Reassessing the nuclear renaissance

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Volumn 66, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 11-22

  Nelson, Paul ^a  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79954464518     PISSN: 00963402     EISSN: 19383282     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2968/066004002     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Bernard Gourley and Adam N. Stulberg, "Nuclear Energy Development: Assessing Aspirant Countries," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, November/December 2009, vol. 65, no. 6, p. 20-29.
2. For the empirical model, see Paul Nelson and Christopher Sprecher, "Are Sensitive Technologies Enablers of Civil Nuclear Power? An Empirical Study," Atoms for Peace, vol. 3, no. 2 (2010), pp. 93-112.
3. Extended quantitative discussions and methodological descriptions are available in Paul Nelson, "An Empirical Assessment of Elements of the Future of Civil Nuclear Energy," Nuclear Security Science and Policy Institute, Texas A&M University, Report No. NSSPI-10-001, January 4, 2010, available at http://nsspi.tamu.edu/ publications/nelson-2010-01-05.pdf.
4. Estimates of the net nuclear intent of states for 2030 were generated as follows: The baseline was taken as World Nuclear Association data (for 2008, from WNA, "World Nuclear Power Reactors and Uranium Requirements," December 1, 2009, available at http:// www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.html) for nuclear electricity generation.
5. These data were denominated in "nominal nuclear power plants" (NNPPs) = equivalent electrical production from 1,000 MWe nuclear power plants operating at 80 percent capacity factor. The WNA data on plants under construction, planned, and proposed were then similarly converted into NNPPs by applying an assumed 80 percent capacity factor to the reported capacities. The corresponding sums for a given state were then added to the 2008 baseline. Finally, anticipated plant closures by 2030 were similarly converted to an equivalent in NNPPs and subtracted. The result, in NNPPs, was taken as the estimated net nuclear intent of the corresponding state for 2030. The resulting figures are given, for the 23- state sample introduced below, in Table 1 of Nelson, "An Empirical Assessment of Elements of the Future of Civil Nuclear Energy," p. 3.
6. The list of 14 countries with "future reactors" is from WNA, "World Nuclear Power Reactors and Uranium Requirements." Several states of some interest (e.g., Albania, Armenia, Jordan, Mongolia, and Namibia) are omitted from the additional states because of unavailability of data required to apply the empirical model.
7. Gourley and Stulberg, "Nuclear Energy Development," p. 20.
8. "Good" agreement was taken as within either 50 percent or the capacity equivalent of two 1,000 MWe nuclear power plants.
9. Precisely, "significantly exceed" means the plans exceed the projection by more than both 50 percent and the capacity equivalent of two or more 1,000 nuclear power plants. Gourley and Stul- berg judge all of these five states as likely to be successful in establishing a civil nuclear program. My results do not disagree with that per se, but they do suggest this success might be strongly contingent on encouragement from currently nuclear-capable states.
10. The assessment as an "attractive candidate" is from Gourley and Stulberg, "Nuclear Energy Development."
11. Tim Padgett, "Chávez to Iran: How About Some Uranium?" Time, October 8, 2009, available at http://www.time.com/time/ world/article/0,8599,1929256,00.html.
12. Afghanistan and Uganda, though qualifying under the GDP criterion, were omitted because some of the required data were not readily available.
13. "Extremely weak": planned nuclear reliances less than projections (under the scenario of universal assurance) by more than both 75 percent and the capacity equivalent of three or more 1,000 MWe nuclear power plants.
14. At the time the empirical model was first developed, Italy would have been included with Netherlands and Norway.
15. Sonal Patel, "Belgium, Germany Edge toward Nuclear Future," Power, December 1, 2009, available at http://www.powermag.com/ issues/departments/global-monitor/Belgium-Germany-Edge-Toward- Nuclear-Future-2326.html.
16. Sonal Patel, "Belgium, Germany Edge toward Nuclear Future," Power, December 1, 2009, available at http://www.powermag.com/ issues/departments/global-monitor/Belgium-Germany-Edge-Toward- Nuclear-Future-2326.html., Ibid.
17. "Common Technologies and Issues for Small and Medium Sized Reactors," IAEA, Nuclear Power Technology Development, available at http://www.iaea.org/NuclearPower/SMR/. The IAEA classifies "small" reactors as having capacity less than 300 MWe and "medium" reactors as having a 300-700 MWe capacity.
18. These states were Algeria, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Chile, Colombia, Congo-Kinshasa, Croatia, Cuba, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal, Nigeria, North Korea, Peru, Qatar, Serbia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, and Yemen. Here boldface type indicates states projected by the projection with selective encouragement to have a nuclear capacity of less than 1,000 MWe; italics correspond to states similarly estimated only by the projection with universal encouragement, and Roman font indicates states estimated by both projections. Only 13 of these states are among the 23 states more or less explicitly aspiring to nuclear energy considered in the preceding section. This suggests existence of a potentially significant latent market for nuclear energy.
19. For details underlying much of this discussion see Vladimir Kuznetsov, "Small and Medium Sized Reactors: Development Status and Deployment Potential/IAEA Activities in Support of SMR Development and Deployment," IAEA, September 30, 2008, available at http://www.iaea.org/OurWork/ST/NE/ Downloads/files/ SMRs-GC52Briefing.pdf.
20. For an extensive list of small reactor designs see WNA, "Small Nuclear Power Reactors," February 26, 2010, available at http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html.
21. For example see Akio Minato and Neil W. Brown, "Business Opportunities for Small Reactors-A Collaborative Study by CRIEPI and LLNL," Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Report No. UCRL-TR-216546, September 22, 2005.
22. For example see Akio Minato and Neil W. Brown, "Business Opportunities for Small Reactors-A Collaborative Study by CRIEPI and LLNL," Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Report No. UCRL-TR-216546, September 22, 2005., Ibid.
23. For an extensive list of small reactor designs, some of which focus on proliferation resistance as a design feature, see WNA, "Small Nuclear Power Reactors." Wealth in this case is measured by 2006 per capita gross domestic product based on purchasing power parity (GDP-ppp). The mean GDP-ppp among these six states was $27,488, as compared with a maximum of $39,640 and a third quartile value of $24,882. GDP-ppp would have been even higher among the states displaying extremely weak intent, except for the effect of Malaysia as an extreme outlier on the low side; Malaysia had a GDP-ppp of $10,280, compared to the next-lowest value of $25,050 (Spain) among these six states.
24. "Extremely strong": planned nuclear reliances more than projections (under the scenario of universal assurance) by more than both 75 percent and the capacity equivalent of three or more 1,000 MWe nuclear power plants.
25. The mean GDP-ppp of these states was $7,614, as compared to median, first quartile, and smallest values of $9,140; $4,235; and $670 (Tanzania), respectively. The mean value would have been even lower, except for the presence of the UAE as an extreme outlier on the high side. The UAE had a GDP-ppp of $24,060, as compared with $6,390 for Ukraine, the next largest among the five states showing extremely ambitious plans to develop nuclear energy.
26. For a broader view of the UAE's ambitious energy program see Christopher M. Davidson, Abu Dhabi (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009), especially ch. 4.
27. On Ukraine's energy dependence see Don Wolcott and Michael J. Economides, "Gazprom-Gas Company or Russia's Battering Ram?" Global Politician, December 19, 2009, available at http://globalpolitician.com/26108- russia.