The case against nuclear power - does it stack up?

[elbows]

That progress review says only the following about nuclear: https://nic.org.uk/app/uploads/NIC-Infrastructure-Progress-Review-2022-FINAL.pdf

The Commission proposed taking a one by one approach to deploying nuclear power stations beyond Hinkley Point C and recommended that government should not agree support for more than one additional nuclear plant before 2025. In September 2021, the Commission advised government that the sixth Carbon Budget did not result in a change to this advice. Other technologies can deliver an electricity system consistent with meeting the sixth Carbon Budget and these technologies are less risky than delivering more than one new nuclear plant by 2035.35 The timelines for deploying additional plants mean nuclear cannot play a short term role in reducing reliance on natural gas.

The government is also making progress in bringing one new large scale nuclear project, beyond Hinkley Point C, to Final Investment Decision by the end of this Parliament, subject to it being good value for money and securing all relevant approvals. A decision was made in 2021 that new nuclear projects would be funded using a regulated asset base.

I think I am done for now in exploring these themes. It certainly seems evident that I dont need to rely at all on 'the anti-nuclear brigade' in order to reach the same sort of opinions about appropriate scope and scale of UK nuclear projects as I already had when I started. The government are doing the bare minimum to keep nuclear alive, and future aspirations such as 24GW of nuclear by 2050 are based on a phase of research and development and alternative nuclear options that simply isnt ripe yet. In the years ahead we will get to see how these progress, how many more delays afflict current nuclear projects, and the extent to which non-nuclear alternatives for providing electricity supply flexibility (and compensating for the variability of wind etc) manage to take off. All I might learn in this parliament is whether Sizewell C goes ahead, what life extensions the remaining 2nd gen nuclear fleet get, and what the select committee conclude about the wider picture. And perhaps then a few more projects will get the go ahead next parliament.

 

[elbows]

Oh and I do note the essay that the NIC chair gave to the Telegraph some months ago. Its clear where the emphasis is, with nuclear almost relegated to a footnote and more often to be used to contrast the previous maximum capacity of our nuclear fleet with the scale of ambition for wind and solar:

Armitt: Exit strategy from fossil fuels will boost energy security and lower household costs - NIC

In an extended essay published in the Daily Telegraph on 29 September 2022, Chair of the National Infrastructure Commission, Sir John Armitt, explores the importance of accelerating the development of renewable energy sources, cutting energy waste and boosting the take-up of low carbon heating...

nic.org.uk

Part of the answer – as the government has noted in its recent announcements – is to embrace the homegrown solution of cleaner sources of energy that won’t deplete over time, in the form of renewables like wind and solar power supported by nuclear as necessary.

Government’s existing ambitions reflect this, setting targets including 50GW of power from offshore wind within the next decade, and a five fold increase of solar to around 70GW by 2035. (By comparison, at its historic peak in 1995, nuclear energy was providing 12.7GW.)

Thats where the real ambition and excitement is to be found, not in nuclear. eg:

Crucially, renewables operators are ready to move. Developers are confident that onshore wind turbines, for instance, could be operational within a year of approval in the right policy and planning environment.

In the context of the new ambition for the UK to be a net exporter of energy by 2040, our geography means that offshore wind in particular could represent a sizeable economic opportunity to sell electricity across the channel or beyond.

There is also a lot of talk about reducing waste and energy efficiency. A subject that is where much of the action in the decades ahead is actually to be found. I shall certainly attempt to turn much of my time to these aspects in future, even though it 'isnt sexy', and spend less time refuting the priorities of the desperate proponents of nuclear solutions. You've had decades and decades to make a positive nuclear case and in most instances the whole nuclear business has been a dismal pain in the arse and a story of failure and timescales we dont have the luxury of banking on, rather than a decent foundation for a safe and secure future. The energy transition is too vital and urgent to put many eggs in the nuclear basket. And even if things somehow went better in future, the entire nuclear project is only ever one major nuclear accident away from a setback of epic proportions.

 

[elbows]

This weeks select committee was a tale of two halves, with the first half being mostly about what people at companies in the industry want to see, and the second half being about skills and the workforce. Video at Parliamentlive.tv but I will make a post with links to transcripts eventually.

Plenty of the stuff from the companies ended up being glorified sales pitches. They love to mention the 24GW by 2050 number, although some of them used it in an especially crude and silly manner. For example someone from Hitachi Nuclear was touting their small modular reactors and so decided to wank on about how we need to build 80 reactors to hit the 24GW target. Just because their own SMR is about 300MW so youd need 80 of them to deliver 24GW, never mind the fact that we already have one 3GW plant under construction and at least one more planned, and that nobody in the real world is expecting all of the 24GW target to be achieved via SMRs on their own.

Our regulatory and approval system was discussed plenty, and unsurprisingly the people from nuclear companies were going on about how they'd like to see greater international harmonisation and stuff like approval in one country enabling fast tracked approval elsewhere.

There was a nice contrast between their vision and what the guy from the National Infrastructure Commission kept saying. The companies want a long pipeline of projects to be backed far in advance, NIC wants government to approve just enough to keep the industry alive, to keep our nuclear options open for longer, playing for time to see whether the hype about costs coming down and new types of reactors can actually become more demonstrably true many years down the road, or whether the alternatives to nuclear will end up making more sense by then. The guy from the Nuclear Industry Association hates the NIC stance and kept wanking on about Abu Dhabi and moaning about 'non-fact economic judgements' that piss on his parade, the NIC guy kept pointing out that actually their analysis was based on the economic realities of hundreds of projects from all over the world.

To be continued.

 

[elbows]

Unlike the previous committee evidence session where people were skeptical of Great British Nuclear, what it was supposed to be and what it was supposed to achieve, the nuclear company people at this session seemed rather keen. Mostly because it sounds like the government has recently solicited their views about what GBN should be, and these companies are hoping they are listened to and that GBN helps deliver a long pipeline of projects they can bank on. We will probably need to wait for government to come out with more info about what details they've settled on for GBN before getting deeper into that.

The new funding method of Regulated Asset Base was discussed by the NIC bloke quite a bit. He said that the treasury had a long memory of the costs they ended up with on their books from previous generations of nuclear build, and also that the treasury orthodoxy is traditionally not fond of using RAB for these sorts of projects, but broader government decisions on this probably overrode the treasury. He bluntly stated that RAB has been chosen because no private company is willing to take on the financial risk of building new nuclear plants, due to the history of cost overruns. Makes it clear that government, tax payers and consumers now carry this risk burden under the RAB arrangement. Says the median cost overrun is 40% for past nuclear projects, a number derived from looking at hundreds of past projects.

The NIC bloke was also keen to point out that nuclear doesnt solve some of the biggest challenges in terms of the grid and future flexibility. He mentioned Frances current issues with their nuclear fleet. He went on about how nuclear gives a pretty constant output so it doesnt remove the need for a lot of focus and funding being required to bring flexibility to the system via storage, fancier grid, hydrogen. One MP on the committee was pushing for a bigger set of future nuclear project commitments and the NIC guy pointed out that Sizewell is a commitment that runs well into the 2030s which is already a long time for a government commitment. But he is also clear that if we didnt commit to anything at all beyond Hinkley C, we'd effectively be taking future nuclear options off the table because the industry, supply chain skills etc would dwindle away, and its not a good idea to kill off future nuclear possibilities at this stage. But he thinks the value for money case could change in future and so shouldnt commit to a large number of projects that wont come online till the 2040s, because all sorts of factors will change later. Gives an example of how when the economic case for Hinkley C was decided, the cheapest offshore wind was priced into calculations at £80/MWh, and since then its fallen to £37/MWh.

 

[Elpenor]

For example someone from Hitachi Nuclear was touting their small modular reactors and so decided to wank on about how we need to build 80 reactors to hit the 24GW target. Just because their own SMR is about 300MW so youd need 80 of them to deliver 24GW, never mind the fact that we already have one 3GW plant under construction and at least one more planned, and that nobody in the real world is expecting all of the 24GW target to be achieved via SMRs on their own.

Probably Duncan Hawthorne… Scottish I think but recruited from Canada and paid a LOT of money by hitachi / Horizon to ultimately deliver nothing (used to do their payroll!).

 

[elbows]

I looked it up and it was Michelle Catts, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Programs, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy.

 

[elbows]

The Sizewell C stuff they wanted to hear in the mini budget sounds like it got said. Contracts to be signed in the coming weeks.

 

[elbows]

But they will no doubt be crying about the 40% windfall tax on nuclear power generation profits.

 

[elbows]

It was some BBC live updates thing I was reading at the time that said 40% and I havent figured out why they said 40 rather than 45, maybe they just made a mistake or maybe there is some nuanced explanation I didnt figure out yet.

I see from the full statement that they were laying it on thick:

Since 2010, our renewable energy production grew faster than any other large country in Europe.

We need to go further, with a major acceleration of home-grown technologies like offshore wind, carbon capture and storage, and, above all, nuclear.

This will deliver new jobs, industries and export opportunities and secure the clean, affordable energy we need to power our future economy and reach Net Zero.

So I can today announce that the government will proceed with the new plant at Sizewell C.

Subject to final government approvals, the contracts for the initial investment will be signed with relevant parties, including EDF, in the coming weeks.

This will create 10,000 highly skilled jobs and provide reliable, low-carbon, power to the equivalent of 6 million homes for over 50 years.

Our £700 million investment is the first state backing for a nuclear project in over 30 years and represents the biggest step in our journey to energy independence.

(from The Autumn Statement 2022 speech which then goes on to say that energy efficiency is just as important).

I think 'above all' and 'the biggest step' are overblown language, and as discussed previous the Sizewell commitment is actually the bare minimum they needed to do to ensure that it will still be possible to add other nuclear possibilities to the picture in future, if those later nuclear options are ever deemed to be the best value for money or otherwise necessary.

 

[elbows]

The announcement didnt impress Prospect very much:

Sue Ferns, from the engineering union Prospect, welcomed the chancellor's statement but said "merely restating previous announcements is not enough".

"When are we going to get confirmation of the government investment decision?" she said.

"Potential investors are seeking assurances now and without their commitment, dependent on a firm decision from the government, the project risks being holed below the waterline."

Autumn Statement: Government to push ahead with plans for Sizewell C

Chancellor Jeremy Hunt renews a commitment to build the £20bn nuclear plant on the Suffolk coast.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[elbows]

Progress withthe Energy Bill means today offers another opportunity to confirm the Sizewell C committment. Great British Nuclear gets another mention and a promise of funding, but not much else for me to say about that until more detail emerges.

The government’s historic £700 million stake in Sizewell C is positioned at the heart of the new blueprint to Britain’s energy sovereignty, as plans to develop the new plant are approved today. This is expected to create 10,000 highly skilled jobs and provide reliable, low-carbon, power to the equivalent of 6 million homes for over 50 years.

Today’s approval comes alongside the government’s continued commitment to develop a pipeline of new nuclear projects, beyond Sizewell C. To support this, the UK is working at pace to set up Great British Nuclear, the vehicle tasked with developing a resilient pipeline of new nuclear builds, with an announcement expected early in the new year.

For Britain to achieve energy security, a pipeline of new nuclear is needed, alongside one large-scale project. Today the government is confirming its commitment to set up Great British Nuclear, an Arms’ Length Body (ALB) which will develop a resilient pipeline of new builds, beyond Sizewell C. With support from industry and our expert adviser Simon Bowen, this vehicle will help through every stage of the development process while ensuring these projects offer clear value for money for taxpayers and consumers. The UK government can confirm today that it will back Great British Nuclear with funding to enable the delivery of clean, safe electricity over the decades to come, protecting future generations from the high price of global fossil fuel markets, with an announcement expected in the new year.

Also in regards Sizewell C:

The investment also allows for China General Nuclear’s (CGN) exit from the project, including buy-out costs, any tax due and commercial arrangements.

UK government takes major steps forward to secure Britain's energy independence

The Business and Energy Secretary announces further measures to help secure the UK’s energy independence.

www.gov.uk

 

[elbows]

I havent gotten round to writing up what was said about skills at a previous select committee meeting. But for now this article about Frances recruitment struggles ends up covering some of the key themes:

Welders wanted: France steps up recruitment drive as nuclear crisis deepens

French power giant EDF is looking to recruit a new generation of welders, pipe-fitters and boiler makers to fix its ageing nuclear reactors and build more of them, as Europe's energy crisis rekindles the allure of atomic power.

www.reuters.com

I've still got a subsequent select committee meeting to write up too. I watched it and wrote notes, but not sure when I will get round to summarising it here.

 

[elbows]

Its been a bit of a mixed bag since I last posted on this subject.

Great British Nuclear was confirmed, its been setup within BNFL but its mission for the first year seems to be running a competition for which SMR (small modular reactor) designs get taken forwards in the UK initially.

Some deal between the UK and USA includes nuclear technologies.

Government references to the 24GW of nuclear by 2050 commitment seem to be have the phrase 'up to' tacked on to the front of it these days, so that isnt offering quite the level of certainty the industry wanted. And it will probably be years before there is any useful sense of what proportions large reactors, small modular reactors and more advanced, futuristic designs will make up that sort of capacity.

See pages 31-33 of the late March 2023 'Powering up Britain - Energy Security Plan' paper for some sense of what they are saying about this stuff at the moment:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1148252/powering-up-britain-energy-security-plan.pdf

 

[bcuster]

https://www.iaea.org/topics/nuclear-power-and-climate-change.

 

[8ball]

https://www.iaea.org/topics/nuclear-power-and-climate-change.

That’s cleared that up.

 

[yield]

Revealed: Sellafield nuclear site has leak that could pose risk to public
Guardian. Tue 5 Dec 2023

Safety concerns at Europe’s most hazardous plant have caused diplomatic tensions with US, Norway and Ireland
Sellafield, Europe’s most hazardous nuclear site, has a worsening leak from a huge silo of radioactive waste that could pose a risk to the public, the Guardian can reveal.

Concerns over safety at the crumbling building, as well as cracks in a reservoir of toxic sludge known as B30, have caused diplomatic tensions with countries including the US, Norway and Ireland, which fear Sellafield has failed to get a grip of the problems.

The leak of radioactive liquid from one of the “highest nuclear hazards in the UK” – a decaying building at the vast Cumbrian site known as the Magnox swarf storage Silo (MSSS) – is likely to continue to 2050. That could have “potentially significant consequences” if it gathers pace, risking contaminating groundwater, according to an official document.

Cracks have also developed in the concrete and asphalt skin covering the huge pond containing decades of nuclear sludge, part of a catalogue of safety problems at the site.

Sellafield nuclear site hacked by groups linked to Russia and China
Guardian. Mon 4 Dec 2023

It is still not known if the malware has been eradicated. It may mean some of Sellafield’s most sensitive activities, such as moving radioactive waste, monitoring for leaks of dangerous material and checking for fires, have been compromised.

Sources suggest it is likely foreign hackers have accessed the highest echelons of confidential material at the site, which sprawls across 6 sq km (2 sq miles) on the Cumbrian coast and is one of the most hazardous in the world.

 

[DotCommunist]

10 yr delay announced for the ITER reactor. Sigh. Apparently the silver linig is that advancements in containment tech mean that the commercial alternatives currently being pursued might beat them too it, and with smaller reactors. New Scientist here:

https://archive.ph/qwAoT

 

[MikeMcc]

More pumped storage is a must, and sooner rather than later. Its true value will only be realised once it's powered solely by renewable, but it's absolutely essential if we're aiming for net zero.

It is not really a viable alternative any more. We don't have much of the type of territory required to do that that isn't designated as National Park, SSNI, etc. It was a good thing for Norway, but it is difficult to do here, we only have four pumped storage schemes in the UK and they are technically complex stations, expensive stations, though they have paid their way by being very responsive stations - Cruachan can go from spinning reserve to full power in three minutes. Spinning reserve means that they have motors attached to the shaft to spin the shafts up before they deliver the water

 

[elbows]

Great British Nuclears public messages on twitter etc fell off a cliff after the general election. But when I digged deeper there has still been some news, relating to their small modular reactor competition.

Previously this competition had shortlisted 6 companies/reactor designs. They then invited initial tenders, and received 5 submissions (EDF pulled out at this stage). The more recent news, from September, is that they have now picked 4 to go forwards with (NuScale have been eliminated from this competition):

GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy International LLC
Holtec Britain Ltd
Rolls Royce SMR Ltd
Westinghouse Electric Company UK Ltd

The next phase is for these companies to enter negotiations.

I'll recap and put this into the broader UK context next time I have some spare minutes. Though at this stage it is much too early to say whether the new government plan to make any notable changes to the previous governments nuclear plans, and I havent been looking for any clues about this in the press.