Nuclear should “sit” in the Energy Transition debate is a tough one to call. The public sentiment, in general, would be against a ramping up of Nuclear after the two significant disasters etched onto our minds and stand out of Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima Daichi in 2011, and the human and environmental impact.
The impact of nuclear accidents has been debated since the first nuclear reactors were constructed in 1954. It has been a key factor in public concern about nuclear facilities ever since. Human error does happen. According to the IAEA, I was surprised by the high levels of accidents in the USA.
So why discuss an energy source that is highly contentious to argue it still has a future within the energy mix? Several reasons, many include Nuclear is still seen as a real need to deliver clean energy.
China and Russia are growing their bilateral nuclear energy cooperations significantly. Four new nuclear-generating units, two in Jiangsu Province and two in Northeast China’s Liaoning, are occurring with construction taking place within this year. With the increasing trade restrictions placed on China by the USA, China’s growing concern for energy security has risen.
The nuclear technology is reliant on Russian-developed third-generation VVER- 1200 nuclear technology. In passing China’s stringent technical reviews, this indicates that the third-generation technology and designs are far safer, and the accidents like Chernobyl or Fukushima seemingly can’t happen.
There are even views this third-generation is more prudent in safety design than Western companies are offering. So nuclear in China and Russia is alive and well for future nuclear energy power generation.
What about the West?
The new U:S Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm told lawmakers that she is open to offering federal subsidies to prop up struggling nuclear plants and stated, “I think this is a moment to consider—and perhaps it is in the American Jobs Plan or somewhere—to make sure that we keep the current fleet active” ‘We’re not going to be able to achieve our climate goals if our nuclear power plants shut down,’ Granholm said. ‘We have to find ways to keep them operating”
Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are coming together to build a nuclear Natrium reactor in Wyoming at a decommissioned coal plant. This is an advanced nuclear reactor that is suggested as safer, performs better and costs less than the traditional plants.
The project is based around a 345 MW sodium-cooled fast reactor with a molten salt-based energy storage system that will have storage technology to deliver a system’s output to 500 MW of power for more than five-and-a-half hours when needed, which is equivalent to the energy required to power around 400,000 homes and will be able to integrate with renewable resources and could lead to faster, more cost-effective decarbonization of electricity generation.
According to Chris Levesque, president and CEO of TerraPower, together with PacifiCorp states the Natrium technology was designed to solve a challenge utilities face as they work to enhance grid reliability and stability while meeting decarbonisation and emissions-reduction goals.
- I will be doing a separate post on the growing interest in Small or Compact Molten Salt Reactors (CMSR)
Then we have Europe.
The UK imports about 7pc of its energy from the continent, but that trend is set to be reversed as countries such as Germany shut down their coal and nuclear power plants. The UK continues to see Nuclear Power Generation as part of its essential energy mix as it accelerates the increased electrification of energy.
The real interest is the current tug of war between Germany’s current view of no nuclear and Frances high dependence on Nuclear and the EU policy that is locked into where Nuclear sits.
Germany plans to close all of its nuclear plants by next year. With a current view that Nuclear power remains very unpopular in Germany ever since radioactivity from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster when radioactive dust did drift across the country, it has been a top political and public concern.
If nuclear is off the German energy list then there is a rea concern for many that Germany,s growing energy needs will become more vulnerable and dependent on imports of energy or fuel sources. Energy security might shift the sentiment.
France is fascinating for the future Nuclear debate.
France, on the other hand, is highly dependent on Nuclear Energy. In 2020 nuclear represented 78% of electricity production in France. The share of renewables in total energy consumption in France stands only at 19% and significantly trailing behind EU renewable goals.
The argument is where does Nuclear fit in the future energy mix? It is not a renewable, but it is clean energy, and decarbonization is the end goal or is it?
France has had low-carbon electricity due to its building a Nuclear generation fleet in the 1980s and 1990’s. The issue is the operating life of this fleet, assuming 60 years, so by the Paris Agreement date of 2050, all of this power generation source will be decommissioned. So what will France do?
France has two options being considered.
Either replace the retiring reactors with new ones or replace the energy loss with renewables to reach a 100% renewable energy source power system.
The massive scaling up of renewables, wind and solar power adds significant pressure on France as the EU continues to ramp up its renewable share of total energy.
France needs to influence current EU decisions or fall in line and switch from ageing Nuclear plants into a Renewable strategy.
Do the maths or at least consider the consequences.
The arguments within France are certainly building. Let the elephant in or keep it shut out of future energy considerations. Look towards new Nuclear generation reactors.
The debate has switched to what is needed for hydrogen production, predicted to make it a viable alternative to fossil fuels. A recent report suggested that to make hydrogen by electrolysis for France alone would require the equivalent of four nuclear power stations dedicated solely to electricity production.
The suggestion is to produce low-carbon hydrogen on a global scale; 400 1GW nuclear reactors would be needed, according to a recent report published by the French parliamentary office evaluating the scientific and technological choices for the future of Energy in France.
The Electrolyser and Green Hydrogen becomes highly relevant for Nuclear
With the EU pushing to install only 6 GW of electrolyzers for the production of one million tonnes of hydrogen from renewables by 2024 and then 40 GW for ten million tonnes by 2030, the calculations for having this “pure” renewables then at least 150,000 wind turbines or solar panels covering an area of about 800,000 hectares.
There is a suggestion to get hydrogen to the supply of 70 million tonnes worldwide the commissioning of one million new wind turbines or 56 hectares of photovoltaic panels is perhaps needed.
So are we going to have a wind turbine “parked” on each piece of spare land surrounding our cities? So should Nuclear be considered? It has many advantages for alignment to Hydrogen.
Design studies for any energy solution need clear criteria. I like the French studies as they seek to identify the conditions and energy requirements. The “stress test” for energy solutions is around four sets of strict conditions to deliver a technically (not politically) secure integration when considering renewables replacing the existing French Nuclear dependence. Political comes later, wrongly so, Science and known technology solutions should lead and then finally decide.
The consideration are around 1) power system strength including system stability, 2) System adequacy to cope with load at all times, 3) operational reserves in forecasting methods and procurement, and 4) grid development efforts (and realities) at both transmission and distribution levels.
The French have stated their three pillars of energy efficiency, stronger use of biomass and a more significant role for (decarbonised) electricity as a final fuel to go from 25% to 50% of final energy needs by 2050.
Interestingly the SNBC (Stratégie nationalé bas-carbone) seems to have dismissed fossil fuel associated with carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS) or the massive use of biomass or biogas for electricity generation due to availability of material source or cost into electricity.
So the French see renewables and nuclear power as their two options. They want to rebalance their electricity mix and not depend on one technology and one generation of nuclear reactors. It is becoming a fascinating energy debate to watch how it evolves.
Will the pushing of new Nuclear programs gather pace?
Will they be socially desirable or appealing as the public debates on how much any energy transition will cost and are they financially sustainable is still at a very early stage
The recent IEA report, Net-Zero by 2050: A roadmap for the Global Energy Sector, which I wrote about here, “A decade pivotal to a clean energy future” and here ” Accelerating Clean Energy Innovation“, have left the place of Nuclear “hedged” as my view.
The faith in technologies for much of the energy transition is still very uncertain; many commercially unproven, not well field-or-stressed tested, they lack robust scale options, or not proven on ongoing reliability or eventual cost This certainly leaves the door open for the Nuclear Elephant to walk into the Future Energy Mix room. Will it?
Just consider the enormous strain on rare earth minerals or heat-intensive material (iron, steel etc.) that wind, solar, and storage batteries will require. This potential mineral shortage and a higher intensity of mining will become scorching political areas of global tension.
- I plan a post on the issues surrounding raw material supply and possible shortages soon.
Nuclear is a low-carbon technology with the lowest mineral intensity and smallest land footprint. Nuclear needs to be in that room when all the aspects of securing what is needed for energy to undertake the transition is considered.
Perhaps Nuclear will form an equivalent French Foreign Legion ( Légion étrangère) to battle and carve out a place at this energy table?
The debate is moving on. Nuclear, nuclear innovation and small modular reactors and other advanced reactors offer the potential for solving electricity, heat and hydrogen needs in the future.
Can we continue to leave it out of the debate? I don’t think so.
- I will be doing a separate post on Small or Compact Molten Salt Reactors (CMSR). This makes the Nuclear Elephant nimble.
