The recent spike in net-zero commitments by companies and countries has brought with it the realisation that massive amounts of decarbonised hydrogen will be needed in the future to slash emissions in hard-to-abate industries. In the UK and US, this has led proponents of the nuclear industry to present it as a potential source of power for the electrolysers to produce what is often referred to as pink hydrogen.

In mid-February, the UK’s Nuclear Industry Council (NIC) released a roadmap report suggesting that as much as a third of UK hydrogen could be produced using nuclear power—both large-scale and small modular reactors (SMR)—by 2050.

Last summer, the US Department of Energy made a case, backed by funding for several projects, for the struggling American nuclear industry to produce hydrogen as a way to boost revenue and to keep additional uneconomic reactors—ones not meeting operating costs given competition from low-cost gas and renewables—from being forced into early retirement.

Since there is a great deal of scepticism about nuclear power’s future role in decarbonised hydrogen production, Hydrogen Economist interviewed Benjamin Sovacool, professor of energy policy at the University of Sussex Business School, to find out why. Sovacool is a lead author for the United Nation’s IPCC on climate change mitigation between now and 2050.

The recent NIC roadmap report suggests as much as a third of UK hydrogen could be produced with nuclear power by 2050. Is this a viable option?

Sovacool: In the near term, no. Nuclear is not currently competitive for electricity or energy especially when compared to low-cost options such as natural gas—especially shale gas—wind, solar or hydropower. And we do not expect small modular reactors or advanced hydrogen-nuclear systems to start to play a major role in energy supply, if at all, until at least the 2030s or 2040s.

And then you have the legacy nuclear power plants have—of all shapes and sizes, including smaller more modular ones—with cost overruns and delays. The current experience with European EPR reactors and Hinkley C in the UK underscores this point. Nuclear always takes longer to build and is more costly than you expect.

In the US, the Department of Energy is looking at the production of hydrogen as a way to boost revenue of the country’s nuclear power industry, by receiving higher prices at traditionally off-peak times, to keep additional uneconomic reactors from being forced into early retirement. Is this plausible?

Sovacool: This is more plausible, and the older plants do have the advantage of having already paid off many of their carbon costs and financial debt, so they can generate baseload electricity very cheaply. However, with older plants, you have two other issues—the greater risk of safety concerns, especially for Generation II plants or those that have been operating well, well beyond their planned lifetimes.

“It would be irresponsible to continue generating massive amounts of nuclear power until this pernicious waste problem is resolved” Sovacool

And then there is nuclear waste storage to consider. Almost all commercial reactor sites in the US have reached their waste storage capacity and there is no centralised or permanent storage facility in sight, with Obama cancelling Yucca Mountain. To me it would be irresponsible to continue generating massive amounts of nuclear power until this pernicious waste problem is resolved.

Is the construction of new nuclear power plants economic in any country or region without government financial support?

Sovacool: The entire nuclear sector is dependent on huge subsidies to function. It simply would not work in markets without government support. This is not only in large subsidies for construction or loan guarantees. It is also critical subsidies such as limited liability for accidents, government support for waste management, and sometimes support for fuel processing and decommissioning. Including all of these costs would almost always prices nuclear out of any competitive market.

---

Author: Vincent Lauerman