further in time logically.That makes the report useful in policymaking and that makes it more important than it might seem as first glance.

You can read the precis for the report here. The publication itself is rather expensive. It is a collaborative effort between the OECD’s Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency. It is popularly called the Red Book, but the current iteration is titled Uranium 2011: Resources, Production and Demand.

Comments

Steve Skutnik said…
"The OECD does say that there is enough uranium to power the expansion it describes for about 100 years and it’s fair, as long as we’re talking about the future, to wonder what happens to that figure if tritium, MOX fuel and/or a recycling regime enters the picture."

Do you mean thorium, Mark?
Mark Flanagan said…
I sure did. Yikes!

Thanks, Steve.
Engineer-Poet said…
Speaking of thorium, I have to note that if the experience of the final run of the Shippingport reactor (5 years continuous operation, shut down to obtain test results rather than any technical need) can be duplicated with uranium-thorium rod formulations, the increased uptime would amount to an effective 5% uprate of the plants which used them.

Shippingport's final run achieved a breeding ratio of about 1.01.  Had it run as a once-through cycle with no regard to reclaiming fuel, it could probably have run for several more years.  Corrosion and fuel swelling would probably be the limiting factor in refueling intervals.

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…