nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

UK government influenced by pro nuke advisor Dominic Cummins and Rolls Royce to invest in uneconomic nuclear power

By David Thorpe, 8 Nov 20 A secret military agenda.  UK defence policy is driving energy policy – with the public kept in the dark, Beyond Nuclear  By David Thorpe, 8 Nov 20    ” ……………..Rolls Royce and Dominic Cummings This sad, radioactive site is operated by – guess who – Rolls-Royce (under the Vulcan Trials Operation and Maintenance contract).

And Rolls Royce is already benefiting from public money flowing into new nuclear. It has for years been lobbying the government to support its small nuclear reactors wheeze.

Its 2017 pitch document contained phrases like “providing 440MW of electricity per year — enough to power a city the size of Leeds” – that Downing Street has literally copied and pasted into the above article fed to the Financial Times.

It doesn’t take much insight to see that Rolls Royce has turned Boris Johnson’s right-hand elf – the one who hates energy efficiency – Dominic Cummings. One can see his hand in the push for SMRs, while BEIS is pushing support for Sizewell C.

Rolls Royce is axing up to 8,000 jobs because of the pandemic-related aviation crash. This troubled company is a huge symbol of Great Britain plc. Millions of public money for SMRs is just what it needs.

But to back both Sizewell and the SMRs would be far too expensive for the public purse, already heavily in debt because of the coronavirus pandemic. Burke believes the SMR pitch is “Cummings fight back against the public pressure for Sizewell from EDF and (Tom) Greatrex”.

Tom Greatrex is the Nuclear Industry Association’s chairman. In a Times article he recently called for “a strong and unambiguous statement of the need for new nuclear to be able to meet the net-zero target” with backing for Sizewell……… https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/72759838/posts/3011373103

November 9, 2020 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Britain’s second option for new nuclear – Big Nuclear Reactors

 A secret military agenda.  UK defence policy is driving energy policy – with the public kept in the dark, Beyond NuclearBy David Thorpe, 8 Nov 20    “……..The second option for new nuclear.   While Downing Street is pushing SMRs, BEIS has been looking for a way to finance the £20 billion Sizewell C reactor which EDF has been lobbying to build in Suffolk. This could be why it did not want to bankroll Rolls Royce’s expansion.

One idea being floated by BEIS is the government taking equity stakes in future nuclear plants such as Sizewell C, the energy minister has confirmed.

French energy company EDF is unable to continue with its plans for a new UK nuclear power station without even more government support than it has already had.

The CEO of EDF, Jean-Bernard Lévy, met the Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak recently to beg for such support. The head of Greenpeace UK, John Sauven, wrote to the Chancellor saying giving support may be in EDF’s interests, but it is not in the UK’s. Nevertheless, the government is considering taking a direct stake in the project, using a “Regulated Asset Base” (RAB) financing model, where costs are added to consumers’ bills during construction.

This would still result in multibillion-pound liabilities showing on the government’s balance sheet. So the Treasury is studying whether the government should in return have equity stakes in EDF’s Sizewell plant.

The government previously offered to take a one-third stake in Hitachi’s Wylfa plant on Anglesey, but the Japanese company still scrapped the project last month – even then it was too expensive.

The RAB approach is being challenged anyway by the national nuclear regulator, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, because it could introduce a dual regulator for the industry, which it does not regard as sensible or workable.

Renewables can supply UK energy needs and net zero targets sooner and cheaper than nuclear

Renewables are safer, cheaper, quicker to install and genuinely low carbon, with no fuel supply chain.

The Sizewell reactor could not realistically be supplying power until 2034 at the earliest, while wind and solar plants take less than two years to commission, on average.

The ability of the national grid to absorb more fluctuating renewable electricity input is improving, helped by the collapsing cost of batteries, and investment in hydrogen and other forms of storage.

The National Infrastructure Commission has testified that the absorption of 65 per cent renewables on the grid by 2030 is cost-effective – and more is technically achievable.

Implicitly recognising the truth of this, the Ministry of Defence’s Chief Scientific Adviser on nuclear science and technology matters, Robin Grimes, has just opened up another front against renewables.

Grimes is advocating nuclear power’s potential for cogeneration – using its “waste” heat for all manner of things from district heating and seawater desalination to synthetic fuel production and industrial process heat.

This is not likely to make much of a dent in the cost-benefit equation.

Alarm bells should be set ringing when you know that this same Grimes was also co-author of a once-secret report in 2014 for the Ministry of Defence where it was recommended that the UK nuclear submarine industry needs to forge links with civil nuclear power in order to extricate itself from the dire situation it is in.

This secret report discussed what to do about the radiation-leaking Vulcan Naval Reactor Test Establishment, a military submarine reactor testing facility built in 1950 at Dounreay in Scotland.

Engineers with nuclear expertise are dying out with the reactors. New nuclear subs need a new supply chain and new expertise. What better place to tackle all these issues?…………….https://wordpress.com/read/feeds/72759838/posts/3011373103

November 9, 2020 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Small and large new nuclear reactors in Britain’s so-called ‘green industrial revolution’

Mail on Sunday 7th Nov 2020, Boris Johnson is poised to launch major plans for a ‘green industrial revolution’ backing a new wave of nuclear power plants to boost the economy and slash Britain’s carbon emissions. The proposals are expected to include the green light to build a nuclear plant at Sizewell C in Suffolk and thenext stage in a programme that would lead to a production line of rapidlyn and more cheaply produced small modular reactors within a decade, The Mail on Sunday understands.

The Government is considering a ‘Made in Britain’ solution that may include a taxpayer-backed injection from an infrastructure growth fund – a plan that would need rubber stamping by the Treasury. Funding could also include backing from British pension funds. It would allow the Government to help subsidise the small modular reactor programme (SMR) with as much as £2billion and a stake in Sizewell C of up to 10 per cent of its £20billion build costs.

Sizewell C is backed by French state-backed EDF Energy, which could become a minority shareholder. Government financing would also help slash the cost of electricity produced by the plant. Britain has eight nuclear power plants, generating about a fifth of the country’s electricity. Seven are due to close by 2030.

The SMR consortium is led by Rolls-Royce and includes construction and engineering companies Assystem, Atkins, BAM Nuttall,
Jacobs and Laing O’Rourke. It hopes to build ten to 15 reactors in the UK, largely on former nuclear sites. Plans are already being discussed for the possibility of joint sites in locations including Moorside in Cumbria – where Japanese multinational Toshiba recently pulled out of developing its own reactor – that could contain a large EDF-backed reactor and a smaller modular reactor, creating a ‘clean energy hub’.

EDF has insisted synergies with Hinkley will mean the cost of energy from a second plant at Sizewell C would be slashed. It is understood site preparations could begin immediately and that planning consent for the project itself could be given
as soon as 2022, meaning the plant could be online by 2032.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-8924115/Lift-GREEN-Industrial-Revolution.html

November 9, 2020 Posted by | politics, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

A win for decency, rationality, co-operation , and science

Joe Biden, Kamala Harris,  and the Democrats have won the American election.

For four years, the world has put up with a lying, narcissistic,  sociopath as American President. Trump has done such damage to civil systems of health and environment, to democratic institutions, and to international relations. He has epitomised the bullying style of leadership that has become so popular and so dangerous in this 21st century world.

Jo Biden, in the way that he ran his campaign, and in his winning speech, demonstrates a completely opposite style –  one of reasonableness, courtesy, and respect for science and democratic agencies.

A key factor today is the appalling state of coronavirus cases, and coronavirus deaths in the USA.  That is a no. 1 challenge to the American administration. Now, they will have a leader who understands the seriousness of the pandemic, and cares.

The Democratic leadership understands the climate crisis, and even if the Senate should be dominated by Republicans, Biden can still rejoin the USA to the Paris Climate Accord. Much action against global heating can be done by executive action, bypassing the Senate,

On the nuclear issue, Biden will almost certainly support international arms control agreements, but not the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.  Unfortunately, the Democratic Party now, as it did under Obama, still basks in the arms  of the ”peaceful”nuclear lobby, and the nuclear weapons making industry.

November 8, 2020 Posted by | Christina's notes, election USA 2020, politics | 2 Comments

Japan: the next generation of LDP leaders embrace both carbon neutrality and the elimination of nuclear energy.

Nuclear Power and Japan’s 2050 Climate Pledge

Japan’s latest carbon-neutrality pledge puts the spotlight on the challenges facing the country’s nuclear power industry. The Diplomat , By Tom Corben,, November 05, 2020  In his inaugural address to the Diet last month, Japan’s Prime Minister Suga Yoshihide officially announced that his government would revise the country’s carbon-neutrality commitments, aiming for zero emissions by 2050. Suga expressed his intent to “put maximum effort into achieving a green society…..

Importantly, it seems as though the next generation of LDP leaders are embracing both carbon neutrality and the elimination of nuclear energy. Like Abe governments of the recent past, Suga’s cabinet features two particularly prominent politicians and possible future prime ministers who have stated their anti-nuclear preferences before, one of whom – Koizumi Shinjiro – is also the incumbent minister for the environment. Though the Environment Ministry does not officially set Japan’s energy policy, Koizumi has nevertheless been a driving force behind many of Japan’s recent environmental and clean energy initiatives since assuming his post in September 2019, including the revision of Japan’s decarbonization target.
In that respect, Koizumi has also been a vocal supporter both of Japan’s decision to more tightly regulate the country’s exports of coal-fired power stations and of reducing the country’s own reliance on those facilities. Koizumi has also proposed easing restrictions on building solar and wind turbine sites in Japan’s national parks, part of a solution to get around the challenge that Japan’s land scarcity has posed to the mass introduction of renewables. Though he has made no extensive public comment on phasing out nuclear power since his inaugural press conference last year, that silence may in itself may be an indication that Koizumi’s views on a nuclear phaseout remain unchanged even in the wake of more ambitious climate targets.

Of course, the nuclear lobby’s entrenched interests at the highest levels of the government and within the LDP itself will likely continue to frustrate efforts to comprehensively revise Japan’s nuclear energy policies. Indeed, there is every chance that the revised Basic Energy Plan due next year will maintain, if not expand, the share of Japan’s energy mix allocated to nuclear power. Still, without significant changes to the regulatory environment, a more favorable business environment, or a major shift in public opinion or political support, at present it is difficult to see Japan’s nuclear power industry making a major contribution to Japan’s carbon-neutrality goals in the coming decades.

Tom Corben is a resident Vasey Fellow with Pacific Forum. https://thediplomat.com/2020/11/nuclear-power-and-japans-2050-climate-pledge/

November 7, 2020 Posted by | climate change, Japan, politics | Leave a comment

Exploring the reasons why Britain is to ‘re-nationalise’ it’s nuclear weapons

UK Government move to ‘re-nationalise’ Britain’s nuclear weapons, The National

November 7, 2020 Posted by | politics, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Canada’s Bruce County Council postpones voting on nuclear waste bunker plan

November 7, 2020 Posted by | Canada, politics, wastes | Leave a comment

Covid-19 divides and weakens the nuclear sector in South Africa

November 7, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, health, politics, South Africa | Leave a comment

Texas governor wants Trump to oppose nuclear waste dump plan

Gov. Abbott Asks Trump for Help with Nuclear Waste in West Texas, Sanangelo Live, MATT TRAMMELL, NOV 6, 2020, ANDREWS, TX – Governor Greg Abbott sent a letter to President Trump last week urging him to put a stop to storing high levels of nuclear waste in rural West Texas.

In the letter sent to President Trump, on Sep. 29, Abbott gave a number of reasons for his opposition.

The main concerns the Governor has is the risk the nuclear material will bring to the Permian Basin.

Here is the full letter: [ but extract only posted here]

Dear Mr. President:  Thank you for all you do to ensure a prosperous economy and strong energy industry in the United States. I write to express my opposition to the license applications to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the consolidated interim storage of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste at proposed sites within the state of Texas and within the state of New Mexico, close to the Texas border. A stable oil and gas industry is essential to the economy, and crucial to the security of our great nation. Allowing the interim storage of spent nuclear fuel and high- level nuclear waste at sites near the largest producing oilfield in the world will compromise the safety of the region.

The proposed facilities would be sited in the Permian Basin Region, which is the largest producing oilfield in the world ……..the Permian Basin is a significant economic and natural resource for the entire country, and the proposed storage facilities would place America’s recovering economy and energy security at great risk.

The NRC is currently evaluating issuance of a 40-year license to Interim Storage Partners (ISP) for a consolidated interim storage facility in west Texas as well as issuance of a 40-year license to Holtec International for such a facility in southeastern New Mexico. As proposed, the ISP facility would store commercial spent nuclear fuel and reactor-related materials, presenting a radiological risk greater than currently authorized for storage and disposal in Texas. ISP has also indicated it may seek to renew the license for an additional 20 years, which would result in an operating life of 60 years, or until a permanent facility is established.  ……..https://sanangelolive.com/news/politics/2020-11-06/gov-abbott-asks-trump-help-nuclear-waste-west-texas

November 7, 2020 Posted by | politics, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

UK govt’s spin to Scotland, promoting nuclear submarines – but the Scots are nae sae daft

We cannot defeat our real enemies by using nuclear weapons,   https://www.thenational.scot/news/18850915.cannot-defeat-real-enemies-using-nuclear-weapons/, Jim Taylor, Edinburgh, 6 Nov 20

INTRIGUED, I tuned in on Wednesday to Channel Five’s programme “On Board Britain’s Nuclear Submarine: Trident” to be met with little more than a UK Government propaganda piece.
What transpired was a description of this weapon system with repeated use of the term “deterrent”. No-one wants to deploy it so it is somehow acceptable and necessary. The crew, like Captain Darren Mason, are just doing their job, so that must be right then – while ignoring that mutually assured destruction, wreaking global devastation, would end human life as we know it, probably totally.

Yet they are prepared to follow orders, without any real concern for the potential consequences of their actions. A position well claimed through many conflicts by war criminals perpetrating heinous acts against humanity. How is widespread death and destruction from nuclear obliteration any less than another even more heinous act, just because we would be committing it on the diktat of our Prime Minister? Particularly given the potential of one held in such poor public regard as the current one. Have we learned nothing from centuries of conflict?

At the conclusion of the programme, Rear Admiral John Weale tells us that no-one really wants nuclear weapons … but “we are planning to have them for the next 50 years”.

So it’s a done deal, whether we Scots support it or not. Our UK Union membership means we will be forced against our will to be party to this inhumane weapon system, and the increased danger it puts us in with its continued location at Faslane.

Trident’s replacement is currently reckoned to cost around £200 billion, before any expected design, construction, operational cost overruns and other usual ongoing cost increases. With the potential for a further cycle of replacement during the next 50 years, going forward, the cost to the nation will rise exponentially.

And all while we have children going to school hungry, precarious employment prospects, widespread poverty with even the working poor using food banks, and we know our real enemies are lunatic terrorists, pandemic and climate change that nuclear weapons can’t protect us from. Shouldn’t tackling these be our real priorities?

Clearly the Royal Navy took the unprecedented step to permit this programme being made at the behest of the UK Government trying to warm our feelings about nuclear weapons, recognise a “need” for them and in the hope this will drive a wedge in Scotland’s drive to call upon its Claim of Right and independence.

Isn’t the UK Government’s mistake assuredly that Scots are nae sae daft?

November 7, 2020 Posted by | politics, UK, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Nuclear now costs twice the price of renewables and the gap is growing. No need for Hinkley C, Sizewell, Bradwell etc

No need for nuclear power, Craven Herald and Pioneer By Lesley Tate, Senior Reporter, 6 Nov 20, Cllr David Noland, Skipton North writes, 

” ………The Green Party have been arguing for many years in recognition of the work by Friends of the Earth, the Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) in Wales and many others, that we do not need ‘further expansion of nuclear and gas turbines’ but to be far more clever about our energy use, easy to do now that renewables are cheaper than nuclear and new gas.

CAT has been at the forefront of development of research on renewable technology and Green building for some 50 years.

Their latest report ‘Zero Carbon Britain (Rising to the Climate Emergency)’ clearly demonstrates that the UK has the tools and technology to efficiently power this country with 100 per cent renewable technology (read the executive summary, it’s only eight pages long).

By using energy more efficiently we can power down by 60 per cent with particularly large savings in heating buildings and transport.

There is absolutely no need for nuclear power in our energy mix and we cannot afford it, let alone pay for cleaning up the sites at the end which taxpayers always end up paying for.

Nuclear now costs twice the price of renewables and the gap is growing.

How many Herald readers know that the electricity from the Hinkley Point nuclear reactor will cost UK consumers £92.50 per Kwh (the most recent offshore wind turbine fields are half of this)?

The deal was signed by (former Prime Minister) Theresa May and supported by Labour and Lib Dems.

The profits are going to the Chinese government which will run it for 40 years. The French firm (EDF) that has been building Hinkley Point and wants to build more nuclear reactors in the UK wants to cushion the financial blow of future nuclear power stations in this country by charging electricity customers a few extra pounds every month on their bill even now.

This is referred to as a new funding model, I’d call it a rip-off. Are people really happy to put billions of pounds into the coffers of the Chinese government and EDF rather than invest, as part of a Green New Deal, in insulation and draught-proofing of UK homes to keep us warmer, take over two and a half million households out of fuel poverty and permanently reduce everyone’s fuel bills.  https://www.cravenherald.co.uk/opinion/opinion_letters/18824349.letter-no-need-nuclear-power/

November 7, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | 1 Comment

Nuclear power – simply unaffordable for the Philippines

November 7, 2020 Posted by | business and costs, Philippines, politics | Leave a comment

A new nuclear power plant at Sizewell is the wrong choice for a zero carbon Britain

November 7, 2020 Posted by | climate change, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Poland’s nuclear energy plans not likely to be supported by the European Commission

Nuclear power is not considered environmentally sustainable, and there is little hope this approach will change. Therefore, the possibilities for bankrolling nuclear energy are very limited.

Brussels’s impact on Poland’s nuclear project,   https://biznesalert.com/brusselss-impact-on-polands-nuclear-project/ : Paweł Wróbel, @Pawrobel   4 Nov 20,  Poland’s nuclear power plant constrsuction program has been riddled with ambiguity for many years. Neverthele, among the few certainties remains the necessity to abide by the EU law on granting state aid. The project cannot happen without Brussels. Investments in nuclear energy are one of the most expensive in the energy sector, which is why building a nuclear plant in Poland will not be possible without state support. Therefore, the European Commission will have to approve the selected financing model – Paweł Wróbel, CEO of Gate Brussels, writes for BiznesAlert.pl.

Recently in a reaction to the plans made by Warsaw, Frans Timmersmans, Executive Vice President of the European Commission for the European Green Deal, has stressed that the EC would not stand in the way of building nuclear power plants (NPPs) in member states. This assurance was also offered to the prime minister of the Czech Republic, who announced before the last EU summit, that his country would support the increase in CO2 reduction target to 55 percent by 2030, only if the EC did not interfere with nuclear programs. Timmermans really wants all the member states to support the increased CO2 emissions reduction target. Even though it is Margrethe Vestager, another EC Executive Vice President, who is responsible for competition, Timmerman’s voice will be very important when it comes to the decision process.
Timmermans is a seasoned diplomat, a former foreign minister of Holland, so it is worth paying attention to the entirety of his statement to learn what he thinks about these kinds of investments in the energy sector. In his opinion, nuclear power had “serious disadvantages”, e.g. the necessity to import uranium and handle radioactive waste. He also pointed out that nuclear power was “very expensive”, which is why long-term state involvement was crucial. “… [I]f you invest in it, you’re stuck with it for a very, very long period of time,” he stressed.
Still, Timmermans did not openly admit that the European Commission did not bet on nuclear power, even in the context of the 2050 climate neutrality target. However, this approach is visible in the Union’s main strategies, which determine the target energy transition model. The strategies were adopted last July and are titled: the EU Strategy for Energy System Integration and the Hydrogen Strategy. Neither of the documents suggests that nuclear energy will play a significant role in the European Green Deal
The EC has been consistent in its push for renewable energy sources (RES) as the basis for energy generation in the EU, and the most cost-efficient option. Renewables will make it possible to electrify heat generation and transport. While hydrogen will play a complementary role, especially when it comes to industrial processes and heavy transport. This approach is reflected in the ongoing revisions of the main legislation for the energy sector. The goal of this strategy is to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. Nuclear energy is not an important part of this model.
The situation is similar when it comes to EU funding mechanisms and regulations on public and private entities on financial markets in EU states, e.g. in taxonomy. Nuclear power is not considered environmentally sustainable, and there is little hope this approach will change. Therefore, the possibilities for bankrolling nuclear energy are very limited. The availability of options is a lot smaller than in case of RES or hydrogen. Of course, the EC respects the principle of “technological neutrality”, so it cannot deprive states of their ability to invest in nuclear energy, especially that some of them do bet on this kind of power generation. However, this means it is necessary to find a model that will be in line with EU law.
One of the biggest challenges is to prepare a financing model for the investment that will comply with EU rules for state aid. The EC has stressed its role is to limit as much as possible any interference with competition on the energy market that state aid may cause. During its inquiries into state aid plans, e.g. with regard to nuclear energy, the EC holds talks with governments that plan such investments. The EC then determines what conditions need to be met for it to approve the aid. This happened, e.g. in 2017 when Hungary wanted to expand its Paks II NPP. The Hungarian government had to take on considerable commitments for the EC to agree the investment was in line with EU rules.
Those included the following: (1) profits could only be used to pay off debt to the state, or to cover the NPP’s operational costs, (2) Paks II could not be formally linked with other entities on the energy market, including the existing Paks power plant, which meant it had to survive on the market on its own, (3) at least 30 percent of the production had to be sold on the open energy market, whereas the remainder via an open auction system. Especially the last condition could be too difficult to meet, as nuclear energy is one of the most expensive when it comes to new investments.
In case of Poland an EC consent will not be unconditional either. The process usually takes a dozen or so months. In case of Paks II it took 3 years. These are one of the most difficult and one of the longest cases. The final conditions that the EC will set, will determine not just the construction process, but mostly the terms on which the NPP will have to function on the market.

November 5, 2020 Posted by | EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

Sizewell C – Britain walking into a trap that benefits only the nuclear industry

Sizewell C – Britain walking into a trap that benefits only the nuclear industry, Sizewell C: Dodgy deals and obscure decision-making  https://eciu.net/blog/2020/sizewell-c-dodgy-deals-and-obscure-decision-making  By Jonathan Marshall, Head of Analysis@JMarshall_ECIU, 02 November 2020  This weekend the BBC reported that the Government was close to reaching a deal with EDF to construct a new nuclear power station at Sizewell in Suffolk. Sizewell C is expected to be a carbon-copy of the plant under construction at Hinkley Point, and will help fill the gap left as Britain’s existing nukes retire.

There is little point in re-hashing the well-worn arguments about whether we need new nuclear in the UK. No changing of minds on either side looks likely, nor is there much point trying to counter the six-or-so lines from either side about why nuclear is a good or bad choice.

What is worth scrutiny, though, is how the Government appears to be making another hash of agreeing terms and penning a contract.

Just three years ago the National Audit Office delivered a stinging rebuke of the deal with EDF for Hinkley Point C, saying it has ‘locked consumers into a risky and expensive project with uncertain strategic and economic benefits’; that efforts to ensure value for money had been overlooked; and that there remained a risk that the developer would come cap-in-hand for more cash before the project was finished, at which point the Government would not be in the strongest position to say no.

Backroom dealings

Based on current reports, it seems that one of the major failures from Hinkley – that the deal was concluded bilaterally, behind closed doors, and with no downward pressure on costs through competition – is being repeated.

And it is hard to see how the Government has let itself be backed into this corner, allowing EDF to present itself as ‘the only option’ for the new nuclear it is no doubt saying is essential to reach net zero.

Sizewell has even received public backing from those usually in favour of a small state and as little Government intervention as possible, a position miles away from what is seemingly imminent.

Endless stalling on policy decisions and lack of support for other plants has seen other proposals evaporate, changing economics have seen developers pull out globally (Japan, for example, has said it will get to net zero without new nuclear), and a constant drumroll of political support for the as-yet-to-exist Small Modular Reactors rather than traditional large plant have left EDF as the only player in town.

The Government, well aware of the benefits of pitting projects against each other, has been lauding the successes of doing exactly that in auctions for offshore wind, in the capacity market and in a host of nascent markets for flexible power. Yet, nuclear remains exempt.

And while there are some factors that would make an auction system more difficult – high project start-up costs, lengthy safety sign-offs, etc, it is surely not beyond the wit of ministers and their advisors, and the civil service, to force something into place.

The only winners from the current behind-closed-doors set-up are the nuclear industry, which is not an effective way to make policy.

Time-Limited Backstop

The desperation to bring costs down for nuclear mean British electricity users are set to be on the hook for the costs of building Sizewell before it starts generating.

This situation would raise eyebrows in many instances, but for a scheme based on projects currently running wildly over budget and embarrassingly behind schedule, this seems like madness.

There are few guarantees in British media, but stories about rising energy bills are about as close as one can get. Extra costs on households to pay back investors, rather than for actually producing energy, mean this deal could be a toxic legacy for years to come.

It remains to be seen what protections from overrunning costs are put in place for consumers, and what guarantees that the cost agreed through a Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model will not increase as the project inevitably runs over budget. Both of these are pretty essential for allaying concerns that the public is being sold another white elephant.

Going Blind

Backing Sizewell raises as many questions as it answers, on which clarity from Government would help onlookers understand their decision-making.

On finances, the latest BEIS assessments of generation costs didn’t include nuclear, apparently for commercial confidentiality reasons. We should now expect these to be updated, especially as the latest iteration included the associated ‘system costs’ of different technologies. Doing this for nuclear (which of course imposes other costs on the power grid due to its inflexibility) is now vital.

Where are the assessments of how new nuclear can fit into increasingly smart and flexible power grids? Churning out a constant stream of electrons is good for keeping the country running, but it would be more useful if there was some data to show how it impedes on the rest of the grid.

What thought has been given to location? The Suffolk coast is set to be the landing point for a huge amount of offshore wind capacity – is it the best place for a new nuclear plant? Or just the only place still in the running?

How could the power output from Sizewell be used most effectively? What are the economics behind building an electrolyser nearby to convert excess power into hydrogen? Can the waste heat be made use of?

Providing answers to these sort of questions (just a few of many more) would help us to have a more grown up debate around nuclear, and would help understand the reasons for signing what, at first sight, looks like another dodgy deal.

Theresa May’s decision to sign off Hinkley was met with widespread dismay, for the reasons above and for many more. Without more clarity on Government thought, it appears our current Prime Minister could be walking into the same trap.

November 5, 2020 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »