The Energy Collective Group

This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.

9,904 Members

Post

Nuclear Power in Crisis: We Are Entering the Era of Nuclear Decommissioning

Chapelcross nuclear power plant in Scotland was decommissioned in 2007.

Nuclear power is in crisis ‒ as even the most strident nuclear enthusiasts acknowledge ‒ and it is likely that a new era is fast emerging, writes Jim Green, editor of the Nuclear Monitor newsletter. After a growth spurt from the 1960s to the ’90s, then 20 years of stagnation, the Era of Nuclear Decommissioning is upon us. Article courtesy Nuclear Monitor.

Last year was supposed to be a good year for nuclear power ‒ the peak of a mini-renaissance resulting from a large number of reactor construction starts in the three years before the Fukushima disaster. The World Nuclear Association (WNA) anticipated 19 reactor grid connections (start-ups) in 2017 but in fact there were only four start-ups (Chasnupp-4 in Pakistan; Fuqing-4, Yangjiang-4 and Tianwan-3 in China).

The four start-ups were outnumbered by five permanent shut-downs (Kori-1 in South Korea; Oskashamn-1 in Sweden; Gundremmingen-B in Germany; Ohi 1 and 2 in Japan).

The WNA’s estimate for reactor start-ups in 2017 was hopelessly wrong but, for what it’s worth, here are the Association’s projections for start-ups in the coming years:

2018‒19: 30
2020‒21: 12
2022‒23: 9
2024‒25: 2

Thus ‒ notwithstanding the low number of start-ups in 2017 ‒ the mini-renaissance that gathered steam in the three years before the Fukushima disaster probably has two or three years to run. Beyond that, it’s near-impossible to see start-ups outpacing closures.

New nuclear capacity of 3.3 gigawatts (GW) in 2017 was outweighed by lost capacity of 4.6 GW. Over the past 20 years, there has been modest growth (12.6%, 44 GW) in global nuclear power capacity if reactors currently in long-term outage are included. However, including those reactors ‒ in particular idle reactors in Japan, many of which will never restart ‒ in the count of ‘operable’ or ‘operational’ or ‘operating’ reactors is, as former WNA executive Steve Kidd states, “misleading” and “clearly ridiculous”.

There would need to be an average of 10 reactor start-ups (10 GW) per year just to maintain current capacity. The industry will have to run hard just to stand still

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) excludes reactors in long-term outage ‒ defined as reactors that produced zero power in the previous calendar year and in the first half of the current calendar year ‒ from its count of operating reactors. Thirty-six reactors are currently in long-term outage, 31 of them in Japan.

Excluding reactors in long-term outage, the number of reactors has declined by 29 over the past 20 years, while capacity has grown by a negligible 1.4% (5 GW). Over the past decade, the reactor count is down by 34 and capacity is down by 9.5% (19 GW).

The industry faces severe problems, not least the ageing of the global reactor fleet. The average age of the reactor fleet continues to rise, and by mid-2017 stood at 29.3 years; over half have operated for 31 years or more.

The International Energy Agency expects a “wave of retirements of ageing nuclear reactors” and an “unprecedented rate of decommissioning” ‒ almost 200 reactor shut-downs between 2014 and 2040. The International Atomic Energy Agency anticipates 320 GW of retirements by 2050 ‒ in other words, there would need to be an average of 10 reactor start-ups (10 GW) per year just to maintain current capacity. The industry will have to run hard just to stand still.

Renewables (24.5% of global generation) generate more than twice as much electricity as nuclear power (<10.5%) and the gap is growing rapidly

Assuming the mini-renaissance doesn’t continue to flop (as it did in 2017), an average of 10 or so start-ups from 2015‒2020 is possible (there were 24 start-ups from 2015‒17). But to maintain that level, the number of construction starts would need to increase sharply and there is no likelihood of that eventuating ‒ there have only been seven construction starts in the past two years combined.

The number of reactors under construction is slowly dropping. Using WNA figures, 71 reactors were under construction in January 2014 compared to 58 in January 2018. According to WNISR figures, the number is down from 67 to 52 over the same period. That trend seems certain to continue because of a sharp drop in reactor construction starts: 38 from 2008‒2010 compared to 39 in the seven years from 2011‒2017.

Nuclear power accounted for 10.5% of global electricity generation in 2016 (presumably a little less now), well down from the historic peak of 17.5% in 1996.

Renewables (24.5% of global generation) generate more than twice as much electricity as nuclear power (<10.5%) and the gap is growing rapidly. The International Energy Agency  predicts renewable energy capacity growth of 43% (920 GW) from 2017 to 2022. Overall, the share of renewables in power generation will reach 30% in 2022 according to the IEA. By then, nuclear’s share will be around 10% and renewables will be out-generating nuclear by a factor of three.

A disastrous year for the nuclear industry

Last year was “all in all a disastrous year” for the nuclear power industry according to Energy Post Weekly editor Karel Beckman. Nuclear lobbyists issued any number of warnings about nuclear power’s “rapidly accelerating crisis“, a “crisis that threatens the death of nuclear energy in the West“, “the crisis that the nuclear industry is presently facing in developed countries“, the “ashes of today’s dying industry”, and noting that “the industry is on life support in the United States and other developed economies“.

Lobbyists engaged each other in heated arguments over possible solutions to nuclear power’s crisis ‒ in a nutshell, some favour industry consolidation while others think innovation is essential, all of them think that taxpayer subsidies need to be massively increased, and none of them are interested in the tedious work of building public support by strengthening nuclear safety and regulatory standards, strengthening the safeguards system, etc.

One indication of the industry’s desperation has been the recent willingness of industry bodies (such as the US Nuclear Energy Institute) and supporters (such as former US energy secretary Ernest Moniz) to openly acknowledge the connections between nuclear power and weapons, and using those connections as an argument for increased taxpayer subsidies for nuclear power and the broader ‘civil’ nuclear fuel cycle. The power/weapons connections are also evident with Saudi Arabia’s plan to introduce nuclear power and the regime’s pursuit of a weapons capability.

There were no commercial reactor construction starts in China in 2017 (though work began on one demonstration fast neutron reactor) and only two in 2016

The biggest disaster for the nuclear industry in 2017 was the bankruptcy filing of Westinghouse ‒ which also came close to bankrupting its parent company Toshiba ‒ and the decision to abandontwo partially-built reactors in South Carolina after the expenditure of at least US$9 billion. As of January 2018, both Westinghouse and Toshiba are still undergoing slow and painful restructuring processes, and both companies are firmly committed to exiting the reactor construction business (but not the nuclear industry altogether).

Another alarming development for the nuclear industry was the slow-down in China. China Nuclear Engineering Corp, the country’s leading nuclear construction firm, noted in early 2017 that the “Chinese nuclear industry has stepped into a declining cycle” because the “State Council approved very few new-build projects in the past years”.

There were no commercial reactor construction starts in China in 2017 (though work began on one demonstration fast neutron reactor) and only two in 2016. The pace will pick up but it seems less and less likely that growth in China will make up for the decline in the rest of the world.

The Era of Nuclear Decommissioning will be characterised by escalating battles (and escalating sticker shock) over lifespan extensions, decommissioning and nuclear waste management

The legislated plan to reduce France’s reliance on nuclear from 75% of electricity generation to 50% by 2025 seems unlikely to be realised but the government is resolved to steadily reduce reliance on nuclear in favour of renewables. French environment minister Nicolas Hulot saidin November 2017 that the 50% figure will be reached between 2030 and 2035. France’s nuclear industry is in its “worst situation ever”, a former EDF director said in November 2016, and the situation has worsened since then.

There were plenty of other serious problems for nuclear power around the world in 2017:

  • Swiss voters supported a nuclear phase-out referendum.
  • South Korea’s new government will halt plans to build new nuclear power plants (though construction of two partially-built reactors will proceed, and South Korea will still bid for reactor projects overseas).
  • Taiwan’s Cabinet reiterated the government’s resolve to phase out nuclear power by 2025 though a long battle
  • Japan’s nuclear industry has been decimated ‒ just five reactors are operating (less than one-tenth of the pre-Fukushima fleet) and 14 reactors have been permanently shut-down since the Fukushima disaster (including the six Fukushima Daiichi reactors).
  • India’s nuclear industry keeps promising the world and delivering very little ‒ nuclear capacity is just 6.2 GW. In May 2017, India’s Cabinet approved a plan to build 10 indigenous pressurised heavy water reactors, but most have been in the pipeline for years and it’s anyone’s guess how many (if any) will actually be built.
  • The UK’s nuclear power program faces “something of a crisis” according to an industry lobbyist. The reactor fleet is ageing but only two new reactors are under construction. The estimated cost of the two Hinkley Point reactors, including finance, is A$40 billion.
  • All of Germany’s reactors will be closed by the end of 2022 and all of Belgium’s will be closed by the end of 2025.
  • Russia’s Rosatom began construction of the first nuclear power reactor in Bangladesh, signed agreements to build Egypt’s first power reactors, and is set to begin work on Turkey’s first reactors ‒ but Rosatom deputy general director Vyacheslav Pershukov said in June 2017 that the possibilities for building new large reactors abroad are almost exhausted. He said Rosatom expects to be able to find customers for new reactors until 2020‒2025 but “it will be hard to continue.”
  • A High Court judgement in South Africa in April 2017 ruled that much of the country’s nuclear new-build program is without legal foundation, and there is little likelihood that the program will be revived given that it is shrouded in corruption scandals and President Jacob Zuma’s hold on power is weakening.

The only nuclear industry that is booming is decommissioning ‒ the World Nuclear Association anticipates US$111 billion worth of decommissioning projects to 2035.

The Era of Nuclear Decommissioning

The ageing of the global reactor fleet isn’t yet a crisis for the industry, but it is heading that way. In many countries with nuclear power, the prospects for new reactors are dim and rear-guard battles are being fought to extend the lifespans of ageing reactors that are approaching or past their design date.

Perhaps the best characterisation of the global nuclear industry is that a new era is approaching ‒ the Era of Nuclear Decommissioning ‒ following on from its growth spurt from the 1960s to the ’90s then 20 years of stagnation.

The Era of Nuclear Decommissioning will entail:

  • A slow decline in the number of operating reactors.
  • An increasingly unreliable and accident-prone reactor fleet as ageing sets in.
  • Countless battles over lifespan extensions for ageing reactors.
  • An internationalisation of anti-nuclear opposition as neighbouring countries object to the continued operation of ageing reactors (international opposition to Belgium’s ageing reactors is a case in point ‒ and there are numerous other examples).
  • Battles over and problems with decommissioning projects (e.g. the UK government’s £100+ million settlement over a botched decommissioning tendering process).
  • Battles over taxpayer bailout proposals for companies and utilities that haven’t set aside adequate funds for decommissioning and nuclear waste management and disposal. (According to Nuclear Energy Insider, European nuclear utilities face “significant and urgent challenges” with over a third of the continent’s nuclear plants to be shut down by 2025, and utilities facing a €118 billion shortfall in decommissioning and waste management funds.)
  • Battles over proposals to impose nuclear waste repositories and stores on unwilling or divided communities.

The Era of Nuclear Decommissioning will be characterised by escalating battles (and escalating sticker shock) over lifespan extensions, decommissioning and nuclear waste management. In those circumstances, it will become even more difficult than it currently is for the industry to pursue new reactor projects. A feedback loop could take hold and then the nuclear industry will be well and truly in crisis ‒ if it isn’t already.

Original Post

Jim Green's picture

Thank Jim for the Post!

Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.

Discussions

Bob Meinetz's picture
Bob Meinetz on January 31, 2018

Jim,

21 new reactors weren’t planned or under construction in China; the NRC recently approved NuScale’s application for development of its Small Modular Reactor; Georgia Power reversed course on shutting down Vogtle Units 3 & 4; Tennessee Valley Authority’s Watts Bar II went online in 2016, and is now producing more clean electricity than all solar east of the Mississippi. Day, and night.

Jarmo Mikkonen's picture
Jarmo Mikkonen on January 31, 2018

Renewables (24.5% of global generation) generate more than twice as much electricity as nuclear power (<10.5%) and the gap is growing rapidly. The International Energy Agency predicts renewable energy capacity growth of 43% (920 GW) from 2017 to 2022.

Most of renewable generation is still hydro and will probably remain so. Wind and solar capacities are impressive, the generated TWhs less so.

Russia’s Rosatom began construction of the first nuclear power reactor in Bangladesh, signed agreements to build Egypt’s first power reactors, and is set to begin work on Turkey’s first reactors ‒ but Rosatom deputy general director Vyacheslav Pershukov said in June 2017 that the possibilities for building new large reactors abroad are almost exhausted. He said Rosatom expects to be able to find customers for new reactors until 2020‒2025 but “it will be hard to continue.”

Today Russia is leading in new nuclear construction abroad. ROSATOM holds first place in terms of the number of simultaneously implemented nuclear reactor construction projects (8 in Russia and 33 abroad).
http://www.rosatom.ru/en/investors/projects/

John Oneill's picture
John Oneill on February 1, 2018

‘Renewables (24.5% of global generation) generate more than twice as much electricity as nuclear power (<10.5%) and the gap is growing rapidly.'
By far the biggest player in the ' renewables ' cast is hydro, which makes about two percent of the power in the UK and Germany, about five percent in the US, about eight percent in Japan, with little prospect of any increase. Developing countries like China and Brazil are racing to dam more of their free-running rivers, too bad about the ecological effects, but again, no prospect of making enough power to bring their populations up to UN development standards.
'Biomass' is another big player in Germany, and a few other European countries, where it really means burning wood in converted coal plants, with higher CO2 emissions per kwh than from lignite. Turning old growth forest into kindling plantations is just about the definition of ecocide.
Wind and solar are the most touted renewables, and in most ' 100% renewable ' proposals I've seen, are supposed to provide about 95% of the energy used for all purposes, not just electricity. In actual practice, countries with heavy subsidies for solar have got to about eight percent of their power production and then leveled off, as the disadvantages of a loose-cannon unreliable generator become ever more obvious. Wind, with a better capacity factor, more chance of geographical spread helping, and less diurnal and seasonal absenteeism, has done better at gaining market share, but not much better at cutting emissions. Some who expect spinning wind turbines to save them from smoggy smokestacks will find that in calm weather, they can't see either.

Thorkil Soee's picture
Thorkil Soee on February 1, 2018

In many countries the renewables have priority to the net.
In this way: Especially nuclear will suffer severe economic problems.
Try to imagine the outcry if it should be the other way round.

In the so-called Western Countries nuclear is struggling to satisfy new and often radicular safety requirements.
Requirements. Far exceeding what is called for by the renewables. See http://wp.me/s1RKWc-51

Anyhow – Sure (Western Nuclear) is in deep problems.
It is not enough to see it. You have to ask “Why?”
I have tried to analyze the problem on http://wp.me/s1RKWc-98

Where are we heading?
Expensive and unreliable supply together with more pollution.
I use data from 2016.
Germany generated 545 TWh and polluted 560 g CO2 per kWh
France generated 530 TWh and polluted 58 g CO2 per kWh

Mike Conley's picture
Mike Conley on February 1, 2018

Most of the renewable power you cite is from hydro. Problem is, we can’t build more rivers.

Peak capacity numbers for wind and solar, cited in isolation, are grossly misleading. Without adequate backup and storage, the numbers are essentially meaningless (except in a sales pitch.) If you really want to show how renewables compare to nuclear, you need to compare apples to apples:

Four 1-GWe Gen-III reactors are now being built in the UAE, on-time and on-budget, for $4.40 an installed watt. These reactors will have a 90% capacity factor, and their downtime for the last 10% can be scheduled a year in advance. They will deliver steady, smooth power, regardless of weather, climate, season, or time of day, for 60 years.

FOE needs to show the world what it would cost for a wind or solar farm to produce that same amount of quality power, at 90% CF, regardless of weather, time of day, etc., and do it for 60 years.

Unless they do that, they’re comparing apples to oranges.

For a comprehensive, non-technical, plain-language explainer of renewables vs nuclear, see www,RoadmapToNowhere.com

` `

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »