Driving forces and obstacles to nuclear cogeneration in Europe: Lessons learnt from Finland

Abstract

Highlights: Nuclear cogeneration could support a sustainable EU energy transition. A comprehensive case study of the Loviisa 3 nuclear district heating megaproject. Obstacles arise within market, institutional and financial frameworks. Distinctive stakeholders have opposed perceptions of benefits, costs and obstacles. Greater recognition of nuclear waste heat is needed in the future EU energy policy. AbstractNuclear power plants generate electricity and a large amount of waste heat which is valuable for cogeneration. District heating (DH) is a suitable technology to decarbonize the European heat sector.By contrast with most of nuclear non-electric applications, nuclear district heating (NDH) has already been implemented in Europe, thus providing us with some valuable empirical insights. This paper investigates the forces and obstacles to nuclear cogeneration by looking at the Loviisa 3 NDH project in Finland. The key forces are energy efficiency, decarbonization of the heat sector, operational competitiveness of future nuclear technologies, and synergies with renewable energies. The key obstacles are split incentives, electricity prices volatility, inexpediency of business models and regulatory frameworks, electioneering of local authorities and pessimist expectations with regards to project financing. Policy makers should recognize nuclear plants alongside other utilities generating large amounts of wasted heat. International cooperation programs involving both nuclear and heat stakeholders should be encouraged. EU28 Member States wanting to promote nuclear cogeneration may consider providing support for the electricity generated by high-efficiency plants.

Understanding barriers to energy-efficiency renovations of multifamily dwellings

“…Hirst and Brown (1990) divide these barriers into two broad categories: structural and behavioural. The classification of barriers is not unambiguous, as a single type of real-world phenomenon may be explained by several theoretically derived barriers (Weber 1997;Palm and Thollander 2010;Leurent et al 2017). The actual potential level of energy efficiency depends on which theoretical view is applied, which is why, for example, technological and economical potential might differ (Jaffe and Stavins 1994;Thollander and Palm 2013).…”

Stimulating niche nurturing process for heat production with nuclear plants in France: A multi-level perspective

“…Their activities get more diverse and more complex, which implies that their role becomes unclear and sometimes problematic [45]. While there are at least 50 commercial experiences of nuclear heat production [14,46], none is located in France, explaining why many French actors consider such systems as exploratory. Besides, it is a collective innovation in the sense that it would require close collaboration between diverse and disconnected stakeholders (e.g.…”

“…Actors that could be involved in the revolt and remember processes surrounding the development of heat production with nuclear plants in France. different, deeply rooted, perceptions of the pros and cons of energy alternatives, knowledge sharing activities can be seen as subjective, lobbyist discourses [14]. This is because legitimacy is based not on the knowledge itself but on the working conditions surrounding knowledge creation [52].…”

“…Case studies are an important tool for increasing confidence in exploratory innovations [41]. While there are at least 50 experiences of commercial heat production with nuclear plants, only a few case studies are providing feedbacks discussing social, political or psychological dimensions (see [14,58]). There is a real need to lead additional case studies, interviewing those nuclear operators, distribution system operator, factory owners, and À more importantly À local authorities, citizens, NGO which have experienced nuclear heat supply.…”

“…Leurent [13] has studied the feasibility of supplying 250°C steam to industrial sinks, currently mostly using on-site fossil-fuels boilers, and found suitable locations for cost-effective implementation. Leurent et al [14] however emphasized the importance of social, political, institutional and psychological challenges these projects can face.…”