Comment & Analysis
In 2003, the Labour government put out a white paper stating that the case for new nuclear build was not sufficiently strong. However, in 2008, it issued another white paper concluding that nuclear energy should have a role to play in the generation of electricity. The decision on new build would be taken by commercial companies operating in a competitive electricity market, with the government’s role being the removal of unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles – planning and licensing.
Eight sites were identified and eventually, in March this year, the French company EDF was given planning permission for two EPR nuclear reactors – 1670 MWe gross each – at Hinkley Point, Somerset, coming on stream in 2023. Construction costs are stated to be £14 billion. As our record in building large infrastructure projects on time and to budget is mixed, the taxpayer should ask him or herself: who is going to pay for any inflation of costs or overrun? Is it going to be EDF or the taxpayer?
After such a slow rate of progress in the run-up to nuclear new build, might it now be time to consider a Plan B, just in case Plan A never sees the light of day? Many countries – at the last count 18 – are now developing small to medium-sized reactors, so should we look at these developments and see if we could work together to everyone’s benefit? Perhaps building smaller nuclear reactors would give us a greater chance of controlling the costs as well as other advantages, such as smaller nuclear reactors – 250 to 400 MWe – that could be of a standardised design allowing manufacturing costs to be controlled more easily. The work could be spread throughout the UK engineering base – thus benefiting employment figures, industry, and swelling HMRC's tax take. Building these smaller reactors would also provide a multitude of training opportunities for the next generation of engineer.
The delays in the government's nuclear programme mean that it is beginning to run parallel with the renewable energy programme – in particular, offshore wind and marine. While it is a challenge to make cheap electricity, it is looking like a greater challenge to distribute it throughout the country. Plan A calls for a small number of reactors of high outputs which will require National Grid or another organisation to beef up the existing distribution network. At the same time, it will have to install new distribution networks for the renewable industry in inaccessible places.
This may also reignite the debate over the health issues claimed to be associated with living in close proximity to high voltage power lines. On the other hand, a Plan B calling for a greater number of smaller reactors to be built on existing nuclear sites, as well as at defunct coal-fired power stations, could give a substantial cost-saving, since much of the present distribution infrastructure is already in place.
The first thing that needs to happen is for the government to realise that its past and present nuclear policy is not viable. While EDF may or may not build the first new-build reactor, what are the odds of the others also being built? After accepting that a new policy is required, the government needs to ask the engineering fraternity to come up with an economic and practical solution – one that is not bound by political dogma, but would benefit the economy and particularly the engineering industry.