All I Want for Christmas… Is More Nuclear Power

53 nuclear power plants are under construction around the world. Is this good or bad, and where do we go from here?

Key Take-Aways:

• Nuclear power is increasingly seen as a necessary component of a low-carbon electricity portfolio as pressure to reduce CO2 emissions from the electricity generation increases, particularly in parts of Europe.
• Global electricity demand is increasing and is primarily driven by increased consumption in the developing world. This means a huge demand for power plant technologies in the next few decades, particularly those that can be deployed internationally.
• It is unlikely that wind, solar and batteries alone will be cost-effective to meet the world’s current demand for electricity (let alone increasing demand in the future).
• Nuclear fission offers a near-constant form of electricity generation with no emissions and small fuel requirements. Designs for both small nuclear reactors (SMRs) and nuclear reactors based on new advanced nuclear technology are approaching the demonstration stage and promise additional advantages.
• For the US and other western countries, being left out of the global nuclear industry means ceding the technical and economic opportunity to other major world powers. There are currently 53 nuclear power plants under construction around the world, with Russia and China supplying the majority of these.

As Mariah Carey’s holiday anthem returns to the radio, let’s turn the conversation to an energy source that has gone in and out of favor over the years: nuclear power (fission). Whether or not we should use nuclear power to generate electricity can be a charged topic in the US. But hey, it’s almost the holidays. What better time to dive into touchy topics than when we’re spending time (or virtual time) with family.

As a quick reminder, this post is about nuclear fission, which is what we typically mean by nuclear power (i.e. Homer Simpson.) Nuclear power plants all over the world make electricity from uranium fissioning into smaller atoms. Nuclear fission and nuclear fusion (which I’ve written about in other blog posts) are two VERY DIFFERENT sources of energy!

In this post, we’ll start with putting more nuclear power in context — why build more nuclear, when we have sun, wind, and rivers we can dam? What does the commercial nuclear industry look like today? (Spoiler alert: Russia and China are dominating.) Finally, we’ll review some recent developments in the nuclear power sector that should make for great cocktail discussions.

We won’t cover safety and nuclear waste just yet — these topics deserve their own post. (Stay tuned!)

Why Is Interest in Nuclear Power Returning?

Nuclear power is a critical tool to address climate change. At this point we know that increasing CO2 levels are changing the climate, and the effects of this are bad. [1] Add to this volatile fuel prices, resource-driven geopolitics, the negative effects of increasing air pollution on our health, and environmental impacts, and it’s clear that a shift to other energy sources needs to happen. National and state governments are increasingly recognizing that action is necessary, although programs and policies to mitigate CO2 emissions are still in their infancy.

The challenge is that the scale of the transition needed to decarbonize is massive. Burning coal is still the most common way we generate electricity worldwide (38.2% of the world’s electricity), followed by burning natural gas (23.1%).[2] Transitioning to low-carbon electricity sources means replacing over half of the world’s existing electricity generation. To stay “well below” 2 degrees C, the International Energy Agency (IEA) predicts that all coal plants would have to close by 2040 — that’s roughly one coal unit every day from now until 2040. [3]

“Singapore: Where Air Conditioners Live” by pmorgan

Compounding this problem, the world will use more electricity in the future. IEA predicts that global electricity generation will increase by 35–50% in the next 20 years. This means building TENS OF THOUSANDS of power plants. Most of this growth comes from increased electricity consumption in developing (non-OECD) countries. Per-person electricity use in less developed countries has more than doubled between 2000 and 2017. That’s just electricity, not energy for transportation or heat. Energy-intensive forms of consumption, such as car ownership, are rapidly expanding in China, India, and other rapidly industrializing nations.

In western developed countries like the USA and Europe, electricity demand has flattened or fallen slightly over the past decade. However, energy forecasters like the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) project that US electricity use will increase by 36% between now and 2050. [4] Switching just today’s passenger cars to electric vehicles would increase the US’s demand for electricity by 12%, or 520 terawatt-hours (TWh). This alone would require 70 more nuclear power plants, 150 coal power plants, or 47,000 wind turbines plus storage. [5]

Clearly, the world will need to replace and build out a lot of new power plants in the next few decades.

Could we generate all this electricity from solar, wind and hydro? Some academics argue yes. [6] Such studies are important for showing us what is possible and informing realistic goals. I agree that in an ideal “Sim City” style world where we could build new transmission lines and site renewables wherever we wished and were willing to pay a premium, sure — we could make it work.

However, the reality is complicated. The electric grid is aging and complex. Electric utility procurement processes are slow and favor proven technologies. Countries like Poland and Romania need to comply with new EU climate targets, and don’t have great sun or wind. We are not actually closing one coal plant each day. Considering the current rate of solar and wind builds, it’s unlikely that we can deploy wind, solar and batteries fast enough to meet the world’s current demand for electricity (let alone increasing demand in the future).

The transition to low-carbon energy sources is happening too slowly — we need to deploy whatever makes sense for regions and communities as quickly as possible. Which brings us to…

Nuclear fission is a pretty awesome way to generate electricity. Unlike combustion processes — coal, natural gas, diesel and biomass — nuclear power releases no carbon dioxide, smog, particulates, or volatile organic compounds. Nuclear power plants also have the highest capacity factors of any type of power plant. The capacity factor refers to how often the power plant is producing electricity. Nuclear plants in the US have a capacity factor of 93% (they are producing electricity 93% of the time) vs 35–42% for wind and 25% for solar plants. A nuclear plant will generate almost 3x as much energy as a wind farm of the same size.

Nuclear fuel is also perhaps the most dense energy carrier on the planet. Uranium-235 contains so much energy that all the electricity you use in a year could be generated from about 2 fuel pellets, or 20 grams of standard nuclear fuel. [7] This means that the amount of nuclear waste generated per person is quite small.

One of my favorite XKCD comics: https://xkcd.com/1162/

A new class of small modular reactors or SMRs are in development, which will be easier to both site and finance. SMRs rely on the same technology as existing nuclear plants, but as the name suggests are much smaller: 20–300 MW rather than 1000 MW. There are also many new “advanced” or “GenIV” nuclear reactor designs in development that promise to be even better in terms of waste production, cost and safety.

Finally, the US must find a way to participate in supplying nuclear technology, or cede this responsibility to Russia and China. Russia is the leading supplier of nuclear reactors to other countries. Sixteen of the 50 traditional nuclear plants under construction globally [updated Nov 2021] are Russian VVER power plants. China is in second with 10 nuclear plants under construction around the world (+2 that came online in 2021). This also means that Russia and China will supply the nuclear fuel, equipment, and engineering for these plants for decades to come.

The US nuclear industry has struggled to compete on nuclear power plant technology in recent years. While the US currently has more operating nuclear power plants than any other country (94 nuclear reactors, which generated 809 TWh of power last year), almost all of these were built between 1970 and 1990. (For comparison, China’s first nuclear reactor wasn’t connected to the grid until 1991 — they now have 46 nuclear plants operating domestically.) The US-based Westinghouse Electric Company sold several new nuclear reactors (AP1000s) to China and began construction on two new nuclear power reactors in Vogtle, Georgia in the 2010s. However, problems and cost overruns with Vogtle led Westinghouse to file for bankruptcy in 2017, casting uncertainty on plans for other international AP1000 projects.

“Equipment arrives at Vogtle nuclear plant — August 2013” by NRCgov

The South Korean nuclear company KEPCO (which is building 7 plants globally) is essentially the only option for countries who want to build nuclear power on time and on budget, without strings attached. However, the new South Korean government elected in 2017 has stated that they will phase out nuclear power in the future. The future of KEPCO (a state-run company) as an international nuclear supplier is therefore uncertain. [8]

Americans don’t get to choose whether or not nuclear power plants are built around the world. Instead, we can choose whether we sit back and allow others to build the next generation of the world’s nuclear plants, or develop the capabilities to build new commercial nuclear technology on time, and on budget.

To summarize why interest in nuclear power is increasing again:

• Nuclear power is increasingly seen as a necessary component of a low-carbon electricity portfolio as pressure to reduce CO2 emissions from the electricity generation increases, particularly in parts of Europe.
• Nuclear fission has many advantages as an energy source, including near-constant power generation, no emissions, and small fuel requirements. Designs for both small nuclear reactors (SMRs) and reactors based on new advanced nuclear technology promise additional advantages.
• Global electricity demand is increasing and is primarily driven by increased consumption in the developing world. This means a huge demand for power plant technologies in the next few decades, particularly those that can be deployed internationally.
• For the US and other western countries, being left out of the global nuclear industry means ceding the technical and economic opportunity to other major world powers.

What Happens Next?

Announcements by governments, financial institutions and technology companies over the past year signal that a shift in the global nuclear landscape may be coming.

New international collaborations were announced to increase access to US nuclear power plant technology. In October, the US and Poland signed an agreement to cooperate on the development of Poland’s first nuclear power plant. [9] A draft collaboration agreement was also signed between the US and Romania. [10] These agreements are not unique to the US. Earlier this year, Canada and the UK announced an action plan for joint nuclear research projects.

Financing is a huge barrier to building new nuclear plants, but also an area where new models and partnerships are being explored. Nuclear power plants have traditionally been enormous, generating 1000 MW of power or more. Overnight costs for new nuclear plants in western industrialized countries are typically $6B-$10B. [11]

This summer, the US International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) announced a change in its policy to allow it to fund nuclear power projects. (Neutron Bytes) This creates a mechanism for the US government to help provide financing for traditional large-scale new nuclear plants in developing nations — a key barrier to their construction, and one that China and Russia’s state-sponsored nuclear reactor suppliers have been more able to help address.

Both existing nuclear companies and startups around the world are developing smaller power plant designs that can be constructed more quickly — this reduces both the upfront financing burden, and the time to revenue from electricity sales. This September, NuScale became the first small modular reactor (SMR) company to receive NRC approval for its design.

“NuScale Power Plant Design — Eyelevel” by Oregon State University

Other companies have made strides in developing advanced reactors that use very different technology to extract energy from uranium. These concepts should in theory be more efficient and cost effective when commercial, and vary in size from 1 MW (the size of a single wind turbine) up to 1000+ MW. One advanced nuclear plant, Rosatom’s BN-800, is currently operational in Russia. Earlier this year, the US Dept of Energy (DOE) awarded $80mm grants to TerraPower and Xnergy to help them demonstrate their advanced nuclear reactor designs. The SMR and advanced reactor space is very technically exciting — expect to see more on this topic!

In short, national governments, engineering companies and a new wave of startups are positioning themselves for a large build-out of nuclear power plants in the next few decades. Hopefully this post has helped create a picture of today’s global nuclear landscape. Next we’ll dig in to some of the chief concerns surrounding nuclear: safety and nuclear waste.

Notes

1. Examples of bad things that will happen: rising sea levels, displacing millions along the coasts; ocean acidification, killing coral and ; more wildfires, more severe storms, and higher insurances rates. And if that wasn’t enough, cute animals will die. The IPCC’s website is still the best place to get peer-reviewed information on climate change.
2. Based on International Energy Agency (IEA) data. The rest of the electricity the world uses is mostly generated by hydroelectricity (15.8%), nuclear power plants (10.2%), wind (4.8%), solar (2.1%).
3. From the article accompanying Carbon Brief’s coal map. This assumes an average coal plant size of 279MW, which is fairly small.
4. From Jude Clemente in Forbes, 2018. Why is electricity use in the US projected to increase, when it has remained flat for a decade? A combination of factors including electrifying the transportation sector, increased domestic manufacturing, increased need for air conditioning, and increased population growth (the US adds 3 million each year on average).
5. Key assumptions: the capacity (amount of electricity produced at full power) of an average nuclear plant is 1000 MW, and the capacity factor is 82.5%. For coal, the average capacity is 800MW and the capacity factor is 50%. For wind power, the average wind turbine has a capacity of 3 MW and a capacity factor of 42% (for new turbines).
6. One example is Mark Jacobson’s group from Stanford. Their high-level assessment in 2015 of an electric grid with 100% renewables has prompted spirited back-and-forth discussions from the academic community. (Nuclear power doesn’t count as “renewable energy” because it uses uranium.) An academic assessment of 100% renewables in Europe (from Jan 2019) suggested that electricity costs from all-renewables would be ∼30% higher than if nuclear or carbon capture and storage are included. TDLR: these systems are complicated, and even the experts struggle to estimate future energy costs under different scenarios.
7. One fuel pellet weighs about 10 grams, and contains the same amount of energy as 17,000 scf of natural gas (5081 kilowatt-hours, kWh). The average US household used 10,649 kWh of electricity in 2019. That comes out to roughly 2 nuclear fuel pellets needed per household per year!
8. Per the World Nuclear Association, the preliminary plans outlined in May 2020 by S. Korea’s government include increasing electricity generation from renewables to 40% by 2034, and reducing nuclear from 19% to 10%. The provisional plan assumes that power demand will grow at an average of 1% a year to 2034, which would require aggressive conservation measures.
9. What’s in the agreement: “over the next 18 months, the US and Poland will work together on a report delivering a design for implementing Poland’s nuclear power program, as well as potential financing arrangements.” (Source) Poland currently does not have any nuclear plants, and generates 70% of its power from coal. With stricter clean energy requirements in the EU on the horizon, nuclear power makes sense for several Eastern European countries with limited solar and wind resources.
10. What’s in the agreement: it allows the US and Romania to collaborate on building two new reactors at the Cernavoda nuclear power plant and refurbishing the oldest. Romania currently has two operating nuclear power reactors (Cernavoda 1 and 2) and plans to add two more at the same site. The agreement also calls for cooperation between the US and Romania in regulation, research & development, staff training, and the development of small modular reactors in Romania. (World Nuclear News) The Romanian state-owned nuclear power producer Nuclearelectrica had previously been in talks with China General Nuclear (CGN). (Reuters)
11. Overnight costs of $6–10B USD comes out to ~$5000-$6000 per kilowatt of capacity. This is much higher than typical costs for nuclear power in South Korea, $2700/kW and in China. Examples of recent overnight construction costs: the Czech government is anticipating ~$7B for a 1200 MW unit (which can’t go out for bidding until the EU approves).

Prime Movers Lab invests in breakthrough scientific startups founded by Prime Movers, the inventors who transform billions of lives. We invest in seed-stage companies reinventing energy, transportation, infrastructure, manufacturing, human augmentation and agriculture.

Sign up here if you are not already subscribed to our blog.