Nuclear and Freshwater - Part 2

Despite the comparably high freshwater use in the cooling process of nuclear energy production it must be noted that power plants, according to the US Geological Survey return 98% of the water that they initially withdraw (NEI 2013). Only 1-2% is actually consumed which is relatively efficient when put in comparison to irrigation, which withdrawals more water than the energy sector and only returns around 20% of this to the hydrological cycle (NEI 2013). Further contextualisation shows nuclear “once-through” cooling to consume 13 gallons/day/household, if a power plant is taken to provide for the average 740,000 homes. This contrasts to the average 94 gallons/day/household consumed by an average 3 person household in the US (NEI 2013). Therefore in the face of a water security issue, it is arguably household consumption that needs to be prioritised over the energy sector!

Irrigation is by far the largest freshwater-consuming sector (NEI 2013). Image Source (National Geographic 2015).

The cooling water requirements are currently higher in nuclear than fossil fuels, as mentioned in the previous post, due to the variable operating temperatures of the procedures (Brook 2014). However, this disparity may not be a long-term issue with new nuclear power plants, using the “liquid-metal-cooled-fast reactor, operating at a similar temperature to fossil fuel energy generation and therefore the difference is going to be gradually diminished (Brook 2014). The power plants only consume negligible amounts of water; much of it is heated and then returned to the origin as clean water. Within cooling towers the water is evaporated and returned to the natural cycle as clean water vapour (Brook 2014). Therefore in terms of the process as a whole, nuclear can be viewed as a relatively efficient water sector. This only contains the consumption within the actual generator, therefore perhaps underestimating the full use within the nuclear sector – for example water requirements will be required during mining and transportation also. Therefore it is important to broaden the view, to ensure that the full process chain is accounted for in regards to nuclear energy efficiency.

Nuclear does not necessarily remove freshwater; there is the potential for freshwater improvements. For example in some power plants the cooling towers use urban waste water that is first cleaned, then evaporated back into the environment (Brook 2014). Therefore the energy generation is not using any water that could have been put to any other use, increasing freshwater availability.

Furthermore, nuclear has a large role in desalination with recent nuclear generators constricted in Argentina, China and South Korea that have dual benefits of electricity production and freshwater generation (NEI 2015). Many of the desalination technologies currently use fossil fuels which therefore can increase global warming and place freshwater security at a greater threat. Many countries are already highly dependent on desalination, for example around 40% of Israel’s freshwater comes via desalination processes (WNA 2015). In many areas the need for water resources for consumption and agricultural is high, yet supply is low. Oman for example opened a nuclear desalination plant in 2011, with the eventual capacity desired to be 220,000m³/day freshwater production (WNA 2015). The quality produced will therefore enable agricultural and domestic use, whilst also allowing aquifers to be recharged with potable water to facilitate the regeneration of long-term freshwater stores.

The Al Ansab submerged membrane bioreactor desalination plant, Oman (ACWA 2012).

Types of desalination process (OECD N/A):

• Multi-stage Flash distillation Plant – water vapour is generated by heating the seawater close to boiling point. Then it is passed through gradually reducing pressures to provide flash evaporation. The vapour is then condensed as a freshwater.
• Multi-effect distillation Plant – Vapour generated by external heat appliance. Again lower pressures promote further evaporation. The vapour produced from one heating is used to provide the heat for the next evaporation process. Forming a chain reaction.
• Reverse Osmosis – seawater is passed through a high pressure system with semi-permeable surfaces. This rejects brine and produces pure water.

The latter requires less energy, costs and water input, suggesting it may be the more efficient process to use.

Costs per m3 production of desalinated freshwater. Lowest costs seen within nuclear reverse osmosis (OECD N/A).

The UK Environmental Agency suggests that all future nuclear plants should be built on the coast to enable the greatest supply for reactor cooling as well as enabling large scale desalination projects (NEI 2013). This is perfect in the UK, however as seen in Fukushima coastal positioning generates large risk within active seismic areas – meaning the UK policy is unlikely to be replicated on a global scale.

Nuclear energy therefore is not a sector that should be targeted in regards to freshwater security issues. Withdrawal and consumption are comparably low to other sectors. However it must be examined as a potential source of improvement. Desalination through fossil fuels is simply adding to the problem, nuclear desalination can provide additional freshwater in the short-term and reduce global warming and the consequent freshwater reduction in the long-term also!

Nuclear and Freshwater - Part 1

Energy and freshwater security are interdependent and therefore pressures on one will tend to transfer to the other also (Holland 2015).

Nuclear energy can be viewed as detrimental to freshwater security, for example in 2008 it was realised that nuclear power plants used more water per unit electricity than other forms of power plant (UCSUSA 2015). The water use varies depending on the cooling method used, the “once-through” technique uses 400 gallons/MWh, whereas if cooling towers are implemented then the consumption increases to 720 gallons/MWh. In comparison to other forms of energy generation, this is rather high:

•  Coal ranging from 300-714 gallons/MWh.
• Natural gas ranging from 100-370 gallons/MWh (NEI 2013).

However it is far more efficient than other renewable energy options:

• Hydropower consumption 4,500 gallons/MWh.
• Geothermal and solar consume 2 to 4x more water than nuclear power plants (NEI 2013).

Cooling towers in Nottinghamshire, UK (Carroll 2012).

The interdependence is highlighted by the 15% loss of French nuclear energy generation in 2003 as a result of a severe drought (Hightower 2008). Similar difficulties were found in Eastern Australia following the large drought of 2007. With the increased threat of freshwater security the energy sector will have to compete with other sectors – predominantly agriculture – for the dwindling resources (Hightower 2008). Therefore whether there is sufficient water available to provide for the nuclear future is a question that needs to be answered.

As seen from previous posts, nuclear disasters or waste leakage can detriment the quality of the freshwater resources. For example in SE Washington State there were wide reports of groundwater (GW) contamination (Hanson 2000). Liquid wastes were discharged directly into the ground in the mid-20^th century, as well as waste leakage from the underground pipe system (Hanson 2000). The risk of GW contamination reduces the amount of resource available for use. This will be of particular concern within semi-arid and arid environments where GW resources are gaining increasing importance as surface stores reduce with increasingly prolonged droughts.

Evidence of contamination was found in northern and western areas of the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan (Mizuno 2013). Freshwater organisms such as the Ayu fish were contaminated. High caesium content was detected in areas up to 40km away from the plant. This spread is produced by the high density Japanese freshwater system with multiple irrigation canals, paddy fields and urban waterways. Therefore enabling the contamination of the water to spread large areas, bringing ecological and human health issues and impacting agricultural efficiency (Mizuno 2013).

However, these negatives do not tell the whole story! Absolute consumption may not be as great as quoted here in reality, with many benefits coming from the nuclear sector also. These will be detailed in the following post! 

Waste Cartoon

Source (Hancock 2013).

The above refers to the longevity of the nuclear waste problem. Perhaps the cartoon underestimates the prolonged threat it can provide, the issue is going to continue past one generational shift! However, it does stimulate thought in regards to the ethics behind nuclear waste - can we dispose of it in deep geological structures, placing it out of sight and out of mind - if future generations will be impacted by the potential escape of radioactive material over time. Contrasting viewpoints point to different radioactive lifespans - much opposition, including Greenpeace, use the half life (millions of years) of radionuclides to emphasise their anti-nuclear stance. However other evidence would suggest that after 1,000 years the waste would have decayed to a similar level as natural uranium (WNA 2015).

There is no doubt the waste concern will bypass the lives of multiple generations - whether this is moral or not is a big question. It may be argued that leaving the waste for future generations is positive, as if the current technological advancement trends continue then a future society may be in a better position to overcome this challenge than the position we are currently in. Advancements have already begun, for example the vitrification process (UOS 2013) and fuel reprocessing.

Please view my posts on nuclear waste (Parts 1 and 2), for more information and references to other material.

Costs Cartoon

Source: (Energy Collective 2012).

I have decided to source some images/cartoons that I feel reflect some of the points that I have made in previous blogs. This particular image highlights, what I feel to be the inevitable, resurrection of nuclear energy in the coming years. My "nuclear costs" post displayed the relative cheapness of electricity production via nuclear, especially in the face of dwindling accessible fossil fuel sources. Stable uranium costs will limit economically damaging price fluctuations, whilst lower transportation costs will benefit net importers of fuel.

With greater economic stress applied by rising fossil fuel costs, the ever increasing stigma attached to carbon combustion and the restrictions agreed upon at COP 21 - previous reservations of nuclear energy may be reversed. This cartoon may symbolise the future of German energy - realising that the closure of multiple plants may limit long-term economic and environmental viability!

Nuclear at COP 21 - Part 2

One very exciting prospect for nuclear that has been introduced at COP 21 is the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, announced by Bill Gates. The main objective of this scheme is to use the economic capacity and power of the world’s billionaires (including Richard Branson and Mark Zuckerberg) (Milman 2015) to fast-track the globe to a clean-energy era (Casey2015). The coalition sees nuclear at the forefront of this clean energy push, which will likely conflict with many who do not view nuclear as a “clean” option!

Founders Richard Branson (left) and Mark Zuckerberg (right) and co-chair Bill Gates (centre) of the Breakthrough Energy Coalition (BEC 2015).

The need for this push is because current investment is not sufficient, with subsidies and governmental supports not in a position to stimulate mass private risks in regards to investing in nuclear, and other clean energy, technologies and research. Therefore the billionaires can overcome this initial risk and also stimulate the mobilization of further investment. Bill Gates views solar and wind energy as great options, yet agrees with the viewpoint I have reiterated multiple times – the magnitude of the climate issue means all pathways have to be explored – with new and innovative energy production schemes required to remove humanity from its continued fossil fuel dependency.

Profit remains the primary objective (Casey 2015), which leads me to question the extent in which they will go to in order to truly establish this era of clean energy. If a loss if required to combat climate change, would they have the drive to make such a move? (It is not like they are short of profit?!). The profit is hoped to be obtained directly from returns in investments as well as indirectly as their initial investment will enable the market they function within to enhance, creating more custom for their research and innovations.

Gunter (2015) argues that innovation is not needed; we have already made the break-through with wind, solar etc. Therefore the fund available could be put to use practically in expanding the innovations already made, rather than driving for new innovations. I feel this is a rather restricted-view, yes renewables need to be expanded – but surely attempting to innovate and create more effective clean energy sources, whether it be nuclear or not should not be opposed?!

Listen to Bill Gates explain the basic concept of the Breakthrough Energy Coalition below:

Nuclear at COP 21 - Part 1

Nuclear energy has been relatively subdued within the COP 21 conference in Paris (Hyams 2015). With the majority of draft documents not mentioning nuclear as a solution to climate change (Jouette 2015). The focus has been mainly on the traditional renewables of solar, wind etc. – however arguably nuclear has to be integrated into discussions and decisions if the carbon reduction objectives are going to be fulfilled. A short interview with Jean-Pol Poncelet during COP 21, who is the General Secretary for the pro-nuclear, European Nuclear Society – can be listened to here. He highlights the dependency Europe in particular already has on nuclear, in particular within France. The low-carbon procedure in preparing the fuel is partnered with the 0 emission energy production, therefore if the 2C increase boundary is going to be prevented then the nuclear potential must be considered strongly! Other low-emission sources are not disregarded, with nuclear being suggested as a necessary component of the overall mix. Perhaps nuclear can be used as a stop-gap for other renewables to develop further, this may have to be the case if the uranium supply is as restricted as many claim. The pro-nuclear stance was supported by Elon Musk (2015), who promoted nuclear as a suitable carbon-reducing option – however not on a global scale, but only in areas that are not prone to natural disasters such as France. This therefore places nuclear as “one of many” energy requirements needed on a global level to challenge climate change.

COP 21 in Paris has the ultimate goal of creating an international legally binding agreement on climate, aiming to keep warming below 2°C (COP 21 2015).

These challenges were made clear to be following the experience of the COP 21 workshop we recently undertook, which involved role-play negotiations etc. What became clear to me was the vast magnitude of changes required in order to prevent the 2C increase, and even if that is succeeded then sea-level rise will still have major implications. Therefore nuclear is not the full answer – the extreme changes that are needed will require all possible technologies and strategies available to reduce the threat of climate change. Whilst also ensuring economic viability persists.

One nation which is backing nuclear energy at COP 21 is India, with overall goals to produce 40% of their energy with 0 emissions – with nuclear playing a major role in fulfilling this percentage. India plans to have 63 gigawatts of nuclear by 2032, whilst also benign central to increasing the potential for a global expansion. Funding will also be placed into research to enable a greater level of nuclear accessibility in developing nations – highlighting their outlook on the potential for nuclear to achieve climate goals (Taylor 2015).

India's Additional Secretary Susheel Kumar speaking at the National Resources Defence Council panel at COP 21, 4th December (Taylor 2015).

The Compact of States and Regions is a scheme that is supported by the UN, which primarily reports on greenhouse gas production. The Scheme’s governance includes 18 countries, with around 1/8 global economy and >12% global emission represented by the group. At COP 21 the group announced it was aiming to cut its emissions by more than the annual Chinese production by 2030 – with even greater claims of cutting emission by the equivalent of the total global greenhouse production of 2012, by 2050! The way in which they see these highly ambitious targets to be reached – nuclear! They do support other renewables; however the fact that solar and wind do not produce energy 24 hours of the day, highlights how such energy resources can not be trusted in isolation (Casey 2015).

The first report from the Compact of States and Regions. It is the first single, global account of greenhouse gas reduction targets made by national and regional governments (The Climate Group 2015). 

The fear from many at COP 21 is that anti-nuclear positions may cause a fall back to fossil fuels if the renewable energy sector has not progressed to a level which can provide national requirements (Connor 2015). Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington again reiterates the point I have made about the need for change immediately, that nuclear can provide 0 carbon NOW – there is simply not enough time to wait until renewables are available at the necessary scale. The longer we delay action, the greater the warming and the more devastating the results to our biosphere. That not using all fossil fuel alternatives at this stage of urgency would be “crazy” (Connor 2015)!

However the nuclear presence at COP 21 is not all positive, with movements such as “Don’t Nuke the Climate” appearing within the conference centres everyday of COP 21. The Nuclear Information and Resource Service has booths within the centres and meeting points, attempting to communicate with government representatives to prevent both fossil fuels and nuclear energy from being in their plans to fight climate change (NIRS 2015). The movement looks to Germany as the example, with the emissions in 2014 reducing over 4% from 2013 levels - with a complete absence of nuclear. As previously mentioned Germany closed multiple nuclear stations after the Fukushima disaster (Harding 2011), with the nation still maintaining a strong anti-nuclear stance .

"Don't Nuke the Climate" logo (NIRS 2015).

The Director of the World Nuclear Association, Agneta Rising, promotes nuclear within COP 21 claiming:

"To implement the goals of an ambitious COP 21 agreement governments need to develop policies that encourage investment in low carbon generation, especially nuclear energy. We need 1000 GWe of new nuclear capacity by 2050 to combat climate change" (WNA 2015).

This level of nuclear production will be essential to drop electricity emissions by 80% by 2050 to prevent the 2C threshold from being breached (WNA 2015).

If the COP 21 targets are going to be met, nuclear must be involved – all options must be used to their capacity to overcome the urgency and magnitude of the issues that are being faced in the modern world.

Multiple Nuclear Uses

Despite common assumption, nuclear is not just used as an energy source. There are multiple uses that are available which can benefit human society. This post will give a brief overview of the other nuclear processes that may be further developed in the future.

Nuclear reactors can produce radioisotopes, which are radioactive and emit particles or waves (WNA 2015a). The radioisotopes are of other important use, other than the splitting of the uranium isotope atom for energy production. One of the most common uses of nuclear reactor products is the household smoke detector. Americium-241 originates within nuclear reactors; it emits alpha particles which consequently allows for a current to pass through. If smoke enters the detector it is absorbed by the emitted alpha particles, cuts the current and initiates the alarm. Nuclear products are therefore a mainstay in developed households – a desire to remove all reactors (Greenpeace 2015) could therefore limit public safety. The counter-argument would be that nuclear disasters are a far greater risk to public health than smoke detection.

Nuclear radioisotopes are commonly used within the domestic smoke detector. Image Source (SafeSoundFamily 2015).

Nuclear energy is not only produced for domestic or industrial use, it also has a strong prevalence within transportation. For example it is highly desirable within ships and ocean vessels that have to remain in the ocean for prolonged periods of time, without the capability for refuelling (WNA 2015b). Current estimates suggest that over 140 ships are powered by 180+ nuclear reactors (WNA 2015b). Furthermore nuclear electricity production can be essential to provide for electric cars, allowing for nuclear energy to further reduce the threat of emissions that is paramount within current global energy choices. The heat from nuclear reactions can also be used in the formation of liquid hydrocarbon fuels from coal – arguably this does not support its positive influence on mitigating climate change, but highlighting its importance in an ever-increasingly mobile society.

The US nuclear reactor-powered Los Angeles-class attack submarine USS Tuscon (Washington Times 2015).

Transportation into space has also been heavily influenced by the nuclear potential (WNA 2015c). For example radioisotope thermoelectric generators have been the dominant energy resource within the US space programme which the 1960s. One way in which it is utilised is to aid the propulsion once in space. Nuclear fission heats a hydrogen propellant fuel – this hot gas which is in excess of 2500°C is then released and provides additional thrust. Therefore nuclear energy may be central to progressing human knowledge further into the unknowns of space!

N-15 radioisotopes can be used in fertilizers to detect the level of nitrogen uptake certain crops undertake (WNA 2015a) – this will therefore allow for more efficient fertilizer use and increase the productivity to its capacity. Furthermore, radiation induced mutations have been promoted to develop over 1,800 crop varieties (WNA 2015a). Often through the use of gamma radiation or neutron irradiation, new genetic pathways can be produced. Potentially aiding food security and developing crops that are resistant to pests or droughts for example. Obviously this does have the potential to mitigate world hunger; however there are also the clear ethical complications of human culture integrating itself within nature (Castree 2003). This irradiation has also been utilised to preserve food such as vegetables and meat (WNA 2015a). The irradiation can remove insects from food stocks as well as gamma exposure removing bacteria, allowing for greater preservation – once again overcoming a global challenge of food security. Irradiation of the food does not make it radioactive – therefore the health concerns that inevitably will arise from nuclear opposition can be dismissed.

Nuclear isotope production also has an importance within hydrology and water security. They can be useful tracers of groundwater flows and identification of new sources (WNA 2015a). They can aid investigations into the age, as well as the residency time – which will be essential in calculating the max sustainable yield in order for groundwater extraction to remain sustainable. This use is likely to gain greater importance in the coming years with increasingly infrequent precipitation and prolonged droughts removing large proportions of surfice water sources in arid and semi-arid locations (Taylor 2012).

Current severe drought in Botswana. Highlighting importance of accessing and detecting groundwater sources. Photographer: Tshepo Mongwa (Daily News 2015).

As previously mentioned nuclear has the vast potential to be used within desalination, both of ocean water and urban waste water (WNA 2015d), further highlighting the importance in providing water security. The World Economic Forum report in January 2015 claims freshwater access will be the predominant global crisis over the next 10 years - therefore nuclear is essential in preventing this high magnitude concern to increase further. Wars over water have been a mainstay in historic conflict, nuclear may provide a greater opportunity for peace. Ironic, when weapons and war are commonly attached to images of nuclear! Furthermore, common desalination practice currently uses fossil fuels (WNA 2015d), therefore nuclear can mitigate climatic warming at the same time as ensuring the global population has access to an essential resource. Evidence from Kazakhstan, India and Japan show the costs of desalination via nuclear to be of a similar cost to the fossil fuel method (WNA 2015d), US$ 70-90 cents/ m3, suggesting it is cost effective and therefore increasing the chances of wider scale transition.

Nuclear radioisotopes also have a strong importance within the medial sphere, with nuclear techniques providing better examinations than traditional x-ray (WNA 2015a). Nuclear techniques allow the images of bone AND soft tissue to be developed, allowing greater medical information to be collected. Furthermore, the use of the isotope Iodine-131 is a common, successful cure for thyroid cancer (WNA 2015). Whilst there is also the development of a new technique that uses the nuclear isotope samarium-153 alongside organic phosphate to treat cancerous growths within the bone. Therefore nuclear products cannot be generalised as a risk to human health – they may in fact be central to improving it!

Therefore views on nuclear have to be expanded, it is no longer just a process of energy creation (despite that being the dominant use) – but a process that can provide food and water security, treat medical illnesses and expand the limits of human knowledge. Surely something which such potential has to be supported in the coming years!

Nuclear and Biodiversity - Revisited

A comment on a previous post has encouraged me to look at the impact of nuclear on biodiversity from a different angle. This will focus on the recent paper (Deryabina 2015) and how animals populations have shifted in the exclusion zone of the Chernobyl disaster. Surprisingly the number of elk, deer and wild boar in the Belarus exclusion zone are on a similar level to that in nearby nature reserves (Vaughan 2015). This would therefore directly oppose the intuitive beliefs that the continued radioactive exposure would cause nothing by damage to faunal communities.

Abundance of mammal species following the disaster in the exclusion zone. A clear increase in the early 90s following the removal of human activity (Deryabina 2015).

What this highlights is the fact that even the most drastic nuclear explosion does not impact wildlife as much as the everyday human actions such as agriculture. The exclusion zone has removed people; therefore this perhaps supports a “fortress approach” to biodiversity conservation (Hutton 2005). Where the total removal of humanity is essential for natural conditions to recover and prosper – a process supported by lion researcher  Craig Packer (Vidal 2015). The removal of humans was the catalyst for an unintentional rewilding programme (Howard 2007), with the dominance of pine and oak forests emerging (Chernobyl [WWW] 2015).

Professor Jim Smith claims that the industrial and agricultural developments in the area before the disaster probably meant that the population sizes were lower than the sizes experienced in the exclusion aftermath. There is even evidence for some species that were previously not present to have established themselves in the exclusion zone such as the European Bison and the Lynx (Vaughan 2015) – these may have been a product of human introduction, yet it does highlight the biodiversity carrying capacity of the area to have enhanced!

Elk within the Chernobyl exclusion zone (Vaughan 2015).

It would be wrong to say that the disaster was “positive” for wildlife, with evidence displaying the incredibly high radioactive levels within the first 6 months – 1 year to drastically negatively impact on wildlife health and fecundity (Deryabina 2015). However on the long term, positive points may be promoted with no significant declines in mammal density. This highlights wildlife’s incredible resilience to radiation, as well as illustarting the magnitude of damage that general human presence and development plays on wildlife.

Therefore critics of nuclear that claim that the threats to the environment are too high to risk, could arguably be dismissed as shortsighted. Focusing solely on nuclear energy, blind to the fact that the modern capitalist society itself is causing far more damage than the construction of a power plant ever could. This study helps put the risks into perspective.

African Nuclear - Part 3

The Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa is also seen to have agreements in place with Russian companies in regards to plant management and waste control – the key component of the agreement is the construction of a 9.6GW reactor (WNA 2015) – this therefore highlights the point made in the “future” post and how partnerships on an international scale would appear to be the present and future of the nuclear expansion potential. This will look to develop from the current presence of 2 reactors in the country, providing 5% of the nation’s supply (WNA 2015). It is hoped to increase this to 13.4% by 2030, making it the 2^nd largest national producer, behind coal (WNA 2015). Coal remaining dominant may undermine the climatic benefits – yet an increase in nuclear must surely be recognised as a step in the right direction!

Current South African nuclear potential (WNA 2015).

Nigeria is the most populated nation in Africa and therefore requires vast energy supplies – yet as a net exporter of oil certain limitations are in place and the energy produced is not sufficient (CIGI 2010) for the 177.5 million population (World Bank 2014). Existing energy is weak, with the national grid having one of the largest disruption and loss rates in the world and the three hydroelectric plants suffering from inconsistent water resources, leakage and maintenance issues (CIGI 2010). The insufficient water supply is tied to climatic change and the increasing reductions in effective moisture – a process that has been replicated throughout the epoch (as seen in my upcoming dissertation)! Therefore with accessible imported uranium (perhaps from the large stores in neighboring Niger), Nigeria could use nuclear to improve the self-sufficiency of the energy supply and reduce the reliance upon both fossil fuels and the scarce water resources. This process will be aided by the support of such groups as the Nigerian Atomic Energy Commission – that looks to drive the ability for national exploitation of atomic energy, by training personnel and partnering with the private sector to streamline investment and funding for construction (NAEC 2007).

NAEC Logo (NAEC 2007).

Nuclear is expanding, even within the most impoverished region of the world, Sub-Saharan Africa, there is strong development and interest. International partnerships are driving this growth, with the support from China for example spreading into Latin America and Africa with the promise of cheap equipment and exponential levels of funding. The nuclear future is arguably already in action…

African Nuclear - Part 2

Despite the issues – the need for nuclear is clear – especially when framed in relation to energy security with only 24% of the Sub-Saharan population actually having access to electricity (World Bank 2013). Furthermore, there are issues with reliability, where loss of power occurs on average 56 days a year – which has led to firms losing between 6 and 20% of revenues (World Bank 2013) – the continual and reliable energy production from nuclear therefore could provide the greater confidence in the electricity source and consequently provide greater economic security also. The World Bank (2013) also notifies high costs, which therefore will limit the electricity access and the development potential, the stable costs provided by nuclear (WNA 2015) and the tendency to provide lower costs to consumers than the majority of fossil fuels (The Economist 2015) – may allow for the profitability within the Sub-Saharan region to be boosted.

The potential is supported by the internal uranium supplies, meaning internal economic security as there will not be a dependency upon international trade prices and accessibility. Namibia and Niger are among the nations to have vast uranium stores that can be processed into fuel (Abdulrazak 2013). There is also the potential based upon large areas of land and water available for the construction – one point in which I would argue is the water accessibility, with surficial waters sparsely located and climatic change adding to drought frequency (Freitas 2013) – water availability may be required for consumption rather than reactor construction. Another positive of the African potential is the fact that compared to other areas – most notably Japan – it is relatively tectonically stable (Abdulrazak 2013) – therefore reactors will be less prone to disaster as well as having potentially suitable, stable geology for deep storage.

Africa has relatively minimal susceptibility to seismic activity. With the exception of the East African Rift - it would appear an ideal location for               safe nuclear to be established. Data Source (NOAA 2014) - Image source (CBC News 2014).

Abdulrazak (2013) is the head for Kenya's National Council for Science and Technology, he views the need for partnerships to be required if African funding for nuclear is going to be available – he views the IMF and World Bank to be central sources. However, as if often seen with the funding from these international organisations, the autonomy of the nuclear sector may be lost. This could lead to a possible favouring of foreign investment  – particularity from China. Recent activities show Chinese state investment into the UK and Latin America – could Africa be the next Chinese nuclear project? The current evidence would suggest so!

Partnerships are already in place between China and South Africa. One of many bilateral agreements was signed recently on 12^th November 2015 between the South Africa’s National Nuclear Regulator and China’s National Nuclear Safety Administration (WNN 2015) – this agreement promotes the sharing of information on the regulation procedures they undertake. Previous agreements were already in place with nuclear fuel partnerships and training contracts. Furthermore a framework agreement was established for Chinese funding for a new South African Power Plant (WNN 2014). Another example being the Chinese Agreement for nuclear reactor construction in Kenya by 2050 (M&G Africa 2015). Targets of an initial 1000MW capacity are hoped to be expanded to 4000MW by 2033 – therefore driving nuclear energy to become a “key component of the country’s energy production” - a quote from the Kenyan Nuclear Electricity Board following the announcement of the agreement. This is the start of nuclear energy expansion in Africa beyond South Africa – which remains the only African nation with current “active” plants in place. 

The agreement was signed by Mzubanzi Bismark Tyobeka and Li Ganjie in regards to the sharing of regulation information (WNN 2015).

African Nuclear - Part 1

Nuclear energy is present in national debates on a global scale. Africa is seen to be increasingly considering nuclear in this current period of expansion and investment. This topic arose from a recent piece in the IOL Business report (Magubane 2015) and the push for nuclear energy within South Africa. The group “Nuclear Africa” is central to this ambition with desires for the national energy to be nuclear produced – yet the group also acknowledges the restraints from public opinion which were noted in one of my earlier posts. Dr Kemm the CE of the organisation looks at public exaggerations (Drottz-Sjoberg 1990) to have been driven by the media and the dramatised oppositions of groups such as Greenpeace – which I have already noted as being heavily bias and blind to the potential nuclear benefits. These environmental groups are spreading, what could be termed “propaganda” of nuclear disasters, limiting public support and consequently diminishing the scope of possibility. Despite this Africa’s nuclear growth has begun, 10 nations have projects with a further 20+ undertaking serious considerations of promoting a nuclear sector (Magubane 2015).

Greenpeace nuclear protects in South Africa (Greenpeace 2015).

Greenpeace (2015), once again is a major oppositional actor, that looks to drive public disapproval and nuclear removal. They have a particular campaign for the potential expansions of nuclear within South Africa - with critiques of the R1 trillion costs and the lack of transparency. They claim secrecy is detrimental to public accountability – yet surely costs etc. are needed to be kept secret in order for the best price to be obtained by the developer? Dr.Kemm makes the same point:

“This is a bidding process. If you were building a house, you would not tell a builder how much another builder was quoting you” (Magubane 2015).

Greenpeace (2015) also brings forward more general issues to the potential South African growth, by highlighting the obstacles of security risks and waste storage. Furthermore, the organisation claims energy requirements are needed now – the start-up time for nuclear construction can be decades and therefore it is not solving the energy requirement issues of today.

Interest is clear from other sub-Saharan nations such as Uganda, Nigeria and Senegal (IBT 2013); however whether such ambitions are actually attainable is another question. Many may be deterred by the failure of the first African reactor in the Democratic Republic of Congo which shut down due to overheating and the consequent safety concerns. This has led previous plans in Ghana for example to be questioned, not only due to safety – but as mentioned the exponential costs may be out of reach for many of the African nations. Kenya – has $3 million put aside for an energy planning committee, alongside planned construction sites (IBT 2013), however once again it would appear as if public and environmental group resistance is central to slowing the potential within the nation.

The closed nuclear plant in DRC, security and safety concerns are vast (Amoore 2013).

Many would argue that if the nuclear disaster was capable of occurring within the 3^rd largest global GDP of Japan (World Bank 2014), then the potential for disaster surely must be higher within the Sub-Saharan nations that have far less experience and monetary resources.

Chinese investment continues

A recent nuclear development has been the continued push of Chinese nuclear funding on an international stage.  The state owned China National Nuclear Corporation again will build and fund two nuclear reactors in Argentina (Anderlini 2015). The project is likely to cost $15 billion, with Chinese banks and private sector funding around 85% of the project, to be repaid over 18 years. This follows on from the recent Chinese investment in the Hinkley Point C project in the UK.

President of the Argentinian Nucleoeléctrica, Jose Luis Antunez and the General Manger of China National Nuclear Corporation, Quian Zhimin - signing the agreement on 17th November 2015 (Financial Times 2015).

The partnership will enable the energy capacity to double – providing additional potential to the 3 nuclear reactors that are already functioning in Argentina. Anderlini (2015) sees the project in the UK as being the catalyst for further Chinese investment opportunities – success at the centre of developed Europe will promote more countries to follow in the footsteps to obtain the Chinese support. Many areas are removed from international credit markets, such as Buenos Aires, the centre of the nuclear developments – or struggle to obtain global investment due to corruption or war for example. China in particular seen to finance areas that have such limitations (Anderlini 2015), the inability for alternate funding in such areas means that there will be a greater interest in the Chinese investment. An issue may be that the dependency on exterior funds may reduce the autonomy of the national energy sector.

The Minister of Economy, Axel Kicillof, stated that the investment in nuclear plants “will secure our energy supply in the future” (WNN 2015). The relatively cheap Chinese technology and the exponential investment levels are driving a Chinese nuclear influence on a global scale.

Uranium Supply

One aspect of nuclear energy that has been touched on, is the availability of uranium. It is all good promoting zero-carbon and economic opportunity – but how long can these benefits be expected to continue? In an earlier post, Kidd (2011) suggested uranium would be accessible for another 80 years – this post will look at other suggestions and go into the finer details behind such predictions.

Map of the proportional uranium resources on a global scale (OECD NEA 2014).

The current (2013) known resources are geographically variable (WNA 2015) – this suggests certain countries may benefit to a greater extent from the nuclear sector. For one they receive the export funds, but also the nuclear economy can remain internal. Which, as mentioned can protect them from international trade fluctuations and allow for stable costs. Despite having the largest global store, there is no current nuclear power in Australia (WNA 2015)! The favoured energy supply appears to be coal – yet with continued carbon reduction regulations being proposed on the international stage it is likely that a shift to nuclear is a probable prospect. The initial stages of the change have already been established with the South Australian Government setting up a commission this year (2015), about the potential for starting a nuclear energy project.

Known recoverable resources in 2013 (WNA 2015).

Currently known resources will have the potential to change over time – future technological changes in the extraction process as well as the sustainability of fuel use (WNA 2015), will vary the longevity of the resources. Both through improving reprocessing, as well as the introduction of new mining technologies will mean that previously unknown or unreachable resources become usable – or through the reclassification of previously unattainable resources as economically recoverable (WNA 2015). This is exemplified by uranium resources increasing 7% from 2011 to 2014 (OECD NEA 2014). However, an issue being the low economic sustainability of the process, with 36% of the uranium recovered valued less than $80/kgU, due to the higher mining costs that have been required to access this latest uranium source (OECD NEA 2014).

There is some disparity in the longevity of uranium, with 80 (Kidd 2011), 90 (WNA 2015) and 120 years (OECD NEA 2014) suggested by multiple sources. If the latter OECD value is taken then it displays uranium's ability to “out-live” other mineral energy resources. For example, coal reserves in 2014 are suggested to be capable of providing another 110 years (BP 2014) – however with the upcoming COP 21 conference, coal is unlikely to be promoted in the long-term due to the environmentally detrimental emissions. Oil has around 53 years remaining  and natural gas 54 years (BP 2014) – highlighting nuclear’s potential to be a mainstay in a longstanding progression to a cleaner energy future.

These predictions may be extended if current trends in increased exploration continue. A 23% increase in uranium exploration and mine creation spending occurred between 2010 and 2012 (OECD NEA 2014). Some areas declined – yet the overall boost was supported by vast increases in expenditure particularly within Brazil, China, Kazakhstan and Turkey to name a few (OECD NEA 2014).

Trends in exploration and development expenditure (OECD NEA 2014).

More nuclear programmes around the globe will increase the demand – this could be positive in regards to increasing investment to technology and gaining greater resource access. However, larger uranium requirements may result in the finite resource being depleted quicker than predicted. Therefore, a balance needs to be made – reprocessing and greater sustainability is likely to be the way in which a nuclear expansion can be maintained on a long-term basis.

Nuclear and Biodiversity

The link between nuclear energy and biodiversity is arguably not immediately obvious. This post will focus on Brook (2014) and the relationships between the energy choices we make and the fulfilment of biodiversity conservation goals.

Nuclear energy can detriment biodiversity due to its disruptive land use through uranium mining – yet the relatively small scale factory set up may mitigate the scope of land degradation. It has an important role in reducing pollution through the zero-carbon energy production – however this is countered by the threat of radionuclide fallout and the pollution from waste storage and transport. These threats are of greater concern due to the longevity in which it persists within the environment, in regards to the exponential half-lives of the isotopes produced. The energy options must also have greater reliability and cost-effectiveness than more damaging resources in order for the biodiversity benefits to be realised. This can be tied into previous posts about the stability of nuclear energy prices and the reduced transportation costs, to name a couple of the benefits.

These questions relate to the two greatest threats of biodiversity extinctions, habitat degradation/fragmentation and the indirect implications from an ever warming planet. Many will look at the zero-carbon nature of nuclear and try to promote its environmental merit – however emissions are not the sole environmental factor, as seen with hydroelectric dams that produce no emissions yet disrupt the hydrological cycle and fragment aquatic habitats.

Dams cause low flows which have consequently caused the mass death of fish in the Klamath River, North California (International Rivers 2015).

The literature utilises a multi-criteria decision making analysis framework which ranks the energy sectors through a variety of quantitative and qualitative variables (see Brook 2014; 707). These included CO2 emissions, electricity cost, land use, number of fatalities and waste production. This article ranks nuclear as the best, against fossil fuels, biomass, hydro, wind and solar! This is perhaps surprising, especially due to the fact that throughout this blog there have been countless examples of the negativity that surrounds nuclear and its role in causing environmental damage. Brook (2014) therefore reiterates a point that I have made throughout, that despite concerns revolving around waste and reactor explosions, the “urgency of the global environmental challenges (means) closing off our option on nuclear energy may be dangerously short-sighted (p.706). 

The development of molten salt reactors, which utilise liquid, rather than solid fuel (WNA 2015), has the potential to reduce many of the threats nuclear provides to biodiversity. For example such reactors improve sustainability due to a lack of neutron loss and an ability to reprocess fuel during the operation (Touran 2015). With higher sustainability there will be less intense mining for uranium sources, meaning less land fragmentation and degradation – as well as a reduction in the emissions used in uranium collection.

Furthermore, the molten salt reactors provide less radioactivity due to the continual reprocessing meaning more radioactive material is not needed to be continually inputted to the reactor to maintain long term energy production. Additionally, the liquid fuel is at atmospheric pressure and therefore will not be exposed to the threat of high pressure explosions as seen in Chernobyl and Fukushima (Touran 2015). Both the above factors result in a reduced threat of radionuclide fallout and therefore mitigated biodiversity loss due to direct exposure and incorporation into ecosystem flows.

The figure below shows the differences in the energy storage of different fuels based upon the assumed 6.4 million kWh of energy consumed in a lifetime of a person in a developed nation. It is clear that the storage in uranium provide a far greater energy/weight ratio. An interesting point raised here is the level of land use change required in renewable energies such as solar and wind. For a start offshore wind farms require vast areas to be constructed, for example the recently proposed Navitus Bay project was going to span 153km² (NIP 2015). This has since been rejected due to mass protests in regards to the impact on the status of the Jurassic Coast, including “Durdle Door” as a UNESCO World Heritage Site (Booker 2015). Furthermore, there will need to be mass land  degradation and habitat fragmentation from the mining of nickel required in the batteries that store wind/solar energy (Brook 2014). Therefore the “100% green” concepts of wind and solar – often seen in mainstream media – are arguably romanticised ideals. Emissions will also be inevitable in the construction of the turbines or solar panels – with toxic waste water another possible outcome of panel manufacture – as previously mentioned (Nunez 2011).

Comparative energy densities of different fuels (Brook 2014).

Jurassic Coast and Durdle Door - wind farm developments were prevented due to conflicts with the UNESCO status (Booker 2015).

Therefore I would agree with Brook (2014), that nuclear provides a suitable option to overcome the biodiversity crisis. Access to nuclear and the reduced dependency on international fossil fuel trade and markets can also aid wealth inequality and poverty – which are both seen to be major drivers of environmental degradation and biodiversity loss (Barrett 2011). Yes – risks exist but we are not in a position to be “picky” about the route we take. Species’ extinctions are up to 1000x higher than the natural background rate (IUCN 2010) – therefore we must act now to mitigate or overturn this alarming trend! Otherwise we may enter (if we have not already!) a 6^th major extinction event (see Ben’s Blog for further discussion)!