Japan had no real option but to build nuclear plants on its east coast as well as the west coast. They were designed for more severe earthquakes than other plants – 415 to 512 gal (measure of acceleration) at unit 1– but the event on the 11 march exceeded all expectations. Unit 1 experienced 460 gal. The plants did shutdown automatically when the first shock wave was detected and this would have reduced the radioactivity of the reactor cores by a factor of about 100. But when the horrendous tsunami, estimated at 19 m high compared to the plants design for 5.2 m flood, it was too much for the 12 diesel generators on the site. The operators were unable to get external power supplies operational. It is estimated that in five hours after the scram most of the central part of the core had lost its water cover and melted down. The plant decided to order evacuations from around the plant but in the event most peoples’ homes had already been washed away.

Unit 1 was an old nuclear power plant. It had all safety features fitted to it but it was still a plant that had been operational since 1978. So really, it performed well when put to the test. People with similar plants in less extreme seismic regions of the world can take satisfaction that they have such a good plant.



Implications of Japan’s accident

The first interim report of the UK Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations, Mike Weightman*, into Fukushima-1 event in Japan concludes – as might be expected – that: “The direct causes of the nuclear accident, a magnitude 9 earthquake and the associated 14 metre high tsunami, are far beyond the most extreme natural events that the UK would be expected to experience.” It adds: “We are reassuringly some 1000 miles from the edge of a tectonic plate, where earthquake activity is more common and severe.” It further explains that reactors in the UK are different from the boiling water reactors in Japan. The report as a consequence finds little of direct relevance to the UK. Never the less it takes a serious look at the Japanese experiences. A fuller report is promised by September. But for the time being the position is relatively reassuring for the UK, both for existing reactors and new plants planned in the future.

What is surprising – though fairly widespread – is that no credit is given to the design of the Japanese plants for standing up to the worst earthquake in Japan’s history and a dreadful tsunami. The reactors shut down, automatically, the instant the quake was felt and that means that the radioactivity of the cores was down by a factor of at least ten on the operating condition. They withstood an acceleration which was roughly double what the plants had been designed for. And then that dreadful tsunami wave, estimated to have been 14 metre high, hit the plant which was only designed to expect 5.2 m flooding.

The consequences for the Japanese operators are now well known. They lost all power to the reactors and only managed to get one standby diesel generator out of twelve on the site operating. This is something that needs to be addressed by all nuclear stations. The so called loss of off-site power. The Japanese seem to have found a solution by making available power generators mounted on trucks which can be kept away from any common cause event but can be driven to the site as required. The availability of something like this needs to be demonstrated for all nuclear plants.

The other thing, that seems to have attracted little comment so far, were the hydrogen explosions. Admittedly this is a problem mainly for operators of boiling water reactors where the steam-ziconium reaction can produce hydrogen if the fuel is exposed. But it is a well known effect and one needs to know why the Japanese had not taken it into account. They have been remarkable silent on the subject. Most modern BWR plants have small igniter devises in the space above the containment which are intended to cause hydrogen to burn off before it reaches an explosive concentration.What we need to know is whether the Fukushima plant had such units and if so why did they not work.

A final question which needs to be addressed is the amount of spent fuel in ponds around the reactors. The Japanese plants were shipping it off to France and Britain for reprocessing until, more recently, they held it back for reprocessing in the new Japanese commercial plant. But that has taken rather a long time to fully commission and it seems that the ponds a Fukushima where not far short of full.At least the Japanese do have plans to reprocess and recycle as MOX fuel in their power reactors. Other plants around the world need to take a look to see if their storage arrangements are adequate.

But again we want to say how splendid the Japanese plants have proved and see if that does not apply to other nuclear plants around the world. We don’t, thanfully, live near a fault line which could have an earthquke of anywhere near level 9. Our coastline is not subject to gastly tsunami.

* Mike Weightman has just be named as the leader of an International Atomic Energy Agency team of experts which plans to visit Japan to gather more information.



Problems for Germany – and Europe?

In an immediate response to the events at Fukushima the German Chancellor Angela Merkel abandoned the previously announced plans to extend the life of existing nuclear stations by an average of 12 years and has now ordered the immediate shutdown of eight of the older stations for a three month period. Few believe that these plants will ever be restarted as German politicians compete to show their green credentials. But the bewildering and rapid reversals of German nuclear policy are already highlighting some of the problems this will incur.

This shutdown brings its own environmental problems. The eight stations (Seven in operation before 1980 plus Krummel which was already closed) with a capacity amounting to 8 336MWe provided about 10% of German electricity. The power that will be lost in the three months shut down has been estimated at approaching 14 TWh with a market value in of between €1and 2.6 billion. This will have to be replaced. The only immediate replacement is in increasing the output of coal-fired stations, which will increase carbon emissions, or importing nuclear electricity from France or Czechoslovakia.

The ethics of importing nuclear power from neighboring countries while abandoning it at home is now to be considered by a special ethics commission which is also to report on the moral rights and wrongs of operating nuclear plants in Germany. A minor but not unimportant factor is in the loss to the German government of the revenue from the nuclear energy tax that would have been paid which is estimated at €235 million.

Longer term attempts to increase the output of renewables will only add to the burden on domestic consumers where 14% of their electricity costs already goes to renewable energy subsidies.At what level will the desire for low carbon electricity at ever higher cost outweigh the attraction of much cheaper carbon free nuclear power?

A further problem comes with growing public opposition to the new high voltage power lines with intrusive pylons which will be required.Many of the threatened nuclear stations are in the South of the country where they can supply power for major cities such as Munich and Stuttgart home to large industrial companies, but the wind generation both on- and off-shore is mainly in the North.

The German reaction is in contrast to that of the UK and Finland where the safety authorities have concluded that there is no reason to shut down nuclear plants as a response to the Fukushima accident. The German regulator has also come to much the same conclusion - that there is no indication that nuclear power should be shut down immediately - but this has not deterred the German EnvironmentMinister from declaring "I stick to the premise of sensibly leaving nuclear energy as quickly as possible and replacing it with renewables and energy efficiency."

The question which affects us all is whether such a policy would damage the economic recovery in Germany, now the leading industrial power in the EU, and will this drag down the other EU countries and speed the economic and political decline of Europe.



Climate Change Committee

Unlike the Carbon Trust the Climate Change Committee has no hesitation in forecasting a range of figures for future electricity generating costs, but the figures are not what they seem at first glance. The first estimate of costs for plant being constructed in 2020, using a 10% discount rate is given in p/kWh under three headings:

Likely to play a major role

• Onshore wind 7.0-9.0 p/kWh - potential around 80TWh/year
• Offshore wind 10.0-15.0 p/kWh – over 400TWh/year
• New nuclear 5.5-10.0 p/kWh – over 175TWh/year

Could play a future role

• CCS 6.0-15.0 p/kWh (gas) , 7.5-15.0 p/kWh (coal) - future role currently highly uncertain Tidal stream 12.5-25.0 p/kWh – at an early stage but potentially large up to 200 TWh/year.
• Wave 19.0-34.5 p/kWh – limited to around 40 TWh/year
• Solar PV 17.5-33.0 p/kWh -but with only a limited role for deployment in UK.
• Unabated gas 5.0-11.0 p/kWas the reference technologywith a carbon price at £30/tonneCO2.

These cost figures however do not include the subsidies given to the renewables under the ROC scheme. It is only further into the report on that the subsidy to renewables under the ROC scheme is acknowledged. These are 1ROC/MWh for onshore wind, 2 ROCs /MWh for offshore wind and solar PV, 3 ROCs for tidal stream and 5 for wave. OFGEM gives the ‘worth’ of an ROC as £52.36 in 2009/10. On this basis the costs to the consumer, on whom the ROC charge ultimately falls become,

• Onshore wind 12.2-14.2 p/kWh
• Offshore wind 20.4-25.4 p/kWh
• Solar PV 27.9- 43.4 p/kWh
• Tidal stream 28.1-40.6 p/kWh
• Wave 45.0-60.5 p/kWh
• Nuclear is unchanged at 5-10.0 p/kWh

This picture is complicated by the Government proposals for the reform of the electricity market under which the ROC regime will only apply to new capacity coming onto the system by 2017. The report suggests that under a new system it could be the total amount of subsidy, but not its level, that may be restricted. These subsidies would be directed towards the less mature technologies leaving onshore wind to compete for contracts with nuclear – but with risk that the change will cause an ‘hiatus’ in the deployment of onshore wind projects. These figures however seem to provide the basis for many of the Climate Change Committees conclusions.

The high cost of offshore wind leads to doubts about the extent of its proposed expansion. - “if all offshore Round 3 sites were to be deployed by 2020 (33 GW, 115 TWh), this would add a further 13% to residential electricity bills, i.e. £70 per household, per year. In order to prevent such a situation, the level of targeted ambition should be fixed (e.g. such that no more than 13 GWe offshore wind capacity is subsidised by 2020). Upward departure from this level of ambition could only be justified if the costs of offshore wind were to be significantly lower, reflected in a correspondingly lower level of support (i.e. significantly less than 2 ROCs).”

To compensate for the reduction in renewable generation if offshore wind is cut back the Committee proposes an increase in onshore wind and, presumably on the basis of the cost figures in table 1, argues that “onshore wind is already close to competitive” But these costs do not include any subsidy and it is questionable whether any utility or developer would build on that basis, leading to the ‘hiatus’ in onshore projects referred to above. Apart from onshore wind the other renewable technologies – even more expensive – are unlikely to make any appreciable contribution within the next 40-50 years. The Committee is more optimistic –“By 2030, however, there are ‘plausible’ scenarios where these other renewable technologies (e.g. offshore wind, marine, solar) have become cheaper than fossil-fired generation at a carbon price of £70/tCO2 and to different extents have become competitive or close to competitive with nuclear.” They seem to argue that since these technologies are even more expensive there is then a greater room for cost reductions. But doubts are also raised over carbon capture – “The economics of CCS generation are likely to remain highly uncertain until this technology has been demonstrated at scale.”

On the other hand “Nuclear appears likely to be the lowest-cost low-carbon technology with significant potential for increased deployment; it is likely to be cost-competitive with gas CCGT at a £30/tCO2 carbon price in 2020. As such, it should play a major role in decarbonisation, provided that safety concerns are addressed.” Whether gas will be readily available in 2020 when most gas in the UK will have to be imported, and at what price is not considered.

This is an unsatisfactory report. Like the Carbon Trust on marine technologies the Carbon Change Committee pins its hopes on “plausible” scenarios which might or might not be realised. It is based on the assumption that the technical problems and high cost of harnessing wind and waves can be reduced to a level acceptable to the economy and the public - who might bear the cost if it were the only means of reducing carbon emissions to combat the threat of global warming. Yet wind and waves are intermittent, variable, low density energy sources which will always be costly. The Committee itself does not seem wholly convinced, pinning its hopes on ‘plausible’ scenarios. This word could have been carefully chosen possibly to paper over differences within the Committee. Plausible can carry the meanings of “Having a show of truth, apparently acceptable, fair seeming, specious” (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary). Hedging its bets the Committee declares in the 3rd para of its Executive Summary - “Our overall conclusion in this review is that there is scope for significant penetration of renewable energy to 2030 (e.g. up to 45%, compared to 3% today). Higher levels subsequently (i.e. to 2050) would be technically feasible. Equally however, it would be possible to decarbonise electricity generation with very significant nuclear deployment and have limited renewables;

We cannot base the future of our energy and electricity supply on merely ‘plausible’ solutions. It would be more responsible to rely on nuclear energy as the proven “lowestcost low carbon technology”. One simple solution would be to classify nuclear energy as a renewable technology for both power and heat.



First reactor in Iran

At long last the first nuclear power plant in Iran has started up. The Bushehr reactor started construction in 1970. It was a major German contract with the former regime of the Shah. It was stopped after the Islamic revolution in1979. But attitude changed and by the mid- 1990s Iran was looking for someone to complete the project. The Germans were by then reluctant to complete the work and there were arguments about breaking contracts and paying for components that had been made for it. Then the Russians stepped in with a proposal to build a VVER reactor in the western style containment building that had been completed. There was continuing discussion about money but finally the Russians reached agreement on a billion dollar deal.

Various Western countries, in particular the US and Israel, have expressed reservation about Iran and the possibility that they were going to use the reactor to support a weapons programme. This suggestion is however considered unlikely and Iran has also concluded a non-proliferation agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency. This has been helped by an agreement with Russia that they should take back the fuel after use in the reactor for possible reprocessing. This is actually quite favourable for the Iranians as they do not have to worry about what to do with their spent fuel. The general view now is that the Iranians are truly interested in using the reactor only for peaceful purposes and it would be difficult for them to do otherwise without it being perfectly obvious. If they do have a nuclear weapons programme under consideration they would use alternative facilities. Indeed it would be difficult for them to do that without posing a threat to the civil production of power. You have to believe who you think is telling the truth. The Bushehr plant should complete low power testing in the next couple of months and start supplying power to the national grid.



Pakistan’s Third reactor in commercial production

The third nuclear power reactor to be built in Pakistan entered commercial service atMay. It is the Chasma unit 2 unit with a power of 300 MWe and was built by the Chinese to an indigenous pressurized water reactor design. Like Chasma-1 it has a capacity of 300MWe although the Chinese have since built a 600 MWe pressurized water reactor of their own design. Chasma-2 is located near a Barrage on the Indus River. It is claimed that it has been built three months ahead of schedule after starting construction in late 2005.

Pakistan also has an early CANDU type reactor of 125 MWe supplied by the Canada. There are plans for two more units at Chasma and a total capacity of nuclear of 8 800 MWe by 2030.

Pakistan is not a member of the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty and has completed the two reactors at Chasma under a special agreement signed with the International Atomic Energy Agency.



China pushing ahead

The second unit at Ling Ao II has just been put into operation and connected to the grid. It is the second 1000 MWe pressurized water reactor constructed by the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) based on experience from the first two French built reactors at Ling Ao and the earlier 300 and 600 MWe unit of indigenous Chinese design. Construction was started on the unit just five years ago. The CNNC has 14 additional sites scheduled for its 1000 MWe PWRs in published lists of nuclear projects. China is also building two French EPRs at Taishan, four Westinghouse AP-1000s at Samen and Haiyang and two Russian 1000MWe PWRs at Tainwan. So they will be keeping up with the latest generation three plants. The scheduled dates for start of operation of these plants range from 2012 to 2016. So that means the China will be adding a capacity of 23 200 MWe in the next 16 years.



Wishful thinking

If pigs could fly….

Areport from the Carbon Trust, optimistically headed Marine Renewables Green Growth, starts realistically enough by setting out the relative infancy of marine technologies, and the still considerable uncertainty as to whether wave and tidal systems will ever play a meaningful role in meeting global energy needs. The report admits that considerable innovation is required to bring technologies to commercial deployment. “Further full scale demonstration of wave and tidal devices is required to prove the technical viability of the technology, followed by deployment of initial arrays and first farms to prove commercial viability. These stages are capital intensive and the private sector will most likely require some form of public sector support.”

But further into the report all these obstacles are assumed to be overcome and, drawing support from an IEA scenario, the report foresees a global wave energy deployment miraculously rising from the sea like Botticelli’s Venus with up to 240 GWe of marine capacity deployed globally by 2050 (or 189 GWe based on the IEABlue Map scenario). Given what it believes are the UK’s present and likely future strengths in this technology , the Carbon Trust considers that the UK could capture some £76 billion (22% of the accessible global market) by 2050 contributing c. £15 billion to the UK GDP and generating over 68,000 jobs.

For the UK market, marine technologies could supply up to 1GWby 2020 rising to 27.5 GWe by 2050 of which 18.5 GWe would be wave energy and 9 GWe tidal stream.Aless optimistic medium scenario puts 2050 figure as c.13 GWe. It even acknowledges that there are some scenarios where little marine energy deployment occurs, listing the need to prove the success of the technology, to reduce costs, to gain public acceptance. Significant marine deployment could still occur “if other energy supply options (especially non-renewables like nuclear power and fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage) face technical or public acceptability problems.”

Over the past 50 years a number of more or less Heath Robinson wave devices have been proposed and even carried to the small scale pilot stage, but none of these in the UK, or elsewhere, have survived actual tests at sea. Despite this there is increasing optimism and activity in the search for a workable device. The European Marine Energy Centre with its test site in the Orkneys lists some 8 differentWave projects with 5 different devices now being tested at sea. A further 6 Tidal devices are also under test. There is also the Government fundedWave Hub (£42 million) project off the north Cornish coast “set to bring half a billion pounds into the UK economy over the next 25 years and create up to 1,800 jobs.”

Atidal power scheme in the Sound of Islay is more advanced with plans to build 10 tidal turbines approved by the Scottish Government in March. These will be 1MWdeveloped by the Norwegian company Hammerfest Strom from a 300 kWprototype which has been operating successfully over the past 6 years. It is to provide the electricity for the 8 Islay distilleries and should be in operation by 2013-2015. Scottish Power Renewables is investing £40 million in the scheme.

Wisely the Carbon trust does not suggest any estimates of the possible range of costs, but without cost figures it is difficult to see how they can estimate the potential installed capacity in 10 or 40 years time.



Child leukaemias not linked to nuclear sites

How many more times do we need to be told. Another report by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (COMARE) says that it has looked at children living near British nuclear plants and has found that they are no more likely to develop leukaemia than those living elsewhere. Well was not that conclusion reached years ago.

Professor Alex Elliot from the university of Glasgow who chaired the COMARE committee said that “We should not be complacent about this issue, (why not?) but we think the government should be looking for other causes beyond radiation for childhood leukaemia cases.”

As well as looking at children living near 13 UK nuclear sites the committee also considered reports from France, Germany and Switzerland and found similar risk levels in these cases. There was just one study which found a “marked excess incidence” of childhood leukaemia near the Kruemmel nuclear plant. But this, the committee says, was probably influenced by an unexplained cluster in Kruemmel that lasted from1990 to 2005.

Surely now we can say that we have looked at enough children living near nuclear sites. And why are there no reports looking at leukaemia clusters in general.