Nuclear Renaissance revisited

Open University Professor Bill Nuttall’s updated version of  his 2005 ‘Nuclear Renaissance’ book makes a case for nuclear power as low carbon and reliable, although, as the promotional blurb says, it accepts that ‘in recent years it has struggled to play a strong role in global plans for electricity generation in the 21st century’.  The new book also accepts that the much-hyped renaissance didn’t in the event happen- with Fukushima blowing it off course. 

However, the blurb says that now ‘many of those involved with nuclear power and environmental agencies see controlled expansion of nuclear plants as the most environmentally friendly way of meeting growing energy demands’. This is a book for them. It's certainly optimistic: ‘Various countries are starting to announce plans for new nuclear plants, either to replace those being decommissioned, to provide additional power or to contribute to the decarbonisation of especially challenging industrial activities. In the 2020s many commentators, once again, point to a renaissance just beginning’. 

The new book is quite comprehensive (though there is not much on load following) and is mostly up to date, with revised coverage of most areas of development, including fusion and Generation IV reactors, but maybe it will not be convincing for all of us. Nuttall does admit to still having concerns about weapons proliferation and he seems to be less enthusiastic than some about Small Modular Reactors (though he doesn’t cover some of the newer ones), and also thorium as a new fuel, but he is keen on High Temperature Reactors, which he sees as perhaps being important for hydrogen production. Fusion too, longer term. And overall he is still basically pro-nuclear, retaining, in his afterword, the same conclusion as in the 2005 edition: ‘Any attempt to move into the future without a Nuclear Renaissance seems dangerously utopian’. But, given the problems that nuclear has faced in the intervening years, he does now suggest that ‘the nuclear industry should learn to under-promise and over deliver on safety, new build cost assessment and perhaps everything else’.  Otherwise, he remains enthusiastic, seeing nuclear as part of an ‘ecomodernist’ high-tech future, a view I will be looking at in my next post. 

The International Energy Agency has taken a somewhat similar pro-nuclear stance, claiming that ‘momentum is building for nuclear power in many countries amid soaring fuel prices & growing energy security concerns’. Launching a new report on the prospect for nuclear,  IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol says that ‘in today’s context of the global energy crisis, skyrocketing fossil fuel prices, energy security challenges & ambitious climate commitments, I believe nuclear power has a unique opportunity to stage a comeback’.

However, he added ‘a new era for nuclear power is by no means guaranteed. It will depend on governments putting in place robust policies to ensure safe and sustainable operation of nuclear plants for years to come – and to mobilise the necessary investments including in new technologies. And the nuclear industry must quickly address the issues of cost overruns and project delays that have bedevilled the construction of new plants in advanced economies. As a result, advanced economies have lost market leadership, as 27 out of 31 reactors that started construction since 2017 are Russian or Chinese designs.’  

The IEA report claims that the energy market context is changing. It says a growing number of countries have announced plans to invest in nuclear. ‘The United Kingdom, France, China, Poland and India have recently announced energy strategies that include substantial roles for nuclear power. The United States is investing in advanced reactor designs. Energy security concerns and the recent surge in energy prices, notably in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, have highlighted the value of a diverse mix of non-fossil and domestic energy sources. Belgium and Korea have recently scaled back plans to phase out existing nuclear plants. The UK Energy Security Strategy includes plans for eight new large reactors. Faster restarts of Japanese nuclear reactors that have received safety approvals could free up liquefied natural gas (LNG) cargoes desperately needed in Europe or other markets in Asia’.

It does accept that renewables will provide ‘the largest share of low emissions electricity and many countries either do not foresee the need or do not want a role for nuclear power’, but it makes a case for nuclear as an established low carbon option.  And it argues that ‘nuclear and other dispatchable power sources complement renewables by providing critical services to electricity systems. For example, in an analysis of a carbon neutral power system in China, nuclear would provide only 10% of total electricity produced in 2060, but supply almost half the required inertia, a key component of system flexibility’. 

Well, there are other ways of achieving that, arguable at less cost. Do we really want to build new nuclear plants to be ready on standby to provide spinning reserve backup and/or to provide rotational grid stability? Hydro can do that, and wind too to some extent, and virtual inertia can be provided by battery systems fed by PV solar. Claverton Energy Group (CEG), a UK energy expert forum, has recently summarised some of the key conclusions of current research on energy system mixes and say they show that renewables can supply all our needs, with grid balancing provided in part by battery and heat storage. Nuclear is not needed.  The newly revised and updated 100% renewables global energy scenario produced by Prof Mark Jacobson and his team at Stanford University has come to similar conclusions, with 4 hour battery storage playing major balancing roles. All at competitive costs.

The IEA sometimes seems to recognise that nuclear can be expensive, but in this new report it does not face up fully to that- it just says costs must be reduced. Nuttall similarly doesn’t really face up to the cost issue. Both may hope that new technology, 4th Generation Reactors/SMRs, will change things.  But energy technology is not a static field. As CEG note, renewables already cost far less than nuclear, and are getting even cheaper, even with balancing costs added. Can SMRs change that? Or fusion?  The debate continues, but, in addition to costs and all the other familiar safety and security issues with nuclear, some big new problems seem to face both of these long term options. SMRs may generate more wastes than conventional reactors and there may be fuel shortages for ITER type fusion systems. ITERs start up programme has been delayed due to Covid and new problems have also hit the rival laser fusion idea - it’s not doing as well as hoped. With the EPRs in Europe and China also in trouble, the nuclear renaissance may be postponed yet again. Certainly, as the annual World Nuclear Industry Reports indicate, renewables continue to dominate, with nuclear trailing far behind in most places.