2006 was a bad year for European nuclear power

[jpak]

The following reactors were shut down...

Bohunice 1 (Slovakia)
Kozloduy 3&4 (Bulgaria)
Dungeness A 1&2 (UK)
Sizewell A 1&2 (UK)
Jose Cabrera 1 (Spain)

http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/

Construction of Finland's new nuclear reactor is now nearly 2 years behind schedule and incurred a 500 million euro cost overrun...

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2006/12/05/afx3228309.html

British Energy does not expect any new UK reactors before 2020...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=77100

So how is nuclear power supposed to solve Europe's energy or GHG emission problems???

It's clearly irrelevant over the next 13 years...

[ShortnFiery]

1. Yes, but some winger on Washington Journal this AM was extolling

the WONDERS of France's Nuclear Power system. I almost split a gut laughing at the hypocrisy because I thought right wingers hate every damn thing about France. Well, will wonders ever cease? Some republican legislators believe that we should carefully study France's Nuclear Energy Model. :wow: :crazy:

[Parche]

2. Nucular Power

I thought it was a great year for nucular power

[bananas]

3. last year 443, this year 435, only 5 shutdown last year, what happened to the other 3?

There are three nuclear power plants missing!

It seems we may have reached "Peak Nuclear Power Plants",
the total number of nuclear power plants is decreasing
(even though total power is still increasing).

[Dogmudgeon]

4. Sharpening the Fuzzy Math

I decided to check out the links you gave which you purport show how the nuclear industry is fallen on hard times and is somehow not relevant as a provider of energy.

Note: All formatting in quoted material is by Pigwidgeon.

First link:
The IAEA PRIS (International Atomic Energy Agency Power Reactor Information System) Home Page.

What I found wasn't quite as simple as the picture you presented; it was actually a fairly comprehensive set of figures for nuclear reactors coming on-line and going off-line for the past three years. Since the math wasn't provided, I counted by the categories:

New Units; New connection to the grid: 13
Restarts after long term shutdowns: 2
Construction initiation: 11

All of which could be considered additions to the energy supply.

Final shutdowns: 15 (at 9 locations)

Which is, I believe, what you wish to see happen.

It was 15 on, 15 off, with 11 starting construction.

But I noticed that the old units being shut down seemed to be smaller than the new units. This time, the math was a little bit harder, and I re-grouped the data; I apologize in advance for any errors.

PRIS data on changes in nuclear reactor count 2004-2006
(All figures in MW(e))

New units:
Tarapur 3..........................490
Tianwan 1.........................1000
Shika 2 ..........................1304
Ulchin 6...........................960
Higashidori 1 - TOHOKU............1067
Tarapur 4..........................490
Shika 2...........................1304
Qinshan 2-2........................610
Hamaoka 5.........................1325
Khmelnitski 2......................950
Rovno 4............................950
Kalinin 3..........................950
SUM..............................11400
AVERAGE............................950

Restarts/Reconnection after long term shutdown:
Pickering 1........................515
Bruce 3............................790
SUM...............................1305
AVERAGE............................652.5

Construction initiation:
Shin Kori 1........................960
Beloyarsk 4........................750
Lingao 4..........................1000
Qinshan II-3.......................610
Shin Wolsong 1 & 2 units...........960
Olkiluoto 3.......................1600
Lingao 3..........................1000
Chasnupp 2.........................300
Tomari 3...........................866
PFBR Kalpakkam.....................470
SUM...............................8516
AVERAGE............................774.2

Final shutdowns:
Bohunice 1.........................408
Kozloduy 3&4 (2x 408)..............816
Dungeness A 1&2 (2x 225)...........450
Sizewell A 1&2 (2x 210)............240
Jose Cabrera 1 (Zorita)............142
Obrigheim..........................340
Barsebäck 2........................600
Chapelcross A-D units (4; 50/ea)...200
Ignalina 1........................1185
SUM...............................4381...("SumOFF")
AVERAGE............................292.1.("AvgOFF")

All units coming on-line: aggregate of new units and re-starts
SUM, all units coming on-line:...12705...("SumON")
AVERAGE unit coming on-line:.......907.5.("AvgON")

Ratios, On-Line to Off-Line output
Capacity:.........................2.9 : 1.(SumON/SumOFF)
Reactor Average Unit Output:......3.1 : 1.(AvgON/AvgOFF)

For every watt of energy being taken off line, almost three watts are coming on line from reactors that have more than three times the individual capacity, with another additional watt-and-a-half newly committed, in addition to those reactors already under construction. Hardly the death knell of the international nuclear industry.

In fairness, you did focus on the European nuclear program, and I notice that most of the action is taking place in Asia. I'm not sure that's a good thing. Oh, it's fine that the Asians are building nukes; what I consider to be "not a good thing" is Europe's foot-dragging.

Second link:
Construction of Finland's new nuclear reactor is now nearly 2 years behind schedule and incurred a 500 million euro cost overrun...

Here's the link with the actual title: Areva to take 500 mln eur charge for Finnish reactor delay

It's clear that the builder, Areva, underestimated how much time it would take to build the Olkiluoto 3 reactor. And they were obliged to absorb a charge-back.

It was unclear whether this was a penalty or a cost overrun.

Here's the first four paragraphs of the (poorly-translated) news release which puts it in its correct context:

PARIS (AFX) - French nuclear energy giant Areva will take a charge of 500 mln eur this year for extra costs because work on the Olkiluoto 3 reactor in Finland is 18 months behind schedule, Les Echos reported, without naming its source.

'The initial calendar was perhaps too ambitious', the business daily cited an Areva spokesman as saying.

'The difficulties met since the start of work are not surprising. It is not a bag of chips that we are constructing in Finland but a nuclear reactor, which, what's more, is the first of its kind,' the spokesman said.

'Despite the 18 months delay, construction of the Finnish EPR (European pressrised water reactor) will not take any longer than usual nuclear sites. We tend to forget, but Chooz, the last reactor completed in France, by EDF, went into service four years later than envisaged,' he told Les Echos.

This isn't exactly wonderful news, but it also doesn't support the picture of an "irrelevant" industry. And, I used italic formatting to mark out some of the details in which the devil is often said to be. Indeed, I cop to it. It points to an industry with the same problems as any other industry.

"But these are nuclear reactors! Poison power! Death! Cheney!" And I agree. Nuclear reactors are serious business. And it may be appropriate to fine or sanction companies that contract to build nukes which do not have their construction plans as precise and detailed as does a brigade of Seabees. This wasn't a banner day for Areva. And I am sure that heads rolled, or at least ulcers and colitis were established (fortunately, the socialist Europeans get their health care for free). Then there's that Eur500 million meal of crow they had to eat. You can't idly fuck around with nuclear power, period, and Areva (and hopefully EDF before them) found that out.

Third link:
British Energy does not expect any new UK reactors before 2020...

I wonder why you posted a link to another DU thread. I don't suspect any sinister motives; just the usual one, trying to make one's case in as positive a way as possible. But going to primary sources, again, shows a different situation than the one that you tried to present.

Here's the article, probably a press release, as it appears in Nuclear Engineering International:

No new nukes for UK
07 December 2006

Clare Spottiswoode, deputy chairman of British Energy, has said that no new nuclear generation capacity can be expected in the UK or much of the the rest of Europe before 2020.

The comments came at a Platts energy security forum in New York where Spottiswoode was quoted as saying that, apart from France and Finland, it is "highly unlikely" that any plants will be built in the rest of Europe before 2020.

Spottiswoode added that the reason was that the rest of Europe would not undertake any new nuclear development until the UK does and it will take until at least 2020 for the UK government to put in place a proper planning regime and regulations for new construction.

With the UK’s current fleet of nuclear stations due to be all but decommissioned by then, a significant capacity crunch is looming.

Interesting, the first thing on the page was a banner ad for Areva. There was also a space ad for an anti-nuclear book. Did you notice that part about the significant capacity crunch that is coming? I hope Merrie Olde has either new nukes on order, or several tens of thousands of those big-ass high-tech windmills from GE or Mitsubishi or Siemens arriving soon.

I then went looking for a little more information from Platts, and found this article at the top of the Google heap:

Europe decommissions seven nuclear reactors by end-2006: Forum
Freiburg (Platts)--8Jan2007

Sounds bad for the Cheneytown Nuke Sox, right?

Well, first, this is a synopsis of a press release by a German anti-nuclear group simply called Forum. It seems that both Forum and a number of European bigwigs on each side of the issue engaged in a little naked fact-twisting.

Three nuclear units are scheduled for decommissioning in Germany during the current legislative period--Biblis-A (operated by RWE), Brunsbuttel (operated by Vattenfall Europe) and Neckarwestheim-1 (operated by ENBW). While RWE and ENBW have applied for life extensions for their units by way of capacity transfer, Vattenfall Europe is still debating such a move. A decision by environment minister Sigmar Gabriel is outstanding.
...
Critics have slammed the applications for capacity transfers, which they say reveal a cynical belief that a change of government after the next federal election may herald a return to support for nuclear power.

(found on 2007-01-18 at http://www.platts.com/Nuclear/News/8816754.xml)

Again, I marked some sections with italic, and presented only the quotes that make my point of view. It is clear that the system is being gamed, probably for long-term political cover. For those who are "playing ball" as I just did, there's also a couple of pithy quotes that can be used to criticize the nuclear industry as well.

The anti-nuclear movement is strong in Germany, but I wonder how long it will last once they start feeling real pain from the loss of affordable energy resources. As I asked with regards to England, what does Germany have in the works to take up the slack? There should be no nyah-nyahs about this, and I myself take it seriously. Germany is the economic powerhouse of the European Community, and if they bungle their energy resources, the whole EEC will be bled white in order to keep the Euro afloat. I hope it's clear that I'm not talking about an "energy pinch" but a potential era of crisis and breakdown.

Discussion

I had a longer section here, but I've decided to wait until/if this post attracted comment. I would like to state that while most of the anti-nuclearists probably consider me to be pro-nuclearist, I do not consider myself to be. My primary concern is the survival of the human society, culture, and species, and if I find that nuclear energy is even close to being as hazardous as a "powerdown" (or worse, a die-off), then I will not hesitate to abandon advocating it.

But the evidence supports the use of nuclear energy. Failure to use it would be like castaways on a lifeboat with a supply of canned meatballs throwing it all overboard because they're vegetarian. Thirty years ago, we had a reasonable ability to be as picky about energy as the mythical castaways are about their food. Today, we'd better hope we have a can opener.

--p!

[Dead_Parrot]

5. One of NNadir's favorite comments...

...Is that PV hasn't produced an EJ of energy, yet. I haven't checked it, but if true (and I've not noticed any figures to the contrary) that would suggest that the creaky old reactors at Dungeness A and Sizewell A produced more electrical power that every commercial PV installation to date.

Although I didn't include the new 0.15 MW_peak at the Hallowell Inn, which might just swing it. :shrug: Besides, they're only numbers, right?

[Dogmudgeon]

6. I wish he was wrong about that

On edit: Oops! The PA/PECO wind power figures were wrong by 2 years!

I myself was surprised to find out, about five years ago, that "green" energy was providing so little to the grid -- and even less off the grid. PECO had just introduced a "green" energy option and to hear them talk about it, they were close to declaring the millennium and the return of Jesus Christ in a solar-powered chariot.

And, you may ask, why is it that I use quotation marks around the word "green"? Because a whole lot of it has been greenwashing. This year's marketing buzzword. And PECO actually has built a couple of wind farms, which is more than can be said about most utility companies. (Actually, the wind farms were financed by a couple of utilities, but that's still an encouraging sign.)

On the other hand, in 2004, the Clean Air Council reported that they were producing 148 MW with 249 MW due to come on-line by the end of 2006. I have been unable to confirm that 249 MW figure, but I'll accept that we've passed it, although PECO's wind "portfolio" is reported still under 120 MW (heard on WPVI-6 in Philadelphia a few weeks ago). That's less than half the size of one of the average-sized nuclear reactors from the PRIS report. And it's still big business, as big as Bush's hat and as cold as Cheney's heart.

I certainly wish there were forms of energy to give nuclear power "a run for the money", but I am not optimistic. Other than occasionally liking to argue the points, I bear no ill-will toward the anti-nuclearists. But I want us all to survive. And we're in so deep that I'm not even sure nuclear energy can help us to entirely dig out.

--p!

[Dead_Parrot]

7. It is a very, very deep hole we're in

I'd like to think that with a bit of concerted effort, we could get totally off fossil fuels by 2030 or so - about 50% from renewables, and 50% from nuclear. But it requires a major change in thinking from a lot of environmentalists, to actually welcome nuclear plants & huge hydro projects, accepting a bit of local damage to the environment (and to their pride) for the sake of the entire planet.

Once we've done that we could fuck about with how it's done. Wind. Fusion. A brazillion fucking hamsters in little wheels. Whatever.

It's just not happening, though. Europe cheerfully announces emisions targets while scrapping nuclear reactors and building new coal plants. The world and his dog seem to hate the Three Gorges Dam, just because it there - even though it's probably the largest single power plant in the world, and a fossil-free one at that. Meanwhile, a 15KW renewable source seems to be http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x79145">headline news, even though it generates less power that a used lawnmower.

And the CO₂ goes up and up and up...

[jpak]

9. Globally, renewables additions will easily outpace net nuclear additions in 2006

The 2006 wind and PV numbers are not in yet, however...

The net increase in global nuclear capacity in 2006 was only 458 MW or 412 M"W" if you wish to play that game.

Additions to global wind and PV capacity in 2005 were >11,000 MW and 1600 MW, respectively, for a total of 12,600 MW or 4200 M"W".

Continued growth in both sectors is expected in 2006.

If, however, additions to renewables in 2006 were the same as 2005 - then additions new wind and solar capacity outpaced additions of net new nuclear by an order of magnitude (a factor of 10).

The total capacity of the EU reactors shut in 2006 was 2236 MW or 2012 M"W".

EU additions of new wind and PV in 2005 were 6000 MW and 850 MW respectively - or 2283 M"W".

If the same occurred in 2006, EU wind and PV capacity easily replaced the nuclear capacity lost due the closure of those reactors.

Nuclear power cannot "save" the EU - but renewables will.

Any conclusion to the contrary is not supported by data...

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention in the OP that taxpayers in the UK got the bill for decommissioning and disposing their existing nuclear plants - $112 billion.

Bad news man, bad news...

:evilgrin:

[jpak]

11. I post tidbits like the Hallowell Inn to show those who claim "solar don't work up North"

that they are wrong...

:evilgrin:

[Dead_Parrot]

16. Fair enough...

...but somebody thought it was newsworthy... :)

[bananas]

8. What's wrong with posting a link to another DU thread?

I do that a lot, for example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=79178&mesg_id=79185

And if someone mentions something they read in another thread, I often ask for a link to the other thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=3140995&mesg_id=3141223

Linking to another thread let's us see what others have already said.

FYI, Nuclear Engineering International Magazine isn't an anti-nuke site, it's a trade journal for the nuclear power industry, publishing since 1956; the "No new nukes for UK" was a news article, not a press release. And nothing you wrote contradicts what Spottiswoode said, nor jpak's original post, which was specifically about European nuclear power - eliminate non-European countries from your calculations and see what you get.

As far as being pro-nuke or anti-nuke, all I can say is that I've come to the same conclusion as Al Gore and many others - don't expect nuclear power to make much more of a contribution than it does now.


http://www.neimagazine.com/hybrid.asp?typeCode=2&pubCode=1

Nuclear Engineering International

Launched in 1956, when the first commercial-sized nuclear plant went into operation, Nuclear Engineering International has been at the forefront of the atomic power industry ever since, and has firmly established itself as the leading international nuclear publication.

Independently published, with no formal ties to organisations, Nuclear Engineering International offers comprehensive, authoritative, quality unbiased editorial to its readers, serving the needs of buyers and specifiers worldwide.

With a circulation of over 2500, and a total readership in excess of 10,000, Nuclear Engineering International offers its advertisers an unrivalled penetration into the worldwide nuclear marketplace.

[Dogmudgeon]

12. Nothing's really wrong with it

It was just presented as an all-anti piece, when the source it referred to wasn't. And there was nothing wrong with your post per se. And I probably should have given more emphasis to the part about Europe, specifically, abandoning nuclear energy, especially since there seem to be no plans to replace that capacity. As with the article originally from Forum, there is probably a lot of political maneuvering going on. But I don't think jpak's intention (at least from my reading) was to make the point about Europe in isolation, but rather, about the undesirability of nuclear power in general. And it seems that the issue could support several threads of its own. As I said, jpak wanted to present the argument a certain way, though I may have been exceeding my snark quotient for the post. But I think I was pretty consistent and accurate that the jpak post was strongly spun.

FWIW, I agree with Al Gore that nuclear energy isn't going to have a whole lot more growth. When the feces hit the fan, we're not going to be able to do much except "adjust" to our radically changed circumstances. In many parts of the world, that may possibly result in a lot of deaths, which is one of the things that would preclude any responsive serious planning. Then, too, Al Gore isn't really in a position where he could recommend or condemn nuclear power. The issue is so highly polarized that the anti-nuclearists would nearly lynch him if he came out for nuclear power, and the pro-nuclearists would kick him to the curb if he trashed it. Much of DU itself is like that, especially the "WHORE! TRAITOR!" posts over Hillary, Kerry, Obama, the DLC, etc. Alas, I'm not immune to that mania myself, and apologize for my lapses -- but not the rational arguments, on those rare occasions when I let them slip in. :)

--p!

[phantom power]

10. nicely done :-)

:toast:

[jpak]

13. More fuzzy math...

New nuclear additions + restarts 2004-2006 = 12705 MW

Shutdowns = 4381 MW

Net = 8324 MW or 7491 M"W"

What are global additions of renewables in those 3 years???

Wind 2004 = 8133 MW (2439 M"W")

Wind 2005 = 11531 MW (3459 M"W")

Wind 2006 = est. 11531 MW (3459 M"W" - assumes same as 2005).

Total wind for 2004-2006 = 9357 M"W"

PV 2004 = 1200 MW (3-400 M"W")

PV 2005 = 1727 MW (4-500 M"W")

PV 2006 est. 1727 MW (4-500 M"W")

Total PV for 2004-2006 = 1000 M"W" (conservative est.)

Total wind + PV 2004-2006 = 10,357 M"W" = or 38% more than net nuclear additions over the same period.

Solar Rules...

:evilgrin:

[Dead_Parrot]

14. And how much coal in the last 3 years?

50,000MW? 100,000MW? More?

I seem to recall the Chinese alone are adding 1 plant every week or so.

Or is that irrelevant to the pissing contest?

[Dogmudgeon]

15. Sounds fuzzy to me

First, maybe you can clue me in on the M"W" thing, which you also referred to as a game in an earlier post. My attendance on DU has been hit-and-miss lately, and I certainly missed that one. I try to use identical units in data I post. Since I consider myself to be very weak on math, I try to keep it as simple as I can.

Second, for the BIG question, I detest citation flame wars, so I'll ask nicely:

:loveya: :grouphug: Where did you get those numbers? :grouphug: :loveya:

The EIA still shows the overall proportion and growth of non-nuclear renewables as pitifully small. The world data (also scattered across the EIA website) are similar. Here is a simplified spreadsheet. Notice that it makes no provision for a peak fossil fuel scenario and combines solar, wind, and tidal with hydroelectric, making the figures artificially high and flat for the purposes of analyzing alt-energy production.

The minuscule proportion of alternative energy capacity gives me no joy -- I think it's disgraceful. We should be encouraging the building of nukes, certainly, but we should also be straining at the bit to fund and build non-nuclear renewables, getting as much technology both on and off the grid as we can as fast as we can.

The growth rates for some of these industries are encouraging, but it will still take much of the next decade before solar/wind/tidal power can contribute more than about 10% of our total energy needs. A "Manhattan Project" for energy production would help speed this up, but since it would include nuclear power development, it would probably get enabling legislation killed. You can be sure that such a poison pill is going to be worked into any energy legislation, and that the anti-nuclearists will get some big, fat, well-concealed contributions at the same time. The Powers That Be want a Free Market, and no price is too high for US to pay. As it is, we're at the mercy of a market in the hands of a generation of self-absorbed yuppies who came up during the era of "Greed Is Good". And that's in every industry.

I'm sure that you can find some fortuitous trends in the data. They would make me happy, too. But the overall picture is not hopeful.

And you're barking at the wrong bad guy. I'm not anti-non-nuclear; I'm merely anti-anti-nuclear. My first academic, expert-mentored, peer-reviewed scientific paper was on the development of solar power. So what if it was a fourth grade science report from 1967? It had Extraordinary Evidence AND Falsifiability. And a real live working solar cell of crudely annealed copper that generated close to one one-hundredth of a watt from basking in the full light of the sun.

If I could have increased that output by 36% per year, I could be getting gigawatt yields by now.

--p!
More Bona than Fide.

[Dead_Parrot]

17. IIRC, the Mega-"Watts" thing...

...was actually started by NNadir, pointing out the difference between capacity (ie, "We've installed a 2MW PV Array") and actual output (ie, "We've installed a 2MW_peak PV array that spends most of the time producing fuck all and maybe hits 2MW at noon on a cloudless day, and if we're honest it averages 0.5MW over a 24-hour period"). I think the quotes went on the capacity "Watts" originally.

It's sort of stuck (at least with Jpak). :)