back to menu

Nuclear power remains in the doldrums in Europe and North America but is continuing to make headway in Russia and China. That’s the upshot of the latest developments in the international nuclear power sector.

In the UK, Toshiba announced last week that it would not build the planned 3.3 GW Moorside nuclear plant in Cumbria. Moorside was one of the six new nuclear power stations that the government wants to get built in the UK over the coming decades.

The website Carbon Brief has a good overview of the plans and how they fit into the UK’s climate and energy future.

Carbon Brief notes that “at this moment the UK has eight active nuclear power stations, all operated by French firm EDF. These active plants have a combined capacity of 8.9 gigawatts (GW). Last year, they generated 72 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity, around a fifth of the UK total and their highest output since 2006. The UK remains one of the world’s top ten producers of nuclear power.

However, UK nuclear generation is down by more than a quarter since a 1998 peak. Since then, some 4GW of capacity at eight sites has shut down. The UK’s remaining nuclear plants are also getting old; all of them are expected to close by 2035, with only Sizewell B lasting beyond 2030.”

“Meanwhile, the UK plans to cut emissions to 57% below 1990 levels by 2030 and to close all coal plants by 2025. That’s where new nuclear plants are supposed to come in.”

The most recent government projections, published in 2017, suggest new nuclear power will play a growing role in the UK’s electricity mix, notes Carbon Brief. The UK’s nuclear capacity will begin to fall in the early 2020s, with the 1GW Hunterston B and 1GW Hinkley Point B closing in 2023 (see chart, below).

Source: Carbon Brief

“At the time the projections were made, these closures were supposed to be followed by the opening in 2025 of Hinkley Point C, a 3.2GW plant due to be built by EDF. After long delays, a final decision to go ahead with Hinkley C was taken in 2016. Its two reactors are to open in 2026 and 2027.”

“Hinkley C would more than offset the loss of the 1.2GW plants at Heysham 1 and Hartlepool, due to close in 2024. The 1GW Dungeness B would close in 2028 and the 1.2GW Heysham 2 and Torness plants in 2030. Into this breach, according to the BEIS projections, would step another five new nuclear plants, more than cancelling out the closures and bringing total UK capacity to 14GW by 2035. The table below, from the World Nuclear Association, has the details.”

Source: World Nuclear Association

Carbon Brief notes that of the planned new nuclear schemes, Hinkley Point C is the most advanced.

In November, a second stage of public consultation opened on EDF’s plans to build another new plant at Sizewell C. In January, it signed agreements with China General Nuclear on financing for the scheme. However, doubts hang over EDF’s financial position.

Next in line was supposed to be the Moorside scheme. It was to be built by NuGeneration (NuGen), a 60:40 joint venture between Toshiba and French firm Engie.

Horizon, a wholly owned subsidiary of Japanese firm Hitachi, is due to build two 2.8GW plants at Wylfa on Anglesey and Oldbury in Gloucestershire. Horizon is expected to apply for planning consent for Wylfa later this year and the plant is nominally due to open in 2025.

Finally, China General Nuclear hopes to build and operate a plant at Bradwell in Essex. In January, the government asked the Office for Nuclear Regulation to start safety-checking the firm’s Hualong One design.

Carbon Brief concludes that “the government has significant hopes for new nuclear to help renew and decarbonise the UK’s electricity system. The schemes – and the companies behind them – continue to face delays and financial problems. This poses problems for the security of UK electricity supplies, given plans to phase out coal and limit new subsidies for renewables. If the UK leaves the EU Emissions Trading System (EUETS), then it could also pose a major challenge to meeting the UK’s carbon targets.”

*

Developments in the UK will be watched closely on the European continent, where there are plans – or at least, intentions – in several other countries to build new nuclear power stations.

In Poland for example the Energy Minister Krzysztof Tchórzewski has made the case for the country to adopt nuclear power in an opinion piece published in online magazine Wszystko Co Najważniejsze, World Nuclear News reports. The minister explained how such a policy would boost investment in Polish engineering know-how and a knowledge-based economy.

Poland produces most of its electricity from coal and imported gas, and Tchorzewski has warned that the country will not meet European Union carbon emissions reduction targets unless it revives plans to build a nuclear power plant. In 1990, coal-fired power plants accounted for 98% of electricity in Poland. Today its share is 80%.

In the magazine article, he wrote: “The climate policy of the European Union and the winter package compel further decrease of the percentage of coal in the energy mix amid the continuously growing demand for electricity. Against this background, we must answer the strategic question: What source of energy can provide us with a stable supply of electricity no matter the weather conditions and in keeping with the foundations of our energy security?”

Poland’s membership of the European Union and the global approach to climate protection have a “natural influence” on Polish coal-based energy generation, he wrote, and the winter package – which limits investing in high-emission energy sources due to Poland’s aging coal-fired power plants – “reduces room for manoeuvre” in choosing its energy strategy.

“In order to keep the coal-fired power plants, underpinning our energy security, in the energy production system, we must introduce a new energy source that will allow [us] to reduce the average CO2 pollution caused in the course of generation. Such a source that can be incorporated into our energy system without creating any emission-related costs is nuclear energy.”

Renewable energy sources are as emission-free as nuclear power, he wrote, but depend on the weather.

“During this summer’s heat wave in Poland, demand for electricity hit records. Extreme temperatures created a threat to security of local energy supply. Unfortunately, there was no wind, so the installed capacity in wind farms could not be used to remedy the situation. In July, wind farms provided a mere 4% of the energy consumed, and for many days the share was at the zero level. On average, only 14% of all the installed wind power capacity was used. At peak times, we put to work everything that was possible, and had to resort to large imports.”

Renewables cannot be stored on a large scale, he noted, and must be used when they are produced. This means additional generation capacities must be installed as a reserve. However, a gas-fired power plant with a capacity of 1000 MW requires more than a billion cubic metres of gas each year.

“A gas power plant is cheaper to build, but its output is much more expensive than a nuclear one,” he wrote. It is also vulnerable to external risks. “Nuclear fuel can be stored for over ten years, since one nuclear unit needs only two fuel trucks a year. By contrast, one coal unit requires about 200 coal wagons daily, and natural gas must be combusted nonstop,” he added.

 

There are 23 nuclear power units within a 300km radius of Poland, he noted, including 14 in the Visegrád Group alone. The Visegrád Group, or V4, is a cultural and political alliance of four Central European states – the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, that are members of the European Union. Poland is the only V4 country that does not have nuclear power in its energy mix, he wrote.

“Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are expanding their production capacity in this area. The atom’s renaissance is well on its way. There are 455 nuclear units worldwide, and 55 more are under construction. In the last couple of months, first reactors of the third/third+ generation were commissioned, with the rapidly developing Asian countries leading the charge. According to the International Energy Agency, it will be impossible to achieve any climate goals without further development of nuclear energy.”

“The odds of a major accident in the latest reactor of the third/third+ generation are less than 1:400,000,000, while the risk of a man struck by lightning is 1:3,000. Nuclear energy is stable and safe. In Poland, we are able to deal with radioactive waste, an example of which is the radioactive waste repository in Różan, which has been in safe service for over 50 years. The fact that no one died of radiation exposure in Fukushima failed to break through to public awareness,” he added.

The Polish Energy Ministry has prepared an amendment to the Nuclear Energy Programme, which he said will be submitted to the Council of Ministers by the end of this year. (Source: World Nuclear News, original article by Energy Minister here.)

*

In the Netherlands a public debate over nuclear power erupted last week after the popular satirical show Lubach op Zondag (Lubach on Sunday) on 4 November came out with a funny but fierce item in support of new nuclear power. In the 20-minute presentation (see here), Arjan Lubach, one of the most popular television presenters in the Netherlands, pointed out, among other things, that the Fukushima disaster only led to one identified victim of nuclear radiation. “Fukushima should be an argument in favour of nuclear power rather than against it”, he said.

Klaas Dijkhoff, the leader of the VVD, the party of prime minister Mark Rutte, promptly took up Lubach’s call and announced himself in favour of building new nuclear power in the Netherlands. He got support from a majority in the Dutch Parliament. That is to say, moral support – for there are no concrete initiatives being planned.

The Minister of Economic Affairs, Eric Wiebes, also of the VVD, said he would welcome any companies wanting to build nuclear power stations, “with coffee and cookies to talk about how to obtain a building permit”. In other words, the Dutch government is open to initiatives but does not intend to actively support construction. Experts agree that no company is likely to come forward without active government support, in view of the economic and political risks involved.

The Dutch government has made a commitment to close all its five coal power stations and obtain 70% of its electricity from sustainable sources by 2030. The country has one small 45-year-old nuclear power station, Borssele, which supplies 3% of Dutch electricity.

*

In the U.S. nuclear energy is experiencing similar headwinds as in Europe. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), came out with a report on 8 November warning that over a third of U.S. nuclear power plants could be shut for economic reasons over the next decade – more than most analysts expect. If these are replace by natural gas plants, emissions will rise, UCS said, with serious consequences for the climate. The UCS’ warning is noteworthy as the organisation is known as a fierce opponent of nuclear weapons.

Using projections from S&P Global Market Intelligence, UCS estimated the annual operating margins (revenues minus cost) for 92 reactors at 55 plants. It then classified reactors as unprofitable, marginal, or profitable, and analyzed the impacts of early plant retirements and how clean energy policies could help.

Plants across the country are facing the prospect of early retirement (Source: UCS)

The main findings:

• More than one-third of US nuclear plants are unprofitable or scheduled to close. On average, it would cost $814 million annually to bring unprofitable plants back to a breakeven point. Plants owned by merchant generators that sell power into competitive wholesale markets face a higher risk of closure than regulated utilities that recover their costs from ratepayers.
• Without new policies, natural gas and coal will fill the void. Closing unprofitable and marginal at-risk plants early could result in a 4 to 6 percent increase in US power sector emissions.
• Carbon-reduction policies would diversify our nation’s electricity mix, while preventing early closures. Nuclear generation would stay near reference case levels and renewable energy generation (primarily wind and solar) would more than triple by 2035.
• Carbon-reduction policies work—and they’re affordable. A national carbon price and/or low-carbon electrify standard (LCES) would help avoid an overreliance on natural gas, while costing the average US household only $0.74 to $1.03 per month.
• Benefits exceed the costs. The public health and economic benefits of carbon-reduction policies are twice as high as the costs. Between 2018 and 2035, total net benefits would exceed $230 billion under the carbon price and $60 billion under the LCES.

According to UCS, policymakers should consider the following recommendations as they think about how to respond:

• We need carbon pricing. A robust, economy-wide cap or price on carbon emissions would help provide a level playing field for all low-carbon technologies.
• We need a low-carbon electricity standard. A well-designed LCES could prevent the early closure of nuclear power plants while supporting the growth of other low carbon technologies.
• Financial support for nuclear plants should be conditioned on consumer protection, safety requirements, and investments in renewables and energy efficiency.Policymakers considering temporary financial support to avoid the early closure of nuclear plants should  couple that support with strong clean energy policies, efforts to limit rate increases to consumers, and rigorous safety, security, and performance requirements.

*

In non-market economies, such as China and Russia, where nuclear power gets active government support, it is faring much better.

World Nuclear News reports that in China the “the fourth and last Russian VVER-1000 reactor at Tianwan in Jiangsu province has commenced operation after 61 months construction. This is the seventh large new reactor to come on line in China this year, and brings the country’s nuclear total capacity to 42,976 MWe net. Units 5 & 6 at Tianwan are Chinese ACPR1000 reactors under construction and units 7 & 8 will be Russian VVER-1200 reactors, for which contracts were signed this week.”

In addition, the Sanmen unit 2 has now entered commercial operation, having been connected to the grid in August. It is one of four Westinghouse AP1000 reactors in China, and provides 1157 MWe net.
WNN 6/10/18.

But this may be just the start of the Chinese nuclear programme. According to the National Development and Reform Commission’s Energy Research Institute, China’s nuclear generating capacity will need to increase from 26 GW in 2015 to 554 (!) GW in 2050 if the country is to meet its climate commitments.

As of August 2017, China had a nuclear power capacity of 36 GW (37 reactors), with 22 GW (19 reactors) under construction. The Institute said another 290 large reactors need to be built.

In Russia, the first of two reactors on the country’s floating nuclear power plant has started up on a trial basis at the Atomflot base at Murmansk. Fuel loading was completed in October after it was towed there from St Petersburg.  It is being prepared for service at Pevek, over 4000 km east on the north coast of Siberia in the Chukotka Autonomous Region. It will replace the Bilibino nuclear power plant 250 km away inland and a 35 MW thermal plant as a major component of the intended Chaun-Bilibino industrial hub. It will deliver about 65 MW net plus 210 GJ/hour process heat.  Bilibino comprises four 11 MW reactors commissioned 1974-77.

*

In Japan meanwhile the nuclear industry is growing again, but slower than the government hoped.

“Japan’s resurgent nuclear industry will miss a government target of providing at least a fifth of the country’s electricity by 2030”, a Reuters analysis shows.

With eight reactors running and one more set to come online in November, nuclear has this year overtaken non-hydro renewables in power output for the first time since the 2011 catastrophe, when all of the country’s nuclear plants were idled, notes Reuters. Yet operators can expect as few as six units to restart in the next five years, and fewer than 20 by 2030, the analysis shows. That is far short of the 30 needed to meet the government target reiterated this year.

Based on the analysis, the world’s third-largest economy may get about 15 percent of its power from nuclear in 2030, compared with a government target of 20-22 percent. “It’s impossible to meet the target, that’s pretty much confirmed,” said Takeo Kikkawa, an energy studies professor at Tokyo University of Science, who sat on an official panel that reviewed Japan’s energy policy this year.

He said he did not expect another round of restarts before 2020.

back to menu

---