nuclear-news

Nuclear Reliability- an uncertain route

July 05, 2025, https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2025/07/nuclear-reliability-uncertain-route.html

uclear energy provides reliable, baseload, low-carbon electricity that complements the variability of wind and solar’. That, boiled down, is the UK governments view, as relayed in a response by the Department of Energy Security and New Zero to a critique by Prof Steve Thomas and Paul Dorfman. Well, none if it holds up to examination. 

Low carbon? Not if you include uranium mining, waste handling and plant decommissioning. Baseload? A dodgy idea!  A Department of Energy minister had previously admitted that ‘although some power plants are referred to as baseload generators, there is no formal definition of this term’ and the Department ‘does not place requirements on generation from particular technologies’. 

A key point is that nuclear plants are not that reliable- if nothing else, they have to be shut down occasionally for maintenance and refuelling. Add to that unplanned outages, and nuclear plants are not very sensible as backup – especially given their high capital cost and lack of flexible operation. There are easier ways to provide the necessary grid balancing e.g. via flexible demand and supply management, smart grid transfer/green power trading, and via short and long duration energy storage, including green hydrogen storage.  

All in all, as I’ve noted in earlier posts, it’s hard to see why the UK is pushing ahead with nuclear. As a recent US study found, the investment risk is high for nuclear compared to renewables. And as one of the authors put it ‘low-carbon sources of energy such as wind and solar not only have huge climatic and energy security benefits, but also financial advantages related to less construction risk and less chance of delays’ 

In which case it seems very strange that the UK Treasury seems happy to devote most of its new energy funding in the next few years to nuclear, with over £16bn evidently being earmarked for planned nuclear spending in 2025-2030, compared to under £6bn for renewables- see David Toke’s summary chart.  It’s actually all a bit up the air at present since no one knows when Hinkley will be running- Toke even said it might not be until 2035! And no one knows for sure if Sizewell C will really go ahead and if so when – it’s still awaiting a final go-ahead decision.  But some of the presumed nuclear spend is for Sizewell and some also possibly for SMRs, the latter getting £2.5bn diverted from renewables. And that’s not the end of it- consumers will also be shelling out to support Sizewell, if it goes ahead, paying an advanced surcharge on their bills to reduce construction risks under the RAB subsidy system. 

To be fair, consumers do have to meet a range of green levies, including the Renewables Obligation, although that one may be phased out soon – with renewable technology support costs falling very well under its replacement, the Contract for Difference system.  CfD strike prices were agreed in 2024 for wind at £54-59/MWh and solar PV at £50MWh, whereas Hinkley Point C got a £92.5 strike price in 2016, inflation index linked, so it would be over £128/MWh now and likely more by the time its running- in maybe 2030.

The next round of the CfD auctions for new renewable projects should be opening up soon, with the Clean Industry Bonus  providing extra support for some key projects, including not just offshore wind as at present, but also possibly onshore wind and hydrogen systems. The next CfD round should also in indicate how tidal stream technology is getting on. However, it will be while before all the final strike prices are agreed for the various options – possibly not until early next year. But, by then, maybe the details of the Sizewell funding and SMR costs will have been revealed. So, we might then be able to see what makes economic sense for the future. It will be interesting to see what the Energy Security and Net Zero Select Committee has to say on all this in its updated nuclear roadmap review, which ought be out around then- if not before.

It certainly has felt like an uphill struggle over the years. But now at least there seems to be some progress, with, for example, the new Solar Roadmap setting out the steps needed for the government and industry to deliver 45-47 GW of solar by 2030, which it is claimed will support up to 35,000 jobs and use less than half a percent of total UK land area. It will be aided by governments aim to increase solar deployment on new build homes through the new Future Homes Standard requirements. In addition, the government says it has ‘taken action to deploy the technology at scale, approving nearly 3 GW of nationally significant solar – more than in the last 14 years combined’. It does seem more serious on solar now….certainly than the preceding Tories. And on wind too, including onshore wind, with, in all, the current wind industry workforce put at  55,000 and likely to double by 2030. 

Of course this sort of expansion will face problems, for example leading to more wasteful curtailment of excess wind generation, unless transmission capacity is significantly expanded. Adding more inflexible nuclear to the system would of course not help – it would make it all harder to balance.  But, oddly, that seems to be the plan with Sizewell C. And the proposed development of SMRs also has issues.  For example, a recent review of nuclear options noted that ‘about 65% of Britain’s data centre capacity is concentrated in the London region’, and  it suggested suggest that co-locating SMRs with data centre clusters could ‘assist in alleviating capacity constraints in areas of high data centre concentration like London.’ But would people in London, or indeed, other big cities, welcome SMRs, given the safety and security issues? And is this really the way to go?

July 13, 2025 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY, UK