There is talk again of expanding nuclear power globally, with the World
Nuclear Association looking to an extra 1000 GW
of capacity globally by 2050. This is nothing new. In the past there have been plans
for global programmes of nuclear roll out, as in the 1950s Atoms for Peace initiative backed by the USA. More recently, in the
2000s, President George W. Bush promoted a Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) under which the US
(and maybe others) would help to service civil nuclear developments globally,
including possibly with fuel supply and waste processing.
In one variant
of this approach, the US or other vendors might install reactors, possibly
Small Modular Reactors, in developing countries, to be run on a franchise
basis, the reactor modules being leased, and the fuel /waste being controlled,
by the vendor. For example, the US might repatriate the spent fuel capsules and
reprocess the spent fuel to extract plutonium for use it is own reactors.
Certainly at one time there was talk of SMRs being rolled out across the
developing world, with micro projects being seen as well suited to countries
without well developed grids. Echoing the rhetoric of the Atoms for Peace initiative, at one point US Energy Secretary
Samuel Bodman claimed that ‘GNEP brings
the promise of virtually limitless energy to emerging economies around the
globe’: http://energy.gov/articles/department-energy-announces-new-nuclear-initiative
However, given
the changed security climate after the 9/11 terrorists attacks on the USA, and
increased concerns about the risks of proliferation of nuclear weapons
material, GNEP seems subsequently to have been sidelined. The GNEP programme
did not prosper under President Obama. Instead there has been an expansion of
more conventional commercial approaches. For example, France, Russia, Japan,
China and South Korea are seeking to export their nuclear technology around the
world.
There is certainly no shortage of promotion
of nuclear expansion, with some exponents clearly still projecting confident
views based on allegedly new technologies like SMRs. In direct opposition,
renewable energy lobbyist argue that nuclear is a distraction which cannot help
much to limit climate change, whereas, despite claims to the contrary,
renewables can:
http://thebulletin.org/commentary/nuclear-distraction
With renewables now
supplying around 25% of global electricity and expanding fast, with costs
falling rapidly, while nuclear seems stuck at 11%, with costs rising, their
case is strong. Nuclear power has certainly not lived up to the perhaps
unrealistic expectations raised in the early days, with for example, US Atomic
Energy Commission Chairman Lewis Strauss, in a 1954 address to science writers,
claiming that ‘it is not too much to
expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap
to meter’: www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1613/ML16131A120.pdf
He was not specific about
whether that was via fission of fusion, but it is clear that, either way, he
has been proven wrong.
In terms of technology,
the substantial and long running efforts of many highly qualified and motivated
people notwithstanding, while there have been some notable successes and
reactor systems which have gone on to provide many years of relatively reliable
service, there have also been some major disasters with commercial projects and
repeated technological failures as new ideas were explored. One result has been
a loss of faith in nuclear technology amongst increasing numbers of people. As
might be expected, that includes most environmentalists.
Their
objections often go beyond just concerns about environmental impacts and
safety, important though they are: the basic technological trajectory is seen
as flawed, with nuclear power being viewed as an unreliable way to respond to
climate change. The environmentalist criticism also extends to the more
specific technological development issues covered in this text. For example,
leading UK environmentalist, Jonathon Porritt, has commented that ‘the consistent history of innovation
in the nuclear industry is one of periodic spasms of enthusiasm for putative
breakthrough technologies, leading to the commitment of untold billions of
investment dollars, followed by a slow, unfolding story of disappointment
caused by intractable design and cost issues. Purely from an innovation
perspective, it’s hard to imagine a sorrier, costlier and more self-indulgent
story of serial failure.’ http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/-2015-.html
That may be put a little
aggressively, but a widely shared view is that the nuclear lobby is forever
offering ‘jam tomorrow, but never today’, as the late Lord (Walter) Marshall,
one- time head of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, once wryly admitted in the context
of hoped-for cost reductions, adding: ‘The
British Public have never had the cheap electricity that we have always
promised from nuclear power’:
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1987-10-30a.585.1 That
seems to have been a general pattern: the next reactor system will be better,
cheaper, safer! After 70 years or so of development, regular assertions like
that begin to ring a little hollow. It
remains to be seen whether the next iteration will do any better. On past
performance, it is hard to be optimistic.
Some countries will
continue to press ahead with, and rely on, nuclear power, as a minority (30
countries out of the 196 global total) do at present, but it is likely that
most will not want to go down this route and more that have already done so
will back off. Some would see that as
tragedy, given the huge effort that has been put into nuclear power development
over the years. It would certainly be
painful to admit failure. But there would be some useful spin off, both
technologically (there is some expertise overlap with other energy options) and
policy-wise. For example, the long tortuous history of nuclear power may
provide a useful warning for those of us that hope and believe that renewables
can do much better. Technological innovation is not easy and we can expect
similar up and downs, though hopefully with fewer major disasters and more
technical and economic success. There is a way to go, but, along with energy
saving, that does seem likely to be a more productive route forward.
The
above is extracted from the new book ‘Nuclear Power: past, present and future’,
which looks at the early days of nuclear power and how some of the ideas that
emerged then are being re-explored as Generation IV: http://bit.ly/2pIIX9Q It
may open up what could be a useful debate on how to ‘de-nuclearise’ e.g. how
can existing nuclear workforces be transferred, perhaps with retraining, to
find productive roles in the new energy system.
It shouldn’t be hard finding them jobs: for example, renewables now
employ over 7 times more people in the USA in electric power generation than
nuclear and they are growing there, as elsewhere. The US solar workforce increased by 25% in 2016,
while wind employment increased by 32%. www.ecowatch.com/solar-job-growth-2197574131.html
For a very different view see
‘Making Sense of Nuclear’. This new report recycles the familiar pro-nuclear
case under the guise of looking at ‘what’s new’. Not much actually- its the
same old story.
It hasn’t been as bad as
you think, and anyway new nuclear will be cheaper and safer: http://senseaboutscience.org/activities/making-sense-of-nuclear/
On its backer, ‘Sense about
science’, see this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/jan/05/sense-about-science-celebrity-observations
