Renew On Line (UK) 35

Extracts from the Jan-Feb 2002 edition of Renew
These extracts only represent about 25% of it
   Welcome   Archives   Bulletin         
 

Stories in this issue...

PIU - so far, so good

Overview of PIU report

UK still low on EU League Table

RO Delayed

Wind Works for Farmers: NIMBY Glen

New Wave Project

NETA v’s Renewables and CHP

Green Juice ?

Foresight on Energy

World Renewables round up

Renewables could save US $ 50bn

China cuts CO2

COP 7 tries to deliver

Nuclear Roundup

In the Rest of Renew 135

14.Nuclear Roundup

UK Nuclear - maybe not

Jumping the gun a bit, and despite protestations from the DTI that there were still no plans for new nuclear plants, last year, according the the Daily Telegraph (3/9/01), BNFL began negotiations with the nuclear regulator to get the green light for its latest power station, ahead of a possible lifting of the Government’s unofficial moratorium on new nuclear plants’. The Telegraph added The new stations would be built on the sites of Britain’s existing nuclear plants, most of which are due to be mothballed in the next 20 years’. However it noted that BNFL is keen not to fund the new stations, and would enter into joint ventures with construction companies prepared to foot the capital cost, estimated at about £1 billion per station. A firm Government commitment to nuclear energy is essential to secure funds from City institutions’.

Of course you could see this sort of press story as just reflecting the PR push by BNFL and the nuclear lobby generally, aimed at putting pressure on the government, who clearly don’t want to fund more nuclear plants.

The Scotsman. (3/9/2001) ran a parallel story, suggesting that ministers could order the building of new nuclear power stations in Scotland’, adding that it is thought any new nuclear station would be built on the site of existing stations at either Hunterston in Ayrshire, Torness in East Lothian, Chapelcross in Dumfriesshire, or Dounreay in Caithness. All are due to be decommissioned in 2010. The majority of ministers on the Whitehall energy review committee are said to be in favour of the plan, with even formerly anti-nuclear MP George Foulkes convinced of the need for more power’.

The constitutional situation then emerged, with the Scottish National Party complaining that Scotland had not been properly consulted and indicating that it would ‘use all means at its disposal, both in the Parliament and outside, to ensure that new nuclear power is not forced on the nation by new Labour’. It transpired that actually, as the First Minister noted, "any application for a new power station in Scotland, whether nuclear or not, must be made to Scottish Ministers; they have the power to grant consent or otherwise". So Scotland could in effect veto a Westminster decision.

Meanwhile, in its evidence to the PIU Energy Review, British Energy called on the government to ‘replace nuclear with nuclear’ and take over the £3bn in liabilities it has incurred for nuclear waste disposal so as to allow it to fund 10 new nuclear plants at a cost of £10bn. It also wanted a new ‘carbon free’ incentive of perhaps £10 per MWh, for the output from its nuclear plants, to make up the excess cost over gas generation. It looked to a future with nuclear still supplying 25% of the UK electricity, coal 15%, gas 40% and renewables 25%, arguing that nuclear could in effect ‘make space for coal’ by offsetting its carbon emissions, thus ensuring diversity of supplies.

In its submission, the GMB union felt similarly, but Prof Ian Fells saw coal and nuclear as supplying 30% while renewables could only offer 10%. SERA by contrast argued for a nuclear phase out and a major renewables commitment: we’ll cover SERA’s input in Renew 136. The Institute for Public Policy Research argued that until the issue of nuclear waste was resolved nuclear should be discounted.

Subsequently the government published its long awaited report on this issue, but only as yet another consultation document- which means that a decision will be stalled yet again, until 2006! But very surprisingly, given the heightened concerns about terrorism, the government decided to allow BNFL to run its MOX plant at Sellafield. Meanwhile, France has installed ground to air missiles at its reprocessing plant at Cap le Hague in Brittany and the US has removed its nuclear sites from official maps!

Back in the UK, the big issue next is whether the generally low priority given to nuclear in the PIU drafts will survive in its final report - out any day.

Wind better than Nuclear

Energy Consultant David Milborrow submitted evidence to the Performance and Innovation Units Energy Review examining the influence of using low discount rates and long depreciation periods on generation cost estimates for wind and nuclear technology.

He concluded that present-day onshore wind generation costs are roughly equal to "lower bound" nuclear estimates, and notes that there is firm evidence that wind costs are falling steadily, bringing them below those of nuclear. Present-day offshore wind generation costs lie within the range of nuclear cost estimates, but these, too, are likely to fall.

Overall, he says wind appears to be in a very competitive position, not least on account of shorter construction times and fewer uncertainties on cost issues’. In his paper he notes that ‘the nuclear industry often argues that generating costs would be lower with lower discount rates and/or longer depreciation periods, so such costs cannot be examined in isolation. It is logical to compare them with other carbon-free technologies, which would also benefit from changed financial parameters. Of these, wind energy has the best combination of resource and cost’.

With a project test discount rate of 8% and a depreciation period of 15 years, he calculates that the nuclear generating costs lie in the range from $0.055 to $0.073c/kWh; the corresponding figure for onshore wind is also $0.055/kWh and for offshore wind $0.07c/kWh (approx 5p/kWh). And if account is taken of recent capital cost reduction in wind plant (with installed costs of around $750 being assumed), then wind actually beats nuclear hands down, with wind costs being significantly lower than those of "lower bound" nuclear costs - $0.0373/kWh for wind, compared to $0.0455/kWh for nuclear at 8% discount rate, and $0.0285/kWh, compared to 0.0354/kWh for nuclear at 4% discount rate). On this basis, offshore wind costs lie within the range of nuclear costs, falling from 6.7c/kWh at 10% tdr, to 4.3 c/kWh at 4% tdr.

The full paper, and the others mentioned here, is on the PIU Web site: www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/innovation/2001/energy/energyscope.shtml Look under ‘project links’

* Milborrow pointed out that ‘the PIU Scoping Note quotes the costs of nuclear as "around 4p/kWh". This is attributed to the 1995 review, which actually stated "it was judged to be reasonable to use a range of 3.5 to 5.75p/kWh for lifetime nuclear generation costs (1990 prices)". This corresponds to 4.7 to 7.8p/kWh at today's prices’. He also quotes the Energy Information Administration at the US Department of Energy quotes $0.07/kWh (5p/kWh) estimate of current nuclear generation costs. As we’ve noted before, some wind projects in the UK are operating at around 2p/kWh.

Japanese Micro Nuke

The Japanese Central Research Institute of Electrical Power Industry is looking at the idea of very small nuclear plants- of perhaps 200kW- suitable for providing power for small housing blocks or office complexes. They argue that it could also be used ‘in developing countries where remote regions cannot be conveniently connected to the main grid’. Dubbed the Rapid- L, the reactor uses molten lithium as a moderator and control medium, which expands and contracts to keep the reactor at a safe temperature, and liquid sodium is used as the coolant, operating at 530 degree C.

PMBR delayed

We hear that the start of work on the prototype South African Pebble Bed Modular Reactor has been delayed by up to 9 months, due to design problems.

NATTA/Renew Subscription Details

Renew is the bi-monthly 30 plus page newsletter of NATTA, the Network for Alternative Technology and Technology Assessment. NATTA members gets Renew free. NATTA membership cost £18 pa (waged) £12pa (unwaged), £6 pa airmail supplement (Please make cheques payable to 'The Open University', NOT to 'NATTA')

Details from NATTA , c/o EERU,
The Open University,
Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA
Tel: 01908 65 4638 (24 hrs)
E-mail: S.J.Dougan@open.ac.uk

The full 32 (plus) page journal can be obtained on subscription
The extracts here only represent about 25% of it.

This material can be freely used as long as it is not for commercial purposes and full credit is given to its source.

The views expressed should not be taken to necessarily reflect the views of all NATTA members, EERU or the Open University.