ISSUE HIGHLIGHTS
In Europe, North America, Japan and Australia, nuclear power is achieving widespread popular approval, much faster than its proponents had expected.
Broadly, renewed attention to nuclear power is driven by three factors: improved economics which insure against escalating electricity prices, the prospect of carbon emission constraints on fossil-fuelled alternatives, and energy security - people are more conscious of geopolitical factors than at any time since the 1970s. All these factors are in play in Europe and North America, though in Australia only the carbon emission consideration gives appeal to the nuclear option.
The public role of high-profile environmentalists has helped. Led by James Lovelock, originator of the Gaia hypothesis, others have joined in, saying that nuclear power is essential if not ideal. Lovelock has always been pro-nuclear but in recent years has become more vocal about it. Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace, changed his views as he took a longer look at how the threat of global warming might best be countered, and whether the anti-nuclear folklore had any real substance. But these are individuals who are unconnected to environmental groups which depend for their funding on nurturing the fears of a significant section of the populace.
So when Greg Bourne, head of WWF Australia, came out with positive comments accepting uranium mining for nuclear power, it marked a significant shift. No sooner had he done so than he headed off to a WWF international energy taskforce meeting focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The significance of the shift was not lost on his green co-activists: Alec Marr of the Wilderness Society derided Bourne and reasserted the dogma that "uranium mining, anywhere, anytime, is an immoral act and the job of all environment groups should be to stop every aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle!" Marr called for Bourne to return to the BP corporate fold from which he came a couple of years ago - his rational approach being unacceptable. A later media release said that "total opposition to [all aspects of the nuclear industry] lies at the heart of the Australian environment movement". However, Paul Gilding, former head of Greenpeace International, defended Bourne and observed that he was at risk because "it's such a highly ideological, almost religious, debate." WWF then reiterated that "nuclear power is not the solution to global warming."
In the USA a new coalition for Clean and Safe Energy is being headed by Patrick Moore and former Administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency Christine Todd Whitman. The CASEnergy Coalition has more than 50 charter members including industry associations, electric utilities, unions and universities, and will champion the cause of nuclear energy as a safe, reliable and cost-effective way to meet US energy demands while protecting the environment and achieving prudent diversification of supply. Its principal role will be educational at the state and local level, with funding from the Nuclear Energy Institute, since recent polling has showed that misinformation is prevalent. For instance, many Americans do not realize that nuclear power emits negligible amounts of greenhouse gases (and 60% of Europeans think nuclear emits significant quantities of them).
Another aspect of public awareness is safety, and the 20 th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster has served to highlight that, and remind people why such a reactor design has never been licensed outside the Soviet Union. At the same time it has become clear that for the main Western reactor designs, even a major accident or terrorist assault would not cause any radiation release catastrophe. There is now enough experience of core melting - most famously at Three Mile Island in 1979 - that we can be confident of the safety of neighbours even with a severe accident. This is more than can be said for some other major industrial infrastructure.
In Japan, 75% of people are either happy with status quo on nuclear power or want to see it promoted further, though only 36% know that it was a means of countering global warming, and only 31% perceived uranium supply as more stable than petroleum.
In Australia, where there is no industry lobby group to promote its local implementation, a series of media stories and features have reversed the previously negative portrayal, and the Prime Minister and other senior ministers have been very positively vocal. Journalists have looked more closely into it and refused to be put off by superficial invocations of supposedly intractable waste, radiation and safety problems. For the first time the negatives of nuclear power have been put into perspective alongside other aspects and hazards of the industrial society which delivers high standards of living. Bob Carr, former Labor Premier of New South Wales, reiterated that "you can't reduce carbon emissions without nuclear power", and it must be a significant part of the solution to climate change.
Atoms in Japan 11/3/06, Australian 4 & 9/5/06, Daily Telegraph 5/5/06, WWF 4/5/06, Wilderness Soc 8/5/06, NEI Overview 24/4/06, www.cleansafeenergy.org
Further US licence renewals
The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has renewed the licences of all three of TVA's Browns Ferry reactors , to 2033-36. Unit 1 has not operated since 1985 and is being refurbished, with restart expected in 2007. This brings the total of nuclear power reactors receiving 20-year extensions to 42.
NRC 4/5/06.
Domenici brings fresh realism to US nuclear energy outlook
Senator Domenici is taking the lead in rolling back President Carter's legacy of once-through use of nuclear fuel in the USA, opening the way to greater utilisation of the uranium, with reduced volumes and radioactivity of wastes. Most immediately it means that the proposed Yucca Mountain repository for used fuel should be thought of instead as being for the much lower volumes of shorter-lived wastes from reprocessing used fuel. Pending availability of reprocessing as conceived under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program, used fuel will need to be stored at reactor sites or elsewhere for much longer.
Nucleonics Week 18/5/06.
US hydrogen study
The Department of Energy is seeking bids from US nuclear utilities to undertake small-scale studies at existing power reactors on producing hydrogen as a fuel. The studies to examine the economic, environmental, and regulatory implications of producing hydrogen at existing nuclear power plants will be done under DOE's Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative within the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology. DOE will allocate up to $1.6 million this fiscal year for the work and will cover 80% of the costs overall. The work will presumably be confined to electrolysis and high-temperature electrolysis.
Platts 13/4/06.
France to construct new reactor
The Board of Electricité de France has approved construction of a new 1630 MWe European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) unit at Flamanville, Normandy, alongside two 1300 MWe units. The overnight capital cost is expected to be EUR 3.3 billion, and power from it EUR 4.6 c/kWh - about the same as from new combined cycle gas turbine at current gas prices and with no carbon emission charge. Series production costs are projected at about 20% less. EDF has submitted a construction licence application. Site works should be complete and the first concrete poured about the end of next year, with completion expected in 2012. The decision follows a public debate, and is seen as "an essential step in renewing EDF's nuclear generation mix". Italian utility ENEL will have a 12.5% share in the new plant, taking rights to 200 MWe of its capacity and being involved in design, construction and operation of it.
EdF 4/5/06, Nucleonics Week 11/5/06.
UK flags new nuclear capacity
The British Prime Minister has said that replacement of the country's nuclear power stations is definitely back on the national agenda, due both to energy security concerns and the need to limit carbon emissions. Any new plants would be financed and built by the private sector, and Areva has said that it could build them by 2017 without subsidy if planning procedures were improved and government decisions were made on wastes. A review of the licensing process for new designs is already under way. Most of the nuclear plants now producing 22% of UK electricity will close by 2020. "A big push on renewables and a step change on energy efficiency" are also envisaged.
In April, the Confederation of British Industry issued a strong call for the UK government to clarify its longer-term carbon emission policy so that low-emission sources such as nuclear power could play a proper role. The CBI said that companies will seriously consider investing in capital-intensive new nuclear build without the need for government subsidy if the right long-term non-discriminatory policy framework is in place. Some £50 billion is required to refurbish UK's generating infrastructure by 2020 with low-carbon sources, but at present the policy context beyond 2012 is unclear.
The CBI pointed out that nuclear "is the only low-carbon technology proven to deliver a consistent supply of electricity on a large scale. And it can contribute strongly to more secure UK energy supplies, given the substantial uranium reserves available in politically stable countries and the ability to store significant uranium stocks. The operating costs of nuclear power are far more stable than for fossil fuels, because fuel only accounts for 5-10 per cent of generating costs." Nuclear wastes are no reason to avoid new investment in nuclear.
The CBI also addressed the UK's planning paralysis: "A planning process designed in the middle of the last century is hampering the ability of business to deliver the energy projects needed today and in the future. From renewable energy schemes to desperately-needed gas storage facilities, the system is failing to give proper priority to energy projects. Government must not take its eye off the ball. We got away with it this winter but may not be so lucky next time. An energy policy based on crossing fingers and the use of the prayer mat is not acceptable for the fifth biggest economy on Earth."
CBI 24/4/06, Times 17 & 18/5/06, Guardian 17/5/06, Nucleonics Week 18/5/06.
UK waste committee reports
The non-expert but widely-representative committee appointed by the UK government has reported after three years' deliberation on what to do with UK high-level nuclear wastes. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) recommends deep geological disposal long-term, but meanwhile "robust interim storage" is needed. The scope of investigation covered an eventual 470,000 cubic metres of mostly high and intermediate-level wastes and also the implications of possibly treating plutonium and depleted uranium as wastes, and of abandoning any reprocessing of spent fuel. Repository location would be on basis of community agreement, and about one third of the UK appears to be geologically suitable. A final report will be submitted in July and will address questions such as retrievability, but only in principle. CoRWM says that the government should move swiftly to implement its recommendations, though it acknowledges that actually commissioning a repository could take decades.
CoRWM 27/4/06, Nucleonics Week 4/5/06, SpentFuel 1/5/06.
UK government to sell more nuclear assets
BNFL has gained government approval to sell the British Nuclear Group, its management and clean-up business, by competitive tender in 2007. The new owner will inherit a 5-year contract from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to manage the Sellafield site, as well as taking over the Magnox reactors, so the NDA will be involved in selecting the buyer. The government said it is also ready to sell its 33% stake in Urenco, the uranium enrichment business jointly owned by the Dutch and German governments. The share is valued at some £2.5 billion.
Nuclear Engineering Int'l 30/3/06, Fuel Cycle Week 28/3/06.
Russia announces new larger reactors
The head of Rosatom has announced plans to build six 1500 MWe VVER reactors to replace the Leningrad nuclear power station. The first two units are to be constructed within 8 years at a cost of US$ 2.9 billion, starting late 2007 or early 2008. The next four will be spread to 2021. Rosenergoatom will finance and build the new reactors. The new V-448 reactor design is from Gidropress, and total construction cost is expected to be much the same as for present 1000 MWe units. Leningrad power plant has four RBMK units, due to be decommissioned 2019-26.
Nucleonics Week 11/5/06.
Czech utility upbeat on nuclear prospects
CEZ is "seriously investigating" expanding its nuclear portfolio both in the Czech Republic and in neighboring European countries, according to its Vice President. "Coal and gas will be marginal plant, they won't make any money," he said. "We need large base-load plant - over 40 years nuclear can be cheaper than gas at current prices." CEZ would invest in nuclear projects, but only under market and policy conditions that include a truly integrated European market, continuing regulation of carbon emissions, a forward oil price of more than $60/barrel,
and assurance that national governments will not "damage investments." He expressed confidence in a nuclear renaissance in Europe. "Politics will not stand in the way of a nuclear revival," though "we might need a small blackout somewhere or a price spike, but it will come." In 2004 some 10,900 MWe of combined cycle gas plant came on line in western Europe, 5800 MWe of wind and no nuclear.
Platts 29 & 30/3/06.
Russian threat to Europe's gas
After a meeting with EU ambassadors, the head of Russia's Gazprom has warned that if its expansion into the EU is blocked it will redirect its gas supplies away from Europe to North America and China. Any "attempts to limit Gazprom's activities in the European market ÷ will not lead to good results." Gazprom is state-owned and supplies a quarter of Europe's gas. The UK government has expressed concern about Gazprom's reported intention to take over Centrica, UK's largest gas company. The UK is increasingly reliant on imported gas supplies for electricity generation.
Times 20/4/06.
Chernobyl 20th anniversary prompts media flurry
A series of articles on the Chernobyl disaster and the situation there now has appeared throughout the world print media. Readers Digest and National Geographic have stories, www.greenfacts.org has a major web site feature based on the Chernobyl Forum report (now updated), and New Scientist and Greenpeace have challenged the projected cancer death toll from the accident, saying it is really much higher. Russian scientists downplayed the radiation impact and the World Health Organization stood by its figures published last year. All agreed that the sociological and psychological trauma was major, and continuing. Mikhail Gorbachev, president of the Soviet Union at the time of the accident, writes that Chernobyl "was perhaps the real cause of the collapse of Soviet Union five years later. Indeed the Chernobyl catastrophe was a historic turning point ÷ the system as we knew it could no longer continue".
Meanwhile plans are well advanced for construction of a new permanent shelter over both the destroyed reactor and the existing shelter structure which was hastily erected in 1986 and is now in disrepair. The international Chernobyl Shelter Fund for this has more than EUR 800 million so far in hand or pledged. Awarding of the contract for construction of the new shelter is expected soon, for completion in 2008. The arched structure will be built nearby and slid into position, then enabling dismantling of the 1986 shelter under it and some or all of the destroyed reactor.
National Geographic & Readers Digest April 2006, New Scientist 8/4/06, AFP 18/4/06, Australian 19/4/06, NucNet news #66/06.
Russia reassesses RBMK reactors
Despite the bad reputation due to the Chernobyl disaster and the fact that many Western safety authorities want to see them all shut down, Russia is considering lifetime extensions and uprating of its eleven operating RBMK reactors . A 12 th unit, in Lithuania, is due to close in 2009. Following significant design modifications made after the Chernobyl accident, as well as extensive refurbishment including replacement of fuel channels, a 45-year lifetime is seen as realistic for the 1000 MWe units. Last year they provided 48% of Russia's nuclear-generated electricity.
The R&D Institute of Power Engineering is preparing plans for 5% uprating of the units - at Leningrad, Kursk and Smolensk. No RBMK has been shut prematurely in Russia - only those in Ukraine and Lithuania. Rosenergoatom acknowledges that no more will be built - the fate of almost complete Kursk-5 being still uncertain.
Energy in E.Europe 28/4/06.
Spain closes oldest nuclear plant
Spain closed its 142 MWe Jose Cabrera (Zorita) nuclear power plant at the end of April, two years earlier than the operator desired. Zorita was connected to the grid in 1968. Its 2002 licence renewal was for only four years. Dismantling the plant will be undertaken from 2009 by Enresa - total decommissioning cost is estimated at EUR 135 million. This will leave Spain with eight operational reactors producing about a quarter of the country's power. The governing Socialist Party has expressed a desire to shut them all down, but a review of the nuclear role is due to be reported in June.
Nucleonics Week 27/4/06, NucNet news #84/06.
China developments
Construction of Qinshan phase 4 (or second stage of phase II) was formally inaugurated at the end of April, though first concrete had been poured for unit 6 in March. China National Nuclear Corporation said that local content of the two 650 MWe reactors will be more than 70% and construction time scheduled as 60 months.
This project joins Lingao units 3 & 4 (935 MWe each) whose first concrete was poured in December (but not here noted then). The Lingao reactors will be at least 70% localised, under the project management of China Nuclear Power Engineering Corp. These are the first in the current tranche of eight reactors. Announcement of 6 to 10 new reactors for the eleventh five-year plan is expected soon.
Grid connection of the first Russian-built Tianwan reactor occurred in mid May, almost three years behind schedule. The two 1000 MWe Tianwan VVER reactors have been under construction by Atomstroyexport in Jiangsu province since 1999, and the estimated cost of the pair is US$3.2 billion, with China contributing $1.8 billion. They incorporate Finnish safety features and Siemens instrumentation and control systems. It is expected that another pair of VVERs will be built at the Jiangsu site under the new five-year plan, and site works have begun. This would be part of a wide-ranging Sino-Russian energy deal involving supply of oil and gas to China.
Meanwhile it appears that the question of whether Westinghouse or Areva is selected to build the new Sanmen and Yangjiang nuclear plants (part of the tenth five-year plan) is in the hands of China's political leadership.
Nucleonics Week 6 & 13/4/06, Power in Asia 11/5/06, NucNet WNR 12/5/06, Platts 12/5/06.
Large new Indian reactor starts up
The second of a pair of large new Indian reactors started up. Tarapur-3 is a 490 MWe (net) unit and is expected to be connected to the grid in June. It was built by Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL), a public sector undertaking under the Department of Atomic Energy, ahead of schedule and under budget.
NPCIL 21/5/06.
Japan's reprocessing plant active
The final 17-month test phase at the Rokkasho reprocessing plant has begun, after 13 years construction and the conclusion of safety agreements with the local prefecture, supported by the national government. Some 430 tonnes of used fuel will be put through the Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd plant in the course of testing all aspects of its performance. At the same time, the last batch of used fuel is being treated at Japan Atomic Energy Agency's Tokai pilot reprocessing plant, making 1116 tonnes treated since 1977.
Atoms in Japan 31/3/06.
South Africa considers nuclear boost
As a new 200-tonne turbine rotor borrowed from EdF in France was fitted to one of the two 900 MWe Koeberg reactors near Cape Town, the government announced in March that it was considering building a further conventional reactor, possibly at Koeberg, to boost supplies in the Cape province. A demonstration pebble-bed reactor is expected to start operation there in 2011, but this will be only 165 MWe. The restored Koeberg unit 1 has now restarted.
Nuclear Engineering Int'l 30/3/06, Fuel Cycle Week 28/3/06, Ux Weekly 22/5/06.
Site for first Turkish nuclear plant
The province of the port city of Sinop on the Black Sea has been chosen to host Turkey's first commercial nuclear power plant. A 100 MWe demonstration plant is to be built first, then 5000 MWe of further plants to come into service from 2012. Some kind of public-private partnership is envisaged for construction and operation.
TradeTech NMR 14/4/06.
Brazil starts enrichment plant
The first two cascades of Brazil's Resende centrifuge enrichment plant have been officially opened by Industrias Nucleares de Brasil (INB). In the first phase of operations the US$ 172 million plant is expected to produce 60% of the enriched uranium needed by the country's two reactors - Angra 1 & 2 (1896 MWe total). Imports now cost some $16 million per year.
ENS 8/5/06.
PM flags nuclear debate
Australia's Prime Minister has said that his government's 2004 White Paper on Energy needs to be revisited to take account of nuclear power, since its "assumptions are certainly very different now". "Clearly the environmental advantages of nuclear power are there for all to see: it's cleaner and greener and therefore some of the people in the past who have opposed it should support it," he said. He looked forward to "an intense debate on the subject". Australia's role in the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (AP6) is the most immediate context for this debate, but its possible involvement in the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) appears to have been the trigger for pushing the question into higher profile.
Other ministers said that an initial Australian nuclear power plant could be operating by 2020, and an enrichment plant within ten years, to add value to uranium exports. The Labor Party said that it opposes the use of nuclear power in Australia. Meanwhile the report of the House of Representatives year-long inquiry into uranium is due to report in mid year, and the steering group of the Uranium Industry Framework will complete its task in July, identifying impediments and opportunities that need further attention in relation to Australian uranium mining and export. An action plan will result.
Canberra Times 20/5/06, Australian 22/5/06.
China - Australia bilateral safeguards agreement
After a year of negotiations, a bilateral safeguards agreement (Nuclear Transfer Agreement) has been signed with China enabling the export of Australian uranium to that country. China is a nuclear weapons state under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has ratified the Additional Protocol to its safeguards agreement with IAEA, and has a number of its reactors and an enrichment plant already under IAEA safeguards. A nuclear technology agreement was signed at the same time. China has expressed interest in investing in Australian uranium mining - it already has major investment in other mineral production in Australia.
DFAT 3/4/06.
Silex partners with GE
Silex Systems has announced a partnership agreement with GE Energy for the commercialisation of its SILEX laser enrichment technology. It provides for GE to construct in the USA an engineering-scale test loop (3 years) then a pilot plant or lead cascade. A full commercial plant would then follow. Apart from US$20 million upfront and subsequent payments the license agreement will yield 7-12% royalties, the precise amount depending on how low the cost of deploying the commercial technology. GE referred to SILEX as "game-changing technology" with a "very high likelihood" of success.
Silex 22/5/06, Nucleonics Week 25/5/06.
Students return to nuclear courses
In the USA there is a strong resurgence of interest in nuclear engineering courses. Most such departments have seen a doubling or tripling of undergraduate enrolments in the last five years, and a recent Department of Energy survey showed 1759 nuclear engineering students compared with only 450 in 1999. In the last year, graduate students have increased from about 600 to 1008.
ASEE Prism, Jan 2006.
Euro carbon trading falters
The early weeks of May saw the price of emission permits under the European Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) plunge to less than half their previous value, causing intense discussion on the efficacy of the whole scheme and questions as to whether the caps in some states were low enough to promote investment in emission reduction. The ETS was seen as providing the core of a wider scheme to limit carbon emissions worldwide. But most EU countries had issued so many allowances on the basis of padded applications that they did not reach their quotas in the first year of phase one (2005-07) of the ETS, which undercut the value of traded permits. Permits in late May were trading at EUR 18/tonne CO2, representing over 1.5 cents/kWh on coal-fired generation and providing a weak disincentive to using coal, especially in Germany where output constraints apply on nuclear power. For most of 2005 and until May, permits were trading at over EUR 25.
Overall in the EU 1785 million tonnes of CO2 were emitted in 2005 against quotas of 1829 Mt, though this does not represent any decrease in emissions. The UK was 33 Mt (16%) over its quota, reflecting the low target set by its government, and a swing back to coal from gas. This means that generators (particularly) will need to purchase permits and pass the cost on to consumers. Germany responded to the ETS debacle by saying it would cancel 10 million excess credits issued last year for 2005-07. For 2006 and 2007, firms exceeding their quota will have to pay EUR 40/tonne for the excess. EU governments are due to submit their proposed emission allocations for 2008-12 in June, against a collective EU target of 8% cut in emissions from 1990 levels.
Meanwhile delegates from 189 countries, including the 35 pledged to emission reductions under the Kyoto Protocol, are meeting in Bonn to discuss what will follow the 2008-12 compliance period. A key question is how to bring in major developing country emitters, not to mention the USA. Another is how to provide a clear policy context for investment at least 15 years beyond 2012. With emissions rising significantly in most countries, rigorous targets post 2012 seem unlikely, though without such targets the incentive to invest in nuclear power will be diminished. The World Bank has estimated the 2005 market in CO2 emissions trading as about US$ 10 billion, with 75% of it the ETS.
AFP 10 & 15/5/06, Times 16/5/06, FT 17/5/06 Nucleonics Week 18/5/06, New Scientist 20/5/06.
Power utilities urge emission limits
Two major US utilities have urged Congress to impose mandatory restrictions on CO2 emissions. Exelon and Duke Energy, the two largest utilities, said that both customers and shareholders need greater certainty about future costs, as utilities prepare to spend many billions of dollars on new plant. In Australia a similar call was made by a group of businesses including Origin Energy, calling for a carbon pricing policy which curbed CO2 emissions.
Bloomberg 5/4/06, Australian 10/4/06.
Reactor table
Economics of nuclear power
Uranium markets
MOX fuel
Safety of NP reactors
Civil liability for nuclear damage
Nuclear Power in China
Nuclear Power in S. Korea
Nuclear Power in Russia
Uranium & Nuclear Power in Kazakhstan
Nuclear Power in France
Nuclear Power in Japan
Nuclear Power in USA
Nuclear Power in UK
Nuclear Power in Bulgaria
Nuclear Power in Spain
Nuclear Power in India & Pakistan
Emerging nuclear energy countries
Nuclear reactors for space
"Clean Coal" technologies
Transport & Hydrogen economy
See also Ux
Consulting graphs.
World reactor changes in last two months:
China: Lingao 3&4 start const. 1000 MWe ea (late 2005)
China: Qinshan 6&7 start const. 1220 MWe (March-Ap)
China: Tianwan-1 grid connect May 06
Spain: Zorita closed 30/4, 142 MWe
USA: Seabrook 20 MWe uprate to 1193 MWe