UK’s energy strategy ”cowardly and incoherent” – solar and onshore wind are the practical options
Michael Grubb: The writer is professor of energy and climate change at
University College London and was former senior adviser to energy regulator
Ofgem.
The UK energy strategy is both cowardly and incoherent. The defining
feature of the UK energy strategy is its incoherence. It does not know what
problem it is trying to solve – and thus it does not solve any. By
failing to boost energy efficiency and kicking the only possible short-term
supply option – that of cheap onshore wind – into the long grass, it
most certainly will not help those struggling with energy bills in the
coming winters.
Offshore wind is the great success story of the past decade
and capacity has grown sharply in recent years. The strategy increases the
offshore target for 2030 from 40GW to 50GW. That’s very ambitious but
possible. But offshore wind involves big and complex kit from only a few
suppliers, it usually takes three to five years from bid to completion, and
the pace of expansion could stress supply chains and drive up costs. If it
were all concentrated in the North Sea, there would be immense challenges
for the grid – both in transmission and in managing the peaks and
troughs. Wind is best when distributed more widely.
The most cowardly failure concerns onshore wind. It is not only our cheapest energy resource
– it typically costs about a third to a quarter of what people will soon
be paying for their electricity – but it is, with solar, the only one
that could make a dent in the short term. The strategy outlines a plan for
nuclear to 2050, kicked off with one new plant to be funded before the next
general election. If it takes an energy crisis to actually make a decision,
so be it, but it will not help solve the crisis.
Nuclear is not only slow
and expensive, it would need to be flexible to ramp up and down with the
swings of demand, wind and solar. This further undermines the economics.
Launching a 30-year plan for nuclear also raises the question – why
can’t the government set out even a coherent 30-month plan for energy
efficiency?
FT 10th April 2022
https://www.ft.com/content/3fe73617-5f8f-4b70-8856-ca53e2ec92b3
No community in the UK has agreed to host a nuclear waste facility
Under normal conditions, generating nuclear power produces hazardous
radioactive waste. This needs to be safely managed and stored for hundreds
of years.
However, a House of Lords paper from October 2021 said the issue
of nuclear waste remains “unresolved in the UK”. It is currently stored in
temporary facilities that are not designed for the permanent storage of
“high-level” radioactive waste.
The Government’s preferred solution is
“geological disposal” – placing waste deep in a rock formation that would
prevent radioactivity from escaping. However, no community has agreed to
host such a facility.
National World 8th April 2022
Johnson’s ‘nuclear fantasy’ will not reduce rising fuel bills or rising temperatures- UK’s Nuclear Free Local Authorities
Johnson’s ‘nuclear fantasy’ will not reduce rising fuel bills or rising temperatures
The Nuclear Free Local Authorities are ‘incredulous’ that Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the UK Government remains wedded to a new Energy Security Strategy that will rely in large part upon the development of 24 GW of new nuclear generation capacity to power Britain, when a plan involving mass investment in renewables and a reduction in electricity demand through retrofitting the nation’s homes with insulation would have been far cheaper and quicker to deliver.
In response to the government’s commitment to build the equivalent of eight new large nuclear power stations by 2050, NFLA National Chair, Councillor David Blackburn said:
The Nuclear Free Local Authorities are ‘incredulous’ that Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the UK Government remains wedded to a new Energy Security Strategy that will rely in large part upon the development of 24 GW of new nuclear generation capacity to power Britain, when a plan involving mass investment in renewables and a reduction in electricity demand through retrofitting the nation’s homes with insulation would have been far cheaper and quicker to deliver.
“It defies common sense that the current government is turning to a technology that is too slow to install, too costly to build, remains risky to operate and vulnerable to military and terrorist attack, and leaves a toxic legacy of radioactive waste that has to be safely stored for 100,000 years.”
“In the past, we were told that nuclear-generated electricity would be too cheap to meter customers for. The reality is very different. The plan means building eight power plants the size of Hinkley Point C within 30 years. Hinkley Point C is already costing £23 billion and is years behind schedule, with operator EDF about to announce a further hike in the cost and a further delay in delivery.”
“Nuclear power projects are notorious for being delivered way behind schedule and massively over cost. British taxpayers will end up being saddled with this extra cost as the government has just passed the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Act making them liable for the charges.”
All of the plants will rely on a massive subsidy from the British taxpayer and ultimately the taxpayer will also pick up the bill for decommissioning the new plants at their end of their operating lives and for managing and storing the resultant radioactive waste for tens of thousands of years.
In addition to increasing energy bills and being delivered far too late to make a favourable impact in the fight against climate change, Boris Johnson’s ‘big bet’ on nuclear will not improve the nation’s energy independence.
Added Councillor Blackburn: “Nuclear power plants rely on uranium all of which is sourced overseas, with Russia being a major supplier to the world market, and most of the plants will be reliant on foreign reactor designs, one with a dubious safety record, and built and run by foreign-owned operators.
“EDF Energy, the main player, is a company owned by the French state, and newer players to the market are American owned, including one involving billionaire entrepreneur, Elon Musk. The only UK business, Rolls Royce, which is developing the so-called Small Modular Reactor, is backed by French private money and funding from a Qatari sovereignty fund.
“The NFLA cannot see how nuclear in any way promotes Britain’s energy independence.”
The NFLA is therefore bitterly disappointed that the new strategy did not instead commit to a national programme of retrofitting insulation to Britain’s homes and to providing further funding to support domestic electricity micro-generation, both of which would have reduced energy demand and reduced customers’ fuel bills, as well as to a far greater investment in a range of renewables to generate power, particularly onshore wind projects and tidal power which remain largely neglected despite their huge potential and public support.
“We advocate an emergency national programme of retrofitting homes with insulation to reduce heating bills and energy demand, and to improve public health; a greater emphasis of new and existing homes generating their own power for domestic use; and a huge public investment in a range of renewable technologies to provide domestically-generated, reliable, sustainable electricity. This can be done much more quickly and much more cheaply than continuing to indulge in this nuclear fantasy,” concluded Councillor Blackburn.
In response to the government’s commitment to build the equivalent of eight new large nuclear power stations by 2050, NFLA National Chair, Councillor David Blackburn said:
Nuclear energy a useless distraction for UK – Green Party MP Caroline Lucas
Green Party MP Caroline Lucas has slammed the Tory government and accused
them of being “held hostage” by right wing backbench MPs on wind power.
She made the comments on the BBC’s Sunday Morning show following the
publication of the government’s Energy Security Strategy earlier this
week.
In an interview with Sophie Raworth, Lucas was scathing about the
government’s strategy. She branded the strategy’s focus on nuclear
energy a “distraction from what this energy strategy should have been
about, which is to have put energy efficiency and energy saving right at
its heart,” and said that nuclear is “simply not a solution that can be
fast enough to get us out of the energy crisis that we face right now.”
Instead of expanding nuclear, Lucas called for “a massive expansion –
for example – of onshore wind, which was completely lacking in the
government’s strategy this week. That’s quite extraordinary, given that
it’s the cheapest form of energy, that it has massive popularity in the
country.” She continued by accusing the government of being “held
hostage” by backbench MPs on onshore wind. Lucas said, “basically
we’ve got a government held hostage by a handful of its backbenchers who
don’t think wind farms are sightly. Well, that is not the way we should
be designing our energy policy in this country.”
Bright Green 10th April 2022
Planning advises rejected Wylfa as unsuitable for nuclear development. No wonder Boris Johnson wants to ”cut red tape”
| I would argue that we do not need new nuclear power at all. It is costly, dangerous, slow and unsuitable as an adjunct to renewables. We certainly don’t need it in Wales. In 2021, planning inspectors advised that the Wylfa Newydd development (What might the UK energy strategy contain and how feasible are options? 6 April) should be rejected due to its impact on the local economy, housing stock, local ecology, nature conservation and the Welsh language. Yet still politicians say it’s the best place for a new nuclear power station. No wonder Boris Johnson wantsto cut the “red tape” of the planning process. He cannot be allowed to. Guardian 10th April 2022 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/10/uk-energy-strategys-nuclear-dangers-and-glaring-omissions |
Sizewell nuclear project: planning process drags on: thousands of objectors, yet tax-payer funding already promised!
Letter: Your article (PM to put nuclear power at heart of UK’s energy
strategy, 6 April) refers to Sizewell C as one of the major projects that
has “already been through some form of planning”. The planning process
is still going on, and thousands of interested parties have objected.
Six months of Planning Inspectorate meetings exposed the mistakes of trying to
build two gigantic reactors in the middle of an area of outstanding natural
beauty and site of special scientific interest, pushed against the Minsmere
nature reserve, on an eroding coastline, and with no available water for
construction or operation, among other problems.
This hasn’t stopped Kwasi Kwarteng promising millions in taxpayer funding for Sizewell C when
the planning process has not been completed and while he refuses to meet
the community to hear alternative views.
Guardian 10th April 2022
Boris goes all out for UK nuclear
‘I do not think we should be building any new nuclear reactors until we have a geological disposal facility available.’ That applies to all scales of nuclear, SMRs as well as big plants, they all produce wastes.
https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2022/04/boris-goes-all-out-for-uk-nuclear.html Under the heading ‘Boris Johnson’s fixation on nuclear is a threat to Britain’s energy supply’, Times chief leader writer Simon Nixon said ‘Boris Johnson’s plans to build at least six or seven new nuclear power stations is the wrong strategy for meeting the government’s need to ensure the UK’s energy security, lower public bills and achieve its net-zero target. Britain’s track record on building nuclear power stations is almost as dire as its record in building garden bridges’.
Nevertheless, despite negative views like this, Boris ploughed on. Indeed he managed to turn this criticism around, asking ‘why have the French got 56 nuclear reactors and we’ve got barely six?.’ He said we needed ‘big ticket’ nuclear solutions and also looked to having Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) before 2030. Not everyone is convinced that SMR’s can deliver, but Johnson’s confidence in them may have been the result of a meeting with Last Energy, a US nuclear promoter backed by Elon Musk, which is pushing a simple fast-track mini PWR, at 20 MW, far smaller than the 470 MW Rolls Royce system. There was talk of 100s of units being deployed across the UK. Last Energy’s business credo ‘Innovate on the delivery model, not the reactor’, may have appealed to Boris.
However, on the renewables side, while he was still keen on offshore wind (‘Energy companies tell me they can get an offshore wind turbine upright and generating in less than 24 hours’), the prospects for on-shore wind, which had begun to look more promising, seem to have taken a hit in favour of more nuclear- on shore wind once again getting some Tory ‘eyesore’ backlash, despite it actually attracting 80% public support. The expansion of the ECO energy saving scheme was also hit, despite energy efficiency arguably being the cheapest option of all.
So when the new energy security strategy finally emerged it was not surprising that there was a commitment to 24 GW of nuclear by 2050, no new targets for on shore wind and very little on the energy savings side, just a £30m ‘heat pump investment accelerator competition’. But at least a 50 GW offshore wind target by 2030 was confirmed, with up to 5GW of it being floating systems, coupled with a doubling of the low-carbon hydrogen target to 10GW by 2030, with at least half being green hydrogen. However, on shore wind will only get limited support: communities can volunteer for a project (although they could have anyway) and possibly get cheaper power, but with no significant changes in planning rules. There will though be some PV planning rule changes to help solar expand- with an up to a five-fold increase in deployment expected by 2035. If achieved that would be a massive 70GW, although no target was specified.
Apart from the lamentable lack of support for on-shore wind and, even more provocatively, for energy saving, the nuclear expansion was the most controversial part. The strategy report says ‘a new government body, Great British Nuclear, will be set up immediately to bring forward new projects, backed by substantial funding, and we will launch the [already announced] £120 million Future Nuclear Enabling Fund this month. We will work to progress a series of projects as soon as possible this decade, including Wylfa site in Anglesey. This could mean delivering up to eight reactors, equivalent to one reactor a year instead of one a decade, accelerating nuclear in Britain’.
Why nuclear?
It’s hard to see why Johnson thinks a big nuclear push is needed, or a good idea- apart from catching up with France! A bit more credibly, the strategy report stresses the importance of energy independence, but the nuclear programme has of late been mostly based on imported (French) technology and expertise- as well as funding from overseas. It now looks as if he will no longer rely on China for any of this, but the new RAB funding scheme will allow nuclear plant developers like EDF to put a surcharge on UK power consumers bills to raise the necessary capital for construction in advance of any power being supplied. That may be independence of a kind, but the profits do still go abroad
And it will be a decade or more before any of the proposed new nuclear plants (at Sizewell and elsewhere) are running- assuming all goes well. So we will get hit with the costs now, or at least soon, but not get the benefits until far in the future. So much for helping to cut costs for hard pressed consumers
The energy independence idea is also not as urgent as it might appear. The UK does not import significant amounts of Russian gas, unlike Germany (and Austria), where admittedly things could get bad unless urgent action is taken. But they are doing that, Germany backing renewables even more strongly, and both still being opposed to nuclear. That choice has been reinforced by the war in Ukraine which has illustrated just how risky it can be to have nuclear plants in conflict zones. The possibility of terrorist drone attacks apart, the UK may not (yet) face risks like that, but its coastal plants will increasingly face risks from climate change driven sea level rises and storm surges.
One of the other key problems for nuclear has also been pointed up in response to the UK expansion plan – waste storage being a key one. Claire Corkhill, a professor of nuclear material degradation at the University of Sheffield said ‘I do not think we should be building any new nuclear reactors until we have a geological disposal facility available.’ That applies to all scales of nuclear, SMRs as well as big plants, they all produce wastes.
Overall, it does seem odd to be pushing nuclear so hard. For example, if it was really about an energy gap, it would be easy for renewables to fill it. RenewableUK says the UK could end its dependence on gas and replace it with renewable energy within the next 5 years – if the limit imposed on the amount of onshore wind was removed and budgets raised for deployment. Energy saving could do that too. If it was really about jobs, then, as the UKERC has recently pointed out, renewable energy can create at least 2 times more jobs than nuclear, while investment in energy saving can create 5 times as many. If it was really about variable renewables and grid balancing, well the last thing we need is more large inflexible nuclear plants. And if it was really about costs and consumer bills, then why go for nuclear, the most expensive option. If that sort of money was available, why not go for tidal lagoons and tidal current turbines?
However, all is not entirely lost. The 50 GW by 2030 offshore wind target is a significant one, as is the hoped for 5-fold by 2035 PV solar expansion – putting the 24 GW by 2050 nuclear target into some sort of perspective. But we don’t really need it. And judging by the gross completion problems with the EPRs in France and Finland, and the problems with China’s version of it, the UK’s new 8 plant nuclear plan, with its ‘one reactor per year’ average installation target, seems very unlikely to be realised.
All in all, the offshore wind and solar parts aside, not much of a viable security plan, and a bit thin in any case, with lots of targets but very little detail. Indeed, the Times leader (8/4/22) said ‘the number 8 appears to have been plucked out of the air’ and overall it was ‘little more than a glorified press release’, with the lack of effective commitment to energy saving making it ‘a cop out’. While Greenpeace said ‘the urgency of the climate crisis needed an urgent response. Sadly, the government’s energy security plan didn’t deliver.’ Not a lot of support then across the political spectrum.
UK government incoherent and inconsistent on energy crisis, and has no solution to the accumulating nuclear wastes
| Does the new government energy strategy tackle the immediate energy crisis? This is the third document in six months that the government has produced, and all that has happened is that they have become less coherent, and less and less connected to what actually matters to most people. What the Prime Minister seems to believe is that we want expensive nuclear ‘jam’ tomorrow, and that we are not that bothered about cheap energy efficiency ‘bread’ today. I think that this is rather like the Chancellors recent Spring Budget, in that it is simply not hearing, or paying attention, to what is actually happening in the country, and what matters to people who have got to live with the immediate crisis of their energy bills. And the way that the government can deal with that right now is to start spending money on energy efficiency, money by the way that the government promised in its manifesto and hasn’t actually delivered. In 2012, we were insulating about 2.5 million houses per year, now we are down to about 20 thousand. If we had carried on at that rate, we would be saving people money right now as this crisis has occurred. So, this is a real failure of the government to be consistent in doing the things that really matter to most people. Why would we want to use nuclear when there are much better options already available? This is the third big government announcement on energy policy in 6 months, and all you have got is if you were an investor why would you invest in whatever the current flavour of the month is for the government? You would wait to see what happens when things settle down. Government incoherence and inconsistency is really slowing down out whole response. The endless announcements, with no real delivery, is really slowing down our ability to deal with climate change. People are right to be terrified by the conclusions of the IPCCC report, they really are very scary indeed. There is a future bill for nuclear waste, which grows. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is responsiblefor dealing with nuclear waste in this country, it now spends several billions per year of public money in order to deal with the waste that we have already got. So, it is quite right to question why the government is even thinking about piling on more nuclear waste to be dealt with, when we can’t even deal with the waste that we already have now. We don’t know what to do with the high-level waste, that is the most dangerous waste, not because of its volume but because of its radioactivity. We don’t have a solution for that yet, despite 50 years of trying to find one. Tom Burke 7th April 202 2http://tomburke.co.uk/2022/04/07/does-the-new-government-energy-strategy-tackle-the-immediate-energy-crisis/ |
Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has hit back at the UK Government’s plans for new nuclear power plants
| NICOLA Sturgeon has hit back at the UK Government’s plans for new nuclear power plants after The National revealed the Tories were considering building one in Scotland. The First Minister said “nobody’s ever yet worked out what to do with the waste” generated by atomic power and said it was “expensive” compared with renewables. It comes after The National revealed the Tories’ new energy strategy – which said no new nuclear plants would be built in Scotland – contradicted current UK Government policy which officials confirmed was still exploring the possibility of a new site [for a Fusion reactor] in Ayrshire. Speaking at the launch of the SNP’s Glasgow manifesto launch on Saturday, the First Minister told reporters: “We don’t support new nuclear. “It is an expensive form of energy compared to many renewable resources and, increasingly, wind energy and nobody’s ever yet worked out what to do with the waste from nuclear energy. “Scotland has vast renewable potential – we see that in offshore wind. I think one of the missed opportunities – for entirely political reasons – in the UK Government’s was around onshore wind, failing to increase generation from onshore wind. “But we’ve also got vast offshore wind resources which we see in the recent ScotWind auction round, so that’s where we should be focusing. “From the perspective of securing energy, independence and security but also cheaper energy bills in the longer-term renewables is where we need to put our efforts and – pardon the pun – our energies over the period ahead.” The National 9th April 2022https://www.thenational.scot/news/20057654.nicola-sturgeon-hits-back-scottish-nuclear-site-deliberations/ |
UK Government should ‘impose’ energy projects on devolved nations says Conservative editor
| UK Government should ‘impose’ energy projects on devolved nations says Conservative editor. The UK Government should “impose” energy projects on the devolved nations, a Conservative editor has said. Conservative Home deputy editor Henry Hill was responding to the suggestion by Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng that they should respect Wales and Scotland’s devolved competencies. Planning powers are devolved to Scotland, meaning that they could block any new nuclear site. The Welsh Government has the power to consent energy projects with a generating capacity of up to 350MW, meaning that the power to give the go-ahead to a nuclear power plant is reserved to Westminster. Kwasi Kwarteng said the nuclear reactors are being planned for England and Wales, insisting there is “huge appetite” for this “particularly in Wales”. But he said: “We have no plans to impose nuclear reactors in Scotland. It is a devolved affair, that is up to people in Edinburgh to decide what their nuclear policy is.” But Henry Hill said that “energy should not be evolved” saying that the UK Government should not “give a veto” to those opposing their energy plans. Nation Cymru 9th April 2022https://nation.cymru/news/uk-government-should-impose-energy-projects-on-devolved-nations-says-conservative-editor/ |
The Windscale nuclear accident 1957, and still not cleaned up. – a warning from history
Nuclear power: the warnings from history. The PM wants to keep the lights
on with eight new atomic plants. He’s in denial if he thinks the
catastrophes of the past won’t happen again.
If Johnson is going to use nuclear history to justify his strategy, perhaps he needs to look a little
deeper, because Windscale was also the site of one of the world’s first
serious nuclear accidents. In October 1957, a fire raged for three days in
one of the reactors after changes to increase production.
Through the heroism of staff, and a significant degree of luck, the catastrophe was
contained. But significant radiation was released. Milk from cows within
200 square miles was contaminated. In 1982 officials estimated 260 people
developed cancer and 32 people died as a result. The two first reactors at
Windscale were closed, but the clean-up is still under way today.
Last November the top of the chimney in which the fire blazed was removed as
part of the demolition. The renowned nuclear historian Serhii Plokhy
describes the episode in a forthcoming book and points out: “The existing
nuclear industry is an open-ended liability.” No nuclear power station
has ever been fully decommissioned.
In Atoms and Ashes, Plokhy, 64, a
Ukrainian historian at Harvard, explores the causes and consequences of
Windscale and five other nuclear accidents: at Bikini Atoll in the Pacific
in 1954, Kyshtym in Russia in 1957, Three Mile Island in the US in 1979,
Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986 and Fukushima in Japan in 2011.While most of
these accidents took place in the formative years of nuclear science,
Plokhy argues they could easily happen again. “Technology was improved as
a result, and every accident contributed to the shaping of subsequent
safety procedures and culture,” he writes.
“And yet nuclear accidents
occur again and again. Many of the political, economic, social, and
cultural factors that led to the accidents of the past are still with us
today, making the nuclear industry vulnerable to repeating old mistakes in
new and unexpected ways.”
Times 9th April 2022
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/nuclear-power-latest-warnings-history-chernobyl-ph9q7w80j
In the UK’s energy plan, the nation has been sold a dud
Jim Watson, director, UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources: Britain was
promised a bold and visionary energy plan. But we’ve been sold a dud.
Does it deliver what it says on the tin?
The answer is straightforward. It fails. At the heart of most definitions of energy security is reliability
of supplies for households and businesses. This is usually complemented by
a focus on affordability.
The new strategy does very little to deal with the immediate impacts of high fossil fuel prices.
While the government has announced some help for households via loans and a
council tax reduction, this is simply not enough. The energy price cap has
already risen to almost £2,000 a year and a further rise is due in the
autumn.
This comes on top of a wider cost of living crisis and high levels
of inflation.is available, but the price is too high for businesses to
function or households to keep warm. While more money to help people pay
their bills is needed, this must be accompanied by action to prevent these
acute impacts in future. This means making homes more efficient and
switching away from fossil fuels for heating. It is nearly a decade since
effective policies for home energy efficiency were cancelled and replaced
with new approaches, such as the green deal, which have failed
spectacularly.
As a result, the steady improvements in efficiency and
financial benefits to households have virtually stopped. A new programme of
home upgrades is urgently needed. This would not only reduce our dependence
on gas, but would also cut bills and carbon emissions.
According to many headlines, nuclear power is the “centrepiece” of the strategy. The
government’s plans are ambitious, but delivery will be difficult. New
nuclear plants will not have an impact for many years. The Treasury’s
fingerprints are visible in the careful caveats in the strategy, including
an insistence that new projects are “subject to a value for money and
relevant approvals”.
This reflects the long history of rising costs
within the nuclear sector, and the financial risks that consumers or
taxpayers will be exposed to.
In short, the government has pulled its
punches and avoided measures that would have a more immediate impact on
energy security – mainly by reducing the amount of energy we need to use.
Instead, it has produced a mixed bag of energy supply proposals. While some
are credible, a large nuclear power programme will require huge amounts of
political and financial capital. History suggests that this will be very
difficult to deliver.
Guardian 9th April 2022
UK government got its energy strategy so wrong
‘Major misjudgment’: how the Tories got their energy strategy so wrong. Analysis: betting big on nuclear, hydrogen, oil and gas while passing over energy saving measures, Johnson’s plan is a huge missed
opportunity.
Government industrial strategies are often derided as attempts to pick winners. The UK’s Conservative government has taken a different approach with its new energy strategy. In terms of dealing with the energybill and climate crises, it’s picking losers.
Nuclear power is the only major energy technology that has increased in cost in the last decade and
routinely suffers from massive time and budget overruns. Even Kwarteng acknowledges that France’s large nuclear fleet “cost a fortune”. The gamble Johnson is making, with taxpayers’ money, is that nuclear power is a more reliable wager to secure clean future power than renewables and fast-developing energy storage technologies. It’s a long shot.
Renewables and storage will develop much faster and get much cheaper due to the rapid learning that comes with small-scale technologies, unlike colossal projects
like nuclear.
Guardian 6th April 2022
Expert warning that UK’s nuclear plans mean that there won’t be room for all the new radioactive wastes.
 | |||
| to me |
Nuclear power plant plans could mean UK might run out of room for radioactive waste, says expert
https://inews.co.uk/news/nuclear-power-plant-plans-uk-could-run-out-room-radioactive-waste-1563015?ito=facebook_share_article-top&fbclid=IwAR2IxsDYG9O8oNJoXYfiKRKF18v2H-zI_l2NqC3VMWj5O8bGLZGYRMLQtss Current policy only allows for disposal of radioactive waste from 16GW of new nuclear capacity, far short of government’s new ambitions
By Madeleine Cuff, 8 Apr 22, Environment Reporter The UK could run out of room to store radioactive waste if the government presses ahead with plans to build eight new nuclear power stations across the country, a nuclear waste expert has warned.
Ministers today set out plans to accelerate the development of new nuclear power stations to bolster the UK’s energy security and push the country to net zero.
The long-awaited energy security strategy set out plans for trebling the UK’s nuclear generation, with up to 24GW of nuclear capacity planned for 2050.
But one of the country’s leading nuclear waste experts has told i the UK could “run out of room” to store the waste produced by so many plants.
Officials have spent the last 50 years hunting for a permanent way to dispose of radioactive waste produced by the UK’s fleet of nuclear plants.
In 2019 fresh search was launched to find a community willing to host the radioactive waste, which would be buried hundreds of metres below the Earth’s surface.
“The policy at the moment is that it can take all of the legacy waste – everything we have generated in the last 70 years, plus up to 16GW of new nuclear build,” said Professor Claire Corkhill, an expert in nuclear waste at the University of Sheffield.
But if the UK builds 24GW of new nuclear it could run into a storage problem, she warns. “My worry is that if we go to 24GW of nuclear energy then we might run out of room to store the radioactive waste,” she said. “We’ve jumped the gun a little bit in saying that we are going to have this much new nuclear energy without thinking really about whether we have got anywhere suitable to put the waste.”
She said it the government could look for a second storage site, but finding one could take decades.
UK’s new energy strategy will accelerate the development of nuclear power generation despite Treasury opposition
| As expected, the Strategy will detail plans to accelerate the development of nuclear power generation. It will target 24GW of installed capacity by 2050, meaning that nuclear will provide 25% of the UK’s electricity demands by mid-century. The Government has stated that it will support the delivery of up to eight large plants this decade, including Wylfa, Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C. It will also support small modular reactors (SMRs). It has been reported that Johnson has pushed hard for these targets on nuclear, despite opposition from the Treasury. Edie 6th April 2022 https://www.edie.net/energy-security-strategy-uk-targets-95-low-carbon-electricity-mix-by-2030-but-will-increase-oil-and-gas-production/ |
1 This Month
petition to oppose the rapid increase of space-military industry threatening Jeju Island and the region.
[Petition by April 19th (KST)] Stop the joint military-Hanwha Systems-Jeju Provincial Government Sea Launch!
World Nuclear Power. Reactors 1951-2026, 75 Years of Nuclear Power.
Interactive Map– https://dv.worldnuclearreport.org/
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
of the week–London Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (211)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 