Nuclear lobby’s case about climate change becomes ever weaker, as grids adapt to renewables

Case for nuclear wanes as grids adapt to renewable energy , https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/8287-Case-for-nuclear-wanes-as-grids-adapt-to-renewable-energy China Dialogue . Paul Dorfman , 6 Nov 15 The UK is wasting a huge sum on nuclear energy at a time when low-carbon sources can provide a growing share of the world’s electricity supply, writes Paul Dorfmann It was widely reported last month that Chinese President Xi Jinping and UK Prime Minister David Cameron had struck a deal to try to reinvigorate UK’s stalling nuclear ambitions, but the reality is nothing has been signed yet, despite the huge financial incentives being offered by the Treasury to French and Chinese nuclear corporations.

There’s a strong consensus amongst UK commentators about the huge financial burden on taxpayers, as Hinkley would lock the UK into an index-linked 35-year contract for electricity, at twice the price consumers currently pay, on top of a £2 billion (19.2 billion yuan) loan guarantee.

If a contract is signed, China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGN) would take a one-third share in the troubled French EDF project at Hinkley C, with a promise to build and operate Chinese-designed reactors on UK soil.

Whilst China may be prepared to lose money on its investment in UK nuclear in order to open up the international market for Chinese nuclear industry, plans for nuclear worldwide are stuttering. Both fully-developed and fast-industrialising economies are moving away from old-style baseload power models built around large coal and nuclear plants.

This shift is based on a more rounded strategy for energy, which involves deploying large arrays of on- and off-shore wind and solar renewable energy. These will be complemented by flexible gas-fired back-up plants and combined with energy efficiency and conservation, demand-side management, energy load-balancing, big transmission grid upgrades and local distribution.

Climate-proof?

Accordingly, it seems that the next industrial evolution will be renewable. So the question remains, why persist with nuclear? Looking at the economics of generating from nuclear in both OECD and developing countries, it’s easy to see how public money could be better spent to much greater effect.

One of the reasons is that nuclear has had a makeover, with the industry now presenting itself as a partial response to global warming. This is despite the industry’s obvious environmental and logistical flaws.

The UK Institute of Mechanical Engineers warns that proposed new reactors, together with radioactive waste stores including spent fuel, will be generally located on coasts, potentially vulnerable to sea-level rise, flooding, storm surge and tsunamis. It adds: “Nuclear sites, based on the coastline, may need considerable investment to protect them against rising sea levels, or even abandonment or relocation in the long term.”

T he World Nuclear Association maintains that nuclear power capacity worldwide is increasing steadily, with more reactors under construction in 13 countries. They say that countries are either planning to build for the first time (Belarus and United Arab Emirates), have signed contracts (Lithuania and Turkey), or have some plans to build (Bangladesh, Jordan, Poland, and Vietnam).

In contrast, the arguably more independent World Nuclear Industry Status Report describes a declining trend, with annual nuclear electricity generation reaching a maximum of 266 GW in 2006 and dropping to 235 GW in 2013 – with 50 fewer operating reactors than the peak in 2002, and total installed capacity comparable to levels last seen two decades ago. This decline is also confirmed in BP’s recent ‘Energy Outlook’.

Financial risk

Moreover, a sense of unease persists about the risk to people, the environment and to the future of nuclear energy from another major accident. Reactor malfunctions related to “beyond design-base” cascading events, such as the Fukushima disaster, are the single largest financial risk – far outweighing the combined effect of market, credit, construction and operational dangers.

In trying to prevent such accidents, reactors have become much more expensive, complex, and therefore difficult to build on time and on budget. New-builds are only likely to go ahead with the help of large public subsidies and loan guarantees, including long-term power purchase agreements.

This is because the private sector can’t afford to build new nuclear plants themselves, since new-builds are high-value, high-risk projects with a marked tendency for significant delay, cost overruns and investor risk.

For example, in Finland Teollisuuden Voima Oyj (TVO) is pressing a €2.7 billion compensation claim for severe delays to the French-designed EPR nuclear power plant at Olkiluoto. In turn, the French are demanding €3.5 billion from TVO. The project’s turnkey price was €3 billion in 2005 and the current estimated price stands at €8.5 billion, with a construction time of 13 years and rising………

Steve Holliday, chief executive officer of the UK’s National Grid, says the idea of large coal-fired or nuclear power stations for baseload power is obsolete, as energy marketsmove towards much more distributed production and towards microgrids: “The idea of baseload power is already outdated. The future will be much more driven by availability of supply; by demand side response and management.”

At the heart of planning the low-carbon energy future are differing views on value for money, foresight and responsibility. Huge long-term investments are needed and it’s clear there are critical social, environmental and economic decisions to be made. Given the ever-increasing warnings of climate change, the very last thing the population needs is risky, expensive, centralised and inflexible technology. Paul Dorfman