The new reality

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..“

Ralph Waldo Emerson, „Self-Reliance“

Today, Monday the 4th April, the European Commission will publish its Nuclear Illustrative Program, which sets out the latest trends and investment needs for the continent’s nuclear power sector. The report — the first one since 2007 — comes at an interesting time: Germany is trying to figure out how to pay for the decommissioning of its nuclear plants, which are due to shut down by 2022. Other countries, including Belgium, have extended the lifetime of old plants, while again others such as the U.K. are investing big time into new nuclear power generation.

These talks at the EC uncannily coincide with the Nuclear Security Summit, that started on the 1 April at the UN Headquarters in Washington DC. NSS is a forum to discuss at the highest level the need to secure nuclear material and prevent nuclear terrorism. The first summit was held in Washington in 2010, followed by summits in Seoul, South Korea in 2012 and The Hague, the Netherlands in 2014.

Nuclear security is paramount and is increasingly the topic of concern, not only from the point of view of the physical protection of nuclear material used for peaceful purposes during international transport but increasingly about the protection of nuclear facilities.

Only last week, the nuclear plant in Brussels, was in the centre of attention of IS terrorists, it’s scientist murdered, his pass stolen. Whole nations held their breath for two days, not knowing what the outcome will be. Will we be eating our waffles tomorrow morning as usual, or will we be the victims of Fukushima II. A tough moment in time.

The danger was contained. The officials at the plant acted swiftly and efficiently and the plan to either blow it up or steal enough material to cause even more damage was foiled. The big political question stays: to nuke or not to nuke. The people are baffled too. On one hand they want clean air and a safe environment and are ready to chain themselves to the nearest tree to make a point. On the other – how much are they prepared to pay for the electricity, something one is used to getting cheap, fast and always?

Dilemma, I’d say. Let’s have a look at the problem closely. About 85% of the world's nuclear electricity is generated by reactors derived from designs originally developed for naval use. These and other nuclear power units now operating have been found to be safe and reliable, but they are being superseded by better designs. Newer advanced reactors now being built have simpler designs, which reduce capital cost. They are more fuel-efficient and are inherently safer. Reactor suppliers in North America, Japan, Europe, Russia and elsewhere have a dozen new nuclear reactor designs at advanced stages of planning or under construction (seven designs), while others are at a research and development stage. Fourth-generation reactors are at R&D or concept stage.

Many of these new generation power plants are larger than predecessors. Increasingly they involve international collaboration. Most require international certification. All are subject to IAEA controls. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has proposed a three-stage process culminating in international design certification for new reactor types, notably Generation IV types. Twelve countries are involved so far: Canada, China, Finland, France, India (from 2012), Japan, Korea, Russia, South Africa, Sweden (from 2013), UK, USA, and others which have or are likely to have firm commitments to building new nuclear plants may be admitted – the UAE is an associate member.

The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) is a US-led grouping set up in 2001 which has identified six reactor concepts for further investigation with a view to commercial deployment by 2030.

Among all the luminaries one country seems to go out of step again: Germany. In her solitary wisdom, the glorious leader of the country knows it all better. Germany’s nuclear plants are going to be decommissioned by 2017. Basta. The plan seems to be really simple: we find nuclear energy dangerous, so we don’t want it. Let’s protect ourselves from the evil. Good for the elections. Never mind that Belgian, French and Swiss have their reactors just about on the border with Germany. Let's have half, pay double and smoke the coal. Main thing we won't get the blame if something happens.

Here are some facts update 26 March 2016:

• Germany until March 2011 obtained one-quarter of its electricity from nuclear energy, using 17 reactors. The figure is now about 16% from eight reactors.

• A coalition government formed after the 1998 federal elections had the phasing out of nuclear energy as a feature of its policy. With a new government in 2009, the phase-out was cancelled, but then reintroduced in 2011, with eight reactors shut down immediately.

• The cost of attempting to replace nuclear power with renewables is estimated by the government to amount to some €1000 billion without any assurance of a reliable outcome, and with increasing reliance on coal, especially lignite.

• Public opinion in Germany remains broadly opposed to nuclear power with virtually no support for building new nuclear plants.

• Almost half of Germany’s electricity is generated from coal.

• Germany has some of the lowest wholesale electricity prices in Europe and some of the highest retail prices, due to its energy policies. Taxes and surcharges account for more than half the domestic electricity price.

She still knows it better. Looking at the balance, in a 28 November 2015 Special Report The Economist, having pointed out that French households pay about half as much as German ones for electricity, commented: “Germany has made unusually big mistakes. Handing out enormous long-term subsidies to solar farms was unwise; abolishing nuclear power so quickly is crazy. It has also been unlucky. The price of globally traded hard coal has dropped in the past few years, partly because shale-gas-rich America is exporting so much. But Germany’s biggest error is one commonly committed by countries that are trying to move away from fossil fuels and towards renewables. It is to ignore the fact that wind and solar power impose costs on the entire energy system, which go up more than proportionately as they add more."

The citation that opened this article continues so: ” …adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. „ Nothing, but really nothing. And I may continue with citing an old friend, who once said: “If God must give us fools, let them at least be passive.” Because one doesn’t need to be particularly adept to calculate how this calamity, doubled up with the influx of refugees into Germany in the last and the year to come is going to end. Doom and gloom? New reality.