The decision by Hitachi to suspend new nuclear power stations in Britain represents a potentially critical blow to the UK’s energy strategy.
Plans to develop the UK’s next generation of nuclear power stations are in disarray with one project scrapped and two suspended.
On January 17, 2019, Hitachi announced it was suspending projects in Anglesey and Gloucestershire after failing to negotiate a deal with the government on financing projects at Wylfa and Oldbury.
Whilst these projects have the potential to be revived, another project in Cumbria came to a halt in November 2018 when Toshiba wound up NuGen, the company set up to build up to 3.6GW on land in Moorside, West Cumbria at a cost of around £10bn.
Of the eight UK sites identified for nuclear new build in 2011, only EDF’s Hinkley Point C in Somerset is under construction, prompting us to ask if big nuclear has a future in Britain.
Of the 654 respondents, 70 per cent were split equally between those who think big nuclear is essential (and that government should modify its funding policy); and those who see SMRs as the future for new nuclear.
Just over a quarter of respondents (27 per cent) think it’s time to forget nuclear and prioritise investments in renewables, and the remaining three per cent opted for ‘none of the above’.
From the numerous comments that followed, Philip Whitley said: “Considering the fact that nuclear in the UK, when all the stations are fully operational and generating flat out (which hardly ever happens) can only meet 24 per cent of peak load, to say it is essential is rubbish.”
“[Nuclear is] extremely expensive, extremely dangerous, as recent events have shown, and produces waste products we simply don’t know what to do with,” added Ron Shilton.
“Renewables are essential but even the London Array only generates 600MW or so and that’s the biggest offshore installation in the world,” cautioned John Logson.
From the SMR camp, a certain Itchy Bootmore said: “I would love it if the UK were to develop [SMRs] – but there’s a lot of work to be done on those. Let’s not be fooled, it’s not just a case of up-scaling boat reactors and using the existing supply chain – there are a myriad of issues that need careful strategic preparation & planning prior to going into the procurement & build phase, let alone GDA and licensing considerations.”
What do you think? Keep the energy debate alive in Comments below, but please take a moment to familiarise yourself with our code of conduct before posting.
If were going to have all electric cars in the future we will need
nuclear power stations.
Massive amounts of power will be required for all the rail electrification schemes and for all the new housing the Government insists we need. A few extra wind turbines or solar panels is not going to fill the gap. We are heading for serious power shortages.
It’s about time that the government woke up and smelt the coffee! Public utilities should not be for profit, they should be owned by the government/people. Bring the electricity, gas and water companies back into public ownership so that we have control those services which are essential for living. And that from a life long Tory supporter.
I think Hitachi would agree the project was ‘not for profit’ http://www.hitachi.eu/en-gb/press/hitachi-announces-suspension-uk-nuclear-power-stations-construction-project-and-posting
Organisations in public ownership are always inefficient and costly disasters. I know, I worked in one for a few years and the same problems as those I saw there can be seen in all areas of government run operations. Spending other peoples money is easy!
We are in a transition period between fossil fuels and (probably) fusion in say 50 years time. Renewables will never do the trick unless someone can come up with affordable GWweek electricity storage devices (unlikely).
Perhaps we should not have rushed like idiots to close some of our coal burning plants – with literally hundreds of big coal fired plants being built in China, India, Africa and South America, a few in the UK would make no measurable difference.
If it turns out that we are sitting on large quantities of gas available by fracking, then CCGT generation would be an alternative.
What does this have to do with Hitachi? Whether you are free to choose an electricity supplier, or are forced to use a national one, doesn’t help Wyfla to get built.
There could potentially be a solution where a Government owned company buys a nuclear power station from Hitachi, or Westnghouse, and then operates it. That would put the risk and the cost of capital onto the Government, but would provide a cheaper solution.
I would have liked to support the development of SMRs and certainly do so. However in the next 25 years the UK needs a source of low cost reliable on-demand power that only nuclear can feally provide (CCGTs are subject to oil price whims).
The ridiculous cost of PFI based power stations is a major problem and has made nuclear power less attractive to both the users and the plant suppliers. Large power stations are a national asset and have served the UK well for several generation of generation. A private investor is not suited to large long term infra-structure investments and this lesson seems to be taking a long time to be learned.
Unless action is taken soon, the UK will be in the same situation as Moses was when the light went out.
just remind me, John, what was that situation?
I believe when the lights went out, Moses was in the dark, but Jack will confirm.
Stuart got it right in one!
Paul W: Agreed.
And I’m NOT a lifelong Tory supporter… 😉
All the talk about SMR’s is fine, and I would love it if the UK were to develop these – but there’s a lot of work to be done on those, let’s not be fooled, it’s not just a case of up-scaling boat reactors and using the existing supply chain – there are a myriad of issues that need careful strategic preparation & planning prior to going into the procurement & build phase, let alone GDA and licensing considerations. Plus, right here and NOW, given the current grid operating model that demands a consistent regular base load to provide power at a fairly tight frequency range around 50Hz, there is no substitute for the constant steady supply from nuclear generating stations. and there is not likely to be one either, given the glacial pace of change and realisation of infrastructure projects. If that grid model changes, and the populace and devices are then tolerant to fluctuating supply provision and maybe wider frequency variations, then maybe another strategy can be delivered. It will take time to steer that ship around – which we don’t have.
The fact this is then compounded by all the nonsense surrounding promotion of electric cars to all and sundry, and web-enabled houses and devices all hungry for power then we face a very uncertain energy future.
Funny how the UK made comparatively instant decisions to strategically fund the banks and print money out of thin air to prevent them collapsing 10 years ago, but we cannot find money to fund the things that are going to power the Banks and their operating systems – which would include the cashless society they are seemingly pressing for. That’ll work well, then….
That £1.5 TRILLION would buy a lot of power stations & infrastructure and R & D and would be a far better investment for the people of the UK than those banks – who are still broke.
I think we should ask for it back and put it to better use……
Yet again investment in our core technology is sadly lacking, all we hear about is Toshiba and Hitachi. I am pretty sure the guys at Harwell all know very well how to build a big reactor. Can we take some of the Brexit savings and spend this on a new, British power plant. Much better than giving £39Bn to Brussels!
I very much doubt the guys at Harwell know how to build a nuclear power plant. When did they last build one? When did they last make a saferty case? What designs do they have? And even if there was this investment, how does that impact payments to Brussels?
Surely raising steam using second world war fission technology must now be laid to rest. It’s extremely expensive, extremely dangerous, as recent events have shown, and produces waste products we simply don’t know what to do with! We’re an island and stating the obvious we’re surrounded by wet stuff that can’t help being pulled and stretched twice daily by our biggest satellite, the moon. The energy (FREE ENERGY) available here is immeasurable! All we need is to convince our leaders and boffins of this fact so that they might get together to work something out on a national scale. Yes it will cost, but NEVER as expensive as the immense amounts our leaders are willing to throw at Nuclear! No dangerous technology, and no waste products we’re willing to leave to our children to try and sort out simply because WE can’t
Of course, the problem with tidal energy is thst although predictable, it’s intermittent and at least half the time isn’t producing energy during peak consumptiuon time, so it requires grid-level storage to get the best use out of it. Also, the difficulties and expense of siting and maintaining engineered devices with moving parts immersed in the tidal stream of the open sea cannot be underestimated; tidal lagoons are also major engineering projects with considerable capital costs.
The problem of intermittent energy production can be minimised by having several tidal generators around the coast as tide times vary by many hours from place to place. You are right about the difficulty and investment expense, but if the technology is prioritised over wind generation it would be a better long term option.
I cannot agree with you more, I’ve been saying for years that using wave power should be top of the agenda, wave generators fixed to the sea floor pumping fluids ashore by means of high pressure pipes to a generating station, nothing on the surface to interfere with marine vessels, no cables just pipes buried, all the wave generators can be isolated and lifted to the surface for repair if needed, Operating 24/7 364days and it doesn’t matter if the weather is rough the wave generators would tick away producing the power to turn the alternator.
Romantic idea Ron, but you’ll need magicians not boffins.
So as of 2010 UK average primary energy consumption is roughly 125kWh per person per day. Doing the maths while completely ignoring practicality & conversion efficiency if a tidal barrage covered the entire North Sea & Irish Sea there is only 100kWh per person per day of tidal energy to harvest.
So substituting adjectives for actual numbers I’d say energy sources like nuclear are pretty vital.
perhaps that is why “they” are not worried by global warming! Its speeding up glacial movement!
Nuclear power is great for a base load supply, but that isn’t very much help if you only have 10% of the required total supply. Having 10% of lights still on is a help, but not really adequate. So either we need a lot more reactors to get near 100% like the French, or nuclear isn’t the whole answer. SMRs aren’t close to being commercially ready. Renewables (solar, wind) are intermittent, but don’t provide tons of radioactive waste, and have the advantage we don’t need to buy anything from Russia, Saudi Arabia or any other country we’d rather not be forced to do business with. Tidal could work with several sites around the country, but never seems happen, and there must be a reason. So I see the answer is to solve the intermittency of wind with some proper large scale storage. I don’t mean the odd few hours, but days or weeks of storage. Lithium batteries have the wrong ratio of storage capacity to power output, and are best used for short (a few hours) of storage. Days of capacity probably means chemical conversion technologies, like hydrogen from electrolysis, or something like the Redox systems described in “Charging into the future” on 11 April 2018. These can be scaled to very high capacities (but keeping maximum power at the same level) for relatively low cost, as it is just the chemical storage that increases. Another swimming pool of vanadium solution, or some more hydrogen gas holders. And when fusion finally works (ha ha), we can take down the windmills leaving nothing more than a small concrete pad, or just tow them back to shore and dispose of them.
Yet another mega project failing, and who suffers ? Obviously not the incompetents who make the decisions to pump billions into overseas industries that leave us high and dry when the bottom line doesn’t meet expectations.
Time to stop putting our strategic assets in the hands of foreign powers. A change of approach is desperately needed, we need internal investment of UK funds into UK industries.
Let’s see some immediate investment into SMRs. Sure development might take time but that’s on a par with the time it takes these (failed) mega projects to get on line. I believe it would be a better use of funds to put the money into SMRs rather than give it to Japanese millionaires.
And why we’re at it, let’s cancel that other failing white elephant HS2 and put the funds into the underfunded and failing existing rail network !
A view from space at night shows just how much electricity is wasted. When will the problem be tackled at source? A movement to reclaim the night with bans on exterior lighting and illuminated advertising should be introduced. All internet and mobile phone use should be paid for outside of any contract to penalise the heavy users of energy. Electric cars will save energy, so the spare fuel can be used to supply local generating stations. This may be essential anyway to meet demand. The use of electricity should be plummeting with modern efficient TV’s, lights, microwave ovens etc, so only the internet and wasteful lighting must be driving demand, and 90% of that is probably non-essential. If the lights go out, at least we will be able to see the stars!
But isn’t illumination at night the whole point? If it is ‘wasted’, then we need to be looking at the current social paradigm that insists on 24hr consumption and industries basing their business models on that…..
Some towns are experimenting with turning off street lights for a while, to give some light pollution-free time. There’s also developmentg work going on for lights that waste less light by directing it better, and it’s been suggested that street lighting could be motion sensitive to only supply light when there is traffic flowing or people are around.
You lost me when you stated that electric cars save energy !
Today and in future nuclear energy is too dangerous! Imagine if Mr Putin or a terrorist organisation decided to blow up a nuclear plant!
Whilst renewables have made enormous strides forward, at night time there is no solar energy, and when barometric pressure is high there is usually little wind energy.
We must still keep developing electricity storage opportunities and developing tidal energy (mentioned above) opportunities as well. Until these new opportunities and new technologies become favourable we must utilise gas power stations which can be switched on and off (unlike nuclear) in minutes. Gas power stations cost little to build (compared to alternatives) and would only be used to top up electricity demand when our alternatives do not offer enough alternative energy.
Really? And exactly why would MR Putin be interested in blowing up a nuclear power station? I think you’ve been watching too many Hollywood Goodies v baddies fiction… and that includes most of our news reporting. And if I was bothered about terrorism, I’d look an awful lot closer to home….
I agree that we need to phase out all fossil fuel (including CCGT which is fossil fueled so don’t be fooled by that!). Renewables are essential but even the London Array only generates 600MW or so and that’s the biggest offshore installation in the world. We do have substantial wind and marine current potential but need a lot more to power all those electric cars. Sharing batteries may be a good idea but the power has to be generated in the first place. Offshore also presents transmission risks either from natural or hostile sources as well.
France of course has had its problems. Not only is Flamanville well behind and they have found excess carbon in the pressure vessel header but a couple of years ago they had to close 16 reactors for steel quality reasons. They did have a 100 year plan but have also been trying to reduce their dependence on nuclear.
But what are we going to do with our plutonium store – 112 tonnes ex weapons programme up at Sellafield, 40% of the world’s Pu? We can’t give it away let alone sell it under sensible non-proliferation regulations and with a half life of 25k years it will need a lot of storage which costs. It is not only the bomb risk – Pu is a very dangerous chemical. Even to reduce this to a tonne will take nearly 200k years and it will still be lethal! Surely the answer is to use it in a fleet of reactors that will provide power and while there will be waste products, these will all have substantially shorter half lifes and only at worst be as dangerous chemically.
I should point out that the fleet of (dying and already dead) reactors we have (had) exceeded by almost a factor of 2 their design lives. And by building large gas-cooled plant, we ensured that both the construction and decommissioning costs were maximised. Building a fleet of SMRs – preferably domestically designed – would be a sensible investment to solving our future energy crisis. Which of course ensures it won’t happen. Sad, isn’t it?
Better get someone to take that decision TODAY then- because the lead times for getting these SMRs licensed, & approved, built and given Authority To Operate and on-line are still long! Oh….no-one?? Ok, in the meantime then…..?
Considering the fact that nulear in the UK, when all the stations are fully operational and generating flat out (which hardly ever happens) can only meet 24% of peak load, to say it is essential is rubbish. Coal generation is now very low indeed, at rarely more than 10%, with the vast majority being picked up by CCGT which are approaching 50% efficiency, unlike the nuclears steam turbines, at about 33%. The UK has a massive amount of offshore wind, and also has a massive amount more in the planning stage, which, when it comes on stream, which it will do far faster and cheaper per MW than any nuclear plant, will make the nuclear plants redundant. Scrap Hinkley now, before it becomes another vastly over budget and over running white elephant! Contrary to the energy version of “project fear” the wind IS always blowing offshore, and demand has been falling (15% in the last ten years, which is why they are pulling out) and will continue to do so as more and more commercial and street lighting and signals etc is converted to LED. As has been said above more than once, the British government needs to retake control of Electicity, gas and water, because as long as these industries are controlled by foreign companies, if we ever do start competing with their home industries, they will increase our energy costs!!!
Using actual numbers instead of adjectives for a moment. UK primary energy use is roughly 125kWh per person per day. To put that in perspective, assuming offshore wind could get 3W/m^2 it would take roughly 110,000Km^2 of unbroken windfarm to meet everyone’s primary demand. Roughly 5.5 times the size of Wales.
Not saying its impossible, but I get the sense a lot of people are handwaving things like offshore wind & tidal energy without putting the numbers in context.
I voted for none of the above. I suspect that Gov infrastructureUK support needs to appreciate that pouring money at projects is not the way; they should try thinking instead – and make sure that technologies are in place for affordable delivery.
It may be that SMRs are a way forward (but big offers an opportunity for un-enriched uranium) – but still ALL the technologies need to be put in place; though I would laud those that are considering how to burn waste (which needs to be done regardless – because of UK store of waste and plutonium) – hence nuclear reactors are necessary – even if all they are there for is to remove “waste”.
High thermal efficiency is not too important for nuclear but, if required, running hot would, of course, preclude the use of steam and need a combined cycle (most likely using gas and steam turbines) – which would get high thermal efficiency as well as useful process heat.
I favour avoiding CO2 net producing systems (including gas and pelletized biomass – which are called “renewable”) – though others may prefer to frack for gas and support wind and solar, rather than nuclear.
I guess that the there are still people employed by the government that could support new nuclear development but the skills for high energy density heat transfer (or reactor) systems (including solar thermal and thermal energy storage ) may not be ; and the government should
admit their failings but also consider how they might get any needed manufacturing and materials R&D done quickly.
So yes to nuclear – but government needs to mobilize resources (yes this include funding but people and ideas – for both nuclear and non-nuclear islands)
This is fantastic news. Only the morally corrupt support nuclear. John Logsdon text speaks for why this is so.
I so wish the whole industry would die though.
Role on barrages, renewables, smart grids, interconnectors, more closed system pumped hydros, more home generation and better insulation, etc.
Just need more incentive schemes and a bit of will power and things will move forward.
“Only the morally corrupt support nuclear”. What a baseless and ridiculous accusation to make. Do you understand the arithmetic behind the UK’s energy production and consumption? Do you understand that (despite efficiencies) consumption is only going to increase and that (due to aging existing supplies) generation is only going to go down? Do you understand the energy poverty that is heading our way unless we do something about it? Do you understand the carbon emission challenge the world has? Do you understand what will happen if we don’t limit global warming? Do you understand that it is PHYSICALLY impossible to meet these demands with hydro, wind and solar alone due to the sheer amount of ‘floor space’ we would need in the UK?
I urge you to check your facts before making such sweeping generalisations about the industry: http://www.withouthotair.com/
The thermal efficiency of steam turbines depends on the deltaT across the turbine ( ~= boiler and reactor dT) . AGR thermal efficiency was about 40% and higher temperature reactors would be even higher. PWRs work at lower temperatures because outlet T2 must be below the triple point. Maybe I have misunderstood what you mean but I fail to see how a combined cycle nuclear station would work as there is no rotating output from a nuclear plant. CCGT is primarily a direct drive generator with further heat extraction from the exhuast gases using a steam cycle which can yield as much as 60% efficiency. It isn’t rocket science. Even straight forward diesel generators have been combined with district heating to give very high efficiency but generally there is far too much heat available.
gridwatch.co.uk shows that CCGT is generating about half our electricity plus some from coal even so we are nowhere near replacing fossil fuel.
My point about Pu was how to get rid of it. We can’t dump it, shoot it into space or guarantee safe storage for 200k years so why not use it? Maybe I’m completey morally corrupt but I would rather deal with a problem today than wish it away. Nuclear energy is just an application of science and as the UK was the first to embrace it we have the oldest reactor designs around which lasted about twice their design life but are very large and therefore take a lot of decomissioning.
None of this will happen of course because our politicians are third rate chickens but we will have a nice new train in 30 years time which no one wants but everyone can get to London even quicker as long as they live in Manchester, Leeds or Birmingham.
Bit off track ;-), but re:
” … but we will have a nice new train in 30 years time which no one wants but everyone can get to London even quicker …”
I read a recent report that intimated that HS2 wouldn’t be able to travel at full speed.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/hs2/12192286/HS2-at-risk-of-derailing-at-top-speeds-report-finds.html
I believe (?) that the government may favour certain nuclear generating technologies over other, better technologies, because of the waste products that can be used as fuel for the nuclear weapons industry ? If so, the inefficiencies and excessive costs may be unavoidable.
I am not sure of what the government actually believes in either ;-{. I believe that much as in hydro power (for water/flood control) , electricity generation was a by-product of something else (yes plutonium production) – but, nevertheless, there are useful applications. Indeed one could argue that nuclear reactors should be used to get rid of the high level waste (and excess plutonium) anyway – though this does not appear to be what politician/civil servants have any care about.
I believe that the inefficiencies and costs for large projects are the result of a poorly-educated/ignorant customer.
There are undoubtedly other technologies that need to be developed but, such as those for energy storage, it is quite likely that these technologies could be used to support nuclear reactors
Blow it up? the equivalent of attacking a knight in armour with bow and arrow! Simply disable a few of safety features, from its links outside. As I have occasion to describe recently to several of the G&G: they just do not have the slightest idea of what is now possible, likely and headed in their direction. Sadly, ours as well! [I read today that the Courts are stopped, because their communication systems are ‘down’ Did something happen to the quill pens, parchment and ink?
I seem to remember hearing that the long bow was quite effective against knights in armour – notably at the Battle of Agincourt
I am assume that a combined cycle would mean that hot gas (directly or indirectly) would drive a gas turbine and the exhaust from such could then heat water/steam and then drive a steam turbine and dump some heat for local power – and benefit from higher thermal efficiency. Any high temperature coolant (and this includes liquids) would need to produce hot gas (nitrogen or possibly argon, in a closed cycle, would be best for the materials in an off-the shelf gas turbine – possibly improving issues [and temperatures – and efficiency] compared to gas burning gas turbines).
I must admit to being confused about the comment that was made about your post and “the morally corrupt”; I read your post as addressing the need for there to be nuclear reactors to eliminate the (huge backlog) of waste; I know this is different in the USA – but that is their political decision (to dump it under ground) and may be the results of policies of big green, who are only in favour of recycling if it is the right sort of recycling..
We used to have all the brains and Engineers to build nuclear power plants so why aren’t we, various governments sold our utilities for a quick cash injection which soon disappeared, they sold telecoms which when run properly turned vast profits in private hands, the same with gas, electricity distribution, water & trains, all for a quick fix never looking at the long-term consequences, and now they want a foreign power to have our nuclear generation in their control, & what happens when they start sending their waste over here to store for the next thousand years?
I believe there is a lot of misunderstanding about the issue of nuclear waste. Only the very worse would have to be stored for long periods and that’s a very small amount and the storage period for this would be in the order of 1,000 years NOT 200k. A long time granted, but realistically achievable.
See: “Sustainable Energy – without the hot air by David MacKay”, free online.
Realistically future power generation is likely to involve diverse sources such as wave power which is semi predictable (in parts of the near north Atlantic almost constant), and again if you want to talk about unrealized opportunities in British engineering actual floating power units would probably be based on shipbuilding technology and that used to be a strength. https://www.theengineer.co.uk/issues/9-april-2007/stephen-salter-pioneer-of-wave-power/
Renewable’s are the solution, today we subsidising fossil fuels at 44.2% while Renewables only get 32.1% switching support away from Coal, Oil and Gas would help achieve our climate change obligations as agreed with the Paris Accord and create much needed jobs and investment in Clean Energy technology. If the Orkney Isles are 120% renewable electric energy then surely the rest of the UK can learn from their example?
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/23/uk-has-biggest-fossil-fuel-subsidies-in-the-eu-finds-commission
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/20/orkney-northern-powerhouse-electricity-wind-waves-surplus-power-hydrogen-fuel-cell
according to that first Guardian article, a significant part of that ‘subsidy’ is the notional extra 15% VAT that would be collected if the VAT rate were 20%, not 5% as on energy bills. Well, obviously, fossil fuels WILL get more subsidy, by this definition, than renewables – if you pro-rata that 15% to the relative contribution the two make. It is not a fault with policy, merely a reflection of the reality of the energy mix at present … if renewables ever constituted 100%, then they would be getting 100% of the subsidy
So how do we get around the limitations of solar and wind? Both are intermittent and propped up by subsidies. Tidal power project proposals seem to come and go but are massively expensive. Is the future one of increased darkness, cold, disease and hunger?
The fixation with CO2 (it is not a notifiable disease) and climate change could bring this awful vision about. . The UK does not appear of have any sort of rational energy policy ( next week) or strategy (next month). Perhaps devising one to give long term security of supply based on a basket of inputs not excessively reliant on imported fuels might be a useful start.
While renewables are great to have in the energy mix & the indirect subsidies fossil fuels recieve are shocking I’d argue that the Orkney isles are in no way representative of the country as a whole.
Not only is there probably an order of magnitude more renewable energy potential per Km^2 there is also probably a couple of orders of magnitude less demand per capita considering the lack of industry, heavy infrastructure etc.
There was an interview with the boss of Horizon Nuclear Power on BBC Radio 4 ‘Today’ https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000253g ( around 06:20?) apparently the plan was to fund Wylfa 1/3 Hitachi, 1/3 UK government and 1/3 Japanese government and according to him, it was a falling out about this funding which prompted them to ‘pause’ – not scrap – the project
and yet nobody appears to have told the French, who are generating – let me just check http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/ – 66% of their entire electricity output using nuclear, right now
SMRs would great, but ‘not yet’ again. Could always approach the Indians, Chinese, or Russians, all have domestically produced reactors built while our government does what it’s best at: Talking and looking after its own in the city.
When I visited Sellafield (whilst on a holiday in the Lakes) I was amazed to find that a substantial part of its business model (how I dislike that phrase) was already doing just that. We apparently are paid good money by lots of other nations to store their nuclear ‘stuff!’
While SMR seems the best option lets be realistic, the design & regulatory work means they’re at best another 15 years away from the units rolling off assembly.
Renewables have managed to meet a significant fraction of our electricity demand but sitting down & actually doing the maths shows just how staggering an effort it would take for them to meet total electricity demand, let alone total primary energy demand.
So in the meantime, for lack of better options, I think we really do need big nuclear if we’re serious about getting clean energy on the grid in the near term. That said, the way the energy market works in completely inimical to big nuclear projects. No private enterprise is willing to stump up the capital costs, interest payments, insurance to build a station when they can get a quicker return by just throwing up a gas plant.
We’re going to have to do something different soon. Whether the solution is buying the reactors up front & running them ourselves to make the money back or making the construction itself a state run enterprise I don’t know.
The spiralling costs are inevitable in additional safety mitigations as each new nuclear incident portends the demise of the existing inherently unsafe and inefficient Nuclear 1.0 water cooled; steam driven technology … burning very little of the U238 solid fuel pellets containing enriched U235. This has led to a social stigma from fear of incidents as well as what to do with Plutonium waste that needs 10’s of 1,000’s of years to reduce to safe background levels.
What many are not aware of is the existence of an inherently ‘walk-away-safe’ Nuclear 2.0 molten salt reactor (MSR) technology … the salt containing the fuel U233 – derived from Thorium – which burns far more efficiently … with what little waste that’s left reaching background levels within a 300 years. Although the salt in these reactors allow them to run much hotter than water based reactors they run at atmospheric pressure (removing safety issues related with pressurised systems) and generate electricity much more efficiently. Another major benefit with this technology is when deriving the U233 fuel from Thorium the waste from existing Nuclear 1.0 can be used … removing the need for long term safeguard of an underground repository.
Getting into the modular manufacture of civil minded safe Nuclear 2.0 power is an opportunity to have smaller safer locally based generators to supply the demands for ever increasing electrical power … on a global scale. Here again using Thorium has the advantage of reducing proliferation worries – not producing Plutonium in its decay sequence. This eases siting generators in the more disadvantaged regions of the world where the advantages of high temperature operation of molten salt allows de-salination plants … all while having direct benefits of reducing the effects of climate change. I would say the benefits of the right kind of nuclear – as embodied by the MSR technology – should not be viewed as just a solution to the nuclear problem … but a more fundamental solution to many of the socioeconomic problems incurred from the lack safe clean energy for the planet.
Molten fluid in the fuel is very good as it helps heat transfer.
However molten fluids as coolants suffer from not being transparent and requires more advanced sensors and monitoring – than gas cooled reactors.
But main problem with molten salts, lead and tin is their corrosive nature. (And sodium can only work up to about 900 deg ;-{ ). So need to resolve issues for liquid coolants and pressure vessels and heat exchangers (to gas – much safer, and more relevant than steam); this require high integrity hot materials (W, Mo, SiC..) and manufacturing technologies with high integrity welding (solid state) – and there is little evidence of this being done in the UK, in preparation for high temperature reactors.
The molten salt I would think is most suited, as proposed for the LFTR concept (using a combination of lithium fluoride (LiF) and beryllium fluoride (BeF2)… see ‘Flibe Energy’) and based on what was developed from the ground-breaking work at Oak Ridge National Labs (ORNL) in the 60’s. This did not have the same concerns for corrosion from the post test analysis and when run at about 700 deg would minimise these effects. If only the MSR technology had been allowed to continue … but as usual politics got in the way of realising the potential of this technology. We’ve lost decades in what had the potential to stem climate change from a much earlier transition point … all because of these bad policy decisions from the government of the time.
Having already made the practicalities of MSR a reality, it should be a relatively short time scale to build prototypes from designs based on the ORNL results & data – refining the design through quick iterative steps – which a small modular Reactor would be the appropriate form factor to enable development in the most agile and efficient way … and not cost the billions as per the existing, so called ‘advanced’ designs.
I was looking at this with an eye to heat-transfer and to manufacture and hoping for high temperatures and improved thermodynamic efficiency.
Fusion welding tends to enhance corrosion and is why people have used solid state welding – certainly for titanium (in making compact high efficiency heat exchangers). And so, though I have heard of (a low chromium) Hastelloy lasting for 10 years with, I think, 100 microns of corrosion, I am not sure how that plays out.
The 700 degrees certainly would make it competitive with sodium based coolants ( but their lower melting points might make maintenance easier )
The use of a gaseous coolant, as well as providing transparency for observation and control, could be useful for using available gas turbine technology – but I think 700 degrees might be too cool for that.
The high temperature problems would be significantly reduced if a noble or inert gas were used for coolant – and possibly allow W, C or SiC to be used for heat exchanger, fuel plates/rods and containment.
I do agree that there has been a lot of wasted time with regarding molten fuels (and coolant options) and there should have been more work on addressing possible issues (and, you might have guessed, I am thinking about affordable manufacturing too.;-} )
When the MSR programme was shutdown in the early 70’s a considerable amount of the documentation/reports from ORNL made their way to storage cupboard in a nearby Dolls Museum. Luckily these were spotted and Kirk Sorensen – working with NASA at the time – managed to get a grant arranged to scan them to make them available to all across the internet. No doubt the Chinese, who are pursuing this technology in a big way, made good use of them.
I found a relevant para that agrees with your 100μm corrosion after about 10years that you may be interested in:
“High Temperature Corrosion of Hastelloy N in Molten Li2BeF4(FLiBe) Salt
INTRODUCTION
The Fluoride Salt-Cooled High Temperature Reactor (FHR) is being actively considered as the next generation nuclear reactor because it offers, among other benefits, a high degree of passive safety and high thermal efficiency. The primary coolant in FHR will most likely be Li enriched FLiBe (2LiF-BeF2) salt, which has a low neutron cross section and residual radioactivity, and high volumetric heat capacity, boiling point, and thermal Conductivity. Among the structural materials being considered for FHR is Hastelloy N, a Ni-based alloy which was originally developed during the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) program at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) specifically for a combination of corrosion resistance in molten fluoride salts and air-side oxidation resistance. Most of the MSRE investigations were conducted in fuel-bearing molten fluoride (e.g., 70%LiF-23%BeF2-5%ZrF4-1%ThF4-1%UF4 in mole%) salts that were eventually used in the molten salt reactor developed under this program. An example of one significant experiment in the MSRE program was a flow loop of this salt constructed with Hastelloy N which operated successfully for 9.2 years in the temperature range of 560°C (cold section) to 700°C (hot section). Examination of the inner surface of the flow loop after this long-term test showed a Cr depleted attack depth of 100 μm in the hot section and deposition of Cr on the colder section of the loop. The outer air-side surface of the Hastelloy N loop exhibited an oxide layer with thickness of about 50μm. This long-term corrosion test and other investigations suggested that Hastelloy N has good compatibility with molten fluoride salt and acceptable oxidation resistance in air.”
Read the whole string. Can’t see any mention of domestic burning of gas in fuel cells to make heat and electricity. Then share the surplus electricity down the grid. These steam boilers are so inefficient by dumping the heat. Nuclear is worst.