Future trends and possibilities. Part 2

The future of nuclear may not solely be within electricity (Hill 2008), with the reactors also capable of providing services such as heat generation and desalination of marine water. Therefore the future expansion may be in both capacity and number of uses!

Electricity demand is on the increase, for example the US demand is predicted to increase 30% by 2035 (Ferguson 2010) – explaining as to why there is vast nuclear investment, in order to provide a stable supply for the coming years. Especially with the increased realisation of the risk of  fossil fuel depletion! It is predicted that 7,200 GW of energy will need to be produced to keep up with the increasing global demands (IEA 2014) – this will not only be fulfilled by new power plants and renewable sources but there will also be a need for the replacement of ageing nuclear reactors (IEA 2014). Many reactors are deemed to have a 40 year life, yet extensions on this in the US have realised the potential for up to 80 (Hill 2008). This would suggest the infrastructure of today will be influential within the future of nuclear energy.

Energy consumption predicted trends - increases in demand may be fulfilled by the zero-carbon option of nuclear - in particular large increases in Asia. Predicted nuclear growth in China is likely to be a response of this increased Asian demand (IEA 2009).

The IEA (2014) have produced scenarios of future nuclear trends, with it believed an increase in capacity from 392 to 620 GW between 2013 and 2040. It is seen that the major growth will occur within areas with regulated and guaranteed prices, private investment, public subsidies or aid in attracting outside funding (IEA 2014). Predominant growth is likely to be based in China, which is predicted to account for 45% of this growth 2013-2040, with India, South Korea and Russia combining to provide a further 30% of the growth (IEA 2014). However, within this scenario the global share of nuclear energy remains steady at 12% which is below the % provided at its peak in previous years –this is presumably based on the expanding alternate renewable sources in the scenario (IEA 2014). Public opposition and safety regulations may limit the exponential growth, with favouritism towards more acceptable sources such as solar and wind. Despite the absolute capacity increasing, its significance within a global energy picture is predicted to remain small. This perhaps confirms nuclear to be rooted in position as a stable, baseline provider, incapable of breaking free of its restraints to challenge the global energy dominance of fossil fuels.

However, increased nuclear presence on a global scope can improve fuel security, removing the dependence on imports and the fluctuating international fuel prices (IEA 2014). Therefore, despite no significant percentage increase predicted by the IEA, it is seen that more countries will initiate nuclear sectors to allow for a more predictable and stable, internal economy.

There is much importance on the carbon-free nature of nuclear, with it predicted that nuclear energy has prevented 52 gigatonnes of CO2 from being emitted into the atmosphere since 1971 (IEA 2014). Predictions for the emission reductions under the 2040 IEA scenarios suggest South Korea could cut emission by 50% and China 8% for example. The future environment therefore would benefit from such absolute increases in nuclear production, a future of reduced air pollution and lowered radiative forcing is a possibility. It is estimated that for every 22 tonnes of uranium used in nuclear energy production, there for a prevention of 1 million tonnes of CO2 if coal is used alternatively (WNA 2015). Add onto this the economic potential of reduced emissions, with the potential to remove costs of $80/tonne of CO2 emission (IEA 2014), if an economic value is applied.

The shift from fossil fuel to nuclear can have health improvements for the future also – which may appear strange after so many health risks have been mentioned in previous case studies. However, it is predicted that 1.34 million premature deaths are caused every year through the inhaling of particulate matter (WNA 2015), for example the black carbon was predicted to have caused around 30,000 premature deaths just in the UK in 2008 (Yim 2012). These emissions are supplied by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels (Koelmans 2006) – therefore shifting to nuclear energy would improve air quality and allow for countries to comply with clean air legislative requirements. These health risks may be on a lower scale than the potential nuclear damage, yet the higher frequency of particulate matter damage can be prevented in a nuclear future.

Despite all these potential opportunities and blockades, it is clear to me that there are many reasons as to why facilitating a nuclear future would be a positive move (WNA 2015):

•           Increased global population and energy demand -  As well as increasing pressure on freshwater resources may mean high energy nuclear reactors will be essential in desalination and ensuring water, as well as energy security in the future.
•          Climate change - Nuclear provides a stable and continual energy supply, with a quick set up rate and a zero carbon emission from energy production.
•           Security of supply - Nuclear allows an autonomous energy supply, removing the vulnerability to international fossil fuel prices and transportation needs.
•          Economics - In areas with carbon pricing the clear monetary value of nuclear is emphasized against fossil fuels. Furthermore, with stable costs in regards to fuel costs it will be preferential for consumers.
•           Security from future price jumps - Nuclear is moving from smaller projects to global, private sector programmes. The mass production of reactors will reduce times and costs and therefore in hand reduce the prices needed to make a return. If anything, costs may decrease with greater experience. An issue, as mentioned in the “costs” blog, is the fact that uranium sources may have to be extracted with greater difficulty and therefore wider expansions of nuclear could induce an initial increase in costs. However the positives mentioned above will likely outweigh any initial cost requirements!

Nuclear may be more beneficial for the environment, through zero-emission electricity production, than was previously thought (Cartoon Movement 2010).