Since about 2001 the term nuclear renaissance has been used to refer to a possible nuclear power industry revival, driven by rising fossil fuel prices and new concerns about meeting greenhouse gas emission limits.[1] At the same time, various barriers to a nuclear renaissance have been identified. These include: unfavourable economics compared to other sources of energy,[2][3] slowness in addressing climate change,[3] industrial bottlenecks and personnel shortages in nuclear sector,[3] and the unresolved nuclear waste issue.[3] There are also concerns about more nuclear accidents, security, and nuclear weapons proliferation.[3][4][5][6][7]
New reactors under construction in Finland and France, which were meant to lead a nuclear renaissance, have been delayed and are running over-budget.[8][9][10] China has 27 new reactors under construction,[11] and there are also a considerable number of new reactors being built in South Korea, India, and Russia. At least 100 older and smaller reactors will "most probably be closed over the next 10-15 years".[12]
In March 2011 the nuclear emergencies at Japan's Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant and other nuclear facilities raised questions among some commentators over the future of the renaissance.[13][14][15][16][17] Platts has reported that "the crisis at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plants has prompted leading energy-consuming countries to review the safety of their existing reactors and cast doubt on the speed and scale of planned expansions around the world".[18] China, Germany, Switzerland, Israel, Malaysia, Thailand, United Kingdom, Italy[19] and the Philippines are reviewing their nuclear power programs. Indonesia and Vietnam still plan to build nuclear power plants.[20][21][22][23] Countries such as Australia, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Portugal, Israel, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Norway remain opposed to nuclear power. Following the Fukushima I nuclear accidents, the International Energy Agency halved its estimate of additional nuclear generating capacity built by 2035.[24]
A study by UBS, reported on April 12 2011, predicts that around 30 nuclear plants may be closed world-wide, with those located in seismic zones or close to national boundaries being the most likely to shut.[25] The analysts believe that 'even pro-nuclear countries such as France will be forced to close at least two reactors to demonstrate political action and restore the public acceptability of nuclear power', noting that the events at Fukushima 'cast doubt on the idea that even an advanced economy can master nuclear safety'.[25] In September 2011, German engineering giant Siemens announced it will withdraw entirely from the nuclear industry, as a response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan.[26]
Contents |
As of May 15, 2011, "a total of 438 nuclear reactors were operating in 30 countries, six fewer than the historical maximum of 444 in 2002. Since 2002, utilities have started up 26 units and disconnected 32 including six units at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan. The current world reactor fleet has a total nominal capacity of about 372 gigawatts (or thousand megawatts). Despite six fewer units operating in 2011 than in 2002, the capacity is still about 9 gigawatts higher".[27] The numbers of new operative reactors, final shutdowns and new initiated constructions according to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in recent years are as follows: [28]
| Year | New connections | Shutdowns | Net change | Construction initiation | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # of reactors | GW | # of reactors | GW | # of reactors | GW | # of reactors | GW | ||
| 2004 | 5 | 4.8 | 5 | 1.4 | 0 | +3.4 | 2 | 1.3 | |
| 2005 | 4 | 3.8 | 2 | 0.9 | +2 | +2.9 | 3 | 2.9 | |
| 2006 | 2 | 1.5 | 8 | 2.2 | −6 | −0.7 | 4 | 3.3 | |
| 2007 | 3 | 1.9 | 0 | –– | +3 | +1.9 | 8 | 6.5 | |
| 2008 | 0 | –– | 1 | 0.4 | −1 | −0.4 | 10 | 10.5 | |
| 2009 | 2 | 1.0 | 3 | 2.5 | −1 | −1.4 | 12 | 13.1 | |
| 2010 | 5 | 3.8 | 1 | 0.1 | +4 | +3.6 | 16 | 15.8 | |
| 2011 | 7 | 4.0 | 13 | 11.4 | −6 | −7.4 | 2 | 0.9 | |
Annual generation of nuclear power has been on a slight downward trend since 2007, decreasing 1.8% in 2009 to 2558 TWh with nuclear power meeting 13-14% of the world's electricity demand.[29][30] A major factor in the decrease has been the prolonged repair of seven large reactors at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant in Japan following the Niigata-Chuetsu-Oki earthquake.[29]
According to an article in The Times, the world is expected to build 180 nuclear power plants over the next decade, up from only 39 since 1999.[31] Sixty-three reactors with a total capacity of 65 GW are by December 2010 under construction, but several carry over from earlier eras; some are partially completed reactors on which work has resumed (e.g., in Argentina); some are small and experimental (e.g., Russian floating reactors); and some have been on the IAEA’s “under construction” list for years (e.g., in India and Russia).[5] Reactor projects in Eastern Europe are essentially replacing old Soviet reactors shut down due to safety concerns. Most of the current activity ― 30 reactors ― is taking place in four countries: China, India, Russia and South Korea. Iran is the only country which is currently building its first power reactor, but construction began decades ago.[5]
In the 2009 World Energy Outlook, the International Energy Agency stated that:
A nuclear renaissance is possible but cannot occur overnight. Nuclear projects face significant hurdles, including extended construction periods and related risks, long licensing processes and manpower shortages, plus long‐standing issues related to waste disposal, proliferation and local opposition. The financing of new nuclear power plants, especially in liberalized markets, has always been difficult and the financial crisis seems almost certain to have made it even more so. The huge capital requirements, combined with risks of cost overruns and regulatory uncertainties, make investors and lenders very cautious, even when demand growth is robust.[7]
In June 2009, Mark Cooper from the Vermont Law School said: "The highly touted renaissance of nuclear power is based on fiction, not fact... There are numerous options available to meet the need for electricity in a carbon-constrained environment that are superior to building nuclear reactors".[32]
In September 2009, Luc Oursel, chief executive of Areva Nuclear Plants (the core nuclear reactor manufacturing division of Areva) stated: "We are convinced about the nuclear renaissance". Areva has been hiring up to 1,000 people a month, "to prepare for a surge in orders from around the world".[31] However, in June 2010, Standard & Poor's downgraded Areva’s debt rating to BBB+ due to weakened profitability.[33]
In 2010, Trevor Findlay from the Centre for International Governance Innovation stated that "despite some powerful drivers and clear advantages, a revival of nuclear energy faces too many barriers compared to other means of generating electricity for it to capture a growing market share to 2030".[34]
In January 2010, the International Solar Energy Society stated that "... it appears that the pace of nuclear plant retirements will exceed the development of the few new plants now being contemplated, so that nuclear power may soon start on a downward trend. It will remain to be seen if it has any place in an affordable future world energy policy".[35]
In March 2010, Steve Kidd from the World Nuclear Association said: "Proof of whether the mooted nuclear renaissance is merely 'industry hype' as some commentators suggest or reality will come over the next decade".[36]
In August 2010, physicist Michael Dittmar stated that: "Nuclear fission's contribution to total electric energy has decreased from about 18 per cent a decade ago to about 14 per cent in 2008. On a worldwide scale, nuclear energy is thus only a small component of the global energy mix and its share, contrary to widespread belief, is not on the rise".[12]
In March 2011, Alexander Glaser said: "It will take time to grasp the full impact of the unimaginable human tragedy unfolding after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan, but it is already clear that the proposition of a global nuclear renaissance ended on that day".[37]
In 2011, Benjamin K. Sovacool said: "The nuclear waste issue, although often ignored in industry press releases and sponsored reports, is the proverbial elephant in the room stopping a nuclear renaissance".[38]
In September 2011, German engineering conglomerate Siemens announced it will withdraw entirely from the nuclear industry, as a response to the Fukushima nuclear disaster.[39]
Nuclear power plants are large construction projects with very high up-front costs. The cost of capital is also steep due to the risk of construction delays and obstructing legal action.[2][40] The large capital cost of nuclear power has been a key barrier to the construction of new reactors around the world, and the economics have recently worsened, as a result of the global financial crisis.[2][40][41] As the OECD’s Nuclear Energy Agency points out, "investors tend to favor less capital intensive and more flexible technologies".[2] This has led to a large increase in the use of natural gas for base-load power production, often using more sophisticated combined cycle plants.[42]
Following an earthquake, tsunami, and failure of cooling systems at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant and issues concerning other nuclear facilities in Japan on March 11, 2011, a nuclear emergency was declared. This was the first time a nuclear emergency had been declared in Japan, and 140,000 residents within 20 km of the plant were evacuated.[43] Explosions and a fire have resulted in dangerous levels of radiation, sparking a stock market collapse and panic-buying in supermarkets.[44] Other "alarming incidents" continue to occur even in a well regulated industry like that of the U.S.[45]
Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there has been heightened concern that nuclear power plants may be targeted by terrorists or criminals, and that nuclear materials may be purloined for use in nuclear or radiological weapons.[46]
A nuclear power controversy[47][48][49] has surrounded the deployment and use of nuclear fission reactors to generate electricity from nuclear fuel for civilian purposes. The controversy peaked during the 1970s and 1980s, when it "reached an intensity unprecedented in the history of technology controversies", in some countries.[50][51]
In recent years there have been reports of a revival of the anti-nuclear movement in Germany[52][53][54] and protests in France during 2004 and 2007.[55][56][57] In the United States, there have been protests about, and criticism of, several new nuclear reactor proposals[58][59][60] and some objections to license renewals for existing nuclear plants.[61][62]
In 2005, the International Atomic Energy Agency presented the results of a series of public opinion surveys in the Global Public Opinion on Nuclear Issues report.[63] Majorities of respondents in 14 of the 18 countries surveyed believe that the risk of terrorist acts involving radioactive materials at nuclear facilities is high, because of insufficient protection. While majorities of citizens generally support the continued use of existing nuclear power reactors, most people do not favour the building of new nuclear plants, and 25% of respondents feel that all nuclear power plants should be closed down.[63] Stressing the climate change benefits of nuclear energy positively influences 10% of people to be more supportive of expanding the role of nuclear power in the world, but there is still a general reluctance to support the building of more nuclear power plants.[63]
As of March 2010, ten African nations had begun exploring plans to build nuclear reactors.[64][65]
South Africa (which has two nuclear power reactors), however, removed government funding for its planned new PBMRs in February 2010, pending a decision on the project in August.
The 2005 Energy Policy Act authorized $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear plants, and in February 2010 the Obama administration approved a $8 billion loan guarantee for the construction of two nuclear reactors in the state of Georgia. If the project goes forward, these would be the first new plants authorized to be built in the United States since the 1970s.[66]
In January 2010, President Obama moved to further promote nuclear power in the United States, proposing to triple federal loan guarantees for new power plant projects and appointing a high-level panel to study nuclear waste disposal options.[67]
However, concerns still exist - primarily over potential cost overruns in the first plants (the reason for increasing the federal loan guarantees, so as to build more) and in the disposal of the spent nuclear fuel (in the wake of the cancellation of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository).[68] Concerns over the operation of Three Mile Island-era plants also continue to be a factor.[69]
As of March 2010, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission expected proposals for 26 new reactors in the U.S.[70] However, several license applications filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for proposed new reactors have been suspended or cancelled.[71][72][73][74] In the same month, Exelon withdrew its application for a construction and operating license for a twin-unit nuclear plant in Victoria County, Texas, citing lower electricity demand projections. The decision left the country’s largest nuclear operator without a direct role in what the nuclear industry hopes is an expansion of nuclear power in the USA. In August 2010, Exelon bought John Deere Renewables, and is moving into wind power.[75]
In May 2010 Entergy Corp Chief Executive J. Wayne Leonard said that "building new nuclear plants remains too costly and will prevent many utilities from participating in the fledgling nuclear renaissance in the United States".[76]
In September 2010, Matthew Wald from the New York Times suggested that "the nuclear renaissance is looking small and slow at the moment". Other than the Vogtle project, ground has been broken on just one other reactor, in South Carolina. The prospects of a proposed project in Texas, South Texas 3 & 4, have been dimmed by disunity among the partners. Two other reactors in Texas, four in Florida and one in Missouri have all been "moved to the back burner, mostly because of uncertain economics".[77]
In October 2010, Constellation Energy "pulled the plug" on building a new reactor at its Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant despite a promised $7.5 billion loan guarantee from the Department of Energy, dealing a "potential blow to efforts to create a U.S. nuclear renaissance as well as the promised effectiveness of the department’s loan program".[78] Peter Behr of ClimateWire reported that "if the 'nuclear renaissance' is not dead, it appeared in a coma for most of the country" following the collapse of Constellation Energy's plan to build a third reactor at Calvert Cliffs.[79]
The 2011 Japanese Fukushima I nuclear accidents have led some energy officials in the United States to "think twice about nuclear expansion".[80]
The nuclear industry has hired many lobbyists over the years to press their case for a nuclear renaissance with power brokers on Capitol Hill, but after Fukushima there was a change of mood:
... as it became clear the Japanese - one of the most technologically advanced nations on earth - had lost control of the deteriorating situation at Fukushima, lobbyists all over Washington began to sense a change of mood almost immediately. The so-called 'Nuclear Renaissance' that had taken years to build up steam disappeared in a day.[81]
The nuclear disaster in Japan is likely to have major effects on US energy policy, according to billionaire investor Warren Buffett. Buffet said that the "United States was poised to move ahead with nuclear plans here, but the events in Japan derailed that".[82]
Michael Grunwald has said that the "American nuclear renaissance is a myth" and new nuclear plants are "preposterously expensive to build". Despite "extraordinary bipartisan support and generous cradle-to-grave subsidies for new nukes, private financiers wouldn’t touch them", even before the Fukushima I nuclear accidents.[83]
Without a long-term solution to store nuclear waste, a nuclear renaissance in the U.S. remains unlikely. Nine states have "explicit moratoria on new nuclear power until a storage solution emerges".[84]
As of October 2011, plans for about 30 new reactors in the United States have been "whittled down to just four, despite the promise of large subsidies and President Barack Obama’s support of nuclear power, which he reaffirmed after Fukushima".[85] A reactor currently under construction in America, is at Watts Bar, Tennessee, was begun in 1973 and may be completed in 2012.[86][87]
In 2008, the Energy Information Administration projected almost 17 gigawatts of new nuclear power reactors by 2030, but in its 2011 projections, it "scaled back the 2030 projection to just five".[88] A survey conducted in April 2011 found that 64 percent of Americans opposed the construction of new nuclear reactors.[89]
As of December 2011, construction by Southern Company on two new nuclear units has begun, and they are expected to be delivering commercial power by 2016 and 2017.[90][91] But, looking ahead, experts see continuing challenges that will make it very difficult for the nuclear power industry to expand beyond a small handful of reactor projects that "government agencies decide to subsidize by forcing taxpayers to assume the risk for the reactors and mandating that ratepayers pay for construction in advance".[92]
As of 2008, the greatest growth in nuclear generation was expected to be in China, Japan, South Korea and India.[93]
As of early 2010 China had 11 nuclear reactors operating and 20 under construction, with more planned. "China is rapidly becoming self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle."[11] However, according to a government research unit, China must not build "too many nuclear power reactors too quickly", in order to avoid a shortfall of fuel, equipment and qualified plant workers.[94]
Following the Fukushima disaster, many are questioning the mass roll-out of new plants in India, including the World Bank, the Indian Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, and the former head of the country's nuclear regulatory body, A. Gopalakrishnan. The massive Jaitapur Nuclear Power Project is the focus of concern - "931 hectares of farmland will be needed to build the reactors, land that is now home to 10,000 people, their mango orchards, cashew trees and rice fields". Fishermen in the region say their livelihoods will be wiped out.[95]
South Korea is exploring nuclear projects with a number of nations.[96]
New reactors under construction in Finland (see Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant) and France, which were meant to lead a nuclear renaissance, have been delayed and are running over-budget.[8][9][10]
The plan to build at least one new nuclear power plant in the U.K. by 2017 will not be fulfilled, as the waiting list for pressure vessels (which are at the centre of a nuclear power plant) is too long.[97] The British regulator, Kevin Allars told the BBC that no British nuclear power station has ever been built on time and that he would be every bit as tough on the contractors as his Finnish equivalent even if it meant further delays to the programme.[98]
Austria, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Poland and Ireland have no active nuclear plants and none under construction, though "some have plans of varying credibility".[99]
Following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, anti-nuclear opposition intensified in Germany. On March 15, 2011, Angela Merkel said that seven nuclear power plants which went online before 1980 would be temporarily closed and the time would be used to study speedier renewable energy commercialization.[100]
The 2011 Japanese Fukushima nuclear accidents have led some European energy officials to "think twice about nuclear expansion".[80]
As of 2011, the British government's programme to build new nuclear power stations in England has been "delayed by at least three months so that lessons can be learned from the accident at Fukushima in Japan".[101][102]
In December 2009 South Korea won a contract for four nuclear power plants to be built in the United Arab Emirates, for operation in 2017 to 2020.[103] [104]
On March 17, 2011, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Israel was now unlikely to pursue civil nuclear energy.[22][23][105]
In April 2010 Russia announced new plans to start building 10 new nuclear reactors in the next year.[106]