Carbon Connect’s Future Electricity Series is an independent research inquiry
exploring what role fossil fuels, renewables and nuclear can play in providing
sustainable, secure and affordable power in the short, medium and long term. It
claims that the ‘different technologies should not be pitched against one
another and that each has an important role to play in the UK’s future’. It has already looked first fossil fuels,
and then renewables, and concluded that should nuclear and fossil CCS not
deliver as much as expected, then renewables should and can be ramped up, with
up to a 55% contribution being seen as possible by 2030, and that there is a
need for this option to be supported more, as a contingency-in effect, a Plan
B.
Now it has looked
at nuclear, with a
report by Fabrice Leveque and Andrew Robertson, and seems to have adopted a
very uncritical approach. The tone is set by a quote at the front from (Labour)
Baroness Worthington and Charles Hendry (Tory) MP,
Future Electricity Series Co-Chairs: ‘Nuclear energy has a long history of
controversy, but the UK has made important progress since 2007, when new
nuclear was put back on the table, to today when we have broad political
consensus behind new nuclear.’
The
text that follows certainly does not rock that boat. Here are some of its
findings:
‘The
environmental impacts of nuclear power are comparable to some generation
technologies and favourable to others, although the long lived nature of some
radioactive nuclear waste and the dual use potential of nuclear technology for
civil and military applications create unique but manageable challenges for
social and economic sustainability’
‘Although uncertain, evidence suggests
that there are adequate uranium resources to fuel a global expansion of nuclear
power, including new of nuclear power stations in the UK. Development of
thorium fuel cycles, technologies to enable a closed fuel cycle
and
new extraction techniques could all improve fuel security and expand the
potential of nuclear energy’.
‘New
reactor and fuel cycle technologies could substantially increase fuel
efficiency, reducing both mining requirements and the longevity of long-lived
waste. New technologies could also reduce proliferation risks.’
It's
a little hard to accept these bland assertions, or the claim in the text that
only ‘28
deaths have been attributed to high levels of radiation exposure following the
Chernobyl accident’. Though maybe its true that the many thousands of other deaths
that have been claim to be a result were due to low-level exposure. It’s hard
to know where to start in relation to the other main points extracted above.
Suffice the say that it seems clear that nuclear weapons material proliferation
is a real and seemingly intractable issue, that nuclear fuel cycle emissions
will grow as high grade uranium ore becomes scarce, that nuclear waste disposal
still hasn't be resolved anywhere, and that the health implications of nuclear
fuel production, plant accidents and releases far outweigh (and outlive) the
risks/impacts associated with using wind and solar. And certainly not everyone
shares the view that new technology can resolve or limit these problems.
The
report also looks at grid balancing and here it is more cautious: ‘Nuclear
power stations currently have an inflexible electrical output for economic,
rather than technical reasons. Although they could be operated more flexibly in
future, it is likely that other technologies could provide system flexibility
at lower cost.’
Actually there are operational and safety reasons (Xenon contamination has to
be cleared) why it’s hard to use nuclear plants to balance variable renewables
rapidly and regularly. It’s not just economics.
It
is also a little less complacent when it comes to the economic details of the
UK programme, which has seen EDF being awarded a lucrative contract for Hinkley
without any sign of competition amongst potential suppliers, or with other
technology options: ‘Introducing competition into the process of awarding revenue support for new
nuclear power will be a substantial challenge for policy makers over the coming
two decades. In particular, it is not yet clear how the Government’s goal of
technology neutral auctions for revenue support contracts in the 2020s will be
realised given the fundamental differences between low carbon generation
technologies and the vastly different arrangements for renewables and nuclear
currently’.
It
also estimates that
‘equity
investors in Hinkley Point C could achieve returns of around 20% before
refinancing. This compares with typical equity returns on regulated network
assets of 8 to 10% and on Private Finance Initiative projects of 12 to 15%,’ but doesn’t comment on that,
except to say ‘it is difficult to judge the effectiveness of the negotiation
process in driving value for money because it was neither competitive nor
transparent’, though it worries that the European Commission may object under
the State Aid rules.
Overall
though, apart from a few pokes, e.g. about the need to get on with finding a
waste repository and concerns about the costs and risks of delays, it seems to
endorse government nuclear policy: there may be some economic uncertainties,
but nuclear power is seen as an important part of the mix and the technological
issues can be resolved. www.policyconnect.org.uk/cc/sites/site_cc/files/carbonconnect_powerfromnuclear.pdf
Certainly
DECC remains very ‘gung ho’ on nuclear- and even on the idea that the UK could have 75GW of nuclear by 2050. That had initially
been floated in a DECC report last year, but caught the media’s attention after
a mention by the government advisory Committee on Climate change. The basic
idea is to follow the 16 GW of currently planned light water reactors (LWRs) i.e. ordinary water cooled plants,
with next generation
advanced rectors, including fast neutron plutonium breeders. They can breed new
fuel from otherwise wasted U238. That’s good news for nuclear, since fissile
uranium 235 reserves are limited.
But you have to have the initial input of plutonium- so you need a fleet
of LWRs. DECC said: ‘a future fast reactor fleet has to be preceded by a
similar sized LWR fleet and the reprocessing of the LWR spent fuel. Therefore,
the ore demand from 2020 to 2100 is dominated by the fuel required for the LWR
fleet.’
So we would
still be stuck with old LWRs, reprocessing and wastes, for the far future. Switching to thorium doesn’t help much- it’s not fissile,
so plutonium (from LWRs) is needed to fire it up, though some (like Baroness
Worthington) see advantages in it, especially if molten salt flouride is
used.
That
may a long way off and is not a current UK priority. Instead the current focus,
apart from the LWR programme (Hinkley, Wylfa, Sizewell etc), is the prospect of
using some of the UKs 100 tonne plus of plutonium stocks in new plutonium
burning plant. The US liquid sodium cooled Prism fast reactor and the
heavy water moderated Enhanced Candu 6 (EC6) reactor are both ‘credible options’ for managing the
UK's plutonium stockpile, according to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority,
although the government's preferred option is to reuse it as mixed-oxide (MOX)
fuel. That would require a new MOX production plant-the old one failed. If the
UK does manage to build a fleet of new reactors, then there will be more
plutonium produced and, unless it is just stored in highly active spent fuel
somewhere, a need for a new reprocessing plant (THORP is to shut soon), if we
wanted to continue producing MOX into the future. And so the nuclear dream
lives on, with ever renewed enthusiasm for new technology to try to solve the
problems created by the previous approach.
You
don't have to look far to hear very different views: just go to Germany- or Austria,
Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Portugal or Switzerland. Or indeed Scotland! But that’s another story, based on
enthusiasm for a different set of technologies.
