Although some countries plan to build new nuclear power plants in the near
future, in aggregate the data indicates that nuclear power's
influence will continue to dwindle across the globe in coming decades.
As of August 2009 there were 435 nuclear reactors operating in the world, nine less than
in 2002. (See “Status of Nuclear Power in the World,” p. 3.) At
the same time the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) listed another 52 units as
“under construction.” Relatively speaking, that's a
sizable drop-off from the nuclear industry's heyday. Take, for example, 1979,
which was the peak of the industry's growth phase. That year, 233 reactors
were being built concurrently. Even a decade later, 120 reactors were in the process of
being built. Obviously, much has changed since that time. In 2008, for the first time
since the commercial use of nuclear energy began in the mid-1950s, no new nuclear plant
was connected to a grid. In fact, no plant startup has been reported for the last two
years.
The average age of the world's operating nuclear power plants is 24 years.
Many nuclear utilities foresee them running for another 15 years or so, until they are
at least 40 years old. But that seems unlikely and highly optimistic considering that
the average age of the 123 units that have been permanently shut down is about 22 years.
Even with the currently granted license renewals, it will be a long time, if ever,
before the number of operating reactors reaches the historic peak of 444 reactors that
were operating in 2002. According to our estimates, by 2015, the number of operating
nuclear reactors throughout the world will number no more than 425, 10 short of the
current level. In the following decade, 174 reactors would need to be replaced just to
maintain today's numbers. Such growth appears unlikely. Case in point: At
best, over the next two decades, Finland and France each will build one or two new
reactors; China will build an additional 20 plants; and India, Japan, Korea, and
selected Eastern European countries will build a few units–with the gross
total of this new build coming nowhere close to 174. Of course, current reactor numbers
could be preserved if reactor lifetime extensions are expanded and operation can be
substantially extended beyond 40 years. But today there isn't a basis for
such an assumption.
Likewise, it's unlikely that potential nuclear newcomers can build extensive
nuclear power programs anytime soon, not with the technical, political, and economic
challenges they're facing. To wit, none of the potential new nuclear
countries (Vietnam, Poland, and Indonesia to name three) has the proper nuclear
regulations, independent regulators, domestic maintenance capacity, and skilled
workforce in place to run a nuclear plant. Furthermore, few countries, particularly
those with developing economies, have sufficient grid capacity to absorb the output of a
large nuclear plant, an often-overlooked constraint. Thus, the challenge of financing a
plant is exacerbated by the large ancillary investments required, including the front
and back end of the nuclear fuel cycle (e.g., waste management). Then, there are the
workforce issues. Even France, the country with perhaps the strongest base of civilian
nuclear competence, is threatened by a severe shortage of skilled workers. Demographics
are a big reason why. A large number of baby boomers are approaching retirement,
including about 40 percent of the nuclear staff at Électricité de
France (EDF), the world's largest nuclear utility. And there simply
isn't enough new staff to fill these positions. Today, a maximum of 300
nuclear graduates are available for some 1,200-1,500 open positions. Plus, the number of
nuclear graduates doesn't always correspond to the availability of new
recruits. For instance, in the United States, only about one-quarter of 2008 graduates
in nuclear-related fields planned to work in the nuclear industry or at a nuclear
utility.
While many industries experience declining costs as they move out of their technological
learning curve, the nuclear industry continues to face steadily increasing costs on
existing construction and future cost estimates. MIT's recent update to its
2003 Future of Nuclear Power report doubled an earlier estimate of
overnight costs from $2,000 to $4,000 (excluding financing) per
installed kilowatt. In the meantime, reality already has bypassed these projections.
Areva's flagship new reactor project in Finland is more than three years
behind schedule and more than 75 percent over budget. The total cost is now estimated at
$7.6 billion, or close to $4,800 per kilowatt. So there is now no
obvious sign that the international nuclear industry can eventually turn its empirically
evident decline into a promising future–despite all the clamor about a
so-called nuclear renaissance.
This total includes Irans near-complete reactor at bushehr and two additional
planned reactors.
What follows is a region-by-region and country-by-country look at the world's
installed nuclear power capacity and the likelihood of expansion.
Africa. South Africa is the only country on the continent with operating
nuclear reactors. It operates two reactors that supply 5.2 percent of its electricity,
down 0.8 percent from 2003. The state-owned utility Eskom launched an effort in 1998 to
develop the pebble bed modular reactor, a helium-cooled, graphite-moderated reactor that
was based on earlier German designs. PBMR Ltd. was established in 1999 and international
investors such as British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) and Exelon promised to help fund a
feasibility phase expected to lead to the construction of a demonstration plant and to
order a number of units. But BNFL and other investors failed to supply as much funding
as they had promised, and some left the project, leaving Eskom and the South African
government with the bill, which was rapidly escalating. By last year, costs of the
demonstration plant had increased almost tenfold and none of the foreign investors was
willing to fund the demonstration plant. Not surprisingly, in February 2009, Eskom, the
only potential customer, decided not to build the demonstration plant. With PBMR
Ltd.'s funding due to run out in early 2010, the company's future
is very much in doubt. In December 2008, Eskom also cancelled a call for tenders to
build new “Generation III” advanced nuclear power plants after it
appeared that its credit rating would be severely hurt if it went ahead.
South America. Argentina operates two reactors that provide 6 percent of its
electricity, down roughly 3 percent since 2003. A second reactor at the Atucha nuclear
power plant has been listed as “under construction” since 1981,
although the joint Siemens-Argentinean company that was slated to build it pulled out of
the project in 1994. Nevertheless, in 2004, the IAEA estimated that the reactor would
begin operating in 2005. Three years later, the IAEA moved that start date to 2010. By
the middle of 2008, the plant was about 80 percent complete. In early May 2009,
Argentina's minister of planning and public works stated that planning for a
fourth reactor was underway and that construction could start within a year. But no
siting decision or call for tender has been reported to date.
Brazil also operates two reactors that generate 3.1 percent of its
electricity, down about 1 percent from 2003. Brazil's first nuclear reactor,
Angra-1, went critical in 1981. Around the same time it signed an agreement with Germany
that remains probably the world's largest single nuclear contract for the
construction of eight 1,300-mega-watt reactors over a 15-year period. Only one reactor,
Angra-2, was eventually built, however, and it was not connected to the grid until 24
years after construction first started. The construction of a third reactor at the Angra
nuclear power plant was stopped in June 1991. The Brazilian government still plans to
restart construction of Angra-3 and to build three additional plants, but whether these
plans are more realistic than earlier plans remains to be seen.
The president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has stated that his country
is suffering from the same problems that are hurting the rest of the
industry–namely, retirement of skilled workers.
North America. Canada operates 18 reactors that produce 14.8 percent of its
electricity, up more than 2 percent since 2003. Since the mid-1980s, the Canadian
reactors, all domestically built pressurized heavy water CANDU models, have been plagued
by technical problems. In August 1997, the utility Ontario Hydro announced that it would
temporarily shut down its oldest eight reactors for significant overhauls. There have
been continual delays in restarting them. As of May 2009, only four had begun operating
again. Two more are scheduled to come back online by the end of this year or early next
year. It's anticipated that the final two reactors will be back online by
2013.
In March 2009, Bruce Power announced that it wanted to build a new reactor at a site in
Alberta. The private company predicts site preparation and construction will take 10
years so the unit wouldn't start until well after 2020. Similarly, in June
2008, the Canadian government announced that it wanted to build two new reactors at a
site in Ontario. The reactors are slated to begin operating by 2018. But that might be
wishful thinking. The provincial government reportedly conditioned any go-ahead on
financial guarantees from the federal government to cover the financial risks involved.
And thanks to the recession, power needs in Ontario are declining rather than
increasing, leaving the province with more time to make a decision on building new
reactors. To the east, New Brunswick is investigating adding a second reactor at its
Point Lepreau nuclear power station, but those highly speculative plans will have to
wait at least until a $1.4 billion refurbishment of the first unit, now
officially 16 months late, is completed.
Any new build in Canada risks running into significant difficulties. First, there is
substantial local opposition against nuclear power, particularly in Alberta and
Saskatchewan. More largely, the president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has
stated that the country is suffering from the same problems that are hurting the rest of
the industry–namely, retirement of skilled workers. Atomic Energy of Canada
Ltd. (AECL) nevertheless keeps undertaking aggressive marketing campaigns to sell
reactors abroad. To date, it has delivered four units to South Korea, two to Romania,
two to India, two to China, and one each to Pakistan and Argentina.
Mexico operates two nuclear reactors that generate 4 percent of its
electricity, down a little more than 1 percent since 2003. An up-rating project
currently taking place is intended to increase the installed capacity of both units by
about 20 percent. There are some vague proposals for new reactors, but no concrete
plans.
The United States operates more nuclear power plants than any other country
in the world. In all, it has 104 commercial reactors that provide 19.7 percent of its
electricity, a number that has remained stable since 2003. New build, however, has been
slow. In fact, the number of cancelled reactor projects in the United States (138 units)
actually is more than the country's operating units. Currently, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is processing 17 applications for a total of 26 new
reactors, covering five different reactor designs–GE-Hitachi's
Advanced Boiling Water Reactor and Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor,
Mitsubishi's Advanced Pressurized Water Reactor, Areva's
Evolutionary Power Reactor, and Toshiba-Westinghouse's AP-1000. Thus far, the
NRC has granted three early site permits and received one additional application that is
currently under review. Early site permits are independent of the combined
construction/operating license. None of the applicants has received an early site permit
as well as a certified design at this stage. (Only the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor
has been certified by the NRC; but this certification expires in 2012 and major
modifications are likely to be needed for it to be re-certified.)
The 2005 Energy Policy Act, which included $20.5 billion in loan guarantees
for nuclear energy ($18.5 billion for reactors, $2 billion for
front-end facilities), was aimed at stimulating investment in new plants. Federal
guarantees could cover up to 100 percent of the debt cost of the new facilities, and up
to 80 percent of the total costs to build. As of the end of September 2009, 17 nuclear
utilities had applied for the loan guarantees totaling $122 billion. In May
2009, the Energy Department short-listed four companies: Southern Nuclear for two
AP-1000s at the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia; South Carolina Electric
& Gas for two AP-1000s at its Summer site in South Carolina; NRG Energy for
two Advanced Boiling Water Reactors at a site in southern Texas; and Constellation
Energy Group for one Evolutionary Power Reactor at Calvert Cliffs, Maryland. Still,
there have been more stops than starts. Entergy asked the NRC to suspend reviews
specific to its Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor projects for the Grand Gulf
nuclear station and River Bend nuclear power plant “after unsuccessful
attempts to come to mutually acceptable business terms” with GE-Hitachi. A
few days later Dominion pulled the plug on its planned reactor for its North Anna power
station project in Virginia. Similarly, in May, Exelon CEO John Rowe stated that the
company would “delay or cancel” its project in Victoria, Texas
because it wasn't among the projects selected by the Energy Department for
loan guarantees.
The change in presidents also has altered the U.S. nuclear industry's
fortunes, as incoming President Barack Obama made a number of key appointments that
weren't necessarily the first choices of nuclear proponents. Take, for
instance, new NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko. Before joining the commission in 2005, Jaczko
was a science adviser to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who has fought the siting of
a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada (his home state) for many years.
With this political sea change, it is not surprising that Congress has limited funding
for nuclear programs and more or less ended funding for Yucca Mountain. However, more
recently, Energy Secretary Steven Chu has called for an increase in loan guarantees for
nuclear power.
China's engineering skills and infrastructure, along with its
“command-and-control” political system, have allowed it to
complete projects on a scale that may be unachievable in other parts of the
world.
Despite its failure to build more reactors in recent decades, the U.S. nuclear industry
remains highly successful in two other areas–increased output from existing
reactors and plant life extensions. Due to changes in the operating regimes and
increased attention to reactor performance, the energy availability of U.S. reactors has
increased significantly from 56 percent in the 1980s to 78 percent in 2007. As a result,
the output from U.S. reactors has tripled over this period. In terms of life extensions,
the lack of new orders means that about 30 percent of U.S. reactors will have operated
for at least 40 years by 2015. They were never expected to run any longer, but now
proposals are being developed and reviewed by the NRC to allow them to operate for up to
60 years.
Asia. China operates 11 reactors that generate 2 percent of its electricity.
According to the IAEA, an additional 16 reactors are “under
construction”–although other sources suggest that this number is
too high. Either way, China is planning a major expansion of its nuclear sector.
Specifically, Beijing plans a fivefold increase in its installed nuclear capacity by
2020. This would require it to complete all 16 reactors reportedly under construction
now, plus another 15 or so reactors over the next decade. While China's
engineering skills and infrastructure, along with its
“command-and-control” political system, have allowed it to
complete projects on a scale that may be unachievable in other parts of the world, the
domestic nuclear sector isn't without its problems. In particular, the
current 11 Chinese reactors were built with a mixture of foreign and indigenous
resources, meaning Beijing's nuclear power program is highly reliant on a mix
of imported state-of-the-art nuclear technologies. For example, the Daya Bay nuclear
power plant and the Lingao nuclear power station were constructed using French light
water reactor designs, the reactors at the Qinshan nuclear power plant are CANDU-6
pressurized heavy water reactors from Canada, and the Tianwan phase 1 units are of the
Russian AES-91 pressurized water reactor design. Other Chinese reactors were built using
domestic designs and resources, although some key components, such as pressure vessels,
were imported.
In late 2004, the State Council approved plans for the construction of up to eight new
units at the Sanmen and Yangjiang nuclear power plants. Bids were received from
Toshiba-Westinghouse (Japan/United States), Areva (France), and Atomstroyexport
(Russia). They supposedly were assessed on the level of technology, degree to which the
technology is proven, price, local content, and technology transfer. Ultimately,
Toshiba-Westinghouse won out and signed a $5.3 billion contract in February
2007. A key factor was that the contract contained technology transfer measures for both
the reactor and back-end services. Construction started in September 2009, with power
production scheduled for August 2013. Areva wasn't completely left out in the
cold, however. In November 2007, it boasted that it had signed a “record
contract, worth 8 billion euros … unprecedented in the world nuclear
market.” Under the terms of the deal, Areva, along with the China Guangdong
Nuclear Power Corporation, will build two Evolutionary Power Reactors at the Taishan
nuclear power station and provide “all the materials and services required to
operate them.”
India operates 17 reactors that generate 2 percent of its electricity, down
1.3 percent since 2003. The Indian government lists six units as “under
construction”–two less than in 2004. While most of its reactors
experienced construction delays resulting in building times stretching 10-14 years, the
Indian government appears undeterred. In 2006, the chairman of the Nuclear Power
Corporation of India Ltd. (NPCIL) told reporters that 62 reactors with a combined
capacity of 40 gigawatts would be operating in the country by 2025. He offered no
explanation though of how India would achieve this rate of growth, and there is little
evidence that the country could annually increase its nuclear capacity by 1,850
megawatts between now and 2025–especially given the country's poor
record with nuclear power. That said, foreign assistance is on the way. In the year
since President George W. Bush signed the U.S.-India nuclear deal into law, removing
nuclear trade sanctions on India that had been in place for decades, numerous countries
have begun conducting nuclear business with New Delhi. In March, NPCIL and Areva signed
a memorandum of understanding to build two Evolutionary Power Reactors at a site in
Jaitapur. Apparently, 15 banks, including 10 French banks, have offered to help finance
the project. GE-Hitachi, AECL, and a couple of Russian companies also are negotiating
nuclear deals with India. India also has highly ambitious plans to build plants of its
own design that would utilize India's thorium reserves as nuclear fuel.
For a long time, many analysts viewed South Korea as a prime candidate for a large
nuclear expansion. But a major controversy over where to store the
country's nuclear waste has quieted such talk for the last few years.
Japan operates 53 reactors that generate 25 percent of its electricity, down
nearly 10 percent since 2002. A massive falsification scandal, in which quality control
data was manipulated, has led to the provisional shuttering of all 17 of Tokyo Electric
Power Company's reactors. Later, the scandal widened to other nuclear
utilities–hence the country's drop-off in nuclear generating
capacity. The scandal resurfaced in April 2009 when Hitachi detected that inspection
records for heat-welded pipes had been altered. Exacerbating matters, in July 2007, a
severe earthquake hit the area surrounding the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant,
the largest nuclear power station in the world. Ever since, its seven reactors (totaling
8,212 megawatts of capacity) have remained closed for damage verification and repairs,
and by October 2009, only two of the units had gotten as far as low-power testing prior
to reentry into service. In February 2009, Japan's Nuclear Safety Commission
did grant permission for the plant's least damaged unit to restart. But
critics allege that it was allowed to do so only because of “intense pressure
from the central government.” Officially, two Japanese reactors are listed as
“under construction,” one less than in 2003. Further construction
plans are vague and have been scaled back several times. Plus, Toshiba, which owns
Westinghouse, filed a record $3.6 billion loss for the last financial year
and has reduced planned investment by 42 percent for the current financial year.
Pakistan operates two reactors that provide nearly 2 percent of its
electricity, down about one-half percent since 2003. One additional unit, supplied by
China, is under construction. Any other international assistance to enlarge its nuclear
program has been nearly impossible since Pakistan has blatantly used its nuclear energy
program to build nuclear weapons. It also refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty and does not accept full-scope safeguards (i.e., comprehensive international
inspections of all nuclear activities in the country). Therefore, the Pakistani nuclear
program will most likely maintain its predominantly military character.
South Korea operates 20 reactors that provide 35.6 percent of its
electricity, down about 4.5 percent since 2003. Five more units are listed as
“under construction”; work on two of these reactors was expected
to start this year. For a long time, many analysts viewed South Korea as a prime
candidate for a large nuclear expansion. But a major controversy over where to store the
country's nuclear waste has quieted such talk for the last few years. The new
South Korean government, however, is bullish on nuclear power. As such, last December it
announced plans to build 12 more reactors by 2022, raising domestic installed nuclear
capacity to 48 percent of the country's electricity generation.
Taiwan operates six reactors that generate 19 percent of its electricity,
down about 2.5 percent from 2003. Construction of two Advanced Boiling Water Reactors at
Lungmen nuclear power plant, near Taipei, began in 1999. Initial bids to supply the
units on a turnkey basis were rejected, and contracts were awarded to GE-Hitachi for the
nuclear islands, Mitsubishi for the turbines, and others for the remaining equipment.
They were scheduled to go online by 2007, but their operation has been delayed to 2011
at the earliest. And to meet this date, in March, the state utility Taipower told the
Taiwanese Parliament that it would need an additional $1.1
billion-$1.5 billion, bringing the total cost to about $8 billion.
Western Europe. Belgium operates seven reactors that provide about 54
percent of its electricity, down 1.5 percent since 2003. In 2002, Brussels passed
nuclear phaseout legislation that required its nuclear power plants to shut down after
40 years of operation, which, given their start dates, puts their closure between 2014
and 2025. Although the coalition government that passed the legislation left office in
2002, subsequent governments seemed uninterested in overturning it. However, the current
government envisions extending lifetimes by 10 years.
Britain operates 19 reactors that provide 13.4 percent of its electricity,
down 8.5 percent since 2003. London's first-generation plants, 11 in all,
mostly have been retired, and the last two stations will close in the next year or two.
The seven second-generation stations also are near, or at, the end of their 30-year
design life, although their owners now hope to extend their licenses to 40 years,
meaning that they wouldn't be retired until between 2016 and 2029. It remains
to be seen whether this plan is feasible as the second-generation's advanced
gas-cooled reactor design always has had reliability problems and its high operating
costs may make it uneconomical to keep in service even if its safety problems can be
ameliorated.
In 2004, despite a highly troubled past filled with scandal and virtual bankruptcy, the
British nuclear industry launched a major initiative promoting nuclear power as an
energy alternative. It seemed to work, because two years later Prime Minister Tony Blair
stated, “nuclear power is back on the agenda with a vengeance.”
Two years after that, Blair's successor, Gordon Brown, began preparing the
country for new nuclear build. This year, French utility EDF completed the takeover of
the privatized nuclear generator British Energy, which owned the country's
second-generation plants, giving EDF access to all its sites for new build. The British
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which owns the first-generation plants, auctioned off
the first pieces of land earmarked for new reactors. EDF and the German companies E.ON
and RWE, in consortium, were the buyers. By May 2009, EDF had issued prequalification
questionnaires to a number of firms for preparatory and civil works contracts. While EDF
has proposed the European Pressurized Water Reactor design for these sites, RWE/E.ON has
yet to choose between that design and Toshiba-Westinghouse's AP-1000.
Toshiba-Westinghouse estimates that up to 80 percent of the work and services for its
reactors could be provided by British firms–a very optimistic stance. Equally
optimistic is the government's vow that it wouldn't provide those
building the new plants with subsidies. Already, EDF has suggested that a minimum carbon
price or government subsidy will be required to move forward.
In December 2003, Finland became the first country to order a new reactor in Western
Europe since 1988. Construction on that reactor–a European Pressurized
Water Reactor at the Olkiluoto power plant–started in August 2005. Today,
though, the project is three years behind schedule and at least 75 percent over
budget.
Finland operates four reactors that supply 29.7 percent of its electricity,
up nearly three percent since 2003. In December 2003, Finland became the first country
to order a new reactor in Western Europe since 1988. Construction on that
reactor–a European Pressurized Water Reactor at the Olkiluoto power plant
(dubbed OL-3)–started in August 2005. Today, though, the project is three
years behind schedule and at least 75 percent over budget. In an unusually critical
report, the Finnish Safety Authority outlined a number of reasons for the delays. They
included: “The time and resources needed for the detailed design of the OL-3
unit was clearly underestimated when the overall schedule was agreed upon. …
The supplier [first the Franco-German consortium Framatome-ANP and now Areva NP] was not
sufficiently familiar with Finnish practices at the beginning of the project.
… The power plant vendor has selected subcontractors with no prior experience
in nuclear power plant construction to implement the project.” The repeated
construction delays are a blow to the Finnish government, which hoped the new reactor
would help it achieve a zero-percent increase of 1990 carbon emissions under the Kyoto
Protocol. Strangely, the trouble with the OL-3 project hasn't prevented the
Finnish utility TVO from attempting to build a second new reactor at Olkiluoto.
Construction is slated to start in 2012, and the reactor is expected to begin operating
in the late 2010s. A second Finnish utility, Fortum, is planning a new reactor in
Loviisa, next to two operating reactors, and a third utility, Fennovoima Oy, has
submitted an application to the Finnish Ministry of Employment and the Economy to build
a new reactor at one of three sites–Pyhajoki, Ruotsinphytaa, or Simo. But
because no political decision has been made about any of these new projects, the
likelihood of their completion is difficult to assess.
France, the world leader in nuclear energy, now operates 58 reactors that
produce 76.2 percent of its electricity, down about 1.5 percent since 2003. The
country's only remaining fast breeder reactor, Phénix in Marcoule,
was taken off the grid in March 2009. The country actually still has such a huge nuclear
overcapacity that it dumps electricity on neighboring countries such as Switzerland and
Italy. Considering this existing overcapacity, France doesn't need to build
new nuclear units for a long time. A few other factors point in that direction as well.
First, the energy establishment has admitted privately for years that Paris has gone too
far with its nuclear share in the overall power mix and that in the future its nuclear
contribution shouldn't exceed 60 percent of domestic power production.
Additionally, the national utility, EDF, intends to operate its reactors for at least 40
years. Therefore, it will be many years, if not decades, before capacity constraints
require new base-load power plants in France.
Nonetheless, in December 2007, EDF started construction on a new reactor at its
Flamanville nuclear power plant, in order to maintain its workforce skills and as a
showcase for export. Yet from the start it encountered quality control issues related to
concrete and steel similar to those at the OL-3 project in Finland. In May 2008, after
repeated incidents, the French Safety Authority halted on-site concrete pouring for
several weeks. The project continues to be troubled, but EDF perseveres because it and
Areva are in a fierce competition to bring the first European Pressurized Water Reactor
online. As such, in an unprecedented move, EDF felt obliged to send out a press release
claiming that the Flamanville project was still on schedule, rebutting Areva CEO Anne
Lauvergeon who had stated in a radio interview that the project was at least a year
behind schedule. In December 2008, EDF acknowledged that Flamanville was more than 20
percent over budget after only a year of construction.
Germany operates 17 nuclear reactors that provide between 23.3 percent
(according to official German sources) and 28.3 percent (according to the IAEA) of its
electricity. Either way, the domestic share of nuclear energy has been in decline since
1997 when the nuclear share was 30 percent. In 2002, the German Parliament voted to
phase out nuclear power, ordering the country's nuclear power plants to be
shut down after an average lifetime of about 32 years. (The law also prohibits the
construction of new nuclear plants.) Under the legislation, three units already have
been closed. Moving forward, the remaining 17 reactors will need to be shut down between
2010 and 2022. Many of these reactors have experienced operating problems in the past.
After a number of incidents at the Brunsbüttel and Krümmel nuclear
power plants in June 2007, including a short-circuited transformer and fuel-cladding
failure, three top managers of the plants' operator, Vattenfall, were fired
and the units themselves underwent extensive reviews and upgrades. While
Brunsbüttel was still offline as of July 2009, an attempt to restart
Krümmel that month failed due to new transformer incidents. Additionally, the
two units at the Biblis nuclear power plant were shut down since the start of 2007
“for maintenance.” While Biblis-B restarted in December 2007,
Biblis-A remained shut down until February 2008. Some speculate that their operator,
RWE, prolonged the outage to delay the planned final shutdown date of Biblis-A until
after the September 2009 federal elections, during which it hoped that a pro-nuclear
government would come to power. While the new liberal-conservative coalition government
is the one the industry had hoped for, lifetime extension remains surprisingly
controversial within the government parties.
An April opinion survey commissioned by Germany's Federal Environment
Ministry revealed that two-thirds of Germans want the nuclear phaseout to either
continue apace or move more quickly. Only 18 percent of Germans polled wanted to
keep the country's nuclear power plants.
Throughout, German public support has lagged. An April opinion survey commissioned by the
Federal Environment Ministry revealed that two-thirds of Germans want the nuclear
phaseout to either continue apace or move more quickly. (Only 18 percent of Germans
polled wanted to keep the country's nuclear power plants.) Not surprisingly
then, not only does the former “grand coalition” government
between the Christian Democrats and the Social Democrats continue to support the
phaseout legislation, but the incoming government also is reluctant to overturn it.
While the nuclear lobby now believes in lifetime extensions, no utility is willing to
order a new plant. German utilities, however, have demonstrated interest in investing in
foreign nuclear projects–e.g., in France, Britain, and Eastern Europe.
The Netherlands operates one reactor that provides nearly 4 percent of its
electricity. Originally, this 36-year-old reactor was supposed to close by 2004, but its
operator successfully overturned that decision in court. In June 2006, the operator and
the Dutch government reached an agreement allowing the reactor to operate,
theoretically, until 2033 under certain conditions, which included that it be maintained
to the highest safety standards and that its owners donate 250 million euros toward
sustainable energy projects.
Spain operates eight reactors that generate 18.3 percent of its electricity,
down 5.3 percent since 2003. Beyond the de facto moratorium that has been in place for
many years, Spanish President José Luis Zapatero has made nuclear phaseout a
major part of his agenda. At his April 2004 inauguration, for instance, he vowed that
his government would “gradually abandon” nuclear energy while
increasing funding for renewable energy in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
in accordance with the Kyoto Protocol. Similarly, Industry Minister Miguel
Sebastián Gascón recently said, “There will be no new
nuclear plants [in Spain].” Under the phaseout, the first Spanish reactor
shut down at the end of 2006. The Spanish Nuclear Safety Council, however, is currently
reviewing potential life extensions for existing facilities, making for an interesting
next few years since the licenses of seven Spanish reactors will expire during
Zapatero's current term.
Sweden operates 10 reactors that produce 42 percent of its electricity, down
8 percent from 2003. In 1980, the Swedish public passed a referendum to phase out
nuclear power by 2010. But, the timing of the referendum was somewhat strange because it
took place when six reactors were still under construction. As such, it was more of a
program limitation than a phaseout initiative. The country retained the 2010 phaseout
date until the mid-1990s, but an active debate on Stockholm's nuclear future
continued and led to a new deal: The phaseout would start earlier, but the 2010 deadline
would be abandoned. Since then, two reactors have been shut down. Yet in February 2009,
Sweden's conservative coalition government signed an agreement on energy and
climate policy that defines ambitious renewable energy and energy efficiency targets.
Particularly, the agreement calls for the Nuclear Phaseout Act to be scrapped and the
prohibition on building new nuclear power plants to be lifted. Implementing this
agreement will not be easy, however, since the coalition parties hold only a seven-vote
majority in Parliament and the opposition parties remain firmly opposed to nuclear
power.
Switzerland operates five reactors that generate 39.2 percent of its
electricity. It is the only country with a nuclear energy program that repeatedly
undertakes referendums on nuclear power. For example, in 2003, a majority of the Swiss
public rejected a referendum to phase out domestic nuclear reactors. That does not mean
that the Swiss are wholly pro-nuclear, though. Just two years earlier, 75 percent of
them answered no to the referendum question “Is nuclear power
acceptable?” And various referendums have helped maintain an effective
moratorium on any new nuclear projects for some time. Currently, the
country's nuclear operators have initiated a debate about the potential
replacement of the country's aging nuclear power plants. But there are no
short-term prospects for any new nuclear build.
In recent years, technical problems at the Czech Republic's
Temelín nuclear power plant have caused numerous unplanned outages and
negatively affected the reactor's expected lifespan.
Central and Eastern Europe. Bulgaria operates two reactors that produce
nearly 33 percent of its electricity, down about 10 percent from 2006. Six years ago,
the Bulgarian government announced its intention to restart construction on a new
reactor at the Belene nuclear power plant. Construction originally began in 1985, but
was delayed by political changes in the late-1980s and formally stopped in 1992, in part
because of concerns about the site's geologic stability. Today, controversy
regarding the site's environmental impact assessment
continues–e.g., some claim that the assessment does not contain adequate
information on the area's seismic conditions. Following legal action by
environmental groups, the assessment's authors admitted in court that their
findings were flawed and that a new assessment would be required to move forward.
Nonetheless, a Belene construction consortium has been established in which NEK, the
state utility, will retain overall control. Late last year, the German utility RWE
joined the project as its strategic investor, but recent press reports suggest that RWE
is unwilling to inject funds into the project prior to its completion. And in late July
2009, Simeon Djankov, the deputy prime minister and finance minister of a new Bulgarian
government that doesn't view the project favorably, told Bloomberg News,
“There is an 80 percent chance that the Belene project will be
stopped.”
The Czech Republic operates six reactors that generate 32.5 percent of its
electricity. In recent years, technical problems, especially those relating to the
uniquely large turbines at the Temelín nuclear power plant, have caused
numerous unplanned outages and negatively affected the reactor's expected
lifespan. Still, in July 2008, the state utility CEZ announced a plan to build two more
reactors at Temelín, with construction starting in 2013 and the commissioning
of the first unit taking place in 2020. Planning, however, remains vague, and government
support is split. The reactors at the Dukovany nuclear power plant have operated since
the early 1980s and have undergone engineering enhancements to expand their output and
extend their life to at least 2025.
Hungary operates four reactors that provide 37.2 percent of its electricity.
All of the reactors are at one location, the Paks nuclear power plant. About 10 years
ago, Paks's operator proposed building additional nuclear capacity there, but
the proposal was rejected by the national utility MVM. In March 2009, however, the
Hungarian Parliament approved a government proposal for the construction of additional
reactors that would double Paks's capacity. No industrial plans or
projections currently are known, and financing remains a key issue.
Lithuania operates one reactor that generates nearly 73 percent of its
electricity. The reactor is the only remaining RBMK (a high-power, channel-type reactor)
design still in operation outside of Russia (similar to what was used at Chernobyl). As
a condition of joining the European Union, Lithuania committed itself to close the
reactor by the end of this year. (Another reactor at the site–the Ignalina
nuclear power plant–closed in 2004.) To replace it, in February 2007,
Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, and Poland agreed in principle to build a new reactor at
Ignalina. Five months later, the Lithuanian Parliament passed a bill calling for its
completion by 2015. As such, in the last two years, various permutations of ownership
structures and sizes of the proposed reactor(s) have been put forward. The latest calls
for the construction of one reactor, which would be managed by LEO, a Lithuanian
government-controlled company. While former Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus wanted
work to begin on the reactor as soon as possible, the country's energy
minister, Arvydas Sekmokas, has been more realistic. “I doubt LEO is capable
of building the plant. None of the four countries involved have expertise to do so;
therefore, we need to get a strategic investor,” he told Reuters in March
2009. Thus far, such an investor hasn't materialized, meaning the project
most likely won't start anytime soon.
Romania operates two reactors that provide 17.5 percent of its electricity.
The reactors, located at the Cernavoda nuclear power plant, are the only CANDU reactors
in Europe. When construction at Cernavoda started in 1980, the plan was for it to
contain a total of five reactors. Obviously, things have moved slowly–the
second reactor was only connected to the Romanian grid in August 2007, after 24 years of
construction. Plans, though, are afoot to build two more reactors at the site. So far,
bids have been solicited to create an independent power producer between the utility,
SNN, which will provide operation and maintenance, and a private investor. In 2008,
following protracted negotiations, the government decided that SNN would take 51 percent
equity and provide 1 billion euros in loans and loan guarantees. Other funds would come
from partially privatizing SNN in 2011. In November 2008, an investment agreement was
signed between SNN and ENEL (Italy), CEZ (Czech Republic), GDF Suez (France), RWE
(Germany), each of which will hold a 9.15 percent stake, and Iberdrola (Spain) and
ArcelorMittal Galati (Romania), both of which will hold a 6.2 percent stake. Initially,
Cernavoda-3 was to be commissioned in October 2014 and Cernavoda-4 in mid-2015. But this
has since been revised: Cernavo-da-3 now isn't expected to be completed until
2016 at the earliest.
During a territorial dispute after the fall of the Soviet Union, Azerbaijan conducted
an energy blockade against Armenia, leading to significant domestic power shortages.
So, in 1993, the Armenian government reopened the second and youngest reactor at its
Medzamor nuclear power plant.
Slovakia operates four reactors that generate 56 percent of its electricity.
They are run by the state utility Slovenské Elektrárne and are
split among two sites–the Bohunice nuclear power plant and the Mochovce
nuclear power plant. Two other reactors at Bohunice were closed in 2006 and 2008
respectively as part of Slovakia's European Union accession partnership
agreement. The remaining units have undergone engineering enhancements that should
enable them to keep operating until 2025. As part of its 2004 bid to acquire two-thirds
of Slovenske Elektrarne, the Italian utility ENEL promised to complete two more reactors
at Mochovce. In February 2007, Slovenske Elektrarne announced that it was proceeding
with building these units and that ENEL had agreed to invest 1.8 billion euros in the
project. But because the proposed reactors lacked the “full
containment” structure required in newer reactor designs, the European
Commission requested that the investor and national authorities implement additional
features to withstand an impact at least from a small aircraft, delaying construction.
The two units now aren't scheduled for completion until 2012 and 2013.
Slovenia operates one reactor that produces 41.7 percent of its electricity.
Located at the Krsko nuclear power plant, it is owned jointly by Slovenia and Croatia,
who both share the output. The reactor was connected to the grid in 1981, and it is
expected to operate until 2021. Discussions are ongoing for the potential construction
of a second reactor at Krsko without any short-term prospects.
The former Soviet Union. Armenia operates one reactor that generates 39.4
percent of its electricity. The reactor is located in Medzamor 30 kilometers from
Yerevan, the Armenian capital. Due to its proximity to Yerevan and its proximity to an
active seismic region, a referendum was held in 1988 that resulted in an agreement to
close both of Medzamor's VVER-440 V230 reactors. But during a subsequent
territorial dispute, Azerbaijan conducted an energy blockade against Armenia, leading to
significant power shortages. So, in 1993, the Armenian government reopened the second
and youngest reactor at Medzamor. Fourteen years later, the country's
minister of energy called for a new reactor to be built there as well. In February 2009,
the government announced a tender to build a 1,000-megawatt unit at Medzamor with an
expected cost of around $5 billion.
Russia operates 31 reactors that produce nearly 17 percent of its
electricity. The average age of these reactors is 27 years, and only two of them have
been completed in the last 10 years. Because of their age, in recent years, the Russian
nuclear industry has begun to extend the reactors' operating lives. For
instance, the country's 11 RBMK reactors now are expected to operate for 45
years or so. Nine new Russian reactors are officially listed as “under
construction.” Three of these reactors, however, have been “under
construction” since the mid-1980s, so it's unclear how soon any of
them will be finished. (Two others only started construction in October 2008.) In 2006,
the Russian government adopted a new $55 billion nuclear energy development
plan, with nearly one-half of the money coming from the federal government and the other
half coming from private industry. As part of this plan, a year later, Moscow announced
its intention to build eight additional VVER-1200 reactors by 2016, with more reactors
to follow, leading to a doubling of its installed nuclear capacity by 2020. But because
of the recent global recession, which has brought with it low oil and natural gas prices
that have particularly affected the Russian economy, many of these nuclear projects may
either be delayed or cancelled. Today, in fact, Russia is building more reactors for
export than for its domestic market, having sold the latest designs of the VVER-1000,
AES-91, and AES-92 to Bulgaria, China, and India.
Ukraine operates 15 reactors that provide 47.4 percent of its electricity.
Needless to say, the 1986 accident at Chernobyl greatly slowed the country's
development of nuclear power and left a serious nuclear allergy among its citizens.
However, in 2006 the Ukrainian government agreed to a strategy in principle that would
double its installed nuclear capacity by replacing about 10 of its existing units and
building another 11 reactors. To start, in 2010, the Ukrainian government intends to
begin the work necessary to finish the third and fourth units at its Khmelnitsky nuclear
power plant. Although the reactors are already three-quarters and one-quarter complete,
respectively, it still will take at least another six or seven years before they are
online. The identification of the other projects in the expansion plan and new
construction orders also are expected to start sometime next year.
