Renaissance of nuclear power in the “climate laboratory”: “Poisoned bogus debate”

Does Germany have to extend the operating times of its remaining nuclear power plants in order to secure its energy supply? This question has been haunting politics and business ever since the Russian attack on Ukraine. A mock debate for the nuclear power expert Mycle Schneider has no understanding. It is amazing how deep and wide the gulf has become between the perception of the nuclear sector and reality, explains the editor of the “World Nuclear Industry Status Report”. (WNISR) in the “Climate Laboratory” by ntv. The annual report on the state of the global nuclear industry clearly shows that there is no so-called “renaissance of nuclear power” anywhere, on the contrary: even – or above all – the nuclear nation France suffers from an insecure power supply. Because many of its 56 reactors regularly fail for an indefinite period due to technical problems and safety deficiencies. A most of the capacity is therefore not available.

ntv: In Germany it will Nuclear phase-out again in question posed. They say it’s a bogus debate fueled by myths. With which ones?

Mycle Schneider: We don’t have enough time to work through all the myths. Curiously, however, this myth-making has gained the upper hand in the last two or three years. I have been working on this topic for over 40 years. It is truly amazing how deep and wide the gulf has become between the perception of the nuclear sector and reality. This includes these bogus debates, such as extending the operation of German nuclear power plants – as if you could buy nuclear fuel from Aldi. That’s not how the industry works.

Is the lack of fuel the myth that bothers you the most?

That’s just one problem, there are a lot of things that get in the way of this debate. The permits are expiring. The operators have clearly said that they are not actually available for an extension, but would only examine this possibility on explicit instructions from the federal government. You’ve been preparing for this exit for ten years. All plans for maintenance and operational staff have already been changed, people are retiring. There are many circumstances that make an extension unrealistic.

But this debate is going on. Even the Council of Economic Experts, above all Veronica Grimmnow advocates an extension of the terms.

Because there are very efficient propagandists who have poisoned this debate. They spread opinions or myths that have nothing to do with practice or can only be implemented if you throw away everything you have learned in 50 years of using nuclear power, for example certain requirements for safety checks or for personnel . It’s a very tightly regulated area. And even if it does, an extension only works in the so-called stretching operation: One would have to stop using the nuclear power plants today so that we have a few additional kilowatt hours next winter. More is not possible because of the lack of nuclear fuel. Incidentally, we are also heavily dependent on Russia in this area, which surprisingly the proponents of the extension never point out. Even after the war began, there were still exceptional flights to bring nuclear fuel from Russia to Slovakia and Hungary, so dependent are they on Russian nuclear fuel.

We also have to look at the amounts we’re talking about: Atom accounts for around five percent of Germany’s electricity. But the big problem is that half of all households in Germany are heated with gas. A quarter of all households heat with oil.

they have already in the past year explains that on the subject of nuclear power, in her eyes, we Trumpism landed because “plans and projects are fabled, but in reality little or nothing happens”.

It is exactly like that. The term “nuclear power renaissance” is used again and again every year, but it is amazing how little happens. Historically, most nuclear power plants were operational in 2002. Today there are 24 fewer. The highest electricity production was in 2006. New projects? The highest number of reactors under construction was in 1979. The highest number of nuclear power plant construction starts was in 1976 with 44 plants. where are we today In 2021, ten nuclear power plants around the world will definitely be shut down, including three in Germany. At the same time, six went into operation, half in China. Since the end of 2019, 16 nuclear power plants have started construction around the world, 11 of them in China and five built by Russian industry: two in India, two in Turkey and one at home. This is the state of the world nuclear industry: China is building at home, Russia is building abroad. That’s it.

Only China is still building large-scale nuclear power plants?

Yes. From 2011 up to and including 2021, 69 nuclear power plants have been commissioned and 69 have been shut down worldwide. It’s a coincidence that it’s the same number. But 40 of them have gone into operation in China. In other words, outside of China, the number is down by 40.

Why?

China lagged behind the development of France in the 1980s by 30 years. In other words, a large number of nuclear power plants were simply built in a very short period of time. In China that was just infrastructure construction until 2010: Nuclear power plants were built like bridges or chemical plants or plastic and steel plants. There was no difference. A Chinese colleague once said to me: We discovered nuclear power with Fukushima. Before the disaster in Japan, politicians and the public had not taken much notice of the nuclear sector. That changed suddenly.

But what we always forget: China already spent more money on renewables than on nuclear power in 2010, the year before the catastrophe. Yes, China overtook France in 2020 to become the second largest nuclear power producer in the world. But China has mainly expanded renewables and today produces more electricity with wind energy alone than with nuclear energy.

You live in France. How is the situation there?

France is the nuclear country par excellence, about two thirds of the electricity is generated with nuclear energy. It is considered a prime example of a successful nuclear program because it was set up relatively quickly and in a standardized manner in the 1970s and 1980s. A large part of the power plant park was in place within ten years. Back then, standardization saved money, which was an advantage. Today this has become a disadvantage because if they have a bug in one power plant, there is a very high probability that it has been reproduced in others. This is the situation in France today: in December 2021, cracks were found in the emergency feed-in systems of the four newest and largest nuclear power plants. This is a basic safety system and will step in if there is a leak in the primary cooling system. These reactors were shut down immediately. In the middle of winter, this led to a failure of the order of six gigawatts, a tenth of the installed capacity was gone in one fell swoop. Then three more reactors were added. This means that this error has now been identified in seven, and it is probable in others.

All reactors show the same error?

Yes. And that needs to be repaired. They cannot be responsible for running these nuclear power plants. But it goes even further: The same error probably occurs in another cooling circuit: If you shut down a nuclear power plant and practically interrupt the chain reaction in the reactor, the energy is still around seven percent shortly after shutting down. That’s huge. This is called residual heat removal. A reactor is not a light switch that you can turn on and off. This will need time. This residual heat must also be secured via a cooling circuit. Now there is a suspicion that the same problems are also present in this standstill cooling circuit.

The biggest argument in favor of nuclear energy is often independence and the safe and reliable power supply. The French electricity supplier EDF is also advertising this on its website website. In France, do you have the impression that electricity is guaranteed at all times of the day and night, all year round?

no An example: On December 22, 2021, France had to import electricity from all surrounding countries. From all! More than 60 percent of them from Germany and Belgium, the two nuclear dropouts. In the first quarter of 2022, the situation was even worse as the share of nuclear power continued to fall. France has been totally dependent on electricity imports. The first import country is Germany.

That’s really amazing: 18 nuclear power plants with 56 reactors, but a large part of the capacity is regularly not available?

That’s really part of the myth. How is that explained? A part is canceled due to technical problems. But the French power plant park is also 37 years old on average. Imagine driving a 37-year-old car… If it needs repairs, you can be sure that it will be more expensive and time-consuming than you thought.

Are spare parts available for such nuclear power plant repairs? Older cars often lack them because certain components are simply no longer manufactured.

15 years ago, as a cost-cutting measure, EDF drastically reduced the stock of spare parts because it is extremely expensive. This can result in a pump being assembled today with an old seal because the new one is not in stock. But the biggest problem is the planning uncertainty: If EDF shuts down a nuclear power plant today, this company no longer knows when it will be back on the grid. First we plan with three weeks, then with two more, then again with two months. There are cases where the docking date has been pushed back 40 times. We calculated that for 2020: The downtime of all reactors was a total of 6465 days, which is an average of 115.5 days per reactor and 44 percent more than planned. In that time – four months per reactor – they had zero production!

Talked to Mycle Schneider Clara Pepper and Christian Herrmann. The conversation has been shortened and smoothed for better understanding.