Cross posted from Climate Central.
As the world continues to watch the crisis at Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant unfold, many are asking what the repercussions will be for the future of nuclear power. First, though, we must understand the current state of the nuclear industry: Where are the world’s nuclear power plants located? How much electricity do these plants produce? How much more nuclear generating capacity is planned, and for where?
The International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that about 16 percent of the world’s electricity comes from nuclear power, and that given pre-Fukushima plans, this percentage would stay roughly constant over the next two decades, barring any major changes in policy.
The maps below, which come courtesy of Katherine Marvel, a post-doctoral fellow at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, show where the world’s nuclear reactors are presently located and how many more are planned. (Visit Climate Central to see the maps with full interactive capabilities.).
Number of Nuclear Reactors
Percent of Electricity from Nuclear Power
Before Fukushima, there were 443 functioning nuclear power plants in the world. About 62 were under construction, and another 324 were in various stages of planning. (This data comes from the World Nuclear Association, a nuclear power advocacy organization).
The world’s nuclear power is concentrated in a handful of countries: Of the world’s 192 countries, only 30 have nuclear power plants, and 75 percent of global nuclear generation is concentrated in just eight countries: The United States, France, Japan, Russia, South Korea, India, the U.K., and Canada. Membership in the "nuclear power club," though, is set to expand considerably if current proposals come to fruition.
The following eleven countries lack nuclear power today, but are planning to build or are building power plants: United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, Turkey, Poland, Belarus, Bangladesh, Iran, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, and Kazakhastan. Another eight countries: Israel, Italy, North Korea, Thailand, Lithuania, Chile, Italy, and Malaysia, have proposed to build power plants.
Number of Nuclear Reactors Under Construction
Number of Nuclear Reactors Planned
Number of Nuclear Reactors Proposed
Another fact shown by the graphics is that although many countries have proposed or are planning to construct nuclear power plants, only China is aggressively building them — they have proposed 110 and are building 27. By comparison, the United States has 23 proposed reactors, but only one is under construction. And that single reactor, which is located in southern Tennessee, was begun in the 1980s, put on hold for 20 years, and is only now being completed.
The disparity between planned power plants and plants under construction raises the question of how many of these proposed plants will actually be built. Also, the expansion of nuclear power to new countries raises issues related to nuclear proliferation — the technology to build certain nuclear power plants could be used to make nuclear weapons with relative ease. And what these maps do not show is what would be built instead of these nuclear plants, should they not move forward. In place of nuclear power, will these countries invest in coal, natural gas, hydropower, solar, or wind energy?
Answering these questions will require continued work to balance the benefits and risks of nuclear energy against the growing energy demands of society.
Follow David Kroodsma on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davidkroodsma
James Baraz: Anything Can Happen at Any Time: Zen Lessons from Japan
http://www.thorium1.com/thorium101.html
http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Is-Thorium-the-Future-of-Nuclear-Power.html
The third world will never gain in economic strength and grow without the use of nuclear power.
And of course the cheap labor we will be able to supply!
Ya sure have some funny statistics. China produce more electricity from solar and wind than nuclear. In fact, they produce 4x the amount of energy from wind and solar than they do from nuclear. Do you care to revise your commentary so that it is more fact based than mere silly conjecture. Last year, $283 billion was spent on clean, renewable energy. How much was spent on nuclear worldwide? How much will it cost to clean up Fukushima? What is the replacement cost of Fukishima hypotheically in today's dollars since they wont be replaced? How much is this going to drive up the marketing budgets of nuclear promotors in order to recover from the blackeye of Fukushima? How much is going to cost the U.S. taxpayers to inspect all 104 commercial U.S. reactors? How much does it cost taxpayers for the U.S. subsidies of the entire nuclear fuel cycle? How much did it cost taxpayers to clean up the contamination of Fuel Services West Valley, New York defunct commercial reprocessing plant? How deep are the people of the U.S. willing to go to socialize nuclear costs while utilities privatize the profits? Are you for nuclear socialism? How much has wall street invested in nuclear power here in the U.S. since 1979? These are actual and real questions. Not glib unsubstantiated commentary.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/China/pdf.pdf
This graph from the EIA shows China using only 0.2% of renewables verses 1% for nuclear.
But I believe you asked a good question concerning how much was spent on nuclear last year! I believe you will find the clear winner was China.
You see China is converting to nuclear because at the rate they are going through coal they will run out by 2040!
At the rate we are going through coal we will run out in 2260 or more likely never!
Volatility in stock prices make investing more risky than ever. But with all of the real alternatives for producing energy, this green movement has got some very muscular legs. I, for one, will buy any technology that can save me money in the long run. Wind mills and solar cells may cost too much, at present, but as prices come down, and they will, I'm confident, I'll become a small provider of electricity to my local power company. Batteries are getting better all the time, too, since those are a big part of any home based power system. Naysayers are never good for progress. But belief and confidence in our alternative energy future more than trumps such negativity.
I helped set up a bio diesel plant using used vegetable oil as my base. The standards are very high and with good cause because poorly made bio diesel can mess an engine up in a hurry. It is very difficult to pass all the tests using used vegetable oil as a starting material.
Finally in the best of situations you have a significant waste steam. We were able to convert all of these waste streams into usable products for our other industries.
I myself drive a CNG Honda, bought it right after Prop 23 was rejected. It doesn't take a genius to realize when the state says they are going to raise the price of gasoline that they mean it!
Where the problem comes in is it's really hard to compete in a world market against nations using massive amounts of fossil fuels because no matter how many paint it with the hidden cost and all they are still cheaper or the fast developing world would not be moving/using them at their ever increasing rates!
Vogtle (2), VC Summer (2) and Watts Bar
I’ve worked in the US nuclear industry for 25 years. My novel “Rad Decision” culminates in an event very similar to the Japanese tragedy. (Same reactor type, same initial problem – a station blackout with scram.) The book is an excellent source of perspective for the lay person — as I’ve been hearing from readers. The novel is free online at the moment at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com . (No adverts, nobody makes money off this site.) Reader reviews are in the homepage comments.
Unfortunately, my media presence consists of this little-known book and website, so I’m not an acknowledged “expert”. I just do the nuclear stuff for a living. And I think I have explained it well in a non-yawn-producing manner. But it’s a bit of a tree falling in a forest………
I believe there isn’t a perfect energy solution – just options – each with their good and bad points. And we’ll make better choices about our future if we first understand our energy present.
For example, a compact, inexpensive, green, Low Energy Nuclear Reactor (LENR) invented by Andrea Rossi is now in production.
It is inherently much safer than existing nukes and uses non-radioactive Nickel, not radioactive Uranium, as fuel.
Power cost is projected at one penny per kilowatt hour.
No nuclear waste is produced.
New technology might use nuclear fuel rods to run large diesel engines to generate electricity and reduce dangerous waste on-site.
See Cold Fusion and Black Swans at www.aesopinstitute.org to learn more. Black Swans are highly improbable developments with huge potential impact.
A one Megawatt heating plant has been approved to open in Greece, in October. A similar plant is under negotiation for construction in the USA.
A nuclear scientist has said when these small modular units, which can be linked like solar panels to produce any desired power level, begin producing inexpensive electricity it will start a "stampede".
Several competitive designs are being developed. Early regulatory approval has been received in Greece and may prove possible here.
These technologies will cost-competitively undercut any need for new Uranium fueled nuclear plant production and allow the replacement of existing installations as rapidly as mass manufacturing and concerned parties will permit.
Revolutionary Black Swan designs have no possible chance of a meltdown!
They can become a building block for decentralized energy generation.
Big is fragile, dangerous and ugly. Small is still beautiful.
Fiber optic type cable that can provide electricity is an interesting thought. The cost might not comparable to copper or aluminum for high amperage applications, but interesting just the same.
Polymer Ultraconductors carry very high currents. A 1-2micron wire will carry 50 amperes. That is 1/50th the diameter of a human hair!