DAVID HESS | OPINION


If climate change and the need to adapt is the entry point


for nuclear resilience, it is certainly not the only external threat industry should be bracing for. The last five years suggest that we are now living through a period where various disruptions are more


frequent. The world has bounced from a pandemic, to a commodity and energy crisis, and now faces greater geopolitical instability and the prospect of regional conflicts


There are some individuals and groups that, predictably enough, try to paint the future as one that is too dangerous for nuclear plants to operate in. This take is naïve. Nuclear operators and regulators will adjust to mitigate any genuine climate risk, just as they mitigate others. Even accounting for the sharp rise in temperature last year, the rate of increase is relatively slow and allows ample time to act. There is simply no urgent reason to shut down existing plants and certainly no reason to prevent new build, where developers will make a full assessment of climate scenarios. This take is also absurd and ignores the far greater


impacts these climate events would surely have on major population centres. Why focus fear solely on nuclear facilities when the weather of such a world would kills thousands and displace millions? Even where there is no radiological threat, antis point out that there is still a threat as warming waters force nuclear plants to idle during hot water spells. Here at least they have some evidence as the number of forced outages at French nuclear plants (especially) has increased and become an annual media event. Stanford University Professor Mark Jacobson has leant on this as an argument that nuclear has no role to play in the low-carbon future, as it simply cannot be counted on. So much for nuclear reliability! The banal truth is that no energy source likes the


extreme heat and this is why we need to engineer resilient energy systems. Nuclear actually performs better than most renewables during hot spells. In fact, the energy loss of heat-related nuclear outages is imperceptible in global capacity factor figures. It is lost in the noise of strong overall fleet performance. It is entirely possible that performance of the global nuclear fleet will improve in coming years, despite weather disruptions, as lagging operators gradually catch up to best-performers by improving completion of planned outages and reducing the number of unplanned ones.


On the other hand, hydropower output can be devastated


by drought, as Brazil has experienced. Evidence also shows that, in Europe at least, the wind often goes away during hot spells. A wind drought to accompany a water one. Solar panels too are less efficient at higher temperatures. Nuclear is also the only low-carbon energy source that


can readily engineer-in greater protection against hot spells, putting in HVAC. If ever truly needed many plants could presumably construct cooling towers in case of


permanently lessened water availability. Nuclear plants are also naturally resistant to storm threats in a way that wind turbine and solar panels will never be. But industry shouldn’t dismiss these climate-related criticisms out of hand. Being resistant to damage from certain weather threats is not the same thing as boosting overall energy resilience. The energy system is only as strong as its weakest link, and during a storm that link is the grid itself. In fact, nuclear plants will often go offline as a precaution


against a cyclone or flood, before the event even reaches them. This is a shame really, as it’s hard to think of a time when that energy might be more desperately needed. The other part of resilience is recovery, and here too some of the criticism sticks. If there is a grid disruption most of today’s nuclear plants must go into shut down. They will also be the last facilities to come back online as a stable external power supply is a safety perquisite. Continuing a theme, nuclear technology and operations


simply have to step up to meet the needs of a climate- changed world where fossil fuels are all but phased out. One farsighted academic has pioneered work in the subject of how to make nuclear energy more resilient, and the industry should make itself more familiar with the work of Sherrell Greene. Focusing on two items on the wish list. The ability for


future reactors to operate in island mode and to provide black-start capability to the grid could become immensely valuable. Fortunately, this is a feature that is expected of SMR technologies and indeed some vendors (notably NuScale) have marketed this. If climate change and the need to adapt is the entry


point for nuclear resilience, it is certainly not the only external threat industry should be bracing for. The last five years suggest that we are now living through a period where various disruptions are more frequent. The world has bounced from a pandemic, to a commodity and energy crisis, and now faces greater geopolitical instability and the prospect of regional conflicts. Cyber security is an ever greater concern. Who really knows what tomorrow will bring? We may not all be heading towards the end of days, but we do appear to be living through ‘interesting times’. As an industry obsessed by risk, the nuclear sector is already well-placed to adapt accordingly. Nuclear technologies and the industry itself are indeed crucial to global adaptation efforts. ■


www.neimagazine.com | May 2024 | 15


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53