Nuclear power

In Norway, there is surprisingly little discussion about the use of nuclear power. It seems that Bellona, with its strong anti-nuclear commitment, has dominated the debate.

Together with hydropower, wind power, wave power and solar power, nuclear power is an alternative without emissions of greenhouse gases. All types of power plants have properties that make them suitable for certain purposes, and less suitable for others. Nuclear power can be used where other types of power plants are unsuitable. Hydropower requires water resources, wind and waves are essential for wind power and wave power, and solar power does not deliver at night. Nuclear power plants can be located anywhere and supply electricity to existing power distribution networks. They are therefore well suited to replace large, polluting coal-fired power plants.

However, there are, of course, disadvantages associated with nuclear power. These include the danger of accidents involving radioactive emissions, proliferation of radioactive substances that can be used in weapon production, and problems connected with long-term storage of radioactive waste. These are real challenges that must be taken seriously, but the risk of nuclear accidents is perhaps exaggerated. Nuclear accidents are dramatic events that get a lot of attention, in contrast to damage caused by, for example, coal-fired power plants. Coal power gives continuous damage in the form of lung diseases, etc., and therefore does not attract much attention. In a Forbes article [L35], different forms of energy are ranked according to the number of deaths they cause per produced kilowatt hour. Coal-fired power plants show the highest figures with 100,000 deaths per trillion kilowatt hours produced. The corresponding figure for nuclear power plants is 90, and here the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents are taken into account.

Small Modular Reactors

Nuclear power technology is both a mature technology (10% of the world's electricity production is supplied by nuclear power [L6]), and an ever-evolving technology. The IPCC has a section on nuclear power in the report AR5 Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change ([L7]), Chapter 7.4.3. Here, large, existing power plants in the USA, France, Japan and Russia, among others, are described. These are so-called III generation power plants each of which typically delivers 1000 MWe. There is now growing interest in newer technologies, IV generation power plants. The AR5 report describes a group of these plants called "Small Modular Reactors" (SMR). They deliver less than 300 MWe, and can be built more efficiently using modules.

Molten Salt Reactors

Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) are a type of IV generation power plant. This technology was first tested by the United States in 1946. It is now attracting great interest. The article: "How Molten Salt Reactors Might Spell a Nuclear Energy Revolution" ([L8]) gives a very positive review of this technology. It is safer than traditional III generation technology. An important point here is that MSR facilities will operate at normal pressure, whereas traditional plants operate at very high pressure with a risk of leakage of radioactive vapour into the atmosphere. The radioactive material in an MSR plant is a saline solution with a temperature of approximately 700 °C. This solution will solidify as soon as it leaks into the surroundings. Furthermore, overheating of such a plant will result in a bottom plug melting, and the radioactive material will flow down into tanks where the fission activity, and thus the temperature, will be greatly reduced.

Opinions are divided about this technology. See, for example, [L9]. This website is a typical example of how strongly conflicting fronts arise in many topics. For someone who is not an expert in the field, it is difficult to relate to all the arguments that are fired. But it may be wise to place little trust in posts characterised by personal attacks and few nuances. Undoubtedly, more research and development is needed before MSR facilities can be deployed on a large scale. But it is foolish to write off nuclear power. The world has become dependent on access to a lot of energy, and nuclear power is one of several means to escape our dependence on coal, oil and gas.

NuScale's reactor

Another type of reactor under development in the United States (NuScale [L61]) also seems very promising. This is a light water reactor based on the same technology as traditional III generation power plants in the United States. But unlike those, which require huge investments and are being built as individual projects over a long construction period, NuScale's reactor can be built using modules over a shorter construction period (2-3 years). In the United States, new nuclear power plants must be approved by US federal authorities (NRC [L62]), and this is a comprehensive and time-consuming process. In 2017, NuScale sent a 12,000 (!) page application to the NCR with a detailed description of this type of reactor. The NCR approved the safety plan for the reactor type in September 2020 (see [L63] and [L64]), and the first power plant is scheduled for completion in 2029. This type of reactor has many advantages over existing III generation plants. For instance, safety is better since the reactor can be shut down without access to electricity. The life cycle cost (LCOE) is estimated at 65 $/MWh, which is competitive with other technologies (see The Energy Sector).

Latest update: 2021-07-26