The UK Government asked the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) for its advice on whether an additional new nuclear plant, beyond the proposed Sizewell C project, was needed to deliver the UK’s sixth Carbon (reduction) Budget, due in 2035. In response, the NIC said no, it was not needed or viable for 2035, since new nuclear was slow to deploy. It asserted that ‘it is highly unlikely that a new large scale nuclear plant is deliverable in the next 15 years; trying and failing would jeopardise delivery of the sixth Carbon Budget’. Instead it backed renewables, hydrogen and low/negative carbon technology- which is said could be deployed faster.
It noted that ‘since 1990, nuclear projects have faced significant delays all around the world. Even just in Europe around half of all plants have faced at least a 50% delay in construction, and 1 in 4 plants have faced at least a 90% delay in construction’. So it said that ‘any nuclear project schedule estimate should be expected to take at least 50% longer than planned. If a new project began development next year and took the same amount of time as the Hinkley Point C project is expected to take to complete, it would not come online until at least the mid 2040s’. So that put it well outside the 2035 timeframe.
Small Modular/advanced reactors might be a faster option, but the NIC said ‘relying on significant capacity being deployed before 2035 would be risky’. It pointed out that ‘no SMR has gone through the Generic Design Assessment process and some developer proposals are conditional on government support to progress project development. There are no SMRs in operation in countries similar to the UK. To fill the same capacity gap illustrated in the BEIS modelling, at least six SMRs would be needed by 2035, if not more. This would require compressing the normal delivery timeline and doing things in parallel rather than in sequence, significantly increasing the risk of delays. Delivery success will also be dependent on the capability of the developer.’
Alternatives likely to be faster
Instead of these nuclear options, for delivery within the timeframe to 2035, it backed ‘renewables with a combination of gas power plants with carbon capture and storage, hydrogen fired gas plants and bioenergy with carbon capture & storage’. It said ‘these alternatives are more likely to be deliverable at scale in the next 15 years’.
In support of the proposed CCS/BECCS/hydrogen options it said ‘whilst none of these technologies have been deployed at scale in the UK, there are pilot or commercial projects deployed elsewhere in the world. And the engineering of each is fundamentally sound. These technologies are smaller and more modular, exactly the type of technology the UK has experience delivering over short timescales.’
It went on ‘Deploying new technologies at scale will never be risk free. But the best way government can mitigate this risk is to act swiftly and finalise the policy frameworks under development that can facilitate the investment needed’ And it adds while ‘some of these technologies, in particular gas power plants with carbon capture and storage, rely on natural gas…these technologies would play a much smaller role in the power system in 2035 than unabated gas plants do today. And as the economy as a whole decarbonises, the county’s overall dependence on natural gas will fall dramatically’.
It stressed that CCS/hydrogen options add policy flexibility, unlike nuclear, and noted that ‘the inclusion of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) in the power system in 2035 would significantly increase the number of pathways to delivering a near zero carbon power system’. It suggested that, ‘as BECCS would likely generate baseload power it can be considered a like for like alternative to nuclear. Its inclusion in the power sector therefore significantly decreases the need for additional new nuclear projects by 2035’. It wanted 3GW, and suggested there should be sufficient biomass for that. It didn’t mention storage space for CO2!
As for hydrogen, it said that it can be produced either by electrolysing water (to make zero carbon green hydrogen) or through reforming natural gas (to make low carbon ‘blue’ hydrogen, if CCS is used). It noted that ‘electrolysis is a mature technology, although not yet at scale and there is uncertainty concerning how rapidly costs will fall. To be low carbon, gas reforming would have to be used in combination with carbon capture and storage technology and may require novel approaches such as autothermal reforming’.
However, it said ‘whilst hydrogen may be a constrained resource over the coming years as production technologies scale up, only a small amount of hydrogen is needed in the power sector for back-up and generation at peak times.’ e.g. BEIS analysis assumes around 30 TWh of hydrogen is available in 2035 for the power sector, in line with the ambition set out in the governments Hydrogen Strategy.
Is it viable?
The NIC ducks out from discussing costs, arguing that there is ‘inherent uncertainty in such complex and long term modelling’ and pointing out that ‘the cost difference between generation mixes in the BEIS, and other, analysis is well within a reasonable range of uncertainty’. It certainly can be difficult to assign costs long term when the system may change radically. The NIC said ‘whilst nuclear power is likely more expensive on a per MWh basis, but it also saves on costs in the system elsewhere, such as the cost of back-up capacity’. Well yes, but while nuclear cost are high, and rising, renewable and energy storage /balancing/back up costs are falling.
However, even without costing analysis, it said its analysis clearly demonstrated ‘that a third new nuclear plant is not necessary to reach the 2035 emissions target and that more gas CCS, hydrogen powered gas plants, and BECCS could be deployed instead. Whilst these technologies are yet to be deployed at scale, the Commission considers them to be a lower delivery risk than nuclear.’ And it claimed that its proposed alternative technology mix was supported by analysis previously conducted for the Commission and by other bodies such as National Grid ESO & the Climate Change Committee.
Well certainly there is very strong support for renewables and there is also still a lot of support for CCS. But it hasn’t been doing too well, which makes fossil gas CCS, blue hydrogen and also BECCS a long shot. The NIC doesn’t push it much, but the case for green hydrogen is arguably much better: storage of green hydrogen would give the power system more flexibility than fossil CCS or BECCS, which, as NIC admits, are base-load options, much like nuclear.
It’s odd that the NIC plunge into CCS and Hydrogen, rather than talking about renewables more. Maybe they are taken for granted. But if, led by wind and solar, they could be expanded much faster than BEIS and NIC envisage, then maybe we could forget about fossil CCS, BECCS and also Sizewell C. That might be helped if tidal stream technology could also get going- with CfD help, it ought to be able to by 2030. Geothermal too, for heat and power. All NIC says is that, from the BEIS analysis, it’s clear that ‘significant volumes of renewables are needed to deliver a low carbon power system by 2035. This is supported by previous analysis for the Commission and others. Rapid cost reductions and short and reliable build profiles mean that renewables will be the backbone of any future GB power system’. OK, fine, but we need details & plans now for faster expansion, along with a much improved commitment to energy saving!
As a member of the BEIS-NGO nuclear Forum I put the above IPC points to BEIS officials in the form of a written question to be discussed at a (Zoom) Forum in December. I also made the point that the IPC statements essentially indicate that its dispatchable generating capacity that is needed, not baseload capacity. Indeed, a continually varying consumer demand and increasing weather-dependant supply cannot be balanced by a straight line.
ReplyDeleteMy question was not answered by the BEIS officials who put considerable faith and ministerial advice in their very questionable Dynamic Dispatch Model (DDM) and its non-transparent inputs. Meanwhile, the latest energy ministers, few of whom have engineering backgrounds, continue to reiterate the line of recent governments that new nuclear build is 'vital', 'essential', key' and of 'absolute need' (though one recent post Hinkley C secretary downgraded nuclear to just 'important').
Surely it is the job of the BEIS Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) to respond to IPC (and CCC) 'critical-friend' technical advice and advise staff and minsters accordingly. Minister Greg Hands MP states that new nuclear is 'vital' - but in what specific ways ? Is it technical - that baseload is vital ? Or is it that nuclear electricity is likely to be so much cheaper than more offshore wind and PV based systems that it outweighs the difficult-to-value downsides of new rad-waste production, the additional national security vulnerabilities and defence requirements, the public health risks (be they small and or large), and the wider global promotion of civil nuclear with its inherent WMD proliferation and terrorism risks as a necessary 'climate-solution'.
Surely the BEIS CSA could at least write half a side of A4 of technical advice in response to the IPC viewpoint (preferably available for committee and public scrutiny before any Sizewell C decision)) and surely any energy minister should be able to argue why baseload, as distinct to dispatchable, generating capacity is 'vital'.
Neil Crumpton, PAWB (People Against Wylfa B)