📈 Chartpack: The nuclear conundrum [Part 1]

Do we still need nuclear?

Hi, Azeem here.

Over the next two weeks, my colleague

Chantal Smith

will be diving into nuclear power and investigating its future.

The first part of this two-part series is open to all readers. This second part is made available fully to paying members only.

In case you missed it, check out her two-part series on how modularity fosters innovation: Part 1 and Part 2.

---

Nuclear energy is a major topic in the global dialogue about achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The conversation is critical because of the urgency in finding solutions to decarbonise. However, nuclear technology is tainted by an ambivalent and often negative conception in the public imagination. It might echo Fukushima and Chernobyl, mutually assured destruction, and a radioactive waste problem that could last for tens of thousands of years. 

The demands of the climate transition mean it’s time to question our assumptions, and dive into the data. Should the world follow Germany’s lead in shutting down its nuclear reactors, or is this technology critical to decarbonise and ensure energy security? 

In the first part of this chartpack, we’ll dive into the fears and promises of nuclear fission. 

In the second part, coming out next week for paying members of Exponential View, we’ll address what I argue is the real issue: the high cost of construction, its lack of modularity and how the industry might move forward.

---

Do we need you?

50 years ago, France implemented the Messmer Plan, an energy security programme, in response to the OPEC oil shock and the Yom Kippur War.¹ 

In 1974, Pierre Messmer, the French Prime Minister, ordered the construction of 44 nuclear power facilities by 1980, with a final target of 170 by 2000. Although these targets were never entirely met, France managed to transition its energy production to nuclear very fast. Thanks to the Messner plan, the country maintained a relatively clean energy mix even before renewable energy was widespread. 

Today, we face another energy crisis, but in a different technological context. Renewables, in particular solar, are the cheapest form of energy. The developments in electricity storage help mitigate some of the large-scale implementation challenges of renewables. Given these developments, do we still need nuclear fission?

But first, what is nuclear fission?
Nuclear fission functions by splitting a large atom—usually uranium or plutonium—into two smaller atoms.² When this split happens, it releases a large amount of energy that we can harness to produce electricity. 

Nuclear power emerged in the mid-20th century, following the profound scientific discoveries of the atomic age. The first commercial nuclear power station, the Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant, began operation in the Soviet Union in 1954. By the 1970s and 80s, nuclear power had become a significant contributor to the global energy mix, lauded for its capacity to generate substantial electricity with no direct carbon emissions. 

Is it clean?
Nuclear energy is considered a low-carbon, or clean energy source. From a lifecycle perspective, nuclear energy emits very little carbon, with approximately 28 tonnes CO2e/GWh, compared to 85CO2e/GWh for solar PV³ and a whopping 888CO2e/GWh for coal.⁴ 

However, the question of nuclear waste remains tricky, in particular concerning “high-level waste”, end-of-life nuclear fuel that loses radioactivity over thousands of years. Governments are establishing different strategies for the long-term management of this waste, which is mostly the use of deep geological repositories (for example, inside of a Finnish Island). According to nuclear campaigner Madi Hilly, common worries are often more of a political nature than technological, evidenced by the excellent safety track record of nuclear waste. Given that experts still debate about how big a problem this is, it’s difficult for us to say with certainty.

In addition, there is the 20-30 year process of decommissioning a nuclear plant and disposing of its components safely. This time scale shows the sheer complexity and delicacy of decommissioning these plants.

Is it safe?
Beyond the waste issue, nuclear energy’s rise was not without controversy. High-profile disasters, such as those at Three Mile Island in the United States (1979), Chernobyl in Ukraine (1986), and Fukushima in Japan (2011), underscored the severe risks associated with the mismanagement of nuclear power. Along with the worries about nuclear proliferation, these incidents helped forge a frightening image of the technology in public consciousness. 

While the infamous nuclear accidents are often highlighted due to their dramatic impact, it’s important to note that the direct death toll from these incidents is relatively low, especially when compared to other energy sources. The Chernobyl disaster resulted in 31 deaths according to official international statistics, but a World Health Organisation estimate from 2005 suggested the ultimate toll might reach 4,000 deaths, mostly from radiation-induced cancer and leukaemia. No direct deaths were reported following the Three Mile Island and Fukushima incidents. 

By contrast, coal-fired power plants are leading sources of air pollution, which contributes significantly to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. The Global Burden of Disease Study attributes millions of deaths annually to air pollution, mostly stemming from burning coal. In addition, and perhaps most counterintuitively, coal ashes have been found to be more radioactive than nuclear waste. 

In a 2021 inquiry, the European Commission concluded that: 

The analyses did not reveal any science-based evidence that nuclear energy does more harm to human health or to the environment than other electricity production technologies already included in the Taxonomy as activities supporting climate change mitigation.

How much do we currently rely on it?
As of 2022, nuclear power still produces 9.2% of global electricity and is the second biggest low-carbon energy source in the world. 

We need all we can get
McKinsey forecasts that electricity demand will triple by 2050, this being one of the lowest-cost and easiest strategies to decarbonise in many sectors. In fact, electricity and hydrogen (the green version of which will likely be produced by electrolysis, which is powered by electricity) could represent half of global energy consumption. We’ll need low-carbon sources to produce this electricity. 

A complex mix
The equation seems simple enough. There is electricity demand, and any electricity source can fill the demand. All we need to do is choose the cheapest and cleanest.

However, there are multiple complicating factors.

Renewables are now the cheapest and cleanest energy source in most of the world, but they only generate electricity when the sun shines or when the wind blows, a phenomenon we call intermittency. Even if we could theoretically generate 100% of global demand with renewables, we might still be left with gaps.

There are a few approaches to solving this problem. First, you can store the energy surplus from renewables (i.e., energy that is not immediately consumed) and use this when needed. The second approach is to have one or multiple other sources that are not intermittent to complement the renewables. The third might be to despatch the energy from sunny (or windy) locations to darker or calmer spots over high-voltage direct current cables. (See, for example, SunCable.)

Another complicating factor is the fact that there are other, hard-to-abate (difficult to decarbonise) sectors of the economy, in particular certain industrial processes. Many of these processes might require heat, which is very energy-intensive to produce. To decarbonise these sectors, we need to be creative and reuse energy in clever ways.

In both of these cases, nuclear is a very attractive option to have in the energy mix. It helps mitigate the intermittency of renewables with its ability to run 24/7, providing electricity when renewables cannot. As mentioned, there is also the option of storing the energy. However, although the production of storage infrastructure is ramping up fast, we have a way to go.

Nuclear can help decarbonise the hard-to-abate sectors. It’s possible to use residual nuclear heat (which is not radioactive) for district heating or industrial processes, instead of it being released as waste.

There are many different possible setups for an energy grid, and nuclear could be integrated in a range of different ways. It’s worth listening to Michael Liebreich’s conversation with Rolls-Royce SMR CEO Tom Samson about the techno-economics of each model.

The renewable miracle
It is worth noting that the cost decline and installation of renewables, in particular solar PV, has been exceeding all expectations. The IEA recently updated its projections of new renewables additions to 107 GW this year, the largest absolute increase ever. Given this trend, I would expect that net-zero 2050 scenarios tend to underestimate renewable infrastructure addition. This may mean we won’t need to add as much nuclear capacity as forecast, but it definitely does not imply that we should phase it out immediately.

Warum, Deutschland?
For this reason, countries like Germany that are phasing out nuclear energy have to turn back to coal to cover their energy needs. Coal is not only disastrous for its high CO2 emissions but, as we saw above, has many adverse health effects.

A complicated technology with a controversial public image, nuclear remains multifaceted once the data has been sifted through. Its popular image as an extremely dangerous technology is exaggerated, as it does not cause nearly as many adverse health effects as other energy sources. Its perception as a dirty technology is partly unwarranted because of its low carbon footprint, although the waste problem could still be a worry for thousands of years. 

Renewable energy is ramping up much faster, has better public acceptance and has many other advantages. However, the intermittent nature of renewables means that we need a diverse energy mix. Nuclear can help produce electricity when it’s needed, and decarbonise difficult-to-abate sectors, such as industrial processes and district heating.

It is a complicated picture, but the lesson is clear: we still need nuclear energy. 

With this background, next week I’ll turn to assess the incredible cost of traditional nuclear fission, the sheer impracticality of building nuclear power stations to today’s designs, and the next generation of nuclear technology.

1. In 1973, the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries (OAPEC, a subset of OPEC) proclaimed an oil embargo in response to the United States' support of Israel during the Yom Kippur War. This led to a severe rise in oil prices, causing what is now known as the "OPEC Oil Shock" or the "1973 Oil Crisis." The embargo lasted from October 1973 to March 1974 and resulted in a quadrupling of oil prices.

2. When we talk about nuclear power, we usually mean nuclear fission. Nuclear fusion, by contrast, is an emerging, but very early-stage way of generating energy by fusing atoms, rather than splitting them. I would recommend listening to this conversation to better understand this potentially transformative technology.

3. Solar PV systems don't emit CO2 during operation, but their lifecycle carbon emissions arise from energy-intensive manufacturing processes, transportation, installation, infrastructural needs, and end-of-life disposal or recycling.

4. A life cycle perspective refers to considering all emissions produced at every stage of an energy source's lifespan, from extraction or production through to disposal or decommissioning.