The last two days in June 2018 saw the first power generation from two separate first of a kind nuclear plants in China. Taishan 1, a 1650 MWe European … [Read More...] about Nuclear plant output in China poised for rapid increases in 2018-2020
Researchers from Carnegie Mellon, University of San Diego, and Harvard recently published a useful call to action titled U.S. nuclear power: The vanishing low-carbon wedge. For pro-nuclear observers and debaters, their conclusion may seem quite depressing.
It should be a source of profound concern for all who care about climate change that, for entirely predictable and resolvable reasons, without immediate and profound changes, we appear to be set to lose one of the most promising candidates [nuclear power] for providing a wedge of reliable, low-carbon energy over the next few decades and perhaps even the rest of the century.
For nuclear entrepreneurs, energy policy creators, business leaders and other people of action, the conclusion sounds more like a plea. The study on which the conclusion rests should not be seen as a hand-wringing condemnation, but as a reasonably comprehensive identification of high priority areas of concentration. There’s no doubt that the current trajectory can lead to an industry collapse, but there’s also little doubt of the existence of tools that can alter course and speed enough to achieve a more favorable outcome.
Not so dramatic policy changes
The researchers for this study spent several years conducting parametric studies and eliciting the opinions of various experts to evaluate whether or not nuclear energy has a future in the U.S.
(Note: The authors acknowledge having received financial support for their work from a wide variety of grant-making organizations including: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (Grant 2016-7281); the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (Grant 12-101167-000- INP); the Center for Climate and Energy Decision Making (CEDM) through cooperative agreements SES-0949710 and SES-1463492 between the National Science Foundation and Carnegie Mellon University; the US Department of Veterans Affairs and Carnegie Mellon University Yellow Ribbon Program; the University of California, San Diego Frontiers of Innovation Scholarship Program; and the University of California, San Diego Deep Decarbonization Initiative.)
Their studies and expert surveys led them to believe that “barring some dramatic policy changes, it is most unlikely that nuclear power will be able to contribute to decarbonization in the United States, much less provide a new carbon-free wedge on the critical time scale of the next several decades.” That begs the questions, “What policy changes are needed? Are they as radical or dramatic as the researchers found?
One area where the recently published paper apparently overestimated the difficulty of favorable policy changes is in the case of new large, light water reactor plant construction. “Recent efforts to kickstart nuclear construction in the United States have failed.”
Though there have been considerable challenges in the form of cost and schedule overruns and a cancelled project, the Georgia Public Service Commission, the Vogtle 3 & 4 owners, the Congress and the President came together to make commitments and policy changes (settlement with Toshiba, agreement on a cost ceiling between Southern and GPSC, additional loan guarantee, extension of deadline to qualify for production tax credits, etc.) that should result in two completed units before the end of 2022. It is too early to declare failure and too early to assume that the issues that produced the cost and schedule challenges have not been, or cannot be overcome.
There are no new projects underway, but there are four sites (including VC Summer), with a total of 8 potential reactor units currently holding issued Combined Operating Licenses (COLs) based on the AP1000 design. It’s no surprise, given the difficulties experienced by the first of a kind projects, that the owners of the licensed projects have declared they have no current plans to use the licenses. It’s also well within the range of predictable outcomes that one or more will change their plans once the Vogtle units have completed all required testing and are fully operational.
When that happens, not only will it prove that the U.S. version of the AP1000 certified design is fully complete and constructible, but it will also prove the [temporary] existence of a large, experienced workforce with all of the require skills needed to build, test and start-up more units of that design.
The paper classified higher gas prices and “robust” carbon prices as necessary ingredients for a revival of interest in nuclear energy. It also declared that both of these were “unlikely to materialize soon.” Given the growth in natural gas exports as LNG, the increasing domestic demand for gas, and the lack of interest in expanded drilling, Energy Information Agency predictions for gas prices over the near term include price increases of up to 20% over the current $3.00 per MMBTU. The EIA has a history of underestimating volatility in gas prices.
There is also a recently announced bipartisan effort with significant corporate support to implement a carbon fee and dividend program. While still a relatively low probability occurrence, it may be a little more than “unlikely” that there will be a price put on CO2 emissions.
Even though many advanced, non light water reactors (LWR) have been tested and demonstrated at a significant scale, both in the U.S. and internationally, the researchers found few reasons to be optimistic about the commercial availability of any large non-LWR reactor designs until midcentury. They relied heavily on a review of past DOE programs and budgets along with a series of interviews conducted with “30 senior nuclear energy experts”.
They pointed to unpredictable budgets, historically small R&D budget numbers, allocation of at least half of the research budget to maintaining facilities, and lack of sharply focused program management.
“Our analysis suggests that in order for advanced nuclear technologies to play a role in deep decarbonization over the next several decades, more competent stewardship of nuclear innovation, substantially greater appropriations, and a change in energy markets, all very heavy lifts, will be required.”
The list of necessary changes is reasonable, though it’s a matter of debate whether or not they qualify as “very heavy lifts.” There is evidence of improved stewardship already and Congress has been discussing sharply increased funding in its recent budget hearings. The importance of short term energy market variations, however, might be somewhat exaggerated considering the long term nature of nuclear plant investments.
The paper notes that there is a lot of interest in smaller reactors as a way to overcome some of the cost and schedule hurdles faced by enormous projects. It provides details for the basis of their opinion that successful development of mass produced SMRs will require direct and indirect subsidies in the range of “several hundred billion dollars.” The authors go on to imply that in addition to that high level of government support,
“…the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission would need to find ways to dramatically accelerate its regulatory review processes, including addressing novel design options that depart from current practice, such as systems that encourage automation, multimodule construction and operation, smaller operational and security staffing levels, and perhaps dramatically smaller emergency planning zones. Moreover, a serious national commitment would have to be made to deeply decarbonize the energy system. The signal that this is happening must be strong enough for investors to confidently assume that the direct or in-direct cost of emitting carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will lie in the range of $100 per ton of CO2 within a decade. All these developments are possible, but we believe they are most unlikely.”
I believe that the authors have erred by implying that smaller reactors would need all of the following in order to succeed: multi-hundred billion dollar subsidies, a dramatically improved regulatory construct, and a high price on carbon. Any one of the three or a combination of partial realization of individual steps might be sufficient to encourage the kind of private investment interest that will result in a thriving, increasingly competitive energy option.
The glass is half full with a rising level, not half-empty with a lowering level.
The last two days in June 2018 saw the first power generation from two separate first of a kind nuclear plants in China. Taishan 1, a 1650 MWe European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) was connected to the grid at 5:59 pm local time on June 29, 2018. Less than 24 hours later, at 4:48 pm local time, Sanmen 1, a Westinghouse AP1000 rated at 1117 MWe was connected to the grid and began producing power for the first time.
Both of these milestones were substantially later than originally planned when their initial contracts were signed in November 2007 and September 2007 respectively. All members of the large teams that powered through challenges and contradicted naysayers deserve to feel a sense of accomplishment for a job done well, even if not done as quickly as all would have liked.
When construction began on Sanmen 1 in 2009, it was the world’s first AP1000 to reach that milestone. It is the first unit of a four reactor order for a consortium of Chinese utility companies; all three subsequent units are currently on track to begin commercial operation by the end of 2019. Sanmen 1 received its fuel loading permit on April 25 and began loading fuel on the same day. The second plant in the series, Haiyang 1 started loading fuel on June 21. If it follows the same schedule as the lead unit, it should achieve initial criticality in early August and connect to the grid by the end of August. The other two units are approximately 6 months behind the lead units.
When Taishan 1 construction started in 2009, it was the third EPR, following Okliluto and Flammanville. China General Nuclear Power International (CGN) was less timid than the owners of those two single unit projects; it decided to purchase and construct two units in a series on the same site. Fifty years worth of commercial nuclear plant experience indicates that two unit sites have better overall economics than single unit.
Both by incorporating early lessons from the first two EPR projects and being able to build on more recent nuclear plant construction and oversight experience, Taishan 1 overtook and passed the two EPRs that were started several years earlier to become the world’s first EPR to produce useful power.
When all six reactors are completed and operating, they will add more than 7.7 GWe in nuclear generating capacity to the Chinese grid. If they operate at a capacity factor of 80% they will generate a total of more than 54 billion kilowatt hours of emission-free electricity each year.
There’s still a lot of work to be done and operating experience to gain, but it’s nice to be able to note such important milestones.
Many days have passed since the last post here. Those of you who follow @Atomicrod on Twitter know that I have neither disappeared nor retired completely from the fray. After the 4th of July, you should begin seeing more frequent, but still irregular updates here. A word of advice based on recent learning experiences; I’ll […]
(Reprint. Originally published September 17, 2013. During the 4.5 years since the original appeared, the licensing moratorium mentioned has been lifted, and the confidence rule has been replaced by Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel [NRC–2012–0246] but stubborn opposition arises in response to any proposed solutions.) During the 1970s, the antinuclear movement made a collective […]
I’m going to beg forgiveness and literary license for the following extended, potentially inappropriate, and perhaps too personal metaphor. For several weeks, I’ve been struggling with finding my “voice” in dealing with current events related to the U.S. electricity production system. As part of my healing process, I went on a several day long reading […]
Late last week, while many observers were focused on a long weekend of religious celebrations with friends and families, there were several announcements made in the slowly developing crisis in the American electricity supply system. Operators of a number of several large power plants with the ability to produce electricity night and day, wind or […]
Though I take some pride in my critical reading skills and resistance to getting snookered by scam stories, I fell for a doozy yesterday. Unfortunately, I ended up propagating what might have been a clever ruse designed to paint nuclear energy advocacy in a bad light. It’s a story worth telling after I apologize profusely […]
California, an enormously populous and wealthy state with an outsized impact on the culture, economy and politics of the United States, has a gubernatorial election this year. Jerry Brown, who has served a total of four terms and is the son of a former two-term California governor, isn’t running for reelection due to term limits. […]
Mark Menezes, the Undersecretary of Energy at the Department of Energy, gave an optimistic, forward-looking, audience-flattering, stage-setting talk at the Advanced Reactor Technical Summit. At least five times during his 10-minute talk, he repeated various combinations of a phrase – “revive, revitalize and expand” – that is apparently the mantra that the Administration has chosen […]
Last week, the Nuclear Infrastructure Council hosted its 5th annual Advanced Reactor Technical Summit. The agenda was packed; information and ideas came rapidly enough to inspire significant post-event reflection. One question worth of significant additional discussion is “How do we match the ingenuity and enthusiasm of atomic innovators with the large magnitude financing sources needed […]
By Peter Lyons Somewhere in Russia, 34 tons of surplus weapons-grade plutonium—enough material to make about 10,000 weapons—are awaiting disposal. Moscow was supposed to start destroying this stockpile, but has yet to start, leaving a huge threat lurking in an unknown location. If even a tiny fraction of this material fell into terrorists’ hands, they […]
I’ll start with a thank you and a congratulations to the Nuclear Infrastructure Council, David Blee, Caleb Ward and all supporting staff for assembling a great cast of attendees and speakers at the fifth annual Advanced Reactor Technical Summit. The event was a high quality, well run and skillfully moderated affair that provided valuable learning […]