Recently the nuclear industry has come into the spotlight to a wider public due to the hype surrounding its potential to power future AI and blockchain developments.
To add some context and aid you to understand what can be expected and what are reasonable timelines for that, we will publish a series of articles.
In this one we will focus on the nuclear industry's new construction history.
Nuclear’s Wild Ride
A simple eagle-eye scan of global reactor constructions reveals a volatile history, marked by various phases of growth, stagnation and decline. Each phase reflects a complex interplay of geopolitical pressures, economic changes, public perception and regulatory changes. We will discuss each of the different moments that the industry went through in the following sections.
The Nuclear Big Bang
Fueled by the cold war, the initial development of nuclear technology was fast and diverse (google nuclear car and plane). This led to an early exploration and prototyping of the different venues that could lead to sustainable reactors, as shown in figure 2.
(tabla)
Figure 2. Date of first operation of prototypes for different reactor designs.
After this initial research stage there was a rapid ramping up in construction of the more commercially viable solutions, mainly water moderated and refrigerated. This initial success and confidence in the new technology led to an overly optimistic projection in the first half of the 70s, as shown in figure 3.
Chernobyl aftershocks
This overconfidence was to be short-lived though, as two major nuclear accidents (Three Mile Island and Chernobyl) led to a reevaluation of the expectations and changes in nuclear regulations that would impose higher requirements and increase construction times and costs. These changes led to the loss of some of the competitive edge against fossil fuel alternatives. Additionally many on-going construction projects were delayed considerably due to design reevaluations under new requirements, which led to bloating costs.
However, the principal consequence of these accidents was a significant change in public perception. From its origin it had been tainted with associations with nuclear weapons and exaggerated risk perceptions, but the latter was strongly increased by these events (an ambientalist group in France even perpetrated in 1982 a rocket attack on a nuclear reactor construction site).
As we will explore in a future publication, there is a strong disconnect between public risk perception and actual consequences of accidents, which are relatively low compared to analogous events in other industries. This is something that has been widely recognized and multiple explanations have been proposed that we will not address right now (be on the look out for coming articles!).
As a direct consequence of the previously accelerated construction and the new adverse social environment, the nuclear industry entered a stagnation period in the western world. This led two of the bigger builders, France and the USA, to almost not build any new reactors for decades.
The eastern hope
In some Asian countries the picture is quite different, as late-commers to the nuclear sector, their development was in a more mature ecosystem and has been more consistent since the late 80s.
The bloating of construction times and costs have not been observed as commonly and even reduction in construction times has been produced due to learning in a consistent manner between projects.
China specially emerged as a major player, driving much of the global nuclear construction after the 2000s.
A temporary silver lining
Together with the collapse of new reactor construction, there was a constant improvement in reactor fuel cycle and operation that led to a noticeable increase in load factor (i.e. how much energy is produced compared to an ideal 100% non stop power production in a calendar year). This produced a significantly higher increase in nuclear energy produced (~10x) when compared to the increase in power installed capacity (~6x) in the period 1975-2000, as can be seen in figures 4 and 5.
Furthermore, this increase was seen among all the different reactor types and regardless of reactor age (shown in figure 6).
This had the effect of reducing the loss of share in total energy produced in spite of the stagnation in construction, as can be seen in figure 7.
Nuclear renaissance(n’t)
If the ongoing trends were to be maintained by the 2000’s, the nuclear share would start to heavily drop in the coming decades.
This fact coupled with an increasing awareness of the hazards and drawbacks of the fossil fuel industry led to what was called the nuclear renaissance in the first decade of the 21st century.
To fulfill the expected increase in the reactor construction market, several designers put forward what was dubbed generation III+ reactors, with EPR and AP1000 designs as the main western designs. Both of these reactors faced bloating costs and construction times, which led their designers to face major crises and even bankruptcy. In both cases the long hiatus in new construction projects and overoptimistic schedules can be blamed for the encountered problems.
In addition to these problems, another important nuclear accident happened in Fukushima in 2011. This accident didn’t produce any deaths due to radiological reasons, but the public perception of nuclear risks took another big hit.
All of this reverted the expected increase in demand for the following decade and even made some countries drift further from new nuclear (Germany even went no-nuclear) with a consequent increase in coal burning.
Tip a rock and find an SMR
As a response to the issues that caused the blunting of the nuclear renaissance, a change in nuclear reactor philosophy has taken the main stage for the past 15 years.
The idea of changing the focus from big nuclear and economy of scale to Small Nuclear Reactors and economy of big numbers is not new, but gained leverage as a way to reduce nuclear construction risks, inherently high due to being capital intensive and complex projects with long lead times.
In the past decade, there has been an explosion in the number of ongoing SMR projects, as shown in figure 8.
These reactors span multiple technologies, sizes and degrees of modularization and integration. There’s an ongoing race to see which of these designs will become economically viable and whether these will be able to compete with large nuclear reactors or will remain in a complementary role (i.e. for remote locations or specific decentralized applications).
In addition to this, the Asian countries have shown that it is possible to consistently reduce construction risks and costs in large nuclear plants, blunting some of the drive to move away from them.
A nuclear future?
We live in a world powered mostly by fossil fuels, and an increasing awareness is being generated on the need to change. Renewables are vital, but they're not always reliable. This is where nuclear power comes in. It can offer green, reliable, and high-density energy source that can complement them.
Plus, in a world with growing demands for AI and blockchain technology, nuclear power can provide the concentrated energy needed. And in times of geopolitical instability, nuclear fuel’s high energy density grants energy security.
Whether the nuclear industry will see a golden age depends on several factors:
- New Design Success: Can new designs, like SMRs, be cost-effective and built on time?
- Public Perception: Can we address public concerns about safety? New reactors are already ~10x safer than current ones, but the fear still remains.
- Climate Change Awareness: How seriously will we take the need for clean energy?
- Energy Demand: Will we continue to need highly concentrated and distributed energy production?
Right now, things are looking optimistic, but the story is still unfolding.
Be on the lookout for a next article focusing on perspectives on the nuclear industry!
