|
2008 Nuclear Issues V32 10 |
|
|
|
|
Written by Nuclear Issues
|
|
Tuesday, 30 December 2008 |
Nuclear energy is there if we want it
Given the population of the world and the resources available everything is going to run out sooner or later. Iron ore to make steel, oil products to make plastics, clay to make bricks, and of course food and water. It may not be in our lifetime but it is important to recognise the limits on natural resources. Fortunately in the field of energy, if only we will use it, we have nuclear technology which has already been demonstrated to be virtually limitless. And a plentiful supply of energy means that several other things can be pushed out far into the future – for example water produced by desalination.
At the moment we use nuclear energy very inefficiently. We only burn about ten percent of the uranium dug out of the ground. But we have already demonstrated – and in the case of France already using – the technology to get a extra 25 to 30 percent more by recycle of plutonium in mixed uranium/plutonium oxide (MOX) fuel. This also reduces what we have to throw away as waste. In the decay of used fuel there is a small amount, about one percent, of activity from plutonium after the initial 100 to 300 years. This it is that is claimed by the opposition to give rise to a decay lifetime of thousands of years. Still less than the millions of year for the uranium which it was produced from but a rather long time. But it does not have to be thrown away. It is a very valuable energy resource which we can – and are – using.
But we can use much more energy by converting uraium-238, which makes up the majority of the uranium dug out of the ground, into the more efficient fuel, plutonium. This can be done using fast reactor technology which has been very well demonstrated but is only finding a small application due to outdated worries about economics. It is today perfectly economical to use fast reactors and burn more than sixty time as much of the uranium that we have already dug out of the ground. This makes existing stockpiles of uranium as large an energy resource as coal. And the waste is further reduced. It becomes possible to say that the only significant wastes are the fission products which only take 100 to 300 years to decay to less activity than the uranium from which they were produced. It then becomes feasible to store this small amount of waste in blocks of glass in surface stores although underground storage is considered preferable.
So having extended the uranium resources to equal coal what more can we do? There is another natural element called thorium which is about as abundant in the world as uranium. This can be transformed into uranum-233 in the blanket of a reactor and that is another very efficient fuel. Watch developments in India and you will see this technology being demonstrated. (See report on page 4)
Is that the nuclear limit? Far from it. There is still the prospect of nuclear fusion energy which if only they would get on with it offers a vast energy resource far beyond uranium and thorium. In the first place it may be limited by the availability of lithium which is bred into tritium fuel. But we can get tritium from today’s nuclear reactors – in particular from Candu reactors – and long before tritium becomes a problem we should have developed fusion using deuterium-deuterium fuel. Fusion energy could almost be economical now but we are going to have to wait years while they play around with the Iter machine before anybody seems likely to offer a plant producing useful power.
With enough technology demonstrated well on its way why do we worry about energy resources? The trouble is that there is a reluctance – a pathetic reluctance – to make use of what we have or could have. There is a stupid worry about the non-existent problem of waste. Yet all the waste produced by 60 years of development – both military and civil – is stored perfectly safely and we know what to do with the much smaller amount likely to be produced in future. This compares with 9 billion tonnes – that’s 9 000 000 000 tonnes – of carbon dioxide waste from fossil fuels which the world simply pumps into the atmosphere each year.
France has shown that we can build and operate enough nuclear power plants to produce a large proportion of the energy we need. They are clean and efficient facilities which sit quite happily in our available countryside unlike the alternative wind generators which, if they were to produce a meaningful amount of energy, would dominate the entire landscape.
A nuclear power plant is dangerous and is very safe. These are not inconsistent statements. The same can be said about a civil jet aircraft or even a motor car. It is time to accept that we do have enough knowledge and skill to make something which is potentially dangerous perfectly safe. This is now the case even in Russia where they have turned the organization around and now produce plants which are as safe as anybody else’s.
So energy is not a problem in the foreseeable future. Mankind maybe if we let it.
Variable wind
“There is nothing in this world constant, but inconstancy.” This phrase
attributed to Jonathan Swift well describes the fundamental flaw of
wind energy in that it cannot be relied upon as a firm source of base
load power. This point is emphasised in the recent report, “The
Economics of Renewable Energy” from the House of Lords Select Committee
on Economic Affairs (Nov 2008), which sees the intermittency of wind as
a constant problem – “if there is no wind, or too much wind, no
electricity can be produced.”
Without any adequate means of storing electricity, apart from a
limited amount of pumped storage in Wales and Scotland, in which
electricity is used to pump water from a lower to a higher reservoir,
and release it when necessary to turn a turbine to generate power.
Although less electricity is generated at the end of the cycle than is
required at the start, pumped storage can be economic if the
electricity used in pumping is cheap (which would be the case with a
surplus of wind) and the water is released at peak times when power can
be sold for a higher price.
As the report points out fluctuations in wind speed lead to short term
changes in electricity output from wind farms. Greater use of wind
power and other intermittent renewable sources therefore requires more
backup generation capacity to respond quickly to reductions in the
output from wind turbines when the wind drops. To compensate for this
the National Grid keeps a number of power stations running at less than
their full capacity, providing about 1 GWe of spinning reserve, so as
to be able to respond within seconds to any shortfall in generation. It
also holds about 2.5 GWe of “standing reserve” – contracts with other
stations to start up quickly and has arrangements with industrial
consumers to reduce their demand at short notice. The costs of backup
generation on a scale large enough to balance an electricity system
with a high proportion of intermittent renewable generation are
uncertain – but large. A Government commissioned study, for the case
where, to meet EU targets renewables provided 34% of electricity by
2020 with 27.1% from wind power, put the extra cost of short-term
balancing as £1.4 billion or about 1.4 p/kWh of wind output.
There is also the question of meeting peak demand with the possibility
that sufficient wind generation may not be available when the peak
occurs. The proportion of wind capacity that can be relied on at peak
demand (the “capacity credit”) is much lower than for fossil fuel
plants – estimates between 10% and 20% of wind stations’ capacity – so
that 25 GWe of wind plant could displace only between 2.5 and 5 GWe of
conventional plant. Another suggestion is to treat the square root of
the wind capacity in GWe as if it were conventional capacity.
Some 20–25 GWe of firm capacity, new coal, gas or nuclear power
stations, will be needed by 2020 – more than a quarter of today’s 76
GWe of electricity – to replace plants which are scheduled to close and
to meet increases in demand. But if, to meet the target some 30 GWe of
additional renewable capacity were built, for which the capacity credit
did not exceed 6 GWe a further 14–19 GWe of new fossil fuel and nuclear
capacity would still be needed. The total new installed electricity
generating capacity required by 2020 would thus be roughly double that
needed if renewable generation were not expanded. This leads the Lords
to conclude that “Investment in renewable generation capacity will
therefore largely be in addition to, rather than a replacement for, the
massive investment in fossil-fuel and nuclear plant required to replace
the many power stations scheduled for closure by 2020.”
Why bother?
One of the final conclusions from the Lord’s report is “Our
calculations suggest that the total extra annual cost of increasing the
share of renewables in electricity generation from 6% to 34% in 2020
would be £6.8 billion or an extra 38% – the equivalent of an extra £80
a year for the average household. Emissions of carbon dioxide would be
reduced by 52 million tonnes a year – in 2007, the UK’s emissions were
544 million tonnes. This implies that the additional cost is about £130
per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions avoided.”
The cost of electricity from onshore wind farms at good locations would only
be comparable with that from fossil fuel generators when the prices of
fossil fuels are very high or allowance is made for the price imposed
for carbon emissions permits (effectively a tax). With a base cost of 7
pence per kWh onshore wind is more expensive than nuclear at around 4
pence/kWh. Offshore wind, biomass, wave and tidal power are even more
expensive. And these estimates do not include the additional costs of
integrating more renewable generation into Britain’s electricity grid.
The unasked, and unanswered, question on wind power in this report is
“is it worth it”. The Lord’s come close to indicating their opinion
with the statement that “We cannot consider renewable energy in
isolation from the rest of the UK energy system and we support measures
to include nuclear plants as an essential element of the UK’s energy
mix.”
Fuel poverty
The Government has expressed concern over the increases in fuel
poverty. A household is said to be in fuel poverty if it needs to spend
more than 10% of its income on fuel to maintain a satisfactory heating
regime (usually 21 degrees for the main living area, and 18 degrees for
other occupied rooms). The rise in gas and electricity prices increased
the number of households in fuel poverty from 2.5 million in 2005 to
3.5 million in 2006 (the last year for which official figures are
available), but there are estimates that this has now risen to 5.4
million following the even larger price increases since 2006 of over
40%.
In seeking to remedy the situation the Government has committed £2.3
billion to help low income and elderly households improve insulation
and heating Ksystems in their homes, reducing the cost of their energy
bills. But at the same time it is the Government encouragement of wind
power, with a generation cost almost twice that of nuclear power, which
is adding to the household electricity bills which it now seeks to
reduce. The government seeks to mitigate the extra costs of wind power,
extracted from consumers under its Renewables Obligation policy and
paid as subsidies to the wind developers, by assisting households in
poverty to meet those costs.
Renewable nuclear energy
If it is accepted that that carbon capture and storage technology is
unlikely to be implemented on safety and cost grounds it leaves, as the
Lords recognise, nuclear power as the only available low-carbon
alternative to renewables. But this assumes an unnecessary dichotomy.
Many of the difficulties and costs of meeting the EU requirement for
15% of UK energy from renewables by 2020 could be avoided if nuclear
power were accepted as a renewable energy.
It was indeed suggested out in a House of Lords debate (27th October
2005) that nuclear power, as a carbon-free source of energy, should be
classified as a renewable energy source. It was further pointed out
that the renewable attributes of nuclear power were strengthened by the
reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to recover unburnt uranium. The
strength of these arguments persuaded Lord Sainsbury, the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State to accept the point saying “I agree nuclear is
a renewable source of energy.”
Is this still the Government policy?
Denmark
The Economics of Renwable Energy devotes an appendix to the case of
Denmark, and shows that that country, with its integration into the
Nordic electricity pool and an interconnection with Germany, is able to
compensate for the variability of wind by exporting power when wind is
high and importing power when it is low. (Although a determinedly
non-nuclear country it has also been estimated that about 9% of Danish
electricity consumption is imported nuclear power.)
A detailed analysis of Danish wind power 2005-2007 confirms this point.
The study available from (www.techconsult.name) shows that while the
production of wind power in Denmark corresponds to about 20% of
electricity consumption a considerable fraction of the electricity
produced is not used within Denmark but exported to neighbouring
countries. The widespread belief that about 20% of electricity
consumption in Denmark is from wind is not correct. For 2007, for
Western Denmark, when the wind generation amounted to 25.8% of the
total, the internal consumption was 15.8%; for Eastern Denmark the
corresponding figures were 11.1% and 8.8%. (There is no electrical
connection between East and West Denmark). Taking the two together
the national figures for the amount of wind consumed within Denmark in
the years 2005-2007 were 13.6%, 10.3% and 13.0%. During this period the
installed capacity was constant at about 3150 MWe; of which 2400 MWe
was in DK-West and 750 MWe in DK-East.
This analysis is extended to estimate that for a 400MWe offshore wind
farm only 36% of the production would be used in Denmark and the
remaining 64% exported. But at what cost? Excess wind power, often at
night and at other times of low demand, can only be sold at low spot
prices below the subsidised cost of production. A report for the
Country Guardians claims that during 2003 exports of electricity cost
Danish consumers about DKK 1 billion (roughly £100 million) with more
recent estimates putting annual losses at or above DKK 1.5 billion. In
2007, there were even 83 hours when wind electricity from West Denmark
was given away.
The need to export power from the Danish offshore wind farms now being
built has been confirmed by the Danish energy company Dong which has
proposed a cable from the Horns Rev-2 to the Netherlands. But since a
Dutch-UK cable is already being proposed would this set up competition
between UK and Danish offshore wind farms both seeking to export
surplus power times of high wind?
Bottlenecks
When giving evidence to another Lord’s committee (on the EU’s Target
for Renewable Energy) Lord Oxburgh said that there was currently a long
waiting list of up to 10-12 years for nuclear reactor pressure vessels
which could restrict the anticipated expansion of nuclear power. The
world forging capacity is said to sufficient to make only around seven
or eight reactors a year against an expected world increase of up to 13
reactors a year.
It is to minimise this limitation that the French nuclear company Areva
has concluded an agreement with Japan Steel Works, one of the principal
suppliers of large steel forgings, under which JSW will supply large
forged parts, including reactor presure vessels until at least 2016,
which Areva will then machine at its own works to produce finished
components. As part of the deal, Areva has taken a 1.3% stake in JSW.
Areva is already constructing its 1600 MWe EPR nuclear power units in
Finland and France. Construction is about to begin on two units in
China, while six are planned for the USA and four for the UK. It is not
known where the priority of the UK stands on this list.
Against this background the announcement by Sheffield Forgemasters of
plans for a 15 000 tonnes press, capable of producing components for
the largest reactors, offers an opportunity for UK manufacturing
industry to play some part in the expansion of the world’s nuclear
capacity. For this it is said to be seeking some financial support from
the Department for BERR. It would seem appropriate that the Government
should allocate some of the windfall it gained from the premature
sell-off of BNFL’s reactor and fuel division on the eve of the nuclear
renaissance to assisting a British company to become a major world
supplier of nuclear forgings as well enabling the UK to avoid the queue
at forges overseas.
It is often claimed that with its policy of fiscal stimulus the
Government is building up debts that will have to be repaid by future
generations. A loan to assist the construction of new nuclear capacity
should be seen as an investment, not a burden. It will provide future
generations with a secure electricity supply for the next 60 years.
India ready for thorium
The Bhabha Design and Development Group in India has announced that it
is ready to start building an Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) which
would use thorium fuel instead of uranium. The reactor design has been
submitted to the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board so that the design
aspects can be validated before further investment is made. The
regulators have said that a level of maturity has been reached and that
the reactor is ready for launch of construction.
The reactor is essentially the standard 300 MWe Candu design that has
been developed independently by India when it was ostracized from
Canadian development work. It includes a number of passive feature to
make it virtually a ‘walk away’ reactor which will shut itself down
safely without any electrical supply or availability of operating
staff. In this way the plant is considered safe enough for near urban
sighting which is envisaged for this reactor to meet the energy
requirement of the vast population in the Indian continent. In
addition, since most of the power will come from the fissioning of
uranium-233, the fundamentals of the physic of the reactor have been
exhaustively checked to assure that there is nothing fundamentally
wrong with the design.
The AHWR has been included in the latest five year plan of the
government which cover 2007 to 2012. However, the country’s three-stage
nuclear development strategy envisages the construction of large fast
breeder reactors based on the conventional uranium-plutonium fuel cycle
before introducing thorium. This is obviously due to the need to breed
the initial uranium-233 from thorium which is best performed in the
blanket of a fast breeder reactor. India is currently building a first
250 MWe demonstration fast reactor but it seems that more may be needed
to feed the start up of a large programme of AHWR.
India has large reserves of thorium. This includes an area of the east
coast which has the highest background radiation level anywhere in the
world but apparently no adverse health effects. Use of domestic thorium
to fuel a massive energy program is therefore seen as very important to
the country.
Poll shows highest support
A poll by Ipsos MORI shows broadening support and reduced opposition
to nuclear power in the UK. The key outcome as reported by the Nuclear
Industry Association are as follows:
-
65% of the public support nuclear as part of a balanced energy mix (10% disagree)
-
44% of the public support the replacement of existing nuclear power
stations, just19% would oppose (the lowest figure recorded since
polling began).
-
40% of the public would back an increased role for nuclear in the UK’s
energy mix, only 24% would oppose further growth (a drop of 16 points
in opposition since 2005).
-
Favourability to nuclear energy across the UK is at its highest peak in a decade.
-
The North-West has most support – probably based on possible economic
benefits of new nuclear – Scotland and Yorkshire are least favourable –
but still positive on balance.
-
The public’s prime concern on nuclear remains the disposal of radioactive waste.
The last point is of greatest concern. Whoever started this concern
over nuclear waste. The industry has dealt with it safely for 60 years
– both military and civil – and future waste will be even less of a
concern because it will only be about 5 to 10% more than we already
have. The industry should be attacking this myth widely promoted by the
opposition. The small size of the waste is one of the great attractions
of nuclear energy. It should be compared with the 9 billion tonnes of
carbon dioxide waste which mankind spews out into the environment every
year.
The Energy Minister Mike O’Brien said: “This research from MORI today
is encouraging. The public view about nuclear is changing but we must
recognise that some people still have concerns about waste, safety,
security and whether new nuclear would mean less renewables.” Well why
doesn’t he say that its all a myth promoted by silly green
environmentalists. By continuingly making apologies for nuclear waste
we merely proliferate the myth.
Westinghouse UK
A new company called Westinghouse Electric Co UK is to be set up to
pursue commercial nuclear power business throughout the UK. This is
good news. It means that there will be somebody to deal with the UK
regulator, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII), which is
analysing the Westinghouse AP-1000 reactor design. But wait a minute.
Did not we own the whole of the Westinghouse company just over a year
ago through the enlightened initiative of British Nuclear Fuels plc
(BNFL). Then we went and sold it to Toshiba in Japan. Now they are
making a grand profit from Westinghouse services and fuel supplies for
half the worlds nuclear power plants and are looking at prospect of
building of four AP-1000’s in China and some 12 units in America not to
mention the possibility of British plants. Who was it who made the mad
decision to sell all this to the Japanese – and at a give away price.
Well its happening so I suppose we will have to put up with it and welcome the new presence of Westinghouse in our midst. |
|
|
|
