In 2012 the former energy secretary Edward Davey asserted that it was the coalition government’s wish to see new nuclear power come forward as part of a balanced energy mix.
Six years on and the only tangible evidence of this wish coming true is in Somerset where EDF is building Hinkley Point C.
At the other end of the country, the proposed NuGen plant came to a halt on November 8, 2018 with Toshiba’s decision to wind up the project after failing to attract investors.
The 3.6GW plant would’ve provided around seven per cent of the UK’s electricity. Set to be built on land in Moorside, West Cumbria, the project had an estimated price tag of £10bn.
NuGen CEO Tom Samson said the government’s recent introduction of a new legislative framework for nuclear new build (the Regulated Asset Base, or RAB model) had put off potential buyers for the project.
With no-one stepping up to rescue the Cumbrian project, we asked if the NuGen decision represents the first nail in the coffin for the UK’s nuclear new build plans?
Not so, according to 44 per cent of last week’s respondents who view new nuclear as an essential part of Britain’s low carbon future (along with a funding framework that allows it to happen).
Just under a third (32 per cent) of respondents see small modular reactors (SMRs) as the future of new nuclear, whilst a fifth agreed that nuclear won’t deliver that renewables should take priority. The remaining four per cent opted for none of the above, including williamd who, said: “Nuclear here means fission, not fusion. Fission leaves a monumental legacy.”
Another Steve added that SMRs have to be part of the nuclear future as they can provide environmentally friendly and produce a baseline generation capacity without the need for wind or sunshine, adding: “It’s time the UK took the lead and started developing the technology here before it’s too late and before those in power run to their overseas friends to buy in costly foreign technology.”
“Nuclear energy is uninsurable and completely nonsensical in today’s energy generation market,” added Richard Annett. “Capital costs rise and huge delays always put a downside to these projects and shows the construction industry is inept and useless. We should look after our image by only going for projects that can be delivered on time and to budget. So, in conclusion, no more nuclear power stations should ever be built on our soil again.”
With time running out to replace the UK’s nuclear fleet, what do you think is the best way forward for new nuclear? Let us know using Comments below. All comments are moderated and must adhere to our guidelines.
Given the history of nuclear, our investment should be aimed at re-learning the technology to build our own.
I definitely agree; the UK needs intellectual infrastructure and, given the amount of research that has been done, an innovative approach to manufacture (including taking technology from elsewhere – much as the Japanese did in a systematic & methodical way); learning from the mistakes of others
Well said Tony. Sadly we have an establishment full of Traitors.
As the UK rushes towards throwing away the baby with the bath water, with our total electrification of everything! Clearly we have a desperate need for a solution.
These large nuclear power stations where never a good idea from a whole multitude of angles, far better to look at small modular plants city by city. That’s if we need to go down the nuclear route to power all the lovely gross polluting electric cars!
Thank goodness the production of the trillions of battery’s needed is such a clean low energy solution.
Might it not be better to look for better alternatives, is the internal combustion engine in all its forms really dead? Or is it the carbon based fuels we have been forced to use all these years?
There has to be a better way.
Rather than junking the old tech in cars and power production, what would be wrong in finally cleaning them up? Carbon capture anyone?
I’m all in favour of progress when you are genuinely getting more,faster, cleaner for longer than before.
Welcome comments, its good to talk
I recall hearing, reading and seeing all the PR puffing at the time….and believing none of it and that it would end in tears! How many times does this have to occur before someone in authority (whatever that is) actually starts to use intelligence, ability and proper analysis to review and decide? Having seen recent TV representations of ‘our’ staff at the United Nations/Foreign Office and/or Biscuit, I just shake my head in disbelief that persons of such stupidity and shallowness are still where they are and being paid to continue bu**ering up our nation’s future.
The options did not include that nuclear is fundamentally essential to the UK energy mix.
We are perilously close to the limits on natural gas imports and storage capacity, without Rough, is too low. Then there is the issue of price of gas which ties to world oil prices which are very volatile. Let us hope that fracking proves a success.
Last winter, we had almost a month of windless power and gas was almost at its limit but coal saved the UK … yet again. We desperately need new nuclear to ensure energy security.
In the event of a real winter this year, we could well see rolling power cuts: just like the developing world!
Not sure where you’re getting the numbers from.
British Electricity Generation (Balancing Mechanism) Fuel Mix GWh per month shows that last month (Oct 2018) 4034GWh of electricity from wind power was produced. 4279GWh from nuclear, 954GWh from coal and 9689GWh from Gas. What is noteable is that the amount we imported from the continent that month reduced, probably as their surplus was more expensive than coal. There appears to be some headroom for further fossil fuel generation which I suppose depends on your definition of perilous. I am supportive of an energy mix that best serves us and it is obvious from websites such as gridwatch that meeting peak electricity demand is the main short term issue for the UK.
Sorry, I thought that it was clear that I was talking about last winter when we had two low-wind months and almost hit the limit on gas usage. The Gridwatch web site can give you more details if you want to go further. If we hit the same issue this winter, especially if very cold, we now have less coal-fired back-up to call on.
Is it 12 years we have to try and reduce the rate at which temperature is increasing globally? Taking into consideration all the complexities involved such as profitable illegal operations and whose “fingers are in the pie”. Governments around the globe need to prosecute guilty parties decide and take action quickly on the most environmentally friendly options to produce energy
Of course we all need to do our best to make significant contributions
I voted for government sorting its funding policy out; but designing cheap and affordable nuclear – AND forming the start-up collaborations to so do; my guess is that this might involve smaller and manufacturable designs (modern designs of heat exchangers, pressure vessels and gas turbines?) – as opposed to designs on steroids from submarines .
If the designs are manufacturable then the costs and timescales (& cost of financing) should be substantially reduced. (as Paxton did – using modern technology, of his day, faster, cheaper, better)
But can the government stop throwing money at large companies? and consider how to finance an support innovation???
All we need is a long dull windless period and the weaknesses in the so called energy strategy will be seriously exposed. Recent crowing from Scotland about wind power providing 98% of generated power needs to be taken with a large dose of salt. In years past 100% came from coal.
We have never had a balanced energy strategy in Britain and seemed top have lurched from one lunatic position to another. Nuclear should, in my view, have a role. The use of small modular reactors able to m be built in a fraction of the time the big plant takes would seem sensible.
Modular reactors that can be factory built and then delivered on a rail car are the ways to go, to make that possible we have to abandon the idea of of using solid fuel in water cooled reactors.
Pick up the mantle from the work done 50 years ago at Oak Ridge and start building sodium cooled liquid fueled reactors, They can’t melt down, do not need water for reactor cooling, and operate a atmospheric pressure so they can’t explode. We have to look to the past to see the future.
I thought the UK government had a strategy for new nuclear?
In June 2018 Greg Clark announced the nuclear sector deal (NSD) setting out a pathway for SMRs.
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/nuclear-industry-sector-deal/
The Trawsfynydd nuclear site in Snowdonia has been mooted as a location for SMRs. Could Moorside also be considered ?
The strategy was interesting – and the appearance of fluid cooling eliminates the issue with the need for a pressure chamber. But the material issues of lead and molten salts could be intractable – which would limit the temperature and, if these are not resolved, there seems little point in building such. I suspect that the sodium cooled reactor has the best track record; the key being the integrity of the water/sodium heat exchanger (water as sodium has a boiling point that is too low for higher temperature and high efficiency).
Helium cooled reactors have been neglected, despite their good safety record and lack of material issues; it would be interesting to know why – unless it is nuclear standards prohibiting advanced pressure chamber designs.
I suspect that the government strategy is to wait for a company to come and try and sell the designs; perhaps a strategy would have been to have a more functional approach – saying what types of reactors would be considered.
If the government had a relevant web-site which described the issues of types of reactors and the issues – or, better, still, a forum where questions could be asked (perhaps like TheEngineer??)
There is an interesting article in the FT a couple of days ago “How to stop nuclear costing the earth
– The key spending variable to suppress is each project’s cost of capital”. This argues “the cost of financing is so dominant that it can account for almost half of the costs of the project” and suggests other financing options.
… although it is (Conservative!) government intervention https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-confirms-hinkley-point-c-project-following-new-agreement-in-principle-with-edf rather than inadequate ROI that Tom Samson gives (above) as the reason for NuGen’s pull-out. I don’t imagine the prospect of nationalisation under a putative future Labour government helps, either
no apologies for posting these links yet again: look at this http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ and then this http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/ then think very, very hard …
Do SMRs actually exist? That is, are there companies out there, with price lists, order books and delivery schedules MAKING them? I searched but can’t find any photos only rendered CAD ‘artists impressions’
It depends what one defines as an SMR – and, if one allows, they have been made in the past – even one on the back of a lorry ( small market of high cost items).
As far as I can see it refers to a factor built “machine” (at least the reactor itself) instead of a site built “building” and S(mall) means <300 MWe but I suppose what I'm really asking is if I had deep enough pockets, could I sign a cheque _today_ to buy one, with any prospect of delivery by 2025, when all UK coal-powered generation?
Yes, a nuclear base-load may be essential, but I voted ‘none of the above’, – nuclear here means fission, not fusion. Fission leaves a monumental legacy. I remember the excitement of Calder Hall coming on stream. ITER next? But with the UK leaving the party, and Euratom ? Oh dear, where have all the real men gone, like Newcomen, Watt, Faraday, Rutherford, …… ? Meanwhile, back to the waterwheel and horse gin.
“the cost of financing is so dominant that it can account for almost half of the costs of the project” and suggests other financing options.
I presume the ‘cost’ of financing actually means interest payable on loans, during their ‘life’ and their eventual repayment: and in addition the DCF calculation(s) on the value of the capital/ money when it is eventually repaid? [and of course, the up-front fees payable to so-called professional advisers for arranging the entire farce?] Presumably the “lights going-out” apply to us all? Including bankers and politicians, accountants and lawyers, insurers, traders in stock-exchanges, auditors. Roll on that day: perhaps then ‘they’ might be convinced of what Engineers and technologists know already.
SMRs have got to be the future for nuclear – environmentally friendly and able to produce a baseline generation capacity without the need for wind or sunshine. It’s time the UK took the lead and started developing the technology here before it’s too late and before those in power run to their overseas friends to buy in costly foreign technology.
The trouble is that the political classes have proven time after time that they are technologically illiterate and incapable of developing and implementing ‘any’ kind of strategy.
Money spent on SMR development would be much more useful, less damaging and have potential spin off benefits unlike projects such as HS2 which will be late, over budget and deliver in reality ‘not a lot’.
Nuclear energy is uninsurable and completely nonsensical in today’s energy generation market.
Apart from the nuclear waste that no one has found a home for and even if they did they cannot guarantee would be safe for 200,000 years, there is the question of future decommissioning. Its cost the tax payer 72 bn £ to close the last 6 down. And I bet we, the public, will be stung yet again in the years to come for any new ones.
Also capital cost rises and huge delays always put a downside to these projects and shows the construction industry is inept and useless. We should look after our image by only going for projects that can be delivered on time and to budget.
So in conclusion, no more nuclear power stations should ever be built on our soil again.
The problem of Nuclear waste is overblown and a hangover from the 1960s CND days, a lot of it’s problems is the conflated association with Nuclear weapons. There isn’t as much waste as people imagine and it is not the case that all waste has to be kept secure for extreme long periods, as well those periods are actually in the order of 1,000 years not 200,000 !
Renewables cannot provide a reliable baseline capacity so without Nuclear we would be left with either gas or coal to provide our baseline capacity, which would tend to negate the use of renewables.
I suggest people read “Sustainable Energy – without the Hot Air” by the late David MacKay, available as a free online book. There is an excellent section on Nuclear.
but you have no objection to us plugging into the French grid? … we are importing 1.5 GW of France’s 46 GW nuclear generation _right_now_ (I just checked http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/ )
Obviously there is going to be no output from a new large traditional nuclear power station for at least 10 years, so we have to look at the interim. Did we really have to decommission the MAGNOX units at that time, without a suitable replacement in place? Now is the time to invest in Thorium reactor research. Success in this would remove the nuclear waste issue.
In the meantime, why has the Govt. stopped the barrage projects? Gravity provides us with vast amounts of potential energy in moving water masses- why not use it?
Why are we importing huge amounts of U.S. waste wood to burn at Ferrybridge – do we not have wood of our own?
Looking at the problem from the demand side, do we really need to consume as much electricity as we do?
Not too sure about the stuff at Ferrybridge; but I seem to remember in a government report that the pelletized biomass had half the net Co2 contribution of natural gas (due to the drying & transportation contributions). I suspect, however, it might be eligible for the ROC (Renewable Obligation Certificate) subsidy. I expect that it comes from USA because it is cheaper …
One problem is the moment the wood has a lick of paint on it e.g. from building refurbishment it instantly becomes “toxic waste” and your power plant turns into a “waste incinerator” and all the fun with the Environment Agency and those local action groups with droll acronyms that entails …
Small, factory-made reactors have to be the answer and the UK is well positioned to develop them and take a lead.
Theresa May was asked directly if the Govt would step in & back the building of new nuclear at Moorside,her answer was “It’s a commercial decision” This set my thinking that as we are leaving the EU,nobody will attempt to invest in something which a future Govt might well “nationalise”. I’ve followed the news over Moorside for many years,waiting for the eventual “nope,not gonna happen” announcement thus negating all the millions spent on study after study.