Qinshan Nuclear Power Plant
This year has been catastrophic for nuclear power, and just when it seemed the situation couldn’t get any worse for the industry, it did, writes Jim Green, editor of Nuclear Monitor: there are clear signs of a nuclear slow-down in China, the only country with a large nuclear new-build program. According to Green, if this program stalls, nuclear power looks headed for an irreversible decline. Courtesy Nuclear Monitor.
China’s nuclear slow-down is addressed in the latest World Nuclear Industry Status Report and also in an August 2017 article in trade publication Nuclear Engineering International by former World Nuclear Association executive Steve Kidd.
China’s nuclear program “has continued to slow sharply”, Kidd writes, with the most striking feature being the paucity of approvals for new reactors over the past 18Â months. China Nuclear Engineering Corp., the country’s leading nuclear construction firm, noted earlier this year that the “Chinese nuclear industry has stepped into a declining cycle” because the “State Council approved very few new-build projects in the past years”.
Kidd continues: “Other signs of trouble are the uncertainties about the type of reactor to be utilised in the future, the position of the power market in China, the structure of the industry with its large state owned enterprises (SOEs), the degree of support from top state planners and public opposition to nuclear plans.”
Over-supply has worsened in some regions and there are questions about how many reactors are needed to satisfy power demand. Kidd writes: “[T]he slowing Chinese economy, the switch to less energy-intensive activities, and over-investment in power generation means that generation capacity outweighs grid capacity in some provinces and companies are fighting to export power from their plants.”
Nuclear power in China may become “a last resort, rather as it is throughout most of the world”
Kidd estimates that China’s nuclear capacity will be around 100 gigawatts (GW) by 2030, well below previous expectations. Forecasts of 200 GW by 2030 were “not unusual only a few years ago,” he writes, but now seem “very wide of the mark.” And even the 100 GW estimate is stretching credulity ‒ nuclear capacity will be around 50 GW in 2020 and a doubling of that capacity by 2030 won’t happen if the current slow-down sets in.
Kidd states that nuclear power in China may become “a last resort, rather as it is throughout most of the world.” The growth of wind and solar “dwarfs” new nuclear, he writes, and the hydro power program “is still enormous.”
Chinese government agencies note that in the first half of 2017, renewables accounted for 70% of new capacity added (a sharp increase from the figure of 52% in calendar 2016), thermal sources (mainly coal) 28% and nuclear just 2%. Earlier this month, Beijing announced plans to stop or delay work on 95 GW of planned and under-construction coal-fired power plants, so the 70% renewables figure is set for a healthy boost.
Crisis in the US
The Chinese nuclear expansion program was arguably the last hope of the nuclear industry to get back on a growth trajectory. Almost everywhere else, the nuclear sector finds itself in heavy weather.
In the United States, the plan to build two AP1000 power reactors in South Carolina ‒ abandoned in July after US$9‒10.4 billion was spent on the partially-built reactors ‒ is now the subject of multiple lawsuits and investigations including criminal probes. Westinghouse, the lead contractor, filed for bankruptcy protection in March. Westinghouse’s parent company Toshiba is selling its most profitable business (memory chips) to cover the debts of its rogue nuclear subsidiary and to stave off bankruptcy.
The cost of the two reactors in South Carolina was estimated at US$9.8 billion in 2008 and the latest estimate ‒ provided after the decision to abandon the project ‒ was US$25 billion. Cost increases of that scale are the new norm for Generation III nuclear plants. Cost estimates for two French reactors under construction in France and Finland have tripled.
Pro-nuclear commentator Dan Yurman discussed the implications of the decision to abandon the VC Summer project in South Carolina in a September 11 post:
“It is the failure of one of the largest capital construction projects in the U.S. Every time another newspaper headline appears about what went wrong at the VC Summer project, the dark implications of what it all means for the future of the nuclear energy industry get all the more foreboding. … Now instead of looking forward to a triumph for completion of two massive nuclear reactors generating 2300 MW of CO2 emission free electricity, the nation will get endless political fallout, and lawsuits, which will dominate the complex contractual debris, left behind like storm damage from a hurricane, for years to come.
The only other nuclear new-build project in the US ‒ two partially-built AP1000 reactors in Georgia ‒ is hanging on by a thread. Georgia’s Public Service Commission is reviewing a proposal to proceed with the reactors despite the bankruptcy filing of the lead contractor (Westinghouse), lengthy delays (5.5 years behind schedule) and a doubling of the cost estimate (the original estimate was US$14 billion and the latest estimates range from US$25.4‒30 billion for the two reactors).
“Instead of looking forward to a triumph for completion of two massive nuclear reactors generating 2300 MW of CO2 emission free electricity, the nation will get endless political fallout, and lawsuits”
No other reactors are under construction in the US and there is no likelihood of any construction starts in the foreseeable future. The US reactor fleet is one of the oldest in the world ‒ 44 out of 99 reactors have been operating for 40 years or more ‒ so decline is certain.
Six reactors have been shut down in the US over the past five years and many others are on the chopping block. How far and fast will nuclear fall? Here are some estimates:
- Exelon claims that “economic and policy challenges threaten to close about half of America’s reactors” in the next two decades.
- A January 2017 article, written by a nuclear industry PR consultant and published by World Nuclear News, states that “as many as two-thirds of America’s 99 reactors could shut down by 2030”.
- Nuclear Energy Insider claims that 38 reactors will be shut down upon reaching their end-of-licence terms by 2035.
- A pro-nuclear lobby group states that almost one-quarter of US reactors are at high risk of closure by 2030, and almost three-quarters are at medium to high risk.
- In May 2017, the US Energy Information Administration released an analysis projecting nuclear’s share of the nation’s electricity generating capacity will drop from 20% to 11% by 2050. The analysis makes heroic assumptions about the longevity of existing reactors so the true figure could be well below 11%.
- A September 2017 report by S&P Global Ratings estimates that half of the 99 reactors could be taken offline in the next 17 years.
There is some disagreement about how far and fast nuclear will fall in the US ‒ but fall it will. And there is no dispute that many plants are losing money. More than half of the country’s reactors are losing money, racking up losses totaling about US$2.9 billion a year according to a June 2017 analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. A separate Bloomberg report found that expanding state aid to loss-making reactors across the eastern US may leave consumers on the hook for as much as US$3.9 billion a year in higher power bills.
France’s nuclear industry is in its “worst situation ever” according to former EDF director GĂ©rard Magnin
Indicative of their desperation, some prominent nuclear advocates in the US (and to a lesser extent the UK) are openly acknowledging the contribution of nuclear power (and the civil nuclear fuel cycle) to the production of nuclear weapons and using that as an argument to sharply increase the massive subsidies the nuclear power industry already receives. That’s a sharp reversal from their usual furious denial of any connections between the ‘peaceful atom’ and the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Global decline
Elsewhere, the nuclear industry is also in deep malaise and has suffered any number of set-backs this year. Pro-nuclear lobby groups are warning about nuclear power’s “rapidly accelerating crisis” and noting that “the industry is on life support in the United States and other developed economies“.
Lobbyists are warning about a “crisis that threatens the death of nuclear energy in the West” and soon they will be warning about a crisis that threatens the death of nuclear energy in the East. Public support for South Korea’s nuclear power program has been in free fall in recent years, in part due to a corruption scandal. Incoming President Moon Jae-in said on June 19 that his government will halt plans to build new nuclear power plants and will not extend the lifespan of existing plants beyond 40 years.
In June, Taiwan’s Cabinet reiterated the government’s resolve to phase out nuclear power by 2025.
In Japan, Fukushima clean-up and compensation cost estimates have doubled and doubled again and now stand at US$192 billion. Only five reactors are operating in Japan, compared to 54 before the March 2011 Fukushima disaster.
India’s nuclear industry keeps promising the world and delivering very little ‒ nuclear capacity is 6.2 GW and nuclear power accounted for 3.4% of the country’s electricity generation last year.
Rosatom’s deputy general director Vyacheslav Pershukov said in June that the world market for new nuclear power plants is shrinking, and the possibilities for building new large reactors abroad are almost exhausted
France’s nuclear industry is in its “worst situation ever” according to former EDF director GĂ©rard Magnin. The only reactor under construction in France is six years behind schedule, the estimated cost has more than tripled from US$3.9 billion to US$12.4 billion, and the regulator recently announced that the pressure vessel head of the reactor will need to be replaced by 2024 following a long-running quality-control scandal. The two French nuclear utilities face crippling debts (US$44.2 billion in the case of EDF) and astronomical costs (up to US$118 billion to upgrade ageing reactors, for example), and survive only because of repeated government bailouts.
In the UK, nuclear industry lobbyist Tim Yeo says the compounding problems facing the industry “add up to something of a crisis for the UK’s nuclear new-build programme.” The only two reactors under construction ‒ EPR reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset ‒ are eight years behind schedule.
The estimated combined cost of the two Hinkley Point reactors, including finance costs, is US$35.4 billion (the EU’s 2014 estimate of US$32.5 billion plus a US$2.9 billion increase announced in July 2017). Excluding finance costs, the estimated construction cost for one EPR reactor in the UK was US$2.66 billion in the mid- to late-2000s and that has risen five-fold to US$13.3 billion.
In Switzerland, voters supported a May 21 referendum on a package of energy policy measures including a ban on new nuclear power reactors. Thus Switzerland has opted for a gradual nuclear phase-out and all reactors will probably be closed by the early 2030s, while all of Germany’s reactors will be closed by the end of 2022 and all of Belgium’s will be closed by the end of 2025.
In South Africa, a High Court judgement on April 26 ruled that much of the country’s nuclear new-build program is without legal foundation. There is little likelihood that the program will be revived given that it is shrouded in corruption scandals and President Jacob Zuma will leave office in 2019 (if he isn’t ousted earlier).
Perhaps most worryingly of all for the nuclear industry is that even Rosatom, the ambitious Russian nuclear company that not long ago hoped to export its nuclear reactors all over the world, is not so optimistic anymore. Rosatom’s deputy general director Vyacheslav Pershukov said in June that the world market for new nuclear power plants is shrinking, and the possibilities for building new large reactors abroad are almost exhausted. He said Rosatom expects to be able to find customers for new reactors until 2020‒2025 but “it will be hard to continue.”
Another problem is the ageing of the nuclear workforce. The IAEA recently noted that maintaining and developing a competent nuclear workforce is “among the biggest challenges” the industry faces
Globally, the industry’s biggest problem is the ageing of the current fleet of reactors. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) estimates that just to maintain current capacity of 392 GW, about 320 new reactors (320 GW) would have to be built by 2050 to replace retired reactors. That’s 10 new reactors each year. A nuclear ‘renaissance’ has supposedly been underway over the past decade yet on average only five reactors have come online each year.
Another problem is the ageing of the nuclear workforce. The IAEA recently noted that maintaining and developing a competent nuclear workforce is “among the biggest challenges” the industry faces.
Comparison with renewables
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has released the 2017 edition of its International Status and Prospects for Nuclear Power report series. It states that the share of nuclear power in total global electricity generation has decreased for 10 years in a row, to under 11% in 2015, yet “this still corresponds to nearly a third of the world’s low carbon electricity production.” In other words, renewables (24.5%) generate more than twice as much electricity as nuclear power (10.5%) and the gap is growing rapidly.
Five years from now, renewables will likely be generating three times as much electricity as nuclear reactors. The International Energy Agency (IEA ‒ not to be confused with the IAEA) recently released a five-year global forecast for renewables, predicting capacity growth of 43% (920 GW) by 2022. The latest forecast is a “significant upwards revision” from last year’s forecast, the IEA states, largely driven by expected solar power growth in China and India.
The IEA forecasts that the share of renewables in global power generation will reach 30% in 2022, up from 24% in 2016. By 2022, nuclear’s share will be around 10% and renewables will be out-generating nuclear by a factor of three. Non-hydro renewable electricity generation has grown eight-fold over the past decade and will probably surpass nuclear by 2022, or shortly thereafter, then leave nuclear power in its wake as renewables expand and the ageing nuclear fleet atrophies.
Editor’s Note
Dr Jim Green is the editor of the Nuclear Monitor newsletter, where a version of this article was originally published, and national nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia.
[adrotate banner=”78″]
As always Jim Green’s articles are full of misinformation, using various comments, I will shine some light on them. The first one. “UK’s first nuclear power station for more than two decades Hinkley Point C is eight years behind schedule”. Construction on the two EDF reactors is only just underway, how can it already be 8 years behind schedule.? With the experience gained from the projects in France, Finland and China. According to its developer, the project could be completed 15 months behind schedule. For such a mega project that is an acceptable delay. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/15/hinkley-point-c-guide-uk-first-new-nuclear-plant-for-20-years
February 2007…
“EDF will turn on its first nuclear plant in Britain before Christmas 2017 because it will be the right time,” Vincent de Rivaz, chief executive of UK division EDF Energy says.
“It is the moment of the power crunch. Without it the lights will go out.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/0/hinkley-point-c-new-nuclear-plant-timeline-of-the-story-so-far/
Start buying candles, Brits. Just two months before you are plunged into darkness.
Is Hinkley eight years behind schedule? Depends on what you call the starting point and when you think it might be finished (if construction does start).
If you use the 2017 date and assume normal build time it will be longer than eight years.
“With the experience gained from the projects in France, Finland and China. ”
China isn’t the company that might build Hinkley. Let’s look at the builder’s recent history…
Olkiluoto 3…
Probably $10 billion or more by the time it’s finished. They got started on design work about two decades ago.
Flamanville…
Probably $10 billion or more when finished. Another nuclear project begun about two decades ago.
Hugely over budget. Which would mean that the French government would be shooting itself in the foot. Again. Because, if I understand the contract France (and China) are contracting a set price for electricity delivered. Cost overruns are problems for the builders in this (atypical) case.
20 years from planning to coming online? Maybe coming online. Those two builds are still building.
While this is Hinkley thing goes on the cost of solar, onshore wind and offshore wind continues to drop.
How could it possibly make sense to contract for new electricity at a price higher than the retail rate when the wholesale rate will continue to drop with the inclusion of renewables?
Bob Wallace, you quoted “China isn’t the company that might build Hinkley”. My comment on China related to the 2 EDF Nuclear Reactors under construction in China.
The Taishan 1 EPR is currently in the commissioning phase, and is expected to startup late this year.
The Taishan 2 EPR is currently in the commissioning phase, and is expected to startup by the middle of next year.
There are four Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactors under construction in China, two at Sanmen and two at Haiyang. Two of these are expected to come on line by the end of the year. All are sceduled to start commercial operation in 2018.
The Tianwan 3, a Russian-designed VVER1000 Nuclear Reactor that has been under construction in China’s eastern province of Jiangsu, reached criticality on Sept. 28 2017. This is the third Russian reactor operational at the Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant. The forth Tianwan-4 is expected to be completed in 2018. It took 8 years from start to finish.
This year, China is completing the construction of two of its own designed nuclear power reactors; the the Fuqing 4 CPR-1000 and the Yangjiang 4 CPR-1000 unit. They have a further two CPR-1000 reactors under construction at the Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant, the Tianwan-5 and Tianwan-6
BTW – China General Nuclear took a 33% $8 billion in cash stake in Hinkley Point C, alongside the French energy group EDF, in return for the construction of a Chinese Nuclear Reactor at Bradwell, Essex. The UK’s independent nuclear regulators, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, and the Environment Agency, have started on a Generic Design Assessment of the HPR1000 reactor, which will take 4 years. The HPR1000 is an advanced nuclear power plant with the significant feature of an active and passive safety design philosophy, developed by the China National Nuclear Corporation.
So you somehow expect Chinese magic to rub off on France’s nuclear construction abilities?
Why are we not seeing any signs of that with the reactors France is currently building?
And let me ask a further question. Why is France preparing to close a third of their existing nuclear fleet and replacing them with renewables? If France can now build nuclear ‘fast and cheap’ like China why would France not just build more reactors?
Bob, its all political, like in South Korea, where the pro-nuclear forces in South Korea won a massive victory! Their Citizens Jury voted 59.5% to restart construction of Shin-Kori 5&6 reactors!
The same political situation applies to France.
France MAY CUT It’s Nuclear Energy Fleet, which Is Core to Its Economy. France has been a leader when it comes to not just energy independence but also the use of low-carbon fuels and sustainable electricity. But it MAY SOON veer off that path if the recently-elected government there takes up the mantle of the previous one and tries to take a hacksaw to its prominent nuclear energy program.
Just as the socialist government of Hollande was unable to close any of the country’s nuclear power plants, the business-minded Macron may discover that he too has the same difficulties. Not only has nuclear energy proven to be a source of French national pride but it is also core to the country’s economy. France is the world’s largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over €3 billion per year from this.
Through the newly formed Nuclear Sector Strategy Committee (CSFN) France is determined to regain a major role in nuclear exports through “patriotic solidarity”.
Bob, I would hope that you would agree that it makes no sense to replace one low carbon source with another. France phasing out nuclear reactors in the coming years will undermine the country’s global warming goals and actually end up increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
Hollande’s plan was driven by Green influence in his coalition and now by Macron cozying up to Germany. It isn’t a very sound policy and powerful unions in the nuclear industry will oppose. It’s also likely to be costly prematurely closing nukes and replacing them with renewables and gas fired plants.
Replacing low carbon nukes with low carbon energy that requires back-up 65 to 85 percent of the time makes little sense. Everywhere that nuclear is closed it gets replaced by natural gas. If France carries through with this they will not be such a low carbon emitter. By shutting down nuclear reactors, France is making a big mistake.
” it makes no sense to replace one low carbon source with another”
I can think of three reasons why it makes sense.
1) If the replacement source is significantly cheaper than the one being replaced.
Then it makes economic sense. That appears to be the case in France.
2) If the replaced source has aged out.
All generation plants have a life span during which they are usable and at some point are no longer usable. As they reach the point of being no longer usable some plants are going to require a lot more repairs and maintenance. See #1.
Replacing an aged out coal or nuclear plant with a very expensive coal or nuclear plant wouldn’t make sense when wind and solar have become much less expensive.
3) If the plant in operation is deemed to be unsafe.
The cost of a nuclear meltdown can be stupendous. Fukushima is now approaching $200 billion with estimates from some organizations running much higher.
The cost of a similar event in a highly developed part of Europe or America could be an even worse economic disaster. And that’s saying nothing about the personal disasters.
If a plant is not judged to be extremely safe then replacing it with safe low carbon generation makes sense. If you know how to compute expected value you’ll know that even very low probability events are best avoided if the expected cost is enormous.
“Replacing low carbon nukes with low carbon energy that requires back-up 65 to 85 percent of the time makes little sense. Everywhere that nuclear is closed it gets replaced by natural gas.”
You stretch the truth. It’s squeaking in pain.
For nuclear reactors 60 year and 80 year licence extensions are already a reality. We have yet to see a commercial wind farm reach such a life span.
The first-ever offshore wind farm, Vindeby, in Danish waters, is being decommissioned after twenty-five years, DONG Energy has announced. By its nature it was an experiment, and we can now see whether or not is has been a successful alternative to nuclear-fuelled electricity.
https://www.thegwpf.com/worlds-first-offshore-wind-farm-retires-a-post-mortem/
We could license reactors for 500 years. The license length is meaningless.
Again, again, again – stuff tends to break down as it gets older. Older stuff generally needs more maintenance and repairs.
More maintenance and repairs means rising price. And nuclear reactors are on the cusp of financial failure already.
As an example, we extended the license for Fort Calhoun. Then it needed repairs. After being offline for a year for the required repairs the reactor was brought back online but proved to be too expensive to keep in operation.
We may well see wind farms last for 500 years. With lots of turbine and blade replacements along the way.
And that’s fine because – brand new – a wind farm is the cheapest way we have to generate electricity. We can replace the turbines every 20 years and wind will still be the cheapest way to generate electricity.
Until solar gets even cheaper than wind.
Vindeby was built 25 years ago. Altamont Pass Wind Farm was built more than 30 years ago.
Old technology. Not nearly as efficient as current technology.
BTW, are you aware of all the nuclear reactors that were built in the very early years which were closed down after a few years?
Globally, 83 reactors did not make it past their 25th birthday.
“We could license reactors for 500 years. The license length is meaningless.”
That’s nonsense. The initial license length is based on the design life of the plant. Reviews of plant integrity then take place at regular intervals. Life extensions beyond the expected design life are safety and engineering based, not some number picked from the air.
My point holds.
It does not matter how many years into the future the license extends. Old stuff breaks.
When stuff breaks it costs money to fix it. That expense drives up the cost of electricity produced.
In the US and France the cost of electricity from many paid off reactors is high enough to cause them to be shut down.
Bob, fact is there is 24GW of nuclear at risk of closure in the US. About 75% of the lost power would be replaced by gas.
“Since 2013, the United States has lost five nuclear power plants, retired before the end of their natural lifespan for economic reasons: Crystal River in Florida, Kewaunee in Wisconsin, San Onofre in California, Vermont Yankee, and, just at the end of October, Fort Calhoun in Nebraska. They’ve generally fallen victim to cheap natural gas, unfavourable market policies, and/or local opposition.
That’s a huge chunk of emissions-free power — gone. Those five plants alone produced nearly as much electricity as all of America’s solar panels last year. That’s not a knock on solar at all; it just shows the scale of what’s being lost here.
And, according to a new analysis by the Energy Information Administration, when those reactors get retired, utilities usually end up replacing the lost electricity by burning more coal or natural gas. We’re basically taking a step backward on climate change.”
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2016/11/3/13499278/nuclear-retirements-coal-gas
That is true. We’re seeing US reactors closing because they cannot produce competitively priced electricity.
The US does not have any sort of a carbon price and natural gas is cheap.
But that has nothing to do with my list of reasons in response to –
” it makes no sense to replace one low carbon source with another”
“Fukushima is now approaching $200 billion with estimates from some organisations running much higher.”
Usual anti overstatements, stretching numbers beyond the credible, and conflating the effects of a natural disaster with the the accident at Fukushima. Much of that $200bn is down to the earthquake and tsunami. Actually the direct costs of dealing with the reactors are less than a 10th and will be incurred over decades.
“The cost of a similar event in a highly developed part of Europe or America could be an even worse economic disaster. And that’s saying nothing about the personal disasters.”
20,000 people died as result of the earthquake and Tsunami. One has died due to radiation exposure. Europe and the US is not exposed to tsunami risk. The plants are designed to deal with credible flood risks. Florida’s nuke plants coped fine during the recent hurricane Irma.
Japan is addressing the safety issues and gradually restarting their reactors.
“The country’s nuclear reactors are all going through rigorous stress tests to ensure that they can survive events similar to what happened in March 2011.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2017/09/08/japan-may-be-coming-full-circle-after-its-fukushima-nuclear-energy-disaster/#28e495c30e8c
December, 2016 –
“Japan’s government on Friday nearly doubled its projections for costs related to the Fukushima nuclear disaster to 21.5 trillion yen ($188 billion) ….”
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-tepco-fukushima-costs/japan-nearly-doubles-fukushima-disaster-related-cost-to-188-billion-idUSKBN13Y047
The Japanese government began with low estimates and has gradually raised them as time has gone along.
Throughout the process other organizations have stated that the government has been low balling the cost and proved right as the government has increased their own number.
Where will the cost end? We simply do not know but if the government is saying close to $200 billion – as I reported – there’s a good chance the cost will be higher.
“A private think tank says the total cost of the Fukushima disaster could reach ÂĄ70 trillion ($626 billion), or more than three times the government’s latest estimate.”
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/04/01/national/real-cost-fukushima-disaster-will-reach-%C2%A570-trillion-triple-governments-estimate-think-tank/#.WeyyFGhSzIU
” One has died due to radiation exposure. ”
You ignore those who lost their lives during the evacuation.
Most countries do not site their nuclear stations in densely populated areas to avoid evacuation problems. That is so for the UK. Furthermore, with modern new nuclear plants like the EPR, the reactor containment design would prevent radioactivity reaching the environment in the severest of accidents so there would be no need to evacuate the locality.
Crowing on about a badly sited and old 1960s designs (thanks to poor US safety standards) is irrelevant as far as new nuclear development today is concerned. New nuclear is very very safe.
Our old reactors are not “new very very safe” reactors.
They are old reactors built decades ago.
Many are near population centers.
New nuclear is too expensive to construct. It would have to compete in a market where the cost of generating is decreasing.
Wal – Fukushima Incident was caused by an unprecedented natural disaster. Yes there is a cost whatever it may be. What needs much more attention is the $4.6 trillion damage or about 6.2 percent of the global economy, stemming from what is not a natural disaster. https://apnews.com/cfde2ac162ed430e8e228b5316f2541e
Fukushima must be blamed on people. The history of tsunamis in that area was known. Part of a natural seawall was removed during construction and not replaced. Humans failed to locate backup generation in a safe place.
This was not a meteor strike. It could have been avoided but shortcuts were made to save money.
Wally – and the people from your country at GE can take the blame for all of this. Anyhow its history and the lessons have been learned. W now have a much safer nuclear reactor fleet around the world. And an ever safer with the new generation of advanced nuclear reactors.
BTW – you never came back on the $4.6 trillion damage or about 6.2 percent of the global economy. Do you participate on any blogs regarding the issue mentioned..?
Well, TEPCO and the Japanese government were involved in siting and plans approval.
As big a mess as the Fukushima disaster is there’s plenty of blame for everyone to get a share.
No, I didn’t bother with the $4.6 trillion pollution problem. We all know that coal is bad.
We also know that wind and solar are the least expensive and fastest ways to shut down coal.
“How could it possibly make sense to contract for new electricity at a price higher than the retail rate when the wholesale rate will continue to drop with the inclusion of renewables?”
Because new nuclear provides low carbon firm gen. capacity for at least 60 years. Renewables needs costly storage which on the scale required is not feasible for the UK. Finland has reached the same conclusion too.
The cost of solar + wind + storage is less than the strike price for Hinkley Point.
We have yet to see a nuclear reactor operate for 50 years.
There is an excellent chance that a 60 year lifespan is simply one more unmeetable promise from the nuclear industry. The industry that almost never delivers on time or on budget.
Bob, for nuclear reactors 60 year and 80 year licence extensions are already a reality. We have yet to see a commercial wind farm reach such a life span.
The first-ever offshore wind farm, Vindeby, in Danish waters, is being decommissioned after twenty-five years, DONG Energy has announced. By its nature it was an experiment, and we can now see whether or not is has been a successful alternative to nuclear-fuelled electricity.
https://www.thegwpf.com/worlds-first-offshore-wind-farm-retires-a-post-mortem/
Just because licenses have been extended that does not mean that reactors will last 60 or 80 years.
Old stuff just gets worn out. Stuff that is wearing out costs more to keep working.
Many nuclear plants (60% in the US) are already losing money. As repair costs pile on they become bigger losers.
Wind farms have such low installed prices that we can replace them every 30 years and still have electricity for a fraction of the cost of a 60 year old reactor.
We’re getting under $0.03/kWh for new wind, unsubsidized. Pay off in 20 years. Another decade at ~$0.01/kWh. That’s an average of $0.023/kWh. The replacement farm will cost the same or less.
We can’t build nuclear in the west for under $0.10/kWh. Subsidized.
Solar/wind is only cheap if one excludes all the support costs, transmission needs and storage to make it firm. Pumped storage on the scale needed to make it firm is not feasible either in most parts of the world, including the US based on reliable engineering judgement, not green dreaming.
“Solar/wind is only cheap if one excludes all the support costs, transmission needs and storage to make it firm.”
And if you ignore the additional costs of incorporating nuclear into the grid then nuclear goes from very expensive to very, very expensive.
This has become nuclear’s new dishonest talking point.
Pro-nuclear ignores the cost of maintaining spinning reserve for nuclear. They ignore the need for storage (or equally costly load-following) if nuclear generates more than the minimum demand. And they ignore the costs of liability coverage and long term nuclear waste storage.
“Pumped storage on the scale needed to make it firm is not feasible either in most parts of the world, including the US based on reliable engineering judgement, not green dreaming.”
Totally incorrect
(…)
Bob, fact is renewables has an insurmountable storage problem that nuclear does not have. New nuclear is very very safe too and has to fully cover decommissioning costs.
Let’s look at an example of where renewables only strategy has not worked. Australia has tried replacing coal with renewables and it’s been a disaster. They have ended up with an unreliable system and hugely expensive retail prices. Australia is now working with developers on Gen 4 reactors and is likely to build them.
“Despite the billions spent, Australia’s peak energy regulator, the Australian Energy Market Operator, has confirmed that wind generation can fall as low as 2 per cent of installed capacity. Building more wind turbines across a greater geographic spread can improve this only to 5 per cent.
AEMO’s report reads like a horror show. It warns of a “heightened risk” of load shedding and blackouts as early as this summer. Longer term, as more of Australia’s baseload coal fleet is Âretired, the situation is far from clear.
A key criticism of nuclear has been price. But the renewables push has already seen Australia’s retail electricity prices soar. The wholesale cost of electricity has trebled in Victoria from $20 a megawatt hour to more than $60. In South Australia it has risen from $50 a MW/h to $110, leaving consumers paying the highest electricity costs in the world.
The concern is that Australia’s longstanding natural advantage of cheap energy has been squandered with dire consequences for manufacturing and jobs.
Analysis has shown that taxpayers will have paid more than $60 billion through federal renewable energy subsidies by 2030, enough to build about 10 large Ânuclear reactors.”
“Bill Gates is involved with venture capital-backed companies working to reinvent nuclear power. Nuclear is being downscaled in a way that is better suited to emerging electricity markets. It is claimed the new-generation plants under ÂdevelopÂment will be cleaner, smaller and more versatile.
Unlike coal, the new-generation plants will be able to ramp electricity output up and down to follow grid demands. When electricity is not required they will be able to use their energy output for other tasks such as water desalination, providing heat for industry and generating products such as hydrogen for chemical and fertiliser production.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/nuclear-the-energy-alternative-for-australia-none-dare-name/news-story/34bb25412a576fbb343ae02d4365b0c2
“renewables has an insurmountable storage problem”
No, it certainly is not insurmountable. That is an erroneous claim.
Australia had extremely expensive electricity well before they started installing renewables.
That’s why end-user solar took off as strongly as it did. Even when solar was a lot more expensive than now it was cheaper that buying grid electricity – which was mostly coal.
Renewables have not increased reliability problems in Australia.
Australia is adding both pump-up hydro and battery storage.
The odds of small modular reactors breathing some life into the nuclear industry are very slim. If there was much hope then we would see one or more major corporations opening a factory. Companies like to make money.
Wall – Its early evening in South Australia, solar has gone to zero and wind is running at 8% being 119MW of its installed 1500MW capacity. The carbon intensity is 475(gCO2eq/kWh) from using 89% fossil fuels. South Australia is installing a 100MW battery storage plant. Interesting to see how many minutes it will last during a blackout caused by an extended and extreme East Coast wide heatwave. Pumped Hydro still has to get its feasibility study go-ahead to be approved, the estimated cost is $3 billion. The current government inline with its coal and LNG exports is more in favour of new so-called efficient coal plants. I happen to live in Australia, the cost of electricity has doubled in the last 10 years and incomes have been frozen for the same period. Energy poverty has become an issue.
https://www.electricitymap.org/
“Renewables have not increased reliability problems in Australia.”
That is a ridiculous and blatantly untrue claim. Subsidised renewables have driven reliable generators out of business.
“The challenge is that the quantity of (renewable) generation varies from supplying less than 1 per cent of South ÂAustralia’s demand Âcompared to 80 per cent … When the wind’s not blowing and the sun’s not shining, power is not being generated. ”
Hence causing the generation unreliability issues.
“Successive governments — Labor and ÂCoalition — at the state and federal levels have heavily subsidised renewable energy. The rapid growth of solar panels and wind turbines put pressure on the coal plants. It coincided with an Âattack by the green left on the fossil fuel industry and those institutions that finance it.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/australia-goes-from-being-power-rich-to-facing-an-energy-crisis/news-story/1693031fd970ba71df71e9e003af5315
Clearly renewables have caused the unreliability problem. S. Australia is now scrambling to build a new gas fired plant to keep the lights on.
You are basing yourself on newspaper reports. They are very unreliable. You clearly don’t bother to look for better informed sources. Check out http://reneweconomy.com.au/csiro-networks-put-lie-to-conservative-campaign-against-wind-solar-33831/ or https://energypost.eu/south-australia-makes-fresh-power-play-bid-end-blackouts/ or the CSIRO website or a host of other sources that will explain to you why the deeper cause of the blackout was mismanagement, not renewables as such.
Karl Beckmann – I don’t base my opinion on problems related to a high penetration of Wind & Solar on the South Australian GRID by reading news papers. As you possibly would have noticed, I have as a profession engineer developed the means of dealing with the blackouts (load shedding) problems for this. California and others are having the same issue, its called DuckCurve. http://www.wbamnet.org
From the same Guardian article: :In 2007, Vincent de Rivaz, chief executive of EDF’s UK arm, predicted Britons would be using electricity from Hinkley to cook their Christmas turkeys in 2017.:
And the commissioning date has been pushed back to 2027 so I should have said it is a decade behind schedule.
The schedule for any major project is not fixed/baselined until the go ahead is given by the developers. When VdR made those comments to the media HPC was in the development phase, the schedule was not fixed. Indeed in 2007 it was very early days for the project with many complex matters to work on, Hinkley being the first of series of new reactors. EDF then expected to operate the plant without a CFD. However the rise of renewables and large offshore wind projects supported by guaranteed power prices presented a problem to anyone developing projects exposed to market prices – gas fired or new nuclear. Developers of new nuclear told the UK Government they wouldn’t invest unless they too had guaranteed prices as they worried renewables would crash wholesale prices. Developing the CFD and clearing state aid hurdles was just one of a range of ground breaking features of the project that delayed the start of construction.
Fact is, this project is badly delayed.
And fact is, that’s the history of the nuclear industry. We have no reactor build in the west that is anywhere close to being on schedule. And China is having trouble keeping on schedule with a portion of their projects.
Jim Greens article refers to the latest World Nuclear Industry Status Report. This report is compiled by people like M V Ramana’s who is always happy to promote his anti-nuclear books and Tadahiro Katsuta another dedicated anti-nuclear advocate. So much for their objectivity.
Well, why can’t he quote people who are critical of nuclear power? Are their facts wrong? Then you should say so.
Karel, there is nothing wrong with people being critical of nuclear power. However there is a group of people out there that make a professional living out of spreading nuclear phobia. You never hear them write or talk about the reverse side of the coin. 2,123,000 deaths avoided from smog, cancers avoided by enhanced thyroid screening, countless patients treated with medical isotopes.
Would this group of people, impartially accept what we say if presented a Renewables Industry Status Report funded by the nuclear industry, which presented numbers on renewable energy chosen wholly to paint a negative picture. Which, of course, the nuclear industry doesn’t and will never do…
We can get rid of smog faster and cheaper with renewables than with nuclear.
Really, Bob you have been saying that for years, I still can’t see much progress with those solar panels and wind turbines. Germany is the biggest European polluter. Ontario Canada, Sweden, Finland, France, all very clean.
http://data.reneweconomy.com/LiveGen
https://www.electricitymap.org/
Hendrikus, you’d have to take off your pro-nuclear blinders in order to see how rapidly wind and solar are being installed around the globe. And how coal use has now peaked and is dropping.
New data from the World Health Organization shows Eastern European and Balkan countries suffer the highest rate of air contamination and air pollution-related deaths throughout Europe.
Austria, Italy, and Greece have higher air pollution related mortality rates than Germany.
[…]
Bob, were is your confirming and supporting data…
https://www.euractiv.com/section/health-consumers/news/report-germany-suffers-more-coal-linked-deaths-than-rest-of-eu/
Sorry, Hen.
Your link does not say what you report it to say.
(…)
My above link relates to premature deaths from coal fired power plants in Europe and Germany. If you are concerned about the figure I quoted earlier on 2,123,000 deaths avoided through to use of nuclear energy. By 2015 it was reported that nuclear power had prevented an estimated 1.84 million air-pollution related deaths worldwide. Here is a 2013 link to NASA.
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/
Yes, nuclear has reduced the amount of coal burned. No one is suggesting otherwise.
The issue is how do we further reduce the amount of coal burned.
With expensive nuclear reactors?
Or with much less expensive renewable energy?
Bob, Really, I have to take off my pro-nuclear blinders in order to see how rapidly wind and solar are being installed around the globe.
Bob you have been saying that for years, I still can’t see much progress with those solar panels and wind turbines. I gave you two links that show in real-time how much of wind and solar generation is taking place. Do you see more than I can see. My vision blinders let me focus very-well. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CudxrPyWAAAGHYB.jpg
Anyone really concerned about carbon emissions wouldn’t be calling for existing nukes to be closed prematurely and not life extended.
Some people don’t trust nuclear reactors to be good neighbors and not melt down and ruin the neighborhood.
Some people juggle running chain saws.
Different people have different risk acceptance levels.
Karel, what I object to is the misleading pro-nuclear impression such professional anti-nuclear people give with making reference to themselves with “Nuclear Monitor Newsletter” and “National Nuclear Campaigner with Friends of the Earth Australia”. Steve Kidd is another-one of those so-called independent nuclear consultants. He used to give in the past valuable nuclear industry critique, For example Steve Kidd’s contributing paper on the South Australian proposed geological nuclear waste depository was well written. However, for some years now he only writes poorly researched articles.
A monitor is a monitor – that has a critical connotation for me. And that Friends of the Earth are not campaigning in favour of nuclear power seems to me also obvious. Kidd is obviously an expert but apparently you don’t like anymore what he is saying. Well, what matters is the facts. If their facts are wrong, then let’s hear about it. Opposing views are welcome, opposing visions too, but don’t try do discredit the messenger because you don’t agree with him.
Karel, my point has been made to the readers of this article on Jim Green, MV Ramana, Tadahiro Katsuta and Steve Kidd. The readers can do their own research using google and form an opinion.
Thank you, Karel
Jim Green, also refers to an August 2017 article in trade publication Nuclear Engineering International by former World Nuclear Association executive Steve Kidd. Promoting himself as an independent nuclear consultant, one must note that Steve Kidd is unashamedly from the anti-nuclear camp.
Another term for ‘anti-nuclear’ might well be ‘realist’.
You claim that Green’s article is full of misinformation and that you will shine light on them. So far you have questioned only one claim about Hinkley being years behind schedule. A questionable claim as at one time Hinkey was expected to be in operation this year.
Green’s article is chockablock full of facts. Or what he presents as facts. If you are right and he is wrong then you should be able to point out his errors and furnish concrete evidence to back up your claims.
The ball is now in your court. Anti-nuclear or realist?
For delay’s evaluation, when does the counter start? When someone speaks out some commercial AD, or when construction actually starts?
For reference, Berlin airport: “Originally scheduled to open in October 2011, the much-maligned airport has been beset by delays and is now running €5 billion (ÂŁ4.37bn) over budget, according to German media” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/the-crazy-saga-of-berlins-long-delayed-airport/
Or in Energy, Kashagan project : “Kashagan has cost an estimated $50 billion so far, five times early projections, and its 13-year life is a tale mostly of delay”
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-kazakhstan-kashagan-structure/crippled-kashagan-oil-project-a-bureaucratic-nightmare-idUKBREA010GC20140102
Time blaming doesn’t make much sense. The whole lifetime of the project 60, 80 years -which may include construction- is the only reliable reference.
You have to look at the specifics of the timeline.
For example, if there was a “construction will start” or “the plant will start generating” by a certain date then slippage of that date is a delay.
As I reported at one point in time is was stated that Hinkley Point would be online in 2017. It’s now 2017 and 2017 is nearing its end. Construction on Hinkley Point has not begun.
I think most people would agree that a delay has occurred.
“The whole lifetime of the project 60, 80 years -which may include construction- is the only reliable reference.”
Oh, come on. No one includes construction time in the lifespan of a power plant of any kind. And we’ve yet to see a reactor function more than 50 years. This 80 year stuff is simply a desperation move by a declining industry.
The US has more than 40 reactors that are between 40 and 50 years old and another 30 plus that are older than 30 years. Most of those reactors are losing money. There will be little to no money spent keeping them operating much longer. There is absolutely no planning to replace them with new reactors.
“Construction on Hinkley Point has not begun.”
Incorrect. HPC reactor 1 construction started in earnest last year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=6&v=tgzso9lJud4
“Construction time has never been included in the lifespan of a power plant”. Fine, Ok. So did interviews and commercial speeches, statements and declarations. The delay counter starts when construction starts. Point.
The rest can be incompetence, useless chat etc.. it is not construction delay!
For your reference many things have been “stated” including that we would have flying cars in 2000 and might live on the moon, or that Renewables can supply 100% of our energy in 2040…!
1st Target Date
February 2007
EDF: New nuclear ‘by Christmas 2017’
French nuclear energy giant EDF says it hopes to build Britain’s first new nuclear power plant in a generation in time to provide electricity for Britons to cook their Christmas turkeys in 2017.
“EDF will turn on its first nuclear plant in Britain before Christmas 2017 because it will be the right time,” Vincent de Rivaz, chief executive of UK division EDF Energy says.
“It is the moment of the power crunch. Without it the lights will go out.”
2nd Target Date
New nuclear gets formal backing from the Government. John Hutton, then-business secretary, says he hopes the first new plant will be completed “well before 2020”
3rd Target Date
EDF tells investors in London that the average cost of four reactors – two at Hinkley Point and two at Sizewell – should be ÂŁ45 per megawatt-hour of power.
The first Hinkley reactor should be generating by the end of 2017, with the second in 2018, and Sizewell’s two reactors to follow in 2021 and 2022.
4th Target Date
Vincent de Rivaz says 2011 must be a “year of delivery” for new nuclear and that Hinkley Point can be ready in 2018 if the Government moves quickly to introduce “market reform” – in other words, new subsidies
5th Target Date
December 2011
First power slips to 2019
The Government admits the first new reactor will now not start generating until 2019.
6th Target Date
October 2013
Subsidy deal; first power due 2023
EDF says Hinkley will now not produce its first power until 2023, subject to a final investment decision in July 2014. “In 2023, this project will arrive exactly when the country will need it,”
Date Slippage
September 2015
EDF says Hinkley will now not produce its first power until 2023, subject to a final investment decision in July 2014. “In 2023, this project will arrive exactly when the country will need it,”
7th Delay
January 2016
Financing woes
EDF once again delays its final investment decision on Hinkley Point.
Heck, I lost count…
July 2016
EDF approves Hinkley but Government delays subsidy deal
EDF takes a final investment decision to invest in Hinkley Point, only for Theresa May’s Government to announce a fresh review of the project. A legally-binding subsidy deal had been expected to be signed the following day, but a decision is now pushed back until the autumn
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/0/hinkley-point-c-new-nuclear-plant-timeline-of-the-story-so-far/
I’d say that in order to hit any of the several “We’ll have power by …” construction would have had to be started already. Construction has been delayed and delayed and delayed.
Kidd is strongly pro-nuclear.
http://www.neimagazine.com/search/?q%5B%5D=steve+kidd
Steve Kidd is very cunning with his words like; “although this report is produced by anti-nuclear activists, its picture of the current reactors gradually shutting down with numbers of new reactors failing to replace them has more than an element of truth given the recent trends”. He knows very well this to be incorrect, but gives support to the anti-nuclear movement. I am not alone on this opinion. Anyhow, of late he has become a shadow.
Nuclear is on the way out. Too big, too risky, too costly, and too slow to deliver.
Jamie says, Nuclear is on the way out. Too big, too risky, too costly, and too slow to deliver.
This not the case in China and they are getting ready for export. The AREVA EPR Taishan 1 is currently in the commissioning phase, and is expected to startup late this year. The AREVA EPR Taishan 2 is currently in the commissioning phase, and is expected to startup by the middle of next year. There are four Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear reactors under construction in China, two at Sanmen and two at Haiyang. Two of these are expected to come on line by the end of the year. All are scheduled to start commercial operation in 2018. The Tianwan 3, a Russian-designed VVER1000 Nuclear Reactor that has been under construction in China’s eastern province of Jiangsu, reached criticality on Sept. 28 2017. This reactor complies with the European Safety Standards. This is the third Russian reactor operational at the Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant. The forth Tianwan-4 is expected to be completed in 2018. It took 8 years from start to finish. This year, China is completing the construction of four of its own designed nuclear power reactors; the Fuqing 4 CPR-1000 and the Yangjiang 4 CPR-1000 unit. A further two CPR-1000 reactors are under construction at the Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant, the Tianwan-5 and Tianwan-6. The CPR-1000 is a Generation II+ pressurised water reactor, based on the French 900 MWe three cooling loop design. The construction of a further 8 Nuclear Reactors will start next year. With another 8 to follow every next consecutive year. The first units of the Hualong One Gen-III+Nuclear Reactor under construction in China are the Fuqing 5 and 6, followed by Fangjiashan 3 and 4, Fangchenggang 3 and 4. Construction started on those four units in 2015 and they are all expected to be online by 2020. https://sputniknews.com/analysis/201710181058353742-china-nuclear-power-plant/
POWER REACTOR CONSTRUCTION STARTS IN CHINA
from https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/
2008>2010 = 25 construction starts in three years
2011>2017 = 15 construction starts in almost seven years
Two construction starts in 2016, none in 2017.
As typical always a moot reply, I already once covered with you that after the Fukushima Incident all global nuclear construction projects were delayed to redesign their safety systems. This also applied to China. My above record on China stands. China is moving full stream ahead.
BTW – The Nuclear fight isn’t over; Pro-nuclear forces in South Korea won a massive victory! Their Citizens Jury voted 59.5% to restart construction of Shin-Kori 5&6 reactors! – See the problem with you guys/girls is that you have nothing to offer on the loss of the clean nuclear energy and what to replace it with, the same as in Germany. This success in South Korea was despite the massive amount of money spent by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth on their campaign in South Korea. Published by my good friend Michael Shellenberger – http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/10/16/enemies-of-the-earth-unmasking-dirty-war-friends-of-earth-greenpeace-south-korea-nuclear-energy
China is moving “full stream ahead” with two construction starts in 2016 and zero in 2017?! And if China is moving full steam ahead, why did China Nuclear Engineering Corp. state earlier this year that nuclear power “has stepped into a declining cycle” because the “State Council approved very few new-build projects in the past years”?
Jim Green, your above comments is one that is fuelled by the antinuclear movement, you don’t find this so-called statement from the China Nuclear Engineering Corp on formal Chinese publications. I did note the reference made by you to the worldnuclearreport.org an anti-nuclear organisation lead by Mycle Schneider a well known antinuclear activist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycle_Schneider
As of December 2016, China had 34 operational nuclear power reactors and 21 reactors under construction (the largest number of nuclear builds of any country in the world). The total installed capacity was 33.6 GW. In 2016, seven new reactors were connected to the grid, and nuclear power accounted for about 3.56 percent of the country’s electric generating capacity. The Chinese Government is actively promoting nuclear energy as a clean, efficient, and reliable source of electricity generation. As such, nuclear power is on pace to grow substantially to 58 GWe by 2020 and 150 GWe by 2030. During China’s 13th Five-Year Plan period (2016 to 2020), six to eight new nuclear units will be built every year. https://www.export.gov/article?id=China-Nuclear-Energy
The Chinese Government forecasts it will invest more than 1.2 trillion RMB (180 billion USD) in China’s nuclear industry within the 13th Five-Year Plan period. Much of this investment will come from the construction of new nuclear sites and from the development of more advanced designs.
You do realize that the 13th Five Year Plan was written before 2015 (since it runs to 2020)?
Conditions today are different than they were three years ago. Renewable energy prices and storage prices have been rapidly falling.
China may have several reactors under construction but they have begun construction on only one during the last two years. None in 2017 to date.
China had plans to begin construction on eight new reactors this year but they have not so far and there are only two months left in the year.
Are things simply delayed for some reason and will we see several new construction starts late in this year or during 2018?
We do not know. It’s a wait and see at this point. Perhaps China is reacting to the rapidly changing economics of renewable energy and making adjustments as conditions change.
Making a pause in NEW construction does not mean making a pause in Nuclear in general. USA put nearly 10GWe/year into operation between 1984 and 1989, then reduced to nearly zero before 1995. Would you have said in 1994 that US was on decline?
20 GWe under construction are still far from zero
“Conditions today are different than they were three years ago. Renewable energy prices and storage prices have been rapidly falling.”
The issue is China’s economy, not say the cost of solar panels where they effectively control the world market.
If China’s economy is not growing at the rate predicted a few years ago, growth in demand for electricity will slow too. That could slow reactor construction. However intermittent renewables is not an alternative to needing firm clean generating capacity to meet growth in demand.
China continues to add hydro to their grid. 12.6 GW in 2016. An average of 17.3 GW per year over the last three years.
And China has averaged 1.7 GW of pump-up storage per year over the last three years.
China is increasing their ability to fill in around wind and solar.
China also has 70 GW of dispatchable gas generation which makes a good wind/solar fill in.
At this point China has far more very dispatchable generation than installed wind and solar.
Wall – Keep on twisting and turning – On January 5, 2017, the National Energy Administration finally unveiled the plan to reporters. Another matter on construction new starts is that China is completing many projects and as such reaches a limitation on the resources available. They have already addressed the issue with the completed construction of a shipyard style mass production facility for the manufacture of nuclear reactor modules. I have already supplied information on the preliminary work being undertaken on the nuclear projects for 2017 and will not repeat them again. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2017-01/18/content_27988526.htm
Hendrikus –
We’re six years beyond Fukushima, closer to seven. Where are the signs that China is moving full steam ahead with nuclear energy?
Since 2011 China began construction on 4 reactors in 2012, 3 in 2013 and, based on Jim’s data, averaged about 2 per year for the period 2014 to 2017.
I’ve read that China intended to start construction on 8 new reactors in 2017. To date they’ve apparently started work on none.
Bob, really… Jim’s data – As a China insider, I go by my own data. Preparatory work is carried out this year on a eight units. These include units 3 and 4 of Sanmen, Ningde units 5 and 6, and two units each at new plants at Zhangzhou in the Fujian province and Huizhou in the Guangdong province. These will add 9.86 GWe of nuclear generating capacity.
Further to the above, China is expected restart its nuclear power program in inland areas within the next four years. Three inland units have already been given approval. They are; the Taohuajiang nuclear station in Hunan province, southeast China; the Dafan nuclear station in Hubei province, eastern China; and the Pengze nuclear station in Jiangxi province, southeast China.
Hen –
An interesting piece you linked. Here’s a bit-
“In truth, the 1,600 people who died after Fukushima did so during an entirely unnecessary and indeed counterproductive evacuation.”
Right, those people should have sheltered in place and waited to see if there were going to be additional problems at the reactors that would kill them where they waited.
Calling an evacuation unnecessary after the fact is easy. Not so if your life is at risk.
” the Fukushima meltdowns, which killed precisely no one.”
He just admitted that 1,600 people died. They didn’t evacuate because of the tsunami. That was over. They evacuated because of the meltdown.
I quit at this point as the author engaged in twisted argument after twisted argument.
Jim, can the starts per year data be found on the PRIS website or is it in the database they sell? I wasn’t able to find it on the website.
If it’s in the database and you have access would you post starts for each calendar year?
Thanks.
https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/
Bottom right – list of start-ups etc in 2017 – and you can change it to any year from 1951 to 2017
Construction starts in China, 2000 to Oct. 2017
2017 ‒ none as of 20 October 2017
2016 ‒ 2
2015 ‒ 6
2014 ‒ 0
2013 ‒ 3
2012 ‒ 4
2011 ‒ 0
2010 ‒ 10
2009 ‒ 9
2008 ‒ 6
2007 ‒ 2
2006 ‒ 2
2005 ‒ 1
2004 ‒ 0
2003 ‒ 0
2002 ‒ 0
2001 ‒ 0
2000 ‒ 2
Ah, now I see it. Change the year under the blue “Highlights” line.
Thanks.
Just before I come back on the so-called China Nuclear Slowdown. For those antinuclear preachers; this morning 6.35 am 22/10/2017 the facts, Australia has the worst carbon intensity in the world. QLD 787(gCO2eq/kWh) using 100% fossil fuel. NSW 775(gCO2eq/kWh), VIC 714(gCO2eq/kWh), WA 652(gCO2eq/kWh), South Australia only slightly better, with not much wind blowing utilising 11% of its installed wind capacity and running a carbon intensity at 439(gCO2eq/kWh) using 85% fossil fuels.
France carbon intensity 82(gCO2eq/kWh) using 12% fossil fuel. Germany carbon intensity 360(gCO2eq/kWh)
fossil fuels 43%
Jim Green, do you have any data on premature deaths and the cost to the taxpayer on this.? https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false
Going by Jim Green’s list of nuclear reactor startups startups since 2011 and whether or not this is an indication of China slowing down it’s nuclear program. As already explained many times, following the March 2011 accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant, the Chinese government suspended the approval of new nuclear power projects. The Tianwan Phase III units were amongst those suspended. Construction of Tianwan 5 and 6 was originally scheduled to start in early 2011. Furthermore, the Fukushima incident and the lessons learned, necessitating back fitting the existing fleet with new safety features. The units under construction required redesigns inline with the same findings. As per my earlier list the French and US designs and the Chinese own designs are nearing commissioning completion, with some scheduled to come online by the end of 2017. None of this is any indication that the Chinese government is slowing down on its 13th Five-Year Plan period (2016 to 2020). From what I can see is that additional to their own program, there will be a strong push by China to enter the nuclear reactor export business.
We’re almost seven years post Fukushima.
China was reportedly going to begin construction 8 new reactor this year and has yet to start construction on any.
If China doesn’t pick up the pace soon then that’s got to be a pretty clear signal that it’s all over for nuclear.
Nuclear would be better than coal. But we’ve got even better alternatives to both.
Keeping the old nukes operational – A fifth nuclear power plant in Europe has been installed with AREVA NP’s Advanced Load Following Control (ALFC) technology that allows the nuclear reactor to adjust its power output automatically in response to the needs of the electricity grid, the company said. http://nuclearstreet.com/nuclear_power_industry_news/b/nuclear_power_news/archive/2017/10/23/swiss-npp-receives-areva-np-cruise-control-system-102301#.We6MLnVL_ec
Load following means that the reactor has to charge more for the electricity that it does produce.
Cost of electricity = Total cost / Electricity Produced.
On China’s economy – “Based on President Xi Jinping’s speech yesterday, we believe that the political leadership will continue to aim for moderately high growth above 6 per cent in the next few years.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-19/china-gdp-fuelled-by-another-credit-binge/9067234
A 6% growth rate is an economic slowdown for China.
And remember reading this?
“Over-supply has worsened in some regions and there are questions about how many reactors are needed to satisfy power demand. Kidd writes: “[T]he slowing Chinese economy, the switch to less energy-intensive activities, and over-investment in power generation means that generation capacity outweighs grid capacity in some provinces and companies are fighting to export power from their plants.””