|
2007 Nuclear Issues v29 01 |
|
|
|
|
Written by Nuclear Issues
|
|
Monday, 01 January 2007 |
Nuclear Issues is also available as a pdf download
Grade C
Although the EU Commission report An Energy Policy for Europe usefully
sets out the problems of future energy supply in the light of climate
change, increasing import dependence and higher energy prices, the
policies proposed for any restraining or corrective action fall far
short of what will be required if serious reductions in emissions or
improvements in security of supply are to be achieved. Its only
redeeming feature is recognition of the role of nuclear power in EU
energy policy.
Energy accounts for 80% of all greenhouse gas emission in the EU; it is at the root of climate change and most air pollution. The aim is to reduce EU and worldwide greenhouse gas emissions to a level that would limit the global temperature increase to 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels. This would require a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by developed countries by 2020 compared to 1990, further, global emissions must be reduced by 2050 by up to 50% compared to 1990, implying reductions in industrialised countries of 60-80% by 2050. Within this the EU has a firm commitment to achieve at least a 20% reduction of greenhouse gases by 2020 compared to 1990. But; on current energy and transport policies, the movement is in the wrong direction and CO2 emissions from the EU countries would increase by around 5% by 2030 and global emissions would rise by 55%.
Even if the aim of holding global temperature increase to no more than 2oC were achieved there would, according to the Stern report, still be significant problems including: drought in southern Africa and the Mediterranean; decline in food production in Africa; up to 10 million extra people affected by coastal flooding each year. The Gulf Stream would begin to weaken and the Greenland ice sheet begin to melt irreversibly.
At the same time Europe is becoming increasingly dependent on imported hydrocarbons. With “business as usual” the EU’s energy import dependence will jump from 50% of total EU energy consumption today to 65% in 2030. Reliance on imports of gas is expected to increase from 57% to 84% by 2030, and of oil from 82% to 93%. These imports will have to be obtained in a market where supply may not keep pace with increasing demand. The International Energy Agency (IEA) expects global demand for oil to grow by 41% by 2030, and in an allusion to the expected onset of Peak Oil the EU Commission report comments “How supply will keep up with this demand is unknown .... the risk of supply failure is growing.” In proposing solutions to both problems the EU falls back on the by now well worn nostrums of increases in energy efficiency, more renewable energies, carbon capture and sequestration, and belt-tightening. The only new feature, for an EU report, is a belated but welcome recognition that nuclear power can and must play a large part in the EU energy economy. If all the wished for expectations can be fulfilled, the EU would by 2020 use approximately 13% less energy than today, saving Eur100 billion and around 780 millions tonnes of CO2 each year.
Energy efficiency,
Many of the measures proposed in the report are sensible and could be expected to be introduced from the normal progress of technology as they have been in the past. These include accelerating the introduction of fuel efficient vehicles for transport; making better use of public transport; tougher standards and better labelling on appliances; improving the energy performance of the EU’s existing buildings; and improving the efficiency of heat and electricity generation, transmission and distribution.
But from the start of the industrial revolution everincreasing efficiency of energy use has gone hand-inhand with increases in economic growth with a consequent increase in energy consumption. Goods supplied or services met with a lower energy cost encourage a greater use or accelerated obsolescence, while any monetary savings made are utilised to increase production elsewhere providing more employment and again a greater energy consumption.
The only sure means of restricting the growth of energy is through enforced reductions by taxation. A direct carbon tax would be an obvious choice to replace the failing EU carbon trading scheme.
Renewable energy
It was in 1997 that the European Union began working towards a target of a 12% share of renewable energy in its overall mix by 2010; a doubling from the levels of that time. But by 2004 the share of renewables in primary energy supply for EU-27 was only 6.4% of which biomass accounted 4.2% and wind only 0.3%. The Report recognises that the EU is not expected to reach its target; the share of renewable energy is unlikely to exceed 10% by 2010.
The Report suggests that main reason for the failure to reach the agreed targets is not the obvious, if unpalatable, fact that the renewable energies are more costly than “traditional” energy sources but a lack of a coherent and effective policy framework throughout the EU together with a stable long-term vision. “The challenge for renewables policy is to find the right balance between installing large scale renewable energy capacity today, and waiting until research lowers their cost tomorrow. ... Economies of scale can reduce the costs for renewables, but this needs major investment today.” The higher costs over traditional energies is claimed to be narrowing, particularly when the costs of climate change are factored in, but the recent collapse of the price of the EU carbon allowances (EUAs) is not encouraging. The Commission proposes a binding target to increase the level of renewable energy in the EU’s overall mix from less than 7% (6.4%) today to 20% by 2020. Targets beyond 2020 would be assessed in the light of technological progress.
Windpower
The Report notes that wind power provides approximately 20% of electricity needs in Denmark, as well as 8% in Spain and 6% in Germany with the implication that other member countries should seek to match these figures. But this ignores the inherent variability of wind. The 20% claimed for Denmark is of the total electricity production; only some 8.5% of this is used by Danish consumers, the remainder, produced in excess of the consumer demand, is exported to the other Scandinavian countries via the Nordic electricity grid. This suggests there could be an upper limit to the amount of windpower that the EU could usefully use; the EU could just be Denmark writ large but without the export option.
Biofuels
The Report lays particular stress on biofuels. Although these are and will remain for the near future more expensive than other forms of renewable energy they are seen as the only significant means of reducing dependence on oil in the transport sector. In its Renewable Energy Roadmap and Biofuels Progress report, (COM (2006) 845) the Commission proposes to set a binding minimum target for biofuels of 10% of vehicle fuel by 2020. This would be a remarkable increase; the present share of biofuels n the EU is given in COM (2006)845 as no more than 1%. The present report is even more optimistic suggesting that biofuels could make up to 14% of transport fuels by 2020.
Biofuels have attracted much criticism even within the environmental movement. With predictions that global warming will lead to declining agricultural production, not only in North Africa but also in Europe, proposals to use agricultural land to produce motor fuel are quite clearly untenable. We cannot continue to drive while the less fortunate starve. It can also be argued that the overall carbon dioxide emissions from biofuels are not much less, or could even be more than from burning oil when the oil used in cultivation – for oil-based fertilisers, pesticides etc – and the conversion into fuel are taken into account. Cutting down forest lands in Malaysia to replant for palm oil would be a retrograde step when this is used not for food but to drive cars. As Dr Lovelock has said “biofuels are positively dangerous and if exploited on a large scale would hasten disaster.”
Electricity
According to the EU report, Europe will need to invest Eur 900 billion on new electricity generation during the next twenty five years. Gas remains the first choice for this given its higher conversion efficiency, but gas alone will need Eur 150 billion of investment in new power plant with an additional Eur 220 billion on gas infrastructure. Electricity generation would then be heavily dependent on gas, of which some 80% will be imported by 2030. Security of gas supply will be paramount to the EU economy. The report urges that in addition to supplies now coming from Norway, Russia and Algeria, attempts should be made to bring in gas from other regions and new liquid gas terminals should be constructed. Such a policy assumes that by 2030 gas and oil will be freely available commodities traded in international markets. With predictions of the approach of peak oil this must now be far from certain.
Coal and gas together now fuel 50% of the EU’s electricity supply. Any difficulties over gas supply will lead to an increase in coal-fired generation. But coal produces roughly twice the emissions of CO2 compared to gas The IEA already expects that world electricity generation from coal will double by 2030, to release around 5 billion tonnes of CO2, amounting to some 40% of the expected increase in global energyrelated CO2 emissions. Cleaner coal generation and CO2 abatement will be necessary as well developing carbon capture and storage. The EU then points to the need for a favourable regulatory framework, as well as a greater investment and a greater research effort in developing this CCS technology. However until it is established as technically feasible at an acceptable cost there must be a question on the extent to which an increase in coal-fired generation can be relied on if carbon emissions are to be restrained..
Nuclear Europe
Against these uncertainties the EU report turns with evident relief to give a positive picture of the present and future role of nuclear power which currently supplies around one third of the electricity and 15% of the energy consumed in the EU where it is one of the largest sources of carbon dioxide free energy. (For EU- 27 in 2004 the percentage electricity mix, was: Nuclear 31, Coal 30, Gas 20, Renewables, including hydro 14, Oil 4, other 1.) “Nuclear power has been one of the ways of limiting CO2 emissions within the EU and, for those Member States that wish, is also likely to form part of an energy scenario where significant emission reductions are going to be required in the coming decades.” (GHG emissions in kgCO2 /MWh, including construction and operation are given as Nuclear 15, Hydro 5-20, Wind 10-30, Biomass 30, Gas 400-440, Oil 550, Coal 750-800.) “Nuclear power is less vulnerable to fuel price changes than coal or gas-fired generation, as uranium represents a limited part of the total cost of generating nuclear electricity and is based on sources which are sufficient for many decades and widely distributed around the globe.” ... “Nuclear energy is one of the cheapest sources of low carbon energy that is presently produced in the EU and also has relatively stable costs.” Quoting the IEA expectation that the world-wide use of nuclear power will increase from 368 GWe in 2005 to 416 GWe in 2030 the Commission report points to the economic benefits in maintaining and developing the technological lead of the EU in this field – from which the UK, once in the forefront, has now deliberately withdrawn.
For those who wish
The EU cannot force those member states, which are opposed, to build nuclear power stations, although with measures to increase cross-border electricity transfers with a European Grid it will become apparent that those antinuclear countries will be benefitting from the greenhouse gas reductions obtained from the nuclear stations in the other EU countries.
A Eurobarometer public opinion survey of 2005 shows that, in those countries in which nuclear stations were operating, support for nuclear power is strong. For those countries surveyed the figures are: Belgium 55.6% of nuclear share of electicity generation, 50% in favour; Czech republic 31% and 61%; Finland 26% and 58%; France 79% and 52%; Germany 31% and 38%; Hungary 37% and 65%; Lithuania 70% and 60%; Netherlands 3.9% and 52%; Slovakia 56% and 56%; Spain 19.5% and 16%; Sweden 45% and 60%; UK 20% and 44%.
The largest anomoly is Spain where the nuclear share of electricity is nearly 20% but the public support only 16%. But Spain is already increasingly dependent on electricity imports; while the electricity interconnection between France and Spain is listed in the EU paper as one of the four most important priority projects for the EU. Germany and the UK also show themselves as less than enthusiatic but the 2005 survey would have been before the extent of EU dependence on supplies of oil and gas from Russia was fully appreciated and also before the recent steep rise in gas, and with it electricity, prices.
Further expansion
Given the degree of support for nuclear power as shown in the Eurobarometer survey a further expansion of nuclear capacity in those countries already operating nuclear plant can be expected. Other EU countries are also now actively considering the building of new plants. These include Italy which has the dubious distinction of being the world’s largest net importer of electricity much of it nuclear. Italy is already participating in the construction of the new French nuclear station at Flamanville, and has purchased a 61% share of Slovak Electric.
Poland which now generates some 97% of electricity from coal is considering a nuclear programme aiming at 4.5 GWe in operation by 2030. Poland is also proposing to take a share in a new reactor to be built in Lithuania as a replacement for the Ignalina RBMK station which is to be shut down. Even in Ireland, hitherto strongly anti-nuclear, a government sponsored study has dared to suggest that nuclear power should be considered to ensure long-term security of supply.
On the other hand the EU has insisted that Bulgaria and Slovakia should, as a condition of entry into the EU close their Russian built WWER reactors on the grounds that these stations do not conform to Western safety standards. But, safety inspections by the IAEA in 2002 and WANO 2003 reported favourably on the condition and operation of the stations. These closures would seem to be unreasonably dogmatic and contrary to the aims of the EU report. Bulgaria has hitherto been a net exporter of electricity enabling its EU neighbour Greece to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
Iran
A report published on 26th December 2006 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences claims that, with a declining oil production coupled with the rapid growth in domestic demand, Iranian oil exports are likely to fall to less than half their present level in five years time, with a further drop to zero by 2015. This, the NAS suggested, implies that Iran’s claim to need nuclear power might be genuine and not merely a cover for nuclear weapons. Such a fall in output would also have a marked effect on world oil supply of which the Iran share is about 5 percent.
The National Academy report considers that the declining Iranian output is largely due to a lack of investment, particularly in enhanced oil recovery technology, which itself suggests that Iran’s reserves of ‘easy’ oil are coming to an end and the latest technologies must be adopted if output is to be sustained. But a BBC report has pointed out that the under-investment in Iran’s oil and gas sector is a consequence of US sanctions, which have been in force for more than two decades. These sanctions have not only kept US companies out of Iran but have also served as a disincentive to firms from other countries and multinationals because of the threat of secondary sanctions (approved by the US Congress in 1996).
Having experienced American imposed sanctions on its oil industry it is not surprising that Iran should now seek to develop its own independent uranium enrichment technology in the expectation that nuclear power is to play an increasing part in the country’s domestic energy supply.
As a supplier to the international oil market Iran should be assisted in updating its production facilities and also in developing nuclear power to reduce its own internal consumption of oil and gas. The allegations that Iran is now pursuing a nuclear weapons programme, invites comparisons with the accusations that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction which were used to justify the invasion. But there are suggestions that it was not WMD that Saddam Hussein was developing, but WED (weapons of economic destruction). The decision taken to sell Iraq oil in euros could be seen as a direct threat to the American economy where the dollar is maintained at an artificially high level by international trading in oil which has so far been entirely priced in dollars. That threat had to be challenged by regime change.
Now Iran is, perhaps rashly, embarking on the same course. The euro rather than the dollar is to be used for all its future foreign transactions and oil deals. Iran is also shifting its currency reserves from dollars to euros.
If followed by other oil producers, for instance Venezuela, this would not only threaten the economic stability of the US but also bring in its train a worldwide recession. As with Iraq the response of the US – to attempt to bring about regime change in Iran – seems inevitable. Accusations now being made that Iran is supporting the ‘insurgency’ in Iraq could provide a pretext for military action by the US. .
A more sensible alternative would be to recognise that with the approach of peak oil the whole system of international oil trading, with a possible system of quotas or planned reductions in consumption, needs to be negotiated. The ASPO proposals for the adoption of an Oil Depletion Protocol, whereby imports are cut to match supply would provide a good starting point. At the same time every effort should be made to replace the use of oil, wherever possible, by alternative energies in which nuclear power must play a major part.
Crisis near for Germany
A severe warning that Germany will miss its carbon dioxide emission targets by a wide margin, face higher electricity prices, suffer more blackouts and dramatically increase its dependence on gas imports from Russia if it persists with the former policy of phasing out nuclear power has been issued in a report by Deutsche Bank. The report is directed at the grand alliance of Christian and Social democrats which currently enjoys an uncertain control of the federal government. Angela Merkel who holds the position of Chancellor has indicated that she has similar fears but is prevented from taking action by an agreement when the grand alliance was formed that policies on which the two parties were still in disagreement would remain unchanged.
Now the situation is getting serious. Four large reactors which started operating between 1975 and 1977 are scheduled to be shut down by the end of 2009 with a potential loss of 4 GWe in generation. The Economy Minister and utility owners are calling for urgent action. The Bank estimates that 42 GWe of new generating capacity will need to be constructed by 2022 if the currently planned nuclear shutdowns are allowed to proceed and this would involve massive increases in the import of gas from Russia.
The bank’s report also draws attention to massive subsidies of some Eur 2.5 billion per year in German coal mines which produce 55% of the countries electricity with massive emissions of greenhouse gases while clean nuclear power which generates 31% has no subsidy.
Flamanville-3 now go
Electricite de France has now placed the order for the main nuclear parts of the Flamanville-3 nuclear power plant with Areva. This is for the massive 1600 MWe European Pressurized Water Reactor (EPR) which will be the first of a new generation for France. Areva is already building a plant of this design in Finland.
The turbine section of the plant was ordered from Alstom last year along with the main civil engineering contract to Bouygues. This means that 85% of the plants Eur 3.3 billion cost is now accounted for. First concrete is expected to be poured by the end of 2007 and after a construction period of 54 month the plant is expected to start operation in 2012. This is now only a year behind the start of the Finnish plant due to some recent slippage.
Last Chernobyl type reactor
Since the Chernobyl accident in 1986 the Russians have continued to operate the RBMK type plant suitably modified to prevent similar accidents. These are the four 1000 MWe units known as Leningrad and four units at Kursk – the last of which had started only months before the accident. The Russian maintain that these reactors have been upgraded to meet international safety standards of contemporary plants in the west although western experts remain sceptical about the lack of a containment building enclosing the whole plant.
But during the passing years doubt has persisted on a fifth unit at Kursk. This has been the subject of detailed design improvements intended to eliminate any prospect of an accident similar to Chernobyl. But the plant has been submitted to a protracted stop-go on the part of politicians.
Now the latest decision is go for the plant which is 70% complete. But watch this space. It could be stopped again in future. |
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 19 March 2007 )
|
|
|
|
Join SONE |
|
We need your support
To become a member of SONE download the application form by clicking the button below
|
|
