Participation in Nuclear Power Subcommittees, No.19: A Full Set of Business as Usual
By Matsukubo Hajime
The 12th meeting of the Innovative Reactor Working Group (WG) was held on February 26. The theme of the meeting was the status of fusion reactor development and the development roadmap for innovative reactors. At the start of the meeting, the Cabinet Office, which oversees fusion reactor research, shared the status of the research, and the secretariat explained the roadmap. It is noteworthy that the start of operation of the innovative light water reactor was changed from the late 2030s to sometime after 2040, and that of the high temperature gas-cooled reactor from around the mid-2030s to the late 2030s.
I made the following remarks.
(1) In the meeting materials, the policy of “pushing forward on everything” existed alongside the reality of “a shortage of human resources and supply chains.” My position is that Japan should withdraw from nuclear power, but if we are serious about furthering this discussion, we need to make strategic decisions about how to allocate limited resources. This is not clear from the materials. From the viewpoint of human resources and industrial infrastructure, it would be almost impossible to proceed with the development of all types of nuclear reactors simultaneously in the 2030s. There is the argument that the cost of nuclear power plants will fall, but this is based on the idea that the experience of building more than one of the same type of reactor will result in cost reductions of 20 to 30%. Since costs increased every year even during the era when a large number of nuclear power plants were being built in Japan, this is a doubtful claim. But even if the argument were true, it is unreasonable to attempt the simultaneous development of several completely different types of reactors.
(2) It was stated in the materials that one of the characteristics of fast reactors is that the utilization rate of uranium is 100%, while that of light-water reactors is 1%, but this is quite unrealistic. It may be that this degree of utilization can be attained if fuel mixed with minor actinides is used, but the cost will be extremely high. Nuclear power is said to be cost-competitive when high construction costs are levelled out through low fuel costs, and long-term operation. In recent years, competitiveness has been severely compromised due to extremely high construction costs. Increasing fuel costs would therefore destroy any competitiveness. This kind of exaggerated statement should not appear in the meeting materials.
(3) Regarding the high temperature gas-cooled reactor, the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency hydrogen cost trial calculation is quoted, but this estimation has extremely limited application due to its assumption of a low CAPEX. It should be clearly stated that this material requires deletion or the attachment of a considerable number of qualifications. The high temperature gas-cooled reactor fuel is also very different from conventional light-water reactors. It should be clearly stated that this is seriously contradictory to the policy of reprocessing all spent fuel.
(4) The viewpoint of balancing the size of the budget allocated to fast reactors, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, and fusion reactors, etc. with the level of technological maturity and prospects for commercialization is totally lacking. Several trillion yen has already been invested, and any expenditure above this level requires some evaluation. Milestones have been set for fast reactors, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, and fusion reactors, but there are no criteria that state that the failure to meet certain conditions will result in the discontinuation of a development. This shows very clearly the defective aspect of Japan’s national R&D, where once a project is started, it cannot be stopped.
(5) Regarding nuclear fusion, as a result of nuclear energy proponents being extremely optimistic about waste during the initial stages of the development of nuclear power, the problem has still not been solved. While fusion reactors do not generate high-level radioactive waste, they generate large amounts of medium- and low-level waste. Despite this, it is a huge problem from the policy point of view that the back-end problem is hardly considered at all because it is said that high-level waste is not generated. In addition, although it is stated that “fuel is abundant in seawater,” the supply of tritium fuel is also a serious problem. CANDU reactors around the world are being progressively decommissioned, and it is being pointed out that there is a shortage of initial-stage tritium. Furthermore, there is uncertainty about the breeding of tritium during operation.
Several members also expressed the need to consider resource allocation. They also argued for regulatory predictability and improvements in the business environment. Finally, the WG discussion came to a conclusion, and the secretariat summarized the opinions.
