Less reactors, more cheese
Although nuclear reactors tend to receive a lot of public resistance, they still have an important role in the current society. As of July 2023, 407 reactors were operated in 32 countries, producing 2.546 terawatt hours of electricity, which is about 10 percent of the global power consumption. In the past two decades, 99 startups were established from which 49 in China, which had no share in the 105 closures in those same decades. Belgium ranks 4th in the world, in terms of how much nuclear energy is used in its electricity mix (in %). In Europe, however, the general trend is to phase out nuclear energy production since the perception is that current reactors come with many environmental and safety issues. Is there still potential for nuclear energy in Europe’s ambitious pathway to Net-Zero by 2050?
Figure 1: Electricity mix 2022 for several important economies that use nuclear energy in the world (figure: Econopolis Strategy, source: Our World in Data)
Nuclear energy is a low-carbon source of energy and can produce a significant amount of power on a very small surface (e.g. 111x less space per generated kilowatt-hour compared to offshore wind) – an interesting feature in a country where space is scarce. It is also an excellent way to achieve energy independence, which is particularly relevant in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. However, there is a perception problem associated with nuclear energy: it is considered expensive, there is fear of nuclear disasters, concerns about nuclear proliferation, and it is often said that we have no solution for nuclear waste. There is a lot of fake news circulating, and the debate is highly polarized. In the book 'De Klimaatschok’, we delve deeper into each of these arguments, but in the remainder of this article, we want to focus on the potential of nuclear energy production in the future, rather than focusing on the current arguments for or con nuclear.
So, does nuclear energy still have a position in our future power mix? The answer is yes. With positive developments in the aforementioned concerns and bottlenecks, a nuclear revival might be possible:
- Nuclear reactors of the 4th generation will have minimal waste by converting their typical waste to products that decay much faster. The 1% of transuranic content of nuclear fuel is responsible for 99.9% of the disposal time required and policy issues. A 300.000-year problem can be reduced to a 300-year problem by getting rid of Uranium, Plutonium and this transuranic content.
- The fuel efficiency use will be optimized as well, which in return produces even less waste.
- Safety will be much higher by using sub-critical reactors: these are reactors that can be instantly shut off when needed, since the energy production requires constant activation. This will eliminate catastrophes like Chernobyl.
- The last and most important one is cost competitiveness compared to renewables. Nuclear reactors were always built with the perception of having behemoths of energy producers, powering as much as possible. This hindered the standardization process for reactors, making them cost inefficient. It could be economically more viable if we were able to produce reactors like one can produce wind turbines: systemic and with a clear blueprint. Cost of energy can decrease drastically as it is expected to have up to 30% decreases in overall plant costs from the first plant to the second plant[1]. This concept is however still uncertain in terms of economics, and future will tell when the first Small Reactors roll off the production line. What we do know, is that the technology is too promising to simply ignore.
This standardization trend can be seen from the reactors of France and America: in its nuclear history, France has only built 2 types of reactors, keeping costs low and steady (1600 /kW) by leveraging their existing knowhow. The United States, however, have built 100 types of nuclear reactors, making the price per kW much more volatile, ranging from 1500 /kW to 10.000 /kW. It is often joked that the US, unlike France, has more types of reactors than types of cheese. Considering the high labor cost of the Western world, standardization is the only way to compete with other parts of the world. With this philosophy in mind, Small Modular Reactors or SMRs could provide the nuclear solution. These reactors are Small, which means they will only produce up to 300 MW. The main benefit is their modularity; systems and components can be factory-assembled and transported to sites for installation, effectively standardizing the production process. It seems counterintuitive to scale down in MW output while benefitting of economies of scale. However, it is only possible to standardize (for now) with a smaller format.
Nuclear energy is a technology that can play a pivotal role in addressing climate change. With the right developments and an economic shift in mind, nuclear energy might start its revival in the coming decades. Research towards reactors will also never be in vain since nuclear fusion will be able to build upon acquired knowhow, whenever it gets established as a reliable energy source. But for now, it looks like we’ll need less reactor types, and more cheese.
[1] https://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/The-Future-of-Nuclear-Energy-in-a-Carbon-Constrained-World.pdf