Nuclear power in the UK: hopes, questions and dilemmas

For British nuclear power, the past is great, the future is promising but the present is one fine mess.  Looking ahead, it is now possible to strike a more positive note than ever before. In fact, one cannot disagree totally with those who say that the whole civil nuclear power industry could be on the verge of a spectacular new birth. This is sadly in contrast with the immediate state of nuclear power in the UK, where the situation is far from positive and some very serious issues demand extremely urgent government attention.

However, further ahead we can see the outlines of two important advances. First, there is the prospect of building smaller modular reactors in place of or supplementing the giant plants that we know today. This has long been talked about, but is now becoming genuinely within reach. Smaller modular reactors, as we all know, can be built far quicker, fabricated in the factory and, because of the speed of construction, are, importantly, far more attractive to private finance, which is one of the keys to progress.

Rolls-Royce tells us that commercial models are now in sight, which will deliver about 470 megawatts each and cost around £2 billion — starting higher than that but ending lower. This compares with the giant EPR nuclear station being built here in Britain at Hinkley Point C, with a capacity of 3,260 megawatts and at a cost — still climbing, I fear — of around £23 billion. The new, smaller machines would be located on present or older mothballed nuclear station sites.

Obviously, we are not the only people pursuing this avenue. China, America and France all have working models, and Japan is ahead on its new high-temperature gas-cooled advanced reactor, which is also smaller but not quite as small as the Rolls-Royce models.

But, with considerable renewed government support, Rolls-Royce now has a war chest of about £490 million with which to build its business case, and it is doing so with some vigour.

The second new prospect for nuclear power is fusion, or “putting the sun in a bottle”, as the late Walter Marshall described it to me when he was mentoring me in these areas.

I know that this has always been a sort of holy grail, just out of reach tomorrow and never quite there, but things are changing there, too. Just outside Oxford at the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy, they are getting to that crucial point where the fusion process, which requires unimaginably large amounts of electricity to make it work at all, may nevertheless be producing more power than it drinks in, thus making it a net, completely clean and mercifully waste-free electricity source on a vast and cheap scale. It is all part of a truly international operation called ITER, in which France, America and, indeed, Russia are playing a role, along with 32 other countries. In fact, the original design of the fusion machine—the so-called Tokamak fusion reactor —  was Russian.

So all this is quite promising for the future of nuclear, and it is cleaner in every way. It may even dent one problem which has bedevilled nuclear new build for a generation, namely, and in contrast to all other low carbon power sources, persistently rising instead of falling costs.

But if we scroll back to the present situation here in the UK, I am afraid that it is an entirely different story. Here the negatives really begin into appear. First, we need to face the fact that we are all going to need a lot more electricity in a cleaner, greener world ahead. The best estimate is that by 2050 the world will be needing about 12 times the present flow of clean electric power. Even by 2030 to 2035, the increase will be enormous.

Secondly, if we want to curb climate extremes and emissions growth as hoped and planned, there is not the slightest hope of doing so without a solid base of renewable, firm, low-carbon nuclear power serving as both a back-up and a baseload.

However efficient we are at conserving power and insulating homes, and however much the public is bullied by movements like Extinction Rebellion, our now entirely computerised world and our capacity to feed 7.5 billion or 8 billion people rests on secure electric power supply. Quite aside from that, nuclear power will be a major source of clean electricity for hydrogen.

Thirdly, if we want an orderly energy transition without wild instability in the system, a substantial nuclear section of reliable 24/7 electricity is vital. Strong renewable flows demand strong nuclear back-up if they are to deliver without vast disruption and hardship. It is not just that the wind sometimes drops for long periods; there are always events, sometimes quite unforeseen or related to faraway distant disorder or conflict, that can hit any energy system. There is simply no escaping that strong back-up and swing supply sources are absolutely essential to maintain the electricity current under all conditions.

Here in the UK, our old original fleet of nuclear power stations is wearing out. They will all be closed by the mid-2020s, except the one that I had the privilege of authorising, along with eight other pressurised water reactors, in October 1979, at Sizewell B. That finally began operating in 1995—quite a long time later. The only new replacement since then has been the 3,260 megawatt giant at Hinkley Point, being built by the French (EDF) and the Chinese, with the China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN) having the major shares  in it.

The EPR design they are building now at Hinkley Point, which is a sort of great-grandchild of the pressurised water reactor (PWR) type which we were backing in 1979, is not free of faults. Indeed, it has already encountered quite a few, as has every other EPR built around the world, including the one in China, which has very recently gone wrong. Projects in Finland and on the Cherbourg Peninsula at Flammanville, tell a sorry tale of vastly exceeded budgets and vastly extended completion dates, as fault after fault emerges.

Of course, we should have planned a replacement fleet much earlier, but the mood turned against nuclear in the 1990s. My personal dream was to follow part of the amazing French example. They built 58 PWRs in the 1970s. To get on that track, my first task was to persuade the quarrelling nuclear scientific establishment to agree on a single design, after years of CP Snow-like back-room bickering outside the corridors of power.

Eventually, after some difficulty, we chose the PWR route as well. I sought advice from the formidable French Industry and Energy Minister, André Giraud, but it was too late. The eight more I hoped for were never built. Cheaper oil and gas undermined the economic case completely, and long-term national security was not considered worth the enormous cost.

We had to wait another 20 years until the Labour Government, having been totally against nuclear, gradually came round to it and started talks with the French and the Chinese, which led to the 2008 agreement for CGN to take a third interest in Hinkley C.

But this is where geopolitics and technology collided. The original new “ re-generation ” plan was to build one large twin reactor at Hinkley, another at Wylfa in north Wales, another at Moorside in Lancashire, another still at Sizewell as a replica of Hinkley, and possibly one at Oldbury. To this end, Chinese participation—mainly financial—was invited not just at Hinkley but for the third plant Sizewell, but with the enticement of a still further all-Chinese project at Bradwell in Essex, which would be the springboard for world sales of the Chinese model.

That was the plan, but it is not how things worked out all. Toshiba withdrew from Moorside, Hitachi withdrew from Wylfa over difficulties on pricing, and of course the mood towards China changed through 180 degrees, from a love of everything Chinese 10 years ago to dislike and suspicion towards everything Chinese now. Having invited the Chinese in, the Government now seem determined to get them out, withdrawing the precious offer to the Chinese of their new station at Bradwell and keeping them out of Sizewell C as well.

The obvious danger is that CGN will get the loud message of being unwelcome and pull out as well from the one station actually being constructed – namely at Hinkley. That would bring our great replacement programme to a sickening halt. No-one wants to jog official elbows as they try to navigate this delicate passage between wanting the Chinese both to go and stay. But public guidance of some kind on how things are going would be a reassurance.

Meanwhile, our own nuclear-sourced power supply has shrunk from a peak of 30% of our total electricity three decades ago to 22%, and now 16%, and it is heading for 7%. It is natural gas which has swollen to fill the gap, from 1% in the 1980s to 43% now — actually, last month, it was as much as 55% of all UK electricity generated . This creates its own problems, as over-dependence on any one fuel and power source always does, and as we have seen from the current astronomical rise in gas prices when interruptions and diversions occurred elsewhere. Failure to maintain adequate gas storage adds to the agony.

When the cap is lifted in April, this will strike home with deadly force and torpedo millions of household budgets. We simply cannot afford to conduct our energy policy in this way, as a great high-tech, modern nation.

We are not the only ones in trouble: the Germans are in a fix because Angela Merkel — so wise in some areas — decided to drop all nuclear power a decade ago, but forgot to fill the resulting gap. It ended up being filled by coal and Russian gas — the two very worst solutions on climate and security grounds. This explains why, today, German carbon emissions are 8.4 tonnes per head, compared to 5.4 tonnes here and 5 tonnes in France. That is what you get if you reject nuclear power altogether.

It can only be a matter of time before the new German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, has to level with his electorate about the need to reverse his predecessor’s nuclear policy and revive the industry instead of closing it down.

Meanwhile in the UK, two key questions remain uncomfortably but insistently outstanding. Who pays if the Chinese go? If CGN takes its support away not just from Sizewell C but perhaps even from Hinkley, who fills the hole of £20 billion or so in each case? Secondly, are we still committed to giant plants, or will we wait for the SMRs, which are going to be cheaper, so it is hoped, and quicker and have lower waste? Will we still depend on public finance and enormously heavy and complex charge burdens on consumers, who are already paying some of the highest energy bills in Europe, or can we shift to smaller plants financed by private investors?

Decisions on both these central questions cannot be escaped much longer. Hinkley will be completed on current estimates by 2026. The earliest any further repeat model could be ready, if started right now, is 2031. This is just about the same time that Rolls Royce believe they could have a fleet of SMRS up and running.

The lessons from the current experience of chaos in energy markets are that orderly energy transition to a low-carbon world will take time and must have back-up. A large part of that — if it is to be low carbon and in line with climate goals — has to be nuclear. Fossil fuels, too, even the hated coal sector, will have to play their part.

But without firm decisions on the nuclear new-build front now, soon, we will encounter again and again precisely the kind of situation of which we currently have the foretaste—namely horrendous price spikes, outages, heavy industrial damage, real suffering in vulnerable households – and outright political revolt. Stand by.

This article is an edited version of a speech given in the House of Lords earlier this month. The author is chair of Windsor Energy Group, a former president of the Energy Industries Association and the British Institute of Energy Economists, a former Minister for International Energy Security and a former Energy Secretary

A Message from TheArticle

We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout the pandemic. So please, make a donation.