Nuclear Power Generation Could Be Returning to Favor

Public and political opinion on nuclear power generation may be improving as security of energy supply and reducing carbon emissions force their way up the political agenda. Nuclear power generation produces almost no carbon emissions and it seems that many are prepared to accept the risk of accidents and the long-term burden of nuclear waste in order to reduce carbon emissions in the short term.

Since 1990, reports of nuclear power plant closures have outweighed those of plans to extend the life of current plants, or indeed to build new ones. While some countries, France and Finland for example, have continued to rely on nuclear power for the majority of their electricity needs, many other European nations have declared moratoria on new nuclear build. However, this could now be changing.

Getting the most out of remaining nuclear

Despite concerns about the security of energy supply, rising gas prices, curbing carbon emissions and the increasing demand for power, only three European countries are currently expanding their nuclear capacity, namely Bulgaria, Finland and Romania (outside of the EU so too are Russia and Ukraine). However, while overall nuclear capacity has been decreasing in Europe since 1990, from 1990-2004, nuclear power has on average provided a greater share of total power generation output. However, only two of the 15 nuclear states in Europe have increased their net nuclear generation capacity since 1990. Essentially, the remaining nuclear capacity has just worked harder.

This trend also indicates that even where policy or economic factors restrict nuclear development, its contribution to the security of electricity supply remains critical.

In Lithuania, for example, nuclear generation output as a proportion of total national power output has increased by 7%, even as the relative share of nuclear capacity has declined by 6%. Investment in reactor refurbishment and life extensions have facilitated this trend of boosting power from the remaining plants, despite the fact that closures have become more frequent.

However, the downsizing of the nuclear industry may be at an end and an actual reversal of this trend may even be on the cards. In early 2007, the number of announcements concerning new nuclear capacity build, life extensions or at least new milestones in planned projects (signed deals, tenders, regulatory applications or government statements of intent) outnumbered those of announcements concerning plant closures for the first time since 1990.

UK government opts for new nuclear builds

Following its official ‘Energy Review’ in 2006, the UK government indicated that its preferred option for securing the UK’s electricity supply going forward is to see a new generation of nuclear power plants built. These findings have since been challenged by Greenpeace over an apparent lack of public consultation, but they are perhaps indicative of a softening of public attitudes towards nuclear power. Despite the fact that seven countries in the EU, namely Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy and Sweden, have moratoria in place on new nuclear builds, public perceptions towards new nuclear build are positive in 14 countries in the EU.

Indeed, Datamonitor research shows that in the UK, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden, more than 50% of the public believe that ‘nuclear power as a proportion of all energy sources should be maintained or increased.’ These results may have been somewhat prompted by the high wholesale prices for gas in recent years, which have seen consumers paying more for their gas and electricity, as the survey also indicated that in 15 EU countries, over 50% of the population believe that nuclear power stabilizes or lowers energy prices.

More than any other power source, nuclear power is very susceptible to public perception and the political process, but these results indicate that there is scope for nuclear policy positions to evolve in the future.

Aside from the debate surrounding the social and/or environmental merits of nuclear power, one reason that makes the subject so politically charged is that the building of new nuclear power generating facilities generally relies heavily on government financial support. Of the five previously mentioned countries currently constructing nuclear capacity, four have government-controlled sponsors. Although the Finnish project is the exception, it could be argued it benefits from a E570 million French government loan guarantee given to Areva, a key project partner and technology provider (the loan is currently the subject of a European Commission investigation as a potential illegal state subsidy to business).

Low carbon emissions, but is it ‘green’?

Instead of outlining a specific financial mechanism to support nuclear power generation in the Energy Review, the UK government set out case studies designed to demonstrate its financial viability. However, while the debate as to whether nuclear power is a financially competitive option continues, more heated debate surrounds whether nuclear generated power can be classified as ‘green.’

From the UK government’s perspective, nuclear power is appealing because it not only provides extra capacity, but because generation does not produce carbon emissions. With the government committed to cutting carbon emissions by 60% on 1990 levels by 2050, it is doubtful that renewable energy sources such as wind farms will be able to fill the void in energy supply that has been left by decommissioning fossil fuel-burning, and carbon producing, forms of electricity generation.

On the flipside, nuclear power generates nuclear waste that can remain radioactive for thousands of years and thus needs to be stored, and there is also the potential for nuclear accidents, such as that at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union in 1986. However, Datamonitor’s survey indicates that many Europeans’ attitudes towards nuclear power are becoming more favorable. It will be very difficult, not to say impossible, to reduce carbon emissions to the levels being advocated with technology currently available or available in the foreseeable future without the advent of nuclear power.

Indeed, security of energy supply essentially comes down to a case of picking your poison: either nuclear remains part of the electricity generation mix or the carbon emission reduction goals will be missed.

Within eight EU countries, over 50% of respondents to Datamonitor’s survey believe that nuclear energy can help to limit global warming, suggesting that they rate reducing carbon emissions, and thus the effects of global warming, as a higher priority than the burden of dealing with nuclear waste.