Nuclear energy too slow, too expensive to save climate: report

[OrbitalDawn]

Nuclear energy too slow, too expensive to save climate: report

Nuclear power is losing ground to renewables in terms of both cost and capacity as its reactors are increasingly seen as less economical and slower to reverse carbon emissions, an industry report said.

www.reuters.com

Nuclear power is losing ground to renewables in terms of both cost and capacity as its reactors are increasingly seen as less economical and slower to reverse carbon emissions, an industry report said.

In mid-2019, new wind and solar generators competed efficiently against even existing nuclear power plants in cost terms, and grew generating capacity faster than any other power type, the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) showed.

“Stabilizing the climate is urgent, nuclear power is slow,” said Mycle Schneider, lead author of the report. “It meets no technical or operational need that low-carbon competitors cannot meet better, cheaper and faster.”

The report estimates that since 2009 the average construction time for reactors worldwide was just under 10 years, well above the estimate given by industry body the World Nuclear Association (WNA) of between 5 and 8.5 years.

The extra time that nuclear plants take to build has major implications for climate goals, as existing fossil-fueled plants continue to emit CO2 while awaiting substitution.

Report available here:

WNISR2019 Assesses Climate Change and the Nuclear Power Option

The Global Launch of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2019 (WNISR2019) is taking place on 24 September 2019 at the Central European University (CEU) in Budapest. The event is opened by CEU (...)

www.worldnuclearreport.org

 

[Zoomzoom]

Plus there is all that carbon emitting concrete and radioactive waste to deal with. Nuclear has never been the environmentally friendly solution its proponents want it to be. Plus the fallout (see what I did there ) when things go wrong is spectacularly not environmentally friendly.

 

[Gordon_R]

The key point is that renewables are now cheaper than nuclear, but were not when nuclear was first introduced. IMO existing nuclear power plants should be kept running provided they meet the requirements, not shut down abruptly like they were in Germany.

New plants should not be the default choice, except for cases where load balancing is needed, and renewables are not adequate. None of these criteria apply to new nuclear in South Africa.

 

[konfab]

The biggest problem with Nuclear power is that it is completely dominate by government and their retarded tendering processes, whereas renewables are largely private operations (with very nice subsidies in most countries as well). Thus I am truly shocked that renewables are cheaper.

I think the nuclear industry will eventually pivot to smaller reactors( like 100MW) operating in the private sector. That should cover the gap that will be left by the existing plants as the report doesn't really address the storage and base load problems as they simply state that a bunch of European countries with nuclear energy on tap don't have a problem with power cuts...

 

[Gordon_R]

The biggest problem with Nuclear power is that it is completely dominate by government and their retarded tendering processes, whereas renewables are largely private operations (with very nice subsidies in most countries as well). Thus I am truly shocked that renewables are cheaper.

I think the nuclear industry will eventually pivot to smaller reactors( like 100MW) operating in the private sector. That should cover the gap that will be left by the existing plants as the report doesn't really address the storage and base load problems as they simply state that a bunch of European countries with nuclear energy on tap don't have a problem with power cuts...

Europe also has gas for base-load and peaking power. South Africa needs to get going on the Mozambique gas-fields ASAP!

 

[konfab]

Europe also has gas for base-load and peaking power. South Africa needs to get going on the Mozambique gas-fields ASAP!

Or god-forbid, develop our own in the Karoo.

 

[REAList_1]

Europe also has gas for base-load and peaking power. South Africa needs to get going on the Mozambique gas-fields ASAP!

We are already importing gas from this region for Sasol and some households.
The pipe line goes past Witbank.

 

[c3n0byt3]

We are already importing gas from this region for Sasol and some households.
The pipe line goes past Witbank.

Apparently there are issues with the supply right now.

 

[Nicodeamus]

So I have worked in the construction of 2 Nuclear facilities:
Hinkley Point C in the UK and the ITER project in the South of France. The one is fission and the latter fusion.

Nuclear Energy has enormous benefits and the operations cost is reasonable.
The problem is the initial investment and the international scope of these projects. They are quite bureaucratic, politically complicated and often the Nuclear Safety can hold up the project and increase the production time.

For these reasons I don't see them making a huge percentage of the supply. It can at best be covering a base load operation.

Nuclear energy further complicates the political process in countries like France where they were strategically built in marginal constituencies (very similar to US arms manufacturing in the states). The locations are often chosen for votes over practical considerations and this further escalates the prices.

My view is that the development of SMR that is worth investigating. Roles Royce and some Canadian companies are looking into them, but I don't see them getting of the conceptual phase in the next 10 years.

So where does this leave us?
Personally I do not see Nuclear survive without government subsidies, especially since we lost a lot of skills in recent years due to the innovation in natural gas.
The sector will have enough work in the next 40 years when it comes to waste management alone, but I suspect that massive projects like HPC and ITER is coming to an end.

 

[Nicodeamus]

The biggest problem with Nuclear power is that it is completely dominate by government and their retarded tendering processes, whereas renewables are largely private operations (with very nice subsidies in most countries as well). Thus I am truly shocked that renewables are cheaper.

I think the nuclear industry will eventually pivot to smaller reactors( like 100MW) operating in the private sector. That should cover the gap that will be left by the existing plants as the report doesn't really address the storage and base load problems as they simply state that a bunch of European countries with nuclear energy on tap don't have a problem with power cuts...

Large scale reactors make sense, the issue is that Nuclear is always more of a political project. Companies like EDF and AREVA have changed their design constantly. The most rational designs is the Americans' Westinghouse with the AP1000.
The industry was constantly trying to reinvent the wheel and the result being that the costs shot up.

 

[LazyLion]

On the other hand Nuclear power plants can last many decades, but the renewables need constant maintenance and replacement. The renewables would have to be replaced many times over before it can match the output of the nuclear. Wish people would give up on that pipe dream and realise long term nuclear is the only way to go.

solar farm damaged - Google Search

 

[Nicodeamus]

On the other hand Nuclear power plants can last many decades, but the renewables need constant maintenance and replacement. The renewables would have to be replaced many times over before it can match the output of the nuclear. Wish people would give up on that pipe dream and realise long term nuclear is the only way to go.

solar farm damaged - Google Search

We do maintenance in Nuclear plants. It is not as simply as just leaving the fuel there and hoping that it won't burn.
For example I am currently working on a project that will reevaluate the French fleet's structural capacities against extreme environmental conditions.

Studies such as these are constantly asked for to optimize the buildings. Take into account that a Nuclear building has some of the most complex Plant Break Down systems and interfaces in the world. Maintenance also has to conform to these.

In France every plant has to reapply for its-licence ever 10 years. The process is really difficult to go through with the regulations of the ASN.

I also don't see any serious politician making the case for relaxing some regulations. It will be political suicide.

 

[LazyLion]

By the way, The "World Nuclear Industry Status Report" cited is written by a single person, Mycle Schneider, a professional anti-nuclear activist. Mr Schneider undoubtedly used that title to confuse people into thinking his opinion piece is objective.

Mycle Schneider founded the "citizen's science" group WISE-Paris in 1983 and directed it until 2003. Schneider has been described as an 'Anti-Nuclear Activist'.[

Mycle Schneider - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Nicodeamus]

The one document that I would put reference to is The Future of Nuclear Power in America

https://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-summary.pdf

The US has a serious problem is waste management. The french are a bit ahead of them with the Cigeo Project. Nuclear Waste is also bringing opportunities with it, but trying to get the funding for an experimental project is difficult.

 

[Nicodeamus]

Also the most sensible person on climate change in my view is Michael Shellenberger.

His article on why California might go Nuclear is worth looking at.

Why California May Go Nuclear

California's Diablo Canyon nuclear plant provides 20% of California's clean, carbon-free electricity. Governor Newsom can save it.

www.forbes.com

The point of all of this is that Nuclear Energy alone won't stop the climate problem and neither will the eternal optimism regarding Solar and Wind.

 

[buka001]

So I have worked in the construction of 2 Nuclear facilities:
Hinkley Point C in the UK and the ITER project in the South of France. The one is fission and the latter fusion.

Nuclear Energy has enormous benefits and the operations cost is reasonable.
The problem is the initial investment and the international scope of these projects. They are quite bureaucratic, politically complicated and often the Nuclear Safety can hold up the project and increase the production time.

For these reasons I don't see them making a huge percentage of the supply. It can at best be covering a base load operation.

Nuclear energy further complicates the political process in countries like France where they were strategically built in marginal constituencies (very similar to US arms manufacturing in the states). The locations are often chosen for votes over practical considerations and this further escalates the prices.

My view is that the development of SMR that is worth investigating. Roles Royce and some Canadian companies are looking into them, but I don't see them getting of the conceptual phase in the next 10 years.

So where does this leave us?
Personally I do not see Nuclear survive without government subsidies, especially since we lost a lot of skills in recent years due to the innovation in natural gas.
The sector will have enough work in the next 40 years when it comes to waste management alone, but I suspect that massive projects like HPC and ITER is coming to an end.

Hot off the press, EDF are now announcing Hinkley cost to go to £21.5 Billion to £22.5 Billion and power to be produced 2025. This revised cost is between £1.9 and £2.9 billion over the previous budget estimate.

Agree with everything you say. Spot on with regards to nuclear and the costly implications of the regulations.

 

[Lupus]

If the world hadn't gone all ape *h%t over nuclear being dangerous we'd be a lot further along with it and coal would probably be the backup power supply. But noooooo misconceptions on nuclear won out and ended up causing this issue.

 

[konfab]

Also the most sensible person on climate change in my view is Michael Shellenberger.

His article on why California might go Nuclear is worth looking at.

Why California May Go Nuclear

California's Diablo Canyon nuclear plant provides 20% of California's clean, carbon-free electricity. Governor Newsom can save it.

www.forbes.com

The point of all of this is that Nuclear Energy alone won't stop the climate problem and neither will the eternal optimism regarding Solar and Wind.

 

[Nicodeamus]

Hot off the press, EDF are now announcing Hinkley cost to go to £21.5 Billion to £22.5 Billion and power to be produced 2025. This revised cost is between £1.9 and £2.9 billion over the previous budget estimate.

Agree with everything you say. Spot on with regards to nuclear and the costly implications of the regulations.

I was one of the structural engineers on the design of two reinforcement buildings at HPC. In general the project was properly managed but the politics involved makes it bureaucratic from the start. Also the EPR design is in my view unnecessarily complex. From a technology point of view is is great, but I suspect that EDF went with its capacity.

That being said, the Taishan EPR is running well.

 

[buka001]

Also the most sensible person on climate change in my view is Michael Shellenberger.

His article on why California might go Nuclear is worth looking at.

Why California May Go Nuclear

California's Diablo Canyon nuclear plant provides 20% of California's clean, carbon-free electricity. Governor Newsom can save it.

www.forbes.com

The point of all of this is that Nuclear Energy alone won't stop the climate problem and neither will the eternal optimism regarding Solar and Wind.

Agreed. I like Nuclear. But it is the damn cost and time that makes it problematic. Get energy bosses to be forthright and straight up say it will take 10 years and cost £30 Billion, then there will be no disappointing press releases and slow drips of project and budget slippages.