AUSTRALIA

Too expensive, too slow: Even the baseload argument doesn’t work for nuclear


Mark Diesendorf 

29 October 2021 

Photo by Diana Parkhouse on Unsplash

With the Glasgow climate summit approaching and the government’s announcement that Australia would buy nuclear-powered submarines instead of diesel, the nuclear industry and News Corp have predictably renewed their campaign for nuclear power stations in Australia.

This is of concern, because every dollar invested in nuclear power makes the climate crisis worse by diverting investment from renewable energy technologies. Having recently participated in a nuclear debate, I report here on the pro-nuclear arguments and expose their weaknesses.

The old baseload myth

Nuclear proponents still claim that electricity grids need baseload power stations, such as coal or nuclear, that can run 24/7 at full rated power, except when they break down or undergo maintenance and refuelling.

But, as readers of RenewEconomy know, the variability of wind and solar can be balanced with storage, new transmission links, demand response, and/or flexible power stations that can start up in seconds to minutes and can vary their output rapidly.

The latter include hydroelectricity with a single dam, pumped hydro (with two dams), other forms of gravitational energy storage, batteries, concentrated solar thermal with storage, and open-cycle gas turbines that can burn biofuels and green hydrogen and ammonia.

Despite the claims of proponents, modern nuclear reactors cannot compete in flexibility with the above technologies and measures. Furthermore, operating in a slightly flexible mode carries economic penalties for nuclear, whose electricity already costs 3–5 times that of wind and solar PV––see Lazard and CSIRO.

Dark doldrums (Dunkelflaute in German) are extended periods of low wind and solar. In the debate, a pro-nuclear speaker modified the baseload myth by claiming falsely that a recent report on dark doldrums by the leading German solar energy research organisation, the Fraunhofer Institute, admits that solar energy has failed.

However, the only report on dark doldrums by that institute identifies the issues and then sets out the solutions to maintaining generation reliability, namely the flexible technologies and methods listed above.

Health impacts of nuclear accidents

Another misleading pro-nuclear statement revived following the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in 2011 is that no excess cancer incidence has been observed around Fukushima, implying that no cancers will be induced. The logical error is to assume that the absence of evidence implies no impact.

It is still too early for most types of cancer, which have latent periods of 20–60 years, to appear around Fukushima. The only cancers likely to appear within a decade after exposure are thyroid cancer and leukemia.

A large increase in thyroid cancers has been observed in the region, but their cause is debated by some on the grounds that the increase could be the result of better screening. Leukemia is an uncommon disease and so even a large percentage increase would be impossible to verify statistically with high confidence (see UNSCEAR 2020).

Fortunately for the citizens of Tokyo, the wind was mostly blowing offshore during the meltdowns of three of the six Fukushima reactors, sending about 80 per cent of the emitted radioactive material out over the Pacific.

Soon after the disaster an exclusion zone was established around the power station and more than 100,000 people evacuated. For these reasons, Fukushima tells us very little about radiation-induced cancers.

The Chernobyl Forum, a group dominated by the International Atomic Energy Agency, estimated that the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 could be responsible for “up to 4000 cancer deaths” in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. However, the disaster also sprayed radionuclides over large areas of Europe outside those countries.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (Cardis et al. 2006) estimated that the disaster would be responsible for 16,000 cancer deaths in Europe by 2065.

Another estimate, by a team of medical researchers and practitioners in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia (Yablokov et al. 2006), found that the total number of deaths in their countries could be an order of magnitude higher, but a quantitative estimate was probably impossible due to uncertainties in the total quantities of radionuclides emitted, geographic distribution of radioactivity, and limitations in medical diagnosis and monitoring.

Most of the evidence that low-level radiation is carcinogenic comes from detailed studies of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, medical professionals who worked with radiation, uranium miners, children who received CT scans, children living near nuclear power stations, and children who were exposed in utero in the bad old days when pregnant women were routinely x-rayed.

This is the basis of the linear-no-threshold model, the scientific understanding that the number of cancers induced by ionising radiation is proportional to the dose received and that there’s no threshold.

Was the Fukushima disaster “natural”?

Pro-nuclear campaigners claim that the disaster at Fukushima Daiichi was entirely the fault of the tsunami, that it was all just “a natural event”.

Yet the choice of technology cannot be exonerated, because it resulted in mass evacuation, compensation payments (huge in total but inadequate for individuals), destruction of the local agriculture and fishing industries, temporary loss of national tourism, temporary collapse of the electricity grid, massive removal of radioactive soil and vegetation, a multi-decades-long continuing process to decommission the reactors, and the need to import vast quantities of fossil fuels. (The latter would have been greatly reduced if the government’s prior commitment to nuclear energy hadn’t resulted in its neglect of renewables.)

Total costs have been estimated at over US$500 billion, while the nuclear power station was insured for only US$1.5 billion.

The scale of the disaster resulted from the choice of nuclear technology. Yet at Kamisu, on the coast to the south of Fukushima, a wind farm located in the surf survived the tsunami and continued to generate electricity until the grid went down.

Proliferation

It’s well documented (see here and here) that India, Pakistan, South Africa and North Korea used “peaceful” nuclear energy to develop nuclear weapons and to cloak that development.

Furthermore, the UK supplemented its military-produced weapons-grade plutonium with plutonium reprocessed from its first generation of nuclear power stations. In France, the military and civil nuclear industries are entwined.

In addition, the following countries used “peaceful” nuclear energy to commence the development of nuclear weapons, but fortunately discontinued their programs: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, South Korea, Sweden and Taiwan, and probably Algeria and Libya. For Australia’s attempt in the 1960s, see the books by Richard Broinowski and Wayne Reynolds.

Nuclear submarines built by the USA and UK use highly enriched uranium that could be used directly in nuclear weapons. The AUKUS alliance could lead to increased pressure from members of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, the Lowy Institute and others for Australia to develop nuclear weapons.

Even if the Australian government rejects that scenario, the perception exists and AUKUS could lead to a regional nuclear arms race.

Nuclear wastes

The standard pro-nuclear line is that the sum total of all the world’s nuclear wastes occupies a very small volume and therefore, by implication, is not a major problem. But nowhere in the world is there an operating, long-term, underground repository for high-level wastes.

Furthermore, the pro-nuclear line ignores the vast volumes of low-level wastes at uranium mines that are uncovered allowing radioactive dust to blow in the wind. The waste mountain at the Olympic Dam uranium-copper mine is already over 150 million tonnes.

Although the number of cancers caused annually will be very small, the total summed over thousands of years will be large.

High-level nuclear power wastes are stored temporarily in pools of water at nuclear power stations. The USA spent US$13.5 billion preparing an underground repository at an unsuitable site, Yucca Mountain, and then had to abandon it.

Finland has just commenced building its repository, Sweden is still thinking about building a final repository, and that’s about it.

Retired nuclear power stations have highly radioactive sections and are a major nuclear waste problem. The cost of decommissioning them and managing their wastes is comparable with their construction cost, but the nuclear industry only pays a fraction.

Small Modular Reactors

The nuclear industry is nowadays creating the false impression that new reactors exist that could solve the above major problems of existing reactors while contributing to climate mitigation.

The main hypotheticals are the so-called “small modular reactors” (SMRs), small enough to be distributed around a country and modular in the sense that they could be mass-produced by the thousand in factories and erected rapidly.

However, the actual situation is that SMRs don’t exist — they are paper reactors fuelled on hot air. They could not be installed in Australia for at least 15 years, if ever. By that time, given the political will, we could have an electricity system that’s entirely powered by renewable energy, mainly solar photovoltaics (PV) and wind, supplemented by hydro.

The reason why past and current generations of commercial nuclear power reactors are very big is to obtain economies of scale. Nuclear costs have been increasing while wind and especially solar costs continue to fall.

SMRs would have to be mass-produced in hundreds, possibly thousands, to overcome the loss of economy of scale and, even then, their electricity would at best cost much the same as from existing big nuclear power reactors.

There are no orders for multiple SMRs and that’s fortunate because the risk of proliferation would be greatly increased by distributing SMRs around the countryside. Reducing proliferation risk or increasing safety or improving waste management would all increase cost.

SMRs that simultaneously solve proliferation, safety and waste management, while reducing costs, are a dangerous fantasy.

Energy density

Another tactic used by nuclear supporters in recent years is based on “energy density”, the claim that 100 per cent renewable electricity scenarios would occupy vast areas of land, compete with food production and reduce biodiversity.

Yet the reality is that most wind and solar farms are erected on agricultural or marginal land. Although wind farms can span large areas, the land area actually occupied by the turbines, access roads and substation typically amounts to 1 to 2 per cent of the land spanned.

Wind farms are compatible with agriculture. Although the presence of solar farms excludes some forms of agriculture, they can be erected sufficiently high above ground for sheep to shelter beneath them. Both wind and solar farms contribute valuable rent to farmers. And, of course, rooftop solar occupies no land.

Too slow for climate mitigation

If national governments commit to net zero emissions by 2050 (which is likely to be too late for keeping global heating below 1.5 degrees), then they must achieve zero emissions from all energy (electricity, transport and heat) by about 2040. This is because energy is the least difficult sector to transition to zero emissions.

Agriculture and non-energy industrial processes will need more time to reduce emissions and, if possible, to capture carbon dioxide in order to offset emissions they cannot reduce.

Achieving zero energy emissions by 2040 entails achieving zero emissions from electricity by 2035, because electrifying transport and heat will take longer than transitioning electricity to renewables. Wind and solar farms can be planned and built in just three years.

Introducing nuclear power to Australia — including convincing the electorate, local governments and local populations, and building the infrastructure — would take at least 15 years, while taking financial resources away from renewables.

So new nuclear power stations could not contribute in time to assist the rapid electricity transition needed for climate mitigation. And once 100 per cent renewable electricity is established with the bulk of energy generation by cheap solar and wind, nuclear power could not compete economically. It’s a technology whose time has passed.
Dr Mark Diesendorf is honorary associate professor, Environment & Governance Group, School of Humanities & Languages at the Faculty of Arts, Design & Architecture at UNSW.

The unconventional scientist who predicted that rising carbon dioxide levels would change the climate

30 Oct 2021

Taken from the October 2021 issue of Physics World where it first appeared under the headline "The climate-change outsider". Members of the Institute of Physics can enjoy the full issue via the Physics World app.

Sidney Perkowitz on Guy Callendar, the engineer who demonstrated the link between rising carbon-dioxide concentration and temperature but was dismissed by meteorologists as a “non-expert”

(Courtesy: G S Callendar Archive, University of East Anglia)

With the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) coming up next month, it is strange to think that less than 100 years ago global warming was not widely accepted, even among experts. In fact, in 1938 Sir George Simpson, a leading meteorologist, dismissed the link between rising carbon-dioxide (CO2) concentration and temperature as “rather a coincidence”. The correlation had been shown in a paper by an author outside the conventional scientific community, so, for good measure, Simpson added that a non-expert could not properly appreciate how atmospheric circulation affects the absorption of radiation. The non-expert in question was Guy Callendar, a British steam engineer doing his own atmospheric research at home.

But climate science has a long and multidisciplinary history, with contributions from scientists both within and outside academia. Many of the basics were set by eminent 19th-century figures, notably the French mathematical physicist Joseph Fourier, the Irish physicist John Tyndall, and the Swedish Nobel prize-winning physical chemist Svante Arrhenius. Other little-known researchers, however, made essential progress too.

One was Eunice Foote, a 19th-century American scientist. In 1856 her well-designed home experiment gave the first evidence that atmospheric CO2 is highly effective in absorbing heat from the Sun, leading her to predict that an increase in CO2 would warm the Earth. Three years later, Tyndall showed that the CO2 absorption occurs at infrared wavelengths. Then in 1896, preliminary calculations by Arrhenius hinted that humanity’s burning of fossil fuels could raise CO2 levels and warm our planet. This was finally validated in 1938, when Callendar first carried out effective climate modelling.

Callendar was born in 1898. His father, Hugh, was a talented experimental physicist who was dubbed a “universal genius” by Ernest Rutherford. Indeed, Callendar’s scientific development was greatly influenced by his father. Writing in the 2007 book The Callendar Effect, James Rodger Fleming explains how the young Callendar was raised in a household full of “books and a vast array of technical gadgets”. At age 17, he began working in his father’s lab at University College London, earned a certificate in mechanics and mathematics, then continued working with him. When his father died in 1930, Callendar became a successful steam engineer. He also pursued his interest in meteorology by using the varied physics he had learned during his apprenticeship to study whether human activities affect the Earth’s temperature.

Callendar analysed historical global measurements of temperature, of atmospheric CO2, and the use of fossil fuels

Callendar’s 1938 paper “The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature” (Q. J. Roy. Met. Soc. 64 223) analysed historical global measurements of temperature, of atmospheric CO2, and the use of fossil fuels. Over the previous 50 years, he found, global temperatures had increased by 0.05 °C per decade, and atmospheric CO2 had grown to a value of 289 parts per million due to the burning of fossil fuels, which had added 150,000 million tonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere. Only a quarter of this was absorbed in the natural carbon cycle, mostly by diffusion into the oceans. Callendar calculated the infrared absorption of the remaining excess CO2 within a layered vertical model of the atmosphere. This showed that anthropogenic CO2 accounted for two-thirds of the long-term warming, and that a doubling of CO2 would raise global temperatures by 2 °C.

These results were not initially well received. Simpson, who dismissed the apparent correlation as a coincidence, was just one of many critics in the scientific community. Peer reviewers questioned the validity of Callendar’s calculations and historical data. Perhaps they were influenced by the fact that he was not an establishment scientist but a working engineer doing his research alone and at home, and by his holistic analysis across scientific boundaries. But Callendar cogently responded to the scientific questions and produced three dozen more papers before his death in 1964.

Other researchers further explored climate change with new measurements of temperature, infrared absorption by CO2 (where Callendar’s own work contributed), and the carbon cycle. As scientists began recognizing the role of anthropogenic CO2, it became clear that Callendar’s 1938 paper had first established the connection. In 2013 climate scientists Ed Hawkins and Philip Jones called it a “landmark study” and Callendar’s achievements “remarkable” (Q. J. Roy. Met. Soc. 

Of course, nobody is right about everything. Callendar’s speculations about the effects of warming missed the mark – he optimistically believed that rising temperatures would benefit humanity, by reducing glaciation and improving crop growth. Nevertheless, his contributions were key to accelerating the realization that warming was actually happening.

In 2016 another reconsideration (Endeavour 40 178) identified Arrhenius and Callendar as pioneers in the modern modelling of global warming. Callendar’s biographer characterizes him as a modest person, but I suspect he would be pleased that his unusual and excellent physics training finally led to his deserved recognition as a climate science innovator.

Sidney Perkowitz is the Candler Professor Emeritus of Physics, Emory University, US. His latest books are Physics: a Very Short Introduction, Real Scientists Don’t Wear Ties and Science Sketches (forthcoming)

Dr Maya Chamara – DC Comics' Doctor Multiverse From A Parallel Canada

Posted on October 31, 2021 

by Rich Johnston

Justice League Incarnate #1 is published in November from DC Comics, launching a new character, Doctor Multiverse from Earth 8. Much about the new character was a mystery, but Bleeding Cool has managed to get a character rundown…

Dr Maya Chamara – DC Comics' Doctor Multiverse From A Parallel Canada

Following the events of Infinite Frontier, a team of heroes from across the Multiverse—led by President Superman of Earth-23, alongside Flashpoint Batman, China's Flash from Earth-0, Captain Carrot from Eorth•26, and the all-new Doctor Multiverse—join forces to prated all of existence from Darkseid in the new five-issue series Justice League Incarnate from writers Joshua Williamson and Dennis Culver, and artists including Andrei Bresson and Brandon Peterson. Who exactly is Doctor Multiverse?

ALTER EGO: Dr. Maya Chamara

OCCUPATION: Astronaut

RESIDENCE: Toronto, Canada, Earth-8

GROUP AFFILIATION: Justice League Incarnate

HISTORY: When the Multiverse was cracked by Darkseid, a cosmic autoimmune response manifested a unique superhero known as Doctor Multiverse. Dr. Mayacham was on a mission in Carib's orbit for the Canadian Space Agency when she was struck by cosmic energy, granting her unusual powers and abilities. Among those abilities was Mullivision, which allowed her to see the variants of a person across all reality. However, when she looked at herself she realized there was no one eke like her in any other universe. Maya learned she was a once-in-a-generation metahuman born into the Multiverse who can uniquely channel its life forte once activated by external threats too great la be handled by each universe's natural defenses.

POWERS: Multivision, flight, enhanced durability. Cosmic tracking and teleportation. Energy manipulation.

Justice League Incarnate #1 is published by DC Comics on the 23rd of November, 2021

JUSTICE LEAGUE INCARNATE #1 (OF 5) CVR A GARY FRANK
(W) Joshua Williamson, Dennis Culver (A) Andrei Bressan, Brandon Peterson (CA) Gary Frank
After the shocking ending of Infinite Frontier, Justice League Incarnate defends the Multiverse from Darkseid across infinite Earths! Following a devastating defeat at the hands of the one true Darkseid, the Superman of Earth-23 leads a team of superheroes from myriad worlds that includes Flashpoint Batman, China's Flash from Earth-0, Captain Carrot from Earth-26, and the brand new superhero DR. MULTIVERSE from Earth-8 in a last ditch effort to stop the end of every possible universe as we know it! Written by Joshua Williamson and Dennis Culver with first-issue art by Brandon Peterson and Andrei Berssan and a rotating cast of artists exploring the many different worlds of the DC Multiverse, this can't-miss series is the next thrilling chapter in the Infinite Frontier saga!
Retail: $4.99 In-Store Date: 11/23/2021

Posted in: Comics, DC Comics | Tagged: dc comics, Doctor Multiverse, infinite frontier

"Once-in-a-lifetime" discovery: Archaeologists find rare Roman statues


Li Cohen
Sat, October 30, 2021

Archaeologists have made a "once-in-a-lifetime" discovery while working on a high-speed railway project in a small English village: rare Roman statues in a mausoleum under an old church.

The statues were uncovered in Buckinghamshire while the researchers were excavating the Norman-built St. Mary's Church, the high-speed railway organization, HS2, said in a press release. While digging, they found two complete stone busts of what appear to be an adult female and an adult male, as well as the stone head of a child.

Those working on the site said the finding is "uniquely remarkable."


"For us to end the dig with these utterly astounding finds is beyond exciting," lead archaeologist Rachel Wood said in a statement. "The statues are exceptionally well preserved, and you really get an impression of the people they depict — literally looking into the faces of the past is a unique experience."

Wood said the discovery has many of them curious as to what else might be under England's churches.

"This has truly been a once-in-a-lifetime site," Wood said, "and we are all looking forward to hearing what more the specialists can tell us about these incredible statues and the history of the site before the construction of the Norman church."

Archaeologists in the U.K. discovered Roman statues of an adult female and and adult male, as well as a Roman statue of a child's head, while working on Britain's high-speed railway project. / Credit: HS2

Along with the busts, archaeologists dug up large roof tiles, painted wall plaster, Roman creation urns, and an "incredibly well preserved" hexagonal glass Roman jug, which had several large pieces still intact. It is believed the jug was in the ground for over 1,000 years.

All of the artifacts are being taken to a specialist laboratory to be cleaned and examined.

Male head and torso of Roman statue discovered during a HS2 archaeological dig at the site of old St Mary's church in Stoke Mandeville, Buckinghamshire. / Credit: HS2

Archaeologists were digging up the site as part of the U.K.'s HS2 project, a new high-speed railway being developed to connect eight of Britain's 10 largest cities. Once built, the line will serve over 25 stations.

The site of the church where the items were uncovered is now believed to have once been the home of a Bronze Age burial site, and was eventually turned into a Roman mausoleum. The mausoleum, HS2 said, appears to have been demolished by the Normans when they built St. Mary's.

Archaeologist Mike Court said the findings have provided "new insights into Britain's history" and "where and how our ancestors lived."

"These extraordinary Roman statues are just some of the incredible artefacts uncovered between London and the West Midlands," Court said.

Jellyfish attack nuclear power plant. Again.


By Susan D’Agostino | October 28, 2021
 

Sea nettle jellyfish swimming at Monterey Bay Aquarium in Monterey, CA. Credit: Photollama. Accessed via Wikimedia Commons. CC BY-SA 4.0.


Scotland’s only working nuclear power plant at Torness shut down in an emergency procedure when jellyfish clogged the sea water-cooling intake pipes at the plant, according to the Scotland Herald this week. Without access to cool water, a nuclear power plant risks overheating, with potentially disastrous results (see: Fukushima). The intake pipes can also be damaged, which disrupts power generation. And ocean life that gets sucked into a power plant’s intake pipes risks death.

 

Pacific sea nettle jellyfish. Credit: Jachintapasca. Accessed via Wikimedia Commons. CC BY-SA 4.0.

The threat these gelatinous, pulsating, umbrella-shaped marine animals pose to nuclear power plants is neither new nor unknown. (Indeed, the Bulletin reported on this threat in 2015.) Nuclear power plant closures—even temporary ones—are expensive. To protect marine life and avert power plant closures, scientists are exploring early warning system options. For example, researchers at Cranfield University in the United Kingdom launched a project earlier this year to determine whether drones may be used to provide estimates of jellyfish locations, amounts, and density.

“The successful operation of [beyond visual line of sight drones] will enable us to detect threats from marine ingress at an earlier state and prevent disruption to the power plant,” Monica Rivas Casado, a senior lecturer in environmental monitoring at Cranfield, said. In the United Kingdom, 20 percent of electricity is nuclear, a percentage roughly equaled in the United States, compared with approximately 10 percent globally.


Blooms of translucent jellyfish with their trailing, stinging tentacles are sometimes described as “invasions” because they often emerge en masse in way that appears sudden. Still, determined observers may find early clues of a jellyfish bloom. Spotting jellyfish swarms by way of drones requires balancing recognition accuracy with recognition speed—at least if the goal is to take preventative action to avoid nuclear power plant disruption. Scientists have been at work developing algorithms that foster this balance, including one study that delivered results within a desirable timeframe and over 90 percent accuracy.

RELATED:
Houston, are we going to have a problem with space nuclear power?

In another early-detection effort, scientists have investigated the potential for acoustic characteristics of these sea creatures to detect their numbers, density, and threat level. The creatures’ underwater undulations create sounds—known as “echo energy” or “acoustic scatterings”—that give them away, as long as humans are willing to listen.

The clash between gelatinous jellyfish and hulking nuclear power plants has a long history. These spineless, brainless, bloodless creatures shut down the Torness nuclear power plant in 2011 at a cost of approximately $1.5 million per day, according to one estimate. Swarms of these invertebrates have also been responsible for nuclear power plant shutdowns in Israel, Japan, the United States, the Philippines, South Korea, and Sweden.

RELATED:
As US nuclear exports decline, experts fear international safeguards will too

Northern sea nettle. Credit: Joe Ravi. Wikimedia Commons. CC BY-SA 3.0.

Humans have unwittingly nurtured the adversarial relationship between jellyfish and nuclear power plants. That is, human-induced climate change has raised ocean water temperatures, setting conditions for larger-than-usual jellyfish populations. Further, the relatively warm water near nuclear power plant discharge outlets may attract jellyfish swarms, according to one study. Also, pollution has lowered oxygen levels in sea water, which jellyfish tolerate more than other marine animals, leading to their proliferation.

Some look at jellyfish and see elegant ballerinas of the sea, while others view them as pests. Either way, they are nothing if not resilient. Jellyfish are 95 percent water, drift in topical waters and the Arctic Ocean, and thrive in the ocean’s bottom as well as on its surface. Nuclear power plant operators might take note: Older-than-dinosaur jellyfish are likely here to stay.

GIF calls for nuclear's inclusion in COP26 discussions

29 October 2021

All realistic options that might contribute to global net-zero must be considered, the Generation IV International Forum (GIF) has said in an open letter to COP26 President Alok Sharma. Nuclear systems and advanced reactors - such as Generation IV systems - can contribute to a net-zero society alongside renewable energies, it says.

With delegates set to convene in Glasgow for the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26), GIF chair Hideki Kamide of the Japan Atomic Energy Agency said in the 25 October letter: "Achieving a global net-zero society in the near future - i.e. during the next 15 to 30 years - is no doubt an incredibly ambitious target to reach. However, it is our responsibility to use all of the possible technologies that we have at hand to realise a global, net-zero society. We must consider all realistic options that might contribute to global net-zero. To consider options from only a limited number of candidate technologies is not a practical attitude for our future."

GIF said that, as "a contributor to global net-zero", it joined the international initiative of the Clean Energy Ministerial Nuclear Innovation: Clean Energy Future (NICE Future) and has "further explained with other global net-zero contributors how nuclear energy can contribute to a global net-zero world" in a report entitled Flexible Nuclear Energy for Clean Energy Systems. This report, it notes, concluded that nuclear energy can work in harmony with renewables to expand the use of clean energy sources, and that nuclear energy is operating flexibly today in some forms, and innovation can lead to more pathways for nuclear flexibility.

"Since GIF started its activities as an international technical promoter of the next generation of nuclear reactors in 2001, considerable technical progress has been made in reactor development programmes," the letter says. "Moreover, GIF understands the importance of global net-zero and harmonisation with all net-zero technologies."

Last month, GIF published a report that said nuclear energy, as an asset class, has the potential to report well against a wide range of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) data collection and accounting metrics. The report - titled Nuclear Energy: An ESG Investible Asset Class - was produced by a finance industry taskforce set up in 2020 by GIF's Economic Modelling Work Group. The report describes how nuclear power, as an investible asset, can contribute to ensuring reliability and harmonisation in standards.

"For these reasons, GIF would like to join the global net-zero movement and contribute as a potential technical and financial partner," the letter states.

"Nuclear energy is a sustainable, safe, clean, reliable, flexible and affordable energy source for 24/7, and it has already been developed and is being used throughout the world. In other words, it is an existing option ready for use. Nuclear systems and advanced reactors, such as Generation IV systems, can contribute to this net-zero society, alongside renewable energies, through operational flexibility (load following, heat storage), deployment flexibility (scale, siting) and product flexibility (electricity and non-electric applications, such as process heat, hydrogen production or desalination). GIF is developing these promising technologies in collaboration with future builders in GIF member countries."

GIF said it is "very pleased that all possibilities, including nuclear power, will be on the agenda at COP26 and that realistic solutions will be discussed.

"COP26 can lead our future by taking advantage of human knowledge and wisdom. Again, we must emphasise the importance of considering all of the possibilities available today, without bias and exceptions, when we are deciding our future. Responsible actions for global net-zero will be essential, and the Generation IV International Forum, along with all nuclear promoters, is ready to contribute."

The GIF was initiated by the US Department of Energy in 2000 and formally chartered in mid-2001. It brings together 13 countries (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Japan, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Switzerland, the UK and the USA), and Euratom - representing the members of the European Union - to work together to develop the research necessary to test the feasibility and performance of fourth generation nuclear systems, and to make them available for industrial deployment.

The six reactor technologies GIF identified for development are: the gas-cooled fast reactor, the lead-cooled fast reactor, the molten salt reactor, the sodium-cooled fast reactor, the supercritical-water-cooled reactor and the very high-temperature reactor. The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency provides GIF's technical secretariat.

Simon Irish, CEO of Terrestrial Energy, developer of the IMSR molten salt reactor, said the Canadian company "stands shoulder to shoulder with the Generation IV Forum and Japan Atomic Energy Agency in highlighting to the COP26 organisers the critical role of nuclear energy in achieving our global net-zero emissions goal."

"Nuclear energy is a proven, scalable and reliable carbon-free source," he said. "However, it is Generation IV that can change the whole commercial equation for nuclear power generation for only Generation IV technologies can deliver the step-change increase in the thermal efficiency needed to match the economics of fossil fuel generation."

UK government earmarks funds for progressing nuclear project

28 October 2021

The UK government has announced up to GBP1.7 billion (USD2.3 billion) in funding for a large-scale nuclear power plant in its autumn budget and spending review. It said it is in "active negotiations" with EDF over the Sizewell C project in Suffolk. The announcement comes days after the government introduced legislation for funding future nuclear power stations in the UK.

(Image: UK Government)

In a statement about the measures announced yesterday by Chancellor Rishi Sunak in the autumn budget and spending review, the government said it would provide "up to GBP1.7 billion of direct government funding to enable a large-scale nuclear project to reach a final investment decision this parliament, subject to value for money and approvals."

In December 2020, the UK government announced it would begin talks with EDF Energy to enable investment in the planned Sizewell C nuclear power plant project. The latest government statement confirmed these negotiations are ongoing.

Other measures announced include GBP6.1 billion to back the Transport Decarbonisation Plan, boosting the number of zero-emission vehicles, helping to develop greener planes and ships, and encouraging more trips by bus, bicycle and foot. Sunak also confirmed funding for the GBP1 billion Net Zero Innovation Portfolio - as announced in Prime Minister Boris Johnson's Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution, released in November 2020 - which is accelerating near-to-market low-carbon technology innovations and the aligned GBP385 million Advanced Nuclear Fund, which is developing the next generation of small and advanced modular reactor technologies.

The announcement was welcomed by UK trade body the Nuclear Industry Association. Tom Greatrex, the organisation's chief executive said: "This is a big vote of confidence in nuclear and a historic step forward for nuclear investment, with new money for a large-scale project, alongside money for modular reactors to enable future projects.

"We can't get to net-zero without investing in new nuclear capacity, and this is a clear signal from government to investors that it sees nuclear as essential to our clean energy transition. This is not only an investment in a greener future, but also in jobs and skills right across the country."

On 26 October, the government introduced the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill, which will use the Regulated Asset Base model to fund future nuclear power stations in the UK. The new funding model is expected to attract a wider range of private investment into new nuclear power projects, cutting the cost of financing them and reducing the cost to consumers.

The Sizewell C Consortium - a group of over 200 leading UK nuclear suppliers - also welcomed that announcement. Cameron Gilmour, spokesperson for the consortium, said: "The government has made a welcome and significant step forward in addressing our future energy needs, by outlining a framework for investment for nuclear in the UK. Sizewell C is a project that can start construction in this parliament - delivering jobs and apprenticeships, and much needed certainty for thousands of suppliers up and down the country."

Sizewell C will be a near replica of Hinkley Point C (HPC), which EDF Energy is building in Somerset and, like HPC, it will be able to supply 7% of the UK's electricity once it enters commercial operation. At about GBP18 billion (USD22 billion), EDF Energy has said that Sizewell C will be cheaper to build than HPC, the estimated cost of which is between GBP21.5 billion and GBP22.5 billion.

Under a strategic investment agreement signed in October 2016, China General Nuclear agreed to take a 33.5% stake in the HPC project, as well as jointly develop new nuclear power plants at Sizewell and at Bradwell, which is in Essex. The HPC and Sizewell C plants will be based on France's EPR reactor technology, while the Bradwell plant will feature the HPR1000 (Hualong One) design.

Net-zero easier and cheaper with nuclear, says French grid operator

28 October 2021

France can achieve its net-zero emissions target by 2050 through energy efficiency and electrification that would lead to a 35% increase in electricity demand, the French grid operator has said in a new report. Of the scenarios considered by Réseau de Transport d'Electricité (RTE), the cheapest implies constructing 14 large new nuclear power reactors, plus a fleet of small modular reactors, as well as significantly investing in renewables.

(Image: RTE)

As part of its legal mandate and in response to a referral from government, in 2019 RTE launched an extensive study of the evolution of the country's electricity system, titled Energy Futures 2050. The main findings of the study were presented by Xavier Piechaczyk, chairman of RTE's Management Board and Thomas Veyrenc, executive director in charge of the Strategy, Prospective and Evaluation division, during a press conference on 25 October.

"The French electricity system, unlike that of the majority of its neighbours, is not based on fossil fuels," the report notes. "Its main characteristic is that it rests mainly on a fleet of 56 nuclear reactors, mostly built and commissioned between the end of the 1970s and early 1990s ... Today, it is indisputable that it constitutes a major asset for France in the fight against climate change by producing largely carbon-free electricity in large quantities."

Nuclear accounts for almost 75% of France's power production, but former French president Francois Hollande said he aimed to limit its share of the national electricity generation mix to 50% by 2025, and to close Fessenheim - the country's oldest nuclear power plant - by the end of his five-year term, in May 2017. In June 2014, his government announced nuclear capacity would be capped at the current level of 63.2 GWe and be limited to 50% of France's total output by 2025. The French Energy Transition for Green Growth Law, adopted in August 2015, did not call for the shutdown of any currently operating power reactors, but it meant EDF would have to close older reactors in order to bring new ones online. However, under a draft energy and climate bill presented in May 2019, France will now delay its planned reduction in the share of nuclear power in its electricity mix to 50% from the current 2025 target to 2035.

Scenarios

RTE looked at six scenarios which considered future energy mixes exclusively based on renewable energy sources and those based on a mixture of renewables and nuclear. The scenarios differ primarily in the availability of nuclear capacity.

"In the short/medium term (2030-2035), the decision of shutting down nuclear reactors is a matter of political choice," the report says. "At this time, only two options exist to increase the production potential of carbon-free electricity: keep nuclear reactors in operation (the deadlines are in any case too close together to build new ones) and develop renewable energies.

"In the long term (2050-2060), the closure of second-generation nuclear reactors is an industrial constraint: in addition to supporting the expected increase in electricity consumption, French generating facilities will have to be radically renewed to replace production in the order of 380-400 TWh per year.

"It is in this perspective that it is necessary to replace the energy choices that France must make in the coming years: meet the double issue of a necessary increase in carbon-free electricity production capacity and a scheduled closure of the majority of the facilities that now meet this need."

RTE says that achieving carbon neutrality is impossible without a significant development of renewable energies. However, to do this without new nuclear reactors "implies faster development rates of renewable energies than those which have been achieved so far by the most dynamic European countries".

It says the need to build new thermal power plants based on carbon-free gas stocks (including hydrogen) is important if the revival of nuclear power is minimal and it becomes massive - and therefore expensive - if the energy system is based on 100% renewables.

'Economically relevant'

The construction of new reactors is "economically relevant", RTE says, all the more so when it makes it possible to maintain a fleet of around 40 GW in 2050 (with a combination of existing and new units). The study concludes "with a good level of confidence" that scenarios including at least a 40 GW nuclear fleet can lead, in the long-term, to lower costs for the community "than a scenario 100% renewable based on large parks".

One of the scenarios studied by RTE is for a nuclear generating capacity of 50 GW in 2050. This, it says, implies extending operation of most existing reactors to 60 years, to put into service 14 new EPR2-type reactors between 2035 and 2050 (mostly between 2040 and 2050) and to install in addition a significant capacity of small nuclear reactors. Such nuclear generating capacity "is likely to produce around 325 TWh in 2050. Such a volume is equivalent, in the benchmark consumption trajectory, of about 50% of national production."

Reaching a carbon neutral electricity system by 2050 can be achieved at a "manageable cost" for France, RTE says. By 2030, the country should develop mature renewable energies as quickly as possible and extending the operation of existing nuclear reactors increases the chances of reaching the target of a 55% reduction in emissions.

However, it notes: "Whatever the scenario chosen, there is an urgent need to mobilise."

Nuclear profits sustain Bulgaria in gas crisis

28 October 2021

Profits from Bulgaria's Kozloduy nuclear power plant are being redirected to provide subsidies of BGN110 (USD65) per MWh to industry. Some 630,000 industrial consumers will receive the benefit to protect them from power prices driven by gas.

Two large VVER-1000s operate at Kozloduy, while four smaller VVER-440s are in decommissioning

The measures were announced on 21 October by Prime Minister Stefan Yanev in a national address. He said the subsidy "will benefit over 630,000 non-residential end consumers" with the grant distributed automatically thanks to a contract between the government and the retail electricity suppliers, including the suppliers of last resort that have stepped in after other energy firms went bust.

The benefit will be backdated from 1 October and will last until 30 November, at an estimated cost of BGN450 million. Yanev said, "The funds will be provided from the state budget at the expense of the presentation of grants amounting to BGN450 million from Kozloduy nuclear power plant." He added, "In the next reporting year, the dividend due to be paid by [Kozloduy's owner] Bulgarian Energy Holding will be reduced by the indicated amount."

The upgraded subsidy improves on measures Yanev discussed on 19 October when speaking on TV1, which would have covered 250,000 businesses with a BGN30 per MWh payment. At the time, Yanev said subsidies would "support the economically weaker companies, which are also the largest employer in the country."

Having had elections in April and July this year but failed to form a government each time, Yanev and his cabinet are caretakers ahead of another election on 14 November. This means there is no functioning parliament and the government is not able to make any laws. "We hear the voice of everyone - the workers, the consumers of their goods, the employers. We know what the problems are and we are looking for solutions. They cannot appear with a magic wand," Yanev said.

Kozloduy is a large nuclear power plant in the northwest of Bulgaria on the Danube River that provides about 34% of the country's electricity. It features two VVER-1000 units in operation and four VVER-440 units which are being decommissioned.

Facing the need to phase out coal - which provides 40% of electricity - while also maintaining energy security, Bulgarian policymakers would like to expand nuclear capacity either at Kozloduy or at Belene, a new site also on the Danube. However, in a recent interview with Trud newspaper the chaiman of the Bulgarian Atomic Forum, Bogomil Manchev, said: "There is no longer an option for either one project or the other. The 'or' has disappeared."

Bulgaria is keen for the European Commission to decide positively that nuclear power can be included in its taxonomy of sustainable investments and is a member of the ten-nation 'Nuclear Alliance' of EU countries calling for this. Yanev raised the issue with the Vice President of the European Commission, Franz Timmermans, who visited Bulgaria earlier this month.

Researched and written by World Nuclear News