
As part 1 outlined, getting to a 3x nuclear future requires first and foremost that we start building new nuclear plants quickly and cost effectively. Over-runs are the greatest weakness of the nuclear industry today, as critics love to point out. The irony is that this weakness involves the industry’s least nuclear part. Training up is therefore one of the toughest challenges the industry faces.
Most of the welders, concreters, electricians and the similar that build nuclear plants will never work in the presence of a radiological hazard. A nuclear plant project is just another civil construction job to them, albeit one with unusually stringent standards.
Indeed, it is expecting a lot for them to adjust to bespoke operations for a project which offers limited chance of replication. Construction companies and contractors do far more than just build nuclear plants and will thus have good opportunities elsewhere. Attracting them to nuclear projects to begin with is the first hurdle.
Managing the interface between the nuclear and construction sectors is unquestionably one of the most important challenges for the nuclear industry going forward, if it wants to grow both leaner (cheaper) and stronger (more GWs). Finding the number of appropriately qualified construction workers required will be daunting, and will no doubt necessitate keeping an open mind to where they come from, easing visa restrictions for example, and even a rethink on what really requires nuclear-specific standards.
For a 3x future, however, it is more than likely that we will need a new regime entirely. The nuclear industry will have to embrace radical delivery models that greatly increase worker productivity and reduce the potential for human error. Exactly how much automation is possible at a nuclear project? This is a question that the industry needs to start addressing in earnest if it is serious about its gains. Let’s call this science-based training.
In some conversations, employing a lot of construction workers is seen as a positive feature of nuclear projects – especially in places where labour is comparatively cheap. The fact is though, that increasing productivity will enable more plants to be built, and for the corresponding socioeconomic benefits to accrue faster. This is the nuclear sector equivalent to ‘lifting heavy’. Focusing on worker productivity should lead to big-picture gains.
The good news is that when we look at the rest of the nuclear industry, there’s a lot more to like. Long time nuclear advocate Rod Adams summed it up perfectly on social media recently, when reacting to news that the restart of Three Mile Island 1 was ahead of schedule. Noting that this project was being led by specialist nuclear contractors, he commented: “The nuclear plant construction industry might be flabby and ponderously slow but the nuclear plant operating, maintaining and improvement business is a well-honed Adonis.”
Even while the US nuclear fleet was declining over the period 2013-2023, with 12 nuclear power reactors permanently closing, the level of electricity output from the fleet stayed the same. This counterintuitive fact was a result of higher capacity factors and power uprates taking place over the same period.
Planned refuel outages at some nuclear plants – especially in the USA, Finland and a few other notable countries that are an industry highlight – resemble something more like a formula 1 pit stop than a trip to the mechanic. To deploy a health analogy, the VO2 max of these plants is top tier. Their cardio is excellent and their recovery is lightning quick.
In the USA we have also seen regulators approve nuclear plant operations for as long as 80 years. This is a ringing endorsement of the quality of plant design and maintenance programmes, proving that this industry is not just performing well but ‘ageing strong’.
Much of this is no doubt due to the existence of EPRI, INPO and strong reactor-owners groups which are focused on economic performance and longevity as well as, of course, safety. These are roughly the equivalent of elite sports and training institutes.
Looking worldwide, however, and nuclear plant performance indicators are not as high across the board. It obviously takes time and considerable effort to train up to these world-class operating results.
Lest we forget, there are also some industry horror stories (*coughs* Crystal River) where nuclear plant overhauls have gone terribly wrong, leading to premature retirement. Some fuel cycle facilities too have hit the wall (*coughs* Rokkasho) and experienced lengthy down times. Helping others to avoid these pitfalls will create a stronger industry overall. Let there be no more stranded assets!
3x industry goal number 4 Is therefore for an international body to step up and promote best practises and innovation in nuclear operations, lending assistance to struggling operators and newcomer countries so that they can get to >90% plant availability as soon as possible. For years now the global average capacity factor has hovered around 80%. Let’s get that to 85% by the year 2030.
While it may seem crazy for a supposedly competitive industry to cooperate on economic performance, it makes sense if you recognise that the negative perception of economics and plant availability can have similar impacts on nuclear prospects globally to nuclear accidents. An unprofitable nuclear plant anywhere is an unprofitable plant everywhere so to speak.
Tomorrow’s operating nuclear realities are also likely to be different from today’s, with increasing risk of climate-related and security-related outages – both of which motivates a renewed global focus on nuclear plant operational flexibility and resilience.
Our cardio may be ok, but we need to throw in some yoga and assault courses if we are to prevail.
Lastly, 3x industry goal number 5 is for far more harmonisation on nuclear waste characterisation/regulations coupled with a relaxation of waste clearance levels and increased high-level industry and political support for multinational solutions. By 2027, at least one country to formally step forward as willing to host a multinational repository. This is desperately needed.
Any survey of nuclear advocates will tell you that ‘linear no-threshold model’ (LNT) or ‘as low as reasonably achievable’ (ALARA) are the Achilles heel of the nuclear sector. But it is nonetheless quite a leap of logic to blame overly cautious radiation protection standards for preventing new build. Where these overly strict radiation standards arguably do matter is at the superfund sites where tiny doses above background levels have sometimes led to horrendously expensive remedies for exactly zero public health gain. If we really want the general public to stop believing that radiation at any dose is incredibly dangerous then the industry and its regulators have to stop treating it that way.
Nuclear waste however IS a genuine roadblock to nuclear development, and especially in newcomer and island countries. It may not be the existential threat that opponents make it out to be, but it is an operational concern which needs flexible and practical solutions to make sure that facilities can keep running smoothly and sustainably. And, in a 3x world there simply will be a lot more of it to deal with. This is true irrespective of the future reactor technology landscape, although amounts and levels will certainly vary.
Being vulgar and again returning to the health metaphor, the global nuclear industry is currently severely constipated. It had better do something about that if it expects to 3x itself.
This begs for a commercially focused multinational approach. On the front end of the fuel cycle we have created a functional international market for services, but on the back end we currently insist that each country goes it alone with disposal, and there is essentially only one usable global reprocessing service provider available to many operators. This is grossly inefficient and becomes even more so as the industry aims to soar past 1000 GW.
Creating functional markets on the back end will help to solve problems. This is evidenced by the emergence of private specialists taking over US decommissioning. The industry needs to extend this approach to cover the management and disposal of high-level wastes too.
There are undoubtedly many more improvements that nuclear companies can make. Now is unquestionably the time to start making them. The nuclear industry is needed. It needs to get into shape.