You are here

The nuclear renaissance is stone cold dead (Jim Green)

Nuclear Monitor Issue: 

The figures are in: 2013 was another bad year for the nuclear power industry − its third in a row − and it's time to call shenanigans on the nuclear 'renaissance' that never was.

The most that could be said for the 2013 figures[1] − four reactors connected to grids, four permanently shut down − is that they weren't as bad as the previous year, and the industry can take some comfort from 10 reactor construction starts. In 2012, nuclear power generation fell by 7% from the 2011 figure − its biggest ever one-year fall.[2] Nuclear generation fell in no less than 17 countries, including all of the top five nuclear-generating countries.[3] Nuclear power accounted for 17% of global electrical generation capacity in 1993; it has steadily declined to 10% now[3]; and it will account for just 4.5−6.2 of electrical generation capacity in 2030 according to the latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) forecasts.[4]

The IAEA has downwardly revised its projections repeatedly since the Fukushima disaster. Its latest forecast is for growth from 373 gigawatts (GWe) of global nuclear capacity (in September 2013) to 435−722 GWe by 2030; that is, growth of 17−94%. As if to soften the blow of its latest downward revision, the IAEA noted that the latest reduction "is less than in the two previous years."[4]

The IAEA's low estimate (435 GWe) is down 20% from the pre-Fukushima, 2010 low estimate of 546 GWe in 2030. The high estimate (722 GWe) is down 10% from the pre-Fukushima, 2010 high estimate of 803 GWe.[36]

Historically, the IAEA's high estimates have been fanciful, while its low estimates also tend to be too high (by 13% on average[5]) but provide a reasonable guide nonetheless. So growth of 17% by 2030 − annual growth of 1% − is about as much as the industry can realistically hope for.

IAEA series: 'Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power Estimates' (






Low estimate 2030 nuclear capacity (GWe)





High estimate 2030 nuclear capacity (GWe)





Estimate 2030 nuclear share of elec. generation capacity (%)






Estimate 2050 nuclear share of elec. generation capacity (%)





The IAEA will further reduce its projections when it fully accounts for last year's developments. Perhaps the most striking developments were in the United States, where the industry is finding it increasingly difficult to profitably operate existing reactors − especially ageing reactors requiring refurbishments − let alone build new ones. Almost half of the world's reactors have operated for 30 years or more[3], so the problem of ageing reactors is starting to come into sharp focus.

Peter Bradford, a former member of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, noted in July 2013 that applications for 31 new reactors in the US were pending by 2009. "The 31 proposed reactors are down to four actually being built and a few others lingering on in search of a licence, which is good for 20 years," Bradford wrote. "Those four are hopelessly uneconomic but proceed because their state legislatures have committed to finish them as long as a dollar remains to be taken from any electric customer's pocket. Operating reactors are being closed as uneconomic for the first time in 15 years."[6]

Last year alone, US utilities closed or announced plans to close five reactors in addition to cancelled plans for new reactors and cancelled plans to increase the power of existing reactors; Forbes recently listed another six nuclear plants that could be next for the chopping block[7]; and academic Mark Cooper has identified 38 US reactors in a similar situation to those that have recently been shut down.[8] Small comfort for the industry that the number of reactors listed as under construction has risen to five.

The UK has finally made some movement towards replacing its fleet of ageing reactors.[9] The capital cost for two planned large reactors (totalling 3.2 GW) at Hinkley Point in Somerset: a staggering £16 billion (US$26.4 billion). Utilities can't raise the capital, so the UK government is offering loan guarantees of £10 billion. And the UK government is guaranteeing French utility EDF a staggering £89.50 for every megawatt-hour generated by the Hinkley Point reactors, fully indexed for inflation, for a staggering 35 years.

Economic consulting firm Liberum Capital said "we are flabbergasted that the UK government has committed future generations of consumers to the costs that will flow from this deal" and that Hinkley Point will be "both the most expensive power station in the world and also the plant with the longest construction period."[10]

EDF plans to build European Pressurized Reactors (EPRs) at Hinkley Point. Two other EPR projects − in Finland and France − have been disastrous. The estimated capital cost for the EPR in Finland has ballooned from $4.5 billion to $12 billion.[11] The estimated cost for the EPR in France has ballooned from $5 billion to $12.8 billion.[12] Thus we have a rule-of-thumb for estimating the true capital costs of nuclear power: double the initial estimate and add a few billion for good measure.

While the costs of renewables are falling − and in the case of solar PV, plummeting [35] − nuclear power is subject to a 'negative learning curve'.[13] Economic boffins at Citigroup explain: "The capital cost of nuclear build has actually risen in recent decades in some developed markets, partly due to increased safety expenditure, and due to smaller construction programmes (i.e. lower economies of scale). Moreover the 'fixed cost' nature of nuclear generation in combination with its relatively high price (when back end liabilities are taken into account) also places the technology at a significant disadvantage; utilities are reluctant to enter into a very long term (20+ years of operation, and decades of aftercare provisioning) investment with almost no control over costs post commissioning, with the uncertainty and rates of change currently occurring in the energy mix."[14]

The French President has pledged to reduce reliance on nuclear power from 75% to 50% of total electricity generation[15] (though his plan faces significant opposition).[16] Belgium, Germany, and Switzerland plan to phase out their existing nuclear power programs.[3]

In January 2014, the European Commission forecast that EU nuclear generating capacity of 131 GWe in 2010 will decline to 97 GWe in 2025 before rising to 122 GWe in 2050 − still lower than the 2010 figure. The European Commission forecasts that nuclear's share of EU electricity generation will decline from 27% in 2010 to 21% in 2050, while the share held by renewables will increase from 21% to 51.6%, and fossil fuels' share will decline from 52% to 27%.[17]

Academic Richard Tanter noted that 2012 was a "busy year for nuclear corruption".[18] The same could be said for 2013. South Korea is one of four countries that is supposedly driving the nuclear renaissance (along with China, India and Russia). But plans to expand nuclear power to 41% of electricity supply by 2035 have been reduced to a 29% target [19] in the wake of a major scandal involving bribery and faked safety certificates for thousands of reactor parts[20], and another scandal involving the cover-up of an accident that sent the temperature of a reactor core soaring. One hundred people have been arrested including a former chief executive of Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power (KHNP), a vice president of Korea Electric Power Corp., and a former deputy minister in charge of energy.

In September, the chief executive of KHNP issued a public apology, saying "our domestic nuclear project is facing the utmost crisis" and noting that public trust has "hit the ground" because of the Fukushima disaster and the corruption.[21] The proportion of South Koreans who consider nuclear power safe fell from 71% in 2010 to 35% in 2012[22], while a 2011 survey found 68% opposition to new reactors in South Korea (and 69% opposition across 24 countries).[23]

No reactors are operating in Japan − some will restart in the coming years but plans to add at least 15 reactors to Japan's fleet of 50 reactors are dead and buried. The Fukushima disaster will be with us for decades and the economic costs are being counted in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

Plans for a new nuclear power plant in Taiwan motivated 200,000 people to participate in protests in March 2013[24], led to a physical brawl in Parliament in August[25], and both major parties are promising an eventual phase-out of nuclear power.[26]

Russia [33] and China have reduced their projections for nuclear power growth (though significant growth in China, where 28 reactors are under construction, still has the potential to mask patterns of stagnation and slow decline elsewhere). Public opposition forced the cancellation last year of a planned nuclear fuel processing plant in China [27] and contributed to the cancellation of a planned power reactor near Kaliningrad in Russia [34] − the first time in both countries that public opposition has stopped nuclear projects.

Canada has abandoned plans for new reactors.[28] The government of Brazil, the world's fifth most populous country, recently announced that apart from one reactor already under construction, plans for new reactors have been put on hold indefinitely.[29] The head of Brazil's energy planning agency, Mauricio Tolmasquim, said: "This is wind power's moment. There's been a revolution in terms of cost."

South Africa − the only country in Africa with power reactors − abandoned plans for new reactors in 2008, revived them, then abandoned them again in December 2013.[30]

In the Middle East, only Iran has a nuclear power reactor, while Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are pursuing nuclear power programs with greater or lesser intent. Meanwhile a swag of countries in the Middle East and North Africa have put nuclear power on the back-burner, including Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Israel, Morocco, Algeria and Libya.[3,31]

Any number of other countries have decided since the Fukushima disaster not to engage or re-engage in nuclear programs, including Singapore, Greece, Italy, Peru, Portugal, Thailand, Venezuela, and many others.[3]

The nuclear renaissance is dead ... stone cold dead. If there is any growth at all, it will fall well short of the significant, sustained growth implied in the term renaissance.

Utilities are feeling the pain. The 2013 World Nuclear Industry Status Report noted that over the previous five years, 10 out of 15 assessed nuclear utilities were downgraded by credit rating agency Standard and Poor's, four remained stable, while only one was upgraded.[3] Dr Ian Fairlie has recently compiled a list of over 40 examples of governments, banks, utilities and energy companies around the world withdrawing from nuclear projects since 2011.[32]

[4] and
[5] Calculated from tables 33 and 34, p.56,

(Written by Nuclear Monitor editor Jim Green.)