Abstract
Hype about the burgeoning future of nuclear power is rampant, but the facts tell a different story. The nuclear power industry is in a state of global decline–a situation that isn't going to change in the foreseeable future.
While the world media reported news of a nuclear revival, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had an embarrassing announcement to make in September. Although the IAEA has increased its projections for nuclear generation in 2030, the world's nuclear electricity generation decreased by 2 percent in 2007. In the European Union (EU) it dropped 6 percent–more than in any other year since the first fission reactor was connected to the Soviet grid in 1954. The drop by about 60 terawatt hours corresponds to the average annual generation of 10 reactors.
Major contributing factors were the seven units at Kashiwazaki, Japan, which have remained shut down since a severe earthquake shook the region in July 2007; the up to six German reactors that have been taken off the grid simultaneously for major repairs; and the numerous French reactors that have undergone inspections and maintenance after a generic problem was identified in their steam generators. The latter issue is expected to cost the French nuclear fleet another 2-3 percent of its average load factor for 2008 and 2009. The “Big Six” nuclear powers–the United States, France, Japan, Germany, Russia, and South Korea–saw their global share of nuclear-generated electricity drop from about three-quarters in previous years to 68 percent in 2007.
At the beginning of September, there were 439 operating nuclear reactors worldwide, five fewer than five years ago, with a total installed capacity of 372 gigawatts in 31 countries. No new nuclear plant has come online since the beginning of 2008.
The installed capacity has increased slightly through “uprating,” or technical improvements at existing plants that increase electricity generation. According to the World Nuclear Association (WNA), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has approved 110 uprates since 1977, a few of them “extended uprates” of up to 20 percent. An additional seven uprates are to be completed through the end of the year. As a result, close to an additional 5 gigawatts were added to the U.S. nuclear capacity through uprates alone–the equivalent of about four new plants. Europe is experiencing a similar trend of uprates and life extensions of existing reactors.
The capacity of the global fleet increased between 2000 and 2004 by about 3 gigawatts per year, much of it through uprating. That dropped to 2 gigawatts per year between 2004 and 2007 and to about 0.5 gigawatts over the first eight months of 2008. These figures should be compared to the global net increase in all electricity-generating capacity of an estimated 150 gigawatts for all new power plants, from fossil-fueled facilities to renewable energy, per year. That leaves nuclear energy with an insignificant fraction in the global power marketplace.
In 2007, nuclear power plants generated 2,600 terawatt hours, about 14 percent of the world's commercial electricity (down from 15 percent in 2006 and 16 percent in 2005) or less than 6 percent of the commercial primary energy and on the order of 2 percent of final energy. Only five countries (Armenia, Romania, Slovenia, South Africa, and Switzerland), which together operate 11 nuclear plants, increased their nuclear share in the power mix in 2007 over the previous year. Fifteen countries remained stable (less than a 1 percent change), and in 11 countries the role of nuclear power declined.
Construction sites in the 14 countries that are currently building nuclear power plants are accumulating substantial and costly delays. At the end of August, the IAEA listed 35 reactors as “under construction,” which is one more than at the end of 2007, but 18 fewer than at the end of the 1990s. The total capacity is just under 28,300 megawatts, with an average size of 800 megawatts per unit. A closer look at the list illustrates the level of uncertainty associated with reactor building.
Eleven reactors, almost one-third of the total listed, have been under construction for more than 20 years. The U.S. Watts Bar 2 project holds the record with an original construction start in December 1972 (subsequently frozen), followed by the Iranian Bushehr plant that was started by German Siemens in May 1975 and is now to be finished by Russia.
Fifteen projects don't have an official start-up date, including all seven of the Russian projects, two Bulgarian reactors, and three of the six Chinese units under construction. In fact, one Russian plant (Balakovo-5), which had been listed since 1987 and was to go online by the end of 2010, was abandoned and pulled off the list earlier this year. It was replaced by a new project (Novovoronezh 2-1) without any indication of a planned start-up date.
Two-thirds of the under-construction units have encountered significant construction delays, pushing back officially announced start-up dates. Only 10 projects haven't indicated delays; they are three Chinese, one Pakistani, three South Korean, and three Russian units. They were all started within the last three years and haven't reached their projected start-up dates yet, which makes it difficult or impossible to assess whether they are on schedule.
The geographic distribution of nuclear power plant projects extends the trend of previous years. Between 2004 and 2007, 14 nuclear plants, the total number of units that started up during that time, were located in Asia or Eastern Europe. Similarly, 30 of the 35 reactors currently “under construction” are also located in those regions. The average global construction time for nuclear plants (more than nine years for the 14 most recent ones) isn't a useful metric because of great differences between countries. The four reactors that started up in Romania, Russia, and Ukraine took between 18 and 24 years, while the 10 units that were connected to the grid in China, India, Japan, and South Korea took only five years to complete on average.
FOCUS: WESTERN EUROPE
The contribution of nuclear power continues to decline in europe. As of September, 15 of the 27 countries in the enlarged european Union (eU) operated 146 reactors (about one-third of the world total), down from 177 reactors in 1989. The vast majority of these facilities (125 units) are located in eight of the western eU countries. in 2007, nuclear power produced 28 percent of the eU's commercial electricity–down from 32 percent in 2002–and 12 percent of the region's commercial primary energy. more than 80 percent of the primary energy consumed in the region is provided by oil, natural gas, and coal. moreover, 47 percent of the nuclear electricity in the eU is generated solely by France.
Only two reactors are under construction in western european–one in Finland and one in France. both are being built by the Franco-German consortium AREVA nP (66 percent AREVA and 34 percent Siemens). otherwise, no new projects have broken ground in western europe since the French civaux-2 unit in 1991.
In december 2003, Finland became the first country in western europe to order a new nuclear reactor in 15 years. The utility Tvo signed a contract with AREVA nP to supply a third unit at olkiluoto, a 1,600-megawatt european Pressurized Water reactor. Siemens, headquartered in bavaria, received a $2.7 billion loan from the bavarian landesbank for the project, more than 60 percent of the contract's value at a preferential interest rate of 2.6 percent. The French public export credit agency compagnie Française d'Assurance pour le commerce extérieur covered an additional $1 billion.
The construction of the plant started in August 2005, and AREVA offered to build the facility for a fixed price, minus site preparatory work and excavation. The plant would then be turned over and operated by Tvo. Three years later the project is more than two years behind schedule and at least 50 percent over budget. The loss for AREVA is estimated at $2.1 billion; it remains unclear who will cover AREVA's additional costs.
In an unusually critical 2006 report on the project, Finnish nuclear safety authorities faulted AREVA managers for underestimating the time and resources needed to complete the detailed design of the olkiluoto-3 unit. They also blamed the French company for selecting subcontractors with no prior nuclear power plant construction experience. The authorities said that “general incompetence” was most evident in the preparations made to pour concrete for the base slab of the reactor site. concrete poured at the site was of such low quality that the project was delayed, and some of the concrete pouring needed to be redone.
Problems at the site have since continued. AREVA is accumulating delays, and even the design phase isn't yet completed. in February, two and a half years after construction started, the olkiluoto-3 project director told World Nuclear News, “At the moment, AREVA has submitted half of the plans to us. nuclear reactors are not built without plans, at least not in Finland.” on July 30, a fire raged for four hours through two levels of the reactor building, damaging the inner and outer walls of the containment structure and adding additional delays.
MYCLE SCHNEIDER
Lead times for nuclear plants do not only include construction times but also long-term planning, lengthy licensing procedures in most countries, complex financial negotiations, and site preparation. In addition, in most cases, the grid system has to be upgraded, often with new power lines that have their own planning and licensing difficulties. In some cases, public opposition is significantly higher in regards to high-voltage power lines than for the nuclear plants that generate the electricity. NRC Chairman Dale Klein noted that potentially necessary grid extensions could lead to further delays of nuclear projects and indicated that he was surprised to learn that “it may take as long to site, permit, and build a transmission line for a new plant as to site, license, and build the plant itself.”
FOCUS: ASIA
Six Asian countries possess nuclear power programs–china, india, Japan, Pakistan, South Korea, and Taiwan. in 2007, they generated 523 terawatt hours–or 20 percent–of the world's nuclear electricity. That, however, represented a 3.5 percent drop in the continent's nuclear generation when compared to 2006. The decrease was mainly due to the earthquake-induced shutdown of the seven-unit plant at Kashiwazaki, Japan, in July 2007. overall, the 111 nuclear reactors operating in Asia provided an average of 7.6 percent of the region's electricity–or 3 percent of its commercial primary energy. That average masks wide differences between Asian countries. While china and Pakistan generate only 1 percent with nuclear, South Korea generates 14 percent. And Japan alone accounts for half of the region's nuclear electricity generation.
Hopes for a world nuclear power revival rely on Asia as the engine of that rebirth. Asia has been the site of a majority of new nuclear power construction. Ten of the 14 new reactors in the world are located in Asia, and 19 of the 35 units under construction worldwide are located in Asia as well. in 2006, Asia represented 14 percent of French nuclear builder AREVA's total sales, and in 2007, its 58-percent boost in backlogged orders was due in particular to agreements with the china Guangdong nuclear Power company (CGNPC).
Yet, in all of the Asian countries with a nuclear power program, the share of nuclear energy in the power mix decreased in 2007 compared to 2006. The most active country, china, could potentially add substantial new capacity to the world grid over the next decade. but there is no evidence that china's official ambitious targets will be implemented. (india also has very ambitious plans that may never be actualized.) in the meantime, the role of nuclear energy in the overall Asian power mix is on the decline, just as in europe.
What follows is an in-depth look at china and india.
In July 2007, Toshiba-Westinghouse, along with the Shaw Group, signed contracts with the State nuclear Power Technology corporation, Sanmen nuclear Power company, Shandong nuclear Power company, and china national Technical import & export corporation to build generation iii AP1000 reactors. construction is supposed to start in September 2009, and the first operational plant is expected at Sanmen in late 2013.
On november 26, 2007, after a three-year delay, AREVA finally announced a $11.2 billion commercial contract with its chinese partners, calling the deal “unprecedented in the world nuclear market.” it plans to build, with the CGNPC, two european Pressurized Water reactors (EPR) in Taishan, Guangdong; according to AREVA, the series of agreements provides for the supply of all the materials and services needed to operate the reactors through 2027. in return, CGNPC bought 35 percent of Uramin, the South African mining company AREVA acquired in August 2007.
Hopes for a world nuclear power revival rely on Asia as the engine of that rebirth. yet, the share of nuclear energy in the power mix of Asian countries decreased in 2007 compared to 2006.
In January, Agence France-Presse reported that the contract with CGNPC wouldn't go forward until AREVA agreed to transfer its reprocessing technology to china. Although the status of the transfer agreement remains unknown, on August 10, Électricité de France (EDF) announced the creation of the Guangdong Taishan nuclear Power Joint venture company with the purpose of building and operating the two EPRs. EDF will hold 30 percent of the joint venture for 50 years. construction is scheduled to start next fall with start-ups planned for 2013 and 2015 respectively. china national nuclear corp. has announced that work will start by the end of 2009 on a 1,300-megawatt nuclear plant at changjiang in the southern island province of Hainan with more than 70 percent of the plant's equipment made in china. The plant is supposed to begin commercial operation in 2014.
The country's ambitious nuclear plans will depend very much on its heavy equipment manufacturing capacity, estimates of which vary from three to six steam supply system sets per year–including pressure vessel and steam generators. With the severe bottleneck worldwide for the ultra-heavy forgings, the nuclear industry has to compete with thermal power plant builders for these limited forging capacities. According to Nucleonics Week, in the case of thermal power plants rated at 600 megawatts or more, china must currently import more than 90 percent of its forgings. chinese equipment manufacturers reportedly have ambitious plans to extend their capacity to the equivalent of 20 or more sets per year, but these claims cannot be confirmed independently.
In march, a vice minister of the national development and reform commission told the Xinhua news Agency that he expects installed nuclear power capacity in china to reach 60 gigawatts by 2020, up from the earlier 40-gigawatt target. but even under this highly unlikely scenario, nuclear power would provide only 5-6 percent of domestic power.
In an effort to meet such targets, india negotiated an agreement with the United States allowing the purchase of nuclear-related technology and fuel, even though it is not a signatory to the nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (nPT). more than 150 nongovernmental organizations and nuclear experts from 24 countries have signed a declaration warning, “[F]oreign nuclear fuel supplies would free up india's relatively limited domestic supplies to be used exclusively in its military nuclear sector.” on September 6, the nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) released a statement endorsing the deal, effectively exempting india from standard NSG rules. The U.S. congress approved the measure allowing trade with india in october.
MYCLE SCHNEIDER
In the past, nuclear planning has rarely turned out to be accurate. In an article entitled “President Offers Plans for Revival of Nuclear,” the New York Times reported that the administration “today formally specified the steps it will take to revive commercial nuclear power.” That piece appeared in October 1981, and the president was Ronald Reagan. Twenty years later the “nuclear revival” is once again on the agenda, with President George W. Bush promoting Nuclear Power 2010.
In October 2001, as part of Nuclear Power 2010, the Energy Department planned to “complete construction and deploy multiple commercially viable new nuclear plants by 2010,” and at a minimum deploy “at least one light water and at least one gas-cooled reactor.” Reality is quite different, and it is now obvious that no new U.S. plant will be up and running by 2010. Energy's July 2008 update on the status of commercial nuclear reactor licenses lists nine submitted applications for combined construction and operating licenses (COLs) and a further 10 intended applications. Only one unit is currently planned to operate under a new license before 2015. NRG Energy plans to start construction at its South Texas site as early as 2009 with grid connection in 2014. NRG's COL is currently under review by the NRC. However, as Energy points out, “There is no assurance that any of these plants will ultimately be built or operate commercially,” and “COL filings often include a goal to ‘keep the nuclear option open’ rather than full commitment [to construction].”
Moody's Investor Services, which provides risk analysis to the capital markets, expects extensive legal cases: “We believe the first COL filing will be litigated, which could create lengthy delays for the rest of the sector.” The Financial Times obtained confidential government documents that confirm a similar situation in Britain: “Fresh legal challenges are expected to hamper plans to build new nuclear power stations in [Britain].”
Without any significant new build for years, the average age of the world's operating nuclear power plants has been increasing steadily, now standing at 24 years. Some nuclear utilities envision reactor lifetimes of 40 years–or even 60 years. Considering that the average age of the 119 units that have already been shut down is 22 years, the doubling of operational lifetime seems rather optimistic. If one assumes an average lifetime of 40 years for all the world's operating reactors (with the exception of 17 remaining German units that, according to German legislation, will be shut down after an average operational lifetime of 32 years) and the completion of the 20 units that were under construction as of January 2008 that have an official start-up date (down from 24 units at the start of the year), one can calculate how many plants would be shut down year by year over the next 50 years.
The exercise enables an evaluation of the number of plants that would have to come online over the next several decades simply to maintain the same number of operating plants around the world. In addition to units under construction with a scheduled start-up date, 70 reactors (generating 40,000 megawatts) would have to be planned, completed, and started up by 2015–one every month and a half–and an additional 192 units (168,000 megawatts) over the subsequent decade–or one every 18 days.
The achievement of the 2015 target is simply impossible from an industrial point of view, which means that the number of operating reactors will decline over the years to come unless lifetime extensions beyond 40 years become standard, which would raise safety and maintenance questions. The overall replacement of some 260 units by 2025 seems equally unlikely.
The international nuclear industry lobby, however, claims it can do that and more. The WNA has stated: “It is noteworthy that in the 1980s, 218 power reactors started up, an average of one every 17 days. … So it is not hard to imagine a similar number being commissioned in a decade after about 2015. But with China and India getting up to speed with nuclear energy and a world energy demand double the 1980 level in 2015, a realistic estimate of what is possible might be the equivalent of one 1,000 megawatt unit worldwide every 5 days.”
To simply maintain the current number of operating plants worldwide, 70 reactors would have to be planned, completed, and started up by 2015–one every month and a half–and an additional 192 units over the subsequent decade–or one every 18 days.
Such a “realistic estimate” seems hard to believe. The situation in the second decade of the 21st century will be radically different from that in the 1980s. The nuclear industry will not be in the same position it was then, when it started to harvest the early heavy investments made in nuclear. At that time, it also didn't have to deal with the nuclear waste issue, which was put on the back burner, nor the cost of reactor decommissioning, which was underestimated. In that earlier period, the nuclear industry still appeared progressive, attracting young and talented people. And ferocious competitors such as modern natural gas, combined heat and power, and various renewable energy sectors did not exist.
The replacement of the aging world nuclear fleet or even the extension of the operating plants will encounter three major problems: