• 4 hours PDVSA Booted From Caribbean Terminal Over Unpaid Bills
  • 6 hours Russia Warns Ukraine Against Recovering Oil Off The Coast Of Crimea
  • 8 hours Syrian Rebels Relinquish Control Of Major Gas Field
  • 9 hours Schlumberger Warns Of Moderating Investment In North America
  • 10 hours Oil Prices Set For Weekly Loss As Profit Taking Trumps Mideast Tensions
  • 11 hours Energy Regulators Look To Guard Grid From Cyberattacks
  • 12 hours Mexico Says OPEC Has Not Approached It For Deal Extension
  • 14 hours New Video Game Targets Oil Infrastructure
  • 15 hours Shell Restarts Bonny Light Exports
  • 17 hours Russia’s Rosneft To Take Majority In Kurdish Oil Pipeline
  • 23 hours Iraq Struggles To Replace Damaged Kirkuk Equipment As Output Falls
  • 1 day British Utility Companies Brace For Major Reforms
  • 1 day Montenegro A ‘Sweet Spot’ Of Untapped Oil, Gas In The Adriatic
  • 1 day Rosneft CEO: Rising U.S. Shale A Downside Risk To Oil Prices
  • 1 day Brazil Could Invite More Bids For Unsold Pre-Salt Oil Blocks
  • 1 day OPEC/Non-OPEC Seek Consensus On Deal Before Nov Summit
  • 2 days London Stock Exchange Boss Defends Push To Win Aramco IPO
  • 2 days Rosneft Signs $400M Deal With Kurdistan
  • 2 days Kinder Morgan Warns About Trans Mountain Delays
  • 2 days India, China, U.S., Complain Of Venezuelan Crude Oil Quality Issues
  • 2 days Kurdish Kirkuk-Ceyhan Crude Oil Flows Plunge To 225,000 Bpd
  • 2 days Russia, Saudis Team Up To Boost Fracking Tech
  • 3 days Conflicting News Spurs Doubt On Aramco IPO
  • 3 days Exxon Starts Production At New Refinery In Texas
  • 3 days Iraq Asks BP To Redevelop Kirkuk Oil Fields
  • 3 days Oil Prices Rise After U.S. API Reports Strong Crude Inventory Draw
  • 3 days Oil Gains Spur Growth In Canada’s Oil Cities
  • 3 days China To Take 5% Of Rosneft’s Output In New Deal
  • 3 days UAE Oil Giant Seeks Partnership For Possible IPO
  • 4 days Planting Trees Could Cut Emissions As Much As Quitting Oil
  • 4 days VW Fails To Secure Critical Commodity For EVs
  • 4 days Enbridge Pipeline Expansion Finally Approved
  • 4 days Iraqi Forces Seize Control Of North Oil Co Fields In Kirkuk
  • 4 days OPEC Oil Deal Compliance Falls To 86%
  • 4 days U.S. Oil Production To Increase in November As Rig Count Falls
  • 4 days Gazprom Neft Unhappy With OPEC-Russia Production Cut Deal
  • 4 days Disputed Venezuelan Vote Could Lead To More Sanctions, Clashes
  • 5 days EU Urges U.S. Congress To Protect Iran Nuclear Deal
  • 5 days Oil Rig Explosion In Louisiana Leaves 7 Injured, 1 Still Missing
  • 5 days Aramco Says No Plans To Shelve IPO
Alt Text

New Tech Is Transforming Japan’s Energy Sector

The tech that built bitcoin…

Alt Text

This OPEC Strategy Could Boost Uranium Prices Next Year

Kazakhstan, the world’s largest uranium…

Alt Text

Russia’s Nuclear Sector Is Surging

With a long-standing nuclear tradition,…

Global Risk Insights

Global Risk Insights

GlobalRiskInsights.com provides the web’s best political risk analysis for businesses and investors. Our contributors are some of the brightest minds in economics, politics, finance, and…

More Info

Nuclear Power Opportunities Move East

Nuclear Power Opportunities Move East

A birds-eye look at the nuclear power industry in 2013 reveals a depressing picture. Early in the 2000s, thanks to a combination of rising fossil fuel prices and a lack of confidence in the return on renewable alternatives, nuclear power re-emerged as the potential silver bullet to reduce carbon emissions and promote energy independence. In the West, the Labour government in Britain approved 10 sites for nuclear power stations in 2009 with some of them coming online as early as 2018.

A year later Obama made up to $8 billion in federal loan guarantees available to build the first American nuclear power plants for over 30 years. Nuclear power was flourishing on the European continent as well. In 2011 14 of the 15 countries with the largest share of nuclear power as a percentage of total energy production were in Europe, with perennial ‘nuclear poster boy’ France producing 75 percent of their total energy from nuclear sources. However, as the decade has dragged on, the rosy prospects for the industry have begun to look increasingly bleak. Two reasons emerge.

Firstly, the Fukushima disaster revived old fears about nuclear power at almost precisely the worst time. The fact that the circumstances surrounding the disaster were utterly unparalleled (few nuclear power plants are hit by both a massive earthquake and a tsunami) and the damage far less than feared (one of four reactors partially melted down, and nobody died either directly or indirectly) did nothing to mitigate the political and economic fallout.

Most notably, both Germany (16.1 percent of total energy output produced by nuclear power) and Switzerland (35.9 percent of total energy output produced by nuclear power) announced a phase-out of nuclear power from their energy portfolios, to be completed by 2022 and 2034 respectively. The price of uranium, which peaked at $130 per pound in 2007 and averaged $67.75 per pound before Fukushima, crashed to $53 per pound. Investors were also spooked by the inevitable rise in construction and insurance costs and regulations that followed in the wake of the disaster.

Related article: More Bad News for the Pacific - Taiwanese NPP Leaking Radioactive Water

Secondly, and perhaps even more significantly, nuclear power has found itself facing competition from the new kid in town: shale gas. In 2008, at the height of nuclear optimism, the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated that by 2013 gas prices would be at $6/million British thermal units (MMBtu) and the U.S. would be importing 2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year. To say that this estimate was inaccurate would be a colossal understatement. In 2013, gas prices are $4/MMBtu (and went as low as $2/MMBtu last year) and the U.S. government has approved the opening of a liquefied natural gas export facility in Texas.

The effect that this has had on the nuclear renaissance in the West is impossible to overstate. None of the 24 new nuclear power plants approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the United States are likely to be built any time soon, and many operational nuclear power plants such as Crystal River in Florida and Kewaunee in Wisconsin have been shut down as the economics turn increasingly against nuclear power. In the UK as well, the energy giant Centrica announced in February that it was pulling out of its plan to invest in nuclear energy because of an increase in “anticipated project costs”. Less than four months later the company announced a deal to acquire 25 percent of a license for shale gas exploration in Lancashire.

The combination of renewed public fears and the shale gas boom may not spell the death of investment in nuclear power. Memories fade, and the shale gas boom may yet prove to be the bubble that some energy industry analysts believe it to be. Public fears about the environmental hazards of shale gas (especially in Europe) may also lead to shale gas receiving the same mass disapproval that nuclear power already faces.

Related article: Is Cold Fusion Entering the Final Stages?

However, for the immediate future investors are best served by setting their sights outside the West for nuclear prospects. While some Asian countries (most notably China and Indonesia) are considering expanding into shale gas, the Asian shale market is barely developed in comparison to its Western counterpart. It does not share the political support, regulatory environment and low barriers to entry that shale gas industries enjoy in America and (to a lesser extent) Europe. Nuclear power, however, is both a known quantity and has considerable political and economic backing.

China is planning to expand its nuclear capacity from 12.85 gigawatts (GW) to 400 GW by 2050. By contrast, the United States currently possesses the greatest net nuclear capacity at 101.58 GW. South Korea is also planning to more than double its nuclear capacity from 20.7 GW to 43 GW by 2030. However, the most ambitious plan belongs to India, which is seeking to expand its nuclear capacity of 3.6 percent of total electricity production to 25 percent by 2050. On a smaller scale, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Thailand, Vietnam and Malaysia are all planning to develop a nuclear power capacity to various levels to tackle domestic electricity shortages. The nuclear renaissance may not have been stillborn after all. It just went East.

By. Colm Delaney




Back to homepage


Leave a comment
  • Colm Delaney on August 19 2013 said:
    Good afternoon.

    Firstly, thank you for picking this article up from GRI to syndicate here. It's a great feeling to know my work is being circulated and appreciated.

    Secondly, you got my name wrong. It's "Delaney" with an "e". :)

    Kind regards,

    Colm Delaney
  • Jamie on August 19 2013 said:
    nobody died either directly or indirectly? That is because it takes many years to die from cancer. We do not know what the effects will be or how many will die. The radiation is still spilling into the ocean from contaminated water. Who can say how much damage this will do or how many will die because of it. To say that nobody died is misleading and simplistic at best. Masao Yoshida the nuclear cheif who stayed at his post in Fukushima died of cancer. It is certain that the radiation did not help him and may have caused his death.
  • Colm Delaney on August 19 2013 said:
    I tell a lie. 2 people died at Fukashima, but due to drowning while inspecting the reactor after the earthquake hit but before the tsunami. It's debatable whether they're direct casualties or not, but it wasn't radiation that did them in.

    Also, some comparisons between Fukashima and Chernobyl are probably apt here, since we can then draw some idea of what future fatalities (if any) may look like. The first number in every category is from Fukashima, the second is for Chernobyl.

    Amount of nuclear fuel in reactors
    1,600 tons 180 tons

    Maximum level of radiation detected
    72,900 mSv/h 200,000 mSv

    Radiation released
    900 PBq 5,200 PBq

    Area affected
    60 kilometres 500 kilometres

    So Fukashima had almost nine times the nuclear fuel that Chernobyl had, but the incident led to:

    - 1/3 less radiation being detected at the maximum levels,
    - 6 times less radiation being released into the atmosphere.
    - 8 times less area being affected.

    So while neither of us can look into the future and say for definite what the final death rate is going to be, the data suggests it's going to be nowhere near Chernobyl levels.
  • Kevin on August 19 2013 said:
    Jamie,

    In reference to Mr. Yoshida, "Experts have said his illness was not a result of radiation exposure". See NY Times link below.You are the one being misleading. The added radiation dose that the public is receiving is insignificant. If you care about lives, focus your energy on what is in food and the amount of chemicals that are polluted by factories. The fact is, everything has down falls. But nuclear has way more benefits then down falls. Read http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/07/01/nuclear-power-has-saved-the-lives-of-many-more-people-than-it-has-killed/

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/world/asia/masao-yoshida-nuclear-engineer-and-chief-at-fukushima-plant-dies-at-58.html?_r=0
  • Alasdair Lumsden on August 20 2013 said:
    Not all Nuclear is the same. Designs such as the Thorium Molten Salt Reactor are considerably safer than these ancient pressurised water reactors we're still building.

    Also radiation is all around us - we're bombarded by it every day, from the rocks, from space, from our Sun. Our bones and bodies contain radioactive elements such as potassium. Coal plants pump out more radiation into the atmosphere than Nuclear plants do, and that's in the form of particulates that you breathe in, the worst kind.

    But it doesn't seem to matter, people love to demonise and fear the unknown. Tales of 3 eyed fish and sells more news papers, and the world slowly shuts down one of the most potential sources of CO2 free energy man has ever known whilst we all gently sail towards catastrophic climate change. Goodbye polar ice caps. Goodbye fresh meltwater streams. Goodbye polar bears.

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News