Petition contre Nuclear electricity generation and advanced modular units-SMR-.
dr.Pier Luigi Caffese pcaffese@gmail.com dec 2024.
Petition contre Nuclear electricity generation and advanced modular units-SMR-.
Nuclear power is too expensive.In Italy 150 GW cost 4500 miliard euro The Italian public massively subsidises the nuclear industry and will continue to do so as the government has guaranteed high price of electricity produced from new nuclear power stations.
Nuclear power is dirty There is still no safe, long-term solution for storing radioactive nuclear waste and yet the government wants to produce more with no answer in sight.
Nuclear power is dangerous Apart from the waste, nuclear power production can lead to cancer clusters and potentially catastrophic disasters or accidents. Even small amounts of radiation exposure may be harmful.
Nuclear weapons proliferation The nuclear power and nuclear weapons industries share a common technological basis and are mutually beneficial.
Alternatives PHS hydro,synthetic methane,Renewable energy sources offer a clear alternative to nuclear. If billions were to be invested in the Italy developing these technologies rather than subsidising the nuclear industry, we could soon have enough secure and clean energy sources from renewables while creating thousands of new jobs.
Nuclear Power: a False Solution to the Climate Crisis.PETITION: The nuclear power industry would like you to believe that Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMNRs) are a magic bullet to solve the climate crisis.Our opinion: SMNRs are a false solution that diverts funding from proven renewable energy technologies that are safer, less expensive, and faster to deploy.Despite major drawbacks to nuclear energy, the nuclear industry, propped up by the Inflation Reduction Act and other federal support, is recklessly plowing ahead with its wasteful spending to build new nuclear reactors, including near the Columbia River. We need your help to stop them.Why Small Modular Nuclear Reactors are a Big Problem:They are too costly and take too long to come online. Nuclear energy now costs five times more than renewable energy options such as solar and wind, and nuclear projects are notorious for delays and cost overruns.-They pollute and burden tribal communities. While the nuclear industry claims to be “clean,” it is an extremely dirty technology, beginning with uranium mining which decimates indigenous lands. SMNRs produce two to thirty times the radioactive waste of older nuclear designs, waste for which we have no national repository.-They are dangerous. SMNRs sited at Hanford would be vulnerable to earthquakes, floods,and fires which may lead to nuclear accidents. An accident at any one Hanford facility could mean losing access to them all. We can’t afford this risk to the Columbia River.-SMNRs are a false solution that divert funding from proven, renewable energy technologies that are safer, less expensive, and faster to deploy.Ready to take action? Sign the petition below.To Oregon and Washington Senators: Patty Murray, Ron Wyden, Maria Cantwell, and Jeff Merkley:I urge you to oppose the development of small modular nuclear reactors at the Hanford nuclear cleanup site, or anywhere in our region. The science is clear: nuclear power is a false solution to the climate crisis. Taxpayer dollars are better spent on renewables, storage, and energy efficiency that we know are part of a just transition to a clean energy future.Petition.Invest in PHS hydro and synthetic methane power, instead of Dangerous and high cost Nuclear Energy in Italy.We invite Italy Govt. to Invest in the creation of PHS hydro barrage,hybrid synthetic methane scrap plans,all project is renewable, clean energy, it will also provide 960 TWh of the Italy's energy requirements, create 500.000 jobs and can be built within just 150-180 years lifetime contre 50-60 years nuclear.Nuclear is dirty, profit driven & dangerous.Some facts & quotes about the project.''The electricity generated by PHS hydro would be equivalent capacity 300 GW cost 45 miliard and to have 300 GW nuclear power stations cost is 9.000 miliard .300 phs hydro are connected thousands of wind turbines and solar (also floating solar)- High cost nuclear see Hinkley Point(50 miliard euro).
- The 300 PHS hydro-desalination-barrage will have an operational lifetime of up to 180 year,bur a spain barrage have 2.000 years
- It would be the world's largest ever PHS renewable energy project.
- wildlife and fish farm from PHS project can be avoided with additional investment of 3 miliard euro connected vertical farm in 8.000 cities.
Nuclear electricity generation has hidden problems; don’t expect advanced modular units to solve them.
Nuclear reactors have lots of risks that, if they trigger, cause very significant time and budget overruns. PHS Hydro ,Wind and solar have very few risks that cause significant time and budget overruns if they occur. The results are clear in the data. If you want to hit targets and achieve benefits, build wind and solar. China is doing that incredibly well.China added 1000 GW Phs hydro to 2045,274 GW of wind and solar capacity to their grid in 2023.
Italian and European people throughout the region and state of Europe have historically and overwhelmingly opposed nuclear energy, and the storage of its waste," a spokesperson as Caffese P.L. said.Caffese from the Local Action Group gave evidence at the public hearing in Milan about the potential risk of a nuclear accident.He has opposed nuclear technology for decades and said the time to switch to nuclear energy had passed."I think it's old technology, and I don't think we need it," Caffese P.L. said.Caffese said any accident or error would not only have a devastating impact on the local community but also on vulnerable land-rivers-marine ecologies.
The opportunities ahead for suppliers and employees in PHS hydro power globally is massive. The demand for reliable, clean and safe electricity the Water power generation can provide is compounded by the need to replace aging generation plants of all types.Yet there are still several head winds in Europe,Italy,North America, Asia,with overly complex and uncertain regulatory and licensing requirements which leads to timid/risk adverse project financing and the lack luster investment in the next generation of trades and professionals who will plan, manage, design, construct and operate these facilities. Only through an all hands on deck effort with capable leaders from Government, Finance, Industry and Labor will we have a chance to hit the targets we have set for ourselves. Brave leadership from all sectors akin to the rebuilding of society and infrastructure after WWII is required.The projected increases in electricity demand driven by power-hungry data centers are causing some concern whether the obligation to serve still makes sense. A recent Power Engineering article noted the possibility of massive new power demands: “Georgia Power projects that over the next decade the state will be leading the nation’s second industrial revolution, led by artificial intelligence boosting data centers, which could triple the state’s energy consumption.”A recent blog post by energy economist Severin Borenstein, head of the University of California, Berkeley’s Energy Institute at Haas, says, “If we don’t rethink the paradigm for new large electricity customers, they could end up burdening existing ratepayers.”Borenstein notes, “Around the country, developers of large data centers – known as hyperscalers – are approaching electric utilities with plans to build facilities that can draw 1 GW of nuclear power(30 miliard $) or PHS hydro 300 GW in Italy 45-50 miliard of $, and connect them to the grid.” What obligations do utilities have to serve these new, big loads, particularly with a grid that is already struggling to serve existing customers?The duty to serve, he says, “may at first seem like a fair burden in exchange for being a monopolist that supplies an essential service while being assured of a regulated rate of return on their investment. But the doctrine has always been problematic economically, because ‘non-discriminatory’ has been used to argue that customers who actually impose different costs on the system – whether due to different locations, demand profiles, or predictability of future needs – should be charged similar rates.”The potential for hyperscalers reveals the problem, says Borenstein, “because a single facility can dwarf all other demand growth that a utility faces, and cancellation of such a facility can completely change a utility’s demand outlook.”The possible energy implications of the data needs of artificial intelligence programs and, the last next big thing, cryptocurrency data mining, are on the minds of the developers and the electricity providers. Few answers are clear. Companies such as Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta are looking to line up their own dedicated elect power supplies while supporting goals of not producing additional greenhouse gases. Most of the emphasis so far has been on nuclear power.Often, these focus on new, speculative and dedicated nuclear plants, such as Google’s deal with Kairos Power for the as-yet only on paper Hermes reactors. Meta, Facebook’s daddy, announced this week that it is seeking proposals from nuclear power developers to help meet its artificial intelligence and environment goals. Meta wants to add 1 to 4 gigawatts of new U.S. nuclear generation capacity starting in the early 2030s, it said in a release. A typical U.S. nuclear plant has a capacity of about 1 gigawatt.Among the other nuclear options power buyers are pursuing are restarting shuttered nuclear plants, such as Palisades, Three Mile Island, and Duane Arnold, and co-locating loads at currently-operating plants, such as the failed deal between Amazon and Talen Energy for the Susquehanna plant in the PJM Interconnection.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s rejection of the Amazon-Talen deal raised some of the concerns that are likely to arise in many of these developments, highlighting some of the issues Berkeley’s Borenstein raises. By locating its data center on the power plant’s site, the project would bypass the PJM grid.Two major utilities with a large PJM footprint, Exelon and AEP, fought the Amazon plan. They argued “that the PJM capacity markets will suffer as capacity resources exit to serve load that uses and benefits from, but does not pay for, the system and that replacement capacity will take years to develop.”While PJM supported the deal, the PJM Market Monitor raised objections. The Market Monitor said the deal “would provide unique and special treatment for a specific type of load and a specific type of power plant and would set a precedent for significant changes to the PJM markets that will impose costs on other market participants.” The Market Monitor added that “the core benefit to the Co-Located Load is avoiding state and federal regulation and the associated costs, such as paying distribution charges and transmission charges.”Writing in Utility Dive, Mike Granowski of the Roland Berger management consultancy observed, “To the utility system, data centers appear as large industrial loads. However, when the data center steps in front of an existing central generating station for exclusive service of its energy demand, problems can ensue.”He added, “When the central generation serving the data center is out of service, the data center still needs energy and will seek it from the broader utility system as a backup. This concentrated demand from data centers introduces challenges to grid stability and repurposes the transmission assets that were formerly meant to serve customers. These assets are still being paid for by the wide spectrum of utility customers, raising concerns about potential inequities where certain captive customer groups could shoulder asset costs that are now primarily benefiting the high-load data center.”How Difficult is it to Expand Nuclear Power in the World?
Italy project 150 GW nuclear but the cost is 4500 miliard euro as 1 GW cost 30 miliard.
While discussing the next Strategic Energy Plan, the Japanese Government actively promotes the idea to maximize the use of nuclear power for decarbonization purposes. However, an analysis of international trends, based on data and facts, demonstrates that renewable energy (RE) is the decarbonized technology to be prioritized. New wind and solar projects are much cheaper than new reactors. Therefore, global electricity generation from RE is growing much faster than that from nuclear power. And in terms of electricity generation mix, RE largely prevails over nuclear in China, the United States, and Europe – the world’s three largest power systems, as well as in Japan. New Wind and Solar Three to Six Times Cheaper Than New Nuclear Power .In December 2023, BloombgerNEF, the leading reference for energy economics, published its latest levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) analysis, for the second half of 2023 (2023-H2). It found that the unsubsidized global benchmark LCOEs (i.e., based on a central scenario using moderate assumptions) of onshore wind, solar photovoltaic (PV), and offshore wind were around three to six times lower than that of nuclear
However, with technological advancements and strong government backing, these challenges are increasingly being addressed. Looking ahead, the economic competitiveness and long-term benefits of PSH will likely drive further adoption across Southeast Asia.In conclusion, pumped storage hydropower is positioned to play a central role in Europe-America-Africa-Southeast Asia's energy future. By providing reliable energy storage, supporting the integration of renewables, and enhancing grid stability, PSH is helping countries meet their growing energy needs while transitioning toward a less carbon-intensive energy system. As investments in these projects grow, Southeast Asia will continue on its path to achieving a greener energy landscape, contributing to global efforts to combat climate change.It is easy to get the impression that proposed new modular nuclear generating units will solve the problems of nuclear generation. Perhaps they will allow more nuclear electricity to be generated at a low cost and with much less of a problem with spent fuel.As I analyze the situation, however, the problems associated with nuclear electricity generation are more complex and immediate than most people perceive. My analysis shows that the world is already dealing with “not enough uranium from mines to go around.” In particular, US production of uranium “peaked”about 1980 (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Chart prepared by the US Energy Information Administration showing US production of uranium oxide.
For many years, the US was able to down-blend nuclear warheads (both purchased from Russia and from its own supply) to get around its uranium supply deficit.
Figure 2. Chart from ArmsControl.org showing estimated global nuclear warhead inventories, 1945 to 2023.
Today, the inventory of nuclear warheads has dropped quite low. There are few warheads available for down-blending. This is creating a limit on uranium supply that is only now starting to hit.
Nuclear warheads, besides providing uranium in general, are important for the fact that they provide a concentrated source of uranium-235, which is the isotope of uranium that can sustain a nuclear reaction. With the warhead supply depleting, the US has a second huge problem: developing a way to produce nuclear fuel, probably mostly from spent fuel, with the desired high concentration of uranium-235. Today, Russia is the primary supplier of enriched uranium.The plan of the US is to use government research grants to kickstart work on new small modular nuclear reactors that will be more efficient than current nuclear plants. These reactors will use a new fuel with a higher concentration of uranium-235 than is available today, except through purchase from Russia. Grants are also being given to start work on US production of the more highly enriched uranium fuel within the US. It is hoped that most of this highly enriched uranium can come from recycling spent nuclear fuel, thus helping to solve the problem of what to do with the supply of spent fuel.
My analysis indicates that while advanced modular nuclear reactors might theoretically be helpful for the very long term, they cannot fix the problems of the US, and other countries in the West, nearly quickly enough. I expect that the Trump administration, which will start in January 2025, will see this program as a boondoggle.
[1] Current problems with nuclear electricity generation are surprisingly hidden. World electricity generation from nuclear has been close to flat since 2004.
Figure 3. World Nuclear Electricity Generation based on data of the 2024 Statistical Review of World Energy, published by the Energy Institute.
Although there was a dip in world generation of nuclear electricity after the tsunami that affected nuclear reactors in Fukushima, Japan, in 2011, otherwise world production of nuclear electricity has been nearly flat since 2004 (Figure 3).
Figure 4. US Nuclear Electricity Generation based on data of the 2024 Statistical Review of World Energy, published by the Energy Institute.
US nuclear electricity production (Figure 4) shows a similar pattern, except that production since 2021 is down.
[2] The total amount of electricity generated by nuclear power plants is limited by the amount of uranium fuel available to them.
I believe that a major reason why the electricity supply from nuclear has been quite flat since 2004 is because total nuclear electricity generation is limited by the quantity of uranium fuel that is available for the nuclear reactors that have been built.
The price of uranium can perhaps rise, but this doesn’t necessarily add much (or any) supply very quickly. It takes several years to develop a new uranium mine.
In theory, reprocessing of spent fuel to produce uranium and plutonium is also possible, but the amount of that has been performed to date is small. (See Section [6].)
[3] The World Nuclear Association (WNA) published Figure 5 that hints at the world’s uranium supply problem:
Figure 5. World uranium production and reactor requirements (metric tons of uranium) in a chart by the World Nuclear Association.
The black line showing “reactor requirements” (Figure 5) is in some sense comparable to world generation of nuclear electricity (Figure 3). Both figures show fairly flat lines since about 2004. This relationship hints that there has not been a significant improvement in the efficiency of electricity generation using uranium fuel in the past 20 years.
Figure 5 shows a huge gap between the production of uranium from the various countries and “reactor requirements.” The single largest source of additional supply has been down-blended uranium from nuclear bombs. The EIA reports that the US purchased a large number of nuclear warheads from Russia between 1995 and 2013 for this purpose under the Megatons to Megawatts program. The EIA also reports that for the period 2013 to 2022, a purchase agreement was put in place allowing the US to purchase commercial origin low-enriched uranium from Russia to replace some of down-blended nuclear warhead material. In addition, the US had some of its own nuclear warheads that it could blend down. It was the availability of uranium supply from these various sources that allowed US nuclear electricity generation to remain relatively flat in the 2004 to 2023 period, as shown on Figure 4.
The US’s own uranium extraction reached a peak about 1980 and is now close to zero (Figure 1). The world’s supply of warheads is now over 85% depleted, leaving very little stored-away, highly enriched uranium to blend down (Figure 2)
Recommended by LinkedIn
A hidden problem is the fact that uranium production available today is largely from Russia and its close affiliates. The data underlying Figure 5 shows that uranium production in 2022 is dominated by close allies of Russia (55% of the total coming from Kazakhstan (43% of total), Uzbekistan (7% of total), and Russia (5% of total)). The US (at almost 0%), plus production of its close affiliates, Canada and Australia, provided only 24% of world uranium. This imbalance between Russia and its affiliates, and the US and its affiliates, should be of concern.
[4] The current conflict between the US and Russia adds to nuclear problems.
The US is trying to impose sanctions on Russia. The EIA reports:
“The origin of uranium used in U.S. reactors will likely change in the coming years. In May [2024], the United States banned imports of uranium products from Russia beginning in August [2024], although companies may apply for waivers through January 1, 2028.”
This seems to imply that a transition away from Russian uranium dependence must be made in only a little over three years. This is a short time frame, given the difficulty in making such a transition.
EIA data show that in the year 2023, the US sourced only 4.6% of uranium supplies from the US. (This could be partly or mostly down-blended nuclear warheads). Material purchased from Russia comprised 11.7% of uranium. Kazakhstan provided 20.6% of uranium purchased, and Uzbekistan provided 9.5%. Among US allies, Canada provided 14.9%, and Australia 9.2%.
[5] The WNA does not hint at any uranium supply problems.
The WNA is an advocate for nuclear energy; it cannot suggest that there is any problem with uranium supplies. WNA has the opinion that if there is a shortage of uranium, prices will rise, and more will become available. But even if prices rise, it takes several years to bring new mines into operation. Prices need to stay high, or companies will not pursue what appear to be opportunities.
Figure 6. Historical uranium prices in chart by Trading Economics.
Readers of OurFiniteWorld.com have seen that oil prices tend to spike and collapse. They don’t stay high for very long because if prices stay high, the end products made with oil tend to become unaffordable. I expect a similar problem occurs with uranium.
The necessary price threshold for high uranium extraction that is mentioned by the WNA is $130/kg in 2021. By coincidence, when a translation is made to dollars per pound using 2024$, this corresponds quite closely to the current price line on Figure 6. Indeed, prices do sometimes bounce high. The problem is getting them to stay as high as the dotted line for long enough to support the multi-decade life of a mine. Economists were forecasting a price of $300 per barrel oil a few years ago, but they have been disappointed. The price is under $75 per barrel now.
The country with the most potentially recoverable uranium is Australia. It produced only 9% of the world’s uranium in 2022, but is reported to have 28% of the world’s remaining reserve. Consistently higher prices would be needed for Australia to start opening new mines.
It is also possible that more uranium supply might become available if improved extraction techniques are developed.
The world seems to be past peak crude oil. By itself, the peak oil issue could limit new uranium extraction and transport.
[6] Recycling of spent fuel to recover usable uranium and plutonium has been accomplished only to a limited extent. Experience to date suggests that recycling has many issues.
It is possible to make an estimate of the amount of recycling of spent fuel that is currently being performed. Figure 3 in Section [1] shows about 65,000 metric tons of uranium are required to meet the demands of existing nuclear power generation, and that as of 2022, there was about an annual shortfall in supply of about 26%. Based on what information I have been able to gather, existing recycling of uranium and plutonium amounts to perhaps 6% of the overall fuel requirement. Thus, as of 2022, today’s recycling of spent fuel could perhaps shave this shortfall in uranium supply to “only” 20% of annual nuclear fuel requirements. There is some recycling of spent fuel, but it is small in relation to the amount needed.
There seem to be several issues with building units to recover uranium from spent fuel:
The US outlawed recycling of spent fuel in 1977, after a few not-very-successful attempts. Once the purchase of Russian warheads was arranged, down-blending of warheads was a much less expensive approach than reprocessing spent fuel. Physics Today recently reported the following regarding US reprocessing:
“A plant in West Valley, New York, reprocessed spent fuel for six years before closing in 1972. Looking to expand the plant, the owners balked at the costs required for upgrades needed to meet new regulatory standards. Construction of a reprocessing plant in Barnwell, South Carolina, was halted in 1977 following the Carter administration’s ban.”
Japan has been trying to build a commercial spent fuel reprocessing plant at Rokkasho since 1993, but it has had huge problems with cost overruns and protests by many groups. The latest estimate of when the plant will actually be completed is fiscal year 2026 or 2027. The plant would process 800 metric tons of fuel per year.
The largest commercial spent fuel reprocessing plant in operation is in La Hague, France. It has been in place long enough (since 1966) that it has run into the issue of decommissioning an old unit, which was started as a French military project. The first processing unit was shut down in 2003. The International Atomic Energy Administration says, “The UP2-400 decommissioning project began some 20 years ago and may be expected to continue for several more years.” It talks about the huge cost and number of people involved. It says, “Decommissioning activities represent roughly 20 per cent of the overall activity and socio-economic impact of the La Hague site, which also hosts two operating spent fuel recycling plants.”
The cost of the La Hague reprocessing units is probably not fully known. They were built by government agencies. They have gone through various owners including AREVA. AREVA has had huge financial problems. The successor company is Orano. The currently operating units have the capacity to process about 1,700 metric tons of fuel per year. The 1700 metric tons of reprocessing of spent fuel from La Hague is reported to be nearly half of the world’s operating capacity for recycling spent fuel.
I understand that Russia is working on approaches that quite possibly are not included in my figures. If so, this may add to world uranium supply, but Russia is not likely to want to share the benefits with the West if there is not enough to go around.
[7] The concentration of the isotope uranium-235 is very important in making fuel for the proposed new modular nuclear reactors.
Uranium-235 makes up 0.72% of natural uranium. Wikipedia says, “Unlike the predominant isotope uranium-238, it [uranium-235] is fissile, i. e., it can sustain a nuclear reaction.” In most reactors used today, the concentration of uranium-235 is 3% to 5%.
According to CNN, the plan in building advanced modular small reactors is to use fuel with a 5% to 20% concentration of uranium-235. Fuel at this concentration is called high assay low-enriched uranium, or HALEU. The expectation is that power plants with this type of fuel will be more efficient to operate.
Producing higher concentrations of uranium-235 tends to be problematic unless nuclear weapons are available for down-blending; warheads use high concentrations of uranium-235. Now, with reduced availability of nuclear warheads for down-blending, other sources are needed in addition. CNN reports that the only commercial source of HALEU is Russia. The EIA reports that the Inflation Reduction Act invested $700 million to support the development of a domestic supply chain for HALEU.
[8] The US is trying to implement many new ideas at one time with virtually no successful working models to smooth the transition.
Strangely enough, the US has no working model of a small-scale nuclear reactor, even one operating on conventional fuel. A CNBC article from September 2024 says, Small nuclear reactors could power the world, the challenge is building the first one in the US.
The new small-scale nuclear projects we do have are still at a very preliminary stage. In June 2024, Bill Gates wrote, “We just broke ground on America’s first next-gen nuclear facility. Kemmerer, Wyoming will soon be home to the most advanced nuclear facility in the world.” The plan is for it is to become operational by 2030, if it has access to HALEU fuel.
With respect to how far along the ability to make HALEU from spent fuel is, an October 2024 article in Interesting Engineering says, “US approves new facility design concept to turn nuclear waste into reactor fuel:”
“The facility whose conceptual design has been approved will be located at Idaho National Laboratory (INL). It will help turn used material recovered from DOE’s former Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II reactor) into usable fuel for its advanced nuclear power plant. . . The plan is to recover approximately 10 metric tons of HALEU from EBR-II fuel by December 2028 using an electrochemical process that was perfected over the years at Idaho National Laboratory (INL).”
Assuming this can be done, it will be a step forward, but it is nowhere near being an at-scale, commercial project that can be done economically by other companies. The volume of 10 metric tons is tiny.
Starting at this level, it is difficult to see how reactors with the new technology and the HALEU fuel to feed them can possibly be available in quantity before 2050.
[9] It is difficult to see how the cost of electricity generated using the new advanced modular nuclear reactors and the new HALEU fuel, created by reprocessing spent fuel, could be low.
As far as I can see, the main argument that these new modular electricity generation plants will be affordable is that they will only generate a relatively small amount of electricity at once —about 300 megawatts or less, or about one third of the average of conventional nuclear reactors in the US. Because of the smaller electricity output, the hope is that they will be affordable by more buyers, such as utility companies.
The issue that is often overlooked by economists is that electricity generated using these new techniques needs to be low cost, per kilowatt-hour, to be helpful. High-cost electricity is not affordable. Keeping costs