Nuclear Power


newest atomic reactor – caused ‘brown outs’ (managed power cuts) to hundreds of thousands of people. Tis brought into sharp relief the problems caused by the lack of investment in infrastructure over the preceding 20 years, and did little to dampen the government’s new-found ardour for the atom – plans were announced for a new generation of eight plants in July of the same year. Ten, in September, the state sold its controlling stake in British Energy (operator of most of the UK’s existing


“Nuclear has a central role to play as a ‘necessary evil’ wihin a low carbon future energy mix. We should plan for a third generation of nuclear fission reactors, but make them our last.”


David Hunter, Energy Analyst, McKinnon & Clarke.


nuclear build) to EDF, the French state-owned utility, for £12.4billion. Te government expects EDF and Areva, its French industrial partner, to deliver 4 of the 10 (now) planned stations. In 2010, it is clear that nuclear is right at the


heart of the UK energy agenda, and we are moving mountains in order to clear the path for new build. Te National Policy Statement of 2009, for example, incorporates radical legislation to reduce the planning lead time to as short as one year – the government appreciates that it simply does not have the luxury of time. Sites for the new planned stations have been identified, and energy companies have been falling over themselves to buy up land. Tere are two questions – should we build nuclear,


and can we do so in time? Te answers are linked, and complicated. Nuclear ticks many boxes: it is low carbon, provides reliable baseload power, and boasts stable sources of supply. Carbon targets and energy independence means that a future built mainly around conventional fossil fuels is untenable. In many commentators’ minds, cleaner fossil fuels would provide the ‘sandwich filling’ between worthy but unpredictable renewables, and controversial yet reliable atomic power.Nuclear’s detractors would argue that the emissions and social cost of atomic energy is measured in hundreds of thousands of years, and the lack of a permanent solution for waste storage is undeniably the biggest argument against a new generation of reactors. Te other aspect is cost – nuclear has never been built on time, on budget – and never without public subsidy. In this last respect, atomic and renewable energy have more in common than one might expect. Te global community wants cleaner energy and a halt to global warming. Yet no government can afford to let the lights go out, and that is what may be at stake. Tat is why, while there are around 450 nuclear power stations currently operating globally, plans now exist for a doubling of this total. China alone plans 130 reactors to add to the 11 currently generating; South Africa has two but plans a further 30. And as recently as February, President Obama announced his support for new build in the United States, with the prospect of Federal loan guarantees.


Nuclear is coming, so can it be delivered in time to fill the UK’s impending energy gap? With the first shortages predicted by 2015, it is already inevitable that this demand must be filled by a ‘dash for gas’, as touched upon earlier. Te first new nuclear plant is slated for commissioning by the end of 2017, according to EDF Energy. Tis 7 year timescale from the drawing board to active service is highly ambitious, and unrealistic according to experts such as Dieter Helm, Professor of Energy Policy at Oxford University, who believes that we will be lucky to see new plants by 2020. Deloitte estimate that 50GW of new or refurbished generation will be required by then – roughly two thirds of current capacity; the decisions that the government is making now to fast-track nuclear power should have been made a decade ago. Te example of Finland is instructive. Te


Olkiluoto project could be described as the rebirth of new European nuclear power – if so the labour is proving to be exceptionally painful. Originally due to start supplying power in 2009, the latest estimate for completion is 2012 – a full 13 years from conception of the plans. Amid a series of production halts due to regulatory concerns over safety and build quality, the costs have doubled from 3 billion to 6 billion. What is more, the reactor design (by Areva) is the one favoured by EDF to build their UK reactors. Optimists argue z someone had to be first, and that all subsequent projects will learn from the mistakes in Finland. A policy package should comprise a Low Carbon


Obligation to replace the RO, a minimum ‘floor’ price for the carbon market, and an exemption from the Climate Change Levy for atomic power. In addition, the liberalised wholesale markets must be reformed, at least to include a capacity payments scheme whereby power producers are paid by the consumer for having plants available. OFGEM has gone as far as to raise the possibility of a central buying agency for power – but this is surely a step too far that would indicate total policy failure. Te market can deliver with a few ‘tweaks’ here and there, together with the right messages over investment. Last but not least, if we are to build nuclear stations


in time, we must address the skills gap, and resource the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and Health & Safety Executive sufficiently that all the cogs of the planning wheel keep turning safely – this is no easy task given the extent to which nuclear skill sets have withered on the vine. In conclusion, nuclear has a central role to play


as a ‘necessary evil’ within a low carbon future energy mix. We should plan for a third generation of nuclear fission reactors, but make them our last. Te government however needs to do a lot – and fast. Te policy impetus in the last two or three years has been impressive, but we are making up for a lost decade or more. l


David Hunter is an Energy Analyst with McKinnon & Clarke, a global independent energy consultancy headquartered in Dunfermline, Fife, UK. www.mckinnon-clarke.co.uk


www.engineerlive.com 39


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52