Is there room for nuclear?

Renewables have done very well recently in the UK and globally, nuclear not so well (it supplies around 14% of UK power now) although, while it has lost some ground, there is still some backing for it, for example, in the UK. Last year Prof Jim Watson, then director of the UK Energy Research Centre, told BBC News: ‘Most analysts now have accepted that we don't need 30% of energy from nuclear - renewables can take a substantially bigger share. But taking any option off the table makes the job of meeting essential carbon targets even harder. It would certainly be hard to do without nuclear altogether.’ 

That is debatable. Some say that large inflexible nuclear just gets in the way of the flexible supply and demand management system we need to support and balance variable renewables. A few nuclear plants might be able to operate at the margins, possibly generating hydrogen overnight when their power is not needed, but otherwise, in many national and global scenarios, nuclear only plays a small role, or even no role. That view is backed in the UK by anti nuclear groups like Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and local lobby groups, but it is also shared by a range of academics, including those who are part of the UK Nuclear Consulting Group. They can sometimes get a bit of publicity for their views, but are still often seen as marginal.

On the other side, though under pressure due to the high costs of nuclear and the falling costs of renewables, the nuclear lobby is still very powerful, with well funded trade and support agencies and large financial reserves, coupled with a range of academics, many of whom are involved with nuclear-related research, as well as various global/national lobby groups. Take a look at the signatories this open letter from one of them. Of late, the nuclear lobby has been arguing that nuclear expansion is vital to deal with climate change, given that it has low direct CO2 emissions.  In addition to the issue of radioactive emissions and the production of long lived radioactive wastes, the counter view is that nuclear fuel production actually also has quite high associated carbon emissions, from mining and processing uranium. And in general, it is argued, it makes little sense to invest in inflexible nuclear compared to the more effective, cheaper and faster to deploy solution of expanding zero carbon renewables and supporting more efficient and flexible energy supply and use. 

UK Political positions 

For the moment, although renewables are expanding rapidly, the UK nuclear lobby is nevertheless also winning support for more nuclear capacity in the UK - it has the ear of government. That has not always been the case. In the 1980s Labour was won over to a non-nuclear policy, a position backed by some trade unions. That position was abandoned under Tony Blair. Jeremy Corbyn briefly came out against nuclear but then backtracked.  Over the years, the Conservatives have tended to support nuclear as long as it looked economic and did not need state backing. And even though its economics look poor, and despite opposition from the right wing press over the high cost, the current Tory government has still clung on to it, with the Hinkley project getting well over the odds support via a lucrative Contract for Difference awarded without a competitive auction. 

The present situation is that the leaders of both main parties back more nuclear. PM Boris Johnson said ‘we believe that nuclear power is a significant potential contributor to our Net Zero ambitions’. The then candidate Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer told the Guardian ‘I support the Labour position that nuclear power is part of the mix of moving away from fossil fuels’, but he has yet to confirm that. The Green Party and the SNP remain opposed, the Lib Dems have varied their position from anti to pro (during the coalition) and now possibly anti again. The public is split on the issue, with according the BEIS, over a third supporting nuclear and under a third opposing it, the rest being unsure, but with support for renewables clearly dominating- at over 80%. Interestingly though, while support for some renewables was even higher (e.g. 95% for offshore wind) amongst the sample of the UK population invited recently to join the Climate Assembly, only 34% of Assembly members supported nuclear, while 46% opposed it.    

What next?  

We are awaiting a new Energy White Paper, maybe in November,  but for the moment all we have as a policy guide is a 2018 rough BEIS plan, which sees nuclear expanding steadily up to 2050 to 100 TWh, almost half the output level then expected to have been attained by renewables. The UK nuclear lobby is certainly pushing for significant expansion, possibly with small modular reactors (SMRs) as well as larger plants, and maybe up to 50 GW in all by 2050: see my earlier post.  But with nuclear powers’ poor economic record, and uncertainties about the risks of Chinese involvement, some see this as a desperate and unrealistic last ditch drive. In realty it could all be quite slo                w. In National Grid ESO Steady Progression scenario there is some ambition to develop new nuclear projects beyond those already planned for possible start up in the 2030s; however, the first new project after 2030 doesn’t come online until the 2040s. 

Nevertheless, some claim that SMRs will be cheaper and safer and can be located near to energy demand centres, possibly supplying heat and well as power. Well we shall see- we have had endless promises like that before, always some way off in the future. But who knows? Initially there may be some tested on existing UK nuclear sites, most of which are in remote areas, but if new SMRs are to be near to loads, so as to be able to operate in flexible CHP mode, at some point they would have to be in or near cities. That could raise all sorts of issues in relation to safety and security, as is already being discussed in the USA, with some urban resistance emerging. If that spreads, where will they go? 

The UK government recently allocated £40m for Advanced Modular Reactor R&D. So it is not a vast programme yet, but clearly the industry wants it to accelerate, with companies like Rolls Royce no  doubt being keen to exploit their expertise in building small reactors for nuclear submarine propulsion. Do we really want those on land in urban areas? The Guardian suggested that the Energy White paper may include further support for small modular nuclear reactors, which it said have found favour with the PMs chief aide, Dominic Cummings. We may find out in November.