Mycle Schneider

2010–2011 world nuclear industry status report

In 2010, there were more nuclear power units under construction worldwide than in any year since 1988. Even before Fukushima, however, status indicators for the international nuclear industry were showing a negative trend. Fewer countries are operating nuclear fission reactors for energy purposes than in previous years, and many countries are now past their nuclear peak. Worldwide nuclear production is generally declining, and many new projects are experiencing construction delays. Even if reactors can be operated for an average of 40 years, 74 new plants would have to come on line by 2015 to maintain the status quo, which is impossible given current constraints on fabricating reactor components. Developments in Asia, particularly in China, do not fundamentally change the global picture. The dramatic post-Fukushima decisions in two of the four largest economies, Japan and Germany, and in several other nuclear countries could accelerate the decline of a rapidly aging industry.

France’s great energy debate

Many countries rethought their domestic nuclear power programs after the meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. In fact, even France—which generates half of the European Union’s nuclear electricity—has a new approach to nuclear power and to energy policy. President François Hollande vowed to reduce use of nuclear power, and his administration is moving to close the country’s two oldest reactors at Fessenheim. The government also plans to sponsor a large public debate on the future of energy policy in France, and that discussion is supposed to include all major stakeholders. It remains unclear, however, whether the debate will be a democratic exercise that influences the policy-making process, or if policy will continue to be determined by the technocratic elites who have guided France’s energy and nuclear programs from their outset.

2009 world nuclear industry status report

Although some countries plan to build new nuclear power plants in the near future, in aggregate the data indicates that nuclear power’s influence will continue to dwindle across the globe in coming decades.

Nuclear Power Versus Renewable Energy—A Trend Analysis [Point of View]

Discusses the key trends, new technologies, and future for nuclear power generation versus the deployment and development of renewable energy sources. The year 2013 saw a number of developments that dramatically widen the gap between nuclear power and renewable energy trends. This is particularly important at the current time as Governments around the world are formulating their post-2020 climate change mitigation policy in preparation for the UNFCCC summit in Paris, France, in December 2015. The importance of action on climate change is underlined in the 5th Assessment Report (AR5) of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which suggests that under current policies, CO2 emissions from the energy sector could double or triple by 2050.1 Reducing emissions to a level unlikely to cause dangerous climate change will require a significant drop in the energy intensity of global economies, along with the rapid reduction in the use of fossil fuels.

It’s Time to Give Up on Breeder Reactors

Since the dawn of the nuclear age, nuclear energy advocates have dreamed of a reactor that could produce more fuel than it used. More than 60 years and

Perigos dos reatores nucleares: riscos na operação da tecnologia nuclear no século XXI

100 billion later, that vision remains as far from reality as ever.

The Global Status of the Nuclear Industry and its Opportunities for Expansion

his report gives a comprehensive assessment of the hazards of operational reactors, new “evolutionary” designs and future reactor concepts. It also addresses the risks associated with the management of spent nuclear fuel. The first part of the report describes the characteristics and inherent flaws of the main reactor designs in operation today; the second part assesses the risks associated to new designs; the third part the “ageing” of operational reactors; the fourth part the terrorist threat to nuclear power and the fifth and final part the risks associated with climate change impacts – such as flooding – on nuclear power.The main conclusions are:

Nuclear power and the French energy transition: It’s the economics, stupid!

Three factors – meeting climate change objectives, dwindling conventional fossil fuel reserves and rapidly growing energy demand from emerging economies – require the rapid transformation of the global energy industry. Within this context, nuclear power is being promoted in new countries and regions of the world. However, even prior to the Japanese earthquake and tsunami and subsequent nuclear crisis at Fukushima, the global expansion of nuclear power was occurring in a handful of countries only and globally reactor numbers were falling. While it is too early to make accurate forecasts of the long-term impact of Fukushima, it is clear that most countries are reviewing from a safety and/or policy perspective their existing and future programmes. The impact that these will have on future reactor orders will be dependent not only on the engineering and operational recommendations, but also on the economic and financial viability of the non-fossil fuel alternatives.

Nuclear Power in a Post-Fukushima World 25 Years After the Chernobyl Accident

France is at an energy crossroads. To meet future electricity needs, the country could extend the operating lives of nuclear power plants beyond 40 years, accepting the safety challenges and costs of such a move, or it could change its energy mix, moving away from nuclear power and toward energy-efficiency measures and other energy sources. Until recently, the French government had refused even to examine the possibility of reducing the country’s reliance on nuclear power. But a study by independent French experts suggests that staying the nuclear course would be more expensive and less environmentally beneficial than authorities make it out to be. The difficult financial situation of two state-controlled firms involved in nuclear energy, EDF and Areva SA, will seriously affect the government’s operating margins. Those financial difficulties, the aging reactor fleet, and public opinion—which is largely in favor of a nuclear phase-out—will force the government to make fundamental choices in the near future about its energy strategy.