Features editor
The Engineer
We’re constantly being told about the importance of nuclear power to the UK’s future energy landscape. It’s an integral part of the mix of generating technologies that we’ll need to meet emissions targets and ensure fuel security, along with cleaned-up gas and a range of renewables. It’s the only baseload generating technology with no associated carbon emissions, and it’s part of the main reasoning behind the redrafting of planning guidelines, to ensure that the new nuclear reactors we urgently need can be constructed quickly and smoothly. Nuclear, we are assured, sits right at the centre of the UK’s future energy strategy.
So it comes as something of a shock to see the House of Lords’ science and technology committee warning of ‘complacency’ over nuclear R&D in the UK. ‘It’s as though we’re setting off on a long journey without a map, without a driver, and without anyone to fix the car if things go wrong,’ said committee chairman Lord Krebs.
To be clear, this lack of R&D isn’t connected with the fleet of new reactors whose designs are currently undergoing assessment by the Health and Safety Executive; these are bought-in designs, from France and the US. The gap the committee refers to is in what comes after — the designs for reactors to replace these new ones, which would come into service in the middle of this century.
In some ways, this isn’t particularly surprising, although it’s a depressingly familiar story. The energy industry pretty much abandoned R&D in the 1980s following deregulation, when companies decided it was an unnecessary drain on resources. The short-sightedness of this policy was admitted by the industry when the Energy Technologies Institute was established in 2007.
Britain was a leader in civil nuclear technology in the 1950s, of course, with the first commercial nuclear power station in the world at Calder Hall. The country continued to lead the field with the design of magnox reactors, although the fleet of custom reactors this spawned has led to problems: the lack of standardisation is making them very difficult to decommission.
Nonetheless, British engineers literally wrote the books on high-temperature, graphite-moderated reactors, and these are the type of reactor which are likely to form the successors to the pressurised water reactors currently being built. The problem is, those books were written in the 1960s and 1970s, and the engineers who wrote them are now retiring.
There are far too many sectors in the UK where expertise and skills have been allowed to die out, and it’s usually been through government complacency and lack of foresight. Nuclear academics in the UK have been warning of this for several years now, and calling for a new generation of engineers who they can train in these skills. A good start would be for the UK to join the Generation Four International Forum, a group of countries pooling their resources on the design of a range of high-temperature reactors for future deployment; our older engineers can still make a valuable contribution to these efforts, and with their low-carbon profile, they could enthuse younger engineers as well.
But most worrying of all in the Lords report is a warning that our knowledge of nuclear technology is receding so fast that we risk losing our status as an ‘informed customer’ in buying current nuclear technology. It’s the equivalent of buying a new camera and not only not reading the manual, but not being able to tell which way up to hold it. If this is true, it’s highly alarming, and puts at risk any attempt to meet emissions targets. It could lead to the UK falling behind in the queue to order new reactors, and leave us with a generating ‘black hole’ which we won’t be able to fill.
It’s clear that there needs to be new scrutiny of training in nuclear technology, and some serious thought about energy R&D in this country. Nuclear should not join shipbuilding, steelmaking and train building as ‘sunset sectors’ where the skills base has been left to wither.
Time and again I find myself asking exactly what purpose politicians and top business management serve. If nothing else, current events are showing that we cannot continue to keep taking the short term, money-making view if the UK is to continue(?) to be an advanced and prosperous nation. There must be a better way – any ideas anyone? Perhaps a literal industrial revolution is in order….
Wither? I think ‘rot’ is a more apt term.
I’m afraid I’m completely in disagreement with you Nathan. Although Nuclear power can be said to be low carbon although whole build carbon costs are not accounted for, the real costs of nuclear build, maintenance and decommissioning taken together make it the most expensive energy generation technology available. Whole life costs for wind will be demonstrated to be much lower. Your argument that only nuclear can fulfil base load requirement is also false. With 40% of Europes wind resource and the fact that peak loading for energy is many cases in solar generation windows, a smart grid and upgrading of the national grid would allow the UK to be self sufficient, with the political will, in energy generation within 20 years. Of course the nuclear lobby and the Big Six energy oligopoly don’t like this because they will lose most of their obscene profits.
Unfortunately, this is a constant and re-occuring trend with the UK governement. Short sighted interest in political point scoring which damages the long term economics of the country.
The engineers are still around; as a nation we are great inventors and thinkers, what is lacking is protection from copy cats or asset strippers.
Rome wasn’t built in a day, but it didnt take very long for it to fall. As with our Space technology, Hovercrafts, linear motors, and a raft of other technological advances it’s UK to the highest bidder.
Even the National Physical Laboratory is expected to make a profit, and the majority of their expertise directed at the interest of big corporations abroad who manufacture the modern day cutting edge technology.
Let’s stop trying to make short term fat proffit and invest in our long term future of UK PLC.
But more importantly once we have lets not flogg it off to the first high bidder for a quick buck.
Now i’m cross.
The generation and supply of energy for everything from personal transportation to manufacture is a topic for ever increasing concern. Unless we are expected to eschew all that we have and meekly retreat to the caves there has to be a system of solutions developed that do not “cause further problems to the planet” and that meet our needs. Why then do we throw money at windfarms (although we know that does not presently solve our problems) and have our leaders produce these warnings (highly focused and isolated areas of concern)? Surely if we threw a large amount of resources into a cross-technology National Energy Generation Laboratory which would cover everything from concept to decommisioning we’d stand a good chance of solving our problems and making money by selling the solution as a complete package to every other country? I see a huge opportunity for the first country to commit fully to solving this problem rather than just providing sticking plasters and reports and, once more, fear that our politicians don’t have the vision or guts to make it us!
Research and Developement along with the skilled workforce of this country were effectively killed off during the Thatcher holocaust where no incentives were given for companies to re-invest in improving products or efficiencies.
The only consideration was for redundancies and sadly this continues to this day.
I hope the politics of the world mean we do not require more nuclear fission in the UK. It is clear by a few simple calculations that renewables can provide us with more than enough energy, and will likely cost less than nuclear. At least we wont be left with a load of nasty waste to look after – a real cost to us not always shown. I also suspect that there are few young engineers interested in nuclear energy.
Not to mention we have a lot to thank Greenpeace et al for. Perhaps it’s ironic that their efforts to ban nuclear energy will (has?) made a significant contribution to green house gas emissions!
If there is one industry that the UK does not need it is the nuclear energy generating business.
The industry should be treated by our government in the same regard as the German, Italian and Belgium governments; that is we should phase out nuclear ASAP.
The only expertise we have which is strong is cleaning up nuclear waste and that is costing us 72 billion pounds of tax payers money. Ridiculous amounts of money for such a dirty radioactive industry and unnecessary had we moved to more sustainable means earlier.
I would recommend no one enter this immoral industry.
Does anyone actually know about the balance of energy sources? We have an article here saying renewables need nuclear and comments below saying renewables will do all our requirements.
Does the fusion industry know when it will have a viable reactor?
Successive governments since the 2nd world war have sold this country down the river, this is primarily due to lack of funding, lack of long term strategy and total lack of understanding. Too many politicians especially in the current era either come from none productive backgrounds or are professional politico’s. The problem of is that they only make decisions for the good of their political party (especially near an election) rather than the good of the country, it has been said many times that they can see no further than the next election.
Whenever the nuclear option is raised the real question never gets asked by either side. How can we significantly reduce our energy consumption?
If any of your readers think nuclear power is either necessary or affordable I recommend they read carefully the recently published and peer reviewed book Reinventing Fire, by Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute. And then think again.
What do you expect from a government of millionaires, who spent a large part of their education dressed up like Harry Potter ? Wizards?
What we really need, are track proven industrialist running our industrial strategy, not a bunch of educated dreamers who can’t run a bath.
They may not need to earn a living, but many of us do, so let’s have an early election, and get a government who does understand that an income and electricity are essentials.
Not just for Christmas.
One issue not raised is the lack of technical expertise from the alleged leaders of this country, and its something which is needed urgently. Too many politicians are career politicians and bring no expertise of any kind other than arguing in the House of Commons, to the table.
How many of our politicians could build a flat pack, assemble a basic gearbox correctly, or work out an electronic circuit and explain how it works. Here is the real crux of the issue. Having no basic expertise in any technical subjects allows complacent politicians to be influenced by many parties, usually those with a financial agenda or self interest. How much taxpayers money is invested in projects which are doomed to failure, and all because politicians are convinced to take a stance by slick marketing teams.
Could somebody who believes ‘a few simple calculations’ prove renewables can provide us with more than enough energy tell me where to find the numbers? Does the model include economics and environmental impact? It won’t be simple if it does. On the other hand it’s dangerous wishful thinking if it doesn’t.
Nuclear power has the potential to provide an environmentally friendly, safe and low-cost source of energy for the world for the foreseeable future. No other technology can do this.
Per unit of electricity generated, nuclear power has proved to be hugely safer than any other major form of power generation. Wind turbines–that produce a tiny amount of power–have probably killed more people than nuclear power.
Reactors using thorium which are much more efficient, produce less waste and has no potential for weapons production have huge promise. Not enough research is being done on them.
Regarding nuclear radiation there is now convincing evidence that the radiation standards are set far too low. Prof Wade Allison has written a book entitled “Radiation and Reason” (Radiationandreason.com) He and many other researchers have found that radiation safety limits could be increased by a factor of 200 or more without the slightest risk. There is also convincing evidence that exposure to low levels of radiation reduces the chance of getting cancer in later life.
Nuclear power costs about $5000/kW while wind power, which produces about one quarter of the output, costs more than $2000/kW. So the equivalent cost of wind is more than $8000/kW plus the cost of the backup plant and the under utilized transmission system that is needed.
In 2006 the Labour Government sold the Nuclear Reactor Technology invested in BNFL, to Westinghouse/Toshiba.
That company now is exporting Nuclear Power Technolgy globally, and creating wealth.
I am afraid that the folks who govern(ed) this country, are woefully lacking in vision
and are focused on the ‘here and now’.
The best piece of engineering to come out of Westminster, is the (one way ) Eurostar to France.
Dave Allan
I think there are wonderful possibilities in the future of nuclear power. The type of reactors that could be really exciting, sustainable and wealth generating are small modular reactors. I would welcome a number of different designs to deliver electricity, ship propulsion and process heat. There should also be a number of different fuel cycles – I would suggest Heavy Water reactors using unenriched uranium, Standard Pressurised water reactors (but at a smaller scale) probably with fuel reprocessing, Thorium reactors (both solid fuel and liquid fuel) and breeder reactors using spent fuel.
There could be huge benefits to the UK and world if we could take a lead in this. I envisage a new industrial revolution fuelled by the power of the atom in the same way as the first industrial revolution was fuelled by coal. Joe Heffernan
For a country that invented the peaceful use of nuclear power we are now in a pathetic postion. Politicians have badly let our country down and they will never be forgiven when the lights go out. The loss of engineering and technological expertise in many industrial areas is, I’m afraid, the modern story of Britain.
I think we can assume most of those who comment on this site are engineers. Yet we have one writer blaming Mrs Thatcher for the position we find ouyrselves to be in and another the Labour Government of 2006.
We need less subjective and more objective thought from a group of people who are supposed to be entirely lead by logic.
The facts are surely that nuclear power technology has killed very few people and the hysteria against it is prompted by the nuclear bomb and the unkown effects of unseen radiation. Wind power is proven to be unreliable, is criticised for noise & damage to the visible environment but is thought to be free ofr runnoing costs even if expensive to install.
We need a mix. Let us get on with it.
Stephen B Whiteley said:
“We need less subjective and more objective thought from a group of people who are supposed to be entirely lead by logic”.
I completely agree. If you’re ever bored have a look at a certain popular daily newspapers website and see the comments on those articles, it’s both funny and scary at the same time.
Back on topic, it’s very hard to get objective facts on the renewable vs nuclear issue as both obviously ‘sex up’ the statistics and ‘facts’ to suit there argument.
However, I think the maintenance cost of wind power is very underplayed, particularly the offshore farms. As all these turbines will need gearboxes and blades changing at some point (due to accident or just wear-and-tear). And to do this we’re going to need a small fleet of boats/ships and the port facilities to support these several thousand turbines.
I have a nuclear bias at this stage, as I just don’t see how renewables are practical.
The article talks about the UK risking the loss of ‘our status as an ‘informed customer in buying current nuclear technology’. It is too late to worry about this. The future buyers of this technology for UK will be EDF from France, Horizon Nuclear Power (RWE and E.ON), and NuGen (Iberdrola and GDF Su ez). Hardly British customers!
The British family silver has all been sold by previous governments.
Unemployed Eng Grad – Correct, we’re going to need a small fleet of boats/ships and the port facilities to support these several thousand turbines.
There are already many companies gearing up to offer specialist services to the offshore wind industry. Purpose designed boats for landing workers on wind turbines are being designed and built. Have you been to Lowestoft or Yarmouth or Wells or Belfast recently?
Similarly, there are fleets of boats servicing offshore oil and gas. There are fleets of huge ships moving oil and LNG around the world, and bulk carriers moving coal. There are also fleets of container ships moving cargo. There are many fleets of fishing boats. There are fleets of warships. None of this is impractical.
What matters is the cost of the service craft, and more generally, the contribution that Operation and Maintenance makes to the overall levelised cost of electricity generated.
Paul Noonan – If you want numbers on UK energy, I recommend you start by studying Prof David MacKay’s ‘Sustainable Energy – without the hot air’, which can be read free online at http://www.withouthotair.com. The book considers the physical limits and some of the impacts of various options, but not economics. Since writing his book, David MacKay has been appointed Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
Paul Noonan – You can try for yourself to make the UK’s energy plans add up using DECC’s 2050 Pathway web tool at http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/tackling/2050/2050.aspx which lets you create your own UK energy policy, and see the impact using real UK data.
The extended nuclear waste husbandry period means we have already committed the resources of future generations for a very long time. This was an unfair and thoughtless legacy, but it is a fact. I cannot find it in myself to feel this is a good exchange for “cheap and reliable” energy. I certainly realise other people don’t have the same value system, and only hope they have the common sense to aim for some fail safer system like Thorium.
“Does the fusion industry know when it will have a viable reactor?”
Yes, there is a consistent consensus that it is thirty years away. This estimate has been agreed amongst experts for the last 50 years.
We have such large quantities of nuclear waste because the wrong fission technology was chosen decades ago. Namely, uranium-based fission. It was chosen because the waste is readily weaponised.
If research into alternative nuclear fuels had been favoured, then we’d have considerably less waste today, no nuclear weapons, and no chance of meltdowns.
Nuclear power is essential to provide a secure, reliable source of electricity.
Knee-jerk reaction is not a characteristic I expect of professional engineers and scientists. But if we consider things from the point of view of the public and politicians:
* Have aircraft been banned because many thousands of people have died in plane crashes?
* Have cars been banned because many thousands of people die in cars crashes every year?
* Have ships been banned because some run aground, and some run into icebergs?
In each case, no. In each case, we make things better. So too it must be with nuclear.
I think any arguments for the nuclear industry are so ridiculous. The only thing recyclable about the by-products are in weapons manufacturing. It’s a sick and death-dealing industry. Renewable and free energy, plus, most importantly, do it yourself energy are going to be the waves of the future. Quit trying to make money in the stock market investing on something that is so toxic and deadly. Get a real job.
We are an island nation surrounded by tidal waters which present us with a wonderful opportunity to capture, at very little cost, its energy. This can be done by turbines placed in the tidal flows acting both ways, one turbine with the incoming tidal flow and another turbine with the outgoing tidal flow. These two turbines could be mounted on the same pylon. This would not blot the landscape or seascape because they would be mounted on pylons, which will enable sevicing and the tops of which would be the only sign above water level.
We also are blessed with the UV from the sun, which again we do not appear to be keen to harness. It shines UV light every day, even through the clouds, free of charge and with ongoing technology we could surely develop our UV energy much more.
Wind energy either on land or sea can only generate power when the wind blows therefore sometimes no energy is produced, yet the Government stills seems intent on this form of power generation.
I am very suspicious of this and fear that there is a hidden agenda that they want these RENEWABLE energies to fail so that we have to turn to nuclear. This, of course, has inherrent problems and dangers of security, development and decommissioning (largely an unknown technology- except for burying it in the ground).
I hope we can persuade the Government to put more resources, both financial and physical, into water and solar power as a true renewable. This would give our future generations chance to live in a much reduced carbon climate and a safer world.
Last week we had three days of fog and the wind turbines turned not one revolution. I am sure we will have many more still, cold days this winter when the contribution of wind energy is minimal. Wind systems must be backed up virtually 100% in order to meet demand, and on average they produce 30% of their rated power.
It is time to abandon this serious waste of money and concentrate on realistic alternatives that still reduce carbon dioxide output.
Solar power doesn’t come close as the Oxfordshire solar farm shows with 30 acres of land required to power 1000 homes.
Tidal or sea current powered turbines appear to be a viable option but has suffered by the available investment being drained away to wind farms. More could be done in this area.
The last, and most feasible, is nuclear power. This is being held back by emotion over riding reason. Witness the rush by Merkel to close nuclear power stations in southern Germany following a tsunami in Japan. No tsunamis likely in southern Germany I think. Regarding safety it would be interesting to see a table of deaths versus kiloWatt hours of electricity produced for all the energy sectors including coal, oil, hydro, nuclear, and wind energy. I think you would find nuclear is pretty safe. We should have been investing in nuclear for many years. We must invest NOW.
Wind farms /tidal generation/ solar fields all need new transmission lines which of course are opposed by the ‘greens’. Extra generating capacity can be added to existing nuclear sites and lines added to ‘existing’ towers. The ‘greens’ want electric cars, etc but fail to comprehend the basic necessity of powering them. Additionally as long as it is cheaper to build and ship things from China our products will be built with Coal based electricity and shipped with very polluting heavy oil ships. The ‘green’ movement is ‘saving the UK/EU but killing th world.
Rarely have I read so much dis-information in comments on an article.
We have to reduce our very heavy realiance on fossil fuels because 1) They are becoming increasingly scarce and 2) Global Warming has been connected to Carbon Emissions.
Renewables are a way of SLIGHTLY reducing our carbon emissions, but anyone who thinks they can supply base-load power is dangerously deluded. They are a distraction to the problem, but they do give the present politicians a way of confusing activity with achievement.
This leaves Fission, Fusion, and Laser fusion. Of these the only technology that can stop the lights from going out in the next few years is Fission, so lets stop mucking about and get on with saving the next generation from a poorer standard of living than we have.
The “cost of energy” is not the £ from your pocket each year, it is much more complex than this simplistic view.
Robin
“To every human problem there is a solution that is obvious, simple, … and wrong.” Anon
It would seem that, from most of these comments posted that the politicians should be removed because of incompetence or just plain self interest. We see inconsistent management of resources a change of policy every five years or so. We need a long term plan that precludes most of the means of generation that will not be available in maybe fifty years. So for me it must be no to nuclear power, no to fossil fuels.
Now is the time to engineer for the long term, not just the next twenty or thirty years.
Renewable energy is the only way forward I believe in it’s various forms. I noted one comment about how renewable energy although promoted by the government is being missed managed. So that the government can say with all sincerity look it failed we tried.
To me this is obvious when I look at the wind generation turbines. They are not optimized for the conditions and so they must fail. Often they are just to big and most of the time they stand idle or they have been shut down because of to much wind !!! I believe there is an agenda that the government wants that as nothing to do with long term benefits of clean free energy with low maintenance. This is pure engineering, just take out the politicians and the bankers then we will create a system that will work for our children.