Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
Fri Dec 20, 2013, 12:25 AM Dec 2013

Japan and Germany are the only nations that seem committed to reducing nuclear power production



The rest of the world has been on a high plateau since about 2004. The USA registered a drop in 2012, but their peak production was in 2010, so their nuclear-political complex doesn't seem to be committed to a production decline yet.
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Japan and Germany are the only nations that seem committed to reducing nuclear power production (Original Post) GliderGuider Dec 2013 OP
We can get a better picture than that kristopher Dec 2013 #1
As I said, GliderGuider Dec 2013 #3
Well, you could hide behind your use of the word "committed" kristopher Dec 2013 #4
Yes, the industry is in decline - the ROW plateau demonstrates that. GliderGuider Dec 2013 #5
I'd argue that you are seeing it with the failure to continue investing. kristopher Dec 2013 #8
Obama-approved reactors are "in the pipeline" in the USA... PamW Dec 2013 #2
And Russia, apparently NickB79 Dec 2013 #6
The performance of nuclear nations since 2007: GliderGuider Dec 2013 #7
Not Japan FBaggins Dec 2013 #9

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
1. We can get a better picture than that
Fri Dec 20, 2013, 07:07 AM
Dec 2013

From The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2013
http://www.worldnuclearreport.org/World-Nuclear-Report-2013.html#executive_summary_and_conclusions


As of the middle of 2013, a total of 31 countries were operating nuclear fission reactors for energy purposes. Nuclear power plants generated 2,346 terawatt-hours (TWh or billion kilowatt-hours) of electricity in 2012 [21], less than in 1999 and a 172 TWh or 6.8 percent decrease compared to 2011 as well as 11.8 percent below the historic maximum nuclear generation in 2006. The maximum contribution of nuclear power to commercial electricity generation worldwide was reached in 1993 with 17 percent (see figure 1). It has dropped to 10.4 percent in 2012, a level last seen in the 1980s. According to BP, the nuclear share in commercial primary energy consumption dropped to 4.5 percent, “the lowest since 1984”. [22]

Figure 1: Nuclear Electricity Generation in the World



About three-quarters of the decrease is due to the continuing and substantial generation drop in Japan (–139 TWh or –50 percent over the previous year), which in three years fell back from the 3rd to the 18th position of nuclear generators. Production also decreased for differing reasons in all top five nuclear generating countries: United States (–20 TWh or –2.5 percent), France (–16 TWh/–4 percent), Germany (–8 TWh/–10 percent), South Korea (–7 TWh/5 percent) and Russia with an insignificant drop (–0.8 TWh/–0.5 percent).

Nuclear generation declined in a total of 17 countries, while in 14 countries it increased or remained stable [23]. Seven countries [24] generated their historic maximum in 2012.


Figure 2. Nuclear Power Generation by Country, 2012/2011 and Historic Maximum


The “big five” nuclear generating countries—by rank: the United States, France, Russia, South Korea and Germany—generated 67 percent of all nuclear electricity in the world. The three countries that have phased out nuclear power (Italy, Kazakhstan, Lithuania), and Armenia, generated their historic maximum of nuclear electricity in the 1980s. Several other countries’ nuclear power generation peaked in the 1990s, among them Belgium, Canada, Japan, and the U.K. A further six countries peaked their nuclear generation between 2001 and 2005: Bulgaria, France, Germany, South Africa, Spain, and Sweden. Among the countries with a steady increase in nuclear generation are China, the Czech Republic and Russia. However, even where countries are increasing their nuclear electricity production this is in most cases not keeping pace with overall increases in electricity demand leading to a reduced and declining role for nuclear power.

Only one country in the world, the Czech Republic, peaked its nuclear share in 2012 with 35 percent. In fact, all other countries—except Iran, which started up its first nuclear plant in 2011—reached their maximum share of nuclear power prior to 2010. While three countries peaked in 2008 (China) or 2009 (Romania, Russia), the other 26 countries saw their largest nuclear share by 2005. In total, nuclear power played its largest role in ten countries during the 1980s [25], in 12 countries each in the 1990s and in the 2000s.
Increases in nuclear generation are mostly a result of higher productivity and uprating [26] at existing plants rather than due to new reactors. According to the latest assessment by Nuclear Engineering International [27], the global annual load factor [28] of nuclear power plants decreased from 77 percent in 2011 [29] to 70 percent in 2012. Not surprisingly the biggest change was seen in Japan, where the load factor plunged from 69.5 percent in 2010 to 39.5 percent in 2011 to 3.7 percent in 2012. This is also due to the fact that officially 50 of the 54 pre-3/11 units in Japan are still counted as operational—even though some reactors have not generated electricity for years (see box hereunder).

Figure 3. Nuclear Share in Electricity Mix by Country, 2012/2011 and Historic Maximum



<big snip>


Figure 4. Nuclear Power Reactor Grid Connections and Shutdowns, 1956–2013



Figure 5. World Nuclear Reactor Fleet, 1954–2013



Figure 6. Number of Nuclear Reactors under Construction



Figure 7. Age Distribution of Operating Nuclear Reactors, 2013



Figure 8. Age Distribution of Shutdown Nuclear Reactors, 2013



Figure 9. 40-Year Lifetime Projection



Figure 10. The PLEX Projection (Accommodates probable lifetime extensions)



Figure 11. Forty-Year Lifetime Projection versus PLEX Projection (in numbers of reactors)



Figure 12. Start-ups and Closures of National Nuclear Power Programs, 1950–2013



Figure 13: Average Annual Construction Times in the World 1954–2013

Note: The bubble size is equivalent to the number of units started up in the given year. Sources: MSC based on IAEA-PRIS 2013




 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
3. As I said,
Fri Dec 20, 2013, 12:52 PM
Dec 2013

Japan and Germany are the only nations that seem committed to reducing nuclear power production.

The rest of your graphs simply reinforce that statement. Nuclear power's not growing, but it's also not shrinking beyond the efforts of those two nations. Looks like nuclear power will be part of the mix until the collapse is further along. 427 reactors with rising maintenance needs in a disintegrating social environment. Oh frabjous day!

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
4. Well, you could hide behind your use of the word "committed"
Fri Dec 20, 2013, 01:08 PM
Dec 2013

But the general sense that the rest of the world is monolithic in regard to nuclear simply isn't true. The industry is in a state of decline that goes back almost a decade; and the data shows clear signs the process is accelerating.

 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
5. Yes, the industry is in decline - the ROW plateau demonstrates that.
Fri Dec 20, 2013, 03:55 PM
Dec 2013

I want to see more long-term dedication to shuttering reactors, though. That's what we haven't seen so far except in those two countries.

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
8. I'd argue that you are seeing it with the failure to continue investing.
Fri Dec 20, 2013, 04:41 PM
Dec 2013

Even I wouldn't call for an immediate shut down of reactors that haven't hit the end of their design life unless they have a history of problems like Davis Besse. But I wouldn't want their operating licenses extended nor would I want to see further investment in the technology. The extensions raise safety issues and further investment impedes investment in renewables that would expand their manufacturing base and contribute to reduced overall costs.

PamW

(1,825 posts)
2. Obama-approved reactors are "in the pipeline" in the USA...
Fri Dec 20, 2013, 11:21 AM
Dec 2013

Obama-approved reactors are "in the pipeline" in the USA and will be coming on line in outlying years.

Courtesy of the Obama White House:

Obama Administration Announces Loan Guarantees to Construct New Nuclear Power Reactors in Georgia

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/obama-administration-announces-loan-guarantees-construct-new-nuclear-power-reactors

and more recently:

US DOE Awards Funding for NuScale Power's SMR Technology

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/12/or-nuscale-power-llc-idUSnBw126378a+100+BSW20131212

http://energy.gov/articles/energy-department-announces-new-investment-innovative-small-modular-reactor

Although some posters here have been spewing misinformation to the denizens of this forum that nuclear power is in a fatal decline; the objective facts say otherwise. Obama's energy policy includes a resurgence of nuclear power thanks to the advice that Obama has received from his two Secretaries of Energy, Chu and Moniz, both of which are scientists. Both have informed President Obama that nuclear power is going to have to be a major player in the solution to global warming since it is the only low-carbon source of energy that has the potential to deliver the massive amounts of energy that our economy is demanding now and will in the future. Scientists like Dr. Chu and Dr. Moniz know this, President Obama also realizes. Unfortunately, it's going to take some time for the denizens of DU to wise up to the facts. Perhaps people should become more familiar with what the scientists are saying:

Climate change warriors: It's time to go nuclear

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists/index.html

Top climate change scientists' letter to policy influencers

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/index.html

Unfortunately, there are these misguided propagandists that are eschewing the recommendations of the scientists. ( These same propagandists in the recent past were the ones who were chastising the Republicans and the right-wing for ignoring these same scientists; and now when the scientists tell them something they don't want to here; they are doing precisely what they were complaining about before. Hypocrisy is alive and well with the self-righteous. )

The misguided propagandists have been attempting to sell us a scientifically doomed "greenie wet dream" of a world run on renewables. As to that, climate scientist Dr. Hansen says it best:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/23/jim-hansen-presses-the-climate-case-for-nuclear-energy/?_r=0

Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.

If you believe in an all renewable grid, tell me how the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy are so I can tell Dr. Hansen next time I see him at a scientific conference.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

NickB79

(19,236 posts)
6. And Russia, apparently
Fri Dec 20, 2013, 04:02 PM
Dec 2013
http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Russian-Government-Plans-to-Build-21-New-Nuclear-Reactors-by-2030.html

The Russian government, via its official online portal for legal information, has just recently unveiled plans to build 21 new nuclear power reactors across nine power stations by the year 2030. The plans include the construction of five new nuclear power stations housing two reactors each; three new power plants at locations where other nuclear facilities already exist, and the addition of another reactor at an existing nuclear power plant.


Ugh.
 

GliderGuider

(21,088 posts)
7. The performance of nuclear nations since 2007:
Fri Dec 20, 2013, 04:26 PM
Dec 2013


There are three nations that have contributed significantly to the decline of nuclear power production since 2007. I question the longer term commitment to reduction by the USA and France, because I think the nuclear industry's influence on their governments is still stronger than the citizens' groups that oppose it.

The rest of the world looks like business as usual for a flattening industry.

FBaggins

(26,735 posts)
9. Not Japan
Fri Dec 20, 2013, 04:55 PM
Dec 2013

They can't "reduce" below the current zero... and are committed to restarting reactors shortly.

No telling whether that's 50% of their fleet... or 75%... or whatever. But it's clearly an increase from the current levels.

And they have 2-3 units under construction.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Japan and Germany are the...