|
2007 Nuclear Issues v29 06 |
|
|
|
|
Written by Nuclear Issues
|
|
Friday, 01 June 2007 |
Nuclear Issues is also available as a pdf download
Nice nuclear not ghastly gas
Burning of natural gas is now the biggest source of greenhouse gas in
the UK. About 60 to 70 million tonnes of carbon per year pushed into
the atmosphere as CO2. That is slightly more than the total from petrol
and diesel used in transport – cars, lorries, buses and aeroplanes.
When North Sea gas was discovered it was considered too valuable to burn in electric generating plants and nuclear became the main source of electricity. But then we had privatisation and all hell broke loose as wiss kids started making a quick buck generating electricity from a cheap fuel coming out of a pipeline. Now they have virtually squandered away our domestic gas and we will have to import at least 90 percent at ten times the cost. In the meantime the government has been letting our first generation of nuclear plants go into old age retirement without building any replacement third generation plants.
What is needed now is to reimpose a ban on burning gas for electricity and to build new, cheaper, cleaner and safer nuclear plants as quickly as possible. Nuclear plants, of course, do not produce any greenhouse gas but everybody, because they have been indoctrinated by Greens, says what about the waste.
So lets talk about waste
For natural gas burning plants all the waste – all 60 to 70 million tonnes per year – goes into the flue or up the stack of a power station straight into the environment. There it keeps in the warmth of the sun and causes global warming.
On the other hand nuclear waste is firmly retained within the spent fuel when it is removed from a nuclear plant. Note the spent fuel is not the waste as about 96 percent of it can be recycled. But a tiny amount of fission product waste – about 4 percent – is separated by reprocessing and kept securely away from the environment.
At Sellafield some 40 years worth of waste from both military nuclear programmes and from civil nuclear power has been held in a small number of ultra high security tanks about 2 m diameter and 2.5 m tall.
Now, however, it is being solidified in blocks of glass held in stainless steel containers – about the size of milk churns – and stored in secure concrete vaults.
About half the space of one modest vault is occupied with all the waste that has been separated in the past sixty years. Here it can be held safely for up to 300 years by which time its radiotoxicity will have decayed to less that of the uranium originally dug out of the ground. So we could put it back in the uranium mines it came from where it would continue to decay and the earth would be a little bit less radioactive.
But we can do better than that. We can put it in geologically stable underground deposits just as soon as the government makes up its mind on location. There is plenty of choice – deep ocean sediments (strongly opposed by the Greens probably because technically it would be the best), a band of clay which extends across southern Briton and on into Belgium, Holland and northern France, disused salt mines in Cheshire similar to those found across northern Germany, or granite in Northern England and Scotland like that found in Scandinavia. We have the technology we just need somebody to make up their mind.
There are some other intermediate and low level radioactive materials produced by the nuclear industry but these are managed very safely and are truly miniscule compared with 60 to 70 million tonnes of greenhouse gas spewed out each year by burning gas.
What about safety
With nuclear everybody thinks of Chernobyl which was certainly the worst nuclear accident ever. It killed 56 by direct exposure to radiation from the explosion of a uniquely Russian design of reactor. It is worth noting that a study conducted some years before had revealed several features of the design that would not have been accepted by the licensing body in Briton. It was calculated to be at least ten times less safe than contemporary western designs and although this has since been improved so has the safety of the third generation reactors now being proposed for the UK.
They are at least a hundred times safer than Chernobyl was.
Three year after the Chernobyl accident there was a terrible gas explosion in Russia when a pipeline leaked and was sparked off by two electric trains. Some 575 people were reported killed by ghastly burning and a further 600 seriously injured. They included a lot of children going to and returning from holiday camps.
This event just about made the front pages in the western press. We wonder why.
But there may be long term radiation effects. Official reports now indicate that these may have been a bit exaggerated. They now estimate a possible 2000 cases of cancer in our lifetimes but they are quick to point out that we will never observe them amongst the much larger numbers of naturally occurring cancers.
The estimates are based on extrapolation from studies of the effects of radiation on survivors of the atom bombs dropped on Japan. (Note, we still talk about studies of “survivors” 62 years after those dreadful events.) Considerable doubt has been cast upon the validity of these extrapolations by some leading scientists.
One study, for example, estimated that in a well monitored group of Chernobyl cleanup workers there would be an extra 200 leukaemia’s in ten years after the accident. This should have definitely been seen but none were observed. It may be that the evidence of Chernobyl, where worker exposure was measured and recorded, is better than survivors of exposure 62 years ago when radiation had scarcely been heard of.
There is one group where radiation from Chernobyl could be responsible. This is thyroid cancer in some children who drank local milk within about three weeks of the accident. The half life of the cesium isotope is too short for longer exposure. These cancers are treatable so we are not talking about deaths. There is still a little bit of question about the natural incidence before the accident.
What about cost then?
A lot of nonsense has been written about costs in the UK. This is partly due to decommissioning cost of the first generation Magnox reactors being much higher that a more recent Pressurized Water Reactor like Sizewell B – about ten times higher. When we had a nationalized utility industry money was put by on a yearly basis – about £600 million a year – but this was all held by the Treasury and disappeared into a black hole when the industry was privatised.
What we can say about the cost of the third generation reactors now being proposed is that all the waste management and decommissioning costs – at least ten times lower than the old plants – are built into the daily operating costs and will be fully covered by the private operator.
Even with these costs added in, the nuclear plants will produce electricity at a lower cost than today’s combined cycle gas turbines and will become progressively more competitive with time as gas prices are bound to continue rising. We pointed this out many times ten or fifteen years ago but nobody did anything about replacing the aging plants coming up to their retirement age.
Well at least gas is better than coal
Or is it? For a few extra millions it is possible to use what is referred to as “clean” coal burning technology. For example one can convert coal to gas as we did in the old gas works which used to operate in most towns.
This was mainly hydrogen gas which is not a serious greenhouse gas like the methane of natural gas when it leaks.
The gas can then be burnt in a gas turbine to produce electricity with the waste heat generating steam to produce more electricity. This is exactly the same technology as a combined cycle gas turbines and should offer a comparable gain in efficiency.
This still means a lot of greenhouse gas is produced but at least it could be from a national resource – calculated to be good for about 100 years – rather than being dependant on imports from Siberia. (Though at present we are importing most of the coal we use.)
The cost of decommissioning
We hear some awful things about the costs of decommissioning nuclear plants with figures in the tens of billions – though usually these include military programmes where the costs are higher. But a recent article in the Bulletin of the International Atomic Energy Agency gives some actual figures.
For existing plants the range is $200 to $500 per kW for western pressurized water reactors and $300 to $550 for boiling water reactors. But, oh dear, for gas cooled Magnox reactors of the type used for first generation British plants it can be as much $2 600 per kW.
It has long been known that the costs for early British plants, which started the world programmes of nuclear power, were going to be high. They are relatively small plants with large structures of concrete. They were ahead of their time but relatively expensive. The plants – as we have often reported – went a good way to paying for these cost while the operating utility was nationalized but the money went into the depths of the Treasury never to be heard of again. The considerable profits earned by the electric utilities also went into the Treasury. It may have been spent on well meaning programmes for you and me, but no credit is given to nuclear power. So now we are paying just short of ten times what other nuclear power plants around the world are paying.
Decommissioning costs for plants being built today are estimated at 9% to 15% of the initial capital cost of the plant. But when this is discounted it amounts to only a small percentage of the investment cost and is only a small fraction of the total electricity generating costs. For the most part this small charge is put into some sort of sinking fund which does not really have any impact upon day to day operating cost.
For a new British plant we are looking at modern third generation designs where these costs are even lower and truly quite insignificant.
Drifting towards disaster
It is a truism that the world economy with everexpanding economic growth driven by the aspiration of an ever-increasing world population for an everincreasing standard of living depends on an everincreasing availability and consumption of energy. If however the claims that world oil production is reaching a peak are accepted the IEA projections that by 2030 world energy consumption will be nearly 50% more than in 2004 – with oil consumption up by 48% - should be taken more as an indication of what would be required to maintain the expanding world economy on its present course rather than an indication of what will actually occur.
The consequences of a shortfall in energy supply will be catastrophic for society and the economy.
Personal mobility by road and air transport will reduce.
The trend towards increasing globalisation will end as the energy available to move goods around the world reduces, and even within countries there will be an increase in regional and local economies.
But the greater threat will be a collapse of the financial sector. In the UK personal debt is said to have increased to £1.3 trillion, based on loans by the banks and other financial institutions. These loans are based on the expectation that as the economy expands they will be repaid with interest. Without economic growth fuelled by a growth in energy supply the whole system will fall apart.
While at some point be production of oil and gas must come to an end – they are finite resources – there are arguments as to when production will peak with dates between now and 2040 or beyond. Optimists suggest that improving technology will enable more of the oil now left behind to be extracted from existing oil fields; that unconventional resources such as tar sands and shales can be fully exploited, and that deep ocean drilling will uncover new supplies. Pessimists can argue that the dramatic increase in the price of oil is an indication that already supplies are getting tight as production now far exceeds the rate of new discoveries.
The peak of oil and gas discoveries came during the 1960s and this must be followed by a peak in production. Oil consumption has now started to outrun production – a situation which cannot be sustained.
The recent BP statistical review of world energy shows that surplus of oil production over consumption has fallen from 48.9 million tons (1.26% of production) in 2004 to 35.5 million tons in 2005 and to 24.3 million tons (0.6% of production) in 2006. If consumption includes transportation and processing losses as well as deliveries to strategic reserves this suggests that the peak has already arrived; as is reflected in the increasing price of oil.
Given the potential catastrophic consequences it is astonishing that, apart from the recommendations of the GAO in the USA for studies to reduce the uncertainty over peak oil date, this vital matter is ignored by governments world-wide. It seems as if even a recognition of the possibility is too traumatic to be contemplated.
UK energy security
The refusal to consider energy supply as a vital national interest is nowhere more apparent than in this country.
The Government accepts that UK reserves of oil and gas are declining, production has hit its peak and is now falling, and that over the next 20 to 30 years we will need new generating capacity equivalent to over a third of our existing capacity, while most nuclear power stations are set to close over the next 10 to 20 years at a time when demand for electricity is going up because of economic growth.
And at a time when it is proposing unrealistic targets for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions – a 60 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 – it admits that “Every year a modern nuclear reactor saves about 2.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere compared with an equivalent gasfired station.” The Government recognizes that “nuclear is an important part of our energy mix, generating about 18 per cent of our electricity – a low-carbon form of generating electricity; that it provides a regular and steady supply of electricity, whereas electricity generated from most renewables is, by its very nature, intermittent.
In the House of Lords the Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry, Lord Truscott, declared on May 23rd that “Quite simply, in the public interest we need to make a decision this year on whether we should continue to get some of our electricity from nuclear, because new stationtake a long time to build. If nuclear is excluded, there is every chance that its place will be taken by gas or coal generation, which of course emits carbon.” Yet at the same time the Government abdicates all responsibility for implementing a new nuclear programme. It is to be entirely a matter for the private sector to initiate, fund, construct and operate new nuclear plants and cover the cost of decommissioning and their full share of longterm waste management costs. All that the Government is prepared to do is “to create the right conditions for this investment.” Since the UK no longer has a nuclear industry able to build new stations and provide their fuel the timing of any new nuclear programme will depend on decisions made by the French of German companies who now own a large part of the UK electricity generation and supply. They are unlikely to be in a hurry to make the long-term investment commitment unless they are satisfied that the ‘conditions’ are indeed right for them, knowing that, as time passes and the competition for energy supplies on the world market increases and the UK energy position becomes ever-more desperate, the ‘conditions’ may shift in their favour.
EDF has said that it could have a first station in operation by 2017. The world could be in the grip of an oil crisis well before that date. What will the government do then? Urging us to turn off electrical appliances on standby will not be enough.
Urbanisation
Increasing pressure on energy supplies will come from the movement of rural populations to towns. A report by the United Nations Population Fund foresees that over the next 30 years, the population of African and Asian cities will double, adding 1.7 billion people— more than the populations of China and the United States combined. In Africa and Asia, the number of people living in cities increases by approximately 1 million, on average, each week.
By 2008, more than half the world’s current 6.7 billion people will live in cities. And although megacities (more than 10 million people) will continue to grow, most people will live in cities of less than 500 000.
By 2030, the urban population is expected to rise to 5 billion, or 60 per cent of world’s population. While rural populations can utillise wood and animal wastes for fuel the denser population of a city will require more concentrated, less polluting fuels – electricity, oil or gas. The needs of urban peoples are also more energy intensive with the development of local industries, air conditioning and refrigeration. The end result will be a considerable increase in energy demand.
A low energy society
Expansion cannot go on for ever. In the longer term urbanisation can be expected to reduce population growth. Higher levels of education, particularly for women, and a way of life that no longer requires a large family unit will have an effect in reducing the birth rate. There is then the possibility that world population may stabilise and with it economic growth. But this will require a considerable time during which energy supply must be maintained.
This does not satisfy those who argue for a low growth low energy society fuelled by the renewable energies of wind, wave and sun. These enthusiasts welcome the concept of peak oil with its enforced return to pre-industrial levels and with populations reduced to the numbers that the renewable energies can sustain – perhaps some 20-30 percent of the present level.
This implies a chaotic collapse with the drastic culling of population by starvation, disease, and wars over limited energy supply. The alternative of a controlled reduction over time will require a greater reliance on nuclear power – the only new non-fossil energy source which could be made available in the time left before the effects of peak oil are felt. This may at best give us little more than 20 years grace, if it is not already almost too late.
Brazil wants more nuclear
The government of Brazil is planning to approve the construction of up to eight new nuclear power plants which should be in operation by 2030. In the meantime it is said to be close to approving a long delayed start of construction of the Angra-3, a third pressurized water reactor ordered from Germany several years ago.
Speaking about the plans recently, Marco Zimermann, the planning secretary at the Energy Ministry, said that the nuclear option could be pursued earlier if environmental objection delay the construction of large hydroelectric power projects that are also being planned.
Brazil has in the past embarked on a bold programme of biofuel for transport using sugar cane. But still it now needs nuclear. At present it has a 626 MWe pressurized water reactor supplied by the US company Westinghouse which has been operating at Angra-1 since 1985 and the first of two 1200 MWe PWR’s ordered from Germany which has been in operation since 2000. The country also has a fuel cycle industry supported by a small enrichment plant.
Time to re-assess
A few years ago we were beset with pessimistic studies saying that uranium, enrichment and oil and gas would have to increase in price by two, three or even four times to make different nuclear options look attractive.
We always maintained that such price increases were inevitable but we were largely ignored. Now however these increases are here and now and have gone far beyond those pessimistic projection. So is it not time to look again at some of those old studies.
First there is reprocessing and the use of mixed plutonium/uranium (MOX) fuel. At todays uranium and enrichment costs it must now be fully economic to recycle plutonium rather than using new uranium fuel.
The first to exploit this should be the UK where spent fuel does not even have to be reprocessed. We have plentiful stocks of plutonium already separated. Why is it not being used at our one PWR at Sizewell B.
Come to that, why not in Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors where it should by now be economical.
The next development is the fast reactor which is now economical. The French, Japanese, Russian and Indians are pushing ahead slowly with plans but a mush bigger push is now justified.
And even, would you believe, fusion power is beginning to look good at least in comparison with the best – or least bad – renewable energy options. But the only fusion option available at the moment is the ITER experimental project due to start construction at Cadarache in France at least two years late due to a silly argument between the Japanese and Europeans over the site. It is a scaled down project due to the temporary exit of the US from the project. But now they are back together with India, China and South Korea. But it is too late to go back to the full scale project and power production from a demo plant is not now envisaged in less than thirty years. Considering the potential current expenditure is absolutely trivial.
Belgian phase out not possible
A major report commissioned by the Belgian government to guide energy policy to 2030 says that maintaining the phase out programme of the previous government is a non starter. Belgium needs nuclear power as an economic and low carbon source of energy and continuing the current programme would lead to a doubling of electricity prices, would greatly the country’s potential for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and would lead to dependency on imports. |
|
|
|
