New nuclear power: yes or no? Dr Stuart Parkinson .

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