Nuclear energy going into the future

At present, 5% of the world's global energy supply and 11% of the world's electricity supply comes from nuclear energy. However the potential for this to increase is quite clear. The World Nuclear Performance Report (2016) estimates that nuclear energy could provide up to 17% of the world's energy supply by 2050. Despite this immense potential to create an even diverse energy mix, some countries are still apprehensive about adopting nuclear power as an energy source and this has mainly been driven by the events that enfolded in Fukushima during 2011 (Chu and Majumdar 2012 writing in 'Nature'). Throughout the entirety of this blog, I have been quite neutral in terms of my assessment of nuclear power however I would like to make it clear in this post that I am quite pro-nuclear. However, if we are to make nuclear energy a success story, there are two main hurdles in my opinion which we must deal with - security risks and nuclear scepticism:


Geopolitical risks from nuclear power:

Concern regarding the security threats posed by terrorists and other entities on nuclear energy installations is entirely justified given the numerous threats issued. On top of this, as mentioned in my earlier blog posts, many of the world's nuclear installations are also based in areas where the risk of terrorism is quite high. Threats do not just come from terrorist outfits, but also from states such as North Korea who are developing their nuclear programs, often for malicious purposes. Well, how can we solve this problem? That is the prevailing question that all international organisations and countries are faced with and there are no simple solutions.

An interesting solution put forward by Bleek and Lorber (2014), one I agree with, is that certain countries around the world need to be given security guarantees in order to reduce nuclear proliferation risks. In simpler terms, it means that if a country that does not have a nuclear weapons program is threatened, countries and international organisations should support the country militarily in the case of a conflict. This could deter non-nuclear weapon holding countries from developing their own weapons. Another solution to deal with nuclear security threats is to increase security along nuclear installations. At present, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has provided countries with specialist equipment and training to ensure that their nuclear security is meeting international standards. However, I still believe that individual countries must also play their part to ensure that their nuclear facilities are secured to an acceptable extent. It only takes one event like Fukushima to derail the positive effect that nuclear energy can play in our energy system.

Nuclear scepticism

Another key hurdle in the successful use of nuclear energy is public opposition. A poll from Ipos Mori in 2011, which gathered opinions from over 24 countries, suggested that 62% of people were against nuclear power. This resentment has given way to nuclear energy being contested by large scale NGOs such as Greenpeace, but also by citizen led movements propping up all around the world. One which comes to my mind is the one in Taiwan during March 2014 where 130,000 people marched against a government decision to build more nuclear plants.

Protest in Taiwan against the building of nuclear power plants in March 2014

The sensible thing to do in the face of public opposition, is not to ignore and silence people, but to listen to their objections and grievances. As Rolf and Ingermar (1992) rightly explain, citizen uprisings must not always been seen as selfish reactions. When deciding to build nuclear power plants, ordinary people must be included in the decision-making process through public consultations and feedback sessions. This could limit opposition and ensure that a consensus is reached. A key example of this is the consultation that EDF has carried out in regards to the building of the Sizewell C nuclear power station on the Suffolk coast. Feedback and surveys in this example have changed the initial plans and have made sure that the concerns of ordinary people are listened to - have a look at this video below: 

Another interesting solution to public opposition is offered by Kiran Stacey in the Financial Times, in which she suggests that small modular reactors could be built. These small scale, moveable reactors are cost efficient and would be likely to reduce public opposition as their noise generation is also at a minimum.

The future for nuclear power is bright, however public opposition and security risks must be considered and dealt with effectively. Nuclear power is an alternative to the greenhouse gas emitting coal and oil and offers a vital opportunity to transform economies, lives and our society in general (believe me, I am not exaggerating). 

To end on a funnier note, enjoy the 'Nuclear Power Song' which is performed by Environment Man. It will surely lighten up your mood:

Trump and nuclear energy: future of America's nuclear policy

In a stunning, opinion-poll defying victory, Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton on 9th November 2016 to clinch the White House. Whilst this stunning victory has reignited populist and anti-establishment political parties around the world, it is important to understand what implications this victory has for the nuclear industry in America - the world's superpower. Whilst Trump's stance on nuclear weapons is quite clear cut and strong, including his failure to rule out using nukes against ISIS as the video below shows, it is not really known how pro-nuclear energy he is.

Trump expressing his view on nuclear weapons through Twitter

If there was one thing which both of the presidential candidates agreed on, it was nuclear energy - both supported it during the debates. However, the fact is that most Americans think otherwise. Analysing a 2008 MIT study, Ansolabehere and Konisky (2009) reported that 55% of Americans would oppose the construction of nuclear plants near their neighbourhood. A more recent survey conducted by polling agency Gallup in 2016 found that a majority of 54% Americans oppose nuclear energy. This public opinion against nuclear energy sits quite uneasy alongside Donald Trump's populist stance in which he claimed to represent the views of ordinary Americans on the campaign trail.

Gallup survey result showing that a majority of Americans oppose nuclear energy 

Donald Trump's own 'America First Energy Plan' states that 'we will get the bureaucracy out of the way of innovation, so we can pursue all forms of energy which includes nuclear'. However, Trump has also favoured the coal industry and has claimed to bring back millions of coal jobs. The real question is: will he favour coal over nuclear? That is the million dollar question in my opinion. So far there are positive signs as Trump's transition team has contacted the Energy Department  for assistance regarding how to keep nuclear reactors operational across America. But knowing Trump's uncertain and often contradictory nature, the future role of nuclear energy in America's energy mix still remains murky. As soon as Donald Trump takes hold of the presidency, he must make his policy more obvious as it could have reverberations across the globe.

Britain: a nuclear renaissance?

If you remember, last week I focused on how France has used nuclear energy as a key tool to increase it's energy independence and boost electricity generation. The same story is starting to emerge in Britain in my opinion. Successive British governments have not really been too keen on nuclear energy, with one government White Paper in 2003 titled 'Creating a Low Carbon Economy' stating that 'current economics make nuclear energy an unattractive option'. Given the fluctuating nature of politics, however, government intentions have since changed. Speaking at the World Nuclear Association Symposium in London during 2013, the former Minister of State of Energy (now Secretary of State for Defence), Michael Fallon gave a long speech outlining the Coalition governments energy agenda. Amid all of the political posturing in the speech, three quotes really caught my attention:

'Investing in energy infrastructure is a key part of this Government's growth agenda'

'UK's nuclear market is an attractive one to be part of and we will continue to make the conditions right for investment'

'The skills gaps highlighted can be used as a basis for targeted policy and industry interventions to ensure maximum job opportunities are created locally'

I would like to use these three quotes to analyse whether Britain has made a turn towards nuclear energy, or whether these words are just plain political talk and nothing else.

'Investing in energy infrastructure is a key part of this Government's growth agenda'

The government has sent positive signals in regards to investment in energy infrastructure. As part of the Autumn Statement in 2016, Phillip Hammond (Chancellor of the Exchequer) announced a £23 billion funding in order to boost energy infrastructure, including funding for nuclear power plants. Such investment is not just restricted for building energy infrastructure, but also for maintenance and innovation. UK and China have also promised to co-fund a £50 million nuclear research centre called Joint Research and Innovation Centre (JRIC) in Cumbria which will help to develop new nuclear reactors and aid research in power generation systems.

'UK's nuclear market is an attractive one to be a part of and we will continue to make the conditions right for investment'

Signs since 2009 suggest that the UK government is trying it's best to be seen as an attractive location for nuclear investment. As Lee (2009) explains, the government has established the Office for Nuclear Development which brought forward stakeholders such as engineers and scientists together in order to facilitate a nuclear plant building programme. This has since borne fruit, as the government confirmed the building of the Hinkley Point C power plant project in Somerset through agreements with EDF and the Chinese government on 15th September 2016. This £18 billion project through international cooperation is certainly a signal for other foreign investors that the British government is open to investment in it's nuclear sector as subsidies are being provided for nuclear plants which should encourage other countries/organisations.

Plans for the Hinkley Point C plant 

'The skills gaps highlighted can be used as a basis for targeted policy and industry interventions to ensure maximum job opportunities are created locally'

Payne and Keep (2011) have argued that British policy has often focused too much on boosting the supply of workers rather than working on skills and what employees want. For some time that indeed has been the case, however that has now started to change. The governments Skills Funding Agency has collaborated with nuclear energy providers such as EDF to offer training in radiation monitors and nuclear power plant management which has helped many people, particularly young people in their search for well-paid work and training (have a look at my earlier post about nuclear power providing jobs for more information).

Future direction

By reviewing these three quotes from Michael Fallon in 2013, it is clear that the UK is experiencing a nuclear renaissance. The government now seems to be focused on investing in energy infrastructure, whilst at the same time trying to build skills to ensure the long term sustainability of the nuclear industry. The real question is how these plans pan out alongside the uncertainty resulting in the form of the Brexit vote. Another interesting observation by Harris et al. (2013) is that the cost of building a nuclear power project can increase during construction and sometimes the construction time can lengthen. This could have implications for current and future projects so the government must make sure that it considers these factors.

France: a nuclear paradise?

I was recently researching countries which used nuclear energy as part of their electricity generation and was quite surprised to find that France, our neighbour, generated 75% of it's electricity from nuclear energy - higher than any other country in the world.

Share of nuclear energy as a percentage of electricity generation

This development of nuclear energy in France essentially started right after World War Two for military purposes, however due to the oil shock of 1973 which saw rising oil prices, France decided to use nuclear energy in order to boost it's energy independence (Wiliarty 2013). Many years later, France now has 58 nuclear plants in total - overshadowing many of it's European countries including the UK. Some may ask: has there been any benefit? Well, the evidence certainly suggests so. France has one of the cheapest energy prices in Europe; on average, each kilowatt hour (kWh) that is used costs 8.02p, whereas the figure is 14.78p in the UK. Not only that, but a study by Accenture and the World Economic Forum rated the French energy system 3rd best in the world, awarding it high marks for sustainability in terms of it's nuclear sector. All the signs suggest that France is a successful example of how nuclear energy can be harnessed for positive electricity generation. Perhaps countries such as the UK should learn from this French example and try to replicate the success.

The two trump cards that nuclear energy has

Chances are that you have probably heard of the phrase 'peak oil', coined by Marion Hubbert in 1956 to describe the point in global history where resources of oil start to deplete. Where concerns regarding the viability of oil and other resources such as coal start to emerge, I think nuclear power is best placed for our global energy future for two main reasons - jobs and lower emissions:

Lower greenhouse gas emissions

As compared to energy resources such as oil and natural gas, nuclear energy releases zero, if not minimal gases such as carbon dioxide and methane which cause the greenhouse effect. As the graph below shows, nuclear energy has one of the lowest greenhouse gas emissions (29 tonnes/GWh) as compared to coal (888) or oil (733). In the presence of such carbon intensive resources, nuclear energy could really become the real alternative and ensure clean energy production. 

Greenhouse gas emissions by energy source 

With global temperatures increasing at a steady rate as the Mauna Loa graph shows, nuclear energy could really benefit countries around the world. Nuclear energy could especially help countries who are more susceptible to climate change such as UAE and Saudi Arabia by providing them with a low-carbon energy system that could help stabilise levels of CO2 (Al Farra and Abu-Hiljeh 2012).

Monthly mean CO2 concentrations (ppm)

Job opportunities

Jobs. Jobs. Jobs. It is something every living person must do throughout their life in order to earn money and live a happy life. Guess what? Nuclear energy provides just that. According to a white paper in 2014 by the Nuclear Energy Institute, nuclear plants create some of the largest economic benefits in terms of providing more employment than any other electricity generating technology - each plant requires at least 400-700 permanent workers on average. Not only do nuclear plants create direct jobs, but there are also many indirect jobs that are created. By 2020, nuclear related industries in the US are expected to create around 250,000 indirect jobs through sectors such as operations, construction and management (Kenley et al. 2009 study based on 40 nuclear energy suppliers). 

Job creation through nuclear power in USA

If the production of nuclear energy is increased, imagine the impact that would have on unemployment across the world, especially in the developing world! The impact of nuclear energy on employment is not just prominent in the US, but also back home in the UK. 65,000 people are estimated to be employed in the nuclear industry in the UK, and almost 2000 are on apprenticeship programmes. In a time where many coal power plants are closing down, the rise of nuclear energy could be used to retrain the skills of many workers and help them have careers where there is long term sustainability and job security. I particularly like this video of 21 year old, Ben Lewis who has been working as an apprentice on the Hinkley Point C power plant in Somerset. He explains how he has worked towards qualifications, whilst at the same time worked in roles such as construction and regulation. Have a look at it below:

Cold Fusion: scientific utopia or revolution?

Despite the environmental and security risks associated with nuclear energy that I have talked about, not everything is doom and gloom. There are many innovative and interesting developments that are taking place in nuclear science which show a positive way forward. One of these developments is called cold fusion - something which has caused a massive stir in the scientific community. Cold fusion is the theory in which nuclear fusion can occur at or close to room temperature. Nuclear reactions normally occur at high temperatures, however a 1989 experiment by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, two American scientists supposedly showed that fusion could occur at low temperatures. The experiment basically involved a chemical reaction between deuterons (stable isotopes of hydrogen) which caused the release of helium, alongside tritium (radioactive element) without causing substantial levels of radiation (Storms 2010). The most interesting thing, however, is that the two scientists conducted the experiment using quite simple equipment. A normal flask was filled with a solution of deuterium and a cube of palladium metal was inserted into the water alongside an electrical current which turned the metal into vapour and apparently caused radioactivity (see image below).

An illustration of how the initial cold fusion experiment was carried out

At first this experiment made headlines in the scientific community,  even featuring in a US government report, however as reported in 'Nature', it was quickly was dismissed as a mere joke.
Why was this the case? The reason is that many scientists repeated this experiment with varied results  and quite a few reported that there was no obvious detectable radiation present - even if there was some level of radiation, it should have led to some health consequences, but it didn't. Similarly, Platt (1989) reported in a study that not all cells present in the experiment had the same effect. Despite this scientific ruckus, such experiments are still being carried out across the world where some people have claimed success - have a look at this video below by JL Naudin who carried out a cold fusion experiment:

Benefits of Cold Fusion

Hoax or not, the theory of cold fusion could be revolutionary if proved true. Deuterium, the element used in cold fusion, is quite abundant around the world, and in the words of Daviss (2003), 'a cubic kilometre of ordinary lake or ocean water contains enough deuterium to rival the combustion energy in all the world's known oil reserves'.  Not only would it conserve oil and gas resources, it could provide a real solution to the global warming crisis (Storms 2010) as it would create no harmful gases and could lead to cheaper energy access. That could truly be a game changer for many people, especially many in the developing world in my opinion who are more susceptible to the risks of energy insecurity and climate change. Win-win situation! To some, cold fusion may still seem like a scientific utopia. However, scientists have achieved bigger things in the past so this cold fusion theory may not seem as far-fetched as first thought. Plus, it could even power our cars - that would really benefit me! 

Threat from North Korea

The threat from nuclear proliferation (which I discussed in my post last week) is quite strong from North Korea, a state that has made headlines through the past couple of years. At the time of writing this post, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) issued a statement which expressed a 'grave concern' regarding North Korea's missile launches. North Korea, according to Nikitin (2012), has around 50kg of plutonium which could be used to create at least 6 nuclear weapons, many of which can be used to attack it's arch rival South Korea at will. The start of North Korea's nuclear program can be traced back to around 1956 where Soviet assistance helped the country to set up it's first nuclear reactors. Another striking news investigation report surfaced in 2002 by the New York Times which claimed that Pakistan supplied the North Korean government equipment such as centrifuges and uranium which was crucial in the development of it's nuclear program. If such reports are correct, then this is a massive embarrassment in the face of nuclear non-proliferation and a key failure of international institutions in their attempt to regulate nuclear trade around the world.

Map of North Korea's nuclear facilities 

The striking thing is that North Korea has the capability to produce both uranium and plutonium weapons - plutonium is considered to be more strong than uranium. Despite repeated trade embargoes and sanctions placed by organisations and countries, North Korea has not halted it's nuclear program. Instead, it has repeatedly provoked South Korea (who does not possess nuclear weapons) by threatening it with nuclear attacks through speeches and loud speaker broadcasts. Not only that, but it has provoked it's neighbour militarily through regular shelling and military drills (see the timeline below). 

North Korea's history of provocation

In a analysis of media sources, Park (2013), writing for the Journal of Media and Communication Studies argues that the level of nuclear threat posed by North Korea has often been exaggerated by the mainstream media outlets that are present. I personally disagree with this study, as military provocations and regular speeches by Kim-Jong-Un, the leader of North Korea, are certainly not exaggerated by the media - in fact these are credible threats that would shock any country around the world. The fear is that countries such as Japan and South Korea, countries that have been threatened by North Korea, might be forced to start their own nuclear programmes (Hughes 2007). If that is the case, then surely this is a downward spiral towards greater insecurity and risk - both of which will undermine the positive uses of nuclear energy that I will discuss later in my blog.