Skip to main content

Having a Future

pic_uk_LocationsEven after the Fukushima Daiichi facility achieves a cold shutdown and even if no one becomes sick or dies as a result of the accident – no one has so far – the impact to the nuclear energy industry on a global basis is not yet in full focus.

This lack of focus became, um, clearer after I read an interesting story in the New York Times that aims to address this issue – it’s here, called “After Fukushima, Does Nuclear Energy Have a Future?,” that does a reasonable job of surveying what different countries are doing with nuclear energy in the shadow of Fukushima. The story tilts toward what one might call the worst case scenario, but it’s not unrealistic and it points out inconvenient counter-facts, always a plus in my book.

Despite this relatively dismal outlook for nuclear energy, the London-based World Nuclear Association predicts a 30 percent increase in global nuclear generating capacity over the next decade; it foresees 79 more reactors online by 2020, for a total of 514, even taking Fukushima into account. And it sees a 66 percent increase by 2030, with capacity additions in China, India, South Korea and Russia outnumbering projected declines in Germany, France, the United Kingdom and the United States.

May not portend titanic growth but it doesn’t suggest a “dismal outlook,” either. Maybe writer Stephanie Cook even had to rush a bit to get the U.K. into her panoply of gloom before the country’s apparent decision to move forward – she does go for the worst case.

But really, so what? As the selection of stories included here indicates, things are happening in the nuclear sphere and people are saying encouraging things. Here in the U.S., there have been plentiful opportunities for big protests and hijacking public meetings, but there hasn’t really been any of that.

Now, I’ll gladly admit that some countries are trying to ensure nothing happens in the nuclear sphere and saying discouraging things – maybe I’ll round up a few of those later on – but this strikes me as the time where things will get said on all sides and energy policies will be formed and reformed accordingly. Nuclear energy may lose some ground but may well make up a lot of it – the point is, we don’t yet seem to be on the leaf of the calendar where that tale can be told fully and honestly.

---

Meanwhile, however, there are bits of the story to be told. Consider:

The U.K.'s chief nuclear inspector said Tuesday he saw no reason to curtail operations at existing nuclear power plants or change siting strategies for new reactors following the Fukushima disaster, effectively giving the green light for investments in new nuclear reactors to move forward.

And over to China:

Chinese regulators performed a four-month review of safety at all existing nuclear reactors and reactors under construction after the Fukushima meltdowns and declared them safe. Safety reviews continue at reactors where construction had not yet started at the time of the Fukushima accident.

And:

Mr. Jiang [Kejun, a director of the Energy Research Institute at the National Development and Reform Commission], said in an interview that nuclear power construction targets for 2020 had not yet been set and might end up slightly lower than they would have been without the meltdowns in Fukushima. But he and other Chinese officials say that China’s rapidly rising electricity consumption makes nuclear power essential.

---

Also from the New York Times:

For instance, Germany’s decision to shut down its nuclear facilities would raise wholesale prices for utilities’ power by as much as €7, or close to $10, per megawatt hour in Germany, on average over the next decade, and by up to €5 per megawatt hour in France and the Netherlands, according to Fabien Roques, the director of European power for IHS Cera, a research and consulting firm.

“In some places we have a common market for energy, but we don’t have common procedures for generating energy that we can actually rely on,” said Mr. Roques. “You can see how this situation creates friction between countries.”

That’s a lot. It must be fantastically annoying for France, which will likely be shoveling some of its nuclear-generated electricity Germany’s way. Call it the unintended consequences of a high-minded stand.

The British nuclear fleet – from Centrica. Click for larger.

Comments

Shaf said…
Very interesting article! Here's another article that debates the merits of nuclear energy

http://www.engineeringbecause.com/engineering-uk/is-nuclear-energy-the-way-forward-article81096.htm
SteveK9 said…
China really is the key I think. As they complete more and more plants at a faster rate, and as the benefits become real instead of hypothetical, the world is going to take notice. I think the response in many quarters will be 'I'd like some of that'.

In the US we really need Vogtle and V.C. Sumner to go well. That will change a lot of minds here.
Anonymous said…
In the longer term, the largest impact from Fukushima on nuclear expansion is likely to be the more rapid introduction of reactor designs with passive safety systems. Westinghouse is going to do very well, while Areva's order book for EPRs will remain thin.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

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 Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …