|
2006 Nuclear Issues v28 08 |
|
|
|
|
Written by Nuclear Issues
|
|
Tuesday, 01 August 2006 |
Nuclear Issues is also available as a pdf download
So what's new?
The long awaited report of the UK advisory Committee on Radioactive
Waste Management (CoRWM) has reached the momentous conclusion that we
should adopt a policy for disposal of high and intermediate waste in
deep geological formations. Well we have been proposing just that since
the 1950’s when the first builders of reactors for civil generation of
electricity concluded that nuclear wastes – unlike waste from coal, oil
and gas generation – could and should be retained rather than dispersed.
The same basic decision has been reached by all other countries that are making use of peaceful nuclear energy. It is only a few mad hat activists who have proposed otherwise in the hope of halting the use of the great benefits of nuclear energy.
But what should we do while we wait for politicians to take some action on long term geological disposal? The report say that need robust interim storage. What do they think we have? The nuclear industry has had a robust system for management of waste for the last 50 years. There has been virtually no release of radioactive waste into the environment. It has been stored first in incredibly high integrity tanks. Then it is being vitrified in blocks of glass and stored in vaults where it will be safe for another hundred or so years.
But now – yes – it is time to start thinking, as several other countries are, of building a geological repository. So let’s get on with it and stop wasting time on more reports.
Peak oil (again)
Although there are arguments over the date by which world oil production will reach a peak and then slowly decline (the bell curve of Hubbert’s peak) – ranging from a pessimistic now, to an optimistic 2050 – there is no doubt that it must eventually occur. Oil is a finite resource and the ever-increasing production from known oil fields is in sharp contrast with the much smaller and declining rate at which new reserves are found. It is then astonishing that the Energy Review did not consider the critical effect this will have on the world energy supply but blithely assumes that, whatever it may be, all future UK requirements for oil and gas will be met without fail. It declared, despite increasing doubts that “Global energy resources are still plentiful, and markets are well-developed to deal with increased trade.” Other countries are not so sanguine and take the matter more seriously. Sweden has set up a Commission on Oil Independence with the aim to eliminate dependence on oil by 2020. In its first report the Commission notes the different assessments of when the global oil peak will occur – between 2020 and 2030 for the International Energy Agency, 2015-2020 for British Petroleum, and before 2010 for the expert group Aspo, (Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas).
The Aspo view was strongly endorsed by Dr Bakhtiari an international oil expert when he gave evidence to the Australian Rural and Regional affairs and Transport References parliament committee set up to examine Australia’s future oil supply and alternative transport fuels. Bakhtiari painted an alarming picture forecasting that world oil production will fall from the present 81 million barrels per day (50 mb/d from non OPEC sources with OPEC, the swing supplier, making up the difference) to around 55 mb/d by 2020. This is in sharp contrast to the IEA which sees demand rising to 118 mb/d by 2030 and implicitly assumes that production will increase accordingly.
Bakhtiari argued that new oil finds have plummeted to between four and six billion barrels/year while consumption is running at about 30 billion barrels/ year, and he saw little hope that this trend will be reversed in the near future as most of the planet’s petroleum provinces have now been explored. There is only one last frontier area remaining – Antarctica, “with its pristine wilderness and its population of some 20 million penguins!” But conditions in Antarctica are arduous. In addition to the cold and dark it would be difficult to drill through an icecap of at least 2 000 metres and Bakhtiari suggested that it was only when the price of oil goes up to $200 or $300 a barrel that some oil companies will decide to try their hand there.
The decline of global oil production then seems irreversible, through a number of transitions starting now, in 2006. Transition 1, has a very benign gradient of decline, and it will take months before one notices it at al – a fall from the present 81 mb/day to 79.5 mb/d in four or five yeas time. Transition 2 will be far steeper, and each successive transition will show more pronounced declining gradients. On this basis Bakhtiari predicted that over the next 14 years present global production of 81 million barrels per day will decrease by roughly 32 per cent, down to around 55 million barrels per day by the year 2020.
In a comment, which could well be applied to the attitude of this Government, Bakhtiari said “Nobody likes the idea of peak oil .... Naturally, a politician will never say that there is such a thing as peak oil. It is suicide to give bad news so a politician will never do that. He will always say, ‘The IEA says that we will be having 118 million barrels in 2030 so why worry?’ The prospect for gas supplies are no better with a possible peak arising in 2008-9. Bakhtiari expressed doubts about the extent of future supplies from Russia where any shortfall would severely affect Europe. Any perceived shortage would drive up prices and he claimed that for one week in March this year Britain was paying $258 per barrel oil equivalent for gas – over 40 times the normal price (this is the dark face of the “well developed markets” of the Energy Review). A cold winter would have even more disastrous consequences. The price of gas and LPG could go “sky high”.
Transport
Oil price increases, in response to actual or perceived peaking of world oil output, will have their most immediate impact on transport. In the UK 74 percent of all oil is used in road and air transport, to give carbon emissions of 42 million tons/year – about one quarter of all UK emissions. The Energy Review did not consider the urgent question of whether supplies will be readily available, (which it will not be possible to ignore), but only the need to reduce carbon emissions to mitigate climate change (which may be seen as less pressing). But any reduction in consumption will of course ease both problems.
The measures the Energy Review urged include improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency and a greater use of biofuels. The first will be encouraged by changes in the Vehicle Excise Duty and road taxes, the second through a Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation. This to be introduced in 2008/9 will require fuel suppliers to meet 5 percent of their sales from renewable sources – biofuels etc – by 2010/11 to save about 1 million tonnes of carbon/year. The Obligation will possibly be raised to 10 percent by 2015 to save another million tonnes of carbon.
In Sweden the road transport sector, which takes 65 percent of oil, is also seen as the major problem. (19 percent of oil is used for heating and 16 percent by industry.) The first report of the Swedish Oil Commission on Oil Independence – Making Sweden an Oil-free Society – makes a number of sensible recommendations to end dependence on oil by 2020. These include the promotion of fuel-efficient cars and ‘ecodriving’ techniques, increasing the availability of public transport, and urban planning. These last points were also put to the Austrailian Senate hearings as well as an expansion of light rail systems and the promotion of free urban public transport – already instituted in the Australian city of Perth.
The main recommendations of the Swedish report, with a strong ‘green’ tinge, are more controversial.
They include a 20 percent improvement in the efficiency of energy use, but insofar as this will increase GNP it will also increase energy consumption. The most emphasis however is on renewable energies and biofuels, produced from agricultural crops or forest products, which are seen as the main solution to oil shortage, and also to some extent to replace electricity used for space heating. Heat from solar panels is also seen as a means of reducing oil and electricity consumption.
But a biofuel economy is not without potential problems. In a critical account of the Commissions proposals the Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry estimates that the area of land required to grow these fuels could approach that now taken by the country’s agricultural and forestry production. The forestry industry points out that the export value of wood products, including paper, could be 10 times more than if converted to biofuels. In addition there would be a considerable input of oil (fertilisers, pesticides and fuel) to grow, harvest and produce biofuel crops. The energy expended on producing biofuels could amount to a significant part of the energy obtained in their use. There is also a potential conflict between growing fuel and food. At a time when climate change may reduce crop yields in some parts of the world it is scarcely conceivable that Sweden or any other Western country would turn corn into fuel when other countries may be facing starvation.
There is no mention in the 50 pages of this report of any expansion of nuclear power output although the development of electric hybrid vehicles is among the recommendations made. On the other hand renewable electricity from wind power is seen as increasing up to 10 TWh/year by 2015, but this would only be a minor contribution at around 6 percent of the present Swedish electricity production Yet Swedish electricity, half nuclear, half hydro, is almost entirely oil-free. It is difficult to make sense of the tortuous argument put forward – “Very little electricity is produced in Sweden using oil or other fossil fuels. However, the common European electricity market, to which we nowadays belong, is largely supplied by fossil condensing power with a very low degree of efficiency and fuelled by coal. If, by improving efficiency, we reduce our consumption of electricity in Sweden we will be able to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.” Swedish industry has criticised the report pointing out that the Swedish economy has been based on minerals, forest products and electricity. Their main need now is for an expansion in the supply of cheap electricity – (which could only come from nuclear power). Despite these limitations the Swedish report is a laudable attempt to recognise and deal with a serious problem which perhaps sooner rather than later all countries will have to face.
The 'green' debate The prospect of Peak Oil is a godsend to the ‘green’ movement. It would achieve the aim of bringing to an end any expansion of the present energy intensive industrial society with its emphasis on continuing economic growth. There would be a forced return to smaller self-sufficient communities relying on a lower consumption of decentralised and renewable energies.
The cause of peak oil is then being enthusiastically promoted by the Green lobby and with a revival of the old claims of ‘Limits to Growth.’ This does not however make it less of a threat.
The ‘green’ emphasis on biofuels and other renewable energies is made with the understanding that that these energies alone cannot be sufficient to sustain present social and economic life. This is indeed the main purpose for their adoption. Some insight into the debate on a future path of social development is given in a 1988 study on “The collapse of complex societies” by J. Tainter. His argument is that “as the marginal return on investment in complexity declines, a society invests ever more heavily on a strategy that yields proportionately less.” But there comes a point when “to a population that is receiving little return on the cost of supporting complexity, the loss of this complexity brings economic, and perhaps administrative gains.” If it is accepted that our present industrial society has now reached the point of declining marginal returns collapse may be the most appropriate response.
For those who survive, a return to a simpler way of life may have some advantages, but there would have to be a dramatic reduction in world population levels. Tainter further argues that collapse can only be postponed by access to a new energy supply to sustain an economy that is now based on stored fossil energy reserves which must come to an end. Capital and technological innovation must be directed to some new and more abundant source of energy. “A new energy subsidy is necessary if a declining standard of living and a future global collapse are to be averted.”
New nuclear programmes
The only new energy source available now which might postpone global collapse is nuclear power which can replace fossil fuels for domestic and other space heating and many industrial processes, particularly with the expansion of information technology and computer control. Electric or hybrid cars, light rail etc can also alleviate the problems of transport. There are now signs of resurgence in nuclear construction in many countries, notably in the rapidly expanding economies in Asia.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has significantly increased its projection of world nuclear generating capacity and anticipates at least 60 new plants in the next 15 years, to a total capacity of 430 GWe by 2020. This is 130 GWe more than projected in 2000 and 16% more than actually operating in 2006.
At least eleven countries with existing nuclear power programs (Bulgaria, Canada, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Japan, South Korea, South Africa and USA) have firm plans to build new power reactors (beyond those now under construction).
In Kazakhstan a joint venture with Russia’s Atomstroyexport envisages development and marketing of innovative small and medium-sized reactors, starting with a 300 MWe Russian design. Russian plans for floating nuclear power stations could also have a wider application. In Iran nuclear construction of a 1000 MWe PWR at Bushir is well advanced. The Turkish government plans to have three nuclear power plants total 4 500 MWe operating by 2012-15. Indonesia plans to start constructing a 2000 MWe nuclear power station in 2010 and Vietnam is also considering its first nuclear power venture, to be commissioned by 2017. In addition in a number of countries including Finland, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the USA the capacity and operating lives of existing reactors are being extended.
We hope that plans for new nuclear stations in the UK will not be long delayed, although, regrettably, we no longer have any UK firms able to design the reactors or supply the fuel.
With the decline of fossil fuels there could also be a revival of some of the ideas of the 1970’s for nuclear process heat. In most countries the greater part of heat demand is at temperature below 200-300 Centigrade – within the range of the waste heat discarded from present nuclear stations. Plans for district heating schemes using the Swedish nuclear stations at Barsebäck (now needlessly closed) were put forward in the 1970’s. Waste heat from nuclear station cooling water has been used in a number of countries, and notably in Switzerland for both district heating and as industrial process heat. Experience in co-generation of nuclear electricity and heat has also been gained in Bulgaria, Canada, China, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Russia, Slovakia and Ukraine. The early reactors at Calder Hall were used to provide process heat for the Sellafield nuclear complex. Nuclear waste heat could also be used for water desalination where a temperature range of up to 130 Centigrade would suffice – shortage of clean water is likley to be the next global threat. The possibility of using the heat from the radioactive decay of spent fuel as heat source for local district heating schemes should be explored. Putting it to a useful purpose would reduce the widespread public fear which radioactive ‘waste’inspires.
Nuclear power may not be able to solve all the problems of peak oil, particularly if it is upon us within the next few years, but it could alleviate many of the difficulties that will arise. The more sensible recommendation from Sweden and Australia for affordable public transport, electric light rail systems for all major cities, as well as electric or hybrid vehicles should be set in hand without further delay. Like Sweden we need an Oil Commission but with powers to implement an oil reduction policy, not merely make recommendations.
Swedish Commisson on Oil Independence:
www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/574/a/67096
Austrialian senate hearings:
www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/oil_supply/hearings/110706.pdf
Nuclear blindness
Reactions to possible shortages, and higher prices of oil and gas if world demand begins to exceed world production show, particularly for the industrialised countries of Western Europe a surprising unwillingness to accept that nuclear power could alleviate what might otherwise prove a disastrous situation.
An explanation may lie in the share of oil taken by the transport sector in Europe and the US, at around 60- 70 percent. Without a major switch to electric or hybrid vehicles or a large investment in affordable light rail systems electricity, and hence nuclear power cannot contribute much to mitigating the effects of an oil shortage in this sector. In contrast, it is in much of the rest of the world, where transport takes about 54 percent of oil, and especially in India, China and even Japan (32 %, 36% and 38% respectively), that plans for new nuclear power plants are now being proposed with a greater sense of urgency. The US is an exception to the trend in the industrialised countries as it is now only too well aware of the insecurity of its reliance on imports of oil, principally from the Middle East. But it is surprising that for Western Europe, little account is taken of the part that nuclear power could contribute to substituting the 30 percent of non-transport oil – which would make a substantial contribution to combating an oil shortage – even, as in the report of the Swedish Oil Commission going to the extent of recommending that biomass fuels could replace use of electricity for domestic and other space heating.
It is however encouraging that a more positive view is taken in a Chatham House (The Royal Institute of International Affairs) report – A New Era for Oil prices by John V Mitchell, of August 2006. This report however seems to accept that the present trend will continue – “Current forecasts are for the nuclear share of electricity generation to fall slightly, from 21% to 19% by 2015, and by 3-4% by 2020. In Europe there is no EU policy on nuclear power. Some countries (Germany, Sweden) have decided to phase out nuclear generation completely, ahead of the technical life of the plants. A new station is under construction in Finland, France remains committed to nuclear power, and the UK government seems likely to take steps to simplify and shorten the planning procedures for new nuclear stations in order to meet climate policy objectives and reduce the need for gas imports in the future. No change in policy towards nuclear power seems likely in the life of current governments in Germany or Italy.” While lacking any sense of urgency the Chatham House report does at least acknowledge that “Five years of ‘high’ oil prices, combined with concerns about gas availability and the difficulty of meeting climate policy objectives (will) lead governments to reduce impediments to a larger nuclear share of electricity generation in the future. The need for new building for base-load generation creates opportunities for new choices. Once built, nuclear capacity with low input costs and high sunk costs will supply base-load electricity capacity. It does not necessarily directly compete with natural gas, whose low capital costs in generation and high fuel cost fit the demand pattern of peak daily and seasonal loads, or with ‘renewables’ (which are now given protected markets in many countries’ electricity systems) as their natural variation places them in the mid-load rather than the base-load or peak-load market.” The report estimates that the potential saving of oil, if nuclear energy were only to retain its share of the electricity market (rather than decline as currently projected), would give a reduction in demand for other fuels of about 2 mbd by 2025. (Is this correct? A rough calculation indicates that the world generation of nuclear electricity in 2005 of 2626 TWh would be equivalent to some 4800 million barrels of oil/year or 13 mbd, about 16% of annual world oil consumption.).
But the as the reprot notes, in the long term higher figures would be possible: “in France, nuclear energy accounts for almost 80% of electricity generation and 38% of total primary energy input, compared with world averages of 16% and 6% respectively.” The focus of this report also seems to concentrate on Western Europe.
An expansion of nuclear power in the US and in the rest of the world nuclear would increase the percentage of oil substitution considerably.
The lack of any sense of urgency in the Chatham House report could stem from the optimistic assumption that for oil “supply and demand are set to expand roughly in balance over the next five years”. But the report goes on to acknowledge that “there are many uncertainties”. These supply uncertainties include the possibility that a continuation of high prices could generate more revenue than the producing companies are able to absorb so that they may prefer to keep their oil in the ground rather than continue exports to acquire financial assets abroad. (Norway which has already built up a huge investment fund could well be a case in point.) More significant is a reference to “Critical countries where projects may not deliver the expected capacity before 2010 for one or another political reason” But since the countries considered under this heading include many of the major world producers, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria and eventually Iraq, the consequences for world oil supply of any disruption would be severe. The report however draws comfort from projections by the US Energy Information Agency (EIA), the OPEC secretariat and the International Energy Agency which all foresee, for their reference cases, a net increase in capacity of between 6 and 7 mbd by 2010 to match an expected increase in demand. Despite the show of confidence in these projections much of the report is given over to the potential role of alternatives to oil such as biomass and Fischer Tropsch oil from coal.
|
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 11 September 2006 )
|
|
|
|
Join SONE |
|
We need your support To become a member of SONE download the application form by clicking the button below  |
|
