DOCSLIB.ORG

Nuclear Power in France-Systemic Issues Influencing Costs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nuclear Power in France-Systemic Issues Influencing Costs Nuclear Power in France Systemic Issues Influencing Costs Mycle Schneider International Consultant on Energy and Nuclear Policy NPEC- Radio Free Europe - Prague, 17 March 2008 Mycle Schneider Consulting Prague, 17 March 2008 1. Electricity, Primary Energy, Final Energy and the Oil Myth 2. Overcapacities and the Peak Load Trap 3. Electricity Trade 4. Plutonium Glut 5. Public Opinion Mycle Schneider Consulting Prague, 17 March 2008 Nuclear IPFM 2008 France , ” • 58 PWR • 1 FBR • ca. 260 Facilities with eprocessing in France R SQs of Nuclear Material “ WISE-Paris), ( arignac M Source: M.Schneider, Y. Mycle Schneider Consulting Prague, 17 March 2008 Nuclear Power in the World by Share of Nuclear Power in Electricity Production (in 2006) Sources: IAEA-PRIS 2007, BP 2006-07, WNA 2007, MSC 2007 Mycle Schneider Consulting Prague, 17 March 2008 The Role of Nuclear Power in the Final Energy Supply of the Six Largest Nuclear Electricity Producers (Status 2006 for France, Germany, South Korea, 2002 for Japan, USA, Russia) Country Nuclear Share in Final Energy (in %) France 18.4 South Korea 6.8 Germany 6.6 Japan 6.4 USA 3.9 Russia 3.1 Sources: various; France MINEFI 2007 Mycle Schneider Consulting Prague, 17 March 2008 Source: French Ministry of Economics, Finances and Industry, Bilan Energie 2006, 2007 Mycle Schneider Consulting Prague, 17 March 2008 Source: MINEFI 2007 Mycle Schneider Consulting Prague, 17 March 2008 French Energy Independence: From 50% to 6% Level of Energy Mtoe Independence Nuclear Primary Energy Generation 117.7 50.0% a) Electricity exports 60.3 TWh - 5.2 - 2.4% b) Auto-consumption - 2.2 - 1.0% ca. 25 TWh c) Equivalence adjustment ? ? Primary Energy Independence 39.1 46.6% d) Final energy share - 28.6 22.2% e) Uranium imports 39.1 -16.2% Final Energy Source: Independence - 28.6 6% MSC 2008 Mycle Schneider Consulting Prague, 17 March 2008 Mycle Schneider Consulting Prague, 17 March 2008 CO2 Emissions by Sector in France from 1970 to 2004 (million tons of carbon) Mycle Schneider Consulting Prague, 17 March 2008 Mycle Schneider Consulting Prague, 17 March 2008 Mycle Schneider Consulting Prague, 17 March 2008 Electricity Generating Capacity in France in 2007 Source: RTE, 2008 Mycle Schneider Consulting Prague, 17 March 2008 Mycle Schneider Consulting Prague, 17 March 2008 French Electricity Trade 2001-2007 Source: RTE, 2008 Mycle Schneider Consulting Prague, 17 March 2008 French Electricity Exports 2003-2007 Mycle Schneider Consulting Prague, 17 March 2008 French Electricity Imports 2003-2007 Mycle Schneider Consulting Prague, 17 March 2008 EDF Restarts 30-Year Old Oil Fired Power Plants Oil Plant Capacity Original Mothballed Restart Start-up Porcheville-1 600 MW 1968 1995 2008 Porcheville-2 600 MW 1973 1998 2006 Cordemais-3 700 MW 1976 ? 2007 Aramon-1 700 MW ? 1995 2008 Total 2600 MW EDF operates its oil fired power plants between 200 h et 1500 h per year. Mycle Schneider Consulting Prague, 17 March 2008 Sources: COGEMA 2002, ASN Annual Reports, MSC Mycle Schneider Consulting Prague, 17 March 2008 Sources: COGEMA, ASN, WISE-Paris, MSC Mycle Schneider Consulting Prague, 17 March 2008 Sources : EDF, MINEFI, COGEMA, WISE-Paris, IAEA 2006 Mycle Schneider Consulting Prague, 17 March 2008 Public Opinion on Nuclear Power in the EU Gallup, Attitudes on issues related to EU Energy Policy, European Commission, DG TREN, April 2007 Mycle Schneider Consulting Prague, 17 March 2008 “The European public is still strongly opposed to the use of nuclear power; those who are worried about climate change are even more fiercely opposed.” Gallup, Attitudes on issues related to EU Energy Policy, European Commission, DG TREN, April 2007 Mycle Schneider Consulting Prague, 17 March 2008 Nuclear Power in France Systemic Issues Influencing Costs Draft By Mycle Schneider International Consultant on Energy and Nuclear Policy Commissioned by The Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, Washington D.C. Paris, March 2008 Contacts Mycle Schneider Consulting Nonproliferation Policy Education Center 45, Allée des deux cèdres 1718 M Street, NW Suite 244 91210 Draveil (Paris) Washington, DC 20036 France USA Skype: mycleschneider Phone: +1-202-466-4406 Phone: +33-1-69 83 23 79 Web: www.npec-web.org Fax: +33-1-69 40 98 75 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Mycle Schneider for NPEC – Nuclear Power in France – March 2008 2 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 4 A BIT OF HISTORY – CIVIL-MILITARY CONNECTIONS 5 Decision Making 6 Access to Information 7 Civil – Military Cross Subsidizing 8 The Plutonium Industry 9 International Safeguards Arrangements 11 Research & Development 13 OF OIL, ENERGY DEPENDENCE AND NUCLEAR POWER 13 Electric Heat and Power Exports – Wasting Energy and Euros 14 What if…? Optimized Equipment and Economic Evaluation 19 Energy Independence – From 50% to 6% 21 Electricity Prices – Low, Lower, the Lowest? 23 Limited Risk Insurances 24 Decommissioning and Waste Management Cost Assessment and Fund Management 25 Between Productivity and Nuclear Safety – A Fragile Balance 26 EPR – European Problem Reactor? 28 Competence Erosion and Workforce Concerns 29 Public Opinion 30 CONCLUSIONS 33 GENERAL REFERENCES 35 APPENDIX 1 36 Introduction A few weeks ago, my 16-year-old son came home from school with a “fact sheet” on nuclear power, provided as basis for an exercise in physical sciences. It explains that after the 1973 oil shock, nuclear power grew rapidly in France from providing 8% to 78% of the country’s electricity. The political will to “withdraw the country from external hydrocarbon supply uncertainties and, at the same time, to reduce the cost of energy” has led to an ambitious nuclear program. Today France has the second largest reactor fleet behind the USA and “the lowest kWh price in Europe”. At the same time “France’s energy independence, higher than 50%, has more than doubled” over the last 25 years. Chernobyl has nevertheless illustrated that “the nuclear industry, like all industry, involves risks”. But the “debate is complex and cannot be reduced to the disadvantages of nuclear power”, the plants having “contributed significantly to curb greenhouse gas emissions into the environment”. The text perfectly sums up what not only school children but the French public as a whole has been told over the past 35 years of nuclear development in France. Reality is remarkably different, if you shed some light on facts and figures. The present paper looks in particular at some of the many factors that impact on the economic conditions of nuclear power development, from the historic links between civil and military applications to the power system structure and hidden costs or biased cost representation. The exercise is not necessarily quantitative in nature but rather attempts to identify the areas that have had an influence on costs. It would be a fascinating exercise to add a comprehensive quantitative assessment to each of the chapters in order to provide an entirely new cost evaluation but that would be well beyond the scope of the present paper. Mycle Schneider for NPEC – Nuclear Power in France – March 2008 4 A Bit of History – Civil-Military Connections In 1946 the French Government nationalized “the production, the transport, the distribution, the import and the export” of electricity and natural gas and created Electricité de France (EDF) and Gaz de France (GDF) as state energy monopolies.1 The legislation stipulated that 1% of the companies’ turnover go to the “Central Fund for Social Activities”2, a fund to be managed by a board composed of representatives from the different trade unions according to the previous union election outcome. Since the CGT, close to the French communist party, won the absolute majority votes every single time from the start, CGT was in a position to manage a huge budget, about €450 million in 2006, in principle on a large number of social and associated issues (vacation facilities, restaurants, child care centers…). The CCAS employs over 5,600 people. It has been suspected for a long time to constitute a convenient and abundant source for subsidizing the French communist party. In a 2006 confidential report the French Court of Auditors accuses the Fund of “total lack of transparency on resources and employment (…) and insufficient internal control”.3 However, more importantly, the arrangement constituted a long-term guarantee for “social peace”. The extraordinary advantages for EDF employees funded by the CCAS were and are complemented by preferential power tariffs. No surprise that EDF has been hit significantly less by strikes than many other French companies (including public ones) and only on rare occasions union activities led to power cuts. In addition to the average preferential electricity tariff for each EDF employee, during the project planning and construction phases, EDF practiced lower tariffs in the vicinity of nuclear power plant sites. The practice has been declared illegal on the grounds that it violates the principle of equal treatment. However, the court case, initiated by consumer and environmental protection organizations, took over five years, time enough for the construction sites to get into advanced stage. Incitement to acceptance had done the job prior to the method being declared illegal because it was obviously violating the equality principle. The relationship between trade unions and nuclear sector has been instrumental to the implementation of the various phases of the nuclear program. While EDF had been “pacified” by the historical “social fund” deal, the history of the Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) was slightly different. After what was later termed the “reactor line war” (la guèrre des filières) the CEA remained responsible for the implementation of the nuclear fuel chain. The CEA had lost the “war” at the beginning of the 1970s. Its own gas-graphite reactor line was abandoned in favor of the Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor. Until 1972, nine gas-graphite reactors were started up, of which eight were producing power and at least four of them have been used systematically to generate plutonium for the French nuclear weapons program.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • D:\Governmental Organizations\State\Oregon\LEG\2021\Nuclear\Small Modular Reactors\SB 360\21-03-23
    The Oregon Conservancy Foundation 19140 SE Bakers Ferry Rd., Boring Oregon 97009-9158 P. O. Box 982, Clackamas, Oregon 97015 Email: [email protected] Phone: (503) 637- 6130 Before the Senate Committee on Energy and Environment Testimony of Lloyd K. Marbet Oregon Conservancy Foundation March 23, 2021 Mr. Chair, members of the Committee, and the public, my name is Lloyd K, Marbet and I am the Executive Director of the Oregon Conservancy Foundation (OCF). I am testifying in opposition to SB 360. In 2017 we gave testimony in opposition to SB 990, an early version of Senator Boquist’s reoccurring legislation. What is striking is how relevant this attached testimony still is four years later. (Attachment 1) I also attach a recent Deutsche Welle article that shows how nuclear power worsens the climate crisis, (Attachment 2) along with an Executive Summary of a RethinkX study showing how inaccurate cost estimates for conventional energy generating facilities, including nuclear, are being turned into overpriced stranded assets by the rapidly decreasing costs of solar, wind and battery storage. (Attachment 3) In its testimony, NuScale/Fluor, has given all the bells and whistles of its modular reactor design. Yet these reactor modules will produce the same kind of high level radioactive waste temporarily stored outdoors at the Trojan Nuclear Plant site, in Rainier, Oregon, at a storage facility licensed in 1999, and recently given a license extension to March 31, 2059. When will this waste be taken away, no one knows? Nuclear radiation is not restricted to boundaries of cities or counties. Even with the public relations of NuScale/Fluor representatives, the promises of safety and the so called imperviousness to a multitude of disasters – high level nuclear waste will reside at each NuScale reactor facility with the need for transport and permanent disposal.
    [Show full text]
  • The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2009 with Particular Emphasis on Economic Issues
    The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2009 With Particular Emphasis on Economic Issues By Mycle Schneider Independent Consultant, Mycle Schneider Consulting, Paris (France) Project Coordinator Steve Thomas Professor for Energy Policy, Greenwich University (UK) Antony Froggatt Independent Consultant, London (UK) Doug Koplow Director of Earth Track, Cambridge (USA) Modeling and Additional Graphic Design Julie Hazemann Director of EnerWebWatch, Paris (France) Paris, August 2009 Commissioned by German Federal Ministry of Environment, Nature Conservation and Reactor Safety (Contract n° UM0901290) About the Authors Mycle Schneider is an independent international consultant on energy and nuclear policy based in Paris. He founded the Energy Information Agency WISE-Paris in 1983 and directed it until 2003. Since 1997 he has provided information and consulting services to the Belgian Energy Minister, the French and German Environment Ministries, the International Atomic Energy Agency, Greenpeace, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the Worldwide Fund for Nature, the European Commission, the European Parliament's Scientific and Technological Option Assessment Panel and its General Directorate for Research, the Oxford Research Group, and the French Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety. Since 2004 he has been in charge of the Environment and Energy Strategies lecture series for the International MSc in Project Management for Environmental and Energy Engineering Program at the French Ecole des Mines in Nantes. In 1997, along with Japan's Jinzaburo Takagi, he received the Right Livelihood Award, also known as the ―Alternative Nobel Prize‖. Antony Froggatt works as independent European energy consultant based in London. Since 1997 Antony has worked as a freelance researcher and writer on energy and nuclear policy issues in the EU and neighboring states.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear France Abroad History, Status and Prospects of French Nuclear Activities in Foreign Countries
    Mycle Schneider Consulting Independent Analysis on Energy and Nuclear Policy 45, allée des deux cèdres Tél: 01 69 83 23 79 91210 Draveil (Paris) Fax: 01 69 40 98 75 France e-mail: [email protected] Nuclear France Abroad History, Status and Prospects of French Nuclear Activities in Foreign Countries Mycle Schneider International Consultant on Energy and Nuclear Policy Paris, May 2009 This research was carried out with the support of The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (www.cigionline.org) V5 About the Author Mycle Schneider works as independent international energy nuclear policy consultant. Between 1983 and April 2003 Mycle Schneider was executive director of the energy information service WISE-Paris. Since 2000 he has been an advisor to the German Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Reactor Safety. Since 2004 he has also been in charge of the Environment and Energy Strategies Lecture of the International Master of Science for Project Management for Environmental and Energy Engineering at the French Ecole des Mines in Nantes, France. In 2007 he was appointed as a member of the International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM), based at Princeton University, USA (www.fissilematerials.org). In 2006-2007 Mycle Schneider was part of a consultants’ consortium that assessed nuclear decommissioning and waste management funding issues on behalf of the European Commission. In 2005 he was appointed as nuclear security specialist to advise the UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM). Mycle Schneider has given evidence and held briefings at Parliaments in Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, UK and at the European Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Exnovation: How the Nuclear Phaseout Drives Eco- Logical Modernization
    E-PAPER Nuclear Exnovation: How the Nuclear Phaseout drives Eco- logical Modernization BY ARNE JUNGJOHANN Published by Heinrich Böll Foundation, April 2020 1/ 17 Nuclear Exnovation By Arne Jungjohann Contents Introduction 3 Innovation without exnovation leads to unintended consequences 5 Comparing nuclear power in Germany and the United States 9 The specific innovation needs of nuclear decommissioning 11 Recommendations 15 Introduction With its 2050 vision for climate neutrality, the European Commission pursues a long-term strategy for a prosperous, modern, and competitive economy. The goal is to invest in technology, empower citizens, and align action in key areas such as industrial policy, finance, or research – while ensuring social fairness for a just transition.[1] For the road forward, the strategy identifies seven strategic areas, among them energy efficiency, the deployment of renewables, and a competitive industry and circular economy. The approach stresses the importance to develop and deploy new technologies. It focuses heavily on innovation. Yet achieving the goal of climate neutrality cannot be reached «only» by new technologies. New technologies alone do not necessarily replace old ones quickly enough. A strategy of ecological modernization will also require the phasing out of aging technologies, which are carbon-intensive or unsustainable.[2] Thus, innovation must go hand in hand with «exnovation» – effective substitution – for the energy transition to be successful. A key field in which exnovation will occur in Europe one way or the other is nuclear power. By 2050, all of Europe's 130 nuclear reactors currently in operation are likely to close as they reach a critical geriatric age.
    [Show full text]
  • The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2010-2011: Nuclear Power in a Post-Fukushima World
    THE WORLD NUCLEAR INDUSTRY STATUS REPORT 201 0–2011 Nuclear Power in a Post-Fukushima World 25 YEARS AFTER THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT Mycle Schneider Antony Froggatt Steve Thomas Mycle Schneider Consulting THE WORLD NUCLEAR INDUSTRY STATUS REPORT 2010–2011 Nuclear Power in a Post-Fukushima World 25 Years After the Chernobyl Accident By Mycle Schneider Independent Consultant, Mycle Schneider Consulting, Paris (France) Project Coordinator and Lead Author Antony Froggatt Independent Consultant, London, U.K. Steve Thomas Professor for Energy Policy, Greenwich University, U.K. Modeling and Graphic Design Julie Hazemann Director of EnerWebWatch, Paris, France Editing Lisa Mastny Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. Paris, Berlin, Washington, April 2011 Commissioned by Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. with the support of the Greens-EFA in the European Parliament About the Authors Mycle Schneider is an independent international consultant on energy and nuclear policy based in Paris. He founded the Energy Information Agency WISE-Paris in 1983 and directed it until 2003. Since 1997, he has provided information and consulting services to the Belgian Energy Minister, the French and German Environment Ministries, USAID, the International Atomic Energy Agency, Greenpeace, the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the Worldwide Fund for Nature, the European Commission, the European Parliament’s Scientific and Technological Option Assessment Panel and its General Directorate for Research, the Oxford Research Group, and the French Institute for Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety. Since 2004, Mycle has been in charge of the Environment and Energy Strategies lecture series for the International MSc in Project Management for Environmental and Energy Engineering Program at the French Ecole des Mines in Nantes.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FUTURE of NUCLEAR ENERGY to 2030 and ITS IMPLICATIONS for SAFETY, SECURITY and NONPROLIFERATION Part 1 – the Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030
    THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY TO 2030 AND IT’S IMPLICATIONS FOR SAFETY, SECURITY AND NON PROLIFERATION: PART 2 – THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY TO 2030 TO THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY 2 – PART AND NON PROLIFERATION: SECURITY FOR SAFETY, AND IT’S IMPLICATIONS 2030 TO THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY TO 2030 AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR SAFETY, SECURITY AND NONPROLIFERATION Part 1 – The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030 57 Erb Street West TREVOR FINDLAY Waterloo, Ontario N2L 6C2, Canada tel +1 519 885 2444 fax +1 519 885 5450 www.cigionline.org CIGIONLINE.ORG Addressing International Governance Challenges The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030 and its Implications for Safety, Security and Nonproliferation Part 1 – The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030 Trevor Findlay CIGI’s Nuclear Energy Futures Project is conducted in partnership with the Canadian Centre for Treaty Compliance (CCTC) at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, Ottawa. The project is chaired by CIGI Distinguished Fellow Louise Fréchette and directed by CIGI Senior Fellow Trevor Findlay, director of CCTC. CIGI gratefully acknowledges the Government of Ontario’s contribution to this project. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Centre for International Governance Innovation, its Board of Directors and/or Board of Governors, or the Government of Ontario. Copyright © 2010 The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (www.cigionline.org). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution — Noncommercial — No Derivatives License.
    [Show full text]
  • THE END IS NEAR for the PBMR the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor
    AUGUST 20, 2010 | No. 714 THE END IS NEAR FOR THE PBMR The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor. Remember? It was globally heralded as the perfect nuclear reactor: small, safe and cheap. Dozens would be built in South Africa alone and in 1999 the THE END IS NEAR FOR THE company expected to sell 30 reactors annually from 2004 on. PBMR 1 Sometimes in the public opinion about the nuclear renaissance HAUNTED BY HISTORY: and new reactor types the PBMR was used if it was already in NUCLEAR NEW BUILD IN operation in South Africa or at least under construction. BRITAIN 2 (714.6071) WISE Amsterdam - Now, the government s last funding allocation in EU AGREEMENT ON ITER South African government announced it 2007, nor has it been able to acquire an COST OVERRUNS 5 is expected to close operations at PBMR anchor customer despite revising its (Pty) Ltd. finally 'within a few weeks' business model in 2008/09." The PLUTONIUM IN BREATHABLE FORM FOUND NEAR ROCKY (that is August). The company once company is operating on funds that were FLATS 5 planned to build up to 24 165-MW high- left over from the 2007 allocation and has temperature gas-cooled reactor modules downsized from about 800 staff to about RUSSIAN GREENS FIGHT for state-owned utility Eskom and export 25. Although the PBMR website doesn't PUTIN'S PLAN FOR the modular HTR worldwide, but hasn't show anything about the current FLOATING NPPs 6 built even the demonstration model. situation, it says there are "no career ANALYSIS TRIPLES U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • THE WORLD NUCLEAR WASTE REPORT 2019 Focus Europe. PARTNERS & SPONSORS
    THE WORLD NUCLEAR WASTE REPORT 2019 Focus Europe. PARTNERS & SPONSORS Bürgerinitiative Umweltschutz Lüchow-Dannenberg This report would have not been possible without the generous support of a diverse group of friends and partners, in particular – listed in alphabetical order – the Altner-Combecher Stiftung, Bäuerliche Notgemeinschaft Trebel, Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz (BUND), Bürgerinitiative Umweltschutz Lüchow-Dannenberg e.V., Climate Core and Green/EFA MEPs Group in the European Parliament, Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung (HBS) and its offices in Berlin, Brussels, Paris, Prague, and Washington DC, KLAR! Schweiz, Annette und Wolf Römmig, and the Swiss Energy Foundation. Thank you all for making this possible! THE WORLD NUCLEAR WASTE REPORT — 2019 3 FOREWORD More than 40 years ago in my home region, the forest near the village of Gorleben was chosen as the location for the German National Nuclear Waste Disposal Center. The site, which is now at the country’s center but at the time was located directly on the border between East and West Germany, was meant to host all facilities for reprocessing, treatment, storage, and a deep geological repository. The company responsible (which has long since closed) intended to open the repository for spent fuel in the salt dome named Gorleben-Rambow in 1999. After Fukushima, the German government decided to phase out nuclear energy for the second time. The experience of the nuclear catastrophe in Japan in 2011 also set in motion the review of the plans for the repository at Gorleben. After around 40 years of debating and fighting over Gorleben, the German government and parliament decided in favor of a new participatory site selection process for the repos- itory for high-level nuclear waste.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Why Letter by Hansen Et Al Misses the Mark on Nuclear Power And
    Why Letter by Hansen et al Misses the Mark on Nuclear Power and Renewables On November 3, four climate and atmospheric scientists issued a letter to prominent US environmental organizations urging them to support extensive build-out of nuclear power to combat global warming. The scientistsi made a number of assertions in their letter that get to the heart of the nuclear power debate and the scalability of renewable power. With respect to nuclear power, their letter claims or implies the following: Economics of Nuclear power: • “Innovation and economies of scale can make new power plants even cheaper than existing plants;” “Advanced” Nuclear Designs: • “Advanced” nuclear designs can “reduce proliferation risk, solve the waste disposal issue, use fuel more efficiently;” Renewables, Energy Efficiency, and Distributed Power: • Renewables “cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap...power.” Reliability and Climate • Renewables “cannot scale up fast enough to deliver… reliable power.” • “…[O]pposition to nuclear power threatens humanity’s ability to avoid dangerous climate change;” • Nuclear power is “essential to any credible effort” to address climate change; • Nuclear power can “displace a large fraction of our carbon emissions;” Safety • Nuclear power can be safe; ii As bold as these statements are, they are misplaced. Rather than reflections of immutable truths, they affirm ignorance of nuclear power developments past and present. They affirm a fundamental misunderstanding of the potential for renewables and energy efficiency, the realities of nuclear economics, and electric grid operation. Indeed, the letter fell on deaf ears. No environmental organization took the bait. Instead, NRDC, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth (FOE), and Sierra Club decry nuclear power as too slow to build, costly, and dangerous.
    [Show full text]
  • “Advanced” Isn't Always Better
    SERIES TITLE OPTIONAL “Advanced” Isn’t Always Better Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors “Advanced” Isn’t Always Better Assessing the Safety, Security, and Environmental Impacts of Non-Light-Water Nuclear Reactors Edwin Lyman March 2021 © 2021 Union of Concerned Scientists All Rights Reserved Edwin Lyman is the director of nuclear power safety in the UCS Climate and Energy Program. The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet’s most pressing problems. Joining with people across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future. This report is available online (in PDF format) at www.ucsusa.org/resources/ advanced-isnt-always-better and https:// doi.org/10.47923/2021.14000 Designed by: David Gerratt, Acton, MA www.NonprofitDesign.com Cover photo: Argonne National Laboratory/Creative Commons (Flickr) Printed on recycled paper. ii union of concerned scientists [ contents ] vi Figures, Tables, and Boxes vii Acknowledgments executive summary 2 Key Questions for Assessing NLWR Technologies 2 Non-Light Water Reactor Technologies 4 Evaluation Criteria 5 Assessments of NLWR Types 8 Safely Commercializing NLWRs: Timelines and Costs 9 The Future of the LWR 9 Conclusions of the Assessment 11 Recommendations 12 Endnotes chapter 1 13 Nuclear Power: Present and Future 13 Slower Growth, Cost and Safety Concerns 14 Can Non-Light-Water Reactors
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power in France Beyond the Myth
    Nuclear Power in France Beyond the Myth By Mycle Schneider International Consultant on Energy and Nuclear Policy Commissioned by the Greens-EFA Group in the European Parliament V5 Note: The present report is in part based on analysis commissioned by the Non-Proliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC), Washington DC, March 2008. This document can be downloaded for free from the website of the Greens-EFA Group in the European Parliament at: http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/258/[email protected] The report is also available in French and can be downloaded at: http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/topics/dokbin/259/[email protected] The author wishes to express his gratitude to Antony Froggatt and Mary B. Davis for their precious proof-reading and most valuable comments. About the Author Mycle Schneider works as independent international energy nuclear policy consultant. Between 1983 and April 2003 Mycle Schneider was executive director of the energy information service WISE-Paris. Since 2004 he is in charge of the Environment and Energy Strategies Lecture of the International Master of Science for Project Management for Environmental and Energy Engineering at the French Ecole des Mines in Nantes. In 2007 he has been appointed as a member of the International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM), based at Princeton University (www.fissilematerials.org). In 2006-2007 he was part of a consultant consortium that assessed nuclear decommissioning and waste management funding issues on behalf of the European Commission. In 2005 he has been appointed as nuclear security specialist to advise the UK Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM).
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise of Renewable Energy and Fall of Nuclear Power Competition of Low Carbon Technologies
    The Rise of Renewable Energy and Fall of Nuclear Power Competition of Low Carbon Technologies February 2019 REI – Renewable Energy Institute Renewable Energy Institute is a non-profit organization which aims to build a sustainable, rich society based on renewable energy. It was established in August 2011, in the aftermath of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident, by its founder Mr. Masayoshi Son, Chairman & CEO of SoftBank Corp., with his own private resources. The Institute is engaged in activities such as; research-based analyses on renewable energy, policy recommendations, building a platform for discussions among stakeholders, and facilitating knowledge exchange and joint action with international and domestic partners. Authors Romain Zissler, Senior Researcher at Renewable Energy Institute Mika Ohbayashi, Director at Renewable Energy Institute (Part II, “Spent nuclear fuel,” 69-72 pp.) Editor Masaya Ishida, Manager, Renewable Energy Business Group at Renewable Energy Institute Acknowledgements The author of this report would like to thank individuals and representatives of organizations who have assisted him in the production of this report by providing materials and/or granting authorizations to use the content of their work. The quality of this report greatly benefits from their valuable contributions. Among these people are: Mycle Schneider and his team working on the World Nuclear Industry Status Report – an annual publication, and key reference tracking nuclear power developments across the world – who allowed Renewable Energy Institute to use some contents of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report including reproduction of illustrations. And Bloomberg NEF, the global authority on economic data on energy investments, who allowed Renewable Energy Institute to make use of Bloomberg NEF’s data.
    [Show full text]