NEA wants a nuclear future (but isn’t likely to see one)

Not likely to a best-seller, except perhaps in the science fiction/fantasy category: the cover of NEA's new report.

Not likely to a best-seller, except perhaps in the science fiction/fantasy category: the cover of NEA’s new report.

Last week, the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA), a subdivision of sorts of the International Energy Agency, composed of the remaining true believers in nuclear power, released a report calling on the world to more than double the use of nuclear power by 2050. Titled Technology Roadmap 2015: Nuclear Power, the report argues that this vast expansion of nuclear power is part of a necessary “energy revolution:”

Without decisive action, energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide will nearly double by 2050 and increased fossil energy demand will heighten concerns over the security of supplies.We can change our current path, but this will take an energy revolution in which low-carbon energy technologies will have a crucial role to play. Energy efficiency, many types of renewable energy, carbon capture and storage, nuclear power and new transport technologies will all require widespread deployment if we are to sharply reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Stealing a phrase from Greenpeace (“energy revolution”), which has issued a number of well-documented reports showing clearly the steps to take for a nuclear-free, carbon-free energy system by 2050–if not before–doesn’t necessarily provide the credibility NEA might have desired. And the report itself is full of so much optimism and highly-dubious speculation that it’s hard to take too seriously.

At least the NEA (perhaps because the intro is co-signed by the head of the IEA) acknowledges from the start that “This scenario is not a prediction of what will happen.” Indeed, it’s merely wishful thinking by the dwindling body of international nuclear enthusiasts.

But really, you’d expect a report five years in the making (the report is an update of one released in 2010) would at least get its numbers straight internally. The report claims in the introduction and elsewhere that 72 reactors were under construction at the end of 2014. In another place, that number is 70. But when you add up the number when the report breaks it down by global region, you get 63 under construction. Where are those missing nine reactors? Under the ocean? In deep space?

10 of those reactors under construction are in Russia–the likelihood that they’ll all be completed is miniscule, as is the notion that China will complete all 29 it is said to have underway although that’s at least more conceivable than Russia.

The effect of Fukushima on the future of nuclear power is reflected in the report, both directly and indirectly. Most importantly, it’s admitted by a major decrease in the NEA’s hope/projection in 2010 of a nuclear sector 1200 GW strong by 2050, pumping out 25% of global electricity. This report advocates 930 GW by 2050, which would be a 17% share of global electricity–still a big, and oh-so-unlikely jump from its current 11% share. Current capacity is only 396 GW, so NEA is still looking at a huge nuclear leap. It’s a leap of faith that won’t be rewarded.

To get to that point would require a global investment of $4.4 Trillion, according to NEA. And that’s with a projection that costs of nuclear power construction in the U.S. and Europe would actually decrease between now and then–a projection that has no basis in history or reality, which has conclusively documented ever-increasing costs for nuclear reactors.

It probably goes without saying that the report doesn’t even attempt to evaluate how much new, clean, and safe capacity could be implemented if that $4.4 Trillion were spent on renewables, energy efficiency and building up the 21st century electric grid.

To reach 930 GW would mean long license extensions for just about every reactor in the world–about 3/4 of which are now at least 25 years old. Those may not be coming, and even if many are extended, the extensions may not be long enough. Even with license extensions, for example, nearly all U.S. reactors still will be retired by 2050 unless the rules are changed to allow even longer extensions. Moreover, holding a license to operate doesn’t necessarily mean a reactor will reach its licensed lifetime, as five U.S. reactor shutdowns over the past two years–with more likely soon–indicates.

Most of the new reactors, under the NEA’s scenario, will be “Generation III” reactors like the Westinghouse AP 1000, now facing long construction delays and cost overruns in Georgia and South Carolina–which certainly doesn’t bode well for their future. As one investment analyst put it last week when the news broke that Georgia’s Vogtle reactors are delayed yet another 18 months with at least $700 million more in cost overruns, “who in their right mind would want to build a nuclear power plant?”

Indeed, with virtually every major investment house having issued a report in the past year touting the benefits and growth of renewables and predicting essentially no future for nuclear power, without complete government support nuclear power is not going to grow between now and 2050, it’s going to decline, and decline substantially.

Finally, even the NEA emphasizes that reactors must run safely for its dream to come true. But that too is only a dream. With a history of a major accident occurring every 11 years or so, the idea that the next 35 years will see trouble-free operation is merely a mirage. It’s not a matter of “if” for the next Fukushima or Three Mile Island, it’s only a matter of when and where. And the next accident will, as Fukushima and Chernobyl did before it, lead to an even-faster abandonment of nuclear power.

But so will the declining costs and obvious other advantages of renewables: they’re not serious targets during wartime or for terrorists; they don’t generate lethal radioactive waste–an issue only skimmed over in the NEA report; they don’t contribute to proliferation of nuclear materials and weapons; they don’t release toxic radiation as part of their routine operations. They do, however, provide safe, clean, affordable electricity, and that’s what the world wants and needs. Moreover, they will reduce carbon emissions faster, cheaper, and more completely than nuclear power ever could.

The true believers of the NEA won’t understand all that, of course. That’s ok. The rest of us don’t have to take them seriously. Their dreams may be the world’s nightmares, but neither is going to come true.

The full NEA report can be downloaded here.

Michael Mariotte (with thanks to Greenpeace International’s Jan Haverkamp)

February 2, 2015

Permalink: https://safeenergy.org/2015/02/02/nea-wants-a-nuclear-future/

Your contributions make publication of GreenWorld possible. If you value GreenWorld, please make a tax-deductible donation here and ensure our continued publication. We gratefully appreciate every donation of any size.

Comments are welcome on all GreenWorld posts! Say your piece above. Start a discussion. Don’t be shy; this blog is for you.

If you’d like to receive GreenWorld via e-mail, send your name and e-mail address to nirsnet@nirs.org and we’ll send you an invitation. Note that the invitation will come from a GreenWorld@wordpress.com address and not a nirs.org address, so watch for it.

If you like GreenWorld, you can help us reach more people. Just use the icons below to “like” our posts and to share them on the various social networking sites you use. And if you don’t like GreenWorld, please let us know that too. Send an e-mail with your comments/complaints/compliments to nirsnet@nirs.org. Thank you!

GreenWorld is crossposted on tumblr at https://www.tumblr.com/blog/nirsnet

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “NEA wants a nuclear future (but isn’t likely to see one)

  1. ShannYn Sollitt

    Petitions put pressure on the political will – and would help the people reading this kind of information feel they were not powerless to affect some change. Thank you for your investigative reporting.

    Reply
  2. Don Richardson

    This ignores the significant carbon footprint of nuclear power. It cannot be wished away by ignoring it. Nukes are DEAD. Let’s get on with renewables—if we’re interested in survival of life on Earth.

    Don Richardson gaia@comporium.net

    Reply
  3. Jan Haverkamp

    Thanks for this, Michael. There a few more pearls in the report. Total GHG reductions would be 14% in the power sector, i.e. less than 4% on a global level. That in the year that we need to see 50% reductions globally.

    Ah, and when we’re at it, this 14% is only if nuclear replaces coal and gas (no indications of amounts, but ok)… when it, like it is doing now in countries with nuclear development with the exception of China, is pushing out mainly gas and implementation of renewable energy resources, the amount is even lower.

    The NEA proves with this report that nuclear cannot play any meaningful role in climate protection – something Steve Kidd, former World Nuclear Association, also conceded recently (http://www.neimagazine.com/opinion/opinionis-climate-change-the-worst-argument-for-nuclear-4493537/).

    In the mean time, Poland’s leading utility tries to sell nuclear to the country by a showing of “Pandora’s Promise” in the coming week.

    It’s a weird world….

    Reply

We welcome your comments here!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s