Reactor opposition softens
Thursday, 15 November 2007
Rebecca Bream
MORE than 20 years after the Chernobyl disaster, the question of whether to allow the construction of nuclear reactors remains one of the most controversial in the global energy industry.
A growing desire to tackle the twin problems of climate change and energy security, however, means that the prospect of new nuclear power plants is much more acceptable to the public than it has been for some time.
Nuclear power's two main selling points are that reactors do not produce carbon dioxide, unlike fossil fuel-burning power plants, and that fuel costs are relatively low.
The main disadvantage is the production of radioactive waste, something for which few countries have found a permanent solution. The nuclear industry also has a poor record of building reactors on time and on budget, making atomic energy a historically costly form of power generation.
While the issues of cost, safety and waste still make many people uneasy, worries about how to cut carbon emissions and how to reduce reliance on foreign gas imports has led to a softening of opposition to nuclear power.
Against this backdrop, reactors are already being built in Finland and France, while the US, China, India, Japan, Russia, Bulgaria and Romania all have new nuclear projects at various stages of development.
In western Europe, Finland's 160OMW Olkiluoto 3 reactor is due to start generating power in 2011, following a series of delays, while the Flamanville 3 reactor in northern France is scheduled to start operating in 2012.
Both projects are based on the latest pressurised water reactor model from Areva of France, dubbed the Evolutionary Power Reactor.
Most countries in central and eastern Europe have taken a strongly pro-nuclear stance, in part reflecting concerns about becoming too reliant on gas exports from their powerful neighbour, Russia.
Last month saw the opening of the 70OMW Cernavoda 2 nuclear power plant in Romania, which uses Candu 6 pressurised heavy water reactor technology from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL).
Nuclearelectrica, Romania's state-owned atomic energy up, has said it wants the construction of two further reactors on the site, Cemavoda 3 and 4, and that they could be finished by 2014 and 2015.
Meanwhile, Bulgaria plans to build 2,OOOMW of nuclear generating capacity at its Belene site by 2014 to replace four Chernobyl-era units that were shut down as a condition of the country's entry to the European Union last year.
China and the US are likely to be the two biggest centres of nuclear new-build in the coming years.
The Chinese government has plans to build up to 30 reactors by 2020, although this would represent only a relatively small portion of the country's fastgrowing electricity generation capacity.
Westinghouse, the US-based reactor manufacturer now owned by Toshiba of Japan, is working on the construction of four reactors in China, two each in Shandong and Zhejiang provinces, which are due to open in 2013 after a three-year construction period.
In the US, nuclear development has, in effect, been on hold since the 1979 meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, the country's worst nuclear accident.
But this year has seen the first real signs of a nuclear revival in the US and energy companies are now looking at building 20 to 30 reactors across the country.
In September, NRG Energy filed the first application to build a nuclear plant in the US for almost 30 years.
The New Jersey-based company has applied to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to build two reactors totalling 2,70OMW of generating capacity in Texas. NRG Energy plans to bring the reactors on line in 2014 and 2015 to meet the rising energy demands of the south-western US.
The companies involved in this burst of activity have pledged to investors that they have learnt the lessons of the past, and will be able to avoid the delays and vast cost over-runs that have blighted the civil nuclear industry throughout its existence.
But the fact that Finland's Olkiluoto 3 project is already running 18 months behind schedule and is costing €700m more than the original €3.0bn budget shows this is easier said than done. As the first of its kind, Olkiluoto 3 is bound to have teething problems, but the delays have drawn attention to the complexity of nuclear projects and the length of the waiting lists for the specialised components involved.
Andy White, chief executive of GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, the nuclear joint venture between the US and Japanese companies, says the answer is to have more standardisation and sharing of information and expertise in the global nuclear industry.
If there were more identical plants, it would be easier to get spare parts and could speed up the regulatory approval process.
"You would not have to design and licence a unique reactor in each country. There are benefits to everyone; costs and timescales come down and there are economies of scale."
.................................
(Under syndication
arrangement with FE)
MORE than 20 years after the Chernobyl disaster, the question of whether to allow the construction of nuclear reactors remains one of the most controversial in the global energy industry.
A growing desire to tackle the twin problems of climate change and energy security, however, means that the prospect of new nuclear power plants is much more acceptable to the public than it has been for some time.
Nuclear power's two main selling points are that reactors do not produce carbon dioxide, unlike fossil fuel-burning power plants, and that fuel costs are relatively low.
The main disadvantage is the production of radioactive waste, something for which few countries have found a permanent solution. The nuclear industry also has a poor record of building reactors on time and on budget, making atomic energy a historically costly form of power generation.
While the issues of cost, safety and waste still make many people uneasy, worries about how to cut carbon emissions and how to reduce reliance on foreign gas imports has led to a softening of opposition to nuclear power.
Against this backdrop, reactors are already being built in Finland and France, while the US, China, India, Japan, Russia, Bulgaria and Romania all have new nuclear projects at various stages of development.
In western Europe, Finland's 160OMW Olkiluoto 3 reactor is due to start generating power in 2011, following a series of delays, while the Flamanville 3 reactor in northern France is scheduled to start operating in 2012.
Both projects are based on the latest pressurised water reactor model from Areva of France, dubbed the Evolutionary Power Reactor.
Most countries in central and eastern Europe have taken a strongly pro-nuclear stance, in part reflecting concerns about becoming too reliant on gas exports from their powerful neighbour, Russia.
Last month saw the opening of the 70OMW Cernavoda 2 nuclear power plant in Romania, which uses Candu 6 pressurised heavy water reactor technology from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL).
Nuclearelectrica, Romania's state-owned atomic energy up, has said it wants the construction of two further reactors on the site, Cemavoda 3 and 4, and that they could be finished by 2014 and 2015.
Meanwhile, Bulgaria plans to build 2,OOOMW of nuclear generating capacity at its Belene site by 2014 to replace four Chernobyl-era units that were shut down as a condition of the country's entry to the European Union last year.
China and the US are likely to be the two biggest centres of nuclear new-build in the coming years.
The Chinese government has plans to build up to 30 reactors by 2020, although this would represent only a relatively small portion of the country's fastgrowing electricity generation capacity.
Westinghouse, the US-based reactor manufacturer now owned by Toshiba of Japan, is working on the construction of four reactors in China, two each in Shandong and Zhejiang provinces, which are due to open in 2013 after a three-year construction period.
In the US, nuclear development has, in effect, been on hold since the 1979 meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, the country's worst nuclear accident.
But this year has seen the first real signs of a nuclear revival in the US and energy companies are now looking at building 20 to 30 reactors across the country.
In September, NRG Energy filed the first application to build a nuclear plant in the US for almost 30 years.
The New Jersey-based company has applied to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to build two reactors totalling 2,70OMW of generating capacity in Texas. NRG Energy plans to bring the reactors on line in 2014 and 2015 to meet the rising energy demands of the south-western US.
The companies involved in this burst of activity have pledged to investors that they have learnt the lessons of the past, and will be able to avoid the delays and vast cost over-runs that have blighted the civil nuclear industry throughout its existence.
But the fact that Finland's Olkiluoto 3 project is already running 18 months behind schedule and is costing €700m more than the original €3.0bn budget shows this is easier said than done. As the first of its kind, Olkiluoto 3 is bound to have teething problems, but the delays have drawn attention to the complexity of nuclear projects and the length of the waiting lists for the specialised components involved.
Andy White, chief executive of GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, the nuclear joint venture between the US and Japanese companies, says the answer is to have more standardisation and sharing of information and expertise in the global nuclear industry.
If there were more identical plants, it would be easier to get spare parts and could speed up the regulatory approval process.
"You would not have to design and licence a unique reactor in each country. There are benefits to everyone; costs and timescales come down and there are economies of scale."
.................................
(Under syndication
arrangement with FE)