JEREMY GORDON | OPINION
Numerous reports have shown that the long-term operation of nuclear plants is the cheapest way available to add low-carbon electricity
generating capacity. It is as cheap as the cheapest renewable energy generation on a levelised cost basis, even without considering the potential supplementary benefits of nuclear power
and countries are battling for energy independence and the sovereignty it translates to. It is pig-headed but entirely predictable of the German
government to stick to its nuclear phase-out in the face of a global energy crisis. That is even though recent polls show about one third of German Greens actually favour keeping its last three reactors running. But they’re not the only ones getting it wrong: Complacency by the British government ultimately led to the Hinkley Point B close down, despite the potential for recovery of additional residual value by extending the operating life of the plant. Several years ago, when the electricity price was £40-50/MWh (US$47-60/ MWh), EDF Energy made plans to close the reactor in mid- July this year rather than perpetually re-analyse the safety of its graphite core and make a new safety case for every operational run. However, the electricity price is now more like £400-500/MWh (US$470-600/MWh) and it would be well worth making that effort. Despite the obvious commercial opportunity, the British government somehow missed the chance to enter a dialogue with the company. It will be technically feasible to bring the Hinkley Point B units back into operation for a while yet, so perhaps a discussion can still yield the much-needed extra power it could provide. It’s certainly clear that both EDF Energy and the government need to do a bit better for Heysham and Hartlepool, where currently four reactors are scheduled to close in 2024 across the two sites. They should start talking now because we will probably still be very much in need when that time comes. Every little counts, even for countries like the UK that don’t use that much Russian gas, because any reduction in gas usage will benefit neighbouring countries. This is a fact that the German government has been pretending not to understand. This is the purely economic case, but we must consider the climate impact of burning even cleaner fossil fuels like gas. It is great that we can make best use of these old
reactors, but don’t forget that the only reason we need them so badly is because we’re haven’t been capable of replacing them effectively. Whatever the challenges wind and solar face when trying to substitute the power and generation characteristics of an old nuclear power plant, the sad truth for the nuclear industry is that a new nuclear plant cannot usually replace an old one either. The story of the missing nuclear renaissance is that there
was demand for nuclear energy, but the industry didn’t have power plant designs suitable for most markets, the construction industry was not experienced enough, and in many countries the processes of regulation and approval for new build were out of date, onerous or close to unworkable. Market conditions for new nuclear plant building had
shifted underneath an industry that hadn’t kept up. Under those circumstances it was logical as well as natural for the nuclear industry to double down on its fundamental engineering skills and turn to long-term operations. It filled a gap left by the industry’s lack of business and political savvy.
In the intervening years many people have put in a lot of work on those new build issues and it seems as if we are approaching a welcome opportunity for substantial new build in Europe. However, we should be aware that those problems will eventually come back again if we build a wave of nuclear power plants with intergenerational lifespans. Sure, utility customers might say they like the idea of an 80- year asset life, but the customer is not always right. Don’t forget it was utility customers who told the vendors to focus entirely on light-water reactors and to make them as big as possible to achieve economies of scale. Then when the time came for new-build those same utilities didn’t have the cash on hand for that scale of investment, exacerbating all the existing challenges nuclear new-build faces, and left the vendors stranded to boot. If that can happen with design lifespans of 40 years, who knows could happen if that doubles to 80 years? Maybe the ballpark figure of 40 years was right in the
first place? Even on that timescale the industry would still need an upgrade to its business acumen so that it can forge strong relationships with investors and maintain them for decades. It will also need to boost its political smarts and communication skills to make sure it can keep nuclear energy present in the conversation and its benefits front- of-mind. It’s good, then, that the business plans for most small
and advanced reactors are predicated on both shorter production cycles and more regular replacement. Let’s keep it that way, and if the industry discovers through experience that those things can actually run for much longer, it has to carefully balance that elegance of engineering against the potential losses it could bring to long-term business momentum. To avoid falling into the traps that killed the renaissance, lets create an industry with a constant drive for competitive innovation that continually renews skills and that has the effect of always keeping the industry current, not a living fossil from decades past. I look forward to the day we don’t need licence
extensions any more. When a reactor is coming to the end of its service life, we should not feel a sense of irreplaceable loss and do everything humanly possible to eke out a few more years. Rather, we should be ready and able to embrace the excitement of leaping ever forward to something even better. ■
www.neimagazine.com | August 2022 | 15
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
