Share
Jon Excell
Editor
The Engineer
Centrica exit fuels nuclear uncertainty
The UK’s nuclear future is, we are constantly assured, at the heart of government plans for ensuring our future energy supply.
And yet, as we approach the point at which our new build schemes should really start gathering steam the doubts and uncertainties are piling up with worrying regularity.
Who will build the UK’s new reactors? What will they build? And what will we do with the waste they produce? Increasingly, it seems that the answer to all three of these questions is that we’re not entirely sure.
The latest setback is Monday’s news that Centrica, the last UK firm with a stake in building the next generation of power stations, has pulled out of EDF’s plans to build four new reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset and Sizewell in Suffolk.
The decision is being viewed as a kick in the teeth for the government, which hoped its energy bill would encourage firms to invest in the UK’s nuclear future.
Centrica’s move echoes RWE and E.ON’s decision, last March, to pull out of the Horizon project (now rescued by Japan’s Hitachi) which plans to build new reactors at Wylfa in Wales and Oldbury in Gloucestershire.
The last thing you want with nuclear power - particularly given the increased public mistrusts since Fukushima, is uncertainty, and yet that’s exactly what we’ve got. Indeed, following last week’s Cumbrian veto on plans to build a geological dump in the county, we’re now not even sure what we’re going to do with our next generation nuclear waste.
Whoever does build the UK’s next generation of reactors we can be fairly confident that it won’t be a UK firm, and this is really a damning indictment of successive generations of politicians and business leaders. After all, we haven’t suddenly decided that nuclear energy seems like a good idea. Indeed, the UK pioneered nuclear power back in the 1950s and we’re not short of skills and know-how in the sector.
It would be wrong to imply, as some commentators have, that the UK’s plans are in tatters. Despite some speculation to the contrary, EDF still appears to be committed to its new-build plans and - following Centrica’s exit - is reportedly now in talks with China’s Guangdong Nuclear Power. Meanwhile, Hitachi’s decision to buy Horizon nuclear power has been hailed by the government as evidence that there is an appetite for investing in the UK.
What’s more, while our power stations might not be built by UK firms, their construction will still create significant opportunities throughout the UK supply chain. It’s just a shame that we’re so reliant on overseas manufacturers to get the things built in the first place.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (16)
Edwin | 6 Feb 2013 1:13 pm
The incident reminds me of C P Snow's The Corridor of Power, all political intrigue and at that time about atomic weapons.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alan Hetherington | 6 Feb 2013 1:48 pm
Prism reactors seem to have the future. I hope Centrica have a strategy to be incuded in nuclear technology. Otherwise they are erasing themselves as a serious leader in energy.
Maybe they do not have eminently qualified leadership.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Cynical Cyril | 6 Feb 2013 2:31 pm
It would appear that the Energy Companies are quite happy to take the profits from the UK's previous investments but not prepared to re-invest some of those profits into securing the future supplies of this country.
It would appear that the selling off of our utility assets was a major mistake.
Is it possible that the British taxpayer will now be expected to stump up for the necessary investment and then once again have the profits creamed off by some parasitic private company?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JohnK | 6 Feb 2013 2:46 pm
Once again events highlight the imperative need for a politically independant Technology panel who would have the power to implement such projects without governmental interference.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Stephen Bunch | 6 Feb 2013 3:55 pm
@ Cynical Cyril.
Spot on...and who initiated selling off UK Utilities ?
The way we are heading is for ''lights out GB'' which of course will snooker the Electric Car lobby and raise costs by importing more power.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tony Essex | 6 Feb 2013 4:08 pm
I forget which politician claimed that electricity generated via nuclear power, "would be too cheap to meter", but he obviously didn't understand the complexity of the industry. Unless the government becomes 'lender of last resort' to any serious consortium then we're doomed I'm afraid...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Phil | 6 Feb 2013 4:26 pm
To Tony Essex, It was Tony Benn, but I am sure he was sold that line by "experts" in the power industry.
Nuclear power is the most expensive way of generating electricity on the planet. It can hardly be called carbon free, because the carbon footprint of building a nuclear power station is huge. We should forget nuclear till we have got fusion (if we ever do get it) and fill the gap with gas and renewables, including offshore and onshore wind, and barrages. the nimbys need to get it that wind is quick to construct, and easy to dismantle, and leaves no pollution. nuclear only provides 23% of the UK power anyway.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tim the plumber | 6 Feb 2013 4:50 pm
I know it's a bit of a simple solution but how about instead of building nuclear power stations we build a long power line to Iceland and use Geothermal. It would cost billions and lose half it's energy over the distance. So what? That's still better than nuclear.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bryan Leyland | 6 Feb 2013 7:48 pm
For several reasons, the storage of waste nuclear fuel is not a serious problem.
I have stood in the hall at Sellafield where 70% of the UK high level nuclear waste is stored. It had room for plenty more. The radiation levels were normal.
The radiation levels alongside the canisters themselves would have killed me in two minutes. This is an added safety factor against terrorism because it means that anyone who tries to steal a canister will not survive. The equipment needed to handle them is enormous, heavy and not easily transported.
The second reason is that as the United Nations Committee on the Effects of Nuclear Radiation have announced, levels of radiation of 200 to 1000 times the regulated limit are quite safe. If the public, the politicians and the regulators accepted this, the illogical fear of nuclear power would be much mitigated.
No one should forget that hydropower, which everyone regards as very safe, has killed thousands more people than nuclear power. The safety standards in the hydropower industry are abysmal. Yet nobody seems to care.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Magnus | 6 Feb 2013 7:52 pm
Maybe this hesitation on the part of investors is no bad thing.
Previous reactors were built as a political statement, subsidized and underwritten by the government, with little thought to the future costs of waste-disposal.
If nuclear is to pay its way on a level playing field then there will surely need to be careful consideration. The recent doubts may just reflect one of the following:
1) The life-cycle costs and liabilities have not been sufficiently analysed, therefore the business model is incomplete.
2) The life-cycle costs have been analysed and judged to be uncompetitive with other generation technologies, therefore the investment is unsound.
Either of these reasons would be justification not to proceed at this time. What we don't need is more ideology-driven nuclear without sound analysis of the full life-cycle economics.
Further, requiring a strict business case should drive innovation to address the shortcomings and ensure that we get the best deal on any future nuclear.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment