Nuclear power may be on the verge of a global renaissance just over a decade after the Fukushima disaster placed its future in doubt. The global shortage of gas in the face of the Ukraine war, with western buyers shunning Russia and Putin weaponising energy supplies, and a widespread wind drought this summer are leading governments around the world to re-evaluate the role of nuclear power.
This is a positive step – the idea that countries that are not blessed with either high levels of sunshine or hydro could rely on renewable energy without some form of long-duration storage was always unrealistic. Very low wind generation across a large number of markets in both Europe and the US this summer is highlighting the need for zero carbon generation that is not dependent on the weather. Nuclear is the obvious choice.
Japan to accelerate its nuclear re-start…
After the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in 2011, Japan ordered the closure of all of its nuclear reactors while their safety was re-assessed. Japan now imports 90% of its energy while before 2011 30% of its electricity needs were met through nuclear power. The country has 33 reactors that are operable, but as of June this year, only 10 had been authorised to re-start following new regulations implemented in the wake of the disaster.
Last week Prime Minister Fumio Kishida announced that the country will now explore the construction of new nuclear power stations, as well as seeking to re-start a further seven of its existing reactors from next summer onwards. 17 reactors have applied to re-start, of which seven have regulatory approval but are yet to re-open due to required upgrades or lack of local support – a sensible first step would be to accelerate the re-opening of these reactors. The Prime Minister has also instructed officials to consider extending the lifespan of existing reactors beyond the current maximum of 60 years.
The Fukushima nuclear disaster
The Great East Japan earthquake of Friday 11 March 2011 measured 9.0 on the Richter Scale. It was a rare and complex double quake giving a severe duration of about 3 minutes, and caused a large tsunami which did considerable damage. Eleven reactors at four nuclear power plants in the region were operating at the time and all shut down automatically when the earthquake hit. Subsequent inspection showed there was no significant damage to any from the earthquake itself. Fukushima Daiichi units 4, 5 and 6 were not operating at the time, but were affected – the main problem initially centred on units 1-3, while unit 4 became a problem on day five when hydrogen from unit 3 travelled along shared ducts and caused an explosion.
Electricity from grid or backup generators was able to run cooling pumps at eight of the eleven reactors, and achieved “cold shutdown” within about four days of the earthquake. The other three units, at Fukushima Daiichi, lost power about an hour after the earthquake when the site was flooded by the tsunami, which disabled 12 of 13 backup generators onsite and also the heat exchangers for discharging reactor waste heat and decay heat to the sea. These units lost the ability to maintain proper reactor cooling and water circulation functions. Electrical switchgear was also disabled.
Three Tepco employees at the Fukushima plants were killed directly by the earthquake and tsunami, but there were no immediate fatalities from the nuclear accident, and so far it does not appear that there have been long-term fatalities that can be linked with certainty to the disaster (ie rates of cancers in survivors do not appear to be statistically different to those for the general population).
The tsunami countermeasures implemented when Fukushima Daiichi was designed and sited in the 1960s were considered acceptable given the scientific knowledge and experience at the time, with low recorded run-up heights for that coastline. However, around 18 years before the 2011 earthquake, new research emerged about the potential for a large earthquake and major tsunami of over 15 metres at the Daiichi site (the 2011 tsunami reached 15 metres in height) but no action was taken either by plant operator Tepco, or by the Nuclear & Industrial Safety Agency which allowed the plant to operate without additional countermeasures such as moving the backup generators to higher ground, sealing the lower part of the buildings, or having some back-up for seawater pumps.
….while Germany continues to dither
Shortly before the Fukushima disaster, Germany decided to continue with its nuclear programme, allowing lifetime extensions for its reactors, however there had been strong opposition from the Green Party. After the disaster, the Greens successfully applied pressure for the decision to be reversed, and the country began a schedule of closures despite the fact that a 15-metre tsunami is extremely unlikely to occur anywhere close to any of Germany’s nuclear reactors. This is also a bizarre choice in the context of the now derided Energiewende, and has prolonged the country’s reliance on coal for electricity generation – exiting both nuclear and coal at the same time being unfeasible. Germany is the world’s largest producer of lignite, and despite plans to migrate to renewable generation, 2021 saw the smallest amount of new wind capacity added at just 1.65 GW.
At the end of 2021, Germany shut down half of its remaining nuclear power stations, Brokdorf (1,410 MW), Gundremmingen (1,288 MW), and Grohnde (1,360 MW) with the last three, Emsland (1,329 MW), Isar (1,410 MW) and Neckarwestheim (1,310 MW) which together meet around 6% of the country’s electricity needs, due to close by the end of this year.
There have been widespread calls for these closures to be delayed, both within Germany where a recession is now expected, and from neighbouring countries who fear the stress on their own electricity systems due to the need to export to Germany. Chancellor Olaf Scholz has said delaying their closures “can make sense”.
However, not everyone agrees – Germany’s Green Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock has said that extending the lives of these reactors would be “madness” while her Green Party colleague, Economy Minister Robert Habeck has said that the reactors would only save 2% of gas use and so are not worth keeping open.
There are practical barriers to both extending the lives of these reactors and potentially re-opening the three that closed in December. One is that their operating permits are expiring, and safety tests have not been carried out in anticipation of closure. Fuel supplies have also been run down, and there have been suggestions that the lead time for new fuel rods could be as much as 18 months, although industry experts have said fuel could be conserved for winter use, and sourced from elsewhere.
The German government has said it will wait for the outcome of a new “stress test” of the country’s electricity grid before making a decision.
There is some hope that Olkiluoto 3 will open this winter after 13 years of delays…
A week ago, Finnish system operator Fingrid warned that the public should be prepared for the possibility of blackouts this winter, as imports from Russia are no longer available and imports from Sweden and Estonia may be limited by availability issues in those countries. However, there is hope that Olkiluoto 3, a new European Pressurised Water Reactor (“EPR”) that has been under construction since 2005 may finally open ahead of the winter.
The EPR technology had been a failure so far. Only two plants, at Taishan in China, have managed to open, and Taishan-1 was offline for over a year due to a problem in the fuel assembly, details of which have not been made public, however, it had previously been reported that a build-up of inert gases in the plant occurred due to issues with the casing around some of the fuel rods, the first of three containment barriers at the reactor. On 16 June 2021, China’s National Nuclear Safety Administration confirmed that the increase in the concentration of noble gases in the primary circuit was related to a few damaged fuel rods, estimating that five out of more than 60,000 fuel rods were affected. The reactor was finally re-connected to the grid on 16 August.
In July EDF confirmed that a modification to the fuel assembly has been designed for both Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C in the UK and it has submitted modifications to the French nuclear regulator for approval at Flamanville. Fortunately for Finland, Olkiluoto had a different fuel design.
“The proposed solution is also in operation at Olkiluoto 3 in Finland which has a different fuel design to Taishan,”
– spokesperson for Hinkley Point C
The issue is unlikely to result in specific delays at the British projects, but has the potential to further delay the opening of Flamanville C. Although Olkiluoto is not affected by this problem, its road to opening continues to face bumps, and just yesterday output fell to zero due to a turbine failure which is now being investigated. The plant had been due to open in 2009, and the latest target date is December this year, assuming this new problem does not cause further delays which the country can ill afford.
In addition to being delayed by 13 years, costs have ballooned from an estimated €3 billion originally, to over €11 billion, with Siemens and Areva paying buyer TVO over €1 billion in compensation for the delays and cost over-runs.
…but in France there is no good news for the beleaguered nuclear sector
In normal times, 70% of the electricity used in France is generated by nuclear power, but currently 32 of the country’s 56 reactors are offline pushing prices to record highs. Last week year ahead power prices reached €1,000 /MWh for the first time ever. Some are offline for routine maintenance, however a large number of the P4 and N4 reactors has been forced to shut down due to corrosion problems identified in April.
Four reactors, each with a capacity of 1.3 GW have seen their re-start dates pushed back:
- Penly 1 will not re-start until 23 January, a month later than previously announced
- Cattenom 1 will re-start on 1 November instead of 14 September
- Cattenom 3’s return is delayed from 8 October to 11 December
- Cattenom 4 will re-start on 14 November instead of 10 October
In late July, French nuclear regulator, ASN approved EDF’s inspection and repair regime for the entire fleet of affected reactors, a programme that is expected to take 3 years to complete. The ongoing drought this summer has further reduced output due to lower availability of cooling water. Overall nuclear output for 2022 is now expected at the lower end of EDF’s forecast of 280 to 300 TWh.
As a result of these problems, France has switched from being a net exporter of electricity to a net importer, buying primarily from Britain and Germany. This year Sweden has overtaken France as the largest net electricity exporter in Europe, with most of its exports going to Finland and Denmark. Sweden generates electricity primarily from hydro, nuclear and wind, which are all relatively cheap resources, but despite this, it has also seen rapid price rises due to its connections with other markets.
French domestic energy prices are currently capped – gas are frozen at 2021 levels and electricity prices can only increase by 4% per year. According to French Minister of the Economy and Finance, Bruno Le Maire, without these measures French bills would have risen by 60% for gas and 45% for electricity this year. These measures, implemented late last year had been due to expire in June, but have been extended to the end of 2022 with signs that there may be some form of support continuing into next year.
However, the cap is adding to the financial woes at EDF which is in the process of being fully re-nationalised, and has taken the bizarre step of suing the French government for €8.3 billion after being forced to sell electricity at a loss. Gas supplier Engie has been insulated by its vertical integration, having long-term gas supply agreements and a large LNG portfolio (the company’s share price has only dropped about 7% this year).
Nuclear power should be a key part of the energy transition
Although the current energy crisis is encouraging pro-renewables lobbies to claim that this intensifies the need for renewable generation, the lack of wind this summer has highlighted a need for reliable, non-intermittent low carbon generation. For most countries, the only viable option is nuclear, and even countries such as Norway and France with significant hydro resources have suffered from the effects of a dry year that has compounded the problems with gas and wind generation this summer.
In the US, the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act includes a US$ 30 billion tax credit that could save dozens of reactors from early closure. Small modular reactors (“SMRs”) have also just received certification by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, paving the way for the first SMRs to open later this decade. There is a growing realisation in the country that the scale of electricity storage that would be needed to support a 100% renewables electricity system could be impossible to deliver, and that nuclear power could provide the solution.
It is important that Germany follows Belgium’s lead and delays the closure of its remaining reactors – in March this year, Belgium delayed its nuclear phase-out by a decade. It should also consider re-opening the reactors which closed in December. The premature closure of functioning power stations during a time of energy crisis is irresponsible, as is placing additional pressure on other countries such as Norway which has seen its electricity prices rocket since it opened interconnectors with Britain and Germany last year. Reservoir levels in the south of Norway are at lows not seen since the mid-1990s, putting exports at risk – Germany should do what it can to reduce its need for imports by making all of its generators including nuclear available for use throughout the winter.
When the dust settles on this energy crisis, policy-makers will be challenged to ensure their energy systems are not left so vulnerable again. The development of nuclear power is an important part of the solution to low carbon electricity grids.
Hi Kathryn, whilst I understand the pressure that is being put on governments in Europe and beyond to build new reactors / extend the life of old ones, there are certain cost aspects of nuclear that dont seem to get factored in to these discussions particularly decommissioning of the reactors and storage of waste. The costs of building a waste storage facility in the UK are huge – (see here https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/17/its-a-bribe-the-coastal-areas-that-could-become-the-uks-nuclear-dump) and the decommissioning costs of the reactors are also huge (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/17/its-a-bribe-the-coastal-areas-that-could-become-the-uks-nuclear-dump). These costs tend to be placed on the taxpayer and not on the companies who operate the stations, and hence are not factored into the per MWh cost of nuclear power.
And the costs of power from Hinckley Point C are index linked for 30+ years starting at c.£95/MWh (indexed on 2012 I think) and as you point out above EDF are yet to get one of these types of reactors operating in Europe. Nuclear reactors tend to come in late and over budget, and it will only take one accident anywhere in the world and private companies will run a mile from building or operating one as the reputational risks will be too high, with the taxpayer potentially left to bail out stranded assets. No doubt the French government fully nationalised EDF partly because the only way they were going to build any more reactors was to be backed by the state.
If people are going to be told that nuclear is the solution to the energy crisis then they need to be told the full cost of the energy from these, and its going to be not far off the current price of energy per MWh when you add in all the associated costs. If they are still happy to support such plants then so be it, as long as they dont think the power from them will be ‘cheap’. Sadly there are no easy answers to the energy crisis, and I’m not convinced that those boosting nuclear energy as a solution are being entirely honest with their respective publics.
This is why I’m a fan of ABWRs – they were built on time and on budget in Japan before Fukushima, with construction times under 5 years. Several countries including the US have certified ABWRs so we could work with those regulators to fast-track their approval here.
On waste, the issues we have are with legacy waste. The amount of new waste produced each year is volumetrically tiny:
https://nda.blog.gov.uk/how-much-radioactive-waste-is-there-in-the-uk/
Apologies, second link re decommissioning costs is corrected here https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/20/uk-nuclear-power-stations-decommissioning-cost
A layman’s question that somebody will know the unclassified answer to. What do Royal Navy nuclear submarines do when alongside? Could they contribute to the National Grid? Older boats were retired because their ‘fighting’ kit was obsolete but the reactors would have a much longer design life so could they be recycled?
Hi Kathryn…….thanks for a great posting.
So pleased to see your reaffirment of ABWR’S maybe Wylfa Anglesey & Moorside Cumbria could return to favour.
Why do EDF not apply there life extending plans to the UK fleet of aging nuclear plants ?
Andy Raffin echoes my sentiments precisely with his comments on post decommissioning clean up cost.
Dare I suggest that privatisation of the Nuclear Power industry has proved to be a bridge too far ?
Fragmentation leading to the UK being at the mercy of decisions being taken in Paris, Berlin, Japan etc. was never going to work IMO.
Barry Wright, Lancashire.
I don’t think the lives can be extended again, indeed recently the closure dates of Torness and Heysham 2 were brought forward. I covered the reasons in these posts:
https://watt-logic.com/2021/06/15/falling-nuclear-capacity/
https://watt-logic.com/2021/12/18/nuclear-update/
Since then, the wider issues at EDF make it even less likely that the company would go to any great lengths to change tack
Love your measured, detailed analysis. Could do with more of this from our politicians!
As a layman nuclear makes me nervous re costs and safety. The other renewable apart from wind and solar is tidal. Why is this not being considered? Surely the technology, costs and timeframe would only be akin to the nuclear plants being built. Is it all about politics?
Hi again…….take your point Kathryn, however desperate times call for desperate measures IMO.
Quote; “A layman’s question that somebody will know the unclassified answer to. What do Royal Navy nuclear submarines do when alongside? Could they contribute to the National Grid? Older boats were retired because their ‘fighting’ kit was obsolete but the reactors would have a much longer design life so could they be recycled?”
This interesting post leads me to expand further.
I fail to appreciate why small reactors used in shipping for decades still leaves us years away from deploying similar (SMR’s) in the UK energy system.
Demilitarised submarines providing carbon free energy at suitable points on the supergrid network seem a real possibility.
The Heysham site is certainly suitable with deep water access serving an existing landing point.
We replaced one phase of a double wound generator transformer (150 tons) in 28 days following a major fault in the 1990’s.
The national spare held at Pomona dock (Manchester) was shipped on the Kings North Fisher a CEGB owned vessel direct to Heysham site.
Transferring this giant via the road network would have taken months of planning resulting £m’s of lost MW output.
An existing nuclear site including a mooring within meters of a robust supergrid network connection; or is this a to simple approach ?
Dreaming on leads me to the mooring decommissioned nuclear powered vessels off shore, Jersey, IOM, etc.
Providing green electricity & maybe even doubling as a working tourist attraction.
But then again “Pigs might fly”
Barry Wright, Lancashire.
It is good to see some more realistic appraisal of nuclear power. I saw a review from MIT that analysed the construction cost overruns (I think from American data) and it confirmed that the much of the costs were due to changes in the regulations and, perhaps most importantly, the understanding of the builders and regulators as to what the changes meant and entailed.
And taking a lesson from COVID as to how to shorten timescales and regulation might be beneficial.
The political decision to store waste very expensively rather than look to develop technology to recycle waste – with a concomitant reduction in waste and its duration is disappointing.
I believe that the issues with necessary closing of (UK) reactors is to do with cracking of graphite structures in the gas cooled reactors; this was not anticipated because their lifetime had been extended so much. The use of inert or noble gases precludes the issues of corrosion that other coolants (such as steam, molten lead or molten salts) cause and which suggests that gas turbines could be used and at higher temperatures – with a resulting increase in thermal efficiency.
I am disappointed that, in the UK, the nuclear renaissance is not including thriving discussions as to the technologies and opportunities – for faster and cheaper construction. But the designs and issues are not easily available; perhaps a useful government website could be set up – or, much more realistically, an engineering publication?
It is notable that, in other countries, the use of thermal energy storage for buffering is being considered (though improved safety opportunity not so much) – as well as the economic opportunities for incorporation of energy from cheap (when it is) wind power.
If anything a nuclear renaissance in Japan and S.Korea will just make it more difficult for us. Whatever reactor construction bandwidth they have (questionable what the Japanese have left as its nearly 2 decades since they built one) will be focused domestically. I would be surprised if a nationalised EDF ever builds another reactor in UK after Hinckley C given the problems they have in France and a likely domestic renaissance there too. Doubtless Hinckley C will face further delays given their track record. Obviously Chinese or Russian reactors on British soil is a non starter.
Don’t get me wrong I am a big supporter of nuclear but my question again is who is going to build these reactors in UK and when ?
We can pin our hopes on RR SMRs but realistically they are a decade away from commercial reality and surely they will face problems of nimbyism – although by then desperation may dilute any opposition. Its foolish to make predictions (especially about the future) but I would be surprised if we could replace the capacity of the current fleet with SMRs by the time Sizewell B goes offline in 2035. In other words it would take a mammoth effort just to maintain the inadequate capacity we have now. Yes we did it from a standing start back in the 50s but things were simpler back then (regulations etc) and the UK is not the engineering giant it once was. It even looks like we may lose our capacity to make steel in the near future – quite unbelievable.
It does seem odd that the German Green party is now out of step with most other green lobbyists in rejecting nuclear power. The country having got itself and Europe into a mess based on reliance of Russian gas ought to be rethinking where it stands. A country renowned for solid engineering ought to be in a position to manage nuclear technology; though might not some of the reactors they have be of Russian design and be less robust than modern standards? I don’t know the answer to that but I believe some are in the former east Germany?
Nuclear reactors and electricity production has always been considered as providing constant base load, and not too easy to modulate to reflect variations in demand. Hence matching nuclear with wind provides a conundrum that when the wind does blow oversupply of wind power might have to be curtailed in the same way that if we built much more wind power to provide a base load it might have to be curtailed too. But the reactors provided for submarines always considered unsuitable for mainstream power production are different in that they are designed for power to be turned up and down rapidly to match the requirements of propulsion. Seems to me that we already have the design suitable for the grid to match what we might need to work hand in hand with wind power and a fluctuating demand.
The rusty subs lying at berths in Plymouth which are ‘cooling off’ are probably past their ‘use by’ date and too small to make an impact on the grid but Rolls Royce, no doubt, have these as their model for small modular reactors. I for one would welcome tens of these scattered round the country, if I guess right, small reactors would be easier to manage in terms of safety for one thing, and for another they could placed in locations to support the grid in such a way to reduce the need for some expensive reinforcements.
The folks of Bournemouth rejected wind farms to the west of the Isle of Wight, maybe they would be happy to have some nuclear reactors to keep their lights on.
Once again an interesting and very informative post.
The current media profile of Ukrainian reactors will unfortunately only reinforce existing public opinion. Safety, decommissioning and waste storage costs are on the lay man’s mind. Transparency is urgently required here. I believe all these issues can be shown to be proportionally small.
Nuclear base load generation is the only viable low carbon option, although tidal and hydro must also be pursued with vigour. With E Vs producing a flatter demand curve (if managed carefully), Nuclear will be able to match a proportionally larger base load.
I am doubtful about SMRs. The cost saving of many smaller reactors is unproven (both in construction and operation). If savings come from identical factory build units I fear type faults taking out the entire fleet.
The costs of Nuclear are similar to all other options when lifespan and the cost of backup is factored in. If you look at the fabulous return on investment I would suggest that the current build cost is largely due to the present funding method.
Hi all……Quote; “although tidal and hydro must also be pursued with vigour.”
Hear, hear a renewable (tidal) with the added benefits beyond electricity generation.
I question why a portion of the £billions spent to date have not been directed to possible locations around the UK.
Sure there are many suitable opportunities; including, as I write overlooking the magnificent Morecambe Bay a contender IMO.
Considerable additional benefits linking coastal communities, leisure, flood control etc. that tidal barrages offer.
Continuing on a local theme I feel dusting off the attached report produced by Mott MacDonald in 2014 is long overdue.
http://www.cumbriachamber.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/NTPG_update.pdf
Footnote:
This has proved an excellent Watt-Logic topic promoting lively & interesting debate.
Fragmentation of ownership, political naivety & short termism contributing IMV to the current situation.
So much overlooked from the nationalised Central Electricity Generating Board (CEGB).
A giant, building & operating power plants, transmission networks coordinated in a 20 year rolling strategy/plan.
My career involved both public (30yrs) & private (15yrs) sectors working with amazing talented engineers who made things happen.
The CEGB was often accused of cheque book engineering but delivered a reliable system over many years.
I feel little was learned hence the mess our energy system is currently experiencing.
Barry Wright, Lancashire.
Headline article in the Mail I see
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11173211/Life-Blackout-Britain-Experts-warn-energy-rationing-winter.html
Good stuff! Well done. I can’t help feeling that Truss has been lied to with false assurances by Kwarteng, who has obstinately refused to look as far as the pikestaff on the end of his nose since capacity shortages started showing up in EMNs two winters ago.
Thanks – I did quite a few radio and TV interviews yesterday about this (and the Sizewell C news). We need more honesty from BEIS and NG ESO about the fragility of the electricity system and they need to be a lot more proactive about dealing with it. No-one is buying the “nothing to see here, it’s all good” narrative
Oh dear, what to say ?
Well, quite a lot of false assertions and misleads by omission in the blog.
Blog ignores the fact that all international and governmental organisations agree with linear threshold dose response – ie that radiation risks exist all the way down, which means that radiation exposures after nuclear accidents carry risks of future cancer deaths.
Blog says no immediate deaths were reported after the Fukushima and TMI nuclear accidents, but this ignores future cancer deaths. Sadly, we can be confident these will occur given the collective radiation doses cited by WHO and UNSCEAR after the Fukushima accident.
Blog says, without evidence, that nuclear regulation is too strict in the post-Chernobyl era. In fact, recent BMJ peer reviewed published epidemiology evidence for nuclear workers (INWORKS) says the opposite – that nuclear regulation may need to be more strict.
Blog says nuclear contributes to decarbonising grids by ignoring the heavy carbon footprints of nuclear construction, uranium mining, uranium refining, uranium enrichment, and nuclear wastes.
Perhaps a good idea if future WattLogic blogs fact checked before publication?
Note, fourth-generation designs dreamt up by the nuclear industry themselves in the aftermath of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. ‘Passive safety’ designs were supposed to be a cheaper way to advanced safety than greater redundancy on previous designs. History being rewritten here to blame the regulatory agencies.
Not a good look.
I does not ignore cancer deaths – there are still no recorded instances of cancer deaths that can be attributed to Fukushima. The plant manager died of lung cancer but had beed a very heavy smoker for decades and the instances of cancers in the local area are not higher than thay had been before.
And all the other issues I raised ?
Also, note, cancer induction up to 20 years following radiation insult.