This year has been the nuclear power industry's annus horribilis and the nuclear renaissance can now be pronounced stone cold dead.
Nuclear power suffered its biggest ever one-year fall in 2012 − nuclear generation fell 7% from the 2011 figure. Nuclear generation fell in no less than 17 countries, including all of the top five nuclear-generating countries. Nuclear power accounted for 17% of global electricity generation in 1993 and it has steadily declined to 10% now.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has downwardly revised its nuclear power projections, and now anticipates growth of 23% to 100% percent by 2030. Historically, the IAEA's upper projections have been fanciful, and its lower projections are usually much closer to the mark. So annual growth of a little over 1% is about as much as the industry can realistically hope for.
And the IAEA will further reduce its projections when it factors in this year's annus horribilis. Perhaps the most shocking developments have been in the United States, where the industry is finding it increasingly difficult to profitably operate existing reactors − especially ageing reactors requiring refurbishments − let alone build new ones. Almost half of the world's reactors have operated for 30 years or more, so the problem of ageing reactors will increasingly come into focus in coming years.
Peter Bradford, a former member of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, notes that by 2009, applications for 31 new reactors in the US were pending. "The 31 proposed reactors are down to four actually being built and a few others lingering on in search of a licence, which is good for 20 years," Bradford writes. "Those four are hopelessly uneconomic but proceed because their state legislatures have committed to finish them as long as a dollar remains to be taken from any electric customer's pocket. Operating reactors are being closed as uneconomic for the first time in 15 years."
This year alone, US utilities have closed or announced plans to close five reactors in addition to cancelled plans for new reactors and cancelled plans to increase the power of existing reactors; Forbes recently listed another six nuclear plants that could be next for the chopping block; and academic Mark Cooper has identified 38 US reactors in a similar situation to those that have recently been shut down.
The UK has finally made some movement towards replacing its fleet of ageing reactors. The capital cost for two planned large reactors (totalling 3.2 gigawatts) at Hinkley Point in Somerset: a staggering $29 billion. Utilities can't find the capital, so the UK government is offering loan guarantees of $18 billion. And the UK government is guaranteeing French utility EDF a staggering 16 cents for every kilowatt-hour generated by the Hinkley Point reactors, fully indexed for inflation, for a staggering 35 years. Ask Australia's nuclear advocates how much it costs to generate nuclear power, and they'll probably give you a figure 5−10 times lower.
Economic consulting firm Liberum Capital said "we are flabbergasted that the UK government has committed future generations of consumers to the costs that will flow from this deal" and that Hinkley Point will be "both the most expensive power station in the world and also the plant with the longest construction period."
EDF plans to build European Pressurized Reactors (EPRs) at Hinkley Point. Two other EPR projects − in Finland and France − have been disastrous. The estimated capital cost for the EPR in Finland has ballooned from $4.5 billion to $12 billion. The estimated cost for the EPR in France has ballooned from $5 billion to $12.8 billion. Thus we have a rule-of-thumb for estimating the true capital costs of nuclear power: double the initial estimate and add a few billion for good measure.
While the costs of renewables are falling − and in the case of solar PV, plummeting − nuclear power is subject to a 'negative learning curve'. Economic boffins at Citigroup explain: "The capital cost of nuclear build has actually risen in recent decades in some developed markets, partly due to increased safety expenditure, and due to smaller construction programmes (i.e. lower economies of scale). Moreover the 'fixed cost' nature of nuclear generation in combination with its relatively high price (when back end liabilities are taken into account) also places the technology at a significant disadvantage; utilities are reluctant to enter into a very long term (20+ years of operation, and decades of aftercare provisioning) investment with almost no control over costs post commissioning, with the uncertainty and rates of change currently occurring in the energy mix."
Academic Richard Tanter noted that 2012 was a "busy year for nuclear corruption". The same could be said for 2013. South Korea is one of four countries that is supposedly driving the nuclear renaissance (along with China, India and Russia). But plans to expand nuclear power to 41% of electricity supply by 2035 have been reduced to a 29% target in the wake of a major scandal involving bribery and faked safety certificates for thousands of reactor parts, and another scandal involving the cover-up of an accident that sent the temperature of a reactor core soaring. One hundred people have been arrested including a former chief executive of Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power (KHNP), a vice president of Korea Electric Power Corp., and a former deputy minister in charge of energy.
In September, the chief executive of KHNP issued a public apology, saying "our domestic nuclear project is facing the utmost crisis" and noting that public trust has "hit the ground" because of the Fukushima disaster and the corruption. The proportion of South Koreans who consider nuclear power safe fell from 71% in 2010 to 35% in 2012, while a 2011 survey found 68% opposition to new reactors in South Korea (and 69% opposition across 24 countries).
Discuss in our Forums
See what other readers are saying about this article!
Click here to read & post comments.
51 posts so far.