New paper reveals sorry state of GB nuclear
By Paul Homewood
London, 8 November – A new paper from the Global Warming Policy Foundation reveals a nuclear industry that is now so dysfunctional it may have no future in the UK without a concerted policy and regulatory effort.
The paper, by energy consultant and Daily Telegraph columnist Kathryn Porter, looks at recent nuclear policy, nuclear technologies, economics, regulation and supply chain issues. Porter is highly pessimistic that a viable future is on the cards absent a significant uptick in ambition from the Government:
"Most of our existing nuclear fleet will close in the next few years, with almost nothing to replace it, and I see little cause for optimism that the economic or regulatory environment will produce significant new capacity any time soon."
While there are some positive signs – in particular the creation of Great British Nuclear and the willingness to offer some co-funding for small-scale reactors – there is an urgent need to build new large reactors, and here the ambition is lacking.
However, there is a route to success and greater energy security if the Government acts on its promise to develop close co-operation with trusted country regulators. This could enable technologies which are licensed elsewhere see a faster route to market.
GWPF director Dr Benny Peiser said:
"If policymakers are serious about realistic and sustainable decarbonisation policies, they need to be serious about accelerating nuclear power – and swiftly. Kathryn Porter’s paper shows that they are nothing of the sort. The Government needs to adopt a radically different attitude in order to turbo charge a nuclear renaissance."
The paper is entitled Prospects for Nuclear Power in the UK, and can be downloaded here (pdf).
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
With a competent government (ha!), the UK should have had several twin-reactor PWR nuclear power stations (based on Sizewell B) in service by now.
In the UK “competent government” is an oxymoron
The hypocritical scumbags at the Graun actually idolised the tw@ts who protested against the Druridge Bay SNUPPS proposal.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/29/remembering-the-anti-nuclear-protests
A late relative of mine of mine had his career in the Police effectively ended when he (allegedly) struck a protestor who had spit on him. Personally speaking, from his description of the event , I am amazed he didn’t beat the crap out of the bloke.
I think you’re overblowing the importance of the Druridge Bay site Ray. I got the impression (in the UK nuclear industry nobody knows exactly what is or was going on, so you have to rely on people like me picking up impressions) that Druridge Bay was some sort of ‘diversionary tactic’ by the CEGB, to draw the anti-nuclear protesters away from Sizewell. The CEGB would have wanted to minimise any anti-nuclear protests going on at Sizewell.
The CEGB apparently announced that they were considering building a PWR station at Druridge Bay (which would be a completely new site) towards the end of 1978, and that led to the formation of a group called the ‘Druridge Bay Association’ to resist the plan in 1979. Something similar to this had recently happened in Scotland where the SSEB announced a plan to build a nuclear power station at a completely new site, Torness, in the 1970s, and an organisation called SCRAM (Scottish Campaign to Resist the Atomic Menace) was set up in 1976 to resist the plan. For anti-nuclear protesters, completely new sites are ideal for their campaigns because they can get a lot of co-operation from the locals. With the nuclear sites that were first established back in the 1950s and 1960s (before the Green movement started up in the 1970s), there is much less co-operation from the locals as the site has been providing local employment for years. So anti-nuclear protesters will tend to be drawn to a proposed new site, if there is one, over an existing site.
But the only sites where a PWR design was actually drawn up in the 1980s were for Sizewell B, and for two follow-on stations at Hinkley Point C and Wylfa B. Another station at Sizewell, Sizewell C, was also regarded as very likely. All of these sites were existing sites. There was no design work done for a power station at Druridge Bay, and I remember being baffled that this site got the mentions that it did in the newspapers in the 1980s. The only station that got built was Sizewell B, with the follow-on stations being cancelled by John Major.
It would be a symbolic victory for the Greens to think their actions have caused the UK nuclear industry to retreat from Druridge Bay, but I think there would have been little intention, and possibly no intention, to build anything there at all.
Don’t forget the slogan when the Blair government was in charge was “nuclear power – over my dead body”.
“The Government needs to adopt a radically different attitude in order to turbo charge a nuclear renaissance.”
The government doesn’t want nuclear. They are not going to want nuclear. GBN
was created to get people off their back. Their remit is to act like they care.
Hmm, what’s not to like. The first steam engine – a man had to walk in front ( so it wasn’t fast to run you over), Major Steel, Shipbuilding, Automobiles, TRACTORS & COMBINES ( for me) . World Leaders. UKAEA ….. I Thought it was too, so nothin new .. who is controlling the powers that be. ( Do I want to ask Nadine?)
I get this earworm thingy “Deutschland über alles” …. until you see daft Olaf but the damage has been done. SO who makes OUR tractors? Either a couple of large US or Italian conglomerates. Who’d av thunk that rusty Fiats would rule the world? City doing the Deeds.
Saighdear, may I ask what the mass Scottish view of nuclear power actually is?
I know the SNP view is no new nuclear in Scotland, however, I doubt their view is universal.
Good Question! – it’s Generational thing, innit – this Climate change nonsense.
Personally, if it’s a glowing report, it’s because I have been Over/Under/Beside the train that brings the stuff along the Sole railway line. Now if you speak ( ‘cos there still there) to folk from the N of Scotland as in Caithness I’d say they do miss Dounreay as a source of work & Training. As you move firther afield, folk become detached from reality as in food grows on the trees. and so the younger ones are maybe more likely to disapprove of Nuclear anything. It seems ( and I HAVE to say it) that when the Granny or younger versions get into power / given a voice ( thinking of Oma from the DDR ) then they seek to drum up support on their POV regardless of the Engineering facts. Facts, aye, well like the science: Just go over to “the Engineer” eg https://www.theengineer.co.uk/content/in-depth/can-green-methods-of-production-help-hydrogen-live-up-to-the-hype and read the Comments on the various articles: IMHO they are no better than the “climate …. ( don’t want to call them scientists) who are either trolls or have an agenda as in following the gravytrain. I forgot to mention the long protests over the Nuclear fleet – something quite different. Nuclear power is one thing, but get the evil folk in and it gets to the talk of weapons unfortunately, and I can understand, may even sympathise.
Well now you know how I feel, as for the country? As with any Opinion Poll, as Gramps says, it depends on the wording ( and agenda ). Really where is the Basic education allowing you to assimilate your own ideas. The Pythagoras of science, if you like ( or Ohm’s Law) or whatever other field you operate in. Sadly most folk today operate in the field of Make-believe Models L@@K at M@, F@LL@W M@.
I’ve never lived in Scotland or know anybody in Scotland, but the impression I picked up whilst working in the UK nuclear industry in the 1980s and 1990s was that the Scots are quite a bit more anti-nuclear than the English.
This BBC article from 2008 which discusses the Scottish protests against Torness (the last nuclear power station to be built in Scotland) tends to support my impression:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7180861.stm
The protests against the Torness station were about 10,000 strong (according to the article), and two of the participants were future Labour government cabinet ministers, Robin Cook and Alastair Darling. Four AGR nuclear power stations were being built in England around the same time as Torness (Heysham I, Heysham II, Dungeness B and Hartlepool), but I have the impression the protests at the English sites were a lot smaller, maybe up to a couple of dozen protestors.
Well, to add to my previous response, and since my name pops up again: In the rural community, we once found we were always at odds with the Central (Urban) Belt. Today, and with the dubious entertainment value of “this farming life, etc” Townees are encouraged to come and live in the countryside. All this began Years ago as Gramps says when BBC Scotland developed it’s own Farming Progs on the radio & TV. ( Maybe get some more accurate stuff from Dr KAP.) vis. “Out of Doors”, and whatever … stopped listening or watching as it seemed to promote the takeover of rural areas & businesses. ( Did we ever see programmes about soldiering or factory working where you could just have the right to go in , join in, and take over) , finally to OBJECT to the Manner of Operation of the countryside. ( full of NIMBYs ) as of recent: NC500, SKYE, Cairngorm National Park, Coastal SEA parks ( forgotten correct term – see yesterdays news ScotGov abandoned )
So I stand by the feeling that Northern Scots and the Older Generations were happy to live with it all. ( Huh did we have an Option? – it was PUT there by a far -flung “English” government – but that’s another thing)
Various civilian nuclear sites in England were built by construction teams wth a strong Scottish contingent.
Pragmatic Scots Perhaps ? Don’t EVEN Ask about ethics, or anything else! Like Kishorn, like Nigg, Like Invergordon ( Smelter) etc. where did the Money go? some was used wisely, others well used ( DRINK ! ) and many lives were greatly disturbed / changed with the intermingling of Cultures through “natural processes). And yes in ENgland you’ve had your ‘fair share’ of Scots & Irish too with similar consequences. And then I’m getting a ‘rushing wind’ too – but that was OK ??
I recently bought and fitted a waste disposal unit (“Insinkerator”) in my kitchen. Unpacking the unit I was surprised it was rated at 0.55HP (horsepower not watts) and quickly realised it was manufactured in the USA. This is very unusual for appliances here in the UK. The next things I noticed was it was exceptionally well engineered, clearly built to last and had the most extensive set of installation and operating instructions I have ever come across. A very impressive piece of kit that works excellently.
So this begs the question why do we in the UK feel we cannot accept nuclear standards set by the US or Canada or South Korea or Japan all of whom have very well developed nuclear industries? We are somehow willing to accept basically French technology (EPR as per Hinkley Poiunt C) which has over-run on time and cost on every one constructed but not the KEPCO APR-1400 which the UAE has manged to implement 3 of (with 1 more due very soon) from a complete standing start pretty much on budget and time.
To put the construction cost in perspective, the UAE will spend less than 2 year’s worth of UK bill payer subsidies on renewables (RHI, CfD, ROC,s etc) to end up with 5.6GW of long term reliable generation.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/united-arab-emirates.aspx
This is what Kathryn’s paper argues. Don’t duplicate approval and the KEPCO design is largely trouble free and built and running in 8 years. 24 GW could be available by 2032 if we had any competent civil servants.
But we choose EPRs because no-one has made them work yet. It’s the E that counts. Even EDF don’t want to build any more.
And insisted of fitting heat pumps that don’t work when it’s cold, we could fit storage heaters at a fraction of the cost. My house is still wired for them.
Storage radiators –> heat pumps!?
Do I hear “if it aint broke, don’t fix it”?
The destruction of our nuclear was intentional … and when the only choice is to use foreign reactors … we can see where the money to destroy our industry came from.
I have enquired of Saighdear above what the general Scot’s public view on new nuclear is – may I also ask for your opinion?
Not sure I’m able to say with any level of confidence what my fellow Scots might think but my view as a retired Engineer is that nuclear appears to be the only reliable source of energy which has any chance of providing us with the energy we need for a civilised future.
Agreed. Not just a civilised one, but a long term one also. Also as an engineer, I’d say that we need to streamline/rationalise the regulation around nuclear to make it more practical. My suspicion is that a lot of regulation is to pander to activists who want to make the process as difficult and expensive as possible. That is the opposite of the (true) engineer, who seeks to improve things, to make them cheaper, easier, more reliable, longer lasting AND safer.
“I’d say that we need to streamline/rationalise the regulation around nuclear to make it more practical”
The objective of regulation isn’t to make it better, it is to prevent it.
The otherwise excellent article seems to miss out CANDU, which has been a success for Canada, both internally and as export. The Canadians are still punching far above their weight in the nuclear field. The UK’s poor performance in this field is part of the governance tragedy of the UK where short term profits have long-dominated any considerations of security and future needs. We used to export technology, soon we will not even be able to make real steel! At least the bankers will be rich…..
As I recall, back in the 1970s when the follow-on nuclear power stations from the AGR, were being considered, the CANDU design and the SGHWR (a prototype in operation by the UKAEA at Winfrith) were looked at. They were both determined to be a mass of pipes which were very difficult to build, maintain and repair. So the pragmatic decision was made to go with the tried and trusted 4-loop PWR of Westinghouse.
Phillip Bratby: Back then I worked for GEC and Weinstock, (who almost controlled government industrial policy then), was determined that the PWR should win-out, and it did!
The UK was fairly involved with CANDU at the beginning, but gave this and the AGR up through the powerful lobbying. A sorry lack of ability to evaluate technologies has been a feature of UK energy policies since then. The incredibly rapid development of power stations in the 1950s and 1960s is hard to comprehend now: something about a organising events in a brewery comes to mind!
The procurement process saga and the construction project management nightmare for Dungeness B has haunted the British nuclear sector for decades.
Micky R. You are correct in that: the combination of normal development problems and the rising anti-nuclear power lobby became very influential. However, it did strike me as odd that EdF were given the role of technology assessor leading to the final closure: possible vested interests? This is especially ironic given the fiascos associated with EdF subsequent reactors. The original French design had a commendable history in terms of safety and performance: why change it?
The UK has been singing about SMRs for years, (according to bojo we led the world) other countries are now selling them and we could not even make the steel to build one now!
“NuScale” small modular reactor project in Utah cancelled https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/nuscale-power-uamps-agree-terminate-nuclear-project-2023-11-08/
Micky R: Sad story, looked very promising, but nuclear economics, like wind, is very capital intensive. Does this mean that the SMR is a dead duck ’til China gets onto it?
After the nonsense of relying on Russian gas, what choice is there for Western European countries who are without indigenous thermal fuel ?
Its utterly depressing that in the mid 50’s this country started its journey on build out of nuclear power stations all home grown technology and manufacture. We had no experience to draw on so had to lead the way and we did building first of type in a little over four years. Where did it all go so wrong…
Government started helping.
SMRs getting too expensive?
‘NuScale said in January the target price for power from the plant was $89 per megawatt hour, up 53% from the previous estimate of $58 per MWh, raising concerns about customers’ willingness to pay.’ – Reuters