42 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012 POWER INSIDER

BY RACHAEL GARDNER-STEPHENS

NUCLEAR POWER ASIA

NUCLEAR POWER?

YES PLEASE!

POWER INSIDER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012 43

Few other energy sources court controversy like nuclear power. Maligned and misunderstood,

this efficient and clean form of power generation is the victim of a concentrated campaign of myth and misrepresentation.

Rational discussions surrounding nuclear power are often lost amongst the imagery portrayed by anti-nuclear lobbyists of sickly children, mushroom clouds, and radioactive mists. Such propaganda is not only wildly inaccurate, panic inducing nonsense, but also masks the true debate

about nuclear power’s feasibility. Is time to face the cold, hard facts of reality;

fossil fuels are dirty, dangerous, damaging and running out. Whilst developments have greatly advanced the generation capacity of renewable energy, no single source can yet match up to coal and gas in terms of efficiency and volume of generated power…

...except for nuclear power. And it’s reliable, safe, economically acceptable and ecologically benign.

With this report, PI Magazine Asia aims

to dispel some of the fears about nuclear power and assert the validity of the claims made above. The report is split into two parts; the first part tackles the bigger objections to nuclear power, illuminating realistic problems and advantages.

Part II will give an overview of the emerging nuclear power market in Asia. PI Magazine Asia has sought out expert input, with contributions from the International Atomic Energy Association, KEPCO, the World Nuclear Association and the Asian Nuclear Business Platform.

COLUMN SPEAKERS

44 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012 POWER INSIDER

PART ONEA nuclear plant operates very much like a thermal power plant. Fuel is used to heat water which produces steam and drives the turbines that produce electricity. What differs is the fuel; thermal plants utilize the combustion of coal or gas to convert water to steam. In a nuclear power plant, uranium is used to create nuclear fission.

Uranium, the typical fuel for a nuclear plant, is a mined, non-renewable fuel. Uranium is sustainable, however, because of the worldwide abundance of the element. The heat energy comes from splitting the atom in the fissile U-235.

This occurs when a neutron is captured by the nucleus of a uranium atom in the reactor core. The nucleus absorbs the neutron and makes it very unstable, causing it to split into two separate atoms, releasing heat and a number of other neutrons in the process. This sets off a chain reaction, as the neutrons released cause other uranium atoms to undergo fission, thus generating more heat energy.

Fission is stabilized using a coolant and control rods. Bundles of U-235, usually consisting of between 3% and 5% U-235, are immersed by the coolant, for example water, to prevent them from overheating. It is overheating, due to loss of cooling that could lead to a range of serious problems.

The control rods are lowered into the reactor core to control the number of fissions. When fully inserted, the control rods will absorb most of the neutrons, causing the process to cease. Partially inserted, the rods slow down the chain reaction, so fewer neutrons hit U-235 atoms and hence generate less power.

EFFICIENTFission is an extremely efficient and clean process. The efficiency of nuclear fission is down to the lighter fuel requirement. Typically, more than 36 million kilowatt-hours of electricity are produced from one ton of uranium. Generating this amount of electrical power from fossil fuels would require over 20,000 tons of black coal or 8.5 million cubic meters of gas.

The process of uranium mining is far safer than mining coal. Coal-mining accidents and gas explosions account for thousands of fatalities each

year. Alarmingly, these deaths are so common that they generally go unreported. Dr. Hooman Peimani, of the National University of Singapore, told PI Magazine Asia that 2,500 deaths are reported in China alone, though the real figure is closer to 5,000.

Some uranium is mined underground, and miners are potentially exposed to radioactive and radon dust which can increase the risk of lung cancer. However, as Dr. Peimani points out, coal mining is more dangerous because it releases methane and other dangerous gases; all it takes is a spark to create a catastrophic explosion. CLEAN Nuclear plants are considered so clean because they emit no carbon dioxide, sulfur or nitrogen oxides. As a result, the Nuclear Energy Institute suggests that the world’s existing nuclear plants have eradicated a potential 2 billion metric tons of CO2 per year.

The significance of this cannot be overstated. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that air pollution causes nearly three million deaths each year, which will triple by 2025. This massive death toll provokes no discernible fear from the public, and receives virtually no news coverage, whilst the few deaths caused directly from nuclear plants are lobbied as proof of potential nuclear annihilation.

RADIATION What the nuclear power plant does produce inside its reactor core, however, is radiation. When undergoing fission, uranium produces different kinds of radiation – alpha, beta and gamma. Alpha and beta are weak types of radiation and can be shielded by relatively thin materials. However, gamma radiation can penetrate a number of materials, and excessive doses can cause ill-heath and death.

In addition to the reactor shielding, modern nuclear reactors are protected by extremely dense containment chambers to restrict the release of radiation in case of an accident. This is typically a meter-thick concrete and steel structure. This means that a properly functioning nuclear power plant actually releases much less radioactive material into the atmosphere than many coal-fired power plants. Nuclear power plant workers are monitored very closely and subject to strictly enforced legal dose limits, set by regulatory agencies.

Naturally, there is still a risk of exposure, but it is important to maintain perspective. Everyone receives constant exposure to radiation, receiving about 200 millirems a year from everyday objects and outer space. If all our power came from nuclear plants we would receive an extra 2/10 of a millirem a year. This is less than the equivalent radiation exposure of one puff of a cigarette.

Radiation doses of about 200 REMs would cause radiation sickness, but only if this huge amount of radiation is received all at once. The long term effect of extreme radiation exposure has been over-exaggerated. In a study of 100,000 survivors of the atomic bombs dropped in Japan, there have been 400 more cancer deaths than expected.

Similarly, the UN conducted exhaustive studies on the health effects of the Chernobyl disaster. The study discovered that of the 4,000 thyroid cancer cases attributed to the accident, nearly all were successfully treated (and these should have been prevented

DR. HOOMAN PEIMANI is the Principal Fellow & Head of the Energy Studies Institute at the National University of Singapore. His research interests

include energy security, regional and international security and conflicts (particularly in South and West Asia, the Middle East, the Asia-Pacific region and the Arctic), the environment, including energy-environment-conflict Nexus.

ZAF COELHO is the Project Director of the Nuclear Business Platform. He is an experienced Project Manager with a great passion for the energy sector.

The Asian Nuclear Business Platform is an event crafted by the industry for the industry.

STEVE KIDD is Acting Director General at the World Nuclear Association. He authors many articles on the commercial aspects of nuclear power,

is a frequent speaker at conferences and meetings around the world and is the author of the book, “Core Issues – Dissecting Nuclear Power Today”.

NUCLEAR POWER ASIA

by prohibiting the consumption of milk in the affected area). Beyond this, and after 20 years, there is no scientific evidence of any increase in cancer. Theoretical projections of Chernobyl’s possible long-term effects predict the possibility of 4,000 late-in-life cancer deaths. The UN’s authoritative findings do not minimize the gravity of the disaster, but they do refute many sensationalized reports.

ENRICHMENT In order to produce gamma and beta radiation, uranium has to be enriched. Uranium emits alpha radiation naturally, through the spontaneous decay. Enriching the uranium increases the strength of the radiation, which produces more heat energy during the fission process.

The most common form of enrichment is centrifuge enrichment; the mined uranium is converted to a gas, and then passed through the spinning cylinders of the centrifuge, which reduces the concentration of uranium-238, leaving the U-235. The concentrated U-235 is then converted into hard ceramic pellets.

Enrichment can also produce fuel for nuclear weapons, sparking fears over terrorism or explosions. However, for the use in a power plant, uranium is only enriched to 3-5% of U-235. To make an atomic bomb, you have to enrich it by approximately 97%. The concentration of U-235 is so low in enriched uranium in power plants that an explosion is almost impossible.

PLANT STABILITYA more real danger is the spill or release of dangerous radioactive material, but the safety record of nuclear power is outstanding. The only nuclear disaster

Integral Fast Reactors (IFR), uranium and plutonium are separated or reprocessed, and the spent fuel is then used to power the reactor. Reprocessing reduces the wastes volume and toxicity.

TO SUM UPFew rational arguments can be made against nuclear power. The process of fission is simple, clean and efficient, uranium is far safer to mine, the process produces no emissions and considerably less waste, most of which can be recycled or stored safely. The plants are stable with an impeccable safety record, and the disasters have had a minimal impact when compared to fossil fuels. As stated by Jong Kyun Park, Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Nuclear Power Division:

“Confidence in nuclear energy was shaken by the 2011 accident at Fukushima Daiichi in Japan, but the many benefits of nuclear energy have not changed. Nuclear energy can help to improve energy security, reduce the impact of volatile fossil fuel prices, mitigate the effects of climate change and make economies more competitive.”

PUBLIC PERCEPTIONThe biggest stumbling block for nuclear expansion is the public’s perception. Mr. Park told PI Magazine Asia that public acceptance is key to the success of a civil nuclear program. Dr. Peimani makes the point that the government needs to take responsibility in providing populations with facts. People need to be reminded that the nuclear industry is as dangerous as any other, but not more so.

Zaf Coelho, Project Director of the Asian Nuclear Business Platform, agrees that the responsibility lies

known to cause direct fatalities was at Chernobyl, where the death toll was 31. Whilst the impact the disaster had on the wider environment is more significant, it is worth noting that Chernobyl nuclear power plant was badly managed and poorly designed with weak safety features.

The same could be said for Fukushima; the plant was built on a fault line and had only one emergency generator. These disasters sprung from poor decision making, not the dangerous material itself. Reactors with Chernobyl’s severe shortcomings have been eliminated or improved.

WASTE STORAGEThe most legitimate objection to nuclear power is waste storage. Spent nuclear fuel is highly radioactive and needs to be stored and managed safely until it is no longer radioactive, which takes thousands of years. Storing this material presents enormous risks, such as radiation leaks, and the ever present threat of terrorism.

The amount of waste produced is minimal. The spent fuel produced yearly from all the world’s reactors would fit inside a two-storey structure built on a basketball court. Some facilities utilized for waste include decommissioned nuclear plants, such as Chernobyl.

Many experts are beginning to favor underground storage facilities, as a stable geological formation constitutes a highly reliable barrier. Geological repositories are designed to ensure that harmful radiation would not reach the surface even with severe earthquakes or the passage of time. Waste can be also be retrieved if new technologies offer ways to reuse the material or hasten radioactive decay.

Nuclear waste is already being reprocessed. Using

46 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012 POWER INSIDER

JONG KYUN PARK is the Director of Nuclear Division at the International Atomic Energy Agency. Before joining the IAEA, Mr. Park

worked at the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, as the Vice President in the areas of Advanced Reactor Technology Development, Advanced Nuclear Technology Development, Nuclear Hydrogen Development, and most recently Nuclear Policy and International Relations

KIM KWANG-SOOis the General Manager of Overseas Nuclear Project Development at KEPCO, South Korea’s state owned utility. KEPCO will be partnering

with the World Energy Association in the organisation of the World Energy Congress, which will be held in Daegu, South Korea, between 13th and 17th October 2013.

NUCLEAR POWER ASIA

with the government to develop a comprehensive public communication plan to engage its population and to allay their fears and doubts.

Mr. Coelho adds that having a transparent approach is also crucial for a successful nuclear power programme. The concept of nuclear power should be “introduced at the school level which will allow children to better understand what nuclear is all about which will in the long-run affect their behaviour and attitude towards nuclear”.

Stephen W. Kidd, Acting Director General of the World Nuclear Association, has an alternative perspective, asserting that the responsibility of educating the public is the responsibility of the nuclear industry:

“They [private companies] can look to the government for some help, but if they want to operate a nuclear plant, they need to put a huge amount of effort into engaging with their various stakeholders.”

Kim Kwang-soo, General Manager of Overseas Nuclear Project Development at KEPCO in South Korea and Jong Kyun Park favor a combined approach. Mr. Kim points out that Korea has introduced nuclear power projects under government policy, but the private sector, along with the academic, business and research sectors, are supporting KEPCO to enhance public acceptance.

Additionally, Mr. Park’s organization, the IAEA, has programs to help a variety of national nuclear entities and to reach out to all of those who have an interest in the safe operation of nuclear facilities.  Such “stakeholders” include the public, local governments, and commercial institutions. It is clear that any country or private company interested in investing in nuclear power is going to have to tackle

this issue head on to allow for growth.In part two, PI Magazine Asia will look at how the

nuclear market in Asia is growing, with more input from our team of experts. It will look at who the big players are in Asia, what countries are making plans, and at the cost and feasibility of setting up nuclear programs.

PART TWODespite widespread objections to nuclear power, the global market is growing. As of March 2011, there are 443 operating nuclear power reactors across 29 different countries. In 2009 alone, atomic energy accounted for 14% of the world’s electrical production.

Major global players include France, for whom 75.2% of electricity is generated by nuclear plants. The USA has104 nuclear power plants which supply 20% of electricity, and the UK gets 16% of its electricity from nuclear power. Mr. Park gave PI Magazine Asia the International Atomic Energy Agency’s latest projections for nuclear power:

“Our new low projection is for nuclear power capacity to grow by nearly 25% from current levels to 456 GW by 2030. Our high projection is 740 GW, which is twice the amount of current levels. Most of the new nuclear power reactors which are planned or under construction, are in Asia.”

THE ASIAN MARKETIn Asia, 36% of South Korea’s electricity is nuclear-generated, 25% of Japan’s, and 17% of Taiwan’s. Altogether, 10 countries from the Asia-Pacific region are considering a nuclear program. There are currently 41 reactors under construction across Asia, and over the next decade there are 98 reactors planned with a further 221 proposed.

This surge in interest in atomic energy in Asia has been labeled a “nuclear renaissance”, and many experts see the nuclear industry as a growth market. Dr. Peimani told PI Magazine Asia that despite the Fukushima crisis, “many Asian countries are still pressing ahead with their planned nuclear programs”.

According to Zaf Coelho, this is because Asian economies cannot afford to count nuclear out of their energy mix. Asia is facing a burgeoning need for energy, with energy demand projected to double by 2030. Kim Kwang-soo of KEPCO adds that concerns “about climate change, volatile fossil fuel prices and security of energy supply will also push governments in Asia to seriously consider adding nuclear to their energy mix.”

Mr. Kim adds that in Asia, whilst growth may differ from country to country, the prospects for economic growth are higher than that of any other region. The total generating capacity is expected to grow 3.4% annually to 2030 (resource: ADB). Mr. Kidd singles out China and South Korea as major growth markets:

“China now has 26 of the 64 reactors under construction around the world and the program may yet accelerate further. South Korea has 4 units under construction, to add to the 23 already in operation, and has now become an exporter of nuclear plants, with a contract to supply 4 reactors to the UAE.”

Zaf Coelho asserts that China “will soon become the world’s largest generator of nuclear energy. Currently [China] has 16 nuclear power reactors. The nation is aiming for 400 GW of nuclear power by

2050.” China’s planned reactors include some of the world’s most advanced technology, as the nation is rapidly becoming self-sufficient in reactor design and construction, as well as other aspects of the fuel cycle. 

More than 16 provinces, regions and municipalities have announced intentions to build nuclear power plants in the 12th Five Year Plan 2011-15. The plan includes the start of construction on phase II of Tianwan, Hongyanhe, Sanmen and Haiyang, as well as phase I of Taohuajiang, Xianning, and Pengze. By the end of 2015, 25 GW of new capacity is planned to be operational, and 45 GW more may be added by the end of the 13th Five Year Plan.  

The State Council Research Office calculated that nuclear development would require new investment of some CNY 1 trillion ($151 billion) by 2020, not counting those units being built now. In September 2010, China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC) alone announced plans to invest CNY 800 billion ($120 billion) into nuclear energy projects by 2020.

Mr. Kidd also highlights India as a growth market, stating that although “India’s program is behind China’s, it is set to be a major source of growth”. With 20 reactors already in place and nuclear plants providing 3.7% of India’s power, Mr. Park is right to call the nation an “established user”. India’s program expects to have 14,600 MW of nuclear capacity on line by 2020, aiming to supply 25% of electricity from nuclear power by 2050. 

India’s nuclear program is largely indigenous because of the country’s political expulsion from the nuclear market. India is outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty due to its weapons program, so for 34 years  was largely excluded from trade in nuclear materials. Due to these trade bans and lack of indigenous uranium, India has developed a nuclear fuel cycle to exploit its reserves of thorium. 

India’s largest power company, National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) plan to bring a 2000 MW nuclear power plant online by 2017.  This proposal became a joint venture set up in April 2010 with NPCIL holding 51%. The companies will utilize local and imported technology.

Mr. Kidd told PI Magazine Asia that the countries of South East Asia such as Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines are also set to become nuclear countries by 2030. Malaysia aim to have 2GW of nuclear power by 2020, but the Malaysian government has until 2014 to make a decision.

Mr. Coelho and Mr. Park both single out Vietnam as a major future contributor to the global nuclear market, with “advanced plans” to build reactors. Vietnam intends to build 8 reactors by 2030, the first of which will be online by 2020.

THE GLOBAL INDUSTRYThis proliferation is set to have a knock-on effect on the nuclear industry, though what shape that effect will take, is yet to be seen according to Mr. Coelho. The scale of plans will effect what shape this development will take:

“For a country planning for just 1-2 nuclear reactors, it may not be worthwhile or economical to localize the industry to support the nuclear development. On the other hand, with nuclear energy poised to increase significantly globally, there will be opportunities for local companies currently not involved in nuclear to get involved in the

POWER INSIDER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012 47

global nuclear supply chain, especially involvement in the non-nuclear island part.”

Mr. Kim asserts that “in general, the nuclear industry promotes growth and technological development of related industries.” He cites South Korea and Japan as examples, who have “systematically developed nuclear power technology.”

In Korea: “Related industries such as quality assurance, machinery, electric, I&C, chemistry, engineering and construction have shown growth along with the development of the nuclear industry, boasting world class technology level within the shipbuilding, steel and IT industry.”

THE JAPANESE BACKLASH A factor that may mitigate the growth of the global market is the phasing out of nuclear programs in countries reacting to the Fukushima crisis. Germany is one of these several countries, and Japan is another.

Japan’s attitude to nuclear power is a peculiar one. Having lost over 100,000 people to nuclear weapons in the Second World War and suffered the devastating after effects, Japan nevertheless adopted nuclear technology and promoted its use as a major contributor to the nation’s grid.

This acceptance of nuclear power was dramatically reversed in March 2011 when the country was hit by a tsunami that killed 19,000 people. The tsunami triggered the Fukushima nuclear accident, which

did not claim a single life. This was the catalyst for a backlash against nuclear, sparking a national debate between the population’s negativity and the continuation of reliable and affordable electricity.

Up to the tsunami in 2011, Japan had 50 operational nuclear plants which generated 30% of Japan’s electricity. Japan has a full fuel cycle set-up, including enrichment and reprocessing of used fuel for recycle, and plans were in place to increase capacity to at least 40% by 2017. Since the Fukushima crisis, only two reactors are operating, and plans to increase nuclear power have been scrapped.

The Energy & Environment Council’s (Enecan) “Innovative Energy and Environment Strategy” was released in September 2012, recommending a phase-out of nuclear power by 2040. To replace nuclear, Enecan promised a “green energy policy framework”, which focused on imported fossil fuels and renewables.

The industry reacted strongly, particularly to the increased use of imported fossil fuels. In the past year increased fossil fuel imports were a major contributor to Japan’s record trade deficit of JPY 2.5 trillion in the first half of 2012. A consensus was reached that 20-25% nuclear was necessary to avoid very severe economic effects.

Subsequently, the Japanese government relinquished support for the plan, relegating it as “a reference document”, and dropping the timeline. Reprocessing used nuclear fuel would continue and

construction will continue at Shimane 3 and Ohma 1.

The industry’s reaction to Enecan’s plan was unsurprising, as there is a consensus that phasing out nuclear isn’t feasible. Nobuo Tanaka, the former head of the International Energy Agency and an associate at Japan’s Institute of Energy Economics, called the plans unrealistic. Mr. Coelho agrees, calling the

decision “a knee-jerk reaction” that has “more to do with politics” than with the technology itself.

It is unrealistic because of what it will cost Japan, both economically and environmentally. Simply put, there is not enough renewable energy to support the grid, and it is too expensive to fast track it’s development. This means that Japan will have to depend on fossil fuels. Mr. Kim’s view on the phasing out programs in Japan and Germany emphasizes the impact it will have on the public pocket:

“For the time being, the only alternative energy sources for nuclear power are fossil fuel and renewable energy. However, there are limitations in the use of fossil fuel due to climate change, and for the renewable energy, there still exists the issue of low economic feasibility.

Furthermore, the energy price is expected to be hiked up, following an increase in imports of alternative energy sources. In other words, it will take time and additional cost to replace the nuclear energy with alternative sources, leading to a burden on the public’s shoulder.”

Mr. Kidd supports this view: “If they are serious about phasing out, it will be very expensive for them. In the case of Japan, they will need to use a greater amount of very expensive imported gas – which also has environmental and security of supply concerns, as well as economic.

In Germany, the rush to renewables is causing higher prices and energy imports. The German power customers may not want to tolerate this into the long term, especially the industry buyers, who face competitiveness issues from Asia.”

Mr. Coelho expands on these views, and provided us with some of the projected financial statistics facing Japan should they continue to phase out nuclear:

“In Japan, based on estimates by the government’s Energy and Environment Council, Japan would face enormous costs should it eradicate nuclear. The council has projected that $615 billion would be needed to expand the use of renewable energy sources, while energy-saving investments would cost $1230 billion under the zero percent nuclear power scenario. Also, Japan’s chances of exporting its nuclear

48 NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012 POWER INSIDER

NUCLEAR POWER ASIA

technology would also be reduced as no country wants to be the first or last to use a technology.”

Dr. Peimani believes that Japan will not phase out nuclear for these reasons. He states that it is totally unrealistic, and no real targets have been set. Dr. Peimani believes that the decision was a reaction to the event and not to the facts, and so Japan will gradually u-turn on the policy.

FINANCING A NUCLEAR PLANTThe issue of cost in phasing out nuclear is a key objection, but what about the initial cost of setting up a nuclear program? Mr. Kim states that “financing nuclear power projects is more difficult than others because of massive project costs, long-term construction periods and Nuclear Liability.” In that case, who invests in nuclear power?

Mr. Kidd told PI Magazine Asia that many nuclear plants are financed by state authorities and banks. Other typical capital providers, according to Mr. Coelho, are Export Credit Agencies (ECAs), with commercial banks and international financial institutions playing a lesser role.

Mr. Kim is the General Manager of Overseas Nuclear Project Development at KEPCO, and told us about KEPCO’s experience with government based nuclear financing:

“In the industry’s early stage in the 1960~70s, the Korean government provided support in R&D and supported financing with government guarantees. However, private companies are now raising their own funds. Recently, most of the overseas nuclear projects are financed through project financing, and KEPCO assists in smooth financing from public financial institutions such as KEXIM and Korea Export Insurance Corporation as well as overseas investors.”

Mr. Coelho also cited a KEPCO investment as an example of government funding at work:

“A recent example of government financing is the UAE nuclear power program, which is a joint venture between the UAE and KEPCO in addition with other Korean partners. The tentative financing structure involved a $10 billion equity stake by Abu Dhabi, with the remaining $20 billion to be financed by debt backed by ECAs, bank financing and sovereign debt.”

Mr. Park mentions several advantages to using financing from government owned utilities, such as “strong government support, access to resources, and good credit ratings that allow more affordable borrowing and easier access to the international credit market.”Mr. Coelho mentions some new trends that are emerging in the financing of nuclear plants:

“Nuclear Steam System Supplier (NSSS) vendors have recently been taking equity stakes in the projects and China’s biggest nuclear power developer, China National Nuclear Power Co. (CNNC), recently announced plans to access international capital markets via an IPO, proceeds of which will be used to fund five nuclear projects with a total required investment of 173.5 billion yuan ($27.25 billion).” Mr. Park mentions some other new trends that involve coalitions of differing companies:

“Large privately owned utilities are financing a smaller number of new reactors, usually as partners in coalitions. There are also a couple of projects (Olkiluoto-3 and Fennovoima in Finland) where ownership and funding is shared among municipalities, local utilities, industrial electricity

consumers and strategic partners. For countries starting nuclear programs, the sources

of financing are usually partly or fully in the countries supplying the nuclear power plants. Sometimes, other innovative schemes based on a “build-own-operate” model are implemented, such as in Turkey.”

COST EFFECTIVENuclear development has been described as unsustainable, costly and risky. Building nuclear plants is extremely costly, and critics claim that costs will only increase alongside the risk, making nuclear plants is not worth the investment.

With nuclear construction, investors have to speculate to accumulate. On the one hand, nuclear power plants have extremely high capital costs for construction (Mr. Kidd), especially compared to those utilizing fossil fuels, as safety considerations are paramount. Storage of nuclear waste is expensive and dangerous, and so is attracting skilled labor. The costs of building plants is drawn out even more by the exhaustive planning process, and the extended period of construction.

On the other hand, the operating costs of a nuclear power plant are very low – half or lower per kilowatt-hour than the cost of the cheapest fossil fuels. Nuclear power plants also produce more kilowatts than coal, wind or solar. This makes nuclear plants very profitable for their owners, says Mr. Kidd, because “operating costs are usually well below power prices.” Mr. Coelho states that only shale gas is a more competitive form of energy generation.

This is partly due, according to Dr. Peimani, to the cheap price of uranium. The fuel’s abundance and the efficiency of fission ensures an economically viable cost. Zaf Coelho agrees, stating that:

“Studies have shown that a 50% increase in uranium price results only in a 6% increase of electricity generation cost as compared to coal where the same increase in fuel costs will result in a 21% increase of electricity generation cost.”

Additionally, advanced technology is helping to shrink construction periods and extend plant lifetimes. Advanced reactors will also cost even less to operate, and produce less waste. Also, investors have to think logically about the relationship between cost and investment period. Mr. Kim points out simply that “the financial cost in proportion to the investment period is larger as the construction period is longer.”

Mr. Kim also points out that for countries who have to import fuel, no matter how expensive nuclear plants are to build, they are always cost effective. This is particularly true for South Korea:

“Nuclear power is the most optimal and stable energy source for Korea in terms of energy security, since Korea imports all fossil fuel and faces high fluctuation in the energy price. Generally, even considering costs for disposal of spent fuel and plant decommissioning, the generating cost of nuclear power is less expensive than that of the fossil fuel power.”

Mr. Park gave the USA as another example of where nuclear plants have proved to be very cost effective. Mr. Park told us that 73 out of the country’s104 reactors“have sought and received license renewals to allow 60 years of total operation, and another 13 applications are being processed”.

One also has to consider the human and environmental cost of investing in such a clean technology, rather than fossil fuels. Mr. Park points out that “in countries that have carbon taxes or require permits for emitting greenhouse gases (GHGs), nuclear power’s very low GHG emissions also lowers its operating costs relative to fossil fuels”.

Dr. Peimani also suggests that whilst paying for nuclear construction may be high now, the price we may have to pay later for overuse of fossil fuels will be much higher. This price will include excessive environmental damage, as well as potentially millions of fatalities from respiratory diseases, cancers, and mining & plant accidents. It is with this in mind that Dr. Peimani asserts that it makes more sense to spend a little more today on nuclear power.

CONCLUSION The nuclear industry is haunted. The specters of Chernobyl, Fukushima, and the atomic bombs of the World War possess the public consciousness, and creating an impossible climate in which to exploit the true potential of this natural resource.

Unfortunately, there is no space for the supernatural in science, industry and the generation of energy. Whilst it is important to remember these disasters, we must do so in order to learn from the mistakes that were made, as opposed to using them to garner fear and spread misinformation.

It is time to dust away the cobwebs of old and erroneous ideas and say Nuclear? Yes Please.

POWER INSIDER NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2012 49