FAQ about Mycle Schneider

asked in 2005

1. Do you foresee a renaissance of nuclear energy?

In 2003, the wind power industry alone generated over 8,000 megawatts (MW) worldwide for a turnover of 8 billion euros ($10.5 billion), 12 times the capacity added by the nuclear industry to the power grids in the world that year. But that's anecdotal. The point is, beyond issues of belief and wishful thinking, independently of your opinion on nuclear power as such, nuclear reactors will not be able to make a major difference on climate change in the future because nobody orders them. And even if they were ordered, they would come in too late. We need solutions now! And as long as available energy-efficiency measures remain 4 to 7 times cheaper than nuclear power -- in fact cheaper than most of the low carbon energy generating technologies -- we should not remain stuck in a theological debate about nuclear power.

In reality, the nuclear industry is not even in a position to maintain the number of operating plants in the world. As we have shown in a recent report, the average age of the operating power plants is 21 years. We have assumed an average lifetime of 40 years for all operating reactors. Considering the fact that the average age of all 108 units that already have been closed is equally about 21 years, the doubling of the operational lifetime seems rather optimistic. The exercise enables an evaluation of the number of plants that would have to come on-line over the next decades in order to maintain the same number of operating plants. Roughly 80 reactors would have to be planned, built, and started up over the next ten years -- one every month and a half -- and an additional 200 units over the following 10-year period -- one every 18 days. Even if Finland and France build a European Pressurized Water Reactor (EPR) and China went for an additional 20 plants and Japan, Korea, or Eastern Europe added one plant, the overall trend will be downwards. With extremely long lead times of 10 years and more -- the last unit to come online in the US took 23 years to build -- it is practically impossible to maintain or even increase the number of operating nuclear power plants over the next 20 years, unless operating lifetimes could be substantially increased beyond 40 years on average, simultaneously raising significant safety issues. There is currently no basis for such an assumption. In fact, the Lithuanian reactor Ignalina-1, that was shut down on 31 December 2004, remains exactly on world average at age 21.

The relevance of nuclear power for the supply of commercial primary energy to the world is marginal with about 6% -- tendency already downward. If you look at the share of final energy, that is the portion available for end-use after the losses in transformation and transport, nuclear power provides between 2% and 3% of the total.

Nuclear power is most likely on its way out. And it does not make a difference whether you like it or not.
(From http://www.utne.com/webwatch/2005_195/news/11620-1.html)

2. You describe plutonium production as an "autocratic activity". What do you mean by that?

The plutonium economy is an authoritarian system beyond any democratic control. Furthermore, it does not have any corrective mechanisms that would allow severe strategic errors to be repaired. The most impressive illustration is the Japanese case: the official figure for the overall cost of 40 years of plutonium "fuel cycle" translated into a cost figure per gram of plutonium at least 40 times the current price of gold. At the same time, the largest holders of non-military plutonium stocks in the world, BNFL and UKAEA in the UK and EDF in France have both allocated a zero value to these stocks.

3. You are a strong advocate of energy-efficient electrical devices. What can policy-makers do to promote their use?

There are countless possibilities what policy-makers could do in order to foster energy efficiency. The question is less to promote but to implement. The key point is the policy maker's respective position in society. Each specific position allows for the implementation of specific measures. Let me name two examples:

Labelling of energy efficiency levels on electric household appliances has proven exceptionally efficient. Standards are set by national governments or supra-national institutions (e.g. the European Commission). But responsibility is also taken by the individual consumer.
Energy efficient lighting, public and private, can be fostered by city councils, regional governments, electricity utilities and individual consumers. I'm still waiting for a city council or any other local authority to prohibit the sale of "Edison type" light bulbs on their territory. I believe it would be legally possible to enforce.