World Nuclear Power vs Climate Change

Forbes has been running a series of articles based on BP's recently-released  Statistical Review of World Energy 2019 . 

 

Previous articles in this series covered carbon dioxide emissions, petroleum supply and demand, the production and consumption of coal, global natural gas trends, and the continued explosion in the growth of renewable energy. The article on July 11 covered nuclear energy and provided some statistics on nuclear energy.

As reported :  In 2018, the world produced 2,701 terawatt-hours (TWh) of nuclear power. This represents a slight decline over the past decade. Global nuclear power production dropped by 10% from 2010 to 2012, a consequence of the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan. However, global nuclear power generation has risen every year since 2012.

 

The U.S. remains by far the world's leading producer of nuclear power. In 2018, the U.S. generated 850 TWh of nuclear power, which represented 31.4% of the world's total nuclear generation. France was in second place, well behind  the U.S. with 15.3% of the global share. Nevertheless, the U.S. has nearly five times the population of France, so France does lead on a per capita basis.

 

China was in third place with a 10.9% global share of nuclear generation. However, China's nuclear program is noteworthy, as they are only one of two countries that grew nuclear power by an annual average above 10% over the past decade. China also has more nuclear power plants being planned than any other country. Rounding out the Top 5 global nuclear producers were Russia (7.6% global share) and South Korea (4.9% global share).

Germany remains committed to completely phasing out nuclear power, but the country's nuclear power generation was nearly unchanged from 2017. Germany remains one of the world's Top 10 producers of nuclear power. However, German utilities were forced to plan a shutdown of their nuclear power plants by the Energiewende, or energy transition, that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel introduced in response to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident in Japan in March 2011. At that time, Germany was obtaining around a quarter of its electricity from 17 nuclear reactors.

 

In May, a group of nearly 100 Polish environmentalists and scientists wrote an open letter to the leadership and people of Germany asking the country to reconsider its nuclear phase-out plans. Excerpts from t he text of the letter is as follows:

 

"We are aware of the ongoing discussion concerning the place for nuclear power in a long-term sustainable power generation model and we think it still requires more deliberation based on complete scientific data. However, abandoning low-carbon nuclear power before the complete end of burning of hard coal and lignite will result in technical and technological problems, which will be very difficult to overcome in a short time period and will require the continued use of other fossil fuels, mainly natural gas. This in turn fails to provide expected rapid and effective decarbonisation."

 

"That is why we appeal to you to reconsider your decision to end the use of nuclear power in Germany or to delay it until you have completely phased out the use of fossil fuels in the power industry and implemented effective, state-of-the-art technologies for the storage of power generated by renewables. This would accelerate the decarbonisation processes, serving as an example and giving hope to other countries on our planet, which will be making decisions on the future of their power systems and on their role in preventing climate change and degradation of the biosphere."

 

As the Forbes article concludes, "absolute rejection of nuclear power almost certainly means higher global carbon dioxide emissions. That's a high price to pay if you are concerned about the impacts of climate change."

High-Level Radioactive Waste (HLW) Interpretation Update

 

Previous SRSCRO newsletters have had articles related to DOE's recent actions as it relates to interpretation of what constitutes or defines HLW. As a reminder, here is a timeline provided by DOE in its June fact sheet - 

 

Timeline:

Not everyone agrees with the benefits identified in the DOE fact sheet. Washington State Governor Jay Inslee said he would not stop state efforts to clean up the Hanford site to a higher standard and challenged the legality of the federal change. "By taking this action, the administration seeks to cut out state input and move towards disposal options of their choosing, including those already deemed to be unsafe by their own assessments and in violation of the existing legally binding agreement," he said. "We will consider all options to stop this reckless and dangerous action."

 

There has been additional action by Representative Adam Smith, the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, a Washington State Democrat. He proposed and won approval for an amendment in the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act for the next fiscal year to prohibit DOE from using any money to apply the new interpretation to any waste in Washington State. The House bill passed on July 12 by a vote of 220 - 197. The Senate has already passed its version of the National Defense Authorization Act, which does not include the restriction. The two versions of the bill must be reconciled before the final version is sent to the president to be signed into law.

 

Mark Senderling, EM Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste and Materials Management, participated on a webinar with Energy Committee Alliance members on July 17 to further explain DOE's response to significant and recurring comments received through the public comment process. DOE received a total of 5,555 comments, roughly 360 of which were distinct, unrepeated comments, from a variety of stakeholders. Mr. Senderling will also be presenting to the SRS Citizens Advisory Board on July 30 on this subject and possibly hosting a question and answer period.

 

It should be noted; this DOE interpretation does not change or revise any current policies, legal requirements, or agreements with respect to HLW. Decisions about whether and how this interpretation of HLW will apply to existing wastes, and whether such wastes may be managed as non-HLW will be the subject of subsequent actions -see story below concerning SRS DWPF recycle wastewater. Also of interest are these two documents from ECA concerning this topic:

 

 

Key Questions and Answers Regarding the Reinterpretation of HLW

SRS "Up First" on HLW Interpretation

 

As discussed above, DOE's decisions about whether and how its interpretation of HLW will apply to existing wastes and whether such wastes may be managed as non-HLW will be the subject of subsequent actions on this topic. The first action taken by DOE will be the preparation of National Environmental Policy Act documentation to analyze disposing of Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) recycle wastewater from the Savannah River Site at a commercial low-level radioactive waste disposal facility under the HLW interpretation .

 

Last month DOE announced its intent to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) to dispose of up to 10,000 gallons of stabilized (grouted) DWPF recycle wastewater from the Savannah River Site (SRS) at a commercial low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility located outside of South Carolina licensed by either the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) or an Agreement State.

 

The DWPF recycle wastewater would be treated, characterized, and if the performance objectives and waste acceptance criteria of a specific disposal facility are met, DOE could consider whether to dispose of the waste as LLW under the Department's high-level radioactive waste (HLW) interpretation.

 

Recycle wastewater is generated as part of DWPF operations. The wastewater is a combination of several dilute liquid waste streams consisting primarily of condensates from the pretreatment and vitrification processes. Other components of the recycle wastewater include process samples, sample line flushes, sump flushes, and cleaning solutions from the decontamination and filter dissolution processes. Currently, the recycle wastewater is returned to the tank farm for volume reduction by evaporation or is beneficially reused in salt dissolution and pretreatment, or sludge washing.

 

DOE has identified three action alternatives for the proposed action. The EA will also analyze a no action alternative under which the DWPF recycle wastewater would remain in the SRS liquid waste system until disposition occurs.

 

DOE will issue another Federal Register Notice later this year on the availability of the Draft Commercial Disposal of Recycle Wastewater EA and will include instructions on how to submit public comments on the Draft EA. So, stay tune.  The SRSCRO will continue to follow the topic.