The Kyoto Protocol is widely seen as either flawed or inadequate, but it is nevertheless a plausible first step towards averting undue climate change brought about by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion. Its main perceived flaw is that it does not put any restraint on developing countries in the period up to 2012 - their emissions will soon overtake those of the industrialised countries which are party to it. Its inadequacy is that it doesn't reach beyond 2012.
Then there are problems getting countries accounting for 55% of the developed nations' 1990 emissions to actually sign on. Because Kyoto does not require commitment from the fast-growing and increasingly competitive developing countries, the USA (accounting for 36% of Annex-1 emissions) has refused to ratify it. Australia (2%) has followed suit, though it has adopted the agreed Kyoto target. More seriously, most countries of the EU, Kyoto's main promoter, are well short of being able to meet their Kyoto targets and have run up against the inherent contradiction that greenhouse gas reduction targets have been idealistically set by environment ministers, leaving it to energy, economic and transport ministers to somehow achieve the cuts. Canada is in a similar position. Now Russia (accounting for 17%) seems unlikely to ratify the Treaty, which would leave the 55% unattainable - and even that is compromised by elaborate trade-offs.
All of this shows up the Kyoto Protocol as a political initiative which may be less effective than hoped, even if it was the best achievable at the time. There is now talk of linking emission reductions with trade access in bilateral or multinational agreements. Another possibility is that the dozen or so largest emitters (which would include India and China) might put together their own scheme - but consensus across the whole group seems unlikely. Others pin hopes on regional initiatives to curb emissions.
As the International Energy Agency puts it, the situation "has led many observers and experts to reconsider the long-term potential of using the Protocol structure without significant future modifications." A broader and longer-term approach is needed, building on some of the agreed elements of the Protocol.
Some influential support is being expressed for the concept of Contraction and Convergence (C&C), as being fairer, simpler, and more science-based than the Kyoto Protocol. It is a long-term vision, well short of being negotiated politically, but it raises some interesting issues.
C&C has three elements:
The basis of this approach is the proposition that the right to emit carbon dioxide is a human right which should be shared equally across the world, hence the need for convergence from the unequal status quo towards this universal level. No firm figures have been put on the above, but 450 ppm carbon dioxide is suggested as the maximum tolerable in the atmosphere, which would require huge reduction from present emission levels, and 2050 as the target date for this.
After convergence, each country would receive the same allocation of carbon dioxide emission rights per head of population. During the convergence period, which should not be protracted, emission permits would be progressively adjusted from status quo to these new levels. Permits could be traded worldwide (not simply among industrialised countries as with Kyoto), and this would cause a major economic transfer from countries which have used fossil fuels to create wealth to those still struggling to alleviate poverty. After convergence further trading in permits is envisaged. Translating the principle into political reality would be challenging and may never be attempted, but the issues raised are likely to be salient with any scheme which effectively tackles global warming.
Actually achieving major emission reductions in developed countries will be a major challenge - those under something like C&C being much greater than under Kyoto. But there are technologies available or in sight which should deliver the reductions through reduced reliance on fossil fuels. The prospect of the Kyoto Protocol collapsing has helped to turn attention from the political arena to the question of how emission reductions can actually be achieved.
It is increasingly evident that the political boost for renewable energy is largely populist window dressing and will not achieve the emission reductions required. The practical limits of wind power input to electricity grids are within sight already in Ireland, Denmark and Germany.
Significant emission reduction technologies most obviously include nuclear power supplemented by renewables for electricity generation, and non-fossil production of hydrogen for transport fuel. Technologies which capture and sequester potential carbon emissions, or which otherwise reduce them, will also have some place - a major one if they become economic. The USA plans to commit some $1 billion to demonstrate the non-fossil hydrogen production, using a high-temperature gas-cooled nuclear reactor. Other such initiatives to move towards achieving a clean energy future will demonstrate the earnestness of governments to address the threat of climate change.
Climate Change backgrounder Dec 2003, New Scientist 13/12/03, FT 15/12/03, Australian 17/1/04, IEA 2003 Review - Energy Policies of IEA Countries.
Natural gas generation capacity increases more than 200 GWe, well down on last year's projection due to escalating gas prices, though output from this source almost doubles. Coal utilisation grows strongly to 2025 due to favourable economics (without any policy constraints on carbon dioxide emission). Renewable generation is projected to grow only 53% to 2025 due to unfavourable economics.
DOE EIA AEO 16/12/03, NEI Nuclear Energy Overview 22/12/03.
Tenth anniversary of 'Megatons to Megawatts'
USEC and its Russian partner Techsnabexport have marked the 10th anniversary of the program to recycle weapons-grade uranium from Russia into fuel for US power plants. So far 200 t of the contracted 500 tonnes has been blended down, equivalent to 8000 nuclear warheads.
USEC-Tenex 14/1/04.
Reactor nominated for plutonium incineration
Duke Energy has nominated its Catawba-1 nuclear power reactor for burning mixed oxide (MOX) fuel assemblies incorporating weapons-grade plutonium, part of 34 tonnes declared surplus to US military stockpiles. Duke has applied for a licence amendment to this effect, which is expected to be granted in 2004 for four test assemblies. These will be fabricated in France. If the test is successful, use of MOX for 20-40% of the cores of Catawba and McGuire reactors could begin in 2008 or 2009, using fuel fabricated at a new plant in the USA.
Weapons-grade plutonium in MOX test assemblies has been burned at the Saxton prototype reactor in the mid 1960s, and some MOX has been burned in other US plants before 1977.
NucNet news # 335/03.
Decommissioning funds audit
Congress's General Accounting Office has audited the funds set aside by US utilities to prepare for eventual decommissioning of nuclear power reactors. It estimated that the combined total of $26.9 billion at 2000 was 47% greater than necessary at that stage to ensure that sufficient was available to provide $33 billion when needed. Nevertheless some plant owners were arguably behind schedule.
Nucleonics Week 4/12/03.
Confirmation of the Finnish order will strengthen the probability that EdF will order one or more EPR units for France this year, possibly involving participation of German and Italian utilities. TVO's decision to plan for new nuclear capacity was driven by economics - gas or coal would have been one third more expensive per kWh. A new report for the French Energy & Natural Resources Directorate shows that nuclear power is significantly less expensive there per kWh than gas or coal for projected 2007 and 2015 generation. This is without any consideration of carbon emissions and despite being much more expensive to build (as also in Finland). Gas prices represent a major uncertainty in that time frame, and contribute a large proportion of the cost from that source. The French Industry Minister has already hailed the EPR as being ten times safer and ten percent more efficient than France's current fleet of 59 nuclear power reactors.
The Finnish order will also open the way for Framatome ANP to apply for design certification for the EPR in the USA.
Nucleonics Week 18/12/03 & 1/1/04, Areva 18/12/03, NucNet news # 333/03, TVO 8/1/04.
Swedish nuclear phase-out impractical and unwanted
In order to placate minority coalition partners, the Swedish government is exploring the implications of a nuclear phase-out. It is evident that this cannot be done without using natural gas on a large scale to replace nuclear output, and hence the plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions must be reviewed. Sweden has a lot of industry attracted by and dependent on the cheap electricity provided by nuclear power. Public opinion measured in December showed only 14% support for nuclear phase-out and 74% support for curbing greenhouse gas emissions as the highest environmental priority. Overall, support for using nuclear power stands at 84%, significantly higher than in 2001.
Energiforum 23/1/04.
French uprate of largest reactors
Electricite de France has, in the light of operating experience, uprated its four Chooz and Civaux N4 reactors from 1455 to 1500 MWe each. The N4 pressurised water reactor is a development of the 1300 MWe series, which EdF operates 20 of. The new EPR selected by TVO in Finland has in turn evolved from the N4, which has overcome a number of teething problems encountered in the 1990s.
Nucleonics Week 1/1/04.
German operators plan plant uprates
Owners of several German nuclear power plants are planning investment of EUR 100-200 million for reactor uprates over the next two years, adding 200-300 MWe of capacity. Some of this will be from utilising reserve margins which are unduly conservative, some from turbine upgrades. The investment amounts to a significant vote of confidence in the future of nuclear power in Germany.
Nucleonics Week 15/1/04.
French study on comparative power costs
A new French government study compares the costs of electricity from coal, gas and nuclear power for the years 2007 and 2015. For base-load production, nuclear at EUR 2.84 c/kWh compares with coal at 3.2-3.4 c/kWh and gas at 3.5 c/kWh. The advantage increases if costs of limiting carbon emissions is factored in at anything from 0.15 to 1.5 c/kWh. Of greater long-term significance is the point that "the cost of nuclear production is more stable than that of coal and much more stable than that of gas". The study was done by the DG Energy & Natural Resources for the Energy Ministry.
NucNet news #333/03, www.industrie.gouv.fr
European Parliament votes on nuclear proposals
The European Parliament has responded to the European Commission's proposal for new laws covering nuclear energy in the enlarged EU, supporting such laws but yielding to concerns about them. In particular, national nuclear regulators should continue to be responsible for safety, and should supply representatives to a committee which would undertake peer reviews, rather than having the EC superimpose a layer of regulation. Regarding spent fuel and waste management, each country should propose a national plan by 2006 and then set its own timetable.
There was strong support for deep geological disposal of high-level wastes, and for allowing international shipment of it to possible regional repositories where standards were met. Decommissioning and waste management funds should be separate, monitored and used only for the purposes intended, rather than being allowed to distort electricity market competition. The 'nuclear package' is unlikely to come into force before the EU enlargement in May.
Nucleonics Week 15/1/04, NucNet news # 8/04, ARIUS 15/1/04.
European Commission funds regional waste repository study
The EC is to fund a pilot study examining the feasibility of regional radioactive waste repositories in Europe. It will be managed by Slovakia's DECOM and ARIUS, which is based in Switzerland but has membership from organisations in several countries. The initial phase will look at technical and legal requirements for a regional repository and will involve about a dozen European countries.
ARIUS 15/1/04.
Russia ratifies aid rules
The State Duma has ratified an agreement signed in May which clears the way for foreign assistance with radioactive waste management, particularly nuclear submarine decommissioning and clean-up. The vote (286-38) was for the Multilateral Nuclear Environmental Program in the Russian Federation (MNEPR) framework agreement that frees imported goods and services from taxation and ensures that donor countries and firms will not be liable for any accidents in the course of rendering clean-up assistance. The program will focus on naval spent fuel from decommissioned submarines and other radioactive wastes from Russia's Northern Fleet, particularly in the Kola Peninsula. Of 192 nuclear submarines decommissioned, fuel has been unloaded from only 116 of them and only 89 have been fully broken up. Some are barely afloat. Overall, some US$ 20 billion will be involved over some ten years from the G8 Global partnership fund - about half of it from the USA.
AP 28/11/03, Nucleonics Week various.
UK report sceptical of waste panacea
A report from the UK Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee has expressed strong doubts about the practicality of partitioning and transmutation (P&T) as an answer to radioactive waste disposal. The report assesses the global status of P&T, which at various stages has been put forward as a future solution to diminish the hazard and the need for deep geological disposal of high-level wastes. While theoretically attractive, "we could spend very large amounts of money over long time periods and end up with little except more waste to deal with." It would also involve a hundred-year commitment to nuclear power, which does not seem congenial to the present UK government. In any case it could only deal with a small proportion of UK wastes, and it would be "demanding, uncertain of success and inevitably costly."
Nucleonics Week 4/12/03.
French CEA wraps up laser enrichment
The French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) has finalised its research on laser enrichment with a successful demonstration production run at its Menphis plant at Pierrelatte. Some 200 kg of 2-3% enriched uranium was produced, using the atomic vapour laser isotope separation process - Silva, corresponding to the disbanded US Avlis process. The EUR 146 million program is now suspended but may be resumed in a decade or more with a view to providing a successor technology to the centrifuge enrichment to which Cogema committed last year. The only laser enrichment program is now SILEX, in Australia, which is molecular (UF6) rather than atomic.
NuclearFuel 19/1/04.
Tepco labours to restart reactors
Following the shutdown of its 17 nuclear power reactors for inspections following anomalies, Tepco last year restarted seven of them. However, two have again been shut for more inspections. A cool 2003 summer meant that power supply for Tokyo was maintained, albeit at a cost premium averaging 3.5 yen/kWh on top of the normal nuclear generation cost of 5.9 yen/kWh (3.4 and 5.5 US cents respectively). Tepco now hopes to have all its reactors back on line by the end of 2004 and expects the whole fiasco to cost it about 200 billion yen (US$ 1.9 billion).
Nucleonics Week 8/1/04.
Japan seeks repository site
Japan's Nuclear Waste Management Organisation (NUMO) has begun an open solicitation process to find a site for a deep geological repository, and by 2007 will shortlist those that are proffered and potentially suitable. The promising ones will be subject to detailed investigation by 2012. A third phase to 2025 will end with site selection. Repository operation is expected from about 2035, and the 3000 billion yen (US$ 28 billion) cost of it will be met by funds accumulated at 0.2 yen/kWh from electricity utilities (and hence their customers) and paid to NUMO. This sum excludes any financial compensation paid by the government to local communities.
NuclearFuel 5/1/04.
Japan estimates fuel cycle and waste costs
Japan's Ministry of Economy Trade & Industry (METI) has estimated the costs of reprocessing spent fuel, recycling its fissile material and management of all wastes over 80 years from 2005. METI's Electricity Industry Committee has been undertaking the study, focused on reprocessing and MOX fuel fabrication including the decommissioning of those facilities (but excluding decommissioning of power reactors). Total costs over 80 years amount to some 19 trillion yen, contributing almost one yen (US 0.9 cents) per kilowatt-hour at 3% discount rate. About one third of these costs would still be incurred in a once-through fuel cycle, along with increased high-level waste disposal costs and increased uranium fuel supply costs. Japan's policy however is based on energy security rather than purely economic criteria.
Japan's Nuclear Waste Management Organisation (NUMO) has begun an open solicitation process to find a site for a deep geological repository, and by 2007 will shortlist those that are proffered and potentially suitable. The promising ones will be subject to detailed investigation by 2012. A third phase to 2025 will end with site selection. Repository operation is expected from about 2035, and the 3000 billion yen (US$ 28 billion) cost of it will be met by funds accumulated at 0.2 yen/kWh from electricity utilities (and hence their customers) and paid to NUMO. This sum excludes any financial compensation paid by the government to local communities.
Atoms in Japan Dec 2003, NuclearFuel 5/1/04.
Libya comes clean, opts for legitimacy
After several months of negotiations, Libya has agreed to halt its development of nuclear weapons. For more than a decade it has been engaged in the development of a uranium enrichment capability, based on importing natural uranium together with centrifuge and conversion equipment, and the construction of now-dismantled pilot-scale centrifuge facilities. Some of these activities should have been reported to the IAEA under Libya's Safeguards Agreement with the UN body, but were not. Evidently Libya's nuclear enrichment program was at an early stage and no industrial-scale facility had been built, nor any enriched uranium produced. Pakistan, which is not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is reported to have been the source of the illicit technology.
Libya has a Russian 10 MW research reactor using 80% enriched fuel, which has been under IAEA safeguards. It has no nuclear power program. It has now asked the IAEA to verify publicly that all of its nuclear activities will henceforth be under safeguards and exclusively for peaceful purposes. In that regard, Libya has agreed to take the necessary steps to conclude an Additional Protocol to its NPT Safeguards Agreement, as recently signed (but still to be ratified) by Iran. This will provide the IAEA with broader inspection rights, and will require full transparency and active co-operation. The first IAEA inspections of previously-undeclared facilities were at the end of December.
IAEA 22/12/03, Australian 30/12/03, NY Times 4/1/04.
Rossing mine future in doubt
Rio Tinto has deferred a decision on a US$ 100 million development of the Rossing uranium mine in Namibia. This means that on current plans, when the present pit is mined out in 2007, Rossing will close. Despite increased uranium prices, the strength of the Rand against the US Dollar means that the operation is losing money. Unless these losses can be stemmed in 2004, closure may be earlier than 2007. Sales contracts fully cover production of about 2100 tU/yr until 2007. The mine contributes 10% of Namibian exports and its closure would have a significant impact on the country's economy.
Ux Weekly 22/12/03, Rossing Uranium 17/12/03, Namibian 18/12/03.
Chinese gas well kills hundreds
The death toll from poisoning by hydrogen sulfide following a gas well blowout 300km northeast of Chongqing in December has been put at 243, though over one hundred remain in hospital, some in a critical condition. About 9000 villagers suffered gas poisoning and 64,000 people fled or were evacuated from the 25 square kilometres affected.
Seattle Times 26/12/03, FEER 8 & 15/1/04, Energy Review Net 15/1/04.
Increasing the nuclear capacity highlights a dilemma: there are five old reactors laid up and which could be brought back into service, some at considerable expense, but more quickly (by 2007) than new plant could be commissioned - estimated at 2011. The wisdom of spending nearly as much on an old plant as it would cost to build a new one depends then on the urgency of the supply situation. The Pickering 1-3 units are oldest (1971-72, 515 MWe each) but probably least expensive to refurbish, the contaminated Bruce 1-2 units (1977, 769 MWe each) are possibly uneconomic on any basis. The Task Force recommends an early decision on these so that new investment may proceed, largely from the private sector. Predictable power prices are a key to this, including long-term contracts. Consultant's input suggested that the new ACR reactor would be competitive with gas combined cycle at present and foreseeable gas prices.
Nuclear Canada 16/1/04, Nucleonics Week 22/1/04, Exec Summary cf www.energy.gov.on.ca
Proposal for vendor finance of new reactors
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd (AECL) has proposed building four pairs of its advanced ACR reactors in Ontario over 20 years to head off an acute power shortage around the end of the decade. Each pair would generate 1400 MWe and cost about C$ 2.7 billion. AECL says it would form a vendor group to secure financing and would offer the units at a guaranteed price and schedule either to government-owned Ontario Power Generation or private Bruce Power. The utility would need to provide the sites. Generation cost is projected to be 4.4 cents/kWh. The ACR is a radical development of earlier Candu reactors, with light water cooling and smaller core.
TradeTech NMR 31/12/03, Ux Weekly 5/1/04.
Refurbished Ontario reactor reconnects
After being laid up for almost six years, the refurbished 769 MWe Bruce 3 reactor has been reconnected to the grid. Unit 4 was reconnected last October. There are no plans to bring units 1 & 2 back on line. The four Bruce A reactors were originally commissioned in 1977-78 by Ontario Hydro. Units 3 & 4 have been brought back into service following Bruce Power's leasing of the plant from Ontario Power Generation in 2001. The Bruce plant provides about 20% of Ontario's power.
Bruce Power 9/1/03, cf Newsletter #4/00 & #3/01.
Carbon sequestration questions
Apart from the cost and efficiency of separating carbon dioxide from gas streams, the main uncertainty relating to long-term use of fossil fuels is the question of where to put the separated CO2. Sequestration into geological formations is well proven in some places - in the USA some 32 million tonnes per year is used for enhanced oil recovery, and about one million tonnes per year from the Sleipner gas field is injected into a deep saline aquifer under the North Sea. The Utsira sandstone formation there is said to be capable of storing 600 billion tonnes of CO2.
As well as technical issues there are safety, legal and regulatory issues. The hazards of CO2 - much denser than air - are well known, and were graphically illustrated in 1986 when 1700 people in Cameroon were asphyxiated by CO2 bubbling from a crater lake. While the circumstances here were unusual and the geology of sequestration is bound to be very much safer, the prospect of large CO2 pipeline failures in still valleys gives rise to concern. Liability and insurance issues then loom large, and it may be that companies involved need to invoke government support as insurer of last resort, as with nuclear plant operations. Regulatory hurdles include ocean dumping conventions.
FT 23/1/04.
Reactor table
Nuclear power in China
Nuclear energy in Finland
Nuclear energy in Sweden
Nuclear energy in Japan
Safeguards appendix
Energy analysis of power systems
Energy subsidies and external costs
Waste management in the nuclear fuel cycle
Nuclear power plants & earthquakes
Nuclear reactors for space
See also Ux Consulting graphs
World reactor changes
Canada: 769 MWe Bruce-3 restarted
US: Browns Ferry-1 1065 MWe to 'planned'.
Spain: Almarez-1 & -2 uprated by 14 MWe each to 914 and 916 MWe
France: four 1455 MWe units uprated to 1500 MWe - 180 MWe net
GPO Box 1649N, Melbourne 3001, Australia
phone (03) 9629 7744
fax (03) 9629 7207