France takes the lead

President Sarkozy of France has called for a global expansion of nuclear power as the means of securing the world’s ever-increasing demand for electricity while reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.

In opening the International Conference on Access to Civil Nuclear Power held in Paris on 8/9 March, under the auspices of the OECD and with the support of the IAEAand IEA and attended by some 60 nations, Sarkozy addressed the problems that will arise by 2050 in meeting world energy demands when the world population is expected to rise from the present seven billion to nine billion and as more developing countries seek higher standards of living.

On the assumption that the greater part of the expected increase in electricity demand between now and 2030 will come from countries that are not members of the OECD Sarkozy argued that “This means that nuclear energy must take root in new countries, or else those countries will not see economic progress and will not end poverty.…France’s vision is of a world that will not be divided between countries with nuclear technology, jealously guarding their privileges, and nations demanding a right to nuclear knowhow that the others deny them. That is not our vision. In France’s view, civil nuclear energy can be the cement of a new international solidarity, where each country will need the others to advance.”

This view was supported by the new head of the IAEA,YukiyaAmano, who reported that the IAEAwas now working on projects for the introduction of nuclear power with 58 member states, 17 of whom were actively preparing nuclear programmes. He expected that between 10-25 new nuclear countries would bring their first plant on line by 2030. This is in addition to the 56 nuclear reactors that are now under construction in 14 countries. The global expansion of nuclear generation is a solution to tackle climate change and the energy shortfall. Amano declared “There is growing recognition that nuclear power is clean, efficient and safe and that it can help to mitigate global warming. I firmly believe that its benefits should be made available to all countries which want it …Nuclear reactors should not only be reserved for developed countries but should be accessible to all," Amano also argued that no country could develop its nuclear power programme in isolation. “The technology is highly complex and recourse must be had to many suppliers in many countries.

Confidence makes international markets in uranium, nuclear equipment and services work smoothly.” To achieve this nuclear renaissance Sarkozy listed eight key points.

1. Finance: The World Bank, the EBRD and the other development banks must make a firm commitment to finance clean civil nuclear energy. In addition he proposed that carbon credits be used to finance all forms of decarbonized energy under the new global architecture after 2013 through clean development mechanisms.

2. Public involvement: There can be no development of civil nuclear energy without a commitment to transparency. Secrecy gives rise to anxiety. Our projects have to be transparent.

3. Training must be a priority. It is not merely a question of training engineers and technicians to run power plants, even though this is the crux of the matter.We have to master the scientific and economic aspects, building plants, project management and marketing electricity. To this end Sarkozy proposed the creation of an International Nuclear Energy Institute that will include an International Nuclear Energy School based in France, at Saclay and Cadarache, but which will be part of an international network of specialized Centres of Excellence. A first of these Centres will be in Jordan.

4. Safety: There should be an independent body, under the aegis of the IAEA, to rank the reactors on the market according to the safety criterion, rather than only by price.

5. Non-proliferation is a cornerstone of international security. Nuclear cooperation should be withheld from countries that do not comply with their obligations. This was endorsed by the chairman of the European Commission, JoseManuel Barroso "All countries have the right to civilian nuclear energy…But respect of the strictest safety, security and non-proliferation rules is not negotiable,"

6. Access to nuclear fuel. Given the scale of the investment and the lifetime of the projects, some countries are legitimately worried about the risk of interruption of fuel deliveries. More should be done to establish supply safeguards by setting up a fuel bank at the IAEA that will be financed through international contributions. The IAEA Board of Governors approved the establishment of such a nuclear fuel reserve bank in November 2009. The European Union is to contribute €25 million towards this project. Sergei Kiriyenko, the director of Russia's nuclear power corporation Rosatom, also gave support to a UN-controlled nuclear fuel reserve bank which would overcome "insurmountable political difficulties.” He believed that low-enriched uranium (LEU) reserves, that would ensure the operation of at least one 1 000 MW reactor, could be available by the end of the year to provide supplies to IAEA members in the event of an emergency.

7. Recycling spent fuel: Recycling reduces the final waste that has to be stored to a minimum. France will continue to cooperate with many countries by making its reprocessing and recycling facilities available to any country that does not have them. With a large increase in the number of reactors more enrichment or reprocessing/recycling plants will be needed. While some countries wanted to prohibit new countries from acquiring these capacities on the grounds that they are dangerous per se, France rejects this approach. It would be an economic aberration as well as a violation of the legitimate right to develop energy for peaceful purposes.(South Korea with its expanding of nuclear output and emergence as an international nuclear supplier has already indicated its intention to seek release from its agreement with the USA which at present proibits the reprocessing of its spent nuclear fuel.)

8. A Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty to prohibit the production of weapons grade uranium and plutonium is urgently needed. The IAEAshould be given more resources for closer scrutiny of sensitive technology.

Iran

Iran would seem to be an exception to President Sarkozy’s call for a wider access of all countries to nuclear technologies. This arises from the widely held belief that Iran’s enrichment programme is primarily intended for nuclear weapons rather than for power. But this makes American calls on Russia to delay the start-up of the Bushire reactors - which would safely place most of Iran’s low enriched uranium inside a reactor - illogical.While there are now deeply held suspicions on both sides, history shows that Iran has good reasons to mistrust assurances from the West on the supply of nuclear fuel and instead to rely on its own capacity. Before imposing new sanctions on Iran the West should consider that the outcome of such measures may be the opposite of what is intended. This can be seen from a brief review of the nuclear developments in Iran.

The late Shah was far-sighted enough to foresee the need for nuclear power even though Iran had large reserves of oil - a need now recognised by the UnitedArab Emirates which has ordered four nuclear stations from South Korea, and which is actively being contemplated by other Gulf states and Saudi Arabia.

Nuclear research began at the University of Tehran in 1956 and Iran became a member of the IAEA in 1958. It acceded to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970. These moves were encouraged and supported by the USA which supplied Iran with kilogramme quantities of enriched uranium and plutonium as well as a small research reactor.

A proposed programme for 23 000 MWe of nuclear power was seen as offering important export contracts to American, British, French and German companies. As an initial step two 1300 MWe stations were ordered in 1974 from KWU to be built at Bushire. France was to build a further two stations. In 1975 the US offered Iran a $6.4 billion loan for another eight stations. Iran was seen as a substantial new nuclear market and the head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation, Akbar Etemand, was courted as a key figure byWestern companies.

A substantial nuclear programme such as was then being considered by Iran needs an assured supply of enriched uranium fuel. To secure this Iran, in 1974, took a 10% share in the French Eurodif enrichment plant with a loan of $1 billion in return for the right to 10% of the production.

All these activities were brought to an end by the Islamic revolution in 1979 and all contracts halted. France has refused to supply any enriched uranium even though Iran still owns 10% of Eurodif (through a 40% share together with Cogema in Sofidif which owns 25% of Eurodif). It is also unclear whether or not the $1 billion loan has been repaid (one report of Nov 2009 claims that despite repeated requests from Iran, it has not). The French are also said to be liable for a contract under which they were to deliver 50 tons of gaseous uranium hexafluoride (UF6) to Iran. On the German side RWE withdrew from the Bushire project and although Iran negotiated for this to be taken over by Russia, for another $1 billion payment, the construction of these reactors is only now, after 15 years, approaching completion.

Given this history it is not surprising that Iran should now seek to develop an independent uranium enrichment capacity. This would not have been necessary if the paid and contracted-for supply from France had been available.

Iran is also suspicious of proposals that it should send its own low enriched product to Russia for enrichment up to the 20%needed to fuel a research reactor producing medical isotopes. In view of past history its fears that, if it were to send most of its present stock of low-enriched uranium abroad for enrichment up to 20% there is no guarantee that it would eventually be returned, are not without foundation.

Iran has now informed the IAEA of its intention to do this itself - as it is entitled to do under the NPT - and under the eye of the IAEA inspectors.

It is not possible to hold back the scientific and industrial achievements of a country such as Iran which will seek to develop its own capabilities if imports are prohibited.As an example Iran is now holding an exhibition of Laser Science and Technology Achievements. Laser enrichment of uranium is seen as a future process now under development in the USA and Australia. In another area of advancing technology Iran claims it is producing 97 percent of the prescribed and non-prescribed medicine needed in the country. Sanctions can have the opposite effect to what they are intended to achieve.

Iran’s need for nuclear power cannot be disputed.

Between 1967 and 2005 the population has increased by a factor of almost three and over the same time the average household consumption of electricity has increased by a factor of four. Contrary to the American call for Bushire to be delayed the West should encourage and assist Iran (and any other potential proliferator) to increase its civil nuclear capacity. The more fissile material is safely inside a reactor generating much needed electricity the less is available for weapons.

Anything but nuclear

Even the Government now accepts that “nuclear power is low-carbon, affordable, dependable, safe and capable of increasing diversity” but instead of following the example of France and turning to nuclear power as the main source of electricity supply it seems that any scheme, no matter at what cost or how impracticable is to be preferred if it can be presented as ‘renewable’. Even continuing to burn coal is to be sanctioned provided the carbon dioxide released can be captured and sent by pipeline to sites in the North Sea where it is to be buried for all eternity. Leaving aside the costs of capture and its energy inefficiencies doubts over the permanent sequestration of the carbon dioxide must make this impracticable. Yet this has not stopped the DECC from investing large sums in trying to develop the technology.

Feed in tariffs

In following its obsession with ‘renewables’ the DECC has given details of its Feed in Tariffs scheme to promote domestic or small scale electricity generation from wind turbines and solar panels, under which subsidies of up to 30-40 p/kWh will be provided for small wind turbines and solar panels, increasing with inflation, over a period of 20- 25 years.

This is in effect a reversed Robin Hood scheme whereby the wealthier, who can afford to install these generators, will be subsidised by a charge on all electricity consumers including those who are recognised as in ‘fuel poverty’ - robbing the poor to pay the rich.

It is a confirmation of the power of the renewables mythology that the only outrage over this scheme has come from the independently-minded green campaigner George Monbiot. Writing in the Guardian on 1 March he declared “ Those who hate environmentalism have spent years looking for the definitive example of a great green rip-off.

Finally it arrives, and nobody notices. The government is about to shift £8.6 bn from the poor to the middle classes. It expects a loss on this scheme of £8.2 bn, or 95%. Yet the media is silent. The opposition urges only that the scam should be expanded.” Monbiot also pointed out that these small scale domestic schemes are “hopelessly inefficient”. Their aim is presumably to reduce carbon emissions but he calculates that the cost of CO2 saved will be about £430 per tonne; for nuclear stations the corresponding cost would about £8 per tonne.

Monbiot also pointed out that the feed in tariffs will provide a return of between 5% and 8% a year which is taxfree and guaranteed for 20-25 years. “If you own a house and can afford the investment, you'd be crazy not to cash in. If you don't and can't, you must sit and watch your money being used to pay for someone else's fashion accessory.” Indeed “had this money been spent instead on insulation or double glazing, it could have helped relieve fuel poverty at the same time as cutting emissions.” The scheme is also open to fraud. It would be possible, by reversing the wiring, to buy electricity from the grid at around 7p/kWh and sell it back for over 40p/kWh

A pan-european supergrid

Another scheme which seems designed to avoid an increasing reliance on nuclear power is the proposal for a European supergrid network linking offshore wind turbines in the North Sea by 2050 which in effect would create a single European electricity market. The proposals have been outlined by the Cleantech Group, a group of ten companies including Siemens and Areva.

A promotional web site, complete with videos, sets out the problems facing Europe as increasing demand from India, China and the USA sharpens competition over a declining output of oil gas and coal, and pushes up prices.

This is a long-term project. No attempt is made to hide the difficulties in developing the technology and required support facilities over the next 40 years. The cost would be high. But while a greater interconnection within Europe and across the North Sea has obvious advantages, these could be obtained more simply and at a far lower cost by using existing cable technology for direct connections, as is already happening, rather than trying to integrate the large number of turbines with the ambition to provide up to 40 000 MWe year by 2050. The prospects of a large but intermittent electricity supply in 40 years time will not solve Europe’s problems. The need for a Europe-wide access to electricity is now and over the next ten years, which will be a particularly testing time. This can be obtained by expanding nuclear generation to provide a secure supply.

Desertec Industrial Initiative (DII)

Another long-term grid-linked proposal foresees the use of carefully positioned mirrors in the Sahara desert to boil water and activate turbines. The electricity generated will be transmitted to Europe andAfrica by a super grid of highvoltage direct power cables. It is supported by both the Tunisian and Algerian governments and a number of European companies. It is claimed that it could provide up to 15 percent of Europe's energy.

Wave and tidal energy

Despite the disappointments over the last 40 years, since Stephen Salter proposed his concept of the “nodding duck” to harness the power of the waves, and the failure of all other concepts which made it beyond the conceptual stage and have been tested at sea, the lure of renewable wave and tidal energy proves irresistible to the DECC. This has now launched a £50 million Marine Renewables Deployment Fund (MRDF) to provide a package of measures, including a £42 millionWave and Tidal Stream Energy Demonstration Scheme, which provides a grant towards capital costs of the commercial demonstration of devices – up to 25 percent, limited to £5 million per project, plus grant support of £100 per megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity produced for up to seven years, limited to an overall cap of £9 million per project. This is in addition to the revenue projects will receive from the sale of electricity and Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs).

Funding has already been provided to the European Marine Energy Centre (EMEC) in Orkney and £4.5 million has been earmarked for the Wave Hub project off the Cornish coast. Under the new, banded Renewables Obligation, wave and tidal technologies will receive two ROCs for each MWh of eligible generation produced. The Scottish government has even proposed a 5 ROC subsidy to support wave projects.

There are three favoured projects:

1. Pelamis Wave Power has also been awarded £4.8m to develop a more advanced wave machine, Pelamis P2. which will be tested at the EMEC later this year.An earlier Pelamis version tested off the Portuguese cost failed after a short time and had to be brought ashore.

2. Edinburgh based Aquamarine Power has been awarded £5.1m and has raised the same amount again from its shareholders to develop the second generation of its Oyster wave device, Oyster 2, a 2.5 MegaWatt machine:

3. Hammerfest Strom UK, a joint venture between its Norwegian parent company and Scottish Power Renewables which has been awarded £3.9m to help fund the installation of its tidal device known as the HS1000 at EMEC.

The ever-optimistic Carbon Trust believes that the cost of developing marine technology can be considerably reduced over the next 10 years, which could see up to 1 000 wave and tidal devices installed by 2020.

The nonsense of wind

Electricity statistics for 2008 show that wind power generation under the Renewables Obligation basis was 6 097 GWh (5 792 onshore, 1 305 offshore). In the same year imports of electricity were 12 294 GWh, mainly from France. In 2008 this single cross Channel cable link to an assured nuclear power supply provided us with twice as much electricity as the total of the intermittent and expensively subsidised wind production from all the UK wind farms.What is the sense of the wind programme? Large nuclear forgings The UK government is proposing an £80 million loan to Sheffield Forgemasters to set up a 15 000 tonne press so that it can compete in the critical market of large forgings for new nuclear power plants. This will be in competition with Japan which has had a monopoly of orders for large nuclear forgings in recent years. These are lead items in the construction of new nuclear power plants and frequently the orders are placed a year or two in advance of the nuclear plant order to get a place in the queue.

Forgemasters have for long been producing large forgings to the very demanding nuclear standards but have been limited in the maximum size that they can handle. This initiative is the first of several being considered by the Government in an effort to establish manufacturing components for new nuclear plant. It is being led by Sheffield University in partnership with Manchester University with Rolls-Royce as the lead industrial partner.

The loan will include a contribution from Westinghouse, one of the potential customers for nuclear components.

Further initiatives are hoped to increase the UK manufacturing content of new nuclear plants from 50 to 70%.Welcome indeed, but why not 100%.

Cost of EU membership

Until recently Lithuania was getting more than 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear energy which was the largest percentage in the world. It all came from the Ignalina plants which were of the same design as the reactors at Chernobyl.

As with other RBMK reactors, they had been modified to make them safe from a similar accident and the work that has been done has been assessed by the West. But the Lithuanians made a promise to the European Union that they would shut the reactors down when they joined the Union. This has now happened. At the end of last year the second of two reactors was shut down.

But the reactors did not have to close. They could have gone on producing electricity safely for another ten to fifteen years.

The EU has generously given the Lithuanians about €820 million (£731 million) to cover part of the cost of the loss of electricity but it is only a small part. Now the country will be dependent on Russia for its electricity supplies (including from their RBMK reactors). There is talk of building a new nuclear unit but that is at least ten years off.

French doing better

“Excellent operating performance” is reported by EDF for British nuclear power plants in 2009. The French company, which bought British Energy for £12.5 million just over a year ago, almost doubled the earnings of the company to €1.7 billion last year. The generation of electricity was up from 40 TWh in 2008 to 54.5 TWh.

The good performance was greatly assisted by the return to service of fourAdvanced Gas-cooled Reactors (AGR) at Hartlepool and Heysham. They had been out of service since October 2007 after corrosion was discovered in prestressing cables around the boiler closures.

Two moreAGR units at Dungeness-B1 and B2 are due to return to service in 2010 which should further boost nuclear production.

It is worth noting that the increased earnings will put the company in a stronger position to finance the new plants which it hopes to build in the UK.

Sweden makes progress

Aproposed new law would allow Swedish utilities to build a further ten reactors at three sites when the plants operating on those sites are closed down. They would be allowed to build reactors of a larger size than the present reactors which would just about let the country to continue to meet demand.

The law could be passed by August.

Additionally the utilities would be required to make further provision for accident compensation. The amount has been raised from the present 3 billion kronor ($415 million) to 12 billion kronor.

The opposition Social Democrats have indicated that they would scrap the law if they win the next election in September. They favour the old phase out law though they have no proposal of how they would continue to supply the demand for electricity.