Is nuclear power set to emerge as the preeminent energy resource of our time?

The energy revolution that is accompanying the depletion of petroleum resources has given rise to a new global debate as to which resource is the most abundant and the most economically viable in terms of meeting the energy needs of future generations. The three leading candidates are renewable energy resources, coal, and nuclear power. Can renewable energy resources meet the world's energy needs? Can coal - which is so abundant on our planet - be a worthy successor to oil? And as for nuclear power: need we still fear it? It would appear that nuclear power is the only energy resource that can successfully meet the energy challenges of the 21st century, despite the problems it entails - namely security, and radioactive waste.

By 2050, world population will have risen to 10 billion, i.e. 4 billion higher than today's level. This global demographic jump, combined with substantial economic development in developing countries, will translate into a worldwide rise in energy consumption, resulting in a prognosticated doubling of demand relative to today's levels, notwithstanding any energy efficiency measures that may be implemented. Energy use for the entire world currently breaks down as follows: nuclear power: 7%; renewal energy resources: 14%; and fossil fuel (coal, oil and natural gas): 79%. As the far and away largest chunk of the energy pie, fossil fuel poses two problems: the depletion of natural reserves; and the major role it plays in global warming. In the face of the aforementioned growing demand, the carbon emissions of industrialized countries will have to be cut by 5.2% between 2008-2012, relative to 1990 levels, according to the rules imposed by the Kyoto Protocol, which came into force in 2005. The world's major industrial powers have realized that in order to achieve this goal, it is imperative that the following two measures be implemented: (a) renewable resources' share of the energy "pie" must be ramped up; and (b) another abundant energy resource must be used as an adjunct to renewable resources. The only resources that experts have indicated meet this latter criterion are nuclear power and coal. However, in order to be used widely, each of these resources must clear major hurdles.

Coal: the nightmarish cloud in the silver lining of booming production

According to scientists' prognostications (source: AIE 2004), our planet only has enough oil reserves for the next 40-60 years, and enough natural gas for 70-90 years. In other words, the countdown has begun. The unstable geopolitical situation in the regions where 70% of the world's oil reserves and 66% of its natural gas reserves are located - the Middle East, Russia, and the central Asian States of the former Soviet Union (FSU) - constitutes a sword of Damocles in terms of energy prices for vendors, who are faced with the prospect of seeing prices quadruple abruptly as the result of international tensions. This is exactly what happened in 2006 in the standoff between Russia and Ukraine. In other words, vendors (and energy prices) are at the mercy of potential economic catastrophes - a situation that the industrialized countries would dearly love to escape from. As it happens, coal is by far the most promising of all the available fossil fuels. Over the past three decades, the increase in coal consumption has kept pace with the 3% annual rise in world energy consumption. Coal now meet one-quarter of the world's primary energy needs (versus one-third for oil) and 40% of the planet's electricity requirements. There is sufficient coal available for at least the next 150 years, and deposits are distributed fairly equally across the planet (except in the Middle East). Geographically, world coal reserves break down as follows: US: 25.4%; the former Soviet Union (FSU): 23.4%; Europe: 12.7%; China: 11.6%; and India: 8.6%. If current trends remain steady, coal consumption could continue to rise by 1.8% annually, which means that it would progress to 60% by 2030. This would particularly be the case in China, the world's largest coal producer and consumer, with 75% of its electricity coming from coal fired plants; and India, which recently began building (in the eastern part of the country) the world's largest coal fired power plant, whose output will be the equivalent of three French nuclear power plants. The US is just behind India (half of whose electricity is generated by coal), followed by Japan, Australia, Poland, Russia and Germany (the latter is ranked tenth among European coal consumers).

Coal's enviable position and its numerous advantages make it a serious competitor that could easily dethrone its rivals. But it also has its drawbacks, the most serious being that its carbon emissions are higher than any other fossil fuel (35% more carbonic gas emissions than oil and 72% more than natural gas). This would translate into nearly a 50% increase in greenhouse gases by 2050, which is a catastrophic and simply unthinkable scenario. Coal can only be used viably if it can be transformed into a clean energy source, in one of two ways: either by equipping classic coal fired power plants with an extractor that captures the CO2 in the flue gases; or by building a new generation of coal fired power plants that gasify the coal prior to combustion, an operation that produces a mixture of hydrogen and CO2 known as syngas. Both of these approaches are technically feasible, but are also cost intensive. Ironically, most of the countries that did not sign the Kyoto Protocol are those that have the largest coal reserves. And so, in view of the problems associated with coal, and if despite all of the efforts of the industrialized countries affected, the goal of "clean carbon" isn't achieved, what are the available alternatives? How about the increased deployment of renewable energy resources (sun, wind, geothermal, and biomass), which currently produce a mere 0.4% of the world's primary energy; or hydroelectricity, which accounts for only 2.2% of planetary energy consumption. As for biomass, it's still in its infancy - plus the fact that extensive use of biomass could quicken the pace of deforestation (which has been ongoing for the past 800 years), and exacerbate climatic derangements.

The pernicious effects of global warming

In presenting his film, A Disturbing Truth, worldwide in October 2006, former US vice president Al Gore launched a ringing call to arms to all of the world's citizens. Gore reiterated his message on the occasion of his visit this past June 21 to the 54th annual International Festival of Publicity in Cannes, where he said: "The scope of this crisis requires from each one of us prompt, audacious and rational action . Truth is a force that can help us to fight against the inevitable." "Inevitable" here means the inexorable exacerbation of global warming and its impact on global climate and biodiversity. Analyses of air bubbles trapped in ice have shown that fluctuations in carbonic acid concentration correlate with temperature levels. According to NASA, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased 30% since 1750. Over the past two centuries, humanity has released supplementary amounts of greenhouse gases which trap the heat from these gases in the atmosphere. Calculations have shown that half of the CO2 generated by human activity is added to naturally occurring atmospheric CO2. The remainder is absorbed 33% by the world's oceans and 66% by vegetation. But 16.3% of the surface area of Brazil's Amazon rain forests has been destroyed since 1970, which is the equivalent of the total combined surface area of France and Portugal. Moreover, nearly 80% of our planet's primary forests have vanished. This process of deforestation results in soil that is devoid of any significant vegetation cover, and being less protected, it is more prone to wind and rain erosion. Ultimately the area turns into a desert. And only 10% of deforested areas are currently reforested, Europe and China being the only regions where adequate reforestation is realized.

Deforestation also impacts the world's climate, i.e. its oceans, atmosphere and glaciers. Water input is modified by climatic variations, resulting in fluctuations in the levels of seas and lakes (source: Laboratoire des sciences de la terre, ENS Lyon). The Mediterranean is currently at its historically lowest level for the past two centuries, according to Michael Tsimplis of the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, England. This finding is based on data from ocean measurement stations. Tsimplis says that the level of the Mediterranean has decreased by three to five centimeters since 1960, and that the level decreases 1.3 mm annually. According to the recent (British) Stern report on climate change, the earth's mean surface temperature may increase by five degrees over the next century if measures aren't taken to reduce greenhouse gases significantly. In light of this global threat, just prior to the opening of the COP12 climate conference in Nairobi in November 2006, for the first time in its 32 year existence the International Energy Agency (IEA) said that the increased use of nuclear power would help to meet the increase in energy demand. "Nuclear energy must play a key role in the future - on one hand to guarantee the security of the energy supply, and on the other to fight against climate change" noted IEA Chief Economist Fatih Birol.

Who are today's users of nuclear power?

Currently mined uranium deposits are scattered across many countries: 29% in the former Soviet Union (FSU); 20% in Australia; 18% in North America; and 17% in Africa. Europe and the FSU produce 46% of the world's nuclear power, and 36% is generated in North America. Nuclear power provides 8% of the energy consumed in the US; 14% in Europe; and 38% in France, where it accounts for 78% of national electricity consumption. Approximately one third of the world's population lacks the basic services that require electricity (lighting, refrigeration, phones, radio, and TV), as well as cooking and heating facilities, which use natural gas, coal or heating oil. The vast majority of these two billion people inhabit the urban fringes of cities in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, where nuclear power is mainly used in Japan (14% of all energy consumed), South Korea (13%) and Taiwan (10%). Nuclear power provides 1.4% of the energy consumed in India, 0.9% in Pakistan, 0.6% in China, 2.4% in Argentina, and 1.9% in Brazil.

Although until recently it was believed that the world's extractable uranium reserves were sufficient for only 85 years of consumption, thus placing its cost on a par with that of natural gas, a recent International Energy Agency (IEA) study, based on the most recent prospecting results, shows that the actual amount is higher by a magnitude of seven. This is welcome news for the 13 Member States of the Generation IV forum, whose main objective is to meet the following dual challenge now facing humanity through the launch of six studies of fast neutron reactors: provide a reliably steady supply of electricity; and achieve a maximum reduction in greenhouse gases, i.e. CO2 emissions that are nearly 50 times lower than with coal. South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, the US, the Euratom treaty States, France, Japan, Britain, Switzerland, China and Russia gathered in Nice, France from May 14-16, 2007 on the occasion of the 6th International Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants, with a view to taking stock of current advances in nuclear power plant technology and research, and to evaluate the potential of the most promising technologies that are likely to emerge by 2020-2025.

Nuclear power of the future: third and fourth generation nuclear technologies

Organized by the Société Française du Nucléaire en France (SFEN), and held under the aegis of the AIEA, AEN/OCDE and the European Commission, this sixth edition featured more than 600 delegates from 32 countries, and exhibits presented by 30 of the most prominent players in the electronuclear industry, based on the umbrella theme of "renaissance." The sector's heavy hitters from the US, Japan, Russia, China, South Korea and elsewhere each showed how their design, operation, and maintenance solutions coalesce to form a vision of this nuclear renaissance - a vision that centers around the new generations of supergenerators, which are slated for roll out over the next 15 years. These vendors then presented the remarkable R&D results that have been achieved for the development of third generation systems (e.g. optimization of nuclear fuel and nuclear power plant service life; improved processing methods for spent fuel; and advanced computerized simulation techniques); as well as fourth generation systems (strategies and programs for rapid sodium reactors; innovations in the realm of fuel and materials; new options for downstream-cycle and waste management).

In 2002 the Generation IV forum selected the following six technologies that could potentially achieve these goals: gas-cooled fast reactor (GFR); lead cooled fast reactor (LFR); supercritical water reactor (SWR); very high temperature reactor (VHTR); and sodium cooled fast reactor (SCFR). Of the six initial models presented, four have now been selected, three are based on fast neutron reactor technology, and one on high temperature reactor technology. The IACPP conference revealed that the project partners clearly prefer lead cooled fast reactor technology, judging from the actors that are the most competitive (25% cost reduction announced by the Indians for the fast breeder test reactor (FBTR)); that provided the best performance (good sodium pump service life); and that are the safest (it is now possible to reduce the sodium reaction in water and thus minimize the risk of accidents, e.g. the 1995 incident at the Monju reactor in Japan).

Strengthening safety measures was one of the central issues discussed at the conference.

At the conclusion of the three days of presentations, the various international experts came to the following conclusion: of all the sources of energy available today, nuclear power seems to be the solution that provides the best performance and is the most competitive throughout the world when it comes to generating electricity that can reduce greenhouse gases and the extent to which industrial countries are at the whim of external factors, while at the same time making it easier for developing countries to obtain the energy they need. This key choice for the future will require major market operators (power companies and financial institutions) to provide far-reaching guarantees, and for these operators to be granted the permits needed to construct third and fourth generation nuclear power plants in such a way that the projects go off without a hitch. The major nuclear sector players in France - and most notably the EDF Group, which is the industry leader - have emphasized the key role played by government in defining stable ground rules for the long term, as well as fostering guarantee systems that are keyed to investments. Nuclear power will remain the predominant source of electricity in France for the foreseeable future, although due allowance will be made for the requisite diversification. Hence, optimal conditions for the operation of the existing nuclear fleet must be maintained, since safety and competitiveness are at stake; but at the same time the option to use nuclear power as a basis for renewing the nuclear fleet should be left open.

EDF's nuclear power policy

In its capacity as an owner and operator of nuclear power plants, EDF has defined a medium and long term strategy for its nuclear fleet with a view to achieving two key goals: ensuring that the company's 58 reactors spread across 19 sites are properly maintained; and taking steps to prolong the service life of these facilities. Toward this end, at its June 14, 2007 meeting the EDF board of directors awarded AREVA-NP a more than 100 million euro contract for maintenance and modernization services and engineering for the boilers in France's 34 900 MW nuclear reactors that went into operation between 1977 and 1987. This is the first of three major contracts that were awarded as a result of the third ten-year inspections of these facilities. These services will be provided over a ten year period as from 2009, beginning with the Tricastin and Fessenheim plants (in the Drôme and Haut-Rhin regions respectively). France's nuclear fleet is relatively young, with average reactor age amounting to 20 years (range: 4-28 years). EDF's strategy comprises the following elements: prolong the service life of the current nuclear power plants to 40 years, subject to regulatory approval; construct a third generation European pressurized water reactor (EPR) at the Flamanville site (the first such facility is currently under construction in Finland) that is still based on pressurized water technology; lay the groundwork for the advent of fourth generation reactors. This strategic decision will ensure that an advantageously homogenous nuclear fleet is available beyond 2035, and will also deliver improved safety and optimized production costs. For the 2007-2009 period, EDF's R&D division has set itself the challenge of evaluating the various power generation options for the future (in terms of possible diversification of the EDF portfolio, as well as any changes in consumption patterns and in the choices made by EDF affiliates) with a view to elaborating a coherent approach to the French, European and world energy mix.

The role of innovative affiliates in the renewal of France's nuclear fleet

Launched by the EDF Group in 2001, the INOVACT (Innovative Reactor Concepts) project has allowed an initial selection to be made of the most promising innovative nuclear reactor technologies. Two European pressurized water reactors (EPR) are currently under construction in Europe, with the facility at the Olkiluotol plant in Finland being slated to go online first. Preliminary construction got underway on the second EPR plant in Flamanville, France in early 2007, with rollout scheduled for 2012. In 2015, after three years of operation at full capacity, the EDF Group plans to analyze the results obtained on the basis of the following priority criteria: safety, power, and rate of return delivered by the business model. Following this assessment, EDF will decide whether to build additional EPRs with a view to renewing its nuclear fleet by 2010-2030. The US, China, and Britain are also interested in generation III technology. If generation IV development has progressed well by the aforementioned date and appears to be more promising in terms of safety, power, and reliability while still allowing for competitive construction costs, the EDF Group may then decide to prolong the service life of its second generation reactors and also base the renewal of its nuclear fleet on fourth generation reactors. As for the decision as to which technology France will use for generation IV reactors, scientists and engineers are currently working on two different fast neutron reactor models under the aegis of the France's atomic energy commission CEA (Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique): the rapid sodium reactor (RSR) and the gas-cooled fast reactor (GCFR), based on helium in this case. The CEA is also participating in engineering studies on the very high temperature reactor (VHTR).

Dismantlement of the nuclear fleet: how much will it cost the consumer?

The EDF Group has realized financial projections concerning the incremental dismantlement of end of cycle reactors. Dedicated financial provisions for this type of major project are defined in each year's budget. For example, of the 154 billion euros in Group balance sheet liabilities in 2004, 27 billion euros were allocated to provisions for dismantling nuclear power plants (25 billion for French reactors and 2 billion for the reactors operated by the German EDF affiliate EnBW). This provides balanced funding for nuclear waste reprocessing (13 billion euros) and reactor dismantlement (12 billion euros). And so the question arises: Do consumers foot the bill (whether directly or indirectly) for this dismantlement process? And if so, is the bill high? Answer: The consumer's electricity bill does include the proportional amount of these costs, but the consumer's share is negligible, amounting to less than 1% of the kilowatt hours produced.

*source: EDF documents