DOCSLIB.ORG

Systems for Change: Nuclear Power Vs Energy Efficiency + Renewables

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Systems for Change: Nuclear Power Vs Energy Efficiency + Renewables enewables? R SYSTEMS FOR CHANGE: NUCLEAR POWER VS. ENERGY EFFICIENCY+RENEWABLES? uclear Power vs. Energy Efficiency+ uclear Power N By Antony Froggatt with Mycle Schneider Nuclear power as a “bridging technology”? On windy and low- strategies? To what extent is the unit size co-responsible for struc- consumption days the energy demand in Germany is already tural overcapacities and thus a lack of incentives for efficiency? Systems for Change: covered to a large extent by the wind energy supply. As the How do government grants/ subsidies stimulate long-term deci- output of existing nuclear power stations (as well as the big coal- sion-making? Will large renewable power plants reproduce fired power stations) is not reduced at short notice for economic the same system effects as large coal/nuclear plants? The present reasons, the surplus energy has to be exported to other countries report presents the basic situation and raises questions that at a loss. There is method in this madness. Many systemic issues urgently need to be addressed. It is obvious that nuclear power have not been thoroughly investigated yet when it comes to com- did not lead to broad-scale and just access to energy services patibility or incompatibility of the centralized nuclear approach in the countries that opted for nuclear energy. But is a nuclear versus the decentralized efficiency+renewables strategy. What strategy actually counterproductive for the development of a clean- are the consequences for grid development or how do choices energy service future based on efficiency+renewables? There is on grid characteristics influence power generation investment strong evidence that this is the case. Rue d’Arlon 15, -1050 Brussels, Belgium T +32 2 743 41 00 F 32 2 743 41 09 E [email protected] W www.boell.eu PUBLICATION SERIES ON ECOLOGY Systems for Change: Nuclear Power vs. Energy Efficiency+Renewables? by Antony Froggatt with Mycle Schneider Paper prepared for the Heinrich Böll Foundation March 2010, updated in August 2010 “We know the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the 21st century”. President Barack Obama, State of the Union Address, February 2010 Hypothesis Continued investment in nuclear power, in particular new nuclear power plant projects, constitutes a significant barrier for the necessary shift toward a sustainable and intelligent energy-services economy based on energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. With the support of the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung Published by the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, European Union, Brussels Printed in Belgium, September 2010 © The authors, the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, European Union, Brussels All rights reserved Coordination and final editing: Annett Waltersdorf Print production: Micheline Gutman Cover picture: © thinkstockphotos.com/ Colllection Hemera Some rights reserved for the pictures of pages 10, 21 and 46. They are attached to the following Creative Commons license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ D/2010/11.850/6 This publication can be ordered at: Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, European Union, Brussels 15 Rue d’Arlon B-1050 Brussels Belgium T (+32) 2 743 41 00 F (+32) 2 743 41 09 E [email protected] W www.boell.eu CONTENTS Preface: Nuclear Energy – a Dead End 5 Introduction 7 Overview and Trends 10 Energy demand and the impact of a carbon- and resource-constrained world 10 Transforming the energy-supply options 11 Historic and projected development of renewables 12 Historic and envisaged development of nuclear power 18 Comparison of nuclear to renewables 19 Systemic Issues 21 The French centralized system 21 The German approach: Nuclear phase-out and renewables expansion 23 Spanish renewables hitting the current ceiling? 25 A new approach 25 The Timing of Investment 28 Imperative of rapid climate change action 28 Lead times for scaling up new technologies, experiences and expectations 29 Nuclear power 29 Renewables 32 Opportunity Costs 35 Research and development 36 Investment costs 38 Infrastructure and grids 41 Market mechanisms 43 Conclusions 46 FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1: Growth in Global Energy Demand 12 Figure 2: New Financial Investment in Clean Energy by Sector: 2004-2009 (US$bn) 13 Figure 3: Global Growth of Renewable Energy in the Power Sector 13 Figure 4: Global Electricity and Hydropower Production (TWh) 15 Figure 5: Accumulative Global Wind Power Capacity (MW) 16 Figure 6: Installed Capacity of Wind Power Plants in 2008 (MW) 16 Figure 7: World Installed Concentrating Solar Thermal Power Capacity 1980-2007 (MW) 17 Figure 8: World Annual Solar Cell Production 1998-2009 (MW) 17 Figure 9: World Nuclear Reactors and Capacity 1954-2010 (GW) 19 Figure 10: Net Additions to Global Electricity Grid from New Renewables 20 and Nuclear 1990-2010 (in GW) Figure 11: Electricity Production from Non-Fossil Fuel Sources 20 Figure 12: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Due to Final Consumption in France 23 Figure 13: Negative Electricity Prices on the German Power Exchange 25 4 SYSTEMS FOR CHANGE:NUCLEAR POWER VS. ENERGY EFFICIENCY+Renewables? Figure 14: Investment Cost Evolution (“Learning Curve”) of US Nuclear Power Plants 31 Figure 15: Investment Cost Evolution (“Learning Curve”) of French Nuclear Power Plants 31 Figure 16: Technology Learning Curves 33 Figure 17: Changing Investment in Low-Carbon Energy Sectors 36 Figure 18: National Research and Development Budgets in OECD Countries (US$mil) 37 Figure 19: Technological Breakdown of OECD Energy Research 38 and Development Budgets (1974-2008) Figure 20: Estimated Carbon Abatement Costs in the UK in 2020 (£/tC) 40 Figure 21: Exelon 2010 Carbon Abatement Cost Estimates (in US$/t of CO2) 41 Table 1: Construction Time of Nuclear Power Plants Worldwide 30 Table 2: Electricity Fuel Source Cost Projections in 2020 33 Preface 5 PREFACE: NUCLEAR ENERGY – A DEAD END Anyone following the statements expressed new nuclear power stations are built particularly from time to time about the renaissance of nu- where the government and the energy industry clear energy could get the impression that the form an unholy alliance. number of new nuclear plants was increasing at an immense and steady rate. In fact, more recent Up to now, nuclear power plants have been statistics show 60 plants in the process of being funded by massive public subsidies. For Germany built, the majority in China and others in Russia, the calculations roughly add up to over 100 bil- India, South Korea and Japan. The USA is only lion Euros and this preferential treatment is still shown as having one actual building project. going on today. As a result the billions set aside However, this list (the VGB Power Tech) includes for the disposal of nuclear waste and the disman- numerous ancient projects that were never com- tling of nuclear power plants represent a tax-free pleted and are therefore de facto building ruins. manoeuvre for the companies. In addition the liability of the operators is limited to 2.5 billion Moreover, there are at the present time pro- Euros – a tiny proportion of the costs that would posals for about 160 new nuclear power plants result from a medium-sized nuclear accident. All up to the year 2020, 53 of these in China alone things considered nuclear energy proves to be and 35 in the USA, followed by South Korea and just as expensive as it is risky. Russia. In Europe, the UK heads the list with eight proposed new projects, followed by Italy, In addition to the routine arguments about Switzerland, Finland, Rumania and Lithuania. nuclear energy, there are some new ones. Firstly, France, that would like to bless the world with the danger of nuclear proliferation is growing in new nuclear power stations, is itself only plan- proportion to the number of new nuclear power ning one new plant. Most European states are not stations all over the world. There is no insurmount- entertaining any concrete nuclear plans. able division between the civil and military use of this technology in spite of the efforts on the part As a matter of fact the number of nuclear pow- of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) er plants in the world is continually decreasing. to regulate this. The most recent example is Iran. At the present time there are still 436 reactors in At the end of the day anyone who does not want operation. In the next 15 to 20 years more ageing to be regulated cannot be forced to do so. With plants will go offline than new ones coming into the expansion of nuclear energy there is a grow- operation. By no means will all declarations of ing necessity to build reprocessing plants and fast intent be implemented. The more energy markets breeders in order to produce nuclear fuel. Both give are opened up to free competition, the smaller rise to the circulation of plutonium leading in turn the chances are for nuclear energy. to the creation of huge amounts of fissile material capable of making bombs – a horror scenario! The costs for new plants are also explod- ing. For example, the building cost of the new Secondly, an extension of the life span of ex- nuclear power plant in Finland’s Olkiluoto has isting nuclear energy stations, and even more so already increased from 3 to around 5.4 billion the building of new plants, would act as a massive Euros although not even the shell of the building brake on the development of renewable energies. is standing yet. In addition, there are the unsolved The claim that nuclear energy and renewable problems of waste disposal and the high suscep- energies complement each other is a myth since tibility of the technology to failure. Today, no not only do they compete for a meagre amount privately run energy conglomerate risks building of investment capital and power-lines but at the a new nuclear power station without government same time nuclear plants limit the growth po- subsidies and guarantees.
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]