22 Feb 2012
The UK's ageing nuclear reactors look likely to have their lives extended beyond the mid-2020s as the country looks to tackle a looming energy gap, energy minister Charles Hendry said today.
Nuclear power is a cornerstone of the government's low carbon energy policy, but of the UK's 19 reactors, only Sizewell B in Suffolk is currently scheduled to keep running beyond the middle of the next decade, leading to plans for 16GW of new plants at eight sites across the country.
However, Hendry today told a conference in London that several existing reactors would have to have their lives extended to provide more time for new low carbon energy capacity to be built.
He said the UK's deregulated electricity market had not produced enough capacity to replace the fossil fuel and nuclear plants that are due to be switched off over the next 10 years, while at the same time dealing with a predicted doubling in demand for electricity over the next 30 to 40 years.
Coping with the "capacity challenge" due to bite by the end of the decade, while lowering emissions in line with mandatory targets, would require twice as much investment in the new generation over the coming decade as had been spent over the past 10 years, he added.
A diverse portfolio of renewables, new nuclear, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and energy-efficiency measures would be needed, Hendry said, but even if this programme is delivered, current nuclear plants might also be required for several more years.
"By the early 2020s [almost the] whole nuclear fleet will be closed down," he said. "Some may get a lifetime extension – that is entirely possible."
A spokeswoman for the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) told BusinessGreen plants would apply for an extension when they reach the end of their scheduled lifetime. But she added that ideally the government should not rely on extensions and should accelerate the construction of new plants instead.
French company EDF, which runs eight of the 10 UK plants, extended by five years the working life of the Heysham 1 and Hartlepool reactors to 2019 last year. Last month it estimated prolonging the lifespan of France's 58 reactors would cost up to €860m per reactor, compared to €5bn for building new, next-generation reactors.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said it will cost £50bn to build the UK's new nuclear fleet, but insists a policy is in place that prevents it from providing specific subsidies for new nuclear power. Instead, it plans to rely on reforms of the electricity market in favour of low carbon energy and a new capacity mechanism to attract developers into the sector.
"We want to ensure our electricity portfolio is diverse and not rely on a single technology – we think new nuclear should be part of the mix," Hendry told delegates, adding that a deal signed with France last week demonstrated the UK's role as a "serious nuclear nation".
"We can only deliver what we need to do if we get people to invest [and] we can only do that if people see this is a good market in which to operate," he added. "We've shown investors we are very serious indeed about new nuclear."
Many campaign groups remain fiercely opposed to nuclear, however, arguing that the government does not have adequate plans in place to deal with the resulting radioactive waste and that the technology cannot be deployed without significant subsidies.
LATEST STORIES ABOUT NUCLEAR
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
LATEST JOBS
TODAY'S TOP STORIES
HIGHLIGHT
BIS initiative aims to shift government and corporate procurement towards low carbon goods and services
INSIGHT
NEWSLETTER
INSIGHT
This new handbook explores practices that allow organisations to overcome their technological limitations and traditional office-culture challenges - freeing employees to do more with less from wherever they want to.
The centralised printers used in many businesses are wasteful, unreliable and expensive to run - just as their suppliers intend
WHAT DO YOU THINK? Add your comment
Hendry 30 year demand forecast "ridiculous"
In your fourth paragraph, you quote the energy minister as stating that he is "dealing with a predicted doubling in demand for electricity over the next 30 to 40 years." I am genuinely surprised if this is what he said. This is the old line that was handed by DECC civil servants to DECC energy ministers when they first arrived in office 21 months ago. It is flat nonsense, and the former Secretary of State Chris Huhne agreed that this would no longer be the official line. But here we are again within a few days of his departure, and back comes this absurd canard, one that only suits power station builders and their greedy bankers. Contrast with Germany : same future carbon emission reduction target, but instead set to REDUCE electricity demand by 25%, not double it. Simple question: which country has the best record for sensible long-term planning? And which specialises in backing expensive white elephants?
Posted by Andrew Warren, 23 Feb 2012
No Impacts from Nuclear Plants
Cate's suggestion that nuclear plants are having a measurable impact on public health (e.g., cancers) is utter nonsense. Even with all the "isotope leaks" we hear so much about, the most exposure (dose) any one living nearby is getting is a thousand times lower than what they're getting from natural background sources, and is tens of thousands of times lower than the levels at which significant health impacts (such as increases in cancer rates) begin to be seen. Nuclear plants have never had any measurable impact on public health over their entire 50+ year operating history (Chernobyl being the only exception). Fossil fuels, on the other hand, cause hundreds of thousands of deaths annually, along with global warming. As long as plant components are repaired or replaced as required, there is no reason a nuclear plant can not keep running safely. These plants must be kept open, if their retirement would mean more fossil fuel use.
Posted by Jim Hopf, 23 Feb 2012
Nuclear Plant Life extension
Charles Hendry's remarks are to the point and one day he will have to make the same statement about coal fired plants. The govt need to give the generators clear policies to encourage them to invest in the future. Sucessive govts have failed to do this for the last 25 years, time to be positive about a balanced energy portfolio before it's too late. All the signs for blackouts have been there for the last five years but nobody is capable or bold enough to grasp the nettle.
Posted by R Wood, 22 Feb 2012
decommissioning must stay on target
The nuclear fleet of aging reactors were not designed to run indefinitely. Their technology had a a built in life span, after fifty-sixty years of operation there are likely to be well documented operational safety considerations. Tritium leakage for instance is a feature in many US reactors, which for the sake of profit and complex operating and licensing legislation are operating in conditions which cause significant enviromental contamination(Vermont Yankee) is an interesting case study. Strontium, Caesium, and Tritium regularly enter the ecosystem, fish for example show evidence of of the take-up of the radionuclides. In human terms, there is a greater likelihood of bone cancers and an increased incidence of possible birth defects in the longer term. The effects are cumulative low level contamination. There is no 'red -exit sign' or chest x-ray benchmark as the radiation is not always localised or contained.Actual prolonged exposure effects are difficult to calculate and accurately ascertain, hence the speculation over Fukushima and Chernobyl legacies. Groundwater contamination presents different issues to the management of spent fuel rods, and general HL waste. The decommissioning strategy was put in place to account for these imperative safety considerations and it is extremely important that the timetable is maintained. Simply extending operational licenses, a further twenty years in some cases is not a viable option. It may present a short termist economist with a convenient cheap delaying measure, but the risks are incremental and serious contamination cannot be undone. Nuclear energy is not the cheap green option, and it would be naive and foolhardy to gamble with safety. A coherent energy policy must meet the demand, by planning and investing now not later, even if HL waste is likely to be an issue beyond the term or lifespans even of most cabinet, coalition and opposition ministers.
Posted by cate murray, 22 Feb 2012