|
Revival of Nuclear Power
Air Commodore Jasjit Singh, AVSM, VRC, VM
The world will need greatly increased energy
supply in the next 20 years,
especially cleanly-generated electricity.
And nuclear power answers all parameters of future
energy needs.
After the initial high
expectations, symbolized by President
Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” plan of 1953,
about the role that nuclear technology would play
for peaceful purposes in general, and electricity
generation in particular, actual progress in the
expansion of nuclear technology for peaceful
purposes slowed down perceptibly during the past
quarter century. There are a number of reasons for
the resultant hiatus, which is beginning to give
way to a renaissance and revival of nuclear power
in the world, even if the shift has not received
the attention it deserves.
The Three Mile Island accident
to a nuclear power reactor in March 1979 and the
Chernobyl accident in 1986, had a profound
impression on public perceptions about the safety
of nuclear plants. The negative impact of the
latter accident received much higher focus partly
because of Cold War politics and ideological
confrontation between the Western and Eastern
blocs. Since the capital costs of nuclear power
stations are substantively higher than those run
from other types of fuel, the need for high
investments became another factor discouraging the
growth of nuclear energy. At the same time, as the
dominant powers moved to curb the acquisition of
nuclear science and technology in the name of
non-proliferation through arms control measures
that safeguarded the capabilities of the five
nuclear weapon states and nuclear science and
technology in the industrialised developed
countries, major barriers were created for the
development and expansion of nuclear technology
and power for peaceful purposes. The developing
countries were the most badly hit. The NPT even
now symbolises the denial regimes it spawned and
is a powerful instrument even for constricting
human development that has nothing to do with
nuclear weapons proliferation in spite of the fact
that Article IV of the treaty essentially codified
the promise of “Atoms for Peace” without which
the requisite support for the NPT in the broad
community may not have materialised.
There was a flurry of activity
leading to rapid expansion of nuclear power in the
developed countries after the 1973 oil shock,
which brought home the vulnerability of oil
importing states like France and Japan. But as
nuclear power generation stabilised and oil prices
came under increasing influence of market forces
and mechanisms, further expansion of nuclear power
plants started to plateau in the developed states.
This was further reinforced by stabilised economic
growth rates and low population increases within
these countries and the emphasis shifted to
increasing efficiency of energy productivity and
utilisation to allow conservation to compensate
for the need to build larger capacity.
All this has been changing
quietly. The world now operates 441 commercial
power reactors (in 31 states) and 280 research
reactors (in 56 states), besides 150 ships (mostly
military) with 200 nuclear reactors. The world has
accumulated experience of 11,000 reactor years in
the civil arena. Besides this, the experience
related to military purposes is also considerable.
For example, the US Navy alone accumulated 5,400
reactor years experience on its warships and
submarines. The initial capital investments in
nuclear power plants remains high; but the
economic cost of electricity generation is now
lower than most other forms of electricity
generation. Economic growth in developing
countries and their rising population are
demanding higher availability of electric power
for domestic, commercial and industrial usage. The
case of China and India is symptomatic. Climate
change and global warming concerns have brought
home the need for sustainable development and
hence emphasis on nuclear power.
Nuclear power currently accounts
for 16 per cent
of the global electricity generation,
producing 2,574 billion kWh. With the current
plans to build new reactors including those
proposed to be built, nuclear power generation
would increase substantively in the foreseeable
future. More than 30 power reactors are under
construction worldwide, equivalent to seven per
cent of existing capacity, while a similar number
are firmly planned, equivalent to 10 per cent of
present capacity. Most reactors under construction
are located in Asia, especially in the region of
Japan, Russia, South Korea, China and India, the
“energy demand heartland” of the 21st
century, where as many as 207 new power reactors
may be constructed during the next two decades.
The current status of nuclear power reactors under
operation and construction in some selected
countries, especially in Asia, reveals clear signs
of revival and the regions where this revival is
centred are indicated in Table 1.
Table 1
Nuclear Power Reactors in
Selected Countries
Operable
Under
Planned
Proposed
Total
Construction
Japan
39
3 13
-
55
India
14
9 -
24
47
Russia
30
6
-
8
44
China (PRC)
9
2 4
22
37
South Korea
19
1 8
-
28
USA
103
1
-
-
104
France
59
- -
-
59
UK
27
- -
-
27
Source: World Nuclear Power
Reactors 2002-04, Uranium Information
Centre Ltd., Melbourne, March 25, 2004.
Nuclear Power Trends
While there would be inevitable
variations in estimating future trends, the base
line adopted for global trends by the joint study
undertaken by the International Institute for
Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and the World
Energy Council (WEC) is useful for the purpose of
our enquiry. In the eventuality of high economic
growth through the 21st century,
primary energy needs would grow at an average of
1.9 per cent
per year for the first half century
dropping to 1.5 per cent
during the second half. In a comparatively
shorter time span, say till 2020, these forecasts
are similar to those carried out by a number of
organisations like the International Energy Agency
(IEA), Petroleum Economist Ltd. These trends may
be summed up as follows:
-
The developing world GDP would
grow faster than that of the developed
countries.
-
Worldwide
primary energy would grow at 2.1 per cent per
year (2000-2020) versus the growth rate of 1.7
per cent during the two decades of 1980-2000.
Primary fuel patterns would remain similar to
past trends with the exception that natural
gas demand accelerates.
-
Carbon
emissions would continue to rise with
developing countries’ emissions equalling
industrialised world’s emissions around
2010.
-
Nuclear
energy is expected to grow slowly during this
period at around one per cent per annum.
-
Electricity
production grows at 2.5 per cent a year,
outpacing primary energy growth of 2.1 per
cent a year, with growth in developing world
about three times that in the industrialised
world.
-
Developing
countries’ total consumption of primary
energy surpasses that in the industrialised
countries by 2020 as a consequence of faster
economic growth and rising populations.
-
There
will be acceleration in the development of
networks and in the transportation of fuels
between countries. Electricity grids and
natural gas pipeline networks would multiply.
Oil transportation flows grow by 80 per cent
between 1995 and 2020 owing to demand in the
developing countries, besides expansion of LNG
shipments. Increasingly, energy would be
delivered by dedicated transport systems such
as pipelines and networks besides other
high-quality carriers. Crude oil transiting
through the Straits of Hormuz is expected to
increase from the earlier 49 per cent of the
global transportation to as much as 55 per
cent by 2020. Development of ports on
Pakistan’s Makran coast, especially with
Chinese assistance at Gwadar, would have
strategic implications for oil (and natural
gas) transportation by sea.
-
In
the longer-term perspective, there would be an
increased reliance on nuclear energy worldwide
with its share rising from the current figure
of 16 per cent to roughly 40-70 per cent by
the end of the 21st century.
There are some realities about
international geopolitical energy issues that need
to be kept in mind. To start with, less than a
quarter of the world’s population is consuming
three-quarters of the world’s primary energy
produced. One-third of the population of the world
does not have access to electricity. On the other
hand, empirical studies indicate that there is a
strong correlation between energy consumption per
person and the index of human development,
indicating that access to energy and economic
growth must translate into a legitimate right to
life.
Asian Scene
High economic growth in Asia,
especially the two Asian giants, China and India,
who with their 2.2 billion people, also account
for over one-third of global population, with
India’s population (and hence increasing demand
of energy merely on this ground, not to talk of
economic growth) continuing to grow in future,
would raise the demand for energy substantively in
the coming decades. Asia’s primary energy demand
is expected to rise from 25 per cent of global
demand in 2000 to 35-40 per cent in 2050 resulting
in the focus of world energy trade shifting to
Asia from the Atlantic especially since the bulk
of the hydrocarbon resources of the world are
located in the Asian region. World energy markets
are likely to become more interdependent over the
longer term with dependence on the Persian Gulf,
Central Asia and Russia increasingly requiring
greater international political-economic
cooperation. On the other hand, the Persian
Gulf-Central Asia-former Soviet territories, and
Russia is likely to remain a region of instability
in the foreseeable future raising serious dilemmas
for the energy security of countries like India.
Both China and India rely
extensively on the use of coal in their energy
policies, and would have to become successful at
achieving long-term sustainable development to
obtain economic and political stability. In many
ways, therefore, energy demand in China and India,
and the way they evolve solutions to the
challenges of energy requirements, would have a
profound influence not only on their national
scenes but also on the broader picture affecting
the developing world and in turn the global
scenario. India’s per capita energy consumption
is half that of China, while its current emissions
of carbon are less than one-third those of China
and are projected to increase more slowly than in
China.
While energy structures would
vary greatly between sub-regions, some broad
trends across all of them may be noted:
-
Oil
and natural gas consumption would rise for the
next 30-70 years before starting to decline.
Energy deficient countries like India would
import increasing volumes of hydrocarbon fuels
to meet their energy requirements with
intrinsic dependencies and potential
vulnerabilities. In economic-trade terms,
substantive export earning may simply be
absorbed by the outflows for importing energy
with implications for import of technology and
capital for industrialisation and economic
growth.
-
The
region’s heavy reliance on coal (about 70
per cent of India’s coal production is
consumed in electric power generation, the
transportation of which consumes nearly 51 per
cent of the massive railway network’s goods
traffic), and increasingly on oil, would
continue to cause the region’s carbon
emissions to contribute between 30-35 per cent
of the world’s total CO2 emissions
between 2020-2050.
-
Nuclear
and renewable energy would be evident
throughout the area by 2020, will be
substantial by 2050, and would meet over 50
per cent of the total energy demand by the end
of the century.
-
Energy
infrastructure in power plants, networks,
pipelines and outlets would require massive
investments. Institutional reforms would be
essential to encourage economic development of
the energy sector.
Future Availability Of Fossil
Fuels
Current projections indicate
that use of fossil fuel will account for more than
80 per cent of the total worldwide primary energy
consumption by 2010. But concerns about the future
availability and access to fossil fuels, and
consequent impact on energy security of nations,
are driving efforts to seek alternatives to fossil
fuels. Nuclear energy provides an obvious
alternative especially for fossil fuel importing
countries. For example, concerns about energy
security, led France and Japan in early 1970s to
implement an energy programme heavily in favour of
nuclear energy.
Revival of nuclear power
A number of developments across
the world indicate an emerging revival of nuclear
power after a hiatus of more than two decades:
-
The
European Commission recently reaffirmed the
need to continue – and possibly augment –
reliance on nuclear energy to limit greenhouse
emissions.
-
Finland
is in the final stages of acquiring a fifth
nuclear power plant. In 2003, the nuclear
option was confirmed by 66 per cent of the
voters in Switzerland.
-
Sweden,
which decided in 1980 to phase out nuclear
energy, now appears much more amenable to
nuclear power and is likely to restart its
nuclear programme.
-
In
Asia, Japan, India, China and South Korea all
possess robust programmes and a number of
countries (especially the United States) are
considering the renewal of their nuclear
plants as they develop mid-term energy
policies.
-
Nuclear energy, which has made
major strides in performance, safety and costs
over the past decade, is undergoing a
“rebirth” in the context of sustainable
development:
-
Worldwide,
there are 441 nuclear reactors in thirty
countries, representing a 16 per cent
contribution to worldwide electricity
production with an extremely wide distribution
ranging from a one per cent for China to over
78 per cent for France.
-
As
a rule, the nuclear industry has achieved a
maturity due to accumulated reactor operating
experience and its success, particularly in
recent years, in improving performance in
terms of reliability, productivity and safety
factors. France, for example, has 58 nuclear
reactors in 19 sites adopting the global fuel
cycle management based on the reprocessing of
spent fuel, separating reusable content (96
per cent) from true nuclear waste (4 per cent)
recycling the recovered plutonium as fuel in
900 megawatt reactors.
-
Nuclear
industry (including in India) registered
remarkable gains in capacity factor reaching
90% in 2002, a 30 per cent increase from the
earlier levels. This had allowed for a record
generation of 778 billion kilowatt hours in
2002.
Economics of nuclear power
Conventional wisdom would have
us believe that nuclear power is expensive
compared to other forms of energy. However, recent
empirical studies have indicated the reverse since
the cost of nuclear power generation has been
dropping over the past decade.
Calculation of economic costs of energy
production can be based on direct cost or they can
also include what has come to be known as the
“external costs.” External costs are defined
as those that are actually incurred in relation to
health and the environment and are quantifiable
but normally not included in the cost of
electricity. The implications are enormous since
the inclusion of external costs would double the
EU price of electricity from coal, and that from
gas would increase by 30 per cent even if the
costs related to global warming factor are not
included!
For nuclear power plants the
major component of cost is the capital investment,
which (at around 60 per cent of the plant cost as
against 15 per cent for gas plant costs) is much
higher than those of constructing thermal or other
power plants though fuel costs in non-nuclear
power generation are higher as recurring costs.
Because of the high capital costs for plant
construction, nuclear plants would generate
greater employment opportunities and lead to a
much higher level of domestic investment of
financial resources as compared to import of
hydrocarbon fuels by energy deficient countries
like India.
Any cost figures for nuclear
power plants normally include spent fuel
management, plant decommissioning and final waste
disposal. These costs, while external for other
technologies, are internal for nuclear power.
Decommissioning costs are normally estimated at
around 9-15 per cent of the initial capital cost,
which over time, would amount to a few per cent of
the cost of electricity produced. Spent fuel
disposal contributes up to another 10 per cent to
the overall cost per kWh. For example, the $18
billion US spent fuel programme is funded by a 0.1
cent/kWh levy.
Estimates of costs vary greatly
depending upon what area / country and parameters
are taken into account. But what is common to
practically all cost estimates is that nuclear
energy is not only cost competitive but provides
the most economic option for generation of
electricity. The cost advantage of nuclear power
goes up even further if external costs are applied
to all forms of electricity generation. The
European Commission had launched a path-breaking
study in 1991 “to put financial figures against
damage resulting from different forms of
electricity production for the entire EU.” With
nuclear energy, the risk of accidents was factored
in along with high estimates of radiological
impacts from mine tailings (waste management and
decommissioning being already within the cost to
the consumer). The average energy cost came to:
euro-cents/kWh
- Wind energy
0.1-0.2
-
Nuclear
0.4
-
Hydro
0.4
- Coal
4.1-7.3
-
Gas
1.3-2.3
Data about the US is equally
revealing. As noted earlier, the capital costs of
nuclear power are high although the operating and
maintenance costs have become much lower than
those for other sources of electricity. Volatility
of fuel prices itself is a problem which is not
really encountered in the case of nuclear power.
Data concerning the US related to fuel plus
operation and maintenance costs (excluding capital
costs) is plotted in the accompanying figure. On
the basis of the OECD projections US costs for
2001 indicate a figure of 3.73 cents/kWh for
nuclear, 3.27 cents/kWh for coal and 5.87
cents/kWh for gas.
French figures published in 2002
show the following costs:
euro-cents/kWh
- Nuclear energy 3.20
- Gas
3.05 - 4.26
- Coal
3.81 - 4.57
The comparative electricity
generation costs (at US 1997 constant cents per
kilowatt-hour of electricity) projections for the
future covering the period 2005-2010 based on
studies by OECD and International Energy Agency
are indicated in Table 2.
Table 2
Electricity Generation Cost Projections: 2005-2010
(US 1997 cents/kWh)
Nuclear
Coal
Gas
Canada
2.47-2.96
2.92
3.00
Russia
2.69
4.63 3.54
China
2.54-3.08
3.18
-
Korea
3.07
3.44 4.25
France
3.22
4.64 4.74
USA
3.33
2.48 2.33-2.71
Spain
4.10
4.22 4.79
Source:
OECD/IEA/NEA, 1998
Sustainable Energy For The
Future
Concerns about the safety of
nuclear power, which had shot up after the 1979
Three Mile Island accidents and then by the one at
Chernobyl in 1986, have long given way to greater
understanding of the issues involved. Public
perceptions and attitudes, however, are still
deeply concerned about the safety factor even
though all empirical studies and experience over
the decades indicates that nuclear power
generation is as safe as any other method of power
generation as long as due care and precautions are
taken. In fact, accumulation of experience and
improvements in designs (especially with
containment structures) and productivity have also
improved the safety standards all across the
world. On the other hand, the environmental
benefits of using nuclear power far exceed the
negative effects of electricity generation by
other methods. This is why, the then Vice
President of the United States, an ardent
environmentalist, Al Gore, referring to the
Chernobyl accident had stated that the lesson of
the accident that destroyed the plant’s unit
number 4 “isn’t an indictment of nuclear power
as such. Nuclear power, designed well, regulated
properly, and cared for meticulously, has a place
in the world’s energy supply.”
On the other hand, the
environmental benefits of nuclear power are
enormous indeed. But first the issue of waste
deserves note since this is a major concern. The
entire nuclear industry in the United States
produces approximately 2,000 tonnes of solid waste
annually and elaborate arrangements have been made
for its disposal. In comparison, coal-fired power
generation utilities produce 100,000,000 tonnes of
ash and sludge annually, laced in parts with
poisons like mercury and nitric oxide. US industry
itself generates 36,000,000 tonnes of hazardous
waste, which does not receive the care and
attention that nuclear waste receives. Oil spills are a major hazard in the world. The
Exxon Valdez spill of 1989 was one of the worst
environmental disasters in history, the scars of
which have not disappeared. Pakistan’s
agricultural growth during 2003-04, especially
food production and fisheries (with a growth of a
mere two per cent compared to 3.4 per cent in the
previous year), has received a major setback
because of the oil spill outside Karachi port.
Nuclear
energy produces both operational and
decommissioning wastes, which are being contained
and managed satisfactorily for over half a
century. While there is no technical problem in
dealing efficiently and safely with nuclear waste,
the problem of nuclear waste is much more
political and even ideological, focusing on final
disposal. But nuclear power is the only
energy-producing industry, which takes full
responsibility for all its waste and costs this
into the product thus promoting sustainability. On
the other hand, concerns about climate change and
global warming need to be taken into account when
looking at energy production. IAEA’s relative
estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from
different sources of electricity generation are
shown in the following chart.
Sustainable sources of energy
are obviously critical to long-term human
development. Issues of climate change, pollution
and global warming are already high on the
international agenda. But there are limits to the
quantum of energy that can be provided for modern
economies and required quality of life except by
the use of nuclear power:
It is not surprising; therefore,
that nuclear energy is witnessing a revival almost
in tandem with global concerns about climate
change and greenhouse gas emissions. IAEA studies
indicate that taking the range within which
emissions are to be expected, nuclear power as a
source of electricity generation is an obvious
solution to solving the greenhouse gas emissions
problem.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm
Nuclear Energy Insight, August 1998.
Nuclear Power: Energy for Today and Tomorrow,
http:pw1.netcom.com/~res95/energy/nuclear.html
Pakistan Economic Survey 2003-04,
Government. of Pakistan, June 2004, Ch. 2, p.11.
(This article first appeared
in the Indian Defence Review and has been
reproduced here with the permission of the
editor.)
|
