Extracts from the Sept-October 2001 edition of Renew
These extracts only represent about 25% of it

15. Nuclear Revival?

UK Nulcear Fight Back

The nuclear lobby is trying to resuscitate the nuclear dream- in the UK as well as the USA. Just before the election, Peter Hain, then still energy Minister commented ‘nuclear is going to be part of our energy supply for the forseeable future. The issue is going to be whether any private generators come to the government and say they want a license to build a new power station’. He added ‘Obviously you would have to look at that objectively’, although he indicated that he would expect any company involved to carry the liabilities for waste disposal (New Statesman 18th June).

There were also the regulatory hurdles. Last year, the UK Nuclear Installations Inspectorate warned potential reactor builders to alert them well in advance of any actual new construction discussion, "so we can start gearing up to deal with the assessment workload". Evidently, there were less than 10 people left in the NII with "experience of that process to actually assess a new reactor design". (Nucleonics Week Dec 14)

With the new PIU review looking at nuclear as well as the other options, the focus for the new push seems to be the Westinghouse AP-600, now one of BNFL’s designs. This has design certification in the U.S, but according to the NII spokesman ‘we know very little about it here in the U.K.’.

There’s also the South African Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR). BNFL has a 20% stake in the PBMR feasibility study. It’s a small high temperature (900C) helium cooled modular reactor, being developed by Eskom, with, allegedly, the ability to fail safe by passive convection cooling. Being small it can in theory be located nearer centers of energy demand and would not need so much support infrastructure. That could make it of interest to developing countries. But there also seems to be some interest in pushing this concept in the UK. Nucleonics Week noted that nuclear industry chiefs have been ‘weighing whether it is better to go for one or two large reactors or scatter small units around the country. They are also torn between a reactor capable of burning mixed-oxide fuel to reduce the U.K.’s massive plutonium stockpile, and a series of cheap, quick-to-build PBMRs utilizing uranium enriched to 8% but not-at least at the outset-plutonium’.

Either way, they seem to be in a hurry. BNFL has be talking of 6 new plants to replace Magnox (see Groups). And at the Uranium Institute’s annual symposium last Sept., British Energy’s spokesman said BE should begin now to plan a replacement reactor, given that BE's oldest AGRs will start closing around 2010, even with life extensions. "To have a plant up and running by 2010 means we have to start now."

There is talk of a new BE plant at Hunterston in the constituency of the new Energy Minister Brian Wilson. But of course BE has also now diversified into offshore wind and hopefully that could turn out to be a more attractive way forward. Mind you, if you are so inclined, that could be seem as a cynical attempt to deflect public attention form their much larger nuclear commitment.

The key issue for any nuclear expansion programme would of course be resolution of the waste disposal issue. In this context, it in interesting that in the major new UN World Energy Assessment (see Reviews) it is suggested that ‘as a strategy to deal with its strongest critics, the (nuclear) industry leaders might consider becoming vocal supporters of public sector supported renewable energy and energy efficiency programmes, in exchange for broad support for sensible nuclear waste management strategies and policies’. Any takers? Unlikely.

There’s also the key issue of who would pay for new plants. With the huge cost and risks, and uncertain returns,would there be any private takers - or would taxpayers have to pay? Via a PFI perhaps?

Magrox dies

With its mind now it seems more on trying to get new plants built, BNFL has abandoned the idea of using a new type of fuel, Magrox, designed so that it could run in Magnox reactors but also be reprocessed in THORP.

Evidently they realised there would be serious problems in getting regulatory clearance - not least since they had made such as hash of MOX. Some of the Magnox reactors, the first few of which date from the 1960’s, are already being decommissioned or are scheduled for closure. But without this new fuel, all of them will have to close by around 2012, when the elderly Magnox fuel prepropressing plant at Sellafield has to close to meet international agreements on emissions. All in all its looking increasingly like the end of the line for the old Magnox’s.

In the case of the Oldbury plant on the Severn estuary, the local SHE campaign argues that closure should be as soon as possible, since it claims that the plant is now unsound, with some of the graphite core material beginning to break up. The operators, BNFL, argued that ‘we are perfectly aware there is graphite loss, but we wouldn’t be able to operate if it wasn’t safe’ . They were also dismissive of an independent report of a child cancer cluster in the area - see Observer 29 April.

Nuclear Exchanges

Sir Bernard Ingham, one time press secretary to Margaret Thatcher, media advisor to BNFL and Country Guardian President, has applauded President Bush’s repudiation of the Kyoto accord, which he says ‘makes extremely good sense if he proceeds to promote the development of nuclear power in the USA’. He added, in terms of the UK, ‘the politically correct notion that we can combat global warming and power the fourth largest economy in the world with a combination of energy conservation and renewable sources of energy is pure "green" fantasy’.

Sir Eric Ash, chairman of the Royal Society, recently called for some new nuclear power plants to be built, saying that otherwise he could not see any way in which the government would meet "even the minimal Kyoto targets".

But then Energy Minister, Peter Hain, a former CND campaigner, said he had not seen any applications for new nuclear plants. "Nuclear had its heyday in the 1950s, 60’s and 70’s but across the world in Europe and even in the USA people have looked for alternative sources."

Nuclear Revival? ( from Groups Renew 133)

BNFL and FoE get set to battle

Norman Askew, BNFL’s chief executive, told the Guardian (29th June) ‘We have a new design, the AP600 ... but we could not build a one-off and expect it to be economic. We need a proper agreed plan, four to six, or more stations if possible and build one after the other, to get economies of scale’ with series development in both the USA and UK cutting costs. Furthermore they talk of using existing site such as the Magnox sites to reduce costs further. Oldbury has been mentioned as one possibility. On that basis BNFL seem to think that the new reactors could be cheaper than the last one built in the UK - the £2.3 bn Sizewell B PWR, and that they could build each new station in 3 years.

Mark Johnston, of Friends of the Earth, said: "We will fiercely oppose any new proposals for nuclear power stations. Renewables can already deliver more power for less subsidy and will overtake natural gas as the preferred power producer". He added "The two hurdles the nuclear industry has to get over are cost and what to do with the waste. They appear to be unsurmountable by BNFL in the current circumstances. It would need the government to reinstate a substantial public subsidy regime to make it work".

FoE also pointed to BNFL’s recently announced massive operating losses of £210m, in a year when it failed to meet targets for both electricity production and reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, and compared the company’s finances to that of a run down Soviet steel works. They called for an inquiry by the National Audit Office.

However, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency fuelled speculation recently by voicing its support for a ‘rational debate’ on nuclear power- the line currently being put by BNFL et al. James Curran, SEPA’s head of science said: ‘Nuclear power should not be ruled out as part of a co-ordinated climate change mitigation programme.’

But, most environmental organisations have maintained a strong anti- nuclear line. And the Nuclear Free Local Authorities network is producing a series of detailed briefing notes to feed into the debate. The first, published in July, is on ‘The Hurdles to Nuclear Revival’ and argues that ‘the UK is not in position to move forward with a programme of new nuclear power stations’ since the waste storage and proliferation issues had not been resolved and ‘currently available reactor technologies are not commercially competitive’ - it quotes an independent levelised cost estimate of 3.3p/kWh for two twin AP600 PWR’s. Given that current CCGT generation prices are around 2p/kWh, there was still a gap, even assuming a £25-£30per tonne carbon credit, since that would only give a 0.3p/kWh saving. ( NFLA c/o the Town Hall, Manchester M60 2LA www.gn.apc.org/nfzsc/ Tel: 0161 234 3379)

It seems that actually BNFL might agree. On July 20th, in answer to a Parliamentary Question on BNFL’s plans for new plants, the Minister, Brain Wilson, was adamant that there were none yet. ‘No such proposals have been put forward. BNFL have stated clearly that they have no plans for new nuclear plant in the UK, reflecting their view that there is, at present, no economic case for such investment’. Some wires seem to be crossed....

US Nuclear Madness

California’s deregulatory meltdown has, bizarrely, led to calls for a return to nuclear power. That’s the last thing they need surely. US energy activist Harvey Wasserman has argued the crisis in California was actually caused by nuclear power, since the new deregulated system inherited a fleet of economically unviable nuclear plants, representing $28.5 bn in what is politely called these days "stranded costs". But now the nuclear lobbyist argue that nuclear power has suddenly become "economic".

Wasserman noted that ‘much of the nuclear hype has been on a new technology called "Pebble Bed Reactors." The rhetoric is familiar: inherently safe, too cheap to meter, no environmental impact. But no such operating reactors exist today. There was one pebble bed prototype in Germany. It’s now shut. Another may be built in South Africa, but that will take five years’.

By contrast he says that ‘at 2.5 cents per kWh, wind is now the cheapest and fastest-to-build form of new electric power generation, with capacity growing worldwide at 25%/year. In 2000 Germany alone installed some 1300 MW, more than what's generated by any single US nuke.’

Harvey Wasserman, author of ‘The Last Energy War: the battle over deregulation’, is advisor to Greenpeace USA and the NIRS.

Nuclear in the USA?

US Vice President Dick Cheney has backed nuclear expansion, seeing nuclear power as a ‘safe, clean and very plentiful energy source’ and in May President Bush launched a energy plan for the US, which although it mentioned renewables and conservation, relied heavily on nuclear power, along with coal, oil and gas- much as was outlined in the Bush camps pre-election plan, described in Renew 131. Thus the final plan included a projected $1.3 bn in support for renewables but this money was to be raised from royalties on extraction rights in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That was the focus of strong criticism from environmentalist, but the proposed revival of nuclear power caused even more: see below

The USA’s 103 existing nuclear reactors provide 20 % U.S. electricity, but no one has ordered a new nuclear power plant in the US in more than 25 years, and the 40-year operating terms of America's nuclear plants will start expiring in 2006, and all but two will do so by 2030. As in the UK, to keep the show on the road the operating lifetimes of existing plants is being extended- possibly by up to 20 years. The attraction of extensions is that, having paid off their construction costs look cheap to run. Current production costs of electricity (i.e. fuel plus operation and maintenance, but not amortization of the initial investment in the power plant) average 1.83 cents/kWh for nuclear, compared with 2.07 cents for coal and 3.52 cents for natural gas. However, this is really just marking time. Nuclear will phase itself out unless new plants are built- and here the economics don't look so good. But Bush is evidently keen to try to push on. Launching the new energy plan he said that ‘by renewing and expanding existing nuclear facilities, we can generate tens of thousands of megawatts of electricity at a reasonable cost without pumping a gram of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. New reactor designs are even safer and more economical than the reactors we possess today. And my energy plan directs the Dept. of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency to use the best science to move expeditiously to find a safe and permanent repository for nuclear waste’.

There are some good points in the plan. It recommends tax credits to homeowners who invest in solar homes and to utilities that build wind turbines or harness biomass. And it proposes incentives to buy new cars that run on alternative fuels like ethanol and supports research into fuel cells. It also called for the modernizing the grid network- building a proper interstate electrical grid. But on balance it was seen by most greens as a pretty disastrous backward step.

The report is at www.whitehouse.gov/energy

US Nuclear Reactions

The nuclear proposal in the Bush-Cheney energy plan led to some spirited rejoinders from the US environmental movement. Thus the Environmental Advocates nuclear campaigner saw it as ‘distressingly short-sighted and potentially dangerous. It’s all about denial and fantasy: Denying the nuclear meltdowns and near disasters; fantasizing that Yucca Mountain will solve the country’s radioactive waste problems."

"Nuclear power can neither address our short-term energy problems, nor can it effectively combat global climate change," said Michael Mariotte, from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). "We need to implement cost-effective energy efficiency solutions and to invest in the technologies of the 21st century. The Bush-Cheney administration would return us to the 1960’s and 70’s and the time of behemoth nuclear power and coal plants. Those policies failed then, and they will fail now."

The NIRS spelt out some of the details. On safety, it claimed that the Bush administration would seek renewed legislation exempting nuclear companies from unlimited liability for accidents, cover currently provided by the Price-Anderson Act . It went on ‘No utility would build or operate a reactor if it were not shielded from the potential liability that could be accrued from a nuclear accident (upwards of $300 bn in property damage and thousands of deaths and illnesses). No other hazardous industry enjoys such liability protection-an indication of just how dangerous nuclear power is. A mature industry with a good safety record would not need the Price-Anderson Act’. In a response to a Reuters reporter who asked whether Bush would seek a renewal of the Price-Anderson Act, Cheney said ‘if it is not renewed, nobody’s going to invest in nuclear power plants’.

On waste it noted that Yucca Mountain, ‘the lone site chosen to contain commercial reactor and defense wastes, is under study to determine whether it can contain up to 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste. Relicensing reactors and extending their operation would result in more waste. Five operating reactors have received 20-year license extensions from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. License renewals for another five reactors are pending. Another 32 reactors are expected to apply for license renewal by 2005. If all of those extensions were granted, about 120,000 tons of waste would have to be buried over the next 40 years just from existing reactors According to the Dept of Energy, if more reactors are built to meet growing energy demands, the waste volume could increase to between 500,000 tons and 700,000 tons. As it is, Yucca Mountain is years behind schedule, and current cost estimates place the program above $50bn, if it’s ever completed’.

On reprocessing, it notes that ‘the Bush-Cheney energy plan apparently recommends a re-evaluation of the current U.S. ban on reprocessing of nuclear waste, and advocates additional research on "transmutation" of radioactive waste. 20 years and more than $1 Billion later, the U.S. is still cleaning up the contamination caused by the first experiment in reprocessing at West Valley, New York. Reprocessing is economically hopeless, environmentally destructive, and was banned in the 1970’s because of the real threat of plutonium proliferation.’

Finally on emissions it claimed that ‘when the entire nuclear fuel chain is taken into account, carbon emissions from nuclear power are significant - at least 4-5 times above emissions from any renewable technology. Effectively addressing climate change requires wise use of our power is a drain on efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Energy efficiency and renewables (and developing technologies like solar, wind, fuel cells, and microturbines) are far more effective- dollar for dollar- at reducing greenhouse emissions than is nuclear power’.

Long-time anti nuclear campaigner Harvey Wasserman made this point even more graphically ‘Between the Rockies and the Mississippi, as well as offshore and in hundreds of eastern locations, the US has more than enough wind potential to generate its entire electrical supply more cheaply and more quickly than any other source’ NIRS : www.nirs.org