UK Nuclear- on to 50GW?

A UK Nuclear role– and on to 50GW? 

 In its new report, ‘Nuclear for net Zero’, the Energy System Catapult (ESC) claims that ‘nuclear is potentially an important part of the future Net Zero energy system in the UK’, and although it warns that ‘nuclear cost reduction is a necessary pre-requisite’, it seems confident that costs can be cut. It says ‘Nuclear power plant construction projects do not need to be risky or expensive’, one of the key enablers to nuclear cost reduction being ‘the intentional commitment to programmes of capacity rather than individual unconnected projects’. 

Additionally, it says, Small Modular Reactor (SMR) and advanced Generation IV reactor deployment costs may fall ‘even lower than those potentially achievable with large contemporary reactor designs to be deployed in countries with developed economies where wage rates for construction labour and project related professional services are relatively high’. 

 That may be optimistic. What if cost do not fall? The report says that ‘in the absence of credible plans to realise nuclear cost reduction, a UK net zero energy system without nuclear is possible, but targeting such a system is risky (unlikely to get to Net Zero) and potentially expensive. Such a non-nuclear scenario might require significant bioenergy and land use change, as well as a vast quantity of renewable energy’. 

The ESC UK Nuclear route 

 In its report, which is based on work started by the the ETI, the now defunct Energy Technologies Institute, ESC looks to ‘an initial optimised programme of around 10 GWe of new Gen III+ capacity beyond HPC [Hinkley Point C] is a decision of low or no regret provided construction duration and costs continue to reduce as predicted by the findings of the ETI Nuclear Cost Drivers project.’ 

What would it all be used for? Balancing? ESC says ‘it is well established that for a balanced, resilient and cost- efficient system, intermittent renewables should be complemented by additional technologies providing firm and mid-merit generation. With the levels of overnight capital cost explained in this report, and used as the basis for the energy system modelling, nuclear technologies have important potential roles to complement energy from wind in providing electricity generation’. That’s hard to take: they are more likely to conflict and lead to curtailment: inflexible nuclear is not much use for balancing variable renewables. 

A bit more credibly, ESC look to nuclear CHP (Combined Heat and Power) feeding district heating networks (DH): ‘All reactor types are capable of cogeneration deployment to supply the lower grade heat required; light-water nuclear SMRs are a good match for thermal energy demand and can be deployed closer to the centre of demand meaning shorter connecting pipes and lower costs for many potential DH locations’. But would local residents be happy having SMRs in or near cities? 

Maybe hydrogen gas generation would be a better bet- it can be piped more easily to where its needed. ESC says ‘advanced nuclear plants coupled with higher temperature more efficient hydrogen production technology can be a cost-effective source of additional hydrogen with low carbon footprint and relatively low land-take’. It sees this possibly offering more flexible operation and possibly cheaper hydrogen than from steam reformation of gas or electrolysis using renewable electricity. Well, that has yet to be proved! And it assumes that new nuclear will be cheaper- a long shot. Whereas renewables are clearly getting cheaper. 

ESC nonetheless is keen to fight it out. It wants to see a UK ‘commitment to a programme of capacity rather than individual unconnected projects, and the benefits from deployment of multiple units in an uninterrupted construction sequence on the same site’. It says ‘this additional capacity can be expected to potentially commence operations between 2028 and 2035 if suitable projects are committed at the right time,’ subject to continuing assessment. And then more later- maybe up to 50 GW by 2050. 

  

NIA also push for 50GW 

That may sound massive, but in a parallel report, the UK Nuclear Industry Association backs the same idea. It says that nuclear power could supply up to 40% of UK power by 2050 from about 32 GW of capacity, including a contribution from fusion, with a further 18 GW of capacity focused on the production of hydrogen and district heating. So 50GW in all. It certainly tries to push all the buttons. As well as supplying direct power, storable hydrogen and heat, the NIA says there’s ‘significant potential to site electricity storage projects near nuclear sites. The UK has a strong history in co-locating such sites, such as the Dinorwig pumped hydro storage plant in Snowdonia near Trawsfynydd nuclear power plant. As newer, innovative storage technologies develop, such as cryogenic liquid, ammonia, and molten salts; nuclear power stations, where grid connectivity is already in place, make ideal locations’. 

That is pushing it a bit. The beauty of these new storage options is that they can be sited anywhere on the grid- they do not need to be near power plants, though that is one option. And at whatever point they are made in the grid system, renewables inputs are likely to be much cheaper. Certainly renewables are winning so far. As IRENA have reported, solar photovoltaics (PV) shows the sharpest cost decline over 2010-2019 at 82%, followed by concentrating solar power (CSP) at 47%, onshore wind at 40% and offshore wind at 29%. The NIA seems to think nuclear can catch up, but a critical commentary in the FT noted that the report ‘contains a barrage of demands including that development costs be paid for, an assured flow of orders and all risks covered by taxpayers or consumers. For an industry in global decline, beset by technical difficulties, overruns and overspends, this is audacious indeed’.  

It is possible that new nuclear technology will get cheaper, and some proponents have come up with very optimistic projections for low cost SMRs, with there being some industrial and political interest in the UK, US, China and elsewhere. But it will take time to find out if it will be possible to deploy large numbers of SMRs to get unit costs down. In at least some critics view, progress so far does not look too encouraging. It seems far more likely that renewable will continue to develop. IRENA says that continuing cost declines confirm renewable power as a low-cost climate and decarbonisation solution, aligning short-term economic needs with medium- and long-term sustainable development goals. Renewable power installations could also form a key component of economic stimulus packages in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. IRENA says an annual energy spending of $4.5 trillion could boost world’s economy by 1.3% and create up to 19 million jobs by 2030. There are still those who look to nuclear globally- and even to new EPRs in the UK. However, all in all, renewables, along with energy saving, look like a safer, cleaner, cheaper and faster to deploy option than nuclear.