|
2011 Nuclear Issues Vol34 No11 |
|
|
|
|
Written by Nuclear Issues
|
|
Wednesday, 30 November 2011 |
Yes, but please get on with it
EDF Energy has applied for consent from the UK’s Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) – whatever that may be – to build two new reactor units at Hinkley Point C in Somerset. EDF Energy is the French owned utility in the UK. Electricite de France will, according to the UK government policy, provide all the money needed to built two 1600 MWe reactor of the European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR) design developed by the French company Areva. One EPR plant is already being built at Okilluto 3 in Finland, another is following at Flamanville in France, and two more are under construction in China.
EDF should have plenty of money as it is operating 58 Pressurised Water Reactors (PWRs) in France as well as the Advanced Gas Cooled Reactors (AGRs) in the UK. These produced 315 TWh in France and 44 TWh in the UK in the last year and EDF reported 47.2 billion Euros ($64.2 billion) of sales.
When EDF were building plants in France back in the 1960s and early 1970s there was a good deal of criticism of the huge debt that they were showing in their annual report but that all now seems like nothing. People in other countries are asking why didn’t we do the same.
IPC has now got 28 days in which to consider the submission and decide whether it should become a formal application. We have of course known all about EDF desire to build new nuclear plants in the UK for several years. What we need now is for them to get on with it.
There is also encouraging talk from the other major UK utility, NuGen. It is still saying that it want to build on a new site in Cumbria, near the Sellafied nuclear complex. They envisage up to 3600 MWe for this site which could be made up either of EPRs or the Westinghouse AP-1000.
It was feared that NuGen, which is now owned by Gas de France Suez and Iberdrola of Spain, might be a bit short of cash when the German partner RWE dropped out due to Angela Mercel’s mad decision to close all German nuclear plants because a nuclear plant in Japan had been hit by a horrendous tsunami. There does not seem to be much pressure in Germany for a reversal of this illogical decision.
Anyway, NuGen has recently announced that it is still interested and will shortly begin site characterisation work.
Don’t mention nuclear power
There seems to be a spreading conspiracy of silence – that in most discussions and comments on Europe’s energy problems the words “nuclear power” should be avoided. A striking example comes from an article in the European Energy Review “Europe’s green energy chaos “ by Andrew MacKillop, (31 October) which asserts that “the EU’s climate and energy policies are too expensive, too ambitious, too complex – and ineffective to boot “. The main goals of these policies are listed as – reducing dependence on fossil fuels and improving energy efficiency conserving energy and rationalising the energy economy.
It points to the ineffectiveness of carbon trading when the EU27 countries have only significantly cut CO2 emissions on a year-by-year basis during sharp economic downturns, most recently in 2008-2010. On the other hand, during periods of economic growth, as between 2004-2007, EU27 emissions increased because the economy used more energy, and because 81% of European energy in 2010 was still fossil based.
The myth of green jobs is exposed “The idea that the ‘greentech’ sector can create and sustain large numbers of new jobs is totally disproved by reality. Low carbon electricity primarily means wind power, some solar electric power, and small servings of extremely expensive geothermal power and tiny alternative systems, such as run-of-river or low head hydropower, and wave power. All of these technologies and systems are capital intensive and generate few jobs.”
The main pillars of the EU electric power programme are wind and solar power which will take some 67% of all power spending in Europe to 2030 “(some !540 billion on a total amount presently estimated at around !900 billion)”. This will require continuous and high subsidies which eventually will fall on the final domestic or industrial consumer. The conclusion drawn is that there will be a consumer revolt with rising opposition from the public, trade unions and industrial energy users to the anarchic supply and high prices being imposed by unaccountable EU commission experts. Already EU programmes are being adjusted or abandoned – the cancellation of plans for biofuel production, reduced plans and incentives for massive off shore wind farms (but unfortunately, to our cost, not yet in the UK), and MacKillop calls for a plan B.
What is plan B? Mackillop offers no suggestions, but it is difficult to avoid the obvious conclusion that, if we abandon the renewables as too costly and inefficient, and are also reluctant to increase the burning of fossil fuels with fears of climate change, there is no alternative to nuclear power, generating low cost, emission free electricity as the only available secure source remaining.
The words nuclear power seem too dangerous and controversial, or too alarming to be mentioned.
(Andrew MacKillop is a an independent energy analyst and project advisor who has written on energy topics for over 35 years. He worked for the European Commission’s Directorate-General of Energy as a policy expert in the 1980s.)
Finland
The GL-Garrad Hassan report for the WWF cites the delays and problems which have beset the construction of the EPR reactor now being built by Areva for the Finnish utility TVO as a third reactor at their Olkiluoto site which is now not expected to start up until 2014, as evidence, in a section of their report headed “The Spiralling Cost of Nuclear”, to support their suggestion that “it is by no means certain that nuclear will be cheaper than renewables.”
But the Finnish power companies see things very differently. They believe that the ‘first-of-a-kind’ problems of Olkiluoto-3 have been overcome. Their plans to build two more nuclear reactors have already been approved by the Finnish Government. One of these will be a fourth reactor at TVO’s Olkiluoto site, the second, by the power company Fennovoima, will be in the north of the country. A third application has not yet been granted.
In addition to power supply companies a substantial part of both TVO and Fennovoima is owned through a complex interlinking with smaller utilities which are in turn owned by mining, metal and other industrial companies and local utility supply companies. These will be entitled to a share of the output from the plant at cost price corresponding to their share in the power company, thus ensuring their future supply of cheap electricity. Their willingness to invest their own money in these projects carries more weight than the biased suggestions of the renewables enthusiasts.
Finland now generates nearly 30% of its electricity from its four operating reactors which have a lifetime average annual capacity factor of over 86% since the first two reactors began operating in 1977 and 1980. Not surprisingly a 2010 Gallup poll showed 48% of Finns had a positive view of nuclear power and only 17% were negative.
Nuclear co-ops
The experience in Finland where major users of electricity take a share in the construction of a nuclear plant in return for a guaranteed supply at cost price suggests that the concept of a nuclear cooperative could have some advantage for the UK. Instead of waiting for one or other of the French and German power companies to take the fairly momentous decision to commit themselves to finding the large initial capital investment the problem would be eased if a number of major electricity users subscribed an up-front sum to ensure a secure, long term supply, at cost price, when the plant comes into operation some five or six years later. The inducement would be an assured supply of electricity for the following 40 or 50 years, during which time the cost from alternative fuels such as gas can be expected to rise steeply. If the supply over such a long term were not required the balance would constitute an asset which could be sold or transferred.
One obvious group of participants could be the Energy Intensive Users Group – steel chemical, glass, ceramics, aluminium, paper industries etc. – but other industrial companies concerned about rising energy costs and the security of supply, the CBI etc. could also see the advantage. There could also be a return to the electricity system of the years before nationalization in 1947 when there were a large number of municipal or other local generating supply companies. By taking a share in a `nuclear co op’ major cities could supply cheap electricity to their ratepayers.
The participation of individual shareholders is also a possibility. It would be an improvement on the present Government scheme of Feed in Tariffs under which individual households can commit themselves to the initial cost of installing solar panels in return for a guaranteed payment for the electricity generated. Instead of an annual thermal efficiency for the solar electric panels of about 10% and a relatively short lifetime, nuclear electricity could be generated at around 80% for over 40 to 50 years.
One problem is the length of time, five or six years, between the initial commitment and the start of supply, but this might open the way to smaller nuclear units. A number of designs with outputs of between 25 to 300 MWe have been proposed which could be built within a much shorter time or even installed as ready built plant, and replaced as required. In addition to easing the capital requirement of the French, German, and possibly Swedish companies, who may have other competing prospects or commitments for their capital, the direct participation of British industrial, civic or individual participants would give the country a stake in the production of electricity on which we depend. The investment in a significant number of new nuclear stations would give the economy as a whole a welcome – indeed necessary– Keynesian boost without the need for any government involvement.
France exporting more to Germany
The net flows of electricity between France and Germany have increased significantly largely due to Angela Mercels mad decision to close German nuclear plants because a nuclear plant in Japan suffered from a horrendous tsunami. No similar flooding event is in the least bit likely in Germany.
The French state owned utility, EDF, reported that there were 4.4 TWh of net exports to Germany between April and September, 2011, compared to 0.6 TWh over the same period in 2010. This was in part due to the excellent performance of French nuclear plants in the period but was mainly due to closure of seven of Germany’s oldest nuclear reactors following the accident at Fukushima-Daiichi. There is apparently little prospect that they will be restarted and more plants could follow as Merkel madness is widely accepted. EDF has reported a 3.2 increase in sales of electricity to 47.2 billion Euros. The utilities reactors produced 325 TWh of electricity in the first nine months of the year, an increase of 16.1 TWh over the same perod last year. They also got better performance from the Advanced Gas cooled Reactors which they operate in the UK. They produced 44.5 TWh which was an increase of 25.7 % compared with the first nine months of 2010.
EDF says that it expects to produce between 415 TWh and 420 TWh of nuclear power in France this year with an average availability of 79% to 80%. This is despite the fact that they have had to contend this year with an increase in the number of extended outages for ten year regulatory reviews. It claims that the improvement was due to fewer unplanned outages thanks to the effects of a large component replacement programme.
Energy, economic growth, and debt
It seems to be generally accepted that the only way out of the present debt crisis is through an increase in economic growth. With an increase in growth the share of debt falls as GDP increases but conversely if growth declines the share of debt rises to become unsustainable.
But an increase in growth requires an increase in energy consumption. It could be that the present economic difficulties facing Europe and the US are related to the growing fears that world oil supply will fail to keep pace with increasing world demand with a consequent increase in price.
It is significant that the European countries which are at most at risk are those which are increasingly dependent on energy imports, which then take a growing share of the domestic product.
EU figures for 2009 for the percentage of net energy imports have a familiar ring: Ireland 88%, Italy 82.9%, Portugal 80.9% Spain 79.4%, Greece 67.8%. Belgium also imports nearly 90% of its energy.
There could be some alarm that Germany, generally regarded as the economic power house of Europe, imported 61.6% of its energy in 2009 and that this figure will rise significantly if the closure of its nuclear stations is not reversed. For the EU-27 countries the energy dependency has increased from 46.1% in 1998 to 54.8% in 2008. The cost of these growing energy imports will only rise with the expected increases in the price of oil and gas.
Nuclear power is already Europe’s largest indigenous energy source. In 2008 it met 29% of primary energy production followed by, gas 20%, renewables 18% (biomass, hydro etc), oil 13.%, lignite 11.%, coal 10%.
Apart from nuclear power it is difficult to see any significant increase in any of the other indigenous resources. Oil and gas production from the North Sea and in the Netherlands is declining. The share of renewables largely comes from biomass and waste, but biomass is increasingly seen as in competition with food production and any significant increase would drive up the price of food. Hydropower production is unlikely to see much increase, while the present share of wind and solar power is low. Coal production is falling, while lignite (mainly in Germany) is a dirty fuel with large carbon dioxide emissions.
The obvious conclusion is that a significant increase in nuclear power is the only way out of Europe’s economic difficulties. It is an indigenous source which could be expanded at the lowest cost to provided an assured supply. Any increase in high cost on- and offshore wind with an intermittent supply requiring the support of additional fossil-fired generation will only add to the problems Europe now faces.
Some countries are already showing a lead, the nuclear share of indigenous primary energy production (2008) is given as Belgium 87%, France 84%, Latvia 71%, Slovakia 71%, Czechoslovakia 58%, Spain 50%, Sweden 50%, Slovenia 44%. The UK comes in at only 8%; the larger share is taken by oil, 44% and gas 38%.
World Wildlife Fund
The WWF seeks to promote a “sustainable, renewable” energy system arguing, with some justification, that “as well as driving climate change, fossil fuels can damage ecosystems, cause air pollution and have serious health impacts.” They have now followed up their February report which claimed that the UK could achieve 100% of renewable energy by 2050, with a second less ambitious but equally unrealistic report “Positive energy: how renewable energy can transform the UK by 2030”. This claims that the UK could meet 60% or more of its electricity demand from renewables by 2030 – decarbonising the power sector “without resorting to new nuclear power” pointing to what is seen as “the unacceptable risk of a catastrophic accident and the legacy of dangerous radioactive waste for which there’s no effective long-term storage solution.” To this end, while losing no opportunity to denigrate nuclear power, any renewable source, however impractical or costly it may be, is welcomed with the highly unlikely assumption that it can make a serious contribution to electricity production by 2030. Although the WWF commissioned and published this report from GL Garrad Hassan “the world's largest renewable energy consultancy” they cautiously insist that these are GL Garrad Hassan’s conclusions.
Costs do not seem to be mentioned and GL-GH weakens its own argument by showing that substantial support from gas generation and interconnection with European power markets is required .
Their “core” scenario B1, with 61% of electricity demand met from 73 GW of renewables, requires 24 GWe gas capacity (17 of which with CCS) with an annual utilisation rate of 78%, and 35 GWe of interconnection. Far from ‘decarbonising’ the UK power sector a continued substantial support from gas-fired plants is required. With the largely unpredictable intermittency of wind much of the supporting gas-fired capacity would have to be available on standby, adding to the costs and greenhouse gas emissions beyond the quoted utilisation rates. With increasing doubts about the feasibility and cost of carbon capture and storage it is unlikely that this will ever be available so an increase in carbon emissions would be unavoidable.
Interconnection with Europe with access to a “diverse mix of renewable resources” including wind, solar, geothermal and hydroelectricity could allow the UK to export power when output from renewables exceeds demand and import power when demand is high. But this could be costly. Excess wind production would largely be at night when demand, both here and in Europe is low and the price obtained would also be low, whereas power imported at times of high demand would be expensive.
The report also calls for “ambitious absolute targets” to reduce electricity demand through efficiency measures and behavioural changes in all sectors of the economy – “excess heating will become unacceptable” – but who determines what is excessive? It is also obvious that – “Ambitious demand reduction measures could cut capital costs of electricity generation by £40bn” – the less electricity we use the less plant we need to build: similarly the less food we eat the less we would need to grow or import. While we would possibly be healthier if we eat less and followed a more vegetarian diet this is unlikely to be enforced.
Despite the emphasis on demand reduction, in the central scenario electricity demand is seen as rising from the present 340 TWh/year (actually 384 TWh in 2010) to 425 TWh by 2030 with the growth in electric vehicles and electric heating – “30 TWh could power some 26 million vehicles by 2030, equivalent to 74% of all cars on the road.”. While the claim that energy efficiency would “reduce the amount of infrastructure to carry the power that we need to build” seems at variance with the proposals for an integrated European grid.
Subsidies, through the Green Investment Bank, are to be ‘prioritised ‘ for offshore wind, wave and tidal generation while “the reformed electricity market must include well designed, long term financial support mechanisms for renewable energy technologies.” They will be “specifically adapted to the needs of renewable technologies” – but not for the unfortunate customers who will eventually have to meet the bill.
Cause or coincidence?
From the Eurostat Pocket Book 2010 edition the prices of electricity for households and industry can be compared in relation to the share of wind and nuclear power in electricity supply for 2008.
This shows that those countries with a high share of wind generation had the highest electricity prices, whereas the lowest electricity prices were in the countries with a larger share of nuclear electricity. Taking two extreme examples for each group the figures are:
In the high wind group
Germany: with installed wind capacity in 2008 of 23 895 MWe (17.8% of total electricity capacity) electricity prices were 22.9 EUR/100 kWh for households and 11.3 for industry. Denmark: wind capacity 3166 MWe, (25.9% of total electricity capacity) with prices of 25.5 Eur/100 kWh for households and 9.3 Eur/100 kWh for industry.
In the high nuclear group
France: with nuclear generation 86.6% of total supply and prices of 12.3 Eur/100 kWh for households and 6.6 Eur/100 kWh for industry.
Sweden: nuclear generation of 40% of total supply and prices of 16.5 Eur/100 kWh for households and 6.9 Eur/100 kWh for industry.
The UK is in the rather unhappy position of a declining nuclear output and a rapidly increasing share of wind generation. Eurostat gives the electricity prices of 14.1 Eur/100 kWh for households and 10.1 Eur/100 kWh for industry. Theses are 2008 prices and have already increased and as we move towards building evermore highly expensive offshore wind plants they will only increase over the next ten years before any substantial new nuclear capacity can be brought on line.
Correcting the correction
In a regrettable error the heading and first paragraph of an item on page 6 (after that on Germany) was omitted. To avoid the confusion the original correction is now given.
Correction
An informed and sharp eyed reader has pointed to an error in the item Hormesis in the August 2011 Nuclear Issues. At the top of page 5 referring to the book Radiation, Hormesis and the Linear–No-Threshold Assumption by C L Sanders the figure of 1 million population exposed should have been 100 million.
The actual quotation from the European Energy Review of 25 July 2011 is - "The LNT is a method of calculating the damage in cases where a population is exposed to a given amount of radioactivity. It is a very simple method, whereby all the radiation doses to which the population has been exposed are added up and then divided by 20 to give the number of cancer deaths. So, for example, if 100 million people are exposed to 1 millisievert per year for twenty years the calculation would be as follows: one hundred million times 1 millisievert per year times 20 years equals two billion millisievert, which equals 2 million sievert. Dividing 2,000,000 by 20 gives 100,000. Hey presto and you’ve got your number of cancer deaths.
No doubt you’re wondering why this division by 20? What is it based on? Well, among the survivors of the atom bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there was a group who had received an average of 1 sievert each in a single dose. As we shall see, that’s a large amount. In this group the percentage of people contracting cancer was 38 percent instead of the 33 percent observed in a comparable non-exposed group. So 1 sievert means 5 percent more people die of cancer. This single piece of data forms the basis for the calculation 1 sievert = 5 percent (1/20) extra cancer risk.
But this is a nonsensical calculation. Incremental exposure is less damaging than a dose that is given all at once. In other words, the phenomenon of hormesis is totally ignored. Sanders argues that ionising radiation in small amounts is actually healthy, just like regularly running or fasting moderately. It can actually decrease the cancer risk by 10 to 30 percent compared to no extra radiation at all. So where the cancer risk is, say, 30 percent, a limited amount of radiation could cut this to 27 percent (i.e. by 10 percent). |
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 13 January 2012 )
|
|
|
|
