KICK NUCLEAR monthly newsletter December 2020

UK NUCLEAR SPENDING PLANS

I reported in the October edition of this newsletter that the Prime Minister predicted in his speech at the Tory Party Conference on October 6th, that offshore wind farms would generate enough electricity to power every home in the UK by 2030 and also that there was only a brief mention of nuclear power in the speech, when he asked his audience to “Imagine the future – with high-skilled green-collar jobs in wind, solar, nuclear, in hydrogen and in carbon capture and storage, retrofitting homes, ground source heat pumps.”

At the time I took this contrast to indicate a cooling in the government’s enthusiasm for nuclear power. However, two documents issued recently by the UK treasury paint a rather different picture.

Both were published on November 25th,  the first entitled Response to the National Infrastructure Assessment (RNIA) and the second, National Infrastructure Strategy, fairer, faster, greener (NIS)

The former comments on recommendations made in the National Infrastructure Commission’s National Infrastructure Assessment report, published in 2018.

In regard to nuclear the 2018 report had recommended that “The government should not agree support for more than one nuclear power station beyond Hinkley Point C, before 2025.” This recommendation is however rejected by the UK Treasury in its response., which goes on to say, it “recognises the NIC’s view that a large degree of uncertainty remains which affects what the optimal mix of electricity generation technologies might be in 2050”, adding that, “This uncertainty means it is important to maintain options by pursuing additional large-scale nuclear projects, subject to clear value for money for both consumers and taxpayers and all relevant approvals.”

Nuclear is also considered in Chapter 3 of NIS, entitled “Decarbonising the economy and adapting to climate change”. In this it says: “Nuclear power has long played an important role in UK power generation and will continue to do so provided it can be delivered to time and budget…Nuclear is a proven, value-for-money source of reliable low carbon power which can complement renewables. The government is pursuing large-scale nuclear projects, subject to clear value for money for both consumers and taxpayers and all relevant approvals, with further details to follow in the Energy White Paper.”

In terms of investment in nuclear power NIS says, “…the government will provide up to £525 million to bring forward large-scale nuclear and invest in the development of advanced nuclear R&D, including up to £385 million in an Advanced Nuclear Fund for small modular reactors and advanced modular reactors. This is alongside £220 million for nuclear fusion.”

The interesting thing to notice about these sums is how little is being invested in “large-scale nuclear”, in spite of the enthusiasm for it shown in the previous quotation above. The figure is £140 million minus however much is to be invested in “advanced nuclear R&D” apart from the up to £385 million being invested in modular and small modular reactors.

When the latest estimate for the cost of building Hinkley C is in the region of £22 billion, £140 million is mere chicken feed. It’s true that it is the private sector that is supposed to foot the bill for new nuclear power stations, but this they have signally failed to do in the case of Hinkley C.

Back in 2016, the Institute for Sustainable Development estimated that government subsidies towards the Hinkley C project would amount to at least £40 billion during its lifetime and beyond, in paying for the long-term storage for the radioactive waste it produced beyond a certain date. Delays in completing the project have doubtless increased this figure since, and there is no reason to think further large-scale nuclear power plants can be built without similar enormous subsidies.

However, the bulk of the investment in nuclear is to go into “small modular reactors (SMR)” and nuclear fusion”.

Not that there is anything new about the idea of producing electricity from either small modular reactors or fusion reactors.

SMRs were first designed and tested in the 1950s by the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and in US Army and Navy research programmes. The Army Nuclear Power Programme focused on developing a reactor to provide power for remote areas, which could be transported entirely by truck and the Navy’s on creating a reactor that could operate on a ship with the first nuclear-powered submarine, the USS Nautilus, being launched in 1954.

The AEC’s Power Reactor Development Program funded the design and operation of a few small PWR commercial reactors, but the programme was discontinued due to high logistical costs. In spite of desultory efforts since, no commercially viable SMRs have emerged.

As for getting electricity from nuclear fusion, the Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of California, Stewart Prager, commented drily in October that “The use of nuclear fusion reactions for electricity generation remains theoretical.”

As Wikipedia puts it, “Research into fusion reactors began in the 1940s, but to date, no design has produced more fusion power output than the electrical power input, defeating the purpose.” There are current attempts taking place to build fusion reactors around the world, including in the UK, but again £220 million sounds rather little to help turn round this history of failure.

SIZEWELL

As reported above, the UK treasury budgeted for up to £140 million to be spent on “large-scale nuclear” in a “Strategy” published on 25th November.

What large-scale nuclear? Since the only plans being currently proposed for building new nuclear power stations, apart from Hinkley C, already in construction, are for plants at Sizewell in Suffolk and at Bradwell in Essex, it was not much of a surprise when the Guardian Financial section headlined an article on December 15th: “Talks to restart on £20bn Suffolk nuclear power plant.”   So, Sizewell then.

A new nuclear power station at Sizewell, Sizewell C has been planned since 2010, and in 2012, the owner of the site, Electricité de France (EDF) announced it would be building two French-designed European Pressurized Reactors at the site as well as at Hinkley C, with the target of both stations being operational by the end of 2017. EDF later decided to just go ahead with Hinkley C and postpone the decision on whether to go ahead with Sizewell C until later.

The decision to do so now seems to have been taken, as in June 2020, EDF announced that it had applied to the UK Office for Nuclear Regulation for a licence to build and operate Sizewell C.   And in November EDF said it planned to start building at the end of 2021, with a completion date of 2031 and organised a public consultation on its plans for the power station this November and December.

However, as in the case of Hinkley C, EDF and its partner in the project, China General Nuclear Power, which has a 20% stake in the project, are dependent on the UK government giving large financial support for the project to go ahead.

And there is no guarantee that the UK government, in spite of the Prime Minister’s love of large “prestigious” infrastructure projects, will be willing to invest large sums of money in Sizewell C, with wind-power now so much cheaper than nuclear and in the light of the serious problems encountered in building Hinkley C, which have pushed back the estimated completion date by many years and doubled the originally predicted cost of the project, requiring massively increased subsidies from the government.

As the Guardian puts it, “The formal negotiation over the £20bn nuclear plant will hinge on whether…EDF can prove that it has learned lessons from its Hinkley Point nuclear project,,,and that a successor plant would offer value for money.”

Without waiting for the results of these talks, Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) reported on 13th December that EDF had just started felling the 100-year old Coronation Wood to make room for a car–park for Sizewell C, having been granted permission to do so by East Suffolk Council.

TASC had applied for a Judicial Review of East Suffolk Council’s decision to allow the felling of the wood, but this was refused in court on 16th November  

Joan Girling who applied for the judicial review on behalf of TASC argued that, “It is totally premature to allow the felling of the wood. Sizewell C may never get permission and a 100-year-old wood cannot be replaced. Due to its removal there will be a major loss of visual screening of the nuclear industrial complex [currently consisting of the closed-down Sizewell A and the operating Sizewell B nuclear plants] causing increased noise and light pollution, totally ignoring the site’s status as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

“Destroying the wood, its badger setts, bird and bat habitats blows EDF’s environmental credentials out of the water. There are alternatives but EDF and the council chose not to pursue them. EDF is not concerned in any way, shape or form for the well-being of the ecology of the area, nor that of locals who are deeply upset by their plans.”           Contact TASC at [email protected]