Advanced search

Japanese nuclear has set its sights firmly on Britain

Much fuss was made when it was announced that Chinese state investors were to become minority shareholders in the new Hinkley Point nuclear power station. But it now seems that the Japanese, not the Chinese, not even the French, will be the main owners of Britain’s new fleet of nuclear plants.

Toshiba today confirmed that it would purchase all of Spanish Iberdrola’s 50 per cent stake in the NuGen company set to build a power station at Moorside in West Cumbria, as well as a further 10 per cent from France’s GDF Suez, making Toshiba the majority shareholder. This follows the 2012 decision by Hitachi to buy the Horizon company planning to build plants at Oldbury and Wylfa.

Of course, while this all serves as a sad reminder that British industry no longer has the ability nor the willingness to build its own nuclear power stations, Toshiba’s decision should serve as a vote of confidence.

At a time when the French, German and Japanese governments are looking to scale back their nuclear industries and a raft of European companies (including British ones) have withdrawn their interest in the UK, the £102m deal shows there are still companies willing to invest heavily in the sector.

Britain’s new nuclear programme is by no means secure. Of the five new power stations planned, only Hinkley Point C has reached an energy “strike price” agreement with the government allowing construction to begin. We saw in the 1980s how grand nuclear plans can be halted when Sizewell B was built but proposals for nine other plants were scrapped.

Of course the situation today is very different. The imperative to cut carbon emissions and the decline of North Sea oil and gas means the UK has much greater motivation to renew its nuclear generation. Even if widespread fracking were to go ahead, there is scant evidence to show it would precipitate a significant fall in gas prices. Nonetheless, each move reassuring us of the viability of the new nuclear programme is to be welcomed.

There are other reasons why the involvement of Toshiba may be good news. The company has confirmed it will use three AP1000 reactors developed by Westinghouse (of which Toshiba has majority ownership), as opposed to the Areva European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) design to be used by EDF at the new Hinkley Point and Sizewell stations.

Add in the Hitachi-GE Advanced Boiling Water Reactors (ABWRs) to be used by Horizon and the UK is set to have a solid mix of nuclear technology, unlike France which relies largely on Pressurised Water Reactors (PWRs) and is now only building EPRs so has a greater exposure to possible generic failure.

This may also benefit attempts to restart Britain’s nuclear supply chain, giving companies access to more international partners and equipping them with a wider range of skills and experiences when it comes to providing reactor components. After Hitachi entered the game, it announced it would build a factory in the UK. Perhaps Toshiba will do the same. Indeed, Britain could become the European base for Japanese nuclear firms, just as it has for Japanese car firms - providing there are enough European customers to make it worthwhile.

What the UK won’t benefit from is economies of scale. The principles of market competition have led us to agree an energy price twice that of the current wholesale rate and twice that paid to French nuclear plants. This only applies to Hinkley C but gives us an indication of the kind of price we can expect to pay across the programme. Having said that, recent analyses have suggested France can expect to pay much more for its nuclear power in future. Perhaps we all have to accept that secure, reliable, carbon-free electricity just doesn’t come cheap.

Readers' comments (29)

  • Toshiba have a factory in the UK - it makes the fuel for the reactors.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It is sad that the environmental lobbyists have made life difficult for the Nuclear industry and Politicians. Finally they wake up to the idea that Nuclear is a green source of energy and not dependant on the stability of the political systems off shore gas and oil suppliers. Too late the UK expertise and jobs are gone. We now have to rely on external companies and experts, with any profits going abroad. The environmental lobbyists may sometime in the future realise that Fracking is not the worst of options. In the mean time they make life difficult and no one holds them to account. We need to teach in schools a more logical approach to decision making as from what I see of these people, when given exposure by the media, is that they are emotional, uniformed, and blinkered and cannot see the whole picture.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Yes, we (sorry, I mean successive governments) threw away years of British Engineering expertise by making investment in Engineering unpopular and deciding that our future was all tied up with international banking services. Now we have to buy our Engineering goods and services off-shore.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The reasons why "environmentalists" made life difficult for this industry are well documented and indeed well founded. The lack of interest in working in this industry should surely act as a cue to its future rather than a source of lamentation. The Fukashima disaster, let's not forget in one of the most technically advanced countries on the world, shows that this source of power simply can never be safe and is a white elephant. The resources and expertise that are being brought to bear would be better tasked to solve the problem of intermittency in renewables. This would result in having true green energy rather than a sham one, and power generation that will not pollute the planet should a natural disaster fall upon it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Paul says we should invest in removing intermittency in renewables. Does he now want to control the weather as well - imagine the green naysayers reaction to that one. The reality is that Wind sufficient to generate even 50% of our needs would cover such a huge area of land as to make the place both an eyesore and environmentally unfriendly to the flora and fauna of our green and mostly pleasant land. By comparison, the nuclear options occupy tiny amounts of space, and have at least some chance of keeping the lights on.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So, we have imported Japanese technology from engineers that have so far failed to contain Fukushima. I am not saying they are directly responsible, but they are involved by default.

    The main media is so quiet you can drop a pin. To all those who champion nuclear. I suggest you do some real research. To say that it is a green source of energy is bizarre.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The idea that ringing expertise to bear on nuclear will deprive renewables assumes its a zero sum game. Also helps we are not located in an earthquake zone.

    While I think we have to give up on any hope of being a major contributor to this wave of new build I think we should try to position ourselves to be a player in then gen4 wave when it comes & were already experienced with decommissioning. Mainly thanks to the appalling start our industry had as far as sustainable design goes.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Had we not had Nuclear generated electricity we would have had countless power cuts over the last few years. Britain is not in a position to be picky when it comes to power generation. I just hope that Nippon knows what it is doing, it's track record, like the Russian, being somewhat blemished. I would prefer French or German collaboration.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Yes to Nuclear. No to brown outs.

    No to ignorant, ill-informed, innumerate unscientific self- styled environmentalists, who in fact are causing more environmental damage rather than less.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Steve - yes, I want to control the weather, that is exactly what I meant when talking about storage of power when it is generated so that it can be used when needed. Fifty percent you say? And just wind, no other method? I think you've mistaken this publication for one named "The Made Up Number" as this is what that figure clearly is.

    It is very easy to just type soundbites and sling mud (yes 'fat man', that means you) but more useful to actually look at the problem and find a solution. That is after all the main remit of an engineer. I am one, are you?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Very good decision.These are the best reactors in the world and are American designed.You are not the only ones who have neglected their nuclear industry,we have too.The Chinese are the ones who have the right approach.They are implementing all of the more advanced type reactors.You can be sure that UK engineers will do a lot of the work on this project.The Wienberg foundation which supports advanced With regard to 'genuine concerns' these are IMechE's words and not The Engineer's. is based in GB, but of course only the Chinese are actually building them.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Even one new nuclear power station is a disaster for Britain just as Frakking is. If nuclear was so good why doesn't it ever make money? British Energy was sold off cheap as no one wanted it. Without subsidies nuclear is dead, why else will no one invest without some dodgy energy purchase agreement. We should leave the industry to die. In fact it should be buried as comprehensibly as nuclear waste needs to be for the next 10,000 years.
    Apart from financial unviability, the waste, no one will insure the industry in the event of a problem.
    This triple whammy should ensure that every one cringes and say 'No'. Let's make renewables the end game and go for it without falter. Hit intermittency with intelligent grids and eurogrids, (both of which are coming along). Energy saving devices, insulated building....a push for tidal and current devices....a push for Norway to develop some more Dinorwics and we can do away with nuclear.
    Funny that in the press EDF are going in with a few other companies to develop offshore wind in France. You have to laugh.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Hopefully this will start a nuclear renaissance. The electrical demand on the network is only going to grow, especially as electric traction becomes more mainstream.

    This is not to say we shouldn't be insulating our homes and looking at both tidal and wave power (wind is a farce) but only nuclear is going to provide the low carbon, base load we need.

    Moreover those pointing at fukashima ought to employ a little perspective. Those were 60 year old designs that only failed because the diesel generators used for back up supply weren't located sufficiently high enough to withstand the 5th most powerful earthquake ever recorded and a huge Tsunami.

    Had the back up gennies been located out of the Tsunami's reach Fukashimi would have been long forgotten.

    May I point out that Dinorwig is a pumped hydro scheme. i.e. it takes power OUT of the network to raise water to the upper storage reservoir at quiet periods and releases it over the day at peak times to even out demand. It was constructed to help balance all the nuclear power stations we never actually got round to building.

    As for buried waste, nature has its own examples of exposed nuclear reactors in the crust which it manages to contain satisfactorily.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So saddened to read the venom in some of the posts about this topic. Perhaps that should be my contribution, as I know "o" about this aspect of Engineering and technology.

    Though based upon what I have read, it appears that even with all the checks and balances to cover every possible/ likely potential problem in nuclear power operations it has been the completely un-expected or good-old (I surely mean bad-new) human error which precipitated each major problem. Can we ever design these out? I doubt it. Should we agree NOT to advance, because of the magnitude of any problem, caused by a mistake? Unfortunately at the last count, I gather there are some 6,000 potential mistakes waiting to happen in the nuclear arsenals of the Big-boys and at least a score within the new kids on the nuclear block!

    Did I miss something here? Swords to plough-shares, spears to pruning hooks?

    When the lights flicker, we will start to take notice. When they go out...we will not be able to see (or do, control, account for, develop anything else?)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Nuclear brings out the emotional responses every time, especially when Japan is mentioned.

    I believe that the UK sold-on the Westinghouse licence to Toshiba a few years ago?

    What does that say about our energy policy advisors ability to take the long view?

    It is amazing that the UK economy is still strong despite economists, bankers, environmentalists and political opportunists.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The reality of our complex, modern society is that we have to balance our need for a reliable energy supply against the concerns for safety and the environment (some real, some imagined) that exist within society. As such the population at large needs to have access to information which is unbiased and easy to assimilate in order for them to reach a considered opinion. Unfortunately, we don’t seem to give them that.
    Even in the correspondence to this esteemed publication we seem to have some very subjective views, with emotive terms like ‘disaster’ and ‘white elephant’ popping up here and there.
    My own views are that nuclear, shale gas and renewables all have a part to play in the energy security of the UK and I will try to foster that view wherever and whenever I can. However, I am acutely aware that the decisions will ultimately be made by politicians and their positions of power are entirely dependent upon the electorate. Which brings me back to the point that we have to give the electorate the objective facts not subjective fears, beliefs or opinions and let them make up their own minds.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • One doesn't need to be "environmentalist" to think twice when it comes to nuclear. Accidents do happen and there are so many incidents that should make us all sceptical. Please google "nuclear accidents" and take a look at the results. There is not such a thing as "safe nuclear energy". wikipedia:

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I still don't understand why, when we have a humongous nuclear fusion reaction going on a safe 90-odd million miles away, beaming power benevolently at us for free, we don't make MUCH, MUCH more use of it.....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Oh, Paul Arondelle, we can barely hear you from that high horse of yours. I know "frequently cause more environmental damage rather than less" would have been better, but I try not specifically indulge in sound bites, and am capable of making rational arguments rather than having to use infantile Tony Blair-isms like "sound bite" and "mud slinging". Nor would I be petulant enough to ask if someone else is an Engineer without evidence, epecially when that evidence usually allows one to point out that they are not in fact an Engineer. For myself, having worked on the design of both Nuclear and renewables, I have had access to hard data with which to form a view on whether Nuclear or current renewables is the green choice, and it is most clearly Nuclear by a big margin. What is needed is serious development to get renewables up to a level where they are honestly worthwhile, and sadly that still seems a long way away, particulalry where so much renewables effort is dominated by arbitrary targets that only appear to achieve anything to the scientifically and technically ignorant.

    That is of course part of the rational function of Engineers, to make judgements based on data where it exists and extrapolate where necessary.It's not even terribly difficult. For an Engineer.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Whilst the deaths attributed to the nuclear power power industry catastrophes have been catalogued to the Nth degree, they pale into insignificance when compared to the deaths from respiratory diseases directly attributed to coal burning power stations since the 1950s. Even the west coast of the USA is now suffering pollution from the emissions from Chinese coal burning stations.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The inane, off-hand comment that we are not in a earthquake zone just about sums it up for me.

    We don't KNOW where we are, what tectonic stress fracture is gong to zip across Europe at any moment, we an only estimate and guess, so we shouldn't proceed. Thats what the planners of Fukushima should have done, but they thought their risk assessment was ok, their precautions were probably top notch in some ways, but they STILL got caught out. Thinking you know is not the same as knowing.

    We know Wind and Tidal power will be safe. We know that brownouts are safe and manageable (Look what happened in the last few weeks - no deaths from Blackouts).

    The truth is that while we can never predict that unexpected events will happen, or what technology will be capable of dealing with the problem in the future, we can predict the enormous, 200,000 year runoff costs of what we have done so far in terms of todays technology. The costs of just a handful of security guys and a health physicists, plus keeping capacity in reserve in case of Earthquake, Asteroid , Tsunami, Terrorist attack, simple incompetence or overwork, falling asleep at the wheel, etc etc are massive.

    Trivial or not today, multiply up by the lifetime of the waste and the 70 billion accounted for for waste and clearing up will disappear very quickly, leaving a permanent debt.

    The ONLY sensible reason to propose new Nuclear is outright, honest blackmail: to clear up the mess we already made we need to keep the Industry going permanently. That's a good, sound argument, but there is no other, so stop pretending.

    Its not Green, its not Cheap, its not Sane, but if you don't pay us we'll poison you. That's it really, no, isn't it?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • David McCullagh, quite right. I was also told on a visit to a coal-fired power station many years ago that because of an occasional trace of strontium (I think it was) in the coal, that that power station alone released more radiation into the environment than the UK's entire Nuclear programme. Still ,we'd best not risk confusing pressure groups by giving them actual facts, had we?

    People should also read, as a warning, Otto Frisch's delicious sci-fi short "On the feasibility of coal driven power stations" wherein, in a future on a planet where where their clean nuclear energy source is running out (if renewables aren't effective by then, WE'LL be in trouble), they'd found these deposits of a black carbonaceous substabce which would burn, but which risked massive pollution, low efficiency of power conversion, local seismic events, a need to manage the high temperature, etc, etc.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A typical coal burner of the 60s was 4 x 600mw turbines requiring 24,000 tonnes of coal each and every day at full load and spewing out around 800 tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the surrounding atmosphere. What other pollutants didn't we know about?. You need to sit down and do the maths on how much toxic pollution has been released by these stations since they were built and compare it to emissions from a similar 2400mw nuclear plant in the UK. An opportunity exists to design and develop a new generation coal burning stations to reduce carbon, sulphur and particulates to a level acceptable for the next 30 years. I can see little point in investing massive amounts of money in wind energy when nobody but the rich will be able to afford it. Even they will need candles when the wind doesn't blow. A mix of nuclear, coal, gas and renewable energy at a cost our manufacturing businesses and the general public can afford is essential for the future wealth of the UK. If we are to remain competitive and stay ahead of the game, we to be involved in the basic design and finance process for the new nuclear stations rather than let the Muppets in Westminster get the begging bowl out for the Japanese.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous,

    Find another element, Strontium-90 has a half life of only 28.8 years, and it's the longest radioactive isotope of that element.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • alan, "We know wind and tidal power will be safe" Do we? Really? You say there are things we don't necessarily know about long term issues with nuclear. Why do we therefore KNOW there are none with renewables- wind and tides, potentially altering the environment ? Very clever people in the industrial revolution had no idea that pouring CO2 into the atmosphere would have far reaching consequences (if it has, of course: an estimate of a 90% likelihood declared by a body with a 100% vested interest probably wouldn't get a conviction in a court of law- I omit whether or not I believe in anthropogenic global warming to make this more fun). We think wind and tide will be safe. We know so far that they are not economically credible, of course, yet we all hope they will become so.
    We need balance and the best information we can get. None of the anti-nuclear arguments in this thread have relied on facts and numbers as much as fear and emotion.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I would be very keen to see thumbs up and down for the various comments and data on where those who vote have been linked from.

    Like other engineers on this site I have noted that much of the anti-nuclear polemicists seem to rely on blind assertion and sound bites rather than responding to the facts.

    Take the comment regarding the fusion reactor in the sky. I liked that comment for there is some truth in it but it failed to engage with the conversion efficiency of PV cells presently, our staggering demand for power and the inclination of the earth relative to the Sun at our longitude.

    Moreover consider that many PV farms in the UK seem to cover arable land and we can see that it is being implemented in an unsustainable way which threatens food security and price.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Unfortunately we don't have the facility for comment rating on our content management system.

  • Having against my better judgement argued online over the dangers & motivation for nuclear energy I've noticed recurring themes.

    1. Most commonly risk of the routine harm is often ignored & risk of the rare extreme harm inflated.

    2. There is confusion over when its appropriate to speak in terms of certainties & probabilities. A case in point the assertion "we dont KNOW" we're not in an earthquake zone. While this is technically true the there is so much evidence to the contrary we say it as a certainty beyond reasonable doubt. We must be clear about what we know and explain precisely why we think our confidence is justified without sounding cocksure and what we expect within a reasonable degree of certainty while explaining what we mean by reasonable.

    If nuclear energy is going to serve the public interest & be an economic success it needs to have the general public on board. While it is easy to patronize & sigh at what we engineers may consider misconseptions & ignorance it is only be in engaging directly rather than through a press release or a one way lecture that things will improve.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Nathan, you make an excellent point about PV farms taking over arable land. That seems to be the case here in Wiltshire and is indicative of the idiotic way in which potentially valuable technologies are being introduced to meet what appear to be purely politically generated targets. Given the non-functional roofspace avaiable, why the heck are solar panels being fitted anywhere else? Renewables are so clearly part of the future that we must not allow them to be badly implemented in a political target-driven approach. If that does continue to happen, we will get arguments against renewables based on an emotional perspective, ignoring their real value, and only matching the factual irrelevance of most of the anti-nuclear arguments.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The issues that Adam raise about the protection of ideas and the cost of this has always been a problem.

    However, there is protection for less important or non patentable invention called Unregistered Design Right. The protection is limited. It is free, it acts like copyright but protects functional design.

    If you want to show a potential investor an invention without a patent. You need to ensure that they will sign an NDA (Non Disclosure Agreement-confidentiality agreement).

    The reason for this is that you cannot patent anything in the public domain even if it the inventor who put it there. After signing an NDA anybody who leaks information about the invention leaves themselves open to a legal action for compensation or damages.

    In the event of details of the invention leaking into the public domain by people other than yourself, the IPO(Intellectual Property Office) formerly the Patent Office
    may still grant a patent if you can prove that you have taken the precautions of getting signed NDA's. even though the invention is now public knowledge.

    Personally I will not talk to anyone unless they have signed an NDA even when I have been granted a patent. This is because an NDA can insist that information appertaining to the invention remains confidential, including any commercial information.

    To keep costs down you can draft the patent yourself then get a patent attorney (agent) to redraft it later. There is period before the publication of the patent, which is when it enters the public domain, when you can withdraw, abandon or if you wish improve the invention you can withdraw your application and reapply without it becoming public knowledge.

    You will be armed with NDA and a patent application and could open up a legal action on either front or both. This could assist you getting an investor on board and geting them to pay the patent costs.

    You can also takeout Intellectual Property Assurence (Insurence)but this is expensive.

    The IPO publish free pamphlets on all aspects of Intellectual Property.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say


My saved stories (Empty)

You have no saved stories

Save this article