World Atomic Power Output Falls by Record in Fukushima Aftermath

[bananas]

Source: Bloomberg

World nuclear power production dropped by a record 4.3 percent last year as the global financial crisis and the Fukushima disaster in Japan prompted plant shutdowns and slowed construction of new sites.

Reactors generated 2,518 terawatt-hours of electricity, down from 2,630 terawatt-hours in 2010, according to a nuclear industry status report published today. Atomic power accounted for 11 percent of all electricity generation.

The meltdown of Tokyo Electric Power Co. (9501)’s Fukushima Dai- Ichi plant in March last year drove countries including Germany, Switzerland and Taiwan to announce their withdrawal from nuclear power. Global output was further restricted as nations put new- build plans on hold amid safety concern and economic stagnation, forcing utilities to study extending the lives of current sites.

“The situation is much worse for the industry than after Chernobyl,” said Mycle Schneider, co-author of the report, referring to the 1986 accident in Ukraine. “New projects have a very dull future, but it will put enormous pressure on extending lifetimes and that raises obvious safety issues.”

<snip>

Read more: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-06/world-atomic-power-output-falls-by-record-in-fukushima-aftermath

---

"The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012" can be downloaded from http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/

[jpak]

1. Renaissance Not

yup

[bananas]

2. There's an article by co-author Antony Froggatt

http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/4957

Chinese nuclear goes global?
Antony Froggatt
June 06, 2012

<snip>

Tange Zede, a member of China’s State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation (SNPTC), was reported in Nuclear Intelligence Weekly as saying the domestically designed CPR-1000 could not even meet the national safety standards issued in 2004, let alone the most up-to-date international standards. Zede stated that “unless the constructed second generation reactors are renovated, they should not be allowed to load fuel and start operation.”

<snip>

[Occulus]

3. Once we figure it out, the world will stampede to fusion.

Maybe that's a good area to pump some serious money into.... just sayin'....

[bananas]

5. The report shows that the world is stampeding to renewables.

It has a section on renewable vs nuclear investments.

While I am hopeful for fusion, it is still a speculative energy source, we don't know how much it will cost or whether we can get it working at all. Commercial units are decades away, if they can be made commercially viable at all. In the meantime, rooftop solar is quickly becoming a no-brainer. At the most optimistic, polywell might have a commercially viable unit in ten years, but it will still take another decade for manufacturing and deployment to scale up to significant levels.

[NickB79]

11. The world is shambling towards renewables. They're stampeding towards coal and gas

Which is really, really fucked up, because it means the end of our civilization by the end of this century

[kristopher]

13. Poor nuclear lovers are seeing their dreams evaporate...

But they still try their mightiest to FALSELY and unremittingly sour people on renewables.

[NickB79]

14. No nuclear lover here, just a realist who isn't wearing rose-colored glasses

I really don't care all that much about the future of nuclear energy. Compared to the dangers of global warming, it really doesn't even ping my radar all that much. But to back up my shambling vs. stampeding comment, the evidence is all around for anyone to read. For example, there is this: http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/a-skeptic-looks-at-alternative-energy/

Between 2004 and 2009 the United States added about 28 GW of wind turbines. That’s the equivalent of fewer than 10 GW of coal-fired capacity, given the very different load factors. During the same period China installed more than 30 times as much new coal-fired capacity in large central plants, facilities that have an expected life of at least 30 years. In 2010 alone China’s carbon-dioxide emissions increased by nearly 800 million metric tons, an equivalent of close to 15 percent of the U.S. total. In the same year the United States generated almost 95 terawatt-hours of electricity from wind, thus theoretically preventing the emission of only some 65 million tons of carbon dioxide. Furthermore, China is adding 200 GW of coal-fired plants by 2015, during which time the United States will add only about 30 GW of new wind capacity, equivalent to less than 15 GW of coal-fired generation. Of course, the rapid increase in the burning of Asian coal will eventually moderate, but even so, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere cannot possibly stay below 450 ppm.

And then there's the graph in post #7 here that pretty much destroyed your argument: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1127&pid=19191

Like I said, renewables are moving forward, but are getting smoked by new coal and nat. gas build-out. And in the meantime, we're at 400 ppm of CO2 and climbing.

[grahamhgreen]

16. WIND is already cheaper than coal or nuclear.

[tru]

4. hello, worsening global warming

gotta love that coal and oil.

[kristopher]

6. Nuclear economics support continued use of coal

Large scale thermal (coal/nuclear/natural gas) isn't flexible, and it doesn't work well with large amounts of variable renewable energy. Nuclear plants do not shut down coal plants, they make just make it harder for us to change the economic structure built around coal. We can make far better progress with renewables than with nuclear - they produce a system that is cleaner, safer, more reliable, less expensive and more sustainable than centralized coal/nuclear.

Only 16.7% of Global Energy Consumption Is Renewable – Ways for Industry to Increase This Share
Written by Moritz Bühner // June 26, 2012



You know studies. You know reports. You know data collections. But you don’t know Ren21? You should. Ren21, calling itself an international policy network promoting renewable energy, publishes an annual global renewable energy status report supported by 39 renewable energy professionals plus numerous regional researchers who verify the precision of the global coverage. In the report you find detailed diagrams for any renewable power source and more diagrams showing their development from 2010 to 2011. Because both government officials and NGO representatives, both intergovernmental organization members and industry agents all take part in the report’s generation, the conclusions and opinions spotlighted by the report can claim to be important, if not essential.

So, for the actual report, which was published last week, what were the findings? I remember that the most striking news of last year’s report was the economic crisis did not affect the renewables market:

Renewable energy [...] continued to grow strongly in all end-use sectors – power, heat and transport – and supplied an estimated 16% of global final energy consumption.

This figure refers to 2009. For 2010, the year the new report addresses, the figure had further risen to 16.7%. However, in addition to modern renewables, that includes traditional biomass – still the number one energy source in rural developing areas. ...Subtracting the use of traditional biomass, the figure for renewables in the modern sense, that is, wind, hydro, solar, geothermal, woodpellet, biofuel and biogas declines to 8.2% of the entire global energy consumption. Really, just 8.2% renewables? Sounds too little? Well, it refers to the final energy consumption, as in power, heating, cooling and transport. Concerning electricity only, the share of renewables is almost three-times higher, and a large portion of newly built power plants use renewable forms of energy. Ren21:

In the power sector, renewables accounted for almost half of the estimated 208 gigawatts (GW) of electric capacity added globally during 2011. Wind and solar photovoltaics (PV) accounted for almost 40% and 30% of new renewable capacity, respectively, followed by hydropower (nearly 25%). By the end of 2011, total renewable power capacity worldwide exceeded 1,360 GW, up 8% over 2010; renewables comprised more than 25% of total global power-generating capacity (estimated at 5,360 GW in 2011) and supplied an estimated 20.3% of global electricity.

It is crucial...

http://www.knowtheflow.com/2012/only-16-7-of-global-energy-consumption-renewable-ways-for-the-industry-to-increase-this-share/

[bananas]

7. Nuclear energy makes global warming worse and will only play a minor role in reducing emissions

Al Gore explained many times - "I doubt nuclear power will play a much larger role than it does now."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12743273#.T_byvnXRxIE

Al Gore, movie star, talks of his latest role
Grist magazine interviews former vice president on his climate flick

By David Roberts
updated 5/24/2006 12:49:32 PM ET

<snip>

Grist: Let's turn briefly to some proposed solutions. Nuclear power is making a big resurgence now, rebranded as a solution to climate change. What do you think?

Gore: I doubt nuclear power will play a much larger role than it does now.

Grist: Won't, or shouldn't?

Gore: Won't. There are serious problems that have to be solved, and they are not limited to the long-term waste-storage issue and the vulnerability-to-terrorist-attack issue. Let's assume for the sake of argument that both of those problems can be solved.

We still have other issues. For eight years in the White House, every weapons-proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian reactor program. And if we ever got to the point where we wanted to use nuclear reactors to back out a lot of coal -- which is the real issue: coal -- then we'd have to put them in so many places we'd run that proliferation risk right off the reasonability scale. And we'd run short of uranium, unless they went to a breeder cycle or something like it, which would increase the risk of weapons-grade material being available.

When energy prices go up, the difficulty of projecting demand also goes up -- uncertainty goes up. So utility executives naturally want to place their bets for future generating capacity on smaller increments that are available more quickly, to give themselves flexibility. Nuclear reactors are the biggest increments, that cost the most money, and take the most time to build.

In any case, if they can design a new generation [of reactors] that's manifestly safer, more flexible, etc., it may play some role, but I don't think it will play a big role.

<snip>

Joe Romm lays out what needs to be done about global warming here:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/01/10/207320/the-full-global-warming-solution-how-the-world-can-stabilize-at-350-to-450-ppm/

The full global warming solution: How the world can stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm

By Joe Romm on Jan 10, 2011 at 4:32 pm

In this post I will lay out ‘the solution’ to global warming.

This post is an update of a 2008 analysis I revised in 2009. A report by the International Energy Agency came to almost exactly the same conclusion as I did, and has relatively similar wedges, so I view that as a vindication of this overall analysis.

Stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide at 450 ppm or lower is not politically possible today — not even close — but is certainly achievable from an economic and technological perspective, as I and others have said for years.

<snip>

But Joe Romm may be over-optimistic about nuclear energy, other analyses show that because nuclear energy is so expensive and takes so long to build, the time and money could have been better spent on other solutions, so in that sense nuclear energy makes global warming worse.

Also, nuclear isn't dispatchable, which will make it even more expensive as more renewables come online.


*** Edit to add another quote from Al Gore, this one from 2000:

http://www.nirs.org/climate/cop6/goreletter.htm

November 3, 2000

Mr. Harvey Wasserman
Senior Advisor
Nuclear Information and Resources Center
755 Eau Claire Avenue
Bexley, Ohio 43209

Dear Mr. Wasserman:

Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding nuclear energy and the Kyoto Protocol. Let me restate for you my long held policy with regard to nuclear energy. I do not support any increased reliance on nuclear energy. Moreover, I have disagreed with those who would classify nuclear energy as clean or renewable. In fact, you will note that the electricity restructuring legislation proposed by the Administration specifically excluded both nuclear and large scale hydro-energy, and instead promoted increased investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy. It is my view that climate change policies should do the same.

Sincerely,

Al Gore

[tru]

15. no facts

You post stuff from people who don't like nuclear energy and worry about weapons proliferation and say the country won't use nuclear energy any further so it won't help deal with global warming, but not the fact that nuclear energy does not contribute to global warning.

[ladjf]

8. That's good news. nt

[Hubert Flottz]

9. "terawatt-hours"

Or Terrorwatt hours.

The people in Japan have learned another lesson too. Their government and the corporate leaders in their country will lie to them about life and death issues. We already have far too many people suffering with cancer, or grieving for their loved ones who have died of cancer, or who are suffering with cancer. The control rods are okay until they fail to control the reaction anymore, or they're used up and stored to decay forever. When the control rods go out of control and the people running the show can't contain the radioactivity the cancer rate starts to climb. "Cheap Power" comes at a very high price.



Mankind probably shouldn't depend on nuclear power anymore, period, after watching Chernobyl and Fukushima Dai- Ichi play out. The Titanic, nuclear power and Wall Street were all billed as, "Too Big to Fail," but they've all three failed. Sometimes the "Experts" get it dead wrong.

[NickB79]

10. Looks like that didn't last long (Nuclea power now at an all-time high)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/07/05/f-nuclear-power-post-fukushima.html

Sixteen months after the nuclear disaster in Japan, electricity generation from nuclear power worldwide has reached record levels, with a reactor construction boom likely to push those levels steadily higher.

“Fukushima has delayed nuclear development by three or four years,” as countries re-evaluate safety around nuclear power, says Luis Echávarri, the director general of the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA). “But construction continues.”

In the immediate aftermath of the March 11, 2011 earthquake and tsunami that led to meltdowns at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant, the total global operating capacity for nuclear-generated power dipped from about 372 gigawatts of electricity (GWe) — equivalent to about 14 per cent of the world’s electricity — to roughly 304 GWe, largely due to Japan and Germany switching off their nuclear plants.

However, a year after the meltdown, the amount of electricity generated from nuclear plants worldwide had risen again and is at an all time high, according to Echávarri.

[kristopher]

12. End of article is far more telling - it's a sales piece for the uranium industry.

Your source is making a claim but doesn't provide any real basis for evaluation. The OP remedies that lack and shows the claim in the CBC article to be what it is, a story placed by Canada's uranium mining industry. The fact is the future of nuclear power looks increasingly dismal as its economic positioning relative to renewable alternatives continues to decline.

...The price of uranium also indicates steady demand for nuclear power. Uranium took a nosedive in the weeks following the Fukushima meltdown, falling from a high of $75.50 U.S. per pound in February 2011.

But even a disaster on the scale of Fukushima hasn’t caused the price of uranium to bottom out. Since the meltdown, the contract price has leveled out around $50. The price in June this year averaged about $51, well above the June 2010 average of around $40.

If development of new reactors is any indication, Wichterle says the outlook for the nuclear power industry worldwide remains strong.

As an investor with a long-term horizon, "you can’t go wrong with uranium," he says.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/07/05/f-nuclear-power-post-fukushima.html

Uranium Mining in Canada

Canada was the world's largest uranium producer for many years, accounting for about 22% of world output, but in 2009 was overtaken by Kazakhstan.

Production comes mainly from the McArthur River mine in northern Saskatchewan province, which is the largest in the world.
Production is expected to increase significantly from 2013 as the new Cigar Lake mine comes into operation.

With known uranium resources of 572,000 tonnes of U3O8 (485,000 tU), as well as continuing exploration, Canada will have a significant role in meeting future world demand.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf49.html