Paper Review

This week I have decided to review a highly relevant paper by William Sailor written in Science in 2007. The article takes a similar premise to this blog and is simply titled “ Nuclear Energy- A solution to Climate Change?”

The premise

The paper evaluates the possibility of a global increase in nuclear energy by 2050. Sailor (et al, 2007) puts forward the scenario that carbon emissions do not exceed their current level, despite an expected doubling in world energy demand in 2050 (the paper assumes a global demand of 900EJ, fairly well matched to recent mid-estimates by the EIA and world energy outlook). This is achieved by a global energy mix of 1/3 conventional fossil fuels, 1/3 renewable/decarbonized sources and 1/3 nuclear. The paper does not assess whether the whole energy mix is possible, rather whether Nuclear energy could hold its side of the bargain.  

The World energy outlook project that growth in world energy use largely comes from poorer countries outside of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Energy use patterns for countries inside the OECD are relatively stable between 2010 and 2040 Source: IEA,2013

A case of bad timing?

From the onset Sailor (et al, 2007) argue that with popular support nuclear could supply 1/3 of global energy (300EJ) demand by 2050, citing that world per capita nuclear output would only need to be half the current rate in France, and that the obstacles facing nuclear energy pale in comparison to those facing renewable energy. 

Sailor (et al, 2007) argue that to obtain 300EJ  from renewables would require an expansion in biofuels taking up  vast land areas needed for increasing food production. They also highlight the uncertainties in carbon sequestion along with the high costs of wind and solar energy  Source: inhabitat.com

I believe this optimism is partly due to the publication date. Pre-Fukushima, whilst ambitious, this figure was far more probable. However since 3/11, the industry has faced a major downturn (see link). Support for atomic energy has stagnated and approximations of future generating capacity have been slashed; the IEA for one halved its estimate of the additional nuclear generating capacity to be built by 2035.  That said, development of nuclear power in China amongst others could still lead to an increased share in global energy.  

Putting to one side the speculative increase in generating capacity, what do the authors, independent of popular support, consider the main obstacles facing a large expansion in nuclear power?

Paying over the odds

The paper prioritises the relative cost of nuclear power, conceding that at present no carbon free energy can compete with the combined cycle gas power plants in the USA. Sailor (et al, 2007) propose the gradual introduction of a carbon tax eventually rising to a rate of $100 per ton. A figure, which they believe, will be needed to level out the cost disadvantage for nuclear energy. To put this in context, there is no nationwide carbon tax in the US at present, and Australia, which has one of the highest rates globally, charges less than a quarter of this $100 benchmark. The article does not make clear whether the $100 is a global average or just the competitive rate required in the USA.

There is much debate on the merits of carbon taxes and the apposite rate required for climate change mitigation, which I will not go into here. Sailor (et al, 2007) are simply theorising what is needed to make nuclear power competitive and gives little idea  how a $100 rate would be introduced. However I feel the paper does neglect the recent trends in price and economical uncertainties associated with nuclear power. Sailor (et al,2007) assume that with greater research into simplified designs, along with a reduction in lead times through changes in government policy, the cost of nuclear power will stabilise. However since 2003 construction costs for all large-scale engineering projects have increased, and the cost of nuclear plants have been increasing disproportionally (Findley,2010). Nuclear plants take up to a decade to build, they need to be large and also run at full capacity to take advantage of economies of scale and be economically sustainable; in addition the projections of cost are wide-ranging. This makes them less attractive to developing countries which lack the economic flexibility of countries like the USA and France, but significantly will drive the increase in future world energy demand. 

The graph above shows the amount of CO2 displaced per dollar of investment, Nuclear is seen to give a relatively low return when compared to non-traditional alternatives such as 'clean fossil fuels' Source: Findlay,2010

The drawbacks of nuclear ambition

Another issue highlighted is that of nuclear proliferation, the paper makes the important point that no commercial plants have played a role as a bridge for national entry into the nuclear arms race, nor have subnational groups or individuals used stolen materials. However Sailor (et al ,2007) fear that the possibility of plutonium breeder reactors with greater demand for nuclear power could heighten the danger.

The paper mentions very little about how this threat could be combated politically. In truth it is very difficult to quantify, after all nuclear power could be eliminated but the threat of nuclear weapons would still remain. A nuclear reactor only gives the beginnings; the next steps are dependent on the technological expertise and the political stance of the country in question.

The authors also comment on nuclear safety and waste disposal in the context of a global increase in demand. The analysis of the former is based very much on the safety record of the current generation of reactors, and the impressive probability calculations of core damage taken from the newer crop of third generation plants. With this the paper reaches the conclusion that nuclear power is safe and only getting safer. Personally I feel the authors fail to factor in the likely problems in maintaining such low levels of risk with the introduction of nuclear power in a number of less developed countries, and thereby overestimate nuclear safety.

In terms of waste management Sailor (et al, 2007) propose its placement in deep geological depositories globally. This is the method used in almost all countries at present but I feel the paper views the issue  from a largely American-centric perspective. It focuses on the possibility of a site at Yucca Mountain, Nebraska, rather than evaluating the nature of international waste management. For example the need for international cooperation in the form of “take back schemes”, the issues of cost and capacity in certain countries, and alternatives to long term burial like reprocessing.

Final Thoughts  

Ultimately the article by Sailor (et al, 2007) is a basic critique on a hypothetical expansion in nuclear power, rather than a detailed assessment on its likelihood and extent. The paper concludes that there are no insurmountable technical barriers and that with public support and the right safeguards, nuclear energy could cater for 1/3 of demand. The figure of a 1/3 is unrealistic, and I felt the study overlooked the rising costs of nuclear power along with the likely problems encountered with its implementation in the developing world. I wouldn’t rule out a significant expansion in nuclear energy but these are two issues that need to be considered.