ITS GREEN IT GLOWS IN THE DARK
Nuclear Energy Could Bridge The Energy Transition Gap
- Nuclear power is making a comeback as it has become clear that renewable energy alone cannot meet global demand
- Small-scale modular SMR nuclear reactor may well be the key to a nuclear revival by reducing both the cost and danger of nuclear power
- SMR reactors have the support of companies in Poland, Britain, the U.S., and Canada, with even big names such as Bill Gates supporting them
Small scale nuclear companies are picking up pace, following the example of bigger nuclear firms looking for their place in future of renewables, as nuclear power finally makes a comeback following years of criticism and fear of power stations.
Two companies in Poland, KGHM and Synthos, are looking to get small-scale modular SMR nuclear reactors up and running in a bid to stake their claim to the future of Europe’s nuclear power. To date, over 70 companies around the world are involved in SMR nuclear reactor projects, with the popularity of small-scale nuclear business quickly expanding.
Both KGHM and Synthos are planning to work with American companies familiar with the SMR technology to advance their independent projects in Poland, in line with European Union expectations for net-zero carbon emissions within the next few decades.
Critics of the small-scale projects suggest that opponents of nuclear energy will use the same arguments as those of larger nuclear projects, that because of the cost and safety concerns around nuclear power, alternatives such as wind and solar energy projects are far more useful to invest in and will be more technologically advanced in a shorter timeframe. In addition, much of the small-scale technology still requires extensive testing to ensure its safety. However, small nuclear plants may be able to bridge the gap in energy output that wind and solar energy production faces. When there is a lull in renewable energy production, small-scale nuclear power could plug the gap in a way that is not possible for larger nuclear projects to do due to their high cost to energy value.
The next step is for countries developing the technology, such as the U.S., the U.K., and Canada, to work alongside the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and national regulators to continue testing the safety of SMR reactors and agree upon international protocols and safety procedures.
But companies like KGHM and Synthos are simply following the examples of countries like the U.K., the U.S. and France, which have been proponents of nuclear power for years and continue to back nuclear energy despite criticism over safety and potentially life-threatening failures.
Many countries are highlighting nuclear power as a necesity in a zero-carbon future, with the U.K. announcing this week that it is planning for a fossil fuel-free power grid by 2035 through the use of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy will be used by the U.K. as a back-up for renewable energy production during the energy transition period. To drive this transition, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has promised the construction of at least one large-scale nuclear project by 2025.
As some of the world’s energy leaders are showing their support for large-scale nuclear projects, some popular names are also backing the new small-scale technology. Bill Gates’ Terrapower, for example, is planning for a nuclear plant in Wyoming to be made up of small reactors that are better suited for a smaller grid system.
A major appeal of SMR reactors is that they can be factory-built and then shipped, adding more as energy demand rises. These reactors have an output of anything between 50 and 300 megawatts but can be combined to form a powerplant of up to 1,000 megawatts. Furthermore, if one of the modules breaks, it can be repaired without completely stopping operations. This reduces the environmental risk as well as the cost of the project – which is often criticized by energy companies and opponents of nuclear power.
The backing of nuclear energy by several governments, companies, and leading energy names around the world is largely due to the desire to move away from fossil fuels towards renewable alternatives and the lack of scope currently available for renewable energy production. While wind, solar, hydro, and other renewable energies have come a long way, there is still a significant road to track before the scale of these projects can meet the energy demand of 7.9 billion people worldwide.
But it’s important to remember that nuclear energy still has a bad rep. After the monumental failures of Fukushima and Chernobyl, several countries swore off nuclear power completely. Many people around the world oppose nuclear power for fear of safety issues, fighting governments who want to build new nuclear plants. But many now question if the safety concerns, for both people and the environment, are any worse than those we face because of continued oil and gas use. As the energy transition becomes unavoidable, proponents of nuclear power are likely to remind us of this comparison and the need for something beyond renewable energy projects to bridge the gap.
Yet, while some small companies and major governments are welcoming nuclear power once again, others continue to reject it. Nuclear power, it seems, is not for everyone - even in regions that are in dire need of sustainable electricity sources such as California. The Diablo Canyon nuclear powerplant, based in San Luis Obispo County, California, is currently in the middle of a ten-year decommissioning project, which will entirely strip the state of nuclear power. This is a questionable decision for a state that has experienced severe electricity cuts in the face of annual heatwaves.
Some of the arguments against nuclear power in California include the risk of earthquakes potentially leading to failures in the plants, utility companies in the region that are not willing to buy nuclear power, and the cost involved in the development of nuclear power plants compared to other energy options such as wind and solar power. So, while nuclear power could provide the low-carbon energy production so direly needed in California, the risks are deemed too costly.
There seem to be mixed messages when it comes to nuclear power. Advocates believe that nuclear energy is necessary if we hope to meet the world’s energy demand as we transition away from fossil fuels, as well as being more environmentally friendly – providing rigorous international safety guidelines are met. However, not everyone agrees. Whether for the cost or for fear of failure, some governments may never get on board. What we may start to see, however, is the development of small-scale nuclear projects that support renewable energy advances over the next decade, providing competition to larger energy companies that do not want to get involved.
By Felicity Bradstock for Oilprice.com
How nuclear energy can help make all UK electricity green by 2035
Boris Johnson is set to announce at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester that all of Britain’s electricity will come from renewable sources by 2035, according to a recent report in the Times.
The government suspects that the British public – tired of petrol station queues and dreading winter gas bills – will like the idea of moving away from fossil fuels. But the nature of this energy crisis, stoked by a late summer lull in wind power generation, high wholesale gas prices and Britain’s meagre prospects for storing energy, demands a careful response.
And what energy technology offers low-carbon credentials and a reliable base supply? The UK government’s emphatic answer appears to be nuclear power.
Only three years ago, UK ambitions for new nuclear power plants were in trouble. Major Japanese conglomerates Toshiba and Hitachi had pulled the plug on their separate nuclear projects in the country. But with renewed support from Boris Johnson’s government, one of these now appears to be back on the table.
It was recently revealed that there are ongoing discussions between the government and American partners about US nuclear engineering firm Westinghouse building a new nuclear power plant on the island of Anglesea in north Wales. There is even talk of government support for Derby-based industrial giant Rolls-Royce to develop a series of smaller modular nuclear reactors. These are, in essence, scaled-down versions of traditional power plants that will generate 470 megawatts of electricity compared with the 1,000 megawatts from their larger equivalents. Importantly, with these new designs, true factory-based manufacture becomes possible. The factories produce modules for rapid assembly on-site.
Read more: Everything you need to know about mini nuclear reactors
There are likely to be benefits for British businesses in the government’s approach. But how would a new generation of nuclear plants help keep the lights on while cutting emissions from the energy sector?
The nuclear option
The reactors in nuclear power stations convert the heat generated by splitting atoms (a process known as nuclear fission) to electricity, and can usually run at maximum power for months, whatever the weather. This process doesn’t emit greenhouse gases – although there are likely to be emissions during the construction of the plant itself. The vapour that rises from the iconic cooling towers of a nuclear power plant is water, not carbon dioxide.
Large nuclear power stations have huge turbine generators spinning at high speed. These hold their speed in the face of small national fluctuations, providing stability to the grid. A constant base supply of nuclear power could continue to meet demand when renewable generation falters because the wind isn’t blowing and the Sun isn’t shining.
There are other ways nuclear energy can aid decarbonisation. Heat generated in nuclear reactors might be pumped into the central heating systems of homes and other buildings, replacing fossil gas boilers. Nuclear energy could even go towards producing hydrogen fuel – a form of stored energy with potential benefits in heating and transport. And because nuclear fuel like uranium is what’s called energy-dense, even relatively small amounts can offer an ample supply. The UK also has its own fuel factory and plant for enriching uranium, allowing greater national control over the entire process.
Read more: The future of nuclear: power stations could make hydrogen, heat homes and decarbonise industry
There remain concerns about the cost and safety of nuclear power. But these should now be placed in the context of climate change. Fossil fuels in power generation must end, and the stable and continuous operation of nuclear power plants is a useful complement to the varying output of renewable sources such as wind and solar. This appears to be the government’s logic, favouring a boost to both nuclear and renewables investment.
UK governments have pushed to rebuild British’s nuclear capacity more than once in the last two decades. When Tony Blair was prime minister, he aimed for a series of very large nuclear power plants. The construction of the first of these, Hinkley Point C, is well underway. The pandemic and other problems have caused delays, but the first electricity generated from its two large reactors is expected in the summer of 2026.
Hinkley Point C is underpinned by a finance deal with China, struck by former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne. The days when, in 2015, Osborne said “Britain should run towards China” are fading. So too is the rhetoric of a nuclear renaissance that coincided with a post-cold war optimism for globalisation and market liberalisation. First it became clear that competitive electricity markets struggled with the challenge of replacing old nuclear with new. Then globalisation faltered with the return of great power nationalism.
Nuclear technology is back in the government’s sights, but this time it will involve more British money and technology. Talk of a green future has been joined with voices on the right clamouring for a new sense of national self-reliance, free from the vicissitudes of global fossil-fuel supply. Despite such realities, and the many difficulties encountered along the way, the UK nuclear renaissance remains internationalist in outlook. It is a strength that should be defended.
Author
Professor of Energy, The Open University
Disclosure statement
William Nuttall is a co-investigator on grants from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council relating to nuclear energy. He is currently finalising the second edition of his book "Nuclear Renaissance" (Taylor and Francis group) originally published in 2005. Professor Nuttall has recently contributed to work by Policy Connect relating to energy matters.
Partners
The Open University provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation UK.
No comments:
Post a Comment