Features editor
The clock is ticking on the future of the UK’s energy supply, and it’s ticking ever more insistently. With four years to go until the majority of the coal-fired power stations are switched off, the need for clarity over the proposed new fleet of nuclear power stations is getting stronger.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) today released the latest bulletin for its Generic Design Assessment (GDA) exercise to certify the two competing designs for the new generation of nuclear reactors: the EPR from French consortium Areva and the Westinghouse AP1000. It’s very much a ’steady as she goes’ report; the HSE is requesting more information from both groups, but does not anticipate any problems with meeting its deadline of next June to complete the GDA.
Meanwhile, the owner of one of the proposed new reactor sites, Wylfa, on the Isle of Anglesey, has signed contracts with both Areva and Westinghouse’s delivery team, comprising Westinghouse itself, Shaw Group, Laing O’Rourke and Toshiba, for preparatory design studies, hedging its bets over which reactor will occupy the site. The owner, a joint venture between RWE nPower and E.On called Horizon Nuclear Power, plans to have its new reactor online by 2020, and will make a planning application in 2012. The company also owns another proposed nuclear site, Oldbury-on-Severn in Gloucestershire. EDF, meanwhile, has firm plans to build four EPR reactors, two each at Sizewell and Hinkley Point.
So there can be no doubt that industry and regulators are moving ahead with nuclear; meanwhile, wind power developers are racing to develop 10MW offshore turbines and ever-larger designs of tidal turbines are being lowered into the water for testing. All of the pieces are certainly coming together for the new profile of UK energy generation. Unsurprisingly, the government’s response is the only thing that seems to be lagging behind.
Some say that this is only right. Electricity supply is not a function of government; it’s for the private sector, and the private sector works by competition. The government should only step in to ensure safety and fairness when it comes to planning. But the free market is notoriously jittery; it looks to the government for reassuring signals, and it doesn’t appear to be getting them.
The Coalition’s stance on new nuclear – that it won’t put any public money into them – is clearly stated and fair enough. But there are still numerous hurdles in place for all the new electricity sources, and the biggest of these is the cost of power. While the government won’t put public money in, it does need to encourage private investment – and that won’t come unless the electricity market is reformed so that nuclear electricity can be bought on guaranteed long-term contacts, the way that energy from renewable sources can be. That allows investers the confidence in the price of power and in the return on their investment. Without this, the electricity jigsaw will remain in pieces, and the future of our energy supply will still be uncertain.
Isn’t it a shame that the goverment has to be consulted at all – you just know that it’s going to get messy and complicated when they do. Each successive government that comes into power is full of individuals that know nothing about the things that matter in life – all they know is politics.
If the right decision is made about sources of energy they will trumpet it from the rooftops and if the wrong decision is made they will blame it on the opposition.
Whoever controls our future energy and whatever source of energy it is you can guarantee one thing – it wont be the British! These days it’s not allowed for some reason.
Here lies a great opportunity for the current Government to lay out and begin a programme for our future energy needs and supplies, but it needs the correct information to formulate their strategies.
These need breaking down into two catagories, the main power generation facilities and the supplementary power supplies. Main power supply could come from a number of sources, nuclear being the obvious, but what about using geothermal instead, this is an underdeveloped area. By simply using a return for the spent steam we could have a continuous loop and an eternal supply of free steam. This is fully controllable and can be increased as demand increases, or reduced as demand falls. Using the same generating equipment also means it uses current technology and can be quickly introduced as a main electrical supply system.
Supplementary systems are wide ranging, wind and tidal power are the current providers but are unreliable, expensive, and currently being developed. How about a more reliable alternative, river power, we have many rivers in the UK which could have their wiers and waterfalls exploited. Simply bypassing them and fitting waterwheels into cnannels would be cheap, reliable, and provide a mainstream (no pun intended) source of continual power. Over time such systems could be better developed with improved water wheels or turbines, and as with geothermal power could provide a good level of our base loads.
There are many more alternatives, the problem is cost and bringing them to the attention of the Government as cheap and reliable power sources, and getting the Governments acceptance of them.
One other issue is reducing demand for power, this is another area sadly ignored, if people do not use as much power then it reduces the need for so much.
“With four years to go until the majority of the coal-fired power stations are switched off, the need for clarity over the proposed new fleet of nuclear power stations is getting stronger.”
This scare-mongering quote embodies two assumptions.
The first that we will have power issues because the coal fired stations will be turned off. We won’t. They will be re-certified and made suitable in advance.
The second, that Nuclear power is the way to go and will be the chosen solution. It isn’t and shouldn’t be.
There is more than enough time to explore UK based alternative technologies for electricity generation that will not hamstring following generations with highly polluting and massively expensive solutions.
Government intervention on Energy production.
It is the duty of any government to regulate the energy production of its own country, because its an essential service.
It is also right, that the free market provides the resources by competitive processes.
However, each is not independent of the other, and its is the apparent lack of engagement, that bodes for a disaster, as government after government fails to carry the responsibility but not the effects of such reticent behaviour.
Every country needs a structured energy plan.
From the late 40’s onwards it can be recorded that the joint engagement of the government and business enterprise, developed and operated an energy system, (inclusive of electricity and gas), that has held the UK in good stead since then.
Today, we have governments who fumble policy issues to look good in front of the media and protesting minorities, whilst time runs on and the existing infrastructure ages and become redundant.
Competent engineers involved in these issues, are pulling their hair out with the complete lack of government direction and responsibility, and its time this near fiasco stopped.
If the existing coalition of delegators, do not have the ability or the nerve to make the essential decisions today, then at least they can delegate that decision to a new quango of engineers, who can co-ordinate the action that’s needed now and not when the lights have gone off.
PB.
Actually two thirds of coal fired power stations which are fitted with FGD will be working after 2015 and the rest have, subject to max 20,000 hours, another FIVE years till 31/12/2015.
The article conveniently glosses over the nature of the long term price guarantees being sought ie to cover nuclear’s need for far greater subsidy than most of its competitors. Yes we will need nuclear to spread risk and to contribute to base load, but PLEASE lets not wilfully mislead the public with by echoing the fraudulent nuclear accounting of the past.
“four years to go until the majority of the coal-fired power stations are switched off”
Nice to know panic journalism is still alive and well – Other comments clearly clarify what will happen in reality!
The fact is that the UK cannot provide the total energy now used, equivalent to 300GW, by renewables or nuclear power based in the UK. To supply 300GW with nuclear power would require hundreds of nuclear power stations – which is clearly impossible.
No, the only way we can supply 300GW of total energy (and the same applies to other European Countries) is large-scale solar power in N Africa, to produce steam for turbines and generators. A private consortium is already working on this, and there is a demonstrator solar power project near Seville, that can produce electricity at night as well as during the day by storing heat in salts.
All the numbers that demonstrate these truths can be found in “without hot air”.
In the end, physics rules what is possible.
As far as cost goes, indications are that electricity produced this way will be more expensive than it is now, but not by a lage margin.
Instead of wringing of hands, and wondering if there are going to be power cuts in the next five years, and instead of wasting money on solar PV panels, it is time the government got on and did the right thing, joined up with the rest of Europe, and supported the venture in North Africa
Most discussions about renewables concentrate only on 40GW of electricity production – please, let’s start talking about the 300GW of total energy needs.
This government risks taking over from the last one – and letting this issue develop into a potential serious problem.
The UK is installing more renewable energy generation capacity – but the speed of construction needs to be ramped up quickly.
More gas-fired power stations are being built as well – and the new gas-fired capacity should possibly be enough to cover the anticipated coal-fired plant closures [due mainly to the LCPD regulations].
But as yet the government has yet to get to grips with the need for new coal-fired plant [with CCS] and nuclear capacity.
One other comment in this discussion added that energy conservation could be greatly increased. This is a no brainer – but alas I feel that some of the new crop of ministers may be no-brainers as well!
@Brian Pollard
Just wondered where did the 300GW number come from?
According to the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, in 2006 we used ~40GW typical and ~60GW peak.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn280.pdf
You are right about “No brainers” in the government.
You would think that some one in parliment would think of zero rating the VAT on loft insulation for example!
There is one baseline truth that should shape the argument, renewables do not supply peak demand, therefore the mix has to be composed of nuclear and another- it seems incredible that geothermal has not been fully explored before now-perhaps it has and been ruled out. It would be nice to know the reasons if this is the case.