New nuclear power: yes or no? Dr Stuart Parkinson .
Post on 01-Apr-2015
213 Views
Preview:
Transcript
New nuclear power: yes or no?
Dr Stuart Parkinson
www.sgr.org.uk
Context
• Nuclear power currently provides:– 4% of UK final energy consumption– 2.5% of global final energy consumption– i.e. small contribution
World final energy consumption by source 2005
oil44.5%
coal14.9%
natural gas18.8%
combustible renewables &
waste13.1%
hydro2.6%
other3.6%
nuclear2.5%
Source: IEA (2007)
Nuclear (fission) and renewable energy R&D spending in industrialised countries (1975-1999)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999
year
mil
lio
n d
oll
ars
renewables
nuclear fission
Source: IEA (2001)
Issues
• Nuclear economics & delivery
• Nuclear weapons proliferation
• Security & safety of nuclear facilities
• Nuclear waste
• Other concerns
• Alternatives
Nuclear economics
• Cost profile unusual – very large up-front costs– large back-end costs (for decommissioning/waste)– very long timescale→makes economic assessments much more unreliable
• Potential reactor types not yet built anywhere in world
• Concerns of government advisors:– ‘not enough reliable, independent and up-to-date
information’– concern about ‘appraisal optimism’
Some history…
• UK– last nuclear power station built: Sizewell B– capital costs: more than 35% over-budget
• United States– Gov assessment of 75 of the country’s reactors – predicted costs: $45 billion – actual costs: $145 billion
• India – the most recent and current construction experience– completion costs of last 10 reactors have averaged
three times the original budget
Current economic conditions
• Historically, financial risks of nuclear power borne by governments
• Introduction of competitive electricity markets shifted risk to private sector– major decline in power stations built
• UK ‘subsidies’– Guaranteed price of carbon– Maximum insurance level for accidents– If companies go under, tax-payer has foot long-term
costs
Recent UK experience
• British Energy’s major financial problems – bailed out by government in 2002
• Disposal of existing UK nuclear waste– £100,000,000,000+ (civilian + military)
Delivery
• Construction times for nuclear plants – UK average
• nearly 11y
– Global average• 66 months in mid-1970s • 116 months (nearly 10y) in late 1990s• 82 months (nearly 7y) during 2001-05
Case study – Olkiluoto-3 (Finland)
• Only ‘Generation III+’ power station under construction in the world
• 18 months behind schedule after 16 months construction– problems with concrete and welding
• Economics– Financed using low interest loan & export credit
guarantee– Under investigation by European Commission for
possible breaches of rules on state aid– Construction delay: project on course to be more than
€700m over-budget
Nuclear weapons proliferation - general concerns
• Many overlaps between civilian and military nuclear technologies/ materials/ skills
• More civilian nuclear facilities increases potential for diversion to weapons– Determined states which have access to civilian
nuclear programme are hard to stop going military– Terrorists interested in stealing fissile material
• International Atomic Energy Agency (Regulator)– complaints of lack of resources – also has a role promoting nuclear power
Nuclear weapons proliferation
• Examples of the problems– Diversion of civilian nuclear know-how to
create Pakistan’s nuclear weapons– Current concerns over Iran’s nuclear power
programme
The role of the UK
• UK is very influential country – G8, P5, EU, Commonwealth
• UK plans to retain its nuclear weapons
• UK go-ahead for new nuclear power sends strong message on climate, energy and security strategy
• Also, can the UK keep its own plutonium secure for next 100+ years?
Plutonium-MOX economy?
• Use of MOX fuel (part plutonium) in nuclear reactors to prolong uranium supplies– presence of plutonium leads to increased risk
of proliferation
• Potential for move to ‘Generation IV’ reactors completely fuelled by plutonium– even greater proliferation risk
Security & safety of nuclear facilities
• Risk of major nuclear ‘incident’ is very low, but…– Terrorist groups consider nuclear facilities as
potential targets– ‘Successful’ attack on high-level waste/
plutonium store could be worse than Chernobyl
– Even a ‘failed’ attack could cause major disruption
Labour’s think-tank
• “Not only does more civil nuclear activity mean more nuclear weapons related materials being available to potentially fall into the hands of terrorists or rogue states worldwide, but reactors, waste sites and reprocessing plants themselves are also possible terrorist targets which, if hit, could lead to massive loss of life and economic disruption”
Nuclear waste
• Nuclear power creates radioactive waste which is (very) damaging to life– High-level waste (HLW)– Intermediate-level waste (ILW)– Low-level waste (LLW) – Also ‘spent’ fuel & plutonium/uranium stocks
• Much needs to be isolated from environment for 100,000+ years
Nuclear waste strategy
• Nuclear waste management strategy still at very early stages – Still need to deal with existing waste– Disposal facility not expected to be ready until
mid-century– Controversy over sites, storage media,
geological stability
• New build will likely multiply radioactivity of waste by ~ 3 times
Other concerns
• Inflexible, centralised energy source• Carbon emissions
– no savings before 2020– low emissions status may not last
• Uranium supplies – high-grade ore limited
• Skills shortages• Impacts of uranium ore mining • Climate change and sea-level rise• Other health and environment concerns
Alternatives
• Renewable energy– Wind– Bioenergy– Solar– Hydro– Wave– Tidal– Geothermal
• Energy efficiency– Combined heat &
power (CHP)– Building insulation– Efficient lighting– Efficient appliances– Efficient vehicles
• Controlling demand– Behaviour change
• Carbon capture and storage– ‘burial’ of carbon from
fossil fuels
Energy efficiency
• 30% of UK’s overall energy supply dumped as waste heat/ hot water from power stations– more than 10 times energy produced by
nuclear power
• Combined heat & power (CHP)– UK: 7% of electricity– Netherlands: 30%– Denmark: 50%
Figure 2: Wind Power Capacity, Top 10 Countries, 2005 (MW)
200230200250360
10880
3902,070
2,050
120240500450450
201,430
2,4301,760
1,810
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
Germany Spain US India Denmark Italy UK China J apan Netherlands
Added in 2005Added in 2004
Source: REN21 Renewables Global Status
Report 2006 Update, www.ren21.net
Tyndall Centre study (2006)
- Non-nuclear path to reduce UK carbon emissions by ~85% by 2050
Tyndall Centre study (2006)
- energy consumption down by ~40% by 2050 due to efficiency & behaviour change
- Strong support for development of renewables, carbon capture & storage, fuel cells
UK primary fuel mix 2004
oil
coal
gas
nuclear
biofuel
other renewables
UK primary fuel mix 2050
oil
coal
gas
biofuel
other renew ables
Nuclear (fission) and renewable energy R&D spending in industrialised countries (1992-2005)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
year
mil
lio
n U
S d
oll
ars
renewables
nuclear fission
Source: IEA (2006)
References
top related