|
2008 Nuclear Issues v30 8 |
|
|
|
|
Written by Nuclear Issues
|
|
Friday, 01 August 2008 |
Nuclear Issues is also available as a pdf download
Whoops ....
We are very sorry but we were overtaken by events when the shareholders
meeting of British Energy decided to reject the Electricite de France
offer just after we had gone to press with a welcome to the French
company. They say that discussion are to continue but we don’t want
anymore talking. We want action to build new nuclear power stations.
And we want it yesterday! Quite possibly £12 billion (we got that wrong
too quoting £13 billion) does undervalue BE but it is a heck of a lot
of money and should only be rejected if the company has some other
ideas for raising the money it needs to build new plants.
Of course it is possible that EdF will go it alone and build a new station at one of the two sites it recently bought from BE. If so, good. But please, please, get on with it. We are desperate for new sources of clean, economic and safe sources of electricity.
It is even possible – though unlikely – that BE could also built a new station on its own. Perhaps a Westinghouse – now owned by the Japanese – AP- 1000 which could be built a little quicker than the large European Pressurized Water Reactor (EPR). It all sounds fine but for pities sake get on with it. Remember what we said a month ago about the fact that we built the four reactors at Calder Hall in less than ten years with only slide rules – no powerful computers – to make calculations. They operated for 50 years without problems and generated electricity and steam in vast quantities.
You can’t throw it away
There are some slightly encouraging signs that the US is starting to recognise the benefit of a closed nuclear fuel cycle with recycle of the vast energy content of used fuel. A memorandum of understanding was signed by the Department of Energy (DoE) and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) in April for work on advanced fuel cycle technologies including spent nuclear fuel recycling. This envisages development and exchange of information on advanced fuel cycle technologies in support of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.
It would of course be possible for the DoE to get all the technology it wants from Europe and indeed they are already getting mixed uranium/plutonium oxide (MOX) fuel technology from France for their use of stockpiles of military plutonium. Alternatively they could look back at historical development of nuclear power in the US which considered all the options of reprocessing and recycle.
Anyway, let them reinvent reprocessing, possibly with the extension to co-processing of uranium and plutonium together which is somehow thought to offer more proliferation resistance, and new reactors such as the lead cooled fast reactor proposed by the Russians.
The important thing, however, is to stop them talking about putting spent – or rather used – nuclear fuel into Yucca Mountain. Reprocessing and recycle just once would reduce the volume of waste by at least eight times and recycle in fast reactors could extract 60 to 100 times as much energy from the uranium dug out of the ground.
Nuclear weapons
As the world now begins to move into the nuclear age the control of the proliferation of nuclear weapons becomes ever-more important and necessary. The age of fossil fuels is coming to an end. World oil consumption has increased by 24% over the past 10 years. Production is now flat. Prices of coal, gas and oil continue to rise. Increasing discharges of carbon dioxide threaten climate change. Nuclear power is the only new energy source that is available to cushion the growing energy gap and maintain the world’s economy. Its wider use must not be inhibited by the problems of the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
This issue is now highlighted by the tacit acceptance of India as a nuclear power. In March 2006 under a proposed nuclear trade agreement with the US, India would agree to separate its civil from its military nuclear facilities and place its civil facilities under IAEA safeguards; in exchange, the United States would agree to work towards full civil nuclear cooperation with India. This agreement was finally accepted by the Indian parliament in July this year after arguments by opposition parties that it would give the USA influence over Indian foreign policy as well as inhibiting its military programme. But the Indian Prime Minister made it clear to Parliament that the agreement, while enabling India to enter into international trade for civilian use, will not impose any interference with India’s nuclear weapons programme which will (as now for the NW States) continue to be developed according to the country’s own security perceptions.
Now, with the acceptance of the US agreement, a further agreement has been speedily ratified between India and the IAEA whereby India will progressively place its civil nuclear plants under international safeguards. But this safeguards agreement with the IAEA, expected to be fully in force by 2014, is limited to only 14 of India’s 17 currently operating reactors, leaving India free to develop further, and expand, its nuclear weapons capability using those reactors which remain outside safeguards. In this India is acting in the same way as the nuclear weapons states, NWS, who, despite their commitments under NPT to reduce their nuclear arsenals, continue to upgrade their weapons and develop new advanced systems.
India’s nuclear power programme dates back to the 1960s, but India has never accepted the Non Proliferation Treaty and developed its own nuclear weapons capability, carrying out a first nuclear test in 1974. Although cut off from international nuclear trade since 1974 India has successfully built up its civil nuclear capacity; its first indigenously built nuclear power plant, Madras Atomic Power Station - unit 1 came into operation 25 years ago. There are now 17 Indian reactors in operation, with six more under construction. But with a further large expansion now planned for nuclear power to avoid growing electricity shortages, up to 20 000 MW by 2020, India would benefit from international collaboration. The US agreement was to be backed up by extensive contracts for nuclear equipment and materials.
In return for the acceptance of IAEA safeguards the US agreed to push for changes in the rules of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), which currently limits international trade to NPT signatories. But this has not been accepted by the wider membership of the Group.
At its meeting on 21/22 August the Group failed to reach an agreement on this; they have decided to meet again on Sept.4-5 to try to resolve their differences. It has been reported that while the United States, Russia and France argued that the nuclear trade ban should be lifted this was opposed by others including Norway, Ireland, New Zealand, Switzerland, the Netherlands & Austria.
The Nuclear Suppliers Group, formed in 1975, is a voluntary body whose 45 member countries are expected to forego trade with governments that do not subject themselves to international measures and inspections, but the decisions are not binding; NSG members may ultimately make any export they wish.
For instance, Russia transferred nuclear fuel to India in January 2001, against the decision of the majority of members. It is also not obvious to what extent some of the member countries, Cyprus, Greece and Malta, are engaged in the nuclear industry or have anything to offer, while others, Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Norway, New Zealand for instance are opposed to nuclear power.
It can be argued that a lifting of the nuclear trade ban on India would have wider benefits. As a large, rapidly industrializing country, India’s growing demand for power would otherwise be met by a large expansion of coal-firing (coal already meets some 53% of electricity supply) which would only add to world emissions of carbon dioxide. Nuclear trade with India could also be a two-way process. Indian industries are developing capabilities in the heavy steel forgings and power equipment that might otherwise prove a restriction to the rapid development of an increasing world nuclear power capacity. A wider safeguards agreement would allow India to buy and sell civilian nuclear power technology and fuel and uranium on the international market. Leading nuclear nations including Britain, France, Japan, Russia and the USA are said to be ready to supply nuclear power plant and fuel. There would be benefits to both sides from an increased nuclear trade.
On the other hand the lifting of the nuclear trade ban would clearly undermine the whole basis of the non-proliferation regime which is to reward those countries that reject nuclear weapons (the non-nuclear weapon states NNWS) with access to the benefits of peaceful uses of nuclear technology and materials, and hinder such opportunities to those who proliferate.
Other proliferators that are not party to the NPT, such as Israel and Pakistan, could now be preparing the groundwork for similar bilateral deals. The NNWS, parties to the Treaty, have to wonder what value the Treaty really holds for them. The principle of nonproliferation itself is now at risk. This is a matter of widespread and deep concern to many who rely on the NPT for the control of the spread of nuclear weapons.
India will always be reluctant to give up its nuclear weapons as long as it perceives a threat from a nucleararmed Pakistan (and vice-versa). But there will come point when India, and other countries in a similar position, faced with a ban on nuclear trade realize that a greater, and more real, threat to their security will come from increasing shortages of energy to sustain their economy and society.
Iran
The inconsistencies in the application of the NPT regime are obvious in the case of Iran. As a signatory of the NPT Iran has the right to develop its civil nuclear capacity, including the enrichment of uranium to nuclear fuel levels. Iran is also prepared to accept IAEA inspection of its facilities. Despite any firm evidence it is widely asserted that Iran’s enrichment plans are directed principally towards the production of highly enriched uranium for a secret weapons programme. This so far unfounded suspicion is the basis for the imposition of sanctions and even threats of military action if Iran continues with its enrichment plans.
This is a complete reversal of the case of India, a non-member of NPT which has developed a weapons capability, but could yet be rewarded with access to the world nuclear market. It is also remarkable that Brazil, another NPT country like Iran, has developed its own enrichment capability (as it is entitled to) with little or no adverse comment from the IAEA or the rest of the world, even though this development was carried out in secret – it was said on grounds of protecting the commercial confidentiality of the technology.
The NPT
It is becoming apparent that the NPT is in danger of falling apart. In addition to the refusal of the nuclear weapon states to fulfill their commitment to reduce and ultimately to abandon their nuclear arsenals; the inconsistencies in the treatment of Iran, India and Brazil; and the tacit acceptance of Israel and Pakistan as nuclear proliferators could tempt other countries to take up nuclear weapons technology.
One obvious solution to the problem would be for nuclear weapons, like biological and chemical weapons, to be outlawed entirely. If by international agreement the development of biological and chemical weapons can prohibited there is no reason why nuclear weapons cannot be treated in the same way.
The time may be ripe for such a move. There are no longer any deep ideological differences between the three dominant nuclear weapon states. Russia, and now China too, are moving towards a market economy to be on equal footing with the USA. There will always be disputes and tensions, but these will be mainly as commercial rivalries and competition over access to raw materials which would be better solved by commercial negotiations rather than through nuclear war.
As we move into the nuclear age there is too much at stake for the world energy supply to be jeopardized by posturing with nuclear weapons.
Core issues
A valuable book just published by Nuclear Engineering International (NEI) is Core Issues – Dissecting Nuclear Power Today by Steve Kidd. It is a modest sized book (around 200 pages) but contains a fairly comprehensive and very up-to-date review of nuclear power development around the world. It is based on his monthly comment column in NEI, with a bit of touching up, and Kidd’s main job as Director of Strategy & Research and research at the World Nuclear Association – formerly the Uranium Institute.
A good round up of the current state of the developing ‘nuclear renaissance’ is quite encouraging but Kidd would like to see more real progress in some countries – notably the United States and Europe. He, like us, gets impatient with the amount of talking about the matter and in particular the continual winging about ‘the waste problem.’ But where he really comes into his element is, not unsurprisingly, on the nuclear fuel cycle.
He first tackles uranium and dismisses the silly people who are suggesting that there might be a shortage. Phasing of the production to meet demand has some problems but there is plenty out there and even if no new uranium were discovered we would have enough for forty years at least.
And then there is recycle. Kidd is naturally concerned about those who advocate the throw away fuel cycle which would treat the fuel taken out of reactors as a waste product. He says that it should not be called spent fuel but rather used fuel in recognition of the huge energy content still there waiting to be exploited. (We do agree and will try to remember this in the future.) America is the main area of concern with the Yucca Mountain project being described as a disposal site for spent fuel or high level waste. Most US operators are storing up used fuel in transport/storage containers at their power station sites and are inpatient to get rid of it as soon as they can to the government who have already been paid one mill per kWh by the operators. We may need to organise some pro-nuclear action groups to sit on railways to stop any used fuel going to Yucca Mountain.
Core Issues – Dissecting Nuclear Power Today, Nuclear Engineering International, £25.
A turning tide
There is a growing public acceptance of nuclear power all over Europe. Over the past three years public acceptance has increased in the EU from 39% to 44%.
This is a significant change, as the figures for those against have fallen from 55% to 45%. The Euro barometer survey recently published also shows that the support for nuclear power has grown in 17 of the 27 member states.
No doubt these figures have been helped by recent political decisions in the UK and in Italy in favour of nuclear power. It should also be noted that the phase out policies which have been adopted in Germany, Sweden and Belgium are being strongly contested in a growing public debate on the issue.
It is interesting to note that last year Germany increased its coal consumption by 3% not the most positive contribution to meeting the climate change challenge.
Renewables, renewables and more renewables
The Greens never miss a trick. Ever since the EU launched its plans to achieve 20% of total energy from renewables by 2020, the Greens have used every trick in the political book to put their own spin on this policy. The report which is now being debated in the Industry Committee in the European Parliament is being drafted by Claude Turmes, a Luxembourg Green MEP.
He is probably the Green’s most able member, hugely knowledgeable, deeply fanatical and brilliantly selective.
He it is, with the backing of the whole Greenpeace propaganda machine in top gear, who is currently orchestrating the Green dream of a world run completely on renewable energy. The launch of the report in committee was timed with a visit to Brussels by ex President Gorbachev. There followed an “Agora” – a Greek word for a people’s assembly – also organised by the Greens. There are no prizes for guessing the type of “people” who dominated the events.
The most dangerous – indeed, evil – proposal in the Turmes draft report is the proposal that every member state should have complete freedom to “promote” (i.e.
“subsidise”) renewable energy. The term “Renewable”, for this purpose, is as defined by the Greens. Bear in mind, the EU is supposed to be putting in place an internal energy market where the same rules apply in every country. Fortunately the pro-nuclear membership of the Parliament is increasing, but it is still not able to meet the challenge of the persistent Green propaganda machine.
Perpetual energy!
It has become fashionable to designate wind power, solar power etc as renewable energies. This sustains the belief that these energies are somehow unique, more natural, more desirable and more valuable than fossil fuels. But the concept of ‘renewable’ energy, like that of perpetual motion, is an unattainable myth. Once used energy can never be renewed it can only be expended or downgraded. Windpower requires a sufficient flow of wind to rotate an electricity generating turbine, just as a themal power station requires a supply of fossil fuel to generate steam to turn a similar turbine. But the wind does not always blow at an appropriate speed; the sun does not shine at night.
It can be argued that it is the source of the energy that is renewed. After a period of calm the wind will blow again but the time and power of this revival is, despite improving weather forecasting, largely unknown. In the morning the sun will again rise, but the extent of cloud cover cannot be accurately anticipated. These energies would be more accurately described as intermittent, variable, uncertain, unpredictable, or unreliable. They are dependent on the vagaries of nature and beyond our control. There is nothing we can do to adjust the output of these plants to meet the varying demands for electricity. Their intermittency has to be covered by fossil-fired plants where the supply of fuel is under our control and we can ensure that output is maintained to cover those hours and days when the ‘intermittent’ energies may not be available.
On the other hand the concept of renewable energy could be more appropriately used to describe a breeder reactor in which neutrons generated in the fission process can be captured in a blanket of fertile material (depleted uranium or thorium) to breed more fissile material.
Green subsidies
Why should we subsidise “Green” wind energy, but not “Green” nuclear energy? This question was posed recently by Vincent de Ruaz, Chief Executive of EDF, at a meeting of the Parliamentary Group for Energy Studies at Westminster.
The anti-nuclear crowd have made a lot of noise over problems faced in Finland in the construction of the first EPR at Olkiluoto-3. Mr. Ruaz came with the good news that at Flamenville (no doubt benefiting from experience) the EPR under construction was on time and within budget.
As Mr Ruaz said the contribution that nuclear power makes towards the reduction of CO2 emissions is every bit as deserving of public subsidy as any renewable source and, indeed, such a subsidy would contribute to that much sought after phenomenon “the level playing field”.
Talking of subsidies, we might also ask why the European Commission continues to give financial support to Greenpeace and associated organisations, when their energy policies directly contradict the EU policy to promote carbon capture and sequestration, and to leave to member states the decision on nuclear power.
European nuclear forum (ENP)
There were over 300 participants at the most recent meeting of this forum, which was set up by the European Commission to bring together the nuclear industry, politicians, interest groups and the public. Anti-nuclear groups are welcome and Greenpeace and Green MEPs have taken part in its work. The national MP involvement has so far been limited to members from the Czech Republic and Slovakia, largely because the meetings are held alternately in Prague and Bratislava.
The forum has a strong focus on nuclear safety and waste management, and its work is crucial in EU terms for acceptance by the public of the over 1200 nuclear reactors which are indicated as needed by the International Energy Agency by 2050.
There are three working groups which have been formed to look at risks, opportunities and information.
The risk group is working on three themes: harmonisation of safety principles, which is seen as an important foundation for new nuclear build; adequate waste disposal standards and training and education.
The opportunities group is looking at competitiveness and financing and licensing, with common licensing the ultimate aim. The information group is examining better information, building trust and confidence and best practises.
The expectation is that the working groups will produce papers for adoption later in 2008.
Perhaps the key message that emerged from the most recent meeting is that the European Union is not keeping up with the rest of the world in nuclear energy development. Furthermore, within the EU it is a two speed Europe. That is the reality and it has serious implications for Europe’s future competitiveness.
Low carbon challenge
Rarely is it spelled out in any detail exactly what is entailed in halving CO2 emissions by 2050. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has nailed its colours to the mast by declaring that it means the virtual decarbonising of electricity generation. In nuclear terms, the IEA puts the requirement at 32 reactors for each of the next 40 years. This is, no doubt, the reality.
The IEA also stresses the importance of renewables, carbon capture and efficiency, unlike Greenpeace, which has a selective and limiting approach.
In practical terms, the public has to be convinced that a low carbon economy equals nuclear + renewables + carbon capture + efficiency. Anything less than this will not be sufficient. And it is a global requirement. |
|
|
|
