By Anis Bajrektarevic, Petra Posega
GeopoliticalMonitor
Photo courtesy of Pixabay – CC0
Today, nuclear energy is 4th place in the total primary energy supply mixture, following the still-dominating coal, oil, and natural gas holding a staggering 80% of the world primary energy supply. To make these statistics more instructive, we can add that the primary energy supply in 2013 reached 13,217 MTOE (million tons of oil equivalent) and the final energy consumption stopped at 546,8 MTOE, which evidently shows that not only is energy demand still on a steady rise (although very different from the one we experienced in the years 2002 leading up to 2012), but also that we still demand more than we consume. This is another factor pointing at the previously mentioned obsession of the industrialized world with energy security: reliable/uninterrupted supply, affordable/competitive supply, and accessible/available supply. An unhealthy obsession (politically and security wise), combined with the fact that we are no closer to achieving global energy efficiency, is particularly sad if we consider the possibility that humanity is now in the peak-time of its technological age.
Depending on which country is being discussed, the total energy share provided by nuclear power differs vastly, however within the EU we are talking about a rough number somewhere around 15%, and this number drops to about 6-7% when discussing the world as a whole. When looking at the figure presented below we can see how sources of energy production have shifted throughout the past 30 years:
In the future, non-fossil fuels are (according to most predictions) expected to rise globally and the growth is expected to be faster in the non-OECD world. They are projected to be dominated by hydro and nuclear energy, while renewables are yet a mystery as to whether or not they will gain significantly in the energy mix of the future, primarily due to the subsidiary costs involved.
How this unfolds is also very crucial because it will play a key role in setting directions for the future of our planet. The current situation is reflected in the so-called ’ecological footprint’ insofar that it showcases the difference between our present way of living, especially our consumption and demand, and the planet`s ability to provide for these needs. To put it plain simple, it is (supposedly the right) answer to the question: How many Earths do we need to sustain the current lifestyle of the entire human kind?
As you can see from the charts above, we demand much more than can possibly be supplied. However, when striving to grapple with such predictions, it is important to keep the focus on the implied word “scenario.” Meaning these are not forecasts, but rather theories, constructed from a collection of different (subjective) assumptions. Well-constructed scenarios can be very convincing but it is hard to predict whether or not they will play out the way they were originally imagined. Therefore, it is decisive to keep a critical rationale about things and combine scenarios with other available knowledge and solid scientific evidence.
Ergo, we have to be very careful in distinguishing between proper, scientific information versus propaganda and sensationalism. Fact is, the current lifestyle probably does burden our planet more than it should, and a shift towards a different type of energy mix in the future cannot be considered a bad/idealistic idea, arguably more so because it would also bring about a beneficial geopolitical shift towards a multipolar world. Sadly, as in so many scientific fields nowadays, the global well-being of our planet has turned into a religion, which can as well be called the global climate change of the latter days. It is not based on concern but on practicality-climate change offers a very strong (and seemingly justified) control mechanism for global affairs. In this spirit, we would like to incorporate some “warning” charts from the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC). Not because they are exceedingly accurate, because we have to consider that many (scientific and amateur alike) voices consider their report/charts/graphs to be somewhere in between environmental alarmism and environmental sensationalism, but because the IPCC has a (larger than it should have) impact on state, corporate, and nongovernmental decision-makers around the world.
Accordingly, the most important thing to remember is that these are very inaccurate computer scenarios (not one major prediction has been realized for now). And any serious climate scientists will be very vocal that Earth’s climate is a complex mixture of many intertwined factors including solar, cosmic, oceanic, atmospheric, and terrestrial. For now, nobody can fully understand the true complexity of these interrelated elements. And while computer climate models can be very helpful in improving our knowledge on conceptual understandings behind major climate forces, they are terrible at actually predicting accurately. Least of all computer models from IPCC, because they seem to be blissfully ignorant towards all other important factors save for the human one. The wild inaccuracies and the tendency to politicize are the reasons why some authors refer not to the science of IPCC, but to the science fiction of IPCC.
Another, very interesting statistic on this topic is a modern twist on the old UN Human Development Index (HDI), called the Human Sustainable Development Index (HSDI). The idea is to update the old formula for the HDI (health+ wealth+ education= development) to the new, more adequate and contemporary formula of health+ wealth+ education+ per capita carbon emissions= sustainable development. This twist is due to the fact that development comes at a price and the HSDI shows what is the cost of one country’s quality of life to another’s. And, as expected, the biggest difference in comparing HDI to HSDI happens at the top: notice especially US, Australia, and Canada. To put things simply, the lifestyle (inevitably intertwined with development) of people living in the poorly-rated HSDI states is, at the end of the day, unsustainable. Also, this chart seems to confirm our previous argument that the environmental sensationalism, most notably in the form of IPCC, serves mostly as a control mechanism. Please notice the rank change of US and China; it does serve as a curious fact that we continue to hear that China is the main guilty party for the CO2 emissions, but strangely enough, on the HSDI chart it seems to gain 9 places for their sustainability.
And, to compliment everything written so far, below is another curious index displayed, the Commitment to Development Index (CDI). It contrasts the capacity of developed states to help developing countries and the reality of their efforts. It would be nice if this index could serve as a conscience to the developed nations in the world, reassessing the balance between their privileges and their empathy towards the rest, not-so-privileged world.
Nuclear energy is therefore not yet displaying its full potential and attaining a better position within the PEM, although it is capable of providing people with CO2-free energy at a low price. This, combined with rising energy demand, is the key in the recent trend of renewed interest in nuclear energy. When talking about nuclear commerce in general, one refers to a worldwide trade centered on nuclear energy. Since the mid 2000s there has been frequent talk of an “atomic renaissance,” due to the market’s energy needs and nuclear power’s capability to meet them. The boom in nuclear power can be seen all over the world in forms of power plants in construction and increased business opportunities taken within nuclear power. China, with 27 power plants under construction and additional 50 planned, is the country with the fastest growing nuclear industry. By way of contrast Russia has 10 under construction and 14 planned, and India has 4 under construction and 20 planned.
The last comprehensive analysis on the subject has been published in 2010 by the IAEA and it stated that 65 countries had expressed an interest, were considering, or were actively planning for nuclear power, which represented and upward trend from the 51 countries in 2008. Nuclear energy demand appears to still be in the growth phase, just not in the countries where it has been before. Today, there are 30 countries with active civil nuclear power plants and 40% of those are developing countries. Also, the majority of the states planning or proposing nuclear power plants are developing countries. Looking ahead, lower capital costs and simplified operational requirements of the innovative small power reactor designs, currently under development, could make nuclear energy more available. The growth markets for the nuclear energy in the next decade, according to the market experts, will continue to be China, Russia, India, and South Korea.
The main obstacles in enhancing and strengthening the position of nuclear power in the overall energy mix are shifts in the political support, struggles in finding the capital needed, market forces linked to competing technologies (gas and renewables for example), and an apparent global decline in interest for low-carbon technologies. Or, as Bob Evans of the Enercon Services said, “countries continue to “talk the talk” of carbon dioxide reduction, but are unwilling to “walk the walk.”
The below tables show the current trend in world nuclear energy:
The future of nuclear commerce heavily depends on positive political will which is expected to also help to influence and increase a positive public opinion in time. The shift in thinking will also be deeply connected to technical improvements that will strive towards eliminating possibilities for a large scale nuclear disaster and the effective recycling of nuclear waste. Unfortunately, to this day, no fully satisfactory recycling scheme has been developed.
There has been a lot of discussion lately on the possible usage of californium, a little known fringe element. Research has proven that californium shows potential for storing, even recycling radioactive waste into fuel, which has been the subject of many heated debates on nuclear power for decades now. There is no doubt that radioactive waste presents a complicated issue within the field of nuclear power and its facilities. Fact is that the process of nuclear decay can take thousands of years to break down into less dangerous isotopes; in the meantime, plenty can go wrong. Not to mention that the stockpiles of this waste will become a problem for generations to come.
Another propitious research program was conducted on MIT, where scientists believe they have found a brilliant way to eliminate nuclear waste. By recycling it into clean electricity, nuclear waste could power the entire world until 2083. Of course all of this sounds very promising, but only the future can tell which of the scientific breakthroughs will be applicable for nuclear waste management.
Other signs which point to a nuclear renaissance are increased international cooperation and the growing ambition displayed by major actors within the industry:
US-India Civil Nuclear Agreement
In July 2005 India together with the US took a huge step in regards to nuclear safety and cooperation on a global level. India agreed to separate its civil and military nuclear facilities and place all its civil nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and, in exchange, the United States agreed to work toward full civil nuclear cooperation with India.
This was a major stepping stone for nuclear commerce regarding the fact that India has excluded itself from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and had previously not cooperated with Western countries on nuclear power. The Indian government was always especially critical towards the hypocrisy of the US regarding the issue of nuclear restrictions towards South Asian and Middle Eastern states, while at the same time permitting the ambitions of Israel, who has avoided any IAEA inspections since the beginning of its nuclear program. In June 2010, India and Canada (the largest exporter of uranium) signed a nuclear cooperation agreement. This was also an additional positive sign considering Canada has one of the most restrictive regulative regimes regarding its uranium trade.
Russian and Chinese Ambitions
After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia lost a lot of the nuclear influence it previously had. However, in the past two decades Russia and its two largest nuclear companies (Rosatom and Atomstroyexport) have signed multiple deals with “untouchable” countries like Burma/Myanmar and Iran. As for China, having seen an economic boom unlike anything ever seen in human history, the nuclear projects planned are enormous. The public acceptance of nuclear power in China compared to Western countries is also a factor which helped the industry grow exponentially.
EU Energy Strategy
Given the fact that the European Union imports half of the energy it consumes, it has reached a crucial point in time to secure its energy supply. In most recent documents, Energy Roadmap 2020 and EU Nuclear Energy Policy Forecast 2014, nuclear energy is represented as a possible de-carbonized scenario for the future, since the EU is strongly committed to the low-carbon society. Nuclear energy is seen as a “key source of low-carbon electricity generation” and “as a large-scale, low-carbon option, [nuclear energy] will remain in the EU power generation mix” . Still, the greatest concerns are reserved for safety issues and waste management. New technological breakthroughs are seen as the key factor in securing and expanding nuclear share in the EU power generation mix. A great factor will also be a change in the European Parliament; with the election, held in 2014, there is a possibility for change in the stance of the politicians in the parliament (considering a very interesting, to say the least, mixture of representatives elected), along with the fact that the Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger ended his mandate in October, 2014.
Of course, there are also those who argue that the whole premise behind the concept of nuclear renaissance is essentially flawed. They go on to claim that the investments in renewables are on a steady rise and in contrast, the amount invested in nuclear energy represents only one tenth of what was invested in other fields of green energy. They also point out that the number of operational reactors has decreased in the last years, while the “nuclear fleet” is aging with every passing year, with an average age of 25. The statistics shown are also believed to be misleading, since a large number of reactors “in construction” or “in operation” did not produce any electricity in 2009, and many of them represent plans from a different political era, not likely to ever fully materialize. Also questionable in this context is the cost-competitiveness with existing conventional technology, operational safety, radioactive waste disposal, and public acceptance. Some from inside circles in the IAEA concluded that nuclear industry will lose a 11% of market share by 2020, because investors seem to be more interested in funding renewable projects than nuclear plants.
Another significant claim is that the continuously interested new markets for nuclear power plants, Asia, are not able to construct and operate such overwhelming projects. Especially troublesome are issues of meeting safety requirements, fighting corruption, the threat of terrorism and civil unrest, and the lack of physical infrastructure needed to support and operate the plant.
But despite these critiques and skepticism, the reality is hard to deny: the increase in new nuclear projects and political incentives seem to support claims of a nuclear renaissance. And underestimating Asian markets and the capability and knowledge in that region can never be a smart outlook, even less a strategic consideration.
Geopoliticalmonitor.com is an international intelligence publication and consultancy that provides a unique perspective on situations and events that have a substantive impact on political, military and economic affairs. For more information, please visit http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/
© 2014 Geopoliticalmonitor Intelligence Corp., All Rights Reserved
Discussion
No comments yet.