Rushton, Michael

English

Bangor University Research Portal

   PRIFYSGOL BANGOR / BANGOR UNIVERSITY  Exploring small nuclear to plug the energy gapsRushton, MichaelNatureDOI:10.1038/d41586-022-02834-1Published: 08/09/2022Peer reviewed versionCyswllt i'r cyhoeddiad / Link to publicationDyfyniad o'r fersiwn a gyhoeddwyd / Citation for published version (APA):Rushton, M. (2022). Exploring small nuclear to plug the energy gaps. Nature, 609(7926), S8.https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-02834-1Hawliau Cyffredinol / General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/orother copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legalrequirements associated with these rights.            • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of privatestudy or research.            • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain            • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access tothe work immediately and investigate your claim. 13. Feb. 2023Nature energy – opinion piece  By Michael J.D. Rushton  Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has in February 2022 sent shockwaves through world energy markets and triggered concerns over energy security, leading to renewed interest in nuclear power and the technology that underpins it.   The current situation echoes the 1973 oil crisis, when an oil embargo contributed to the largest contraction in the world’s economy since the Great Depression4. This resulted in expansion in nuclear programmes, as nations affected by the embargo sought to break their dependence on foreign oil imports1. In 1974, for example, the French prime minister Pierre Messmer announced that all of France's electricity needs should be met by nuclear5–7. France installed 56 reactors over the next 15 years. Today, the country still generates most of its electricity from nuclear power and despite this not being original intention, has among the lowest CO2 emissions from electricity production in Europe8.   If we are to successfully combat climate change, nuclear may be a better alternative than increased oil prospecting. As fossil fuel prices rise, the cost of nuclear power, which was once deemed too high, is now competitive. Even countries that withdrew from nuclear after the 2011 Fukushima accident, such as South Korea and Japan, have stated their desire to recommit to the technology9,10. In light of this, could we see modern versions of the Messmer Plan being implemented?  In the near term, new reactors will be built from existing designs. These large, water-cooled reactors produce between 600 Megawatts electric (MWe) (Canada’s CANDU reactor, for example), and 1650 MWe (France’s EPR) and have excellent operational characteristics, with very low down time meaning they generate electricity more than 90% of the time and design lives of 60 years. But they take an average of nearly eight years to construct, with some projects taking much longer. Finland’s Olkiluoto 3 reactor, for example, took 16 years to build11. The large up-front costs (in the order of billions of dollars) and long delay before seeing a return on investment has deterred investors seeking assets that can be built more quickly and cheaply.  Small modular reactors (SMRs), in contrast, aim to address these issues and could be deployed by the end of the decade. The SMR concept puts an emphasis on factory construction, enabling advanced manufacturing methods and a reduction in on-site construction and hence weather delays. These reactors target power levels of 200 to 500 MWe. By requiring construction times of half that of large reactors, SMRs reduce unit price to levels suitable for private investment – although multiple units will be required to produce the same output as a larger plant.  The main barrier to the success of SMRs lies in attracting sufficient orders to cover the cost of development and a factory. Even if this is achieved, siting and licensing may still be obstacles. Current regulatory systems are geared towards a small number of large projects, with each often taking years to be approved. This will need to be streamlined if the rapid development of an SMR fleet is to be practical.  SMRs can provide heat at 315°C, if it is extracted from the output of the reactor core, however doing this means there is less energy in the steam entering the power-station’s turbine generators and the efficiency of electricity generation is reduced considerably. Consequently heat is more usually taken after the steam turbines at 100-200°C allowing heat to be provided with only a small hit to electrical generating efficiency. This can still support processes such as desalination, paper production and drying. It is also suitable for domestic water heating through district-wide heating schemes.   There is a long history of nuclear district heating in countries such as Switzerland, Sweden, Canada and Eastern Europe, but  their high infrastructure cost has deterred widespread use. It could become competitive, however, if gas prices fail to fall significantly. Recent projections for a scheme to heat Paris from large reactors estimated a cost of €42/MWh (US$44.86/MWh). This compares well to the current gas price of €79/MWh, which has fallen from a high of €105/MWh at the end of April. Cost could also be reduced further through the use of SMRs, which aim to allow siting closer to population centres, reducing the length and cost of the heat transmission network.  A  new generation of high-temperature reactors are also currently being developed (as an example the Generation IV International Forum has 11 nations as active members), which suit applications such as iron smelting and efficient hydrogen production via steam electrolysis and thermochemical routes (the latter having been demonstrated at pilot scale already with Japan's high temperature test reactor).   Although new enthusiasm for nuclear power may be driven by the same factors of energy security and price as the oil shock of 1973, its ability to provide low-carbon electricity and process heat means it is perhaps an even more relevant choice for today’s energy systems than it was back then. By doing more than just producing electricity, it can aid in deep decarbonisation by displacing oil and gas, which also reduces the geopolitical power that can be wielded by those who control its supply.       1. Toth, F. L. & Rogner, H.-H. Oil and nuclear power: Past, present, and future. Energy Econ. 28, 1–25 (2006). 2. International Energy Agency, Nuclear Energy Agency, & Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Projected Costs of Generating Electricity 2020 Edition. (International Energy Agency, 202AD). doi:10.1787/9789264163706-en. 3. Oil shock: the 1973 crisis and its economic legacy. (I.B. Tauris, 2016). 4. Bjornland, H. C. The Dynamic Effects of Aggregate Demand, Supply and Oil Price Shocks-A Comparative Study. Manch. Sch. 68, 578–607 (2000). 5. Feldman, D. L. Public Choice Theory Applied to National Energy Policy: The Case of France. J. Public Policy 6, 137–158 (1986). 6. Chong, J. M. Of Uranium and Carbon: Divergence of Energy Policy in Germany and France. Claremont-UC Undergrad. Res. Conf. Eur. Union 2015, 25–33 (2016). 7. Topçu, S. Confronting Nuclear Risks: Counter-Expertise as Politics Within the French Nuclear Energy Debate. Nat. Cult. 3, 225–245 (2008). 8. Scarlat, N., Prussi, M. & Padella, M. Quantification of the carbon intensity of electricity produced and used in Europe. Appl. Energy 305, 117901 (2022). 9. Davies, C. South Korea signals nuclear fuel U-turn as global energy crisis looms. The Financial Times (2022). 10. Oda, S. & Reynolds, I. Japan’s Leader Says Nuclear Power Should Be Reconsidered as Energy Costs Soar. Bloomberg: Green. 11. Portugal-Pereira, J. et al. Better late than never, but never late is better: Risk assessment of nuclear power construction projects. Energy Policy 120, 158–166 (2018).  

Exploring small nuclear to plug the energy gaps

https://research.bangor.ac.uk/portal/files/49586976/Nuclear_Energy_ArticleBCDP.pdf

Exploring small nuclear to plug the energy gaps

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Bangor University Research Portal