World Nuclear Association Blog

The Observer newspaper reported on Sunday that small nuclear power plants able to power around 20,000 homes could be available in five years. The reactor, developed by Hyperion, produces 75MW thermal or 27 MW electric power. A plant of this size could be suitable for supplying remote towns or areas where a full national electricity grid has yet to develop. Alternatively, it could supply heat or electricity to a industrial site.

In a debate where the issues of energy independance and the economy were inextricably linked, John McCain said the US should build a 'whole bunch' of nuclear power plants and Barack Obama said he favours nuclear power as one component of the US's overall energy mix. The debate is nicely summed up in the NEI's latest blog posting: http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008/10/mccain-obama-and-nuclear-energy.html.

On Friday WNN reported on the setting up of a new governmental department of Energy and Climate Change as part of the latest cabinet reshuffle by UK prime minister Gordon Brown. The new ministry was warmly welcomed by business and green groups. The department will be headed up by Ed Miliband.

With the energy sector responsible for such a large proportion of greenhouse gas emissions the emergence of this new ministry offers great potential for 'joined-up government'. But the ministry's scope should extend to other sectors with significant climate change impacts, such as transport and agriculture. Similarly, on energy the ministry should also address affordability and security of supply.

Of key interest will be the role the new ministry plays in climate change negotiations, including the annual COP/MOP meetings under the UNFCCC, which this year will take place in Poland. Previously the UK's delegation has been led by the environment ministry (DEFRA), in collaboration with the industry ministry (BERR). From the announcements made by DEFRA and BERR it appears that the new department will now take the lead.

The role of nuclear energy in reducing greenhouse gas emissions is once more a topic of discussion at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations, the latest of which are taking place this week in Accra, Ghana. Proposals are being made to reintroduce nuclear projects into both the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation (CDM and JI).

Meanwhile, Dr R.K. Pachauri, the chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, stated yesterday that "nuclear energy is the best option to curb carbon emissions".

The Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions for the period 2008-2012, included the CDM and JI mechanisms, which were designed to allow developed countries to get credit for carrying out emissions-reduction projects in developing and other developed countries. At the end of fractious negotiations, the delegates decided to place heavy restrictions on the use of credits arising from nuclear projects, effectively excluding nuclear energy projects from the Kyoto Mechanisms.

Delegates are now negotiating what regime should follow for the second commitment period, starting in 2013. The reintroduction of nuclear projects is under discussion, alongside projects involving carbon capture and storage (CCS) and emissions save through changes in land use and forestry.

In previous negotiations some of the key concerns raised have been due to the potentially large contribution that nuclear energy could make to emissions reductions. The amount of emissions saved from nuclear energy projects by 2030 is estimated to be larger than the entire annual supply of credits expected to be generated annually over the next five years, leading to a lowering of the price of CDM credits. In addition, there are concerns that nuclear CDMs could be so successful in reducing emissions in developing countries that the sponsoring developed countries would need to put a lot less effort into reducing their own emissions.

Such concerns seem perverse. If the inclusion of nuclear energy projects can reduce the cost of emissions reductions isn't that a good thing? With many countries looking like they will struggle to meet their modest targets for 2008-12 it hardly seems likely that long-term over-achievement is a serious proposition. If the inclusion of nuclear projects will make it so easy to reduce emissions then that will allow the international community the opportunity to set more challenging emissions targets, which are likely to be needed if we are to successfully combat climate change.

Lawrence Kidd, a visiting Research Officer at the World Nuclear Association, has written an article, published in Nuclear Engineering International, on the production and application of artificial radioisotopes. These isotopes have vital roles in medicine, agriculture, food production and industry, for example most types of medical equipment from syringes to contact lenses can be sterilised with gamma radiation froma cobalt-60 source to kill bacteria.

A blog from Normandy  from the BBC's Mark Mardell, on the construction of the Flamanville 3 EPR. While protesters do get some attention, Mr Mardell concludes that "most French don't seem disturbed by their reliance on nuclear energy, particularly at a time when the intellectual fashion is swinging back that way".

There's an interesting article on research at the Desalination Division of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, published in the International Journal of Nuclear Desalination. Meenakshi Jain of Positive Climate Care says that "Nuclear energy seawater desalination has a tremendous potential for the production of freshwater."

Nuclear desalination is taking an increasing role in meeting  the world's growing demand for fresh, clean water. A plant in Yuhuan County in Zhejiang province in China can produce 374,400 gallons of water every hour.