A New Horizon for the UK’s Nuclear Future

There has been some very significant developments for the Nuclear Industry in the UK, with E.ON and RWE (nPower) [Horizon Nuclear Power] pulling out of the UK Nuclear New Build Programme, and on Monday the largest decommissioning contract ever will being awarded to the Babcock Dounreay Partnership to decommission Dounreay, by the far the biggest blemish of the nuclear industry.

Now in regards to the decision by EDF and RWE, if you believe the Energy Minister, Charles Hardy, this move was not down to a lack of confidence in the UK Nuclear Industry but due to, “pressures elsewhere in their businesses”, though it may have more to do with the lack of confidence in Nuclear as a whole following the Fukushima disaster in 2011. Whatever the reason for this decision, the fact is that this leaves the Nuclear New Build Programme in a severely weakened position and presents a stark truth that the UK cannot rely on private and foreign investment for our core infrastructure.

The big players that are left, and that the government is relying on to plug the energy gap, are EDF/Centrica (or British Gas) and Nugen, with EDF/Centrica being by far the most serious players. However with cost of a new nuclear plant rising, partly after increased safety precautions have been implemented following on from the Fukushima disaster, and the slow progress and higher than expected cost of EDF’s flagship nuclear reactor, the European Pressurised Reactor, in Flamanville, the continued support by these big players should be viewed with extreme caution.

The governments existing policy of no subsidies for nuclear power will have to come under review in the not too distant future, else the risk of the new nuclear sector collapsing is very real. Now I don’t agree with subsidies for nuclear power, as I believe it has already cost the country enough over decades of poor management leading to heavy decommission costs and that we should focus on more sustainable power. But we have already invested heavily in proving New Nuclear Build Designs and paving the way for their installations so to abandon now would leave the country out of pocket and with a serious and fast approaching energy gap.

Finally I will briefly consider the blemish that is Dounreay and the ever protracted decommissioning process, which at last count was estimated to finish in 2032. Dounreay was, in my opinion, the most poorly managed nuclear facility that the country has ever ran and more a experimental play house for the development of nuclear power and fuel than ever a well run facility. There have been stories of rooms that were out of bounds for decades due to radiation, which have only recently been decommissioned, and nuclear waste leakage into the waterways. The decommissioning process is incredibly complicated and to trust that it will be more cost effective to hand this over to a private firm is incredible at the least.

I have no worries on the ability of Babcock to perform the decommission and I am sure that the people involved will not actually change much due to the limited suitably qualified resource that this country has; though to presume that this will reduce costs is in my opinion a foolish one. It should also be noted that Babcock has an ever expanding portfolio of highly sensitive and very significant operations in this country. Private companies exist for one purpose, to make money, which any sensible person cannot disagree with; however to put them in charge of public infrastructure and services and expect them to act altruistically is incredibly naive.

Take a look at the developing engineers blog!

Onshore Wind Farms, a Brief Debate

Sorry for the long delay since my last post; a lot of things have changed including my Job and location but I'm back now blogging on my view of the renewable future, I'm also mirroring some of my posts on the developing engineers blog... take a look.

I have chosen to take a look at an issue that has featured in the news recently and seems to be always a point of contention for many people, onshore wind farms.

This weekend it was reported by The Telegraph that 101 conservative MPs have demanded that annual subsidies for onshore wind farms should be ‘dramatically cut’. This is also paired with a concern regarding the National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF), which they say hinders any effective opposition to onshore wind farms.

I will focus mainly on the issue subsidies and the wider issue of funding. Firstly without subsidies it is hard to see how anyone could justify, economically, the merits of commissioning onshore wind farms if subsidies did not exist; if anything subsidies do not go far enough in encouraging growth in an emerging market and there review and subsequent scale back will only help us further fall short of 2020 emissions targets.

Firstly I am not in full agreement with the construction of onshore wind farms as the sums often don’t add up; with the amount of electricity actually produced not that great. However at this current point in time we don’t have many viable alternatives, I certainly would rather they remove solar subsidies in this country which were only ever a cursory nod towards the direction of the renewable energy sector, than halt the construction or subsidies for onshore wind farms.

Maybe we should look at the reason why we need such subsidies especially as the opportunity for the UK to be a renewable industry hub is banded about so much by the current government. The infrastructure to support the wind industry in this country is currently not there and the waiting list for wind turbines is a lengthy one, with these and other factors leading to high costs. In August 2009 Vestas moved operations from the Isle of Wight due to uncertainty regarding the industry and of lack of assurance from the government that it will back wind energy; only now are we seeing proposals again for wind turbine manufacturing in the UK, which could always fall down if support is not there for renewable development.

If the government, or more correctly the conservative side of, continues to attack the industry then the costs of renewable energy will continue to rise and become less attractive to potential investors; though maybe this is a preferred option as if renewable energy costs rise it will only give more substance to the Nuclear argument.

Now I cannot say that onshore wind farms are the solution to the energy balance or the best option in renewable energy but green subsidies are a vital component in encouraging growth the renewable energy sector that without them will surely stagnate. Would you rather have a coal or nuclear power plant on your doorstep?

To end on a positive note Nick Clegg has come out in defence of wind power subsidies and renewable energy as a whole, so at least someone is fighting for renewable energy just a pity they have little sway in government...

Also go take a look at the developing engineers website! www.developingengineers.com

Radical Reforms in UK Energy Policy

With all the news focused on NoW, Rupert Murdoch and the corruption associated you will have been forgiven if you failed to fully take notice of the huge energy reforms announced last week by Chris Huhne.

Given only a cursory glance by many of the major news avenues in the UK media Chris Huhne’s announcement shows a welcome commitment by the government to reduce emissions and ensure greater energy security; not to mention the inevitable brown and black outs the country faces if significant investment is not made, in Chris Huhnes own words, "We have to stop dithering, you can have blackouts or you can have investment. Which do you want?".

 

This reform indicates an end to the liberalised electricity market implemented by the Thatcher government, in by which the private sector would provide competition and keep prices low. This did work in the short term when the electricity market was essentially oversupplied however it made no plans for long term and has part resulted in the sad state of affairs we are now; facing significant global warming and with little to no long term energy security.

The UK needs significant investment in low-carbon energy, mainly renewables, nuclear and possibly carbon-capture (though the merits of this technology are in doubt both in capture and storage); if it is to avoid falling foul of the European Union’s and its own emissions targets and the threat of brown and black outs. To try and achieve this aim Chris Huhne and the government’s white paper outlined a strategy to guide private investment; this includes a minimum carbon price, contracts with energy suppliers for low-carbon energy, a regulation setting maximum emissions levels, a set of payments to ensure sufficient capacity and a new energy efficiency obligation.

While this is definitely welcome news the worry is that these reforms will not go far enough. Firstly Chris Huhne also used this announcement to usher in a new “dash for gas”, now as I have stated previously in this blog a push for natural gas will only result in the UK being depenedant on greenhouse emitting fossil fuels for the foreseeable future and will risk significantly stifling investment in the renewable industry, which is still in its infancy in this country. The IEA’s own executive director Nobuo Tanaka, stated in a press conference in London, "While natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, it is still a fossil fuel. Its increased use could muscle out low-carbon fuels such as renewables and nuclear, particularly in the wake of Fukushima. An expansion of gas use alone is no panacea for climate change." So the last thing that the UK needs is a new “dash for gas”, to do so would end any hope of the UK ushering in a green revolution and would inevitably put us on the back foot compared to the rest of Europe.

Secondly over the coming years 9 of the UK’s oil and coal fired power stations are due to be decommissioned along with the last remaining Magnox and two AGR nuclear reactors; this will result in a significant energy gap, with brownouts a certainty and blackouts predicted by 2016. Unless miraculously the UK can construct and commission its planned nuclear power plants and invest significantly in renewable energy there is no avoiding this and that will take unprecedented investment in low-carbon energy. Though this investment could lead the UK to becoming a clean-tech hub for Europe, revitalising the manufacturing industry, creating new jobs and leading to greater economic stability.

In conclusion the energy reforms announced by Chris Huhne are essentially a good thing however unless they are backed up by significant investment and action from the government in the direction of low-carbon energy, and associated infrastructure, (and not a new “dash for gas”) then the UK have no chance of keeping the lights on let alone reaching its emissions targets.