In a spirited overview of nuclear prospects, Prof Steve Thomas from Greenwich University says that ‘despite a major public relations push in the media and with policymakers for new nuclear, the anticipated nuclear revival will not happen because of the fundamentals of the technology in terms of cost, construction time, and reliability. Commercial financiers will remain very reluctant to fund these projects if any of the risk falls on them. Nuclear projects also take far too long before a return on investment can begin to be earned, typically more than 15 years from investment decision to first power’.
Small modular Reactors (SMRs) are sometimes seen as the way ahead, but Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear industry executive with 50 years of experience managing 70 nuclear projects says ‘Despite all the headlines and billions in taxpayer subsidies, an SMR will never be built—not in time to matter, and not at a price that makes sense’. He adds ‘I once believed in the dream. I helped build the dream. And now, watching this third act unfold, I can only shake my head at the déjà vu. Because the nuclear industry’s latest pitch is not a revolution, but a rerun- an expensive distraction from real climate solutions’.
Steve Thomas agrees: ‘no current SMR design is under construction, much less operating’, and even if and when some go ahead ‘it will not be enough for them to be cheaper than large reactors; they will have to compete with other low-carbon options such as renewables and energy efficiency measures’. He also says that ‘large reactor designs appear to be obsolescent. The ideas that were claimed would solve past problems were tried and failed in the previous attempted renaissance, and no new ideas to improve large reactors are emerging’.
Nevertheless, although its long-term future may be uncertain, nuclear is not dead yet. Indeed, some say it is making a comeback. The latest IEA World Energy Outlook is mostly gloomy about the overall energy and climate future. Renewables are doing well, with global power capacity, currently at around 5,500GW, projected to increase by almost 4,600 GW between 2025 and 2030. But it says they are not expanding fast enough to compensate for rising demand, which is still pushing emissions from fossil fuel use up. However, the IEA seems quite positive about nuclear- despite it still only currently suppling about 10% of global power, from about 400 GW of capacity. It says that change is underway: ‘more than 60 nuclear reactors are currently under construction – representing over 70 GW of capacity - and governments’ interest in nuclear power is at its highest level since the oil crisis in the 1970s, reflecting efforts to bolster energy security, accelerate clean energy transitions and meet rising demand for electricity. Over 40 countries now have plans to expand its use’. It also notes that ‘Technology companies are supporting the emergence of new business models, with agreements & expressions of interest for 30 GW of SMRs, mainly to power data centres’.
The WNA’s World Nuclear News was overjoyed: ‘With these developments, after more than two decades of stagnation, global nuclear power capacity is set to increase by at least one-third to 2035.’ That’s maybe bit optimistic! And in its 2035 projections, the IEA doesn’t see nuclear actually making a big percentage contribution to power supply- renewables are expending more and faster in most places. Not enough (and demand really ought to be dealt with!), but a lot more than nuclear. For example, Thomas notes that China now has 57 operating reactors, ‘accounting for nearly half (28) of the reactors under construction in the world in 2025’. But in terms its contribution to China’s electricity supply, ‘in 2023 nuclear was less than 5 percent, and the reactors under construction are likely only to cover demand growth. New low carbon generating capacity in China is dominated by renewables’.
However, there may be some exceptions to renewable dominance. For example, Thomas notes that Russia has done quite well in the past with exporting its nuclear technology, although its ‘most recent export order was placed nearly a decade ago, and it currently has few export prospects.’ So it may be short lived. Crucially ‘the Russian invasion of Ukraine means Rosatom is likely to be excluded from European markets for the foreseeable future’.
In terms of the overall global pattern of nuclear development, Thomas concludes that there may be some small short-term nuclear gains from operating life extensions for some existing plants, although he is concerned about the risks of that. He worries about ‘an incident or accident that exposes the gap between past and current safety standards or if there is a serious equipment failure from undetected deterioration of components’. And more generally, he says by trying to push on with new nuclear means that we ignore ‘the opportunity costs of the time and human resources that are consumed by nuclear power and not available to other, quicker, more cost-effective and less financially risky options. We appear now to be facing serious risks from climate change, and there will not be a second chance if we fail to tackle it because too many resources are being consumed by an option—new nuclear—that will not work’.
That may sound too blunt as a conclusion, but Thomas, like many other critics, is convinced that, quite apart from its many other problems, nuclear is not viable economically, needing massive subsidies. For example, in his detailed review of the proposed UK Sizewell project he notes how ‘the Regulated Asset Base finance model (is) inevitably a bad one for the UK public. It gives guaranteed profits to investors by placing the risks on consumers while the EPR has an unenviable record of huge cost & time overruns. It requires consumers to pay the finance charges in the construction period - of the same order as the construction cost - as a surcharge on their bills’. Moreover, he says, ‘the additional subsidies & risk removal that were necessary to persuade private investors to take stakes are shocking’. He concludes that, if Sizewell does go ahead, ‘it will have involved a costly diversion from pursuing the cheaper, quicker and more reliable ways of meeting the government’s promises of net zero’.
There are of course other views. For example, the Engineer says that, with new big reactors at Hinkley and Sizewell and ‘momentum growing’ behind SMRs, ‘talk of a new golden age for the sectors may- for once- not be too wide of the mark.’ Well we will see. In a critical review for BellaCaledonia, Tracy Patrick notes that, in Miliband’s new nuclear golden age, there will be ‘a network of small modular reactors across the UK’ allegedly providing us all with cheap, safe, clean electricity. Drawing on the past history of nuclear, she is not at all convinced that SMRs are credible and concludes that, maybe, ‘Miliband is living in something akin to a parallel universe. At the very least, it’s an alternative narrative without any real believability’.
Comments
Post a Comment