The battle over whether nuclear power should be retained in UK energy plans continues, with press reports that the go ahead given by Boris Johnson for the proposed Sizewell C European Pressurised-water Reactor might be reconsidered given its costs. However, lobby support for nuclear remain quite strong (there was even a pro-nuclear editorial in the Observer) and the standard view, that we needed more nuclear, was given a full airing by Baroness Byrony Worthington in Prospect magazine.
She was once an opponent of nuclear, but now says that its problems have been overstated, and that it has a great future, there being many still not fully developed options. For example, she points to high temperature and fast reactors, and the use of thorium and molten salt fuels. She even managed to be positive on waste: ‘The higher the radioactivity, the quicker it decays to a safe state’. And also on costs: ‘Nuclear power provides power throughout the year and this makes it cheaper to manage the grid’.
A new paper from University College London/ Aalto University Finland on the options open to the UK sees it somewhat differently. It says that ‘a nearly 100% variable renewable system with very little fossil fuels, no new nuclear and facilitated by long-term storage is the most cost-effective design’. It claims that ‘new nuclear capacity is… only cost-effective in the absence of BECCS, long-term storage and interconnector expansion and assuming NOAK [Nth of a kind] nuclear capex with very ambitious construction times.’ This means, it suggests, that ‘the current favourable UK Government policy towards nuclear is becoming increasingly difficult to justify.’
The new paper looks to a system based on variable renewable energy (VRE), mostly wind and solar, being balanced by the use of biomass energy with carbon capture (BECCS), that reducing total system energy costs by 5–15%, with higher savings for more challenging conditions (i.e. worse weather years; no inter-connector expansion), as ‘negative emissions facilitate the deployment of cheaper flexible assets’. Long-term storage of hydrogen, generated from electrolysis using renewable power, and stored in underground salt caverns, can, it says do even more, and ‘support 9–21% cheaper UK systems, with again more pessimistic assumptions for VREs leading to greater value from the flexibility it provides’.
The cost-optimal minimum share of annual generation from domestic VREs is found to be ~80% across scenarios, with ‘long-term storage consistently enabling ~94% share even in the worst weather year’. Each of these system designs, it says, ‘account for the necessary amount of operating reserve, frequency response and minimum system inertia to support system adequacy and security’. It suggests that ‘synchronous condensers could have an important role in providing cost-effective inertia to support secure highly renewable systems in cases where synchronous generation is low’, including when no new nuclear is deployed ‘and in all of the systems with long-term storage.’
The new report is based on computer modelling, but it is interesting to put it alongside the real world trends identified by consultants ICIS, who, the FT says, ‘reckons the cost of nuclear today is about £126 per megawatt hour, falling to £96/MWh in 2040’ while ‘the cost of offshore wind power, including the batteries for energy storage, should decline from £165/MWh today to £68/MWh by 2040. The fall in nuclear costs may be a little optimistic, while the reduction it looks to for renewables may be a little pessimistic, but clearly renewables are winning, with the FT noting that X-link, an interconnector project, ‘reckons it can deliver renewable power for roughly half the cost of Hinkley Point’. There are other views, but major consultants Goldman Sachs don’t rate nuclear either- they do not see it as part of the energy transition.
In the UK context what probably matters most now, in terms of nuclear, is, perversely, the situation in France. EDF is the UK’s main nuclear vendor and power supplier, and it is in dire financial straights, with debts heading for €100bn. At one stage half of its own nuclear plant were shut down for safety tests or maintenance and it needs more UK consumer income. But can it raise the capital for big new UK projects? Will the UK help it? That seems to be the idea of the UK’s new ‘Regulated Asset Base’ financing system- consumers are hit with a surcharge before the plant is built. But will they be happy with that at a time when cost are rising fast? While renewable costs are falling? The UK governments position may become clearer shortly, after the next mini-budget, but it may be wary of adding more to power consumers bills.
At the international level, the IAEA nuclear lobby has been promoting nuclear at the COP27 climate talks in Egypt, and much has been made of the US having providing $3bn funding for two new reactors in Romania. However, although the green energy/renewables lobby, is less well organised than the nuclear lobby, renewables may have the edge globally. That’s certainly how the latest annual independent World Nuclear Industry Status Report sees it, with one of its authors insisting, dismissively, that ‘technology geriatrics cannot ensure nuclear power species’ survival’. Well we will see. Some still look to small modular reactors, though they may not be any less costly or risky and, in any case, are some way off. The debate though goes on… and on!
Next post delayed There will be a hopefully short medical interlude since I am scheduled for an operation…
Comments
Post a Comment