 |
COP6 From November 13th untill the 24th in the year 2000, negotiatiors from 180 countries were together in The Hague. And didn't thrash out a solution to climate change. |
 |
|
COP6 From November 13th untill the 24th in the year 2000, negotiatiors from 180 countries were together in The Hague. And didn't thrash out a solution to climate change. |
|
Where are we after 50 years of spending money on nuclear energy, once promised to be too cheap to meter, safe, reliable, endless; the best solution for a world trying to regain strenght after a devastating world war.
None of the promises came true. Since about ten years we've known for sure that nuclear energy is not cheap at all, is not safe enough, reliability is questioned and nuclear energy is in no way an endless energy source. Although the environmentalist have been saying all this for more than 30 years now it's only in the last 10-15 years that we not only know we are right but also are given the credits of being right.
And this common sense is reflected in the global picture of the state of the art of nukes; The decline has begun. In the past decade the growth of installed nuclear power capacity fell significanty, from more than 25,000 Mega Watts growth in 1987 down to only 2,000 Mw. increase in 1997. Since 1993 the annual growth of nuke capacity has gone downwards. In the years after the numbers became worse;
In 1996 the growth of nuke capacity was only 1600 Mw. Only three reactors started commercial operation; one in Japan, one in Korea and one in the US. And these are the figures of what really happened in that year; if you follow the figures given by the IAEA, the Uranium Information Center, the OECD etc etera one could think that there where much more stations connected to grid. These believers in nuclear energy keep giving data based on assumptions (mostly ten to 15 years old) of the expected date of grid-connection. In more than 80% of the cases grid-connection is delayed with an average of 5 years. Two plants were closed during 1996 and the total of operating nuclear power plants worldwide grew with one to 440.
1997 was an even more interesting year; Canada closed four reactors, due to big safety problems, but at the same time announced they would be reopened in a few (up to 10!) years. Although even most sources within the industry itself think they will never be grid- connected again we, just to be sure, consider them as not closed definitely. With this in mind there was a rise in installed nuclear capacity during 1997; two stations in Japan and one in Romania went into operation. Three were closed during this year. At the end of 1997 the number of reactors was still 440. But, for the first time in history total worldwide generated nuclear electricity dropped in 1997 with about 20 million Megawatthours
In 1998 we saw the first decline in installed nuclear capacity alongside with the first decrease in the number of nuclear power plants in commercial operation.
Looking alone at the European Union the last ten years have seen the completion of the last few reactors. France was the country having the doubtful honor of connecting the last reactor to the grid, Civeaux.
With no further orders and none on the horizon the European nuclear industry is in terminal decline. In the 15 EU-countries, seven do not have nuclear power. In a second group are countries that have agreed to eind their nuclear programs; Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands. Germany is talking about a phase-out and will at least not ever build new ones, Great Britain decided already in 1995 not to build any new stations, Spain decided in 1991 already for a moratorium on new stations, et cetera.
In the United States it is over 25 years since a reactor has been ordered. Although the US has the largest numbers of operating nuclear power stations, it also has the largest number of cancelled and abandoned reactors (70).
Asia is often reported as the region where nuclear power continues to boom. However, because of economic, social and environmental pressures many of these programs are abandoned or scaled back. This trend of decline is remarkable and historical. As more and more nuclear power plants reach their expected and planned lifetime more and more will be closed. And new or planned capacity is constantly decreasing. Again, this of course depends on the source, if you take the IAEA figures on reactors under construction one could easy keep thinking that nuclear energy is doing quite well; In their figures for this year they keep saying that there are 38 reactors under active construction; they have given this number over the last years. But the IAEA tend to be too optimistic - due to their assignment they have to promote nukes and make us all believe they're doing well. Its quite sure this figure will never become reality. If you look where construction is really taking place at least ten are to be taken off the list, with 28 reactors remaining under real construction. For several of these its highly questionable if they wil ever be finished. With almost no new stations being build and a significant number of stations reaching the end of their planned lifetime one can predict a sharp fall in the production of nuclear electricity in the coming twenty years.
What are the main reasons for such poor performance
I will only highlight some of the factors. There are much more, including political, social and psychological which are guite interesting but would need much more time than we have here.
1. First of all; ECONOMICS.
It's the high costs that has most damaged its market prospects. Most nuclear power station have been build by monopoly utilities and costs were passed through to consumers or government regardless of how high they were. But with governments around the world now opening electric power markets to the winds of competition for the first time nuclear power must stand on its own. We will finally have a clear picture of the prospects for nukes, the near future looks bleak; more and more studies give proof of nuclear being expensive and getting more expensive while other sources become economically sound; even wind-generated electricity is cheaper: - The US-based Institute for Energy + Environmental Research, not known for their strong beleive in renewable energy sources, last year released a study wich made clear that even wind, due to advances in turbine development and offshore possibilities, is far more economical than using nukes. While costs for wind energy are expected to decline this can't be said for nuclear power.
Maybe even more interesting than figures, wich always differs depending on source, is the logical thinking, done by the OECD
- In a real market situation, plant owners will be willing to sell electricity from individual plants as long as the price they receive is greater than their costs. In the short term production costs have to be kept under market price. In the medium term prices must be high enough to pay for debt repayment and capital improvements (life-time extension!!) In the long term the electricity supplier needs big money to invest in new power plants.
According to the Uranium Institute only existing nuclear plants with low marginal production expenses will survive in competitive markets (which wil by the way lead to strong incentives to reduce costs and will lead to changes in the way stations are operated and managed) - leaving us behind with questions on safety. While at the same time admitting that they are not that sure the OECD expects that a majority of the existing plants in the OECD-region will be able to compete with the fossil-fuelled rivals.
But this assumption is being questioned by for instance Wall Street analysts and the Washington based International Energy Group which predicts that up to one third of all reactors in the US would be closed in five years due to liberalisation. It wil highly depend on the question who will be paying for stranded costs; costs of prior investments that would be recovered by monopoly supply utilities but which would not be recovered under market conditions. The United States will solve the problem by paying all stranded costs; a subsidy of 24 to 56 billion US dollar!!. Whoever is right, its clear that not all power station will survive and its even much more clear that under market conditions no utility will ever consider building new nuclear power station.
As the Nuclear Energy Agency puts it; "in a majority of countries, and under various financial evaluation conditions , fossil fuelled power generation is less expensive for meeting baseload demand than nuclear power generation. Competitive markets will provide options for meeting demand with plants other than the large, centralised options common today. In most markets then, competition will merely confirm the humble economics of nuclear power today."
Nuclear power is simply (no longer) competitive with other, newer forms of power generation.
2. Secondly; THE WASTE
Its important to keep repeating one basic fact on nuclear waste; we'll have to deal with it for thousands of years to come. There is no country in this world that has find an acceptable (in scientific, technical and political meaning) solution for radwaste. Taking into account all the stages, nuclear power produces substantial amounts and varieties of waste and environmental pollution. Up till now, the failure of governments and industry to properly manage, contain, isolate and regulate toxic and radioactive substances has had tragic consequences for human health and environment already.
Billions of dollars have been spent on finding a solution, we have researched possibilities to shoot it to the sun, we have tried to bury it under the sea, we have dumped it into the sea, we are trying to export it to other countries, we are trying to solve the problem by bringing in other classification systems (If you don't call it nuclear waste anymore you can much more easy dispose....) Problems will only grow as reactors close and will be decomissioned. Decommissioning produces around double the waste volumes that the power stations produce during operation. As we have very little experience with decommissiong of commercial nuclear plants, costs, technical and environmental problems are to come; the question who is to pay, especially in a privatised market, are not solved. Utilities are pressing governments to make sure that the state will remain responsible for future decommisioning costs; another big subsidy for nuclear energy. The polluter does not pay. And, as no-one seems to be willing to be the first to face the problems, utilities and governments are more and more making the choice to postpone the moment of real decommissioning.
In the last years governments are at least trying to step into the ongoing debate with a new attitude. Up till now the credo was to "decide, announce and defend", leading to severe troubles with local communituies and the whole environmental movement. But even with a real attempt to reach concensus problems will be huge and most probably not solvable. The worldwide community of environmentalists say and will keep saying; stop the production of this waste. Up to the moment production has really stopped we will never accept any solution - and we have good reasons for this.
3. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES:
Most known are the consequenses of the disaster in Chernobyl. In a recent study of the United Nations quite shocking figures have been given. 14 Years after the explosion Belarus, the most affected country, considers 20% of its forests as still contaminated, rules out by law the usage of 6.000 square kilometers of its land for food production, 110.00 people have been resettled and still nine percent of all government expenditure is spent on the direct consequences.
In the Ukrain nearly 3,5 million people are directly affected by the accident of which 1,5 million children. More than 50.000 square kilometers of land is contaminated and in general not suitable for food production.
In Russia about 1.8 million people continue to live on contaminated land - according to international standards all of these people would have to be resettled but Russia does not have the money to take care of its people.
The economic burden for the three most affected countries is unmeasurable, especially as none of the three countries are known for its high standards of democracy, openness and willingness to take care of environment. The governments concerned keep spending public money for instance on trying to get close to economic standards of the EU in order to once, in far future, be able to join the EU. At the same time they all use the bad health situation of Chernobyl victims to blackmail the west for more financial support.
Other big environmental problems connected to nuclear energy are those, amongst others, caused by uraniummining, processing and enrichment. Mill tailings in many parts of the world continue to leak into soil and contaminate groundwater. Commercial reprocessing operations continue to discharge large volumes of radioactive wastes into bodies of water from which people draw their food and continue to contaminate the immediate area of the plants itself. The debate on cancer clusters around the two most wellknown reprocessing plants, Sellafield in the UK and La Hague in France are ungoing and will only come to an end in retroperspective; there will most probably only be a decrease in cancers in the region decades after the plants are closed.
These three are, I think, the main factors. There is no solution for the waste and there will always be environmental damage, even without big accidents. As a result, resistance against nuclear energy will remain strong. And, as there is no economic or financial profit to be expected there is only one conclusion left to be made; nuclear energy has no future.
Peer de Rijk
WISE
June 13, 2000
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |