Skip to main content

Nuclear Power: past, present and future

Nuclear power’s development has been both exciting and difficult, as well as controversial. In this new book, an updated and much expanded second edition of the 2017 text that I wrote for the Institute of Physics (IoP), I look first at the early history of nuclear innovation in the 1950s, when, growing out of the weapons programme, a wide range of ideas for uranium fission reactors were tested, mainly in the USA and UK. As it attempts to show, many of the pilot projects were unsuccessful, indeed some proved dangerous, but some viable lines of power plant development were identified, mostly water-cooled reactors. 

The book then moves on to the present, when, with economic problems facing the current generation of water-cooled nuclear plants, some of the other older ideas are being revisited.  The book looks critically at progress on these ideas so far and asks will any of them be successful, or will nuclear fission prove to be a dead end as an energy option? It also looks at the state of play with nuclear fusion, a parallel development often seen as providing the ultimate energy source for the long term, and it asks whether that is likely to be viable in time to respond to climate change.

Overall, it adopts a critical approach. With renewable expanding rapidly around the world as their costs fall, the case for nuclear is, arguably, much weakened. It is still possible that it will revive, with new cheaper technology, but that case has to be made, not just assumed. Nuclear power is often promoted as a viable energy option for major expansion in the future, perhaps alongside renewables, but it clearly has significant problems. By looking back to the past, and also at current progress with new nuclear technology based on earlier ideas, this book aims to identify whether nuclear has a future.

Is that any clearer now? 

Much has happened since the 2017 edition, although, in the end, arguably, the bottom line hasn’t changed much. Progress on large new reactors, like the French EPR, has been painfully slow, uncertain and almost halted in some countries. China is an exception, but even there problems have emerged.  Small Modular Reactors are still being talked up, but are there are still no working systems, with there being much critical commentary and analysis concerning their viability, based on safety, security and likely costs. It’s the same for fusion, still nothing to show and uncertainties on safety and costs, through it has been talked up more of late. However, some think that, even with luck, it will be too late to help us to respond to climate change.

Overall then, the prospects for nuclear still do not look very good. Some say the Russian attack of Ukraine will change things- as gas get harder to access. It is true that Belgium decided to delay its nuclear phase out, but so far, despite being highly gas-reliant, Germany has not followed suite. Indeed it was argued that this wouldn’t help much.  Instead there, and elsewhere, there has been increased  pressure to expand renewables faster.  Oddly though, the UK, which hardly imports any Russian gas, has nevertheless set an expanded target for nuclear. Though it is also expanding renewables. And, as this book suggest, while a few countries may still push on with nuclear, it does seem that renewables will be the main way ahead in most places. Certainly the spectacle of nuclear plants being attacked in Ukraine did not do much to promote them as reliable energy options- or for that matter promote Russia as a viable vendor of nuclear technology. 

Nuclear power still has its supporters, but its opponents can no longer be dismissed as cranky outsiders. In January 2022, four former Heads of Nuclear Regulation and Governmental Radiation Protection Committees in the USA, Germany, France and the UK, issued a joint statement saying that ‘nuclear is not a practicable means to combat Climate Change’. They added ‘the reality is nuclear is neither clean, safe or smart; but a very complex technology with the potential to cause significant harm. Nuclear isn’t cheap, but extremely costly. Perhaps most importantly nuclear is just not part of any feasible strategy that could counter climate change’. 

Although nuclear may be having problems, with its growth globally all but stalled, a global nuclear phase-out is not yet on the cards, with some countries still pushing ahead with new projects. However, perhaps the last word should go to two one-time Japanese Prime Ministers, Junichiro Koizumi and Naoto Kan, who recently called on the EU to exit from nuclear- having faced the reality of nuclear at Fukushima.  Koizumi said ‘we've learned nuclear power was not safe, cheap and clean energy,’ while Kan added ‘there are enough renewables to supply the needed power’, an option he has now devoted himself to supporting. 

It will be interesting to see how strong views like this, which are included in the critical analysis in the new book, go down with an IoP audience. While some readers from a wider range of backgrounds may agree with its conclusions, many in the IoP may view the idea of abandoning nuclear as outrageous. The first edition didn’t attract much negative comment: indeed Google carried a very positive review, saying it was ‘a very well-informed, objective and up-to-date summary,’ which ‘presents the arguments for and against nuclear power in a measured, objective way with numerous references for both points of view’.  That may not be how everyone will view the new edition. We shall see- the times have moved on and the issues are perhaps now more stark and polarised. For example, see this other new history-based book, which takes an even harder line against nuclear. But also this revisionist view from Time magazine.  

Personally I have to say I’m glad to have finished working on this book update. Now I can get back to looking at what I think are more positive renewable development issues…. Though my pace has slowed a little of late, since I’ve been having radiation treatment for prostate cancer. That’s ironical maybe, given my views, but nuclear medicine is one area of nuclear technology that may be useful…At least I hope so.  


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Global Energy Outlooks - BP v Jacobson

The share of renewables in global primary energy may increase ‘from around 10% in 2019 to between 35-65% by 2050, driven by the improved cost competitiveness of renewables, together with the increasing prevalence of policies encouraging a shift to low-carbon energy’. So says BP in its latest Global Energy Outlook . It does see wind and solar accounting ‘for all or most of the growth in power generation’, but even at the top of the range quoted, it still falls a lot short of the renewable ‘100% of total energy’ scenarios that have been produced by some academics in recent years.  To fill the gap to zero net carbon, BP sees wide-scale use being made use of carbon capture technology, as well as some nuclear power. And it says ‘Natural declines in existing production sources mean there needs to be continuing upstream investment in oil and natural gas over the next 30 years’. You won’t find much support for these fossil and nuclear options in the scenarios produced by Stanford Universities

Small Modular reactors- a US view

Allison Macfarlane, who was Chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) from 2012-2014, has been looking at Small Modular Reactors in the USA and elsewhere. She thinks they are likely to be uneconomic, much like the their larger brethren, which, as she describes, have recently been doing very poorly in the USA.  Indeed, just like the EPR story in the EU, it makes for a sorry saga: ‘The two units under construction in South Carolina were abandoned in 2017, after an investment of US$9 billion. The two AP-1000 units in Georgia were to start in 2016/2017 for a price of US$14 billion. One unit started in April, 2023, the second unit promises to start later in 2023. The total cost is now over US$30 billion.’ Big reactors do look increasingly hard to fund and build on time and budget, while it is argued that smaller ones could be mass produced in factories at lower unit costs and finished units installed on site more rapidly. However, that would mean foregoing conventional economies

The IEA set out a way ahead

The International Energy Agency's new Global Energy Roadmap sets a pathway to net zero carbon by 2050, with, by 2040, the global electricity sector reaching net-zero emissions. It wants no investment in new fossil fuel supply projects, and no further final investment decisions for new unabated coal plants. And by 2035, it calls for no sales of new internal combustion engine passenger cars. Instead it looks to ‘the immediate and massive deployment of all available clean and efficient energy technologies, combined with a major global push to accelerate innovation’.  The pathway calls for annual additions of solar PV to reach 630 GW by 2030, and those of wind power to reach 390 GW. All in, this is four times the record level set in 2020. By 2050 it wants about 24,000 GW of wind and solar to be in place. A major push to increase energy efficiency is also seen as essential, with the global rate of energy efficiency improvements averaging 4% a year through 2030, about three times the av