UK NUCLEAR BREAKTHROUGH | NEW BUILD


The CCC says nuclear is “relatively expensive on a levelised cost basis and has a relatively inflexible supply profile,” but notes it could have a role in hydrogen production (which in turn can support system flexibility) and the provision of other system services. It says, “given the relative inflexibility of variable renewables and nuclear generation, these will need to be complemented by various forms of flexibility, in order to manage the electricity system over the necessary timescales.” The Chancellor was more encouraging, saying nuclear was “another critical source of cheap and reliable energy”, for when “the wind doesn’t always blow and the sun doesn’t always shine”. As expected, he said that “nuclear power will be classed as ‘environmentally sustainable’ in our green taxonomy, giving it access to the same investment incentives as renewable energy”. That measure is intended to encourage private sector investment into a UK nuclear programme but the designation remains subject to consultation.


Action needed this year The CCC’s recommendations included two to be delivered before the end of 2023. Both were framing documents for the energy system as a whole: to set out “the government’s vision for what a well-adapted and climate-resilient energy system will look like”; and to “Create a Minister-led infrastructure delivery group, advised by the new Electricity Networks Commissioner, to ensure enabling initiatives for energy infrastructure build are taken forward at pace, and necessary policy changes are implemented across the UK, to deliver a decarbonised and resilient power system by 2035.” Others had more specific items on the nuclear agenda


for the year. Tom Greatrex, Chief Executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, highlighted that: “we urgently need planning reform to get critical infrastructure like new nuclear built more quickly. Sizewell C has taken 50% longer to consent than Hinkley, with thousands more pages of supporting documentation required, even though it’s a replica project. That’s unacceptable.” The time taken is only part of the problem. Under the


current framework there is a list of potential nuclear sites – although the original site selection was open, they all are sites that already have nuclear infrastructure. Other sites require special consent from the Secretary of State – a procedural barrier if small modular reactors (SMRs) are to be used in locations such as former coal-fired stations. The government is addressing the planning and development consent issue with a review of the existing major infrastructure projects regime (which would be used for Sizewell C and other GW-scale units) and a review of the general energy planning framework. Although the aim is to smooth the deployment of new plants, uncertainty during the process has a chilling effect on developers. Equally fundamental, setting up of the UK’s new nuclear delivery body, Great British Nuclear (GBN), has been hit by the multiple changes at the top of government. The new body was announced last year by then-Prime


Minister Boris Johnson. Simon Bowen, who is advising on setting up the body, told MPs that a team of civil servants and advisors were tasked in May with a 100-day ‘sprint’ to produce a report for Johnson. However, Johnson had resigned as prime minister when the report was handed in. “It then went in to the Truss government, and subsequently, Prime Minister Sunak and Chancellor Hunt are now involved


in the decision making. We have continued to develop what GBN could look like, and to advise government on what it could look like, but it is a decision for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to make.” He cited strategic choices that had to be made by the


government. GBN has to set up a programme of new-build, but it has to hear from government whether it is committing to large gigawatt-scale units, SMRs or both, make funding available and commit to taking a major role: “This is a major infrastructure programme and government do need to take a leading role, so the decision needs to be made and it needs to be made quickly.” Bowen said his team was in discussions with both the new energy department and HM Treasury but the current fiscal environment had also meant discussion had been “difficult and protracted”. But he stressed, “there is no point in setting up an organisation just so that the organisation can work out how it is going to operate, because that does not deliver any outcomes”. His comments gave some indications on thinking about GBN. He said the report had recommended that “in line with international practice in the nuclear space, government have to take a leading role and have to provide funding to support the development of projects, and government have to take some of the risk.” He said: “We cannot expect developers to take the risk on doing all the characterisation work in a site like Wylfa if there is no certainty they are going to get a project at the end of it.” Asked how much funding is needed, he said “it depends


on government policy with regard to gigawatt [scale plant] and SMRs, but it is measured in a few hundred million... critically, to be able to fund development and to support the projects.” He said government funding could be of the order of “a


few hundred million” in early funding: as to the total, he said “is it going to be measured in billions across a whole programme? Yes, it will, because it is a major programme, and these projects are very expensive projects”. He said it is very expensive to bring in private investment while there is uncertainty and “the private sector will not invest unless it sees that government are committed to the programme and that they are also prepared to invest in their infrastructure.” Bowen also noted that for many of the potential


technologies there is no developer with capability, so “we need the capability to initially form a development company within GBN”. The question of whether GBN would eventually be an operator or a utility could not be answered “until we attract other people into the market.” Bowen said that the organisation could be largely in


place this year if it got the government go-ahead. If the government can deliver that and the draft for a new planning framework this year it could allow for the final investment decision on Sizewell C it seeks in this parliament – and a significant step towards a nuclear fleet to follow Hinkley Point C. It is not clear that the spring budget moved the dial very


far on that ambition. The Chancellor said “I am announcing the launch of Great British Nuclear, which will bring down costs and provide opportunities across the nuclear supply chain” but did not make commitments on any funding level, or on a timetable. On SMRs Hunt did have a timetable: he launched a competition for SMRs to be completed by the end of this year. If that demonstrates that SMRs are viable, he said, “we will co-fund this exciting new technology”. ■


www.neimagazine.com | April 2023 | 35


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