RONALD REAGAN
NUCLEAR power plants can generate electricity without emitting carbon pollution. Calculated on the cost of electricity per kilowatt, nuclear power can also be cheap, especially if governments assume insurance risks and responsibility for waste disposal. A decade or so ago nuclear power was viewed by many, including myself, as having a role in the transition to a clean energy economy. It remains the preferred choice for many on the political right, who argue that the industry has huge potential for expansion, if only the greenies would get out of the way. But the future of nuclear power does not hinge solely on green politics. Economic factors will also play a large role.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the number of nuclear power plants rose rapidly from the industry’s beginnings in the mid-1950s, and global nuclear power-generating capacity peaked in 2010 at 375.3 gigawatts. By 2013 it had declined slightly to 371.8 gigawatts. If we look at the nuclear industry’s share of the global energy mix, however, the story is starker: in 1996 nuclear power was providing 17.6 per cent of the world’s electricity, but by 2013 only 10.8 per cent.1
It’s worth comparing these numbers with the growth of renewables, particularly wind and solar. In 2000, renewables (including hydro power) contributed 18.7 per cent of global electricity generation capacity. By 2012, that number had risen to 22.7 per cent.2 The generating capacities of wind and solar power are increasing at the same, rapid rate that nuclear power was in the 1970s and 1980s. By 2013, global wind capacity had grown to 320 gigawatts—equivalent to the capacity of nuclear in 1990.3
Nuclear power is not without its champions. China, with 26 nuclear power plants, has another 23 under construction. By 2020, these reactors will be producing 80 gigawatts of power. But that adds up to a mere 6 per cent of China’s electricity supply. If the national building program continues as planned until 2030, China’s nuclear power plants will then be generating 200 gigawatts of electricity.4
Pakistan also has grand plans for nuclear power, hoping to build 32 new reactors by 2050.5 Given the state of Pakistan’s economy, however, these plans are probably best regarded as aspirational. Russia’s planned nine new nuclear reactors, to be built by 2017,6 are perhaps more likely to eventuate. Most of the 31 nations with nuclear reactors have had mixed policies. A referendum held in Sweden in 1980 decided that the country should eventually close down all of its nuclear power plants, but in 2009 it was decided that 10 reactors should be retained. Canada was a nuclear pioneer, opening its first experimental reactor in 1947 and developing its own kind of reactor—the Cando (Canada Deuterium Uranium). Until around 2011, the country planned to expand its nuclear fleet. A new reactor was to be built in Alberta, in order to supply electricity to the tar sands, but market uncertainty has seen the plan dropped. Ontario, which hosts most of Canada’s reactors, also planned to build more nuclear reactors, but declining electricity demand has led to a policy reversal, and Ontario now intends to shutter 2,000 megawatts of capacity.7
Among its traditional champions, nuclear power is falling out of favour. Its decline has been particularly steep in Japan, where problems for the industry began to multiply rapidly after 11 March 2011, when a tsunami led to the meltdown of all six reactors at Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, north of Tokyo. More than 300,000 people were evacuated, many of whom remain in temporary accommodation. A huge public backlash against nuclear power set in. The Japan Times reported: ‘By shattering the government’s long-pitched safety myth about nuclear power, the crisis dramatically raised public awareness about energy use and sparked strong anti-nuclear sentiment.’ By May 2012, Japan’s last remaining nuclear reactor had been shut down, leaving the country entirely nuclear-free for the first time in 42 years. Then the Japanese government announced a ban on the construction of new nuclear power plants, and a 40-year lifetime limit on any existing ones that might be reopened.
The shuttering of all nuclear power meant the loss of 30 per cent of the nation’s generation capacity.9 A major negative short-term impact was that Japan had to import more fossil fuels10 (valued at 10 trillion Yen by early 2015). At the time of the catastrophe, renewables were not as competitive with fossil fuels as they are today. The energy rationing following the shutdowns had some negative economic impacts. But they also had some interesting, arguably positive societal impacts. For example, office workers in insufficiently air-conditioned offices adopted less formal dress, shedding jackets and ties, while working from home became more acceptable.
The drive for renewables is now strong in Japan, and with costs coming down dramatically they are the natural choice for powering Japan’s future. In 2012, I visited Panasonic’s Tokyo headquarters and heard from its employees how those forced to leave their homes after the Fukushima meltdown begged for solar panels, resolute never again to use nuclear. Partially in response to such feelings, Japan committed to a major boost to its renewables program. In August 2011, the government passed legislation to subsidise electricity from wind and solar. Sales of solar panels rose by 30.7 per cent to provide 1296 megawatts by the end of that year. At the same time Japan commenced construction of its first offshore wind farm. In December 2012, the pro-nuclear Abe government was elected, but the public remains trenchantly opposed to nuclear power, and the growth in renewables continues.
The Fukushima disaster resonated round the world. In its wake, plans for nuclear power plants were abandoned in Malaysia, the Philippines, Kuwait and Bahrain, and were radically changed in Taiwan. But nowhere outside of Japan was the impact as great as in Germany. In early 2011, nuclear power generated 17 per cent of Germany’s power.11 But on 29 May, just over two months after the Fukushima disaster, Angela Merkel’s government announced that it would close all of Germany’s nuclear power plants by 2022. As a first step, eight of the 17 operating reactors were permanently shut down. The global engineering company Siemens then announced its withdrawal from the nuclear industry, and a major rethink of Germany’s energy policy was put in train. Germany’s Energiewende, or ‘energy turning’, promises to make that country a world leader in placing low emissions technology at the heart of a highly sophisticated and industrialised power grid.
For all its dire consequences, Fukushima has not been the only problem dogging the nuclear industry. Costs, difficulties associated with managing an ageing fleet of reactors, and the need to diversify sources of power to increase energy security are also encouraging nations—including France, the undisputed champion of civilian nuclear power—to retreat from the technology.
In June 2014, energy minister Ségolène Royal announced that France would cut its dependence on nuclear power from a current 75 per cent to 50 per cent by 2025. Old nuclear power plants will be replaced by massive investments in solar and wind power, with 3000 megawatts of offshore wind farms (the equivalent of four nuclear power plants) to be built by 2020.12
Overlaid on this is the changing nature of electricity generation and distribution worldwide. Huge cost decreases in wind and solar, and the modular nature of these technologies, make it less difficult to raise the required capital. A few million dollars will buy you a wind turbine or a decent solar array, and these can be added to as demand or opportunity eventuates. Nuclear power, in contrast, is only cost effective at a massive scale—typically about two gigawatts. Such a plant could cost at least US$15 billion to build in the US or Australia and take at least a decade to complete, and the financial investment would take 40 years to pay off.
Investors rightly ask what the price of electricity from wind and solar will be four decades from now. Add in the problems of insurance and waste disposal, and it becomes clear why nuclear power is only progressing in countries where governments will provide huge subsidies in terms of accepting insurance risk, taking on decommissioning and providing fixed-price power purchase agreements that run for decades.
On top of this, the issue of long-term storage of high-level nuclear waste remains problematic. Over the 60-year lifetime of an average nuclear plant, enough highly radioactive waste to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool is generated. The waste will remain highly radioactive for several thousand years, yet not a single long-term, high-level nuclear waste facility exists anywhere on Earth.13 Given these factors, and the recent shrinking role of nuclear power globally, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the chances of a nuclear revival seem slender indeed.