Nuclear power use growing globally
Reliance on reactors varies around world
By Joanne Paulson, The Star Phoenix May 20, 2009 Comments (6)
Second instalment in a five-part series on nuclear energy, leading up to public consultations on energy options the provincial government will be conducting during the next two months.
Nuclear power plants such as this one near Seraing, Belgium, provide up to 80 per cent of the power in some European countries. Photograph by: Getty Images File Photo, The Star Phoenix
On-the-ground nuclear power may be a new idea for Saskatchewan people to wrap their minds around, but in many parts of the world, it's already quite commonplace.
As of mid-April, there were 436 operating reactors, producing about 370 gigawatts of electricity (GWe). That's about 16 per cent of global electrical demand.
Forecasts point to more reactors coming on stream, not fewer. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of highly divergent opinion, but it's definitely a coming thing.
In the United States alone, applications are in for 26 new reactors.
Jonathan Hinze, vice-president of international operations for Ux Consulting Co., foresees 491 reactors producing 426 GWe by 2015. Ux Consulting provides consulting services to the nuclear industry.
By 2020, however, there will be a large increase in the number of reactors and electrical production.
"Given the massive growth in China, India, South Korea and Russia, we're looking at 553 units and 509 GWe by 2020," said Hinze, who is based in Lynchburg, Va.
For the uranium mining sector, that's an excellent forecast, he noted. New reactors require "massive amounts" of uranium for the first core installation, he said. Refuelling a reactor requires about one-third of the original amount.
"The demand for additional uranium from new reactors is going to be quite significant," said Hinze. "Canada still does not export too much to China, but that is likely to change. In India, they're now negotiating a deal which will support uranium production and open up new sales there.
"Much of Canada's uranium already goes to the major demand sources in the U.S. and France and Japan. That won't stop either. All these new reactors will very much support expansion and demand for uranium and uranium fuel components."
Nuclear power use varies widely among the 30 nations that rely on it. Little Lithuania, for instance, has one reactor producing 70 per cent of its power.
By comparison, France receives nearly 80 per cent of its power from 59 nuclear reactors. The United States is the biggest user of nuclear power, with 104 reactors generating about 20 per cent of its electricity. The U.S. has a much larger number of reactors but produces a much smaller percentage of power compared to France, because the U.S. is a bigger country and a bigger energy user.
"No one compares to France in the level of its commitment to nuclear," said Hinze. "As for other users of nuclear power, the big ones out there are Japan with about 30 per cent, South Korea with 35 per cent and Germany is still quite reliant, although they do have plans to phase out."
Germany has 17 reactors, representing a significant portion of total power -- 27 per cent. The present government is less anxious to phase out nuclear power than previous governments have been.
"If they were to shut them down, it's hard to see how they would replace it," said Hinze.
Germany still generates 50 per cent of its energy from coal and seven per cent from green renewable power.
Italy seems poised to bring its first reactor on stream by 2020, after a 21-year, post-Chernobyl ban on nuclear power. Finland is building a fifth reactor and, despite strong opposition, Sweden's government continues to back nuclear power.
China, India big users
The big future users of nuclear are China and India, where a small proportion of electricity is generated by reactors today.
"Those two are obviously where the future is in nuclear, at least in a future production expectation," said Hinze.
China generates less than two per cent from nuclear, from 11 reactors producing nine GWe. China's total power production is 625 GWe.
"Basically it's a drop in the bucket for them right now," said Hinze. "They want to grow that to about five per cent (70 GWe) by 2020, but that means more than quadrupling their nuclear reactors. It's on a massive scale that they're trying to expand.
Additional energy sources will be part of China's economic growth, said Hinze. "There was a time where China was adding 500 megawatts of new coal-fired power every day. They were expanding very rapidly. And it's dirty coal; they don't use the more up-to-date technologies."
India has 17 reactors, but some of them are as small as 200 megawatts, providing only four GWe. India produces about three per cent of its power needs from nuclear and 70 per cent from coal.
India is a bit behind the curve, because from 1974 until last year, there was a ban on any nuclear market trade with the country. However, India has recently been given special treatment. Several countries, including Canada, are negotiating bilateral agreements on both reactors and uranium supply, said Hinze.
When India begins to build reactors, it will likely import many of them, he said. India does not have a large domestic supply of uranium and will require an imported source of fuel.
Meanwhile, in Canada, there are 18 operating reactors in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.
"We don't consider all the plants in Canada currently operational," said Hinze. "You could say there are 18 operating and two under refurbishment."
The 18 plants create just over 14 gigawatts, or 15 per cent of Canada's power.
"In Ontario specifically, it's very important. They're one of the bigger load demand centres of the country. Ontario is moving to phase out most or all of its coal; there's no way that can be done without adding nuclear."
One gigawatt equals 1,000 megawatts, which puts the Bruce Power reactors in some perspective. The company hoping to build a reactor in Saskatchewan is proposing one or two 1,000-megawatt plants, depending on the economics of exporting power to other jurisdictions.
Safety record
People concerned about nuclear power often point to the accidents at Three Mile Island in the U.S. and Chernobyl, Ukraine.
"The track record has been quite good since the Chernobyl accident. Obviously there's been some bad history to it, but in recent years we have not had any major accidents," said Hinze. "Reactors are operating around the world with high safety levels.
"That has helped to allay public concern in places where it exists. In a place like Saskatchewan, which is not familiar with it, you're going to have different reactions by different people."
New reactors in the U.S. are, however, being greeted with a fair amount of optimism, said Hinze.
"Almost all those projects are proposed at sites where reactors already exist. The utilities there will do their public opinion polling and see what the locals think and nine out of 10 times, the locals are very supportive," he said.
"Because they're familiar with it, they've seen the revenue coming from that, the tax base and the good jobs -- steady, long-term jobs. A nuclear engineer or technician will earn much higher than an engineer in another area."
That being said, few nuclear advocates would recommend anyone "becoming France," said Hinze.
"Having a good, diversified portfolio (of energy sources) is truly the best way to go."
But nuclear power is an option for countries wanting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, he noted.
"There are a number of key drivers for nuclear power around the world, including reliable baseload power needs, diversified uranium fuel sources from many stable countries, low operating costs, strong track record (both economics and safety) and the need to find non-emitting power sources in the face of climate change."
Different direction
Peter Prebble, director of energy and water policy for the Saskatchewan Environmental Society, says not all developed countries are adding nuclear power.
Some European countries are winding down their nuclear industries or have not embarked on the nuclear path.
Countries with no reactors include Austria and Denmark, while Germany decided in 2000 to shut down its reactors by 2020, and has closed down two so far. Spain will phase out its eight operating reactors.
Austria has a lot of hydro and Denmark has a "great wind resource, just like we do in Saskatchewan," said Prebble. "They've taken the approach of developing their wind power in conjunction with Norwegian hydro."
Denmark has built more than 4,700 wind turbines, and encourages its communities to work toward total reliance on renewable energy, said Prebble, who has visited the country to study its energy system.
Prebble is also doubtful whether the many licence applications in the United States will actually result in the construction of nuclear plants.
"The thing to watch carefully is where construction is starting, which of course is very real. That's quite different from a licence application," said Prebble.
"The United States passed a new law in 2005 that said the first 6,000 megawatts of nuclear power built in the United States would get special tax credits and all kinds of financial assistance. All kinds of companies put in licence applications."
In Saskatchewan, Prebble is convinced the province can save 300 to 500 megawatts of power through efficiency programs and can also increase reliance on wind power.
The Danes get 18 per cent of their electricity from wind, and the Spanish 21 per cent from wind.
"Meanwhile, we're at three (per cent) and we have a better wind resource than the Spanish," said Prebble.
"There are lots of other legitimate avenues to go and they don't generate radioactive waste."
jpaulson@sp.canwest.com
© Copyright (c) The Star Phoenix
Source
__________________________
Nuclear power doesn't come cheap
By Jeremy Warren, The Star Phoenix May 21, 2009 8:17 AM Be the first to post a comment
Third installment of a five-part series on nuclear energy, leading into public consultations on energy options the provincial government will be conducting during the next two months.
- - -
We've all been late for an appointment or spent a few more dollars than our budgets allow. Expect a nuclear reactor project in Saskatchewan to exponentially exaggerate these personal foibles, if worldwide experience holds steady.
Nuclear reactor construction will fall behind schedule by a few years and go over budget by billions of dollars, say experts.
"None of the reactors have ever come in on time or on budget," said Michal Moore, professor of economics with the University of Calgary and senior fellow at the Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy.
"Cost overruns are consistent across the world," said Peter Prebble, director of energy and water policy for the Saskatchewan Environmental Society and a former provincial NDP cabinet minister.
"We will pay for these cost overruns on our electrical bills."
French nuclear giant Areva is building the Olkiluoto 3 reactor in Finland, the world's only third-generation reactor. The project is three years behind schedule and is 50 per cent over its $3.3-billion budget.
A Bruce Power project to refurbish a reactor in Ontario is $300 million over budget. A deal struck with the provincial government for the project requires taxpayers to cover half the cost of budget overruns up to $3.05 billion.
Financial risks are mentioned in the 121-page report by the Saskatchewan Party-commissioned Uranium Development Partnership, which recommended the construction of a 3,000-megawatt nuclear reactor in the province. The government is holding provincewide public consultations on the report next week.
Moore calls the partnership's report thoughtful, but said if Saskatchewan wants to add value to the uranium industry, the province is more suited for fuel upgrading -- processing and reprocessing -- rather than a reactor.
The partnership rejected upgrading as an option for Saskatchewan.
"Energy demand has to be very substantial," said Moore. "I doubt the base load requirement (in Saskatchewan) is sufficient to carry a traditional nuclear reactor."
At best, Saskatchewan could build a series of small 200 MW reactors in different parts of the province, but even then it's a stretch, said Moore.
"Mining and upgrading is probably a good idea," he added.
- - -
To set out and build a reactor is a costly and time-consuming endeavour. In addition to costs of planning and engineering, upward of $10 billion is required for construction of the proposed Bruce Power reactor.
That's not to mention the cost of integrating nuclear power into the province's electrical grid, which could cost up to $1 billion.
But once it's running, the cost to purchase and use the fuel is low -- about two-tenths of a penny per kilowatt, said Moore. Zero carbon emissions during operation and a consistent electrical output make a reactor attractive to governments.
"Once a reactor is built, there's a long life ahead of it -- about 40 to 60 years," he said. "But it takes a long time to get there."
Moore believes Saskatchewan should also look at increasing its reliance on renewable energy.
Instead of mixing wind with nuclear power, in Saskatchewan it makes sense to invest in wind power to offset the emissions of coal plants, he added.
"Wind power makes sense economically if it's twinned with another source that provides base load energy," said Moore.
Saskatchewan's economy would receive almost $240 million annually when a nuclear power plant is operating, according to Bruce Power.
The nuclear energy industry annually contributes about $5 billion to the Canadian economy, providing 20,000 direct jobs, says the World Nuclear Association.
Bruce Power estimates thousands of skilled labourers will be required for construction of a reactor. Once the job is done, though, a lot of people will be out of a job, said Moore.
"Once that thing is constructed and online, the number of jobs it takes to run is in the tens, not the hundreds," he said.
In Canada, nuclear power contributed about 14.7 per cent of total power generated in 2007, compared to 58 per cent from hydro, 17 per cent from coal and six per cent from gas. Solar and wind contributions are still minimal.
- - -
Delays and ballooning budgets of nuclear projects are responsible for $15 billion of a $20-billion debt left by Ontario Hydro. Residents now pay a tax on electricity bills to pay off the debt.
"That's quite a legacy to leave," said Prebble.
The actual costs of a nuclear reactor go beyond its normal operations.
If the system is shut down, replacement energy has to be found, said Prebble. "You have to have a backup system to replace the lost base load power. That starts to get expensive, especially if you import additional power."
When a reactor is too old, it has to be decommissioned, another expensive project with costs anywhere between $200 million and $600 million.
"You're dealing with a very radioactive core that has to be robotically cut up and shipped away with thousands of trucks," said Prebble.
Finally, the disposal of nuclear waste, which the industry has yet to find a safe and environmentally sound way to do, has to be paid for during the time a reactor operates -- up to 60 decades, he added.
"This all adds up to an expensive package," said Prebble. "We will pay for all these costs in our electrical bills."
With the high costs and risk associated with nuclear reactors, private industry will only invest in projects that have the financial backing of governments, that have guaranteed profits and markets and that assume the risk and liabilities for cost overruns, waste disposal, decommissioning and accidents, says the Pembina Institute.
The Uranium Development Partnership's report and a 2007 SaskPower draft report on nuclear power concluded the financial risks associated with reactor construction are too large for the industry to bear alone and governments would need to be involved in any successful project, although the partnership didn't specify the financial details of public-private co-operation.
"The only way Bruce Power goes ahead with a nuclear project is if it makes money," said Prebble.
When a wave of electrical privatization hit the U.S., nuclear power seemed less attractive to big business. In 2007, a company filed the first application to build a new commercial reactor in the U.S. in almost 30 years.
A host of new projects have started with a federal government program of tax incentives and loan guarantees created by the Bush administration. Now there are applications to build 26 reactors.
Saskatoon-based Cameco Corp., the world's largest uranium miner, owns 31.6 per cent of four Bruce Power reactors. Cameco dropped out of another joint venture to restart and refurbish another four reactors when the company cited inadequate returns, despite government involvement.
jjwarren@sp.canwest.com
© Copyright (c) The Star Phoenix
Source