MPs call for plan B on new generation of nuclear reactors
Share
The UK needs alternative ideas to ensure the building of a new generation of nuclear power stations in case current plans collapse, MPs have warned.
The government is negotiating with three groups aiming to build Britain’s new generation of nuclear plants but needs to stop ‘crossing its fingers’ and develop a back-up strategy in case these plans are derailed, according to a House of Commons select committee.
The huge upfront costs of building power stations, public opposition and potential problems in the supply chain still present significant barriers to the UK’s plans to build 16GW worth of nuclear generation capability, the MPs said in a report.
‘If new nuclear power stations are not built on time, our legally-binding climate change targets will be extremely challenging and much more expensive to meet,’ said Tim Yeo, chair of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, in a statement.
‘The government seems to be crossing its fingers that private companies will deliver a fleet of new nuclear power stations on time and on budget. Ministers need to urgently come up with a contingency plan in case the nuclear industry does not deliver the new power stations we need.’
The new build programme has already undergone turmoil, with UK energy company Centrica recently pulling out of a deal with French firm EDF to build four reactors, citing increasing costs and delays.
This follows the move last year by Japan’s Hitachi to take over the Horizon nuclear programme for up to six new reactors after German utilities E.On and RWE pulled out.
Two alternative approaches suggested by the Committee include setting out who would be responsible for the risk of construction overrunning projected costs, and examining the possibility of smaller reactors closer in size to modern gas-fired plants that would be cheaper to develop.
‘It is disappointing that there is still so little transparency about the on-going negotiations between the government and developers of new nuclear power stations,’ said Yeo.
‘Government needs to provide more clarity about exactly what forms of support new nuclear projects will receive and whether consumers, taxpayers or project developers will have to cough up if construction costs end up being higher than anticipated.’
The report also suggested bringing forward the timetable for supply chain involvement in the project and looking at ways to open a dialogue between the different developers to try to smooth out the order process and avoid bottlenecks.
Recommended measures to help increase public support include providing an independent advice service to help local communities better understand projects set to be built in their area and increasing their tax benefit from the schemes.
Responses to the report from government and industry focused on the current negotiations to agree a “strike price” for energy that developers will be guaranteed to receive in return for committing to build the plants.
Energy minister John Hayes said: ‘We’re focused on bringing forward this investment, but also getting the best deal for the consumer.
‘There will be transparency over the terms of any Investment Contracts, offered to developers of low carbon electricity generation, including new nuclear developers – and details will be laid before Parliament.’
Alistair Smith, chairman of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers’ Power Industries Division, called on the government to agree the strike price quickly.
‘Dithering on this issue just plays into the hands of the developers who will be in an even stronger position if the capacity margins reduce and there becomes a real threat of the lights going out.’
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (14)
Geoffrey Hunt | 5 Mar 2013 12:19 pm
Plan B.
The UK needs 16GW of new nuclear generating capacity pdq, and for the last 15 years the Government(s) have been ploughing the same field with no results – hence the need for new ideas and a new strategy.
Therefore, instead of small number of large reactors, why not build a large number of small reactors?
If you can build a big one you can always build a small one. If we designed a unit to produce 400MW (i.e a Rolls Royce PWR4) then we would require a minimum of 40 units, all manufactured in the UK – good for the balance of payments and tax take. These units could then be installed into the existing turbine halls of the closed down coal fired power stations or on the same sites. This would enable the new smaller units to be connected to the existing grid, thus saving another massive cost. It might be that the units need to be smaller than 400MW to fit 2 or 3 into the existing sites.
As always, the final design depends on which end of the project you start!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Moran | 5 Mar 2013 12:50 pm
I agree with Geoffrey - distribute power generation across the Nation. The ideal would be that everyone would have their own power generator, but that's a pipe-dream until solar panels get better.
So, build small nuclear power stations that will power each town or cluster of villages, then you have a robust, resilient network that would be far safer than the current one.
Plenty of research has been done on small reactors of this size and the up-front design and build costs would be much smaller.
They want a new view - try this.
Regards - John
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mike Brooks | 5 Mar 2013 6:07 pm
Small nuclear reactors built in underground containments (to protect against aerial attacks) in our city/town centres with the reactors being transportable for servicing would seem far more sensible than building them at the coast where the waste heat is used to warm up the sea rather than being used in the winter for district heating.
We should also be doing more on the solar front by investing in concentrated solar thermal plants in the MENA region deserts using mirrors and molten salt thermal fluid and HVDC cables with only 3% loss per 1000 km to transmit the power into the European grid.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
James | 6 Mar 2013 10:09 am
The above three comments seem to hit the mark perfectly. Smaller power plants all designed and built to a standard design offer the opportunity to increase the economies of scale. A decentralised grid would be more robust and local ownership would reduce the nimby effect!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
reinaldo marval | 7 Mar 2013 3:28 am
An alternative, which pretends to be much more friendly and
profitable, is the use of catalytic hydrogen cells, which have been
sufficiently effective design devices that can meet the individual
needs for each household thus maintaining economic indicators
originated in the remarketing petrochemical production of
hydrogen from natural gas.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 7 Mar 2013 1:18 pm
From the above it can be seen the answer is on our own doorstep. I know people in the industry and they say much the same. What is more the expertise is already there to do it (we led the world until the politicians mucked it up after all!) So Mr Government 'ask the engineers'! Troll round the exisitng industry and you will find the solution and the expertise to carry it out without having to pay billions to foreign companies.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JohnL | 8 Mar 2013 2:08 pm
Yup - another vote for small reactors, sitting in a bath of boronated water. The problem with building single reactor 1.6GW units is just size. It makes things much more complex. Small is beautiful and much more manageable to run as well.
So while RR is building reactors for military purposes, just extend the production line. OK I know there are differences but there should be some common features as well that could make it cheaper.
While we live on an island surrounded by excellent wave, stream and wind power potential, we will still have to handle peak load either by installing much more alternative plant or at least a lot of low-potential pumped storage capacity which is still expensive.
Adding a set of small load-following reactors will save a fortune if we are to meet out climate change obligations. The problem with the old nukes of course is that as gas-cooled massive hulks, they took days to get up to power. Hence Dinorwic in N Wales.
It's a no-brainer really but that is what the government has - no brain.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Adrian Tawse | 8 Mar 2013 3:21 pm
The era of Uranium powered nuclear energy is dead, gone, as dead as the Parrot. They take far too long to build, must be cited far too far from the cite of consumption, leading to enormous infrastructure costs and the accumulated interest on capital till they start earning makes them forever uneconomic. And the popular opposition is still enormous. No good saying "Oh, but we do not have Tsunamis in the UK" the people will not stand for it, and we do live in a democracy. In any case we still, after 50 years of trying, have no way of disposing of nuclear waste that is acceptable to the people, to propose to create more is plain stupid. There is just one hope for Nuclear and that is the Molten Salt Thorium Reactor. Yes, in the words of our most esteemed Prime Minister it is “unproven technology”, as was the steam engine once. There will still be an uphill struggle to persuade the country that the technology is different, and safe, but all other options are as dead as the Dodo.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Gurminder Jagdev | 11 Mar 2013 1:44 pm
The people of the land do not always know what is good for them. Nor are they well informed of the facts surrounding the dire power situation the UK will be facing if we do no have a robust and sustainable energy future
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Robert Freer | 11 Mar 2013 4:27 pm
If successive governments over the past twenty years can't produce a national energy policy which is realistic, workable and affordable the engineering professions should offer to do so.
The first and overriding requirement should be to ensure security of supply (60GW+ in mid winter), not a mixture of objectives the government is trying to achieve.
Small reactors delivered on a lorry to fit in the corner of an existing power station would certainly get the business going but large power stations were built because the outgoing power was cheaper.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment