atw - International Journal for Nuclear Power | 04.2019

atw Vol. 64 (2019) | Issue 4 ı April
238
NUCLEAR TODAY
John Shepherd is a
journalist who has
covered the nuclear
industry for the past
20 years and is
currently editor-in-chief
of UK-based Energy
Storage Publishing.
Reference links:
Testimony from
Dr Fatih Birol
https://bit.ly/2EuwpsN
EPRI study
https://bit.ly/2VPA5MQ
Events of the Past Need Not Dictate
an Industry’s Future
The US will have reached an important milestone in March of this year, when it marks 40 years since the accident that
damaged the core of the Three Mile Island (TMI) 2 nuclear reactor.
As I write, there has been no public relations offensive of
note by nuclear energy opponents in the build up to the
memory of what happened in Pennsylvania on 28 March
1979 – which is perhaps testament to how the nuclear
debate has moved on since.
For the record, the event was caused by a combination
of equipment failure and the inability of plant operators to
understand the reactor’s condition at certain times during
the event.
And while there were no reported injuries or adverse
health effects from the accident, TMI was a turning point
for the industry in the US and arguably worldwide.
In the US, the event led to the establishment of the
Atlanta- based Institute of Nuclear Power Operations and
the formation of what is today the Nuclear Energy Institute.
Despite its setbacks, nuclear has powered ahead and is
increasingly recognised for its durability, reliability, safety
and sustainability in a world that sometimes seems to have
lost sight of the need for real energy security while
pursuing fads of the day. Indeed, a study published in 2018
by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) indicated
that US plants are nearly 100 times more safe than the
safety goals set by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
One welcome intervention came recently from the head
of the Paris-based International Energy Association (IEA),
Dr Fatih Birol, who gave testimony to the US Senate Energy
and Natural Resources Committee on prospects for global
energy markets, including the role of the US.
In his wide-ranging testimony, no one could be in
any doubt about the relevance – and the importance – of
nuclear energy now and into the future.
Birol said nuclear “should be seen as a key asset in the
US (which) has been a leader in nuclear power generation
technology for 60 years, alongside France, Japan and
Russia”.
Nuclear still generates “twice as much low-carbon
electricity in the US as wind and solar combined”, Birol
said, adding that nuclear’s baseload capacity in the country
also played a “major role in maintaining electricity
security”. He said this was especially true in the northern
regions, which “experience spikes in electricity and gas
demand during extreme cold spells like the recent polar
vortex – times when solar production can be challenged”.
But Birol pointed out that China is set to be the “new
leader” in terms of nuclear energy if US policies do not
change.
“China has rapidly developed nuclear power over the
past two decades, increasing from just three operating
reactors in 2000 to 46 at the end of last year,” Birol said.
“Nuclear capacity in China is set to overtake that of the US
within 10 years.”
According to the IEA chief, “effective policy action” is
needed in the US if it is to avoid the loss of “a substantial
proportion of its (nuclear) capacity”. “From my vantage
point, this would be detrimental to both energy security
and clean energy objectives.”
Birol said American innovation could also play a leading
role in the development of small modular reactors (SMRs),
pointing out that there was “significant international
appetite for innovative approaches to nuclear power,
including SMRs”, which could offer significant benefits,
such as factory fabrication, flexibility in where they can be
deployed and lower upfront investment.
The US has to continue to “accelerate innovation in new
nuclear technologies” such as SMRs to safeguard the long
term contribution of nuclear, Birol said.
However, “a first priority should be to safeguard the
existing fleet”. Birol told legislators: “Nuclear plant lifetimes
should be extended as long as safety considerations
allow. In large parts of the US this presents a challenge, as
wholesale markets don’t value the energy security and
clean energy contribution of nuclear.”
This was the third consecutive time the IEA’s executive
director has given testimony to the Senate committee, so
his remarks should not be seen as a dramatic intervention,
particularly in terms of nuclear, because the agency’s brief
is to cover the full spectrum of energy issues in its 30
member countries and beyond.
What is notable, however, is that nuclear is rightly
recognised by the IEA as a valued and much-needed
contributor to the international energy mix.
From a strictly personal point of view, I found it
refreshing to hear the head of an esteemed international
body talk about nuclear in such terms. I’ve heard no such
endorsement for some time now in the UK (although I
stand to be corrected). By the same token, I don’t recall any
public airing of note of late on the benefits of nuclear in the
European Parliament, regardless of that body’s largely
consultative role in such matters.
Nuclear continues to enjoy strong political support in
other countries, such as China (as Birol mentioned),
Russia, and nuclear newcomer the United Arab Emirates.
Policies in those countries are driven of course by a more
‘top-down approach’, but that does nothing to dilute the
value of nuclear in terms of energy security and its
contribution to supporting a nation’s economic well being.
Meanwhile, the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum
reported that two ‘nuclear recruiting’ events were held in
the country recently, attended by students expecting to
graduate in 2020 and looking to start their careers.
Memories of the Fukushima-Daiichi accident have not
faded in Japan, but lessons have been learned and the
country is moving on – and preparing for a new nuclear
generation at the industry’s helm.
We would do well to reflect on some words from Sir
Winston Churchill if the nuclear industry is to forge ahead
in helping to resolve the energy challenges of the future:
“A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an
optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”
Nuclear Today
Events of the Past Need Not Dictate an Industry’s Future ı John Shepherd