There has of late been something of a global nuclear PR push, but it's perhaps been oddly timed in that not everything has been going its own way. The USA’s flagship NuScale Small Modular Reactor (SMR) has taken a dive. It was seen as the pioneer for cheap fast-build mini-reactors, a scaled down but otherwise conventional pressurised water reactor. But, despite some speculative funding, it was looking increasingly dodgy financially, with lawyers circling like vultures. And then the big Idaho Falls NuScale project was cancelled. WIRED said this had been on the cards since ‘the utilities backing the plant were spooked by a 50% increase in the projected costs’. That was not seen as good news for other SMRs further back in development. Some see it all as a bit of a dangerous gamble.
Maybe not the right time then for the UK to launch what amounted to a promotional report ‘Made in Britain: The Pathway to a Nuclear Renaissance’. Produced by the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) it says that the UK government decision to invest in Sizewell C was a turning point. Well yes- it recognises that few others are likely to! Unlike with Hinkley Point C, with China playing a financial support role- although it recently halted that. To that extent, unless the UAE can be enticed to step in, if Sizewell C goes ahead, it will be ‘made in Britain’, though, as with Hinkley, most of the technology will be imported.
However, progress on funding and project contacts is all going rather slowly. Sir John Armitt, chair of the National Infrastructure Commission, said that ‘at the moment, we’re not making any progress really on Sizewell C, there is no deal being done with EDF... so we don’t see nuclear as really having a significant part to play in any new stations other than Hinkley before 2035.’ And, making it even harder for any potential investors, the government wants new tighter Regulated Asset Base funding rules- perhaps they are getting nervous about likely costs to consumers?
Nevertheless, the APPG seem confident that all can be made well soon- with the newly established Great British Nuclear (GBN) organisation seen as playing key role. APPG calls on the government to ‘commit the funding to GBN necessary to build its developer capabilities and to invest directly in at least the first two SMR projects & next large-scale project,’ on the way to 24GW by 2050. It welcomed the £20bn SMR contract value figure that the government mentioned last year, but that’s not been confirmed. And would the big Rolls Royce SMR be chosen to make it all UK? Rolls certainly thinks it will be the winner...
Globally, while there are some new nuclear projects underway or planned, for example in China, it all still mostly looks a bit uncertain. It is true that, ever optimistic, the nuclear lobby keeps talking its future up. Over 20 nations, led by the United States, including the UAE, South Korea, Japan, France, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and the UK, issued a call at COP28 climate summit in the UAE to triple global nuclear power capacity by 2050.
However, despite that being twenty years after the 2030 target date for renewables to be tripled, as pushed by Bloomberg NEF and also backed at COP28 (see later), several commentators said that, even by then, the triple nuclear target was unlikely to be reached - it would need unprecedented expansion. And the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR), which emerged at more or less the same time as the COP nuclear statement, certainly made clear that nuclear was already being far outstripped by renewables globally. A significant reversal of its prospects does not seem unlikely. Indeed, as an earlier article in the FT had noted, even the International Atomic Energy Agency has forecasts that, given expected growth energy demand, over the next 20 years, the nuclear industry share in the global energy mix, roughly10% of the world’s electricity generation today, will remain flat, if not decrease slightly, unless there are very ambitious construction plans.
So maybe that’s why are we seeing such optimistic projections- otherwise nuclear will be sidelined. We have been here before with ambitious nuclear projections and plans- which failed to materialise. A recent study has looked back at why earlier scenario model-based predictions had not come true, and it may be that we may be about to see a repeat exercise.
Of late, there have certainly been some scenarios with major expansion of nuclear, for example, in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, with nuclear capacity doubling by 2050. However, it also said renewables were much more efficient at reducing carbon and there are many scenarios with renewables accelerating very rapidly. That’s not surprising given the recent fall in their cost. Though, sadly, aided by inflation pressures due to the rise in the costs of fossil fuels, it seems to be taking a while for new funding patterns to be adopted, and for linked energy demand stabilisation programmes to be introduced. That being so, a recent study has suggested that ‘there is the risk that considerable public and private funds will be invested in developing technologies for the commercial use of nuclear energy despite the fact that other technologies are expected to offer a significantly better cost-performance ratio with fewer economic, technical, and military risks’.
Of course it can be argued that we will need to expand both nuclear and renewables and certainly there are strong lobby pressures to do that- or else, it is claimed, we will face ever expanding fossil fuel use and carbon emissions. But are nuclear and renewables equally valuable and capable of rapid expansion? To many, renewable expansion does look more credible- at COP28 118 countries renewed their pledge to triple renewable power by 2030, a target backed by the EU and shared by IRENA. That, along with investment in energy saving and demand management, should arguably help us to cut global use of fossil fuel, and the consequent carbon emissions, faster than investment in nuclear and at less cost.
However, it won’t be easy, and that’s just for power. And although there are scenarios suggesting that, given careful energy management, 100% of all energy globally could come from renewables by 2050, there’s a long way to go to get to that. Some may be tempted to look to carbon capture to help on the way for a while, although it’s hard to see that being cheap or easy. Like nuclear, with CCS projects failing or stalled, it looks more like another costly dead-end diversion. What’s wrong with accelerating the full range of green energy systems- renewables, energy storage and smart demand management, which of course includes energy efficiency?
*We will be taking a break now until the New Year. Seasonal greetings to all
Comments
Post a Comment