Life isn’t easy for nuclear power in the EU. Member States pursue totally contradictory policies, existing nuclear generation gets little or no public support, and France’s flagship third-generation EPR design is struggling to become competitive. At the same time, the EU is expecting the industry to maintain its generation capacity until 2050, which will require substantial new construction. Under these circumstances, can the sector find the next generation of talent to ensure its continuity and create new growth perspectives? Karel Beckman spoke to a number of insiders to feel the pulse of the European nuclear sector in the post-Fukushima, post-Paris age.
The nuclear sector seems to be beset by bad news these days. Bankruptcies in the U.S., delays and cost overruns in Finland and France, controversy around the high price for the Hinkley Point C project in the U.K. – and all of it coming on top of Fukushima and phase-outs in Germany and other countries (Switzerland, Belgium).
In the EU, nuclear power still contributes 27% of power generation capacity (2015), but that share is expected to drop to less than 20% by 2025, according to a Communication from the European Commission released in April 2016:
All of this may give people the impression that the European nuclear power sector is an industry in decline. That impression, however, would be wrong.
In fact, taking a look behind its bleak public image reveals a sector that’s more vibrant, much bigger, and much more optimistic than most people realise.
The European nuclear industry employs between 400,000 and 500,000 people directly and another 400,000 indirectly. In the UK alone some 100,000 people are employed directly or indirectly in the nuclear sector. And despite the fact that nuclear’s share in the capacity mix may go down, in absolute terms capacity is expected to go up, as the above chart shows.
Indeed, in a number of EU countries (Finland, Hungary, UK, France) new plants are being built, in other countries (Poland, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, UK) new projects are being planned or considered.
“This is a complex field. We need the smartest people”
In addition, new technologies, such as small modular reactors (SMRs), are being researched and developed, and a number of large European-wide R&D programmes are being carried out, such as Myrrha in Belgium, the first-ever prototype particle accelerator-driven reactor, Allegro in Central Europe, a gas-cooled fast breeder reactor prototype, and SPRINT, a Programme for Research and Innovation in Nuclear Technology.
Although the EU, as a result of strong differences of opinion among the member states, does not actively promote nuclear power, the European Commission does publish a Communication for a Nuclear Illustrative Programme (known as PINC) on a regular basis. In the latest PINC, the Commission indicates that it expects a substantial nuclear new-build programme worth €350-500 billion to maintain 95-105 GW of nuclear in Europe in the long-term.
The Commission also estimates that €50 billion will need to be invested in lifetime extensions and another €250 billion spent on decommissioning and waste disposal out to 2050, for nuclear to play its part in the energy mix.
Smartest people
What Energy Post wanted to know is whether the nuclear sector, given the pressures that it’s under and its less-than-ideal public image, will be able to play the role it is expected to in Europe’s low-carbon transition. In particular, will it be able, in addition to attracting sufficient finance, to attract sufficient new talent?
“That’s a very topical question indeed”, reacts Yves Desbazeille, Director General of Foratom, the European nuclear industry association, when we ask him this.
Desbazeille, himself new at Foratom, although he worked for EDF for more than 20 years in various parts of the value chain, notes that there are countries, like Germany, in which policymakers have turned against nuclear power. In addition, many NGO’s and civil society organisation are negative about nuclear energy. “This has an impact on the will of young people to pursue a nuclear career.”
This is all the more serious, he adds, as the nuclear industry needs a new generation of employees. “The people who were involved in building the first generation of nuclear plants, for example in France in the 1980s, are on the point of retiring.”
“People who say that we can manage with 100% solar and wind don’t know what they are saying”
And the nuclear sector can’t use just anybody, observes Desbazeille. “This is a complex field. We need the smartest people.”
According to Desbazeille, it is misleading for policymakers, NGOs and others to suggest that the nuclear industry has no future. “We can’t do without nuclear power in a fully decarbonized world. People who say that we can manage with 100% solar and wind don’t know what they are saying.”
Even in a country like Germany, which is phasing out nuclear, “we still need two or three highly skilled generations of employees”, he says. “We can’t afford that the decommissioning and waste disposal will not be carried out properly.”
Career for life
As Chairman of the European Nuclear Society’s Young Generation Network (ENS YGN), Nathan Paterson has a task to help make nuclear power attractive to young people – and to nurture the new talent that enters the sector. He has no doubts at all about the wisdom of going to work in the nuclear sector. “If you want a career for life”, he says, “nuclear is very well placed.”
The nuclear sector’s “young generation” is hardly a dying breed, explains Paterson, who in his daily life is customer care manager at Rolls Royce, which supplies instrumentation and control systems as well as complex safety critical systems and services to the industry. “Our umbrella organisation covers 24 member organisations in Europe with tens of thousands of members. We meet three times a year, organise technical tours, share knowledge and have an annual flagship event that last year attracted 550 people from all over Europe.”
Paterson is not afraid that the pipeline of new talent will become empty any time soon. “A lot of young people are coming into the industry. They are bringing a lot of drive and innovative ideas with them. With ENS YGN we try to create a culture so that young people have their voices heard and can help determine the future of the sector.”
“There is a market out there. In China tens of reactors are being constructed. There are new reactors being built in the Middle East, Asia, Europe”
Paterson says the nuclear industry is changing rapidly, although this may not be apparent to outside observers. “There are a lot of new concepts out there. Advanced materials use, advanced reactor designs, advance simulation and computational analysis. This is all being researched and developed.”
It’s true that many of these ideas have been around for a long time, Paterson acknowledges. “But we didn’t use to have the tools to develop them. Now we have 3d printing, computational abilities, new health monitoring systems. A lot more is possible today.”
Overall, he says, the mood in the industry, certainly in the UK, is positive. “New projects will be built, and there is a lot of upgrading and plant life extension going on. This will present a lot of opportunities for young people to develop and grow.”
Standardization or innovation?
There are nuclear experts who say that the industry needs more standardisation rather than innovation, to bring costs down. According to Paterson, however, both are necessary. “In the short term we need more standardisation, that’s true. That requires harmonisation of regulatory systems. European nuclear regulators could help us to make progress in this. In the longer term, we need new developments too, such as small modular reactors.”
Desbazeille concurs. “Many people don’t realise that the existing plants we have today are very different from what they used to be thirty years ago when they were first built. Every ten years there are major retrofits. The modernization of nuclear power plants is conducted based on their ongoing operation worldwide. It also includes the outcome of accidents that occurred in the past for example in Fukushima.”
“I feel that I am building something that will last. There will always be political discussion over nuclear energy. But we need to replace fossil fuels. And to maintain our quality of life”
In addition, he says, “there is a lot of new thinking around Generation-IV projects, such as SMRs, which could be manufactured in modules rather than constructed on site. That would better fit with the flexible energy system of the future. In Finland they are looking at using nuclear power in district heating systems. That could be a good solution in terms of efficiency. There are so many innovations ahead of us.”
What about the need to bring down costs? Desbazeille says that “everything that is being done is also done with a view to reduce costs. The industry is fully aware that at a price of £92.50/MWh [the price guaranteed by the UK government for Hinkley Point C, editor] it might be difficult to compete with renewables. However, it’s worth noting that nuclear and RES do not render the same service to the system. Therefore, while comparing the overall cost of each energy source, also other parameters such as an impact on economy and land use, as well as security of supply should be taken into account. Nevertheless, for the EPR [the third-generation design developed by EDF which will be built at Hinkley Point C], which is regarded as expensive, it is envisaged that costs will be brought down by 30%.”
A small world
What do young people themselves say?
Minttu Hietamäki is 30 years old, but has worked in the nuclear industry for 10 years already. “I had a focus on nuclear power quite early”, says Hietamäki, who works as a nuclear engineering specialist for Fennovoima, the company that’s building a new nuclear power plant in Finland, supplied by Rosatom, the Russian state-owned company. “Once when I was still in college I went to Strasbourg and I had to defend nuclear power in a debating contest. I found it exciting. I was interested in the political aspect of energy. There is always discussion about it.”
For Hietamäki the choice for a nuclear career has turned out to be quite satisfying. “I first worked at the Loviisa and Olkiluoto power plants in Finland. Then I went to work in Sweden. Then I worked at the Pickering power station in Ontario, Canada. This has Candu reactors, pressurized heavy water reactors, which are very different from the light water reactors in Finland. It was the most exotic place I ever worked in.”
Hietamäki says she found it easy to “move from one work place to the other. It’s a small world. It’s easy to network.” She has no fear that she will not have new opportunities once the Hanhikivi plant that’s being built by Fennovoima is up and running. “There is a market out there. In China tens of reactors are being constructed. There are new reactors being built in the Middle East, Asia, Europe.”
What she likes most about the work is the opportunity it offers “to do things really well. The nuclear sector is not just about being quick and efficient. It’s about safe, about good quality.” Moreover, there is a sense of a shared goal. “All people who work in nuclear have a common goal. To keep the plant in good shape.”
“Most people are quite neutral. They are open to arguments”
Working in the preparatory phase of Hanhikivi has been a fascinating experience, says Hietamäki. The Fennovoima team includes 20 nationalities at the moment. They also have intense collaboration with the Russians. “I just came back from a meeting in St. Petersburg. For Rosatom this project is very important. It will give them an opportunity to demonstrate that they can build a nuclear power plant according to modern, European standards.”
Not that progress has always been smooth. There have been delays, caused mostly by the very strict standards and instructions from Finnish nuclear regulator STUK that Fennovoima must conform to.
Hietamäki says she talks a lot with her colleagues about Olkiluoto-3, the EPR-plant that’s being built by Areva in Finland, and that’s faced with so much difficulties, including even lawsuits. “Some of my colleagues have worked there”, says Hietamäki. “The main problem is that they were still doing a lot of design work during construction. That did not work. We are designing and licensing our power plant to a higher level of detail before construction.” (Editor’s Note: after this interview was completed, Hietamäki changed jobs and went to work for Fortum on the start-up phase of Olkiluoto-3.)
What is also important for Hietamäki is to feel that she is working on something that is part of the future. “I feel that I am building something that will last. There will always be political discussion over nuclear energy. But we need to replace fossil fuels. And to maintain our quality of life. Sweden has found out that they could not do it without nuclear, not in our cold climate.”
As to the problem of radioactive waste, Hietamäki says “this can be handled. Compare it to the waste generated by other forms of energy. That’s a lot worse than what nuclear generates.”
Emotional
Päivikki Aarni, whose job it is, as human resources manager at Fennovoima, to find the “next generation” of nuclear workers, is not pessimistic about the future. According to her, only “a minority” of people are “emotional” about nuclear power. “Most people are quite neutral. They are open to arguments. Certainly technical people find the nuclear industry interesting, at least in principle.”
She does acknowledge that it’s a challenge to find the right people in some fields, such as ICT. “They usually have the option to look for what might seem faster, sexier jobs. We try to make it clear to them that our project offers really unique possibilities.”
Another difficult group to reach are people with experience in solid and nuclear fuels, says Aarni. “People who have experience in this area usually already have a job.” Fennovoima has been hiring about 100 people a year and will grow by 200 people in the coming years until the opening of the Hanhikivi plant in 2024.
“We have not succeeded in telling the world about our safety record. To convince people that nuclear is the safest and cleanest way to produce power”
How does she describe the company culture? “Safety is our core value”, she replies. “That’s what everyone needs to commit to. The responsibility at our company is bigger than what you have in most other places. We are also very results-oriented.  Many procedures are still under development. You need to try to find solutions.”
Cooperation and communication are also important values, says Aarni. “The hierarchy is very low.” In addition, people need to have a bit of a pioneering spirit to work on building a new nuclear plant, says Aarni, especially in such a far-away place as northern Finland. “Once we start on the construction, a lot of people will move up north. It will be a new beginning there. A real adventure with great responsibilities.”
Safest and cleanest
Despite the prevailing optimism in the industry, everyone is acutely aware that the future of nuclear power is not guaranteed. Insiders may be convinced that the world can’t do without nuclear, the outside world may not understand.
“We have not succeeded in telling the world about our safety record”, says Hietamäki. “To convince people that nuclear is the safest and cleanest way to produce power.”
Aarni concurs. “In the end, what matters is good communication to the outside world.”
According to Nathan Paterson, what needs to be done is “to bring nuclear power into the conversation. We should not just focus on energy prices. We should talk about what nuclear power can bring to our society over the next 50 years.”
“The question is about deep decarbonization, including in heating and transport. Nobody has the solution for that”
Paterson notes that “in 20 or 30 years we may have only EVs on the road. We will need reliable electricity for that. Once those conversations happen, it becomes clear nuclear has a role to play. If we want to build a better society, we need to think long-term. And to counter all the myths and sensationalized media reports about nuclear power. If we do that, I am sure there is enough interest among young people.”
Both Paterson and Desbazeille observe that the success of the next generation of nuclear will depend strongly on political support. “Because of issues around safety and public acceptance, nuclear needs strong political backing”, says Desbazeille. “It needs political stability.”
The big question in Europe today is how member states will decarbonize their energy mix. “This issue has not been addressed properly so far”, notes Desbazeille. “We want to get to 30% or 35% renewables in 2030. Fine, but that’s not nearly enough. A lot of people say this should be augmented by gas. But gas is still a fossil fuel. The question is about deep decarbonization, including in heating and transport. Nobody has the solution for that. I believe we can’t do it without nuclear. So I think the future for nuclear power looks good.”
[adrotate banner=”78″]
Bob Wallace says
How smart would it be to enter the nuclear industry at this point in time?
Regardless of the claims of some that nuclear is required in a low carbon future objective people know than to be false. If nuclear is to have a future role it will have to compete with renewables whose prices are much lower and continue to fall.
We just saw a contract for solar at less than $0.02/kWh in Mexico. ($0.0177/watt)
The nuclear industry has been working to lower the cost of reactors for over a half century but the price has only risen. Over and over we’ve been told that the next version will drop the cost only to see the cost rise.
It’s energy’s version of “The check is in the mail”.
How smart would it be to enter a mature industry that needs to drop its cost by more than 50% in order to survive?
Then there’s the problem that the nuclear industry in Europe and North America could suddenly die. And I do mean suddenly.
Lose control of a reactor in the western hemisphere, melt it down Chernobyl/Fukushima style and nuclear is done. People living around other reactors will demand that they be closed as rapidly as possible. Some will close overnight.
That whiz-bang reactor idea you’ve been working on will be defunded and there will be no openings for people trained in nuclear energy. (Unless you want to go to live in some remote country where information tends to trickle in slowly. A Somewhere-stan.
How non-smart would one have to be to enter a career in an industry that is likely to experience either a slow or a very fast death? Probably non-smart enough to go into coal exploration.
If you’re smart go into energy storage. Or sustainable materials to replace non-sustainable. Or if you want to do some very challenging work which could have an outstanding future get into atmospheric carbon capture and sequestering.
Arne ERIKSSON says
Now, why would you recommend going into energy storage, when you have so cheap RES? Ohh, maybe you are onto something, Bob! What is the price of that solar (?) electricity on a cold February morning, the sun still down, after 3 weeks of dark skyes, the wind is week…?
To be more clear: there is no comarison between the cost of dispatchable and non-dispatchable energy sources.
Bob Wallace says
” What is the price of that solar (?) electricity on a cold February morning, the sun still down, after 3 weeks of dark skyes, the wind is week…?”
The cost would be the cost of wind and solar plus the cost of storage.
The cost of storage? We simply don’t know what the cost will be ~20 years from now when we start needing that sort of ‘deep’ storage. But we do have a good idea the maximum cost. We can calculate that by taking the cost of wind, solar and storage today and doing some math.
In 2014 Citigroup stated that new pump-up hydro storage would cost $230/kWh. Finance that $230 for 20 years at 5%, cycle the storage 1x per day and it works out to $0.05/kWh.
Secretary Chu stated that we can create pump-up hydro for $100/kWh. Using the same term and rate that comes out to $0.02/kWh.
Wind and solar, in the US, are on their way to $0.02/kWh and should be there by the time we move into the need for large amounts of storage. That makes the electricity we will take directly from wind and solar farms $0.02/kWh and the electricity we take from pump-up hydro (stored wind/solar) $0.04/kWh. Or perhaps a bit higher.
Now the cost of storing for a few days of deep backup is going to be something in addition to that $0.04/kWh. The cost of making reservoirs larger in order to store additional energy. We’d have to guesstimate that but circle back to the Citigroup $0.5/kWh which included reservoirs as well as pumps and turbines. I’d guess making the reservoirs larger would not add much.
If it did there are other options. Run CCNG plants on biogas from sewage and landfill gas. Run converted coal plants on biowaste.
The final solution is likely to be a combination of daily and long term storage, dispatchable generation and overbuilding. And transmission lines.
Now, have you thought through the cost of running a grid with nuclear which seems to cost well over $0.10/kWh along with backup (spinning reserve) and either storage or load following in order to match supply and demand as well as keeping the grid operating 24/365?
I’d like to hear your thinking on that.
Mike Parr says
“In addition, new technologies, such as small modular reactors (SMRs), are being researched and developed, and a number of large European-wide R&D programmes are being carried out” .
In 1968 I watched the launch of a Polaris missile submarine in Birkenhead – it was powered by… a small modular nuclear reactor – all nuclear subs (missile or not) are powered by such systems – which have been around for +/- 60 years. I guess the issue is how to develop civilian versions? Nuclear could/should have a role to play in de-carb of power. The problem is how it fits with RES & urgency – Flammenville? the Finnish saga? more than a decade late for each one – in the mean time RES has got its act together both in terms of cost, in terms of scale and in terms of project on time & to budget. If (Euro) nuclear wants to be taken seriously, it needs to up its game. Civilian reactors have been around for more than 70 years (e.g. Calder Hall) – by now there should be no excuses in terms of on-time & too cost. Small reactors have been around for 60 odd years & still & still the mantra “we need more R&D”.
Just to ram the point home – the off-shore bunch scaled up 3x (from 3MW to around 9MW machines) – the projects roll on – on time & to budget. Nuclear? It’s a continual “over budget, over time, over ….there?”. In fact – the budget thing should not matter that much (what price to eliminate CO2 emissions?) – although the fossil people (and the nuke supporters) have in the past gone on about the cost of RES, now the argument has shifted to integration. Doubtless when that is resolved – when – not if, the argument will move to some other issue. Meanwhile, nuclear will bump along, same old same old, “give us money and we will deliver…. sometime in the future”. Problem is, time is somewhat short.
Good luck to the people working in the Euro nuclear industry – I hope they can deliver something that works in a time frame that is relevant.
Bob Wallace says
The argument for small modular reactors as far as I can see is that if there was a factory cranking them out then nuclear would be affordable.
What I haven’t seen is an argument made with believable numbers.
How many units per year would be needed to offset the cost of building the factory and automating production?
Assembling small reactors inside a building by hand is not likely to be any less expensive than building large reactors by hand. In fact, the cost could be higher. With nuclear, like wind, bigger is better.
One does not build a factory, run a small number of units through it, and recover startup costs. It might take hundreds to a several thousand units produced to cover the costs. (Remember, final cost would be critical. All costs would need to be minimized.)
Next question, how much might the cost per kWh be lowered? Current nuclear costs are well over $0.12/kWh (subsidized). US solar is now under $0.05/kWh and onshore wind is under $0.05/kWh (both unsubsidized). Mexico just signed a contract for solar under $0.02/kWh. The cost of nuclear would need to be cut by as much as 50% to get it back into the game.
Then, where are the customers for dozens/hundreds(?) of new modular reactors per year?
Whether you agree that it is rational or not there is a very large and very widespread resistance to nuclear. The only places now friendly to new nuclear seems to be ex-communist countries and other countries now governed by strong central (often dictatorial) governments. Are there enough of these places to create a market?
Nigel West says
Modular factory built components will lower construction costs significantly and reduce build time on site. The factories exist already – no need to invest large sums, e.g. Rolls Royce in Derby, UK, builds modular reactors for RN submarines. The US, France and Russia could also produce NSSS components for SMRs too using existing production sites.
BTW, plenty of countries are fine with new nuclear that are not ex-commy or run by dictators. You also know very well your back of the envelope numbers are not compatible as they exclude back-up, storage and grid reinforcement needed to make intermittents firm. Hence to decarbonise to the same extent that nuclear can. […]
Helmut Frik says
Well if these submarine SMR-Reactors are already on the market and so super cheap because being built in the factory, why does nobody buy them for use in power grids? Especially if there are so many nuclear friendly countries who want to have them?
Bob Wallace says
With so many companies aggressively seeking new business opportunities one has to wonder why an idea that has been publicly available for a half century hasn’t been taken up and implemented.
We have to go back only a decade or so to find a time when wind, solar and natural gas were not cheap like they are now. Nuclear could have been competitive at that point. But everyone passed on the idea.
BTW, those small reactor factories basically hand build the reactors. The market is far, far to small for automation.
Bill Rausch says
The small ship-sized reactors use highly enriched fuel, not suitable for regular power generation. The new modular reactor designs are quite different than the existing naval designs.
Bob Wallace says
There’s not much hope of SMRs being affordable. Nuscale projects $0.08/kWh which is far too high to be acceptable.
And Nuscale is using an estimate price after they have reached economies of scale. The first dozens/hundreds of SMRs manufactured would cost even more.
Where’s the market for electricity that would cost $0.08/kWh and higher?
Mike Parr says
“…..back of the envelope numbers are not compatible as they exclude back-up, storage and grid reinforcement needed to make intermittents firm” straw man argument = it has to be dispatchable.
Given there is a daily (& seasonal) variationin demand, given that NG estimates 9GW of DR in the UK (& at least similar proportions in other countries) the means to integrate RES into existing systems (at a relatively low cost) already exists & at a cost that is peanuts. These are realities – whether they fit your narrative or not.
Helmut Frik says
Some adecdotal information about young nuclear professionals from here. In earlier times every year many dozend students startes for nuclear engineering in Zwickau. in the 2000’nd years, this dropped to half a dozend. in 2016 this dropped to ONE new student, which makes it possible to hold all lessons in the professors office now. In most other university this direction of study already is closed down.
The supply chains for turbines and generators for thermal power plants in general are colsing down, which is also affecting nuclear, this time on the non nuclear side.
And who should pay the hundereds of billions of subsidies to build new nuclear pwoer stations, and for which purpose? Nuclear is not capable of the ramp rates needed to run residual load. And it does ot make sense to let them run as baseload when 90% of the time some other mode of generation can make this job cheaper. Or maybe 99% of the time, when grids are expanded. Or 99,9% of the time, when they are strongly expanded.
Nuclear delivers energy too expensive, and it delivers energy with the wrong profile of output. Students who have to decide where to go know this, and see things different than old nuclear engineers who are locked in in their business.
Nigel West says
There is no need for qualified nuclear engineers – I’ve never met one in all my time working on nuclear projects. Some people have a secondary qualification like a Masters degree in nuclear power.
In practice, physicists do the reactor design work but project development relys on qualified civil, mech. and electrical engineers. Their skills are readily transferable from other industries. The real issue is a lack of graduates in engineering in the west entering the profession. That affects all industries, not just nuclear power.
Bob Wallace says
I’ve heard concern from US nuclear folks that they’re worried about replacing staff at operating reactors. Apparently many working in the plants are approaching retirement age and will take their knowledge and experience with them. It sounded like there was some problem recruiting good people to take their place.
Renzo Tavoni says
Standardization and/or innovation? This is not a dilemma because we need both.Standardization mainly and innovation as an improvemnt of the standard reactor.
So which will be the standard winning we will se . The western companies did not succeed in that,but now the east side of the world is apparently interested in it and I hope they will reach the scope. Not fogetting time and cost
Bob Wallace says
Standardization of design should bring costs down some. Innovation? Perhaps.
But don’t overlook the size of the task. New nuclear in the West is more than $0.10/kWh.
Before Vogtle went so far over budget with delays the calculated cost was $0.11/kWh. (It’s now over $0.13/kWh.)
If Hinkley Point came online today the cost would start around $0.14/kWh and increase with inflation over the next 35 years.
Both of those are subsidized prices. In neither case is nuclear covering all expenses.
We’re seeing unsubsidized wind and solar for less than $0.02/kWh in the lowest cost places in the West. Average unsubsidized prices for wind and solar in the US are well under $0.05/kWh and will almost certainly decrease.
Can standardization and innovation cut the cost of nuclear by 50%? It will take a 50% or better cost drop to make nuclear competitive.
—-
Please don’t get into wind and solar needing storage/fill-in unless you also include the cost of spinning backup, storage, and fill-in for nuclear as well.
Either talk about the cost of generation for both or talk about the cost of large scale integration for both. Please keep it apples:apples.