As Ghana and Uganda inch slowly towards the building of nuclear reactors to produce electricity, it looks like the two countries may have to revise their notes as recent studies into the sector give cause for concern.
In the first place, a 2021 study by Nikolaus Muellner and others in the Energy Policy (Volume 155), said, “nuclear power cannot be expanded to be the main source of future electricity generation. Expansion scenarios require an increase in uranium mining, which is met by two limitations: uranium production could hardly keep up during the expansion phase, and the overall amount of available uranium is limited.”
The authors argued that human activities leading to the destruction of the economy require a rapid shift towards a Carbon Dioxide (CO2) neutral economy, if the global average temperature increase is to be kept below 2∘C, or preferably, below 1.5∘C, compared to pre-industrial levels.
“By 2050 the economy should be CO2 neutral, therefore climate change mitigation measures are needed in the near term to medium term future. Such a shift would strongly influence the energy (and electricity) supply system, which is currently based to a larger part on fossil fuels.”
However, they said with limited amounts of uranium available, new nuclear power plants would be left without fuel during their planned lifetime, adding that, “fast breeder reactors promise a solution to the problem of limited uranium-235 resources, but will not be available for commercial deployment before 2040–2050”.
Another issue they raised was “current nuclear reactors, no matter how safe they may be, always carry a residual risk for severe, catastrophic accidents and large releases of radioactive materials” and noted that, “new reactors attempt to reduce the residual risk, but even with the future technologies currently envisaged, a nuclear catastrophe cannot be fully excluded.”
The authors said the main contribution to current nuclear electricity generation stems from reactors built from 1970–1990, and designed between 1960 and 1980. New reactor technologies promise that the risk for severe accidents will be reduced by a factor of ten. The study, however, noted that, according to current plans, a major part of future nuclear generating capacity stems from lifetime extensions of existing plants and only a limited part will come from new reactors in 2040.
They said they adopted the normative approach in their study and created a scenario that by 2050, society is on a climate pathway to fulfilling the 2∘C target while still providing access to modern energy services to all humans. One of the important results of the analysis shows that none of the evaluated boundary conditions make it necessary to use nuclear power. Even high energy demand assumptions without substantial change in the transport system allow other energy sources to substitute nuclear energy.
In their view, the current contribution of nuclear energy to climate change mitigation is small, and with current planning, this will stay at a level in the near-to mid-term future. For this reason, they argued that nuclear expansion strategies are not feasible due to resource limitations.
In addition, they said new nuclear technologies will not be ready in the critical time frame of 2020 to 2050 due to the long research, licensing, planning and construction times of the nuclear industry. Thus, current plans would keep the nuclear capacity roughly at its current level mainly by lifetime extensions of existing reactors.
Muellner et. al. said given the limited contribution to climate mitigation, complete phase out is a feasible option as well. “Society must decide, given the drawbacks of the use of nuclear energy (risk of catastrophic accidents, proliferation, radioactive waste), whether the nuclear option should be pursued, or whether other climate change mitigation technologies should substitute the nuclear contribution,” they added,.
Even with these precautions, nuclear power seems to be on the agenda worldwide. Another paper produced by the London School of Economics in December last year, on the role of nuclear in the energy mix and in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, cited the World Nuclear Association and said, as at November 2022, there were 437 operable nuclear reactors for electricity generation across 32 countries around the world, with a further sixty nuclear reactors being constructed in 18 countries.
In the view of the authors, though, nuclear power plants are able to provide backup power to complement intermittent renewable sources such as wind and solar, as they do not have the capability to ramp up and down quickly.
They said the lack of a permanent solution for nuclear waste raises concerns. Deep geological disposal in the form of purpose-built caves hundreds of metres below ground is widely agreed to be the best solution for the final disposal of high-level nuclear waste. However, there is only one such facility currently in the pipeline, due to open in Finland later this year. In addition, the paper said nuclear power is expensive for a number of reasons. Both developing new safety requirements and building the new Generation III reactors (such as those fuelling the UK’s Hinkley Point C power station) have been costly. Critics argue that as the cost of renewable energy falls, the case for nuclear power weakens.
The paper said the Fukushima disaster triggered by the Japanese tsunami of March 2011 significantly changed the global outlook for nuclear power. In the immediate aftermath, Japan took almost all of its nuclear power plants offline, leading to the decline of global nuclear power generation through 2012. Similarly, Germany decided to phase out nuclear power entirely by 2022 (a decision that has since been delayed). Globally, 48 GW equivalent of nuclear capacity is estimated to have been lost since 2011 due to plants that were either permanently shut down or did not have their operational lifetimes extended following Fukushima.
In addition, the paper also raised public concern over the safety of nuclear power (which has increased) after the Fukushima disaster. The accident prompted reviews of safety and pledges to move away from nuclear in some cases. However, countries take different stances on this issue. In the UK, for instance, there is strong political support for and minimal public opposition.
It said the International Energy Agency (IEA) support for nuclear energy claims that it enables about 1.5 gigatonnes (Gt) of global emissions and 180 billion cubic metres (bcm) of global gas demand to be avoided each year. For its roadmap for bringing energy-related CO2 emissions to net zero by 2050, global nuclear capacity would need to almost double from current levels to reach 812 gigawatts (GW) in 2050.
What some people have suggested is that innovations in the nuclear sector may make it more attractive. But this will depend on advanced nuclear technologies including Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs), which are smaller than conventional reactors and can be constructed in a modular way (with elements fabricated in a factory environment for assembly onsite), reducing bespoke construction requirements and potentially cutting the upfront capital costs of nuclear projects.
There are however some drawbacks when cost is considered. The authors of the paper said nuclear power is currently derived from fission (splitting the uranium atom), but a major technological advancement that researchers are currently working on is nuclear fusion, which essentially means creating a star on the face of Earth – an unlimited source of low-carbon power.
But fusion research is extremely costly. For example, ITER (the international megaproject aiming to bring fusion to life) is now estimated to cost €22 billion, up from an initial estimate of €6 billion. However, private sector investment in fusion is growing rapidly, indicating increasing confidence that it can eventually be commercialised.
It is clear that Uganda and Ghana, as well as other developing countries that are considering this option, may not be able to afford the cost. Thus, whether nuclear power is still an option is an issue that is debatable.
New crude, old questions: Can oil reform deliver fiscal transparency?