Skip to main content

Nuclear Energy Futures Up at World Energy Congress

Wec-logoInteresting words from the OECD:

Luis Echavarri, director general of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development's Nuclear Energy Agency, told the World Energy Congress that a survey by the intergovernmental organization of industrialized nations found that 25 of its 34 member nations planned to build more nuclear power plants.

That is despite some nations, including Germany, Italy and Switzerland, having decided to phase out nuclear power after a powerful earthquake and tsunami triggered equipment failure and a prolonged release of radioactive material at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in March 2011.

I’d be less interested if this were a nuclear energy meeting – you expect this kind of thing at that kind of thing – but the World Energy Congress does not have a pro- or anti-agenda – well, sort of, as we’ll see. Still, the speakers are nuclear-specific. It’s how they’re being specific that’s interesting:

Danny Roderick, chief executive of US-based nuclear technology and equipment provider Westinghouse Electric, said the company had eight units under construction and its order backlog suggested the figure would increase to more than 30 in five years.

"In the past six months, we have seen more interest in new plants globally than in the past three to four years," he said.

And from China:

Wang Jun, chief engineer of State Nuclear Power Technology, which is responsible for negotiations on the importation of new nuclear technology, said the Sanmen project, the first of its kind to be commercialized, had faced "some challenges".

He said that after the Fukushima disaster, Westinghouse had performed safety checks on the project, which was validated by State Nuclear Power Technology's independent review. "If the Fukushima scenario happens with AP1000, we can say there will be no large release of radiation," he said.

---

Now, to be fair, the World Energy Congress does seem relatively conservative, fairly wedded to an image of the industry as a static entity:

Although there was a brief call for R&D spending on energy storage technologies, the communiqué [the welcoming address to the Congress] tried to rubbish as 'myths' the notion of peak oil and the idea future global energy demand will be met by renewables as well as claiming global greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets will be impossible without carbon capture and storage technology (CCS).

That’s either counter intuitive or a bracing corrective, depending on your point of view, but it does seem extremely rearguard.

Another 'myth', according to the WEC, is that GHG reduction targets are achievable, with the organization stating its research predicts emissions will almost double in the most optimistic scenario and could quadruple by 2050, adding current business models cannot cope with the increased share of renewable generation and decentralized systems.

That really doesn’t comport with an increase in nuclear energy implementation, and it takes a large unknown – how economically rising countries will fuel their own industrialization – and kind of tosses it aside. But it is possible the Congress is selling a solution through alarmism:

The principal solution proposed by the WEC – which notes the world's energy 'center of gravity' has shifted outside countries in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to nations like China, India, Brazil and Russia – is a wholesale change in focus from energy supply issues to demand management, with the associated incentives, technological advances and policy support such a paradigm shift would entail.

Think grid, not fuel. The future will require that both fuel and grid issue take first seat in the climate change band, but let’s assume the Congress’s seemingly pinched view caused some productive conversation – the start of dialogue, not a woeful forecast graven in stone.

---

The World Energy Council, which hosts the Congress, was founded in 1923. Its motto is “To promote the sustainable supply and use of energy for the greatest benefit of all people.” – very noble indeed. The Congress is held every three years in a different member country, this year in Daegu South Korea, 2007 in Montreal. The last Congress in the U.S. was in 1998 in Houston.

Comments

jim said…
Re: "That is despite some nations, including Germany, Italy and Switzerland, having decided to phase out nuclear power after a powerful earthquake and tsunami triggered equipment failure and a prolonged release of radioactive material at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in March 2011."

Forgive me for being simplistic, but just what does that lame excuse have to do with your own home nukes thousands of miles away from a rare event? God help wind vane politicians!

James Greenidge
Queens NY

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...