Transcript New nuclear power: yes or no?

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
nuclear
2.5%
other
3.6%
hydro
2.6%
combustible
renewables &
waste
13.1%
oil
44.5%
natural gas
18.8%
coal
14.9%
Source: IEA (2007)
Nuclear (fission) and renewable energy R&D spending in
industrialised countries (1975-1999)
8000
7000
million dollars
6000
5000
renewables
4000
nuclear fission
3000
2000
1000
0
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
1999
year
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
• Controlling demand
– Behaviour change
• Energy efficiency
– Combined heat &
power (CHP)
– Building insulation
– Efficient lighting
– Efficient appliances
– Efficient vehicles
• 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)
20,000
18,000
16,000
1,810
Added in 2005
Added in 2004
Source: REN21 Renewables Global Status
Report 2006 Update, www.ren21.net
2,050
14,000
12,000
10,000
1,760
2,430
8,000
2,070
390
6,000
4,000
1,430
880
2,000
20
10
450
450
500
240
120
360
250
200
230
200
0
Germany
Spain
US
India
Denmark
Italy
UK
China
Japan
Netherlands
UK primary fuel mix 2004
Tyndall Centre study (2006)
other renewables
biofuel
nuclear
oil
- Non-nuclear path to reduce UK
carbon emissions by ~85% by
2050
gas
coal
UK primary fuel mix 2050
Tyndall Centre study (2006)
oil
other renew ables
- energy consumption down by
~40% by 2050 due to efficiency
& behaviour change
- Strong support for development
of renewables, carbon capture &
storage, fuel cells
coal
biofuel
gas
Nuclear (fission) and renewable energy R&D spending in
industrialised countries (1992-2005)
4500
3500
3000
2500
renewables
2000
nuclear fission
1500
1000
500
0
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
million US dollars
4000
year
Source: IEA (2006)
References