(UtiliPoint.com - Jul. 16, 2007)
 

www.utilipoint.com

July 16, 2007

By James Griffin

It seems to be almost a daily occurrence that debates about new nuclear build dominate the headlines of one newspaper or magazine. Those for, and those against, are extremely keen to have their case heard and though it appears that many European Union (EU) governments are leaning the way of nuclear, a recent report from the UK-based Oxford Research Group, funded by the Joseph Rowntree charitable trust, has fired a series of broadsides against the growing nuclear momentum.

The report—Too Hot to Handle: The Future of Civil Nuclear Power—stresses that the world must start building nuclear power plants at the unprecedented rate of four a month from now on if nuclear energy is to play a serious part in fighting global warming, one of the main reasons—alongside energy security—why nuclear is currently being touted so much.

China may now be meeting the four a month figure for coal-fired plants, but nuclear is an altogether different proposition. The report adds that the worldwide nuclear renaissance planned by the industry to provide cheap, clean power is a myth. In fact, it claims that it is both logistically impossible and has major implications for world security that negate any argument in favour of nuclear power.

Broadening out the report's figures further fuels the concerns. Although global electricity demand is expected to rise by 50 percent in the next 25 years, only 25 new nuclear reactors are currently being built, with 76 more planned and a further 162 proposed, many of which the report believes are unlikely to be built. This compares with 429 reactors in operation today, many of which are already near the end of their useful lives and need replacing soon. For nuclear power to make any significant contribution to a reduction in global carbon emissions in the next two generations, the paper says, the industry would have to construct almost 3,000 new reactors and provide one-third of electricity by 2075.

The report offers up numerous questions. Firstly, can this rate of expansion be achieved? Taking top civil nuclear power France, which receives 78 percent of its electricity from 59 reactors, as an example, it is clear that it has never gotten anywhere near the rate of required future construction highlighted in the paper. The report highlights that the historic high global build rate is 3.4 new plants a year.

And secondly, what would be the impact of such a major nuclear expansion boom? The report states that surging demand would place great strains on uranium ore, with the likelihood that it would lead to the exploitation of poorer grades, and in turn, the potential for more carbon to be expended on extraction and refining. On top of this, there is also the increase in radioactive fuels and waste, as well as the whereabouts of the greatest future demand for electricity. The response to the latter point is that it lies in countries that currently have no nuclear power. This begs the question: how many countries will have a civil nuclear power programme if the figures from the Oxford Research Group are met?

All-in-all, for the nuclear industry it makes glum reading, but in many respects accepting these striking figures would mean missing an extremely key point. It is not about what nuclear needs to achieve globally, it is about what it can achieve at the country level. It is an option, particularly for those who already have nuclear in their energy mix, and possibly for others too. That is not to say that nuclear does not have inherent challenges, such as safety and waste disposal, the investment environment and in some instances public opinion, but going forward it is becoming increasingly apparent that many governments believe it will continue to play a role particularly from the viewpoints of emissions reductions and security of supply.

In the EU, this has been witnessed in Finland with the building of a new nuclear plant at Olkiluoto. In fact, not only is this being seen as part of European efforts to reduce emissions, as well as meeting demand from Finland's energy-hungry industries, it is also at the forefront of the nuclear debate across the EU. In an interview with Reuters, Jukka Laaksonen, head of Finland's nuclear watchdog STUK, overseeing the construction in Olkiluoto, said that high-level foreign politicians are meeting him weekly and are keen to hear how the project is doing. Is this a sign of things to come?

There is certainly much evidence of positive moves for nuclear in the EU. In a June IssueAlert—UK Energy: Time for Choices—UtiliPoint highlighted the debate going on in the UK, where the government's preliminary view is that it would be in the public interest to give the private sector the option of investing in new nuclear power plants. The debate has recently taken a further step forward with the UK government confirming at the start of July that all four of the applications received regarding nuclear reactor designs for generic design assessment, or pre-licensing, have met its eligibility criteria. The designs were received from AECL, Areva, GE-Hitachi and Toshiba-Westinghouse.

Elsewhere in the EU, France, Bulgaria and Romania have concrete plans, talks are also taking place in Poland, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, concerning the possibility of a joint $9 billion nuclear power plant in Lithuania, and nuclear debates have started or been re-opened in Switzerland, Italy, Spain and Sweden.

It is Germany, however, where there has been much focus in recent weeks. It has been widely reported that Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, is preparing to perform a major u-turn by scrapping plans to abandon nuclear power. It is believed that the change of heart came after it became clear that her ruling grand coalition's aim of closing Germany's 17 nuclear power plants by the early 2020s were at odds with targets for emissions reduction. Under Germany's recent European Presidency, Merkel set the target of a 20 percent reduction of CO2 emissions within the EU by 2020. For Germany, she has set a 40 percent target. A recently published German government study has shown that the country's targets were not feasible without nuclear power. Though any plans are unlikely to be finalized before a general election in 2009 and will also bring her into direct conflict with the influential green lobby.

What nuclear offers is a choice. Not an easy one, but one that needs to be considered on the basis of its merits and weaknesses, as all energy options should be. There is no panacea. Renewables are important, but they cannot be expected to meet large-scale demand. Gas is important, but an over-reliance escalates energy security fears. Other fossil fuels, such as coal are also important, but currently how much help are they in meeting emission reductions?

Globally, four new nuclear plants a month is out of the question, but the focus needs to be more country-specific than global. Many countries are taking steps in the nuclear direction—as a means of combating emissions and energy security concerns—and it is becoming increasingly apparent that for many, nuclear will have a future role to play.

©2007, UtiliPoint®International, Inc. All rights reserved. This article is protected by United States copyright and other intellectual property laws and may not be reproduced, rewritten, distributed, redisseminated, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast, directly or indirectly, in any medium without the prior written permission of UtiliPoint® International, Inc.

© Copyright 2007 NetContent, Inc. Duplication and distribution restricted.
 

The POWER REPORT

PowerMarketers.com · PO Box 2303 · Falls Church · VA · 22042

To subscribe or visit go to:  PowerMarketers.com  PowerMarketers.com@calcium.netcontentinc.net