Putin’s invasion of Ukraine has upended all kinds of certainties, created new possibilities, and closed off old ones. We can certainly see this in relation to nuclear power. Here are a few developments related to the war
Russia’s capture of the Chernobyl plant, and the associated fire, have raised new concerns about nuclear safety
Belgium has announced that its planned closure of a nuclear plant will be deferred, possibly until 2035, in order to reduce reliance on Russian oil and gas. There have been hints that Germany might do something similar
Finland has cancelled its proposed Fennovoima nuclear plant which was to be built using Rosatom’s VVER technology. Coincidentally, a few days ago, the Olkiluoto EPR plant was connected to the grid, twelve years late and way over budget
My guess is that the need to wean Europe off Russian gas over the next few years will outweigh enhanced concerns about safety.
On the other hand, the implications for new nuclear power are unambiguously bad. Projects started now can’t come in time to help with the transition from Russian gas, and the safety concerns will add to cost
Looking ahead, no one will want to deal with Rosatom any time soon, and Chinese proposals are also coming under more scrutiny. The cost over-runs on EPR plants create huge difficulties there also. These come together in Hinkley C (EPR) where hte UK government is trying to push China’s CGN out of the project, but having trouble attracting private finance to replace it.
The great remaining hope is Small Modular Reactors, most notably those proposed by Nuscale. But this hope has been around for a long time, with the arrival date always about 8 years in the future.
Thank you John, always appreciate your posts, especially all things nuclear.
Respectfully, the only comment I would make is the use of loaded words, apropos of the Ukrainian crisis, such as "Putin’s invasion of Ukraine....". Firstly, it's not literally Putin and the inference plays into the US-shaped narrative of 'evil Putin' the bogeyman. Secondly, "invasion".....again it plays into the US narrative of 'evil Russia'....it immediately raises the spectre of what exactly constitutes an invasion? There's the UN charter and Geneva conventions etc...then there's the West's euphanisms the illegal Serbian invasion couched as 'humanitarian intervnetion', or the IraqI/II invasions couched as 'just wars' or 'regime change' to rid the world of evil Sadam or Libya's Gaddafi.
Or you could use the actual terms by Russia, the alleged invader, which are "special military operation'...on invitation by the two Donbass Republics etc. Similarly, with the word "annexation" of Crimea (that held a referendum with 97% approval to rejoin Russia).
In this unprecedented period of global US-narrative with accompanying censur of all things Russian, I respectfully suggest "military offensive" and 'reunification".
I know that this marks me immediately as a Russki lover...
my two bobs worth, cheers