The debate around Hinkley Point C has mainly focused on the price EDF will get for electricity generated, but this is not out of line with what may be expected given the urgent need for more sustainable power, writes Simon Hogg, Executive Director of Durham Energy Institute. What is more important, according to Hogg, is that Hinkley C should be followed by the construction of more and different new nuclear power stations, as part of an overall UK nuclear building plan. Courtesy of The Conversation.
Despite Hinkley Point C’s obvious problems, Britain badly needs the proposed nuclear power station. But Hinkley, which was finally given the go-ahead on September 15 after a six week government review, must be just the start of a major programme of new nuclear plants in the UK. Coal and gas are too dirty – and wind and solar too intermittent – for the country to be able to rely solely on any of these technologies.
Only nuclear can provide the consistent and secure supply of low-carbon electricity that the UK needs to secure the long-term supply to its national grid.
An unavoidable consequence of the drive towards cleaner and more sustainable power is that the industry will rely on government subsidies and more expensive electricity prices in order to incentivise the necessary new technologies
In order to maintain a stable flow of electricity, Britain needs at least some large fossil or nuclear-fuelled generators. Wind and solar alone can’t do it as the technologies are inherently unable to hold the grid frequency stable at 50Hz. Yet the UK’s dirty coal-fired plants will be gone by 2025 – so that leaves gas and nuclear plants to provide this stability into the future.
The debate surrounding the proposed nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point C has focused largely on the price EDF will get for electricity generated. This was set four years ago at an inflation-linked £92.50/MWh. That’s more expensive than generation from gas, or Britain’s soon-to-be-defunct coal plants, but it should be affordable.
Government subsidies
Wind power can take up some of the slack. The UK now has enough turbines installed that, on windy days, total generation is similar to that from nuclear. Things will only accelerate thanks to several huge projects in the pipeline such as DONG Energy’s Hornsea One, which will become the world’s first offshore windfarm with greater than 1GW of generating capacity. All this has been achieved under an industry target of reducing the cost of energy from offshore wind to below £100/MWh by 2020.
What the UK needs is a nuclear building plan that severely reduces the risk of supply gaps
An unavoidable consequence of the drive towards cleaner and more sustainable power is that the industry will rely on government subsidies and more expensive electricity prices in order to incentivise the necessary new technologies. Electricity from regular, dirty coal is by far the cheapest form of large-scale generation, but the decision has already been made to move away from this. Many UK coal stations are now closed and in some cases pulled down. So Hinkley C is expensive, but not out of line with the direction of travel in the industry.
Long-term security
The larger questions concerns the long-term security of Hinkley’s supply. After all, it will take a minimum of ten years to build the plant and all the evidence suggests it is highly likely to be much longer before it actually comes online.
Hinkley C will use the new third-generation Areva EPR nuclear reactor design which is not yet in commercial operation anywhere in the world. New nuclear plants at Flamanville (France), Olkiluoto (Finland) and Taishan (China) are all currently under construction with this new type of reactor – and all of these projects are experiencing long delays and significant cost over-runs.
At the moment the UK’s nuclear plants consist of a number of Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor (AGR) stations (including Hinkley B) and the Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) station at Sizewell B. The AGRs have now all passed their original design lives and have been specially licenced for extended operation.
Britain is running out of time to deliver further nuclear power before major disruption to its future electricity supply. The door may be opening for small modular nuclear reactors
But as the plants get older, the risks inevitably increase. Only two winters ago cracks were found in the steam generators on the AGR units at Heysham, Lancashire. Not only was Heysham shut down for inspection and repair, but also its sister units in Hartlepool. The result was that a significant proportion of the UK’s nuclear generators were not available for several months over the winter demand-peak, leading to concerns at the time over the availability of reserve generating capacity.
With a variety of creaky old nuclear plants dating back to the 1970s or 1980s, and question marks over exactly when Hinkley C will be available, what the UK needs is a nuclear building plan that severely reduces the risk of supply gaps.
Viable new nuclear
Fortunately, other nuclear options are potentially more secure. Small Modular nuclear Reactors (SMRs) are now receiving increased attention and government interest. Each SMR unit is typically capable of delivering 100-200MW of electricity. That’s far smaller than Hinkley C’s planned two units totalling 3,200MW, but their size means they can be built quickly, each one requires a fraction of the capital investment of Hinkley, and they could even be built locally.
New SMR reactor designs are available. China National Nuclear Corporation’s ACP100 for example, passively cools the nuclear core in the event of a complete power failure in the same way as the much larger EPR reactor design planned for Hinkley C will do.
The UK needs viable new nuclear plants – and Hinkley C has only ever been one part of the solution. Many more will be needed. Britain is running out of time to deliver further nuclear power before major disruption to its future electricity supply. The door may be opening for small modular nuclear reactors.
Editor’s Note
Simon Hogg, a mechanical engineer, holds the DONG Chair in Renewable Energy at the University of Durham and is also the Executive Director of the Durham Energy Institute.
This article was first published on The Conversation and is republished here with permission.
[adrotate group=”9″]
Mike Parr says
The article opens with a range of assertions. Where it starts to fall apart is the link to an article published BEFORE the solar eclipse – which speculated on possible problems. Sadly for Mr Hogg those problems did not arise – indeed the TSOs in Germany had no problems maintaining grid stability. Nice try Mr Hogg – but Energy Post has a very well informed audience.
As far as the assertion “Wind and solar alone can’t do it as the technologies are inherently unable to hold the grid frequency stable at 50Hz” well that depends. I notice Hogg is a mech’ engineer he may thus need an elec’ engineer to explain what follows; Utility grade PV has 4quad inverters which in most cases are perfectly able to regulate voltage on the network (VAR) and vary power output to maintain grid stability. This is a function of software. Wind turbines with fully sized converters can do the same (turbines with DFIG can’t). So your assertion is wrong. In addition I notice Nat’ Grid is also deploying storage for FR services – further negating your assertion.
Moving on to the assertion: “inflation-linked ÂŁ92.50/MWh….should be affordable” – affordable by those in the UK in energy poverty? Or affordable by the 15 million people in the UK (25% of the pop) that have savings of less than…..ÂŁ100? You omit to mention that, for example, on-shore wind in Scotland can deliver at less than ÂŁ40/MWh – not index linked – i.e. below wholesale & thus not in need of subsidy – hmm, sounds more “affordable” to me.
In the case of off-shore, Danish & Dutch projects can deliver (non-index-link) power very close to UK wholesale prices (Euro45 – 50/MWh). This raises the question, why is UK off-shore so expensive? From Mr Hogg…. silence apart from the assertion that “the industry will rely on government subsidies and more expensive electricity prices in order to incentivise the necessary new technologies”. This may be the case in “rip-off UK” , but mainland Europe seems to be moving away from perpetual subsidies for RES.
The plug for SMRs omits to mention that the time frame is 2030 for the FOAK – based on recent reports (Sept 2016) from ETI. It is unclear why it takes so long to build an SMR given that there exists a UK company already building SMRs (Rolls Royce) for UK nuclear subs. Why not just take the 20MW PWR3 design and “civilianise” it – or would that approach not generate sufficient subsidies?
The article is very badly written & reflects poorly on Durham University (considered one of the elite universities in the UK) . If this is the quality of academic thinking in UK universities then no wonder the UK is going down the drain.
onesecond says
Lol, the old long debunked myths, why we should need nuclear energy and as always SMRs are just around the corner …
Renewable energy plus storage will do the job much better and more cost efficient. There simply is no place and no need for nuclear. This will become even more obvious by the day and most people have already understood this.
Luk says
Wow, this is impressively uninformed article…
Don’t need to repeat what was said above, but rather want to add:
The main reason Britain wants new nuclear, are the nuclear sub and their nukes. The military fears they loose their abilities without a big nuclear industry in Britain.
But in the public discussion this point is usually not mentioned…
Tonnis R. Doesburg says
I agree, we need nuclear, preferably as SMR’s, like the one built in Doodewaard, The Netherlands. (52MW) And why not use Thorium? All proven technology and possible without everlasting government support.
Bas says
Doodewaard was a 60MW trial reactor. It operated 28years and was closed in 1997.
About 7 years earlier than planned due to economic reasons!
It’s waiting for decommissioning, presumable in ~2050.
Bas says
“This raises the question, why is UK off-shore so expensive? ”
The main reason:
UK doesn’t follow the Danish auction model. The UK model invokes only few bidders and high prices.
In UK bidders get little info about the situation at the sea bed (old mines, wreckage, cables, depths, ability to drive piles in the sea bed), the winds, etc.
So they invest some money in some survey and include a major risk premium in their bid prices.
A smaller factor:
UK off-shore auctions were a year ago, when there was little experience with the 8MW offshore wind turbines. Those were then not well available, so 5 -7MW was used.
And for these offshore machines LCOE declines roughly linear with the size of the wind turbines. E.g. the 8MW turbines for the Dutch coast have a capacity factor >50% also due to their higher towers. Furthermore they require less maintenance visits, etc.
And the costs to drive a pile in the seabed, the transportation per ship and installation don’t increase much.
Note that offshore electricity costs now ~ÂŁ45/MWh. Levels predicted for ~2025.
Mike Parr says
Hi Bas: my question was rhetorical – & indeed I agree with the reasons you have put forth why costs are high. More disturbingly – why are the Brits not asking this question? My guess is that Hogg & other academics are so focused on getting funding from gov’ etc that questions that the gov’ would find hard to answer (or which they would find embarassing) are not asked. This also goes for the PR bullshit surrounding nuclear – why would Hogg question this? – his energy institute gets support from what passes for the UK nuclear sector. Thus – long gone are the days in the Uk when academics asked difficult questions – they now tend to “toe the party line” – whatever that is – or indeed no matter how stupid it is.
Bas says
@Mike
Agree.
The post was probably written not only to push more nuclear (“Hinkley … must be just the start of a major programme of new nuclear”) but more specific to push SMR’s which:
– may deliver his company more turnover & profit.
– can fill the generation gap between closing old nuclear and the start of Hinkley. Thus preventing that wind & solar fill that generation cap.
It’s also explains why the author states:
– an exorbitant price for offshore wind (ÂŁ100/MWh in 2020, while present price is ÂŁ50/MWh and it is decreasing further);
– put up the outmoded idea that big power plants are needed for grid stability when wind & solar generate a major part. In Germany (and at least Denmark I assume) big wind & solar have electronics which do that job.
Btw.
Assume that he pushes Chinese SMR as US SMR development path won’t deliver operational SMR in UK before ~2030 (if at all, as price per MWh is high).
John Stevenson says
The cost of wind power in the States is multiples more expensive than nuclear. If not for 1: Federal and state tax credits 2: Federal and state accelerated tax deductions and 3: Increased kwh charges to the utility customers, wind would not have progressed. Absent these incentives to investors, wind is an economic rat hole.
So what are the Brits doing to cause wind to make economic sense, or is it the same as the States, massive incentives?
G van den Berg says
Western Power in the UK has already received 9 GW of grid applications for battery storage projects. Although admittedly most of this will not be built, it does show that there is a great interest amongst investors and developers to offer frequency regulation with batteries. There is no nuclear power required to regulate the grid, not from a technical point of view and not from an economic point of view.
Henrik says
Bas, are you saying that at ÂŁ50/MWh off-shore wind in the UK would be economic?
Reading the comments above, it seems as if the consensus is that clean baseload power will, in short order, be no longer needed, i.e. wind + storage will be sufficient to power the UK in 15 years? How does one then comment on the recent PWC study relating to Belgium? http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/EE-Belgium-needs-nuclear-and-renewables-report-finds-10101610.html#.V_wtHsz5KHg.linkedin Dismiss it as propaganda by the nuclear industry?
Bas says
@Henrik,
For offshore wind farms becoming operational at 2025 or thereafter, the owner will earn good money if he gets a CFD for ÂŁ50/MWh during 15years (thereafter whole sale prices).
Unless the value of the £ becomes far less than that of the €.
Base load power plants cannot compete in environments with lot of wind and solar. They inevitable make losses.
German utilities saw that in 2005-2009 already and decided to replace part with new highly flexible coal plants, closing base load.
Belgium decided to close all nuclear plants at the end of their present license period and is now installing lot of wind & solar.
Nuclear tries to change the decision with studies which “show” that nuclear is needed. While Germany doesn’t need it, neither we in NL, etc.
French government institute ADEME simulations showed that 100% renewable is not more expensive than a mix with ~40% nuclear and 60% renewable.
Bas says
@Henrik,
I found time to look into the Belgian study. It was ordered by their nuclear forum…
PwC, the author, assumes that Belgium consumes ~115TWh/a in 2050 (=90 now), and considers 3 scenarios for 2050:
1. no nuclear, 77TWh renewable, 38TWh fossil+import
2. 21TWh nucl, 77TWh renewable, 17TWh fossil+import
3. 42TWh nucl, 77TWh renewable, 4TWh export.
By assuming that renewable will not increase when nuclear stop (nuclear has to stop in 2025 according to Belgian law), they can reach an acceptable result in the eyes of the principal; more CO2 emissions with less nuclear.
But PwC also needed a trick to show that the costs with nuclear are lowest. So they assumed the 2015 LCOE of IEA without costs decreases (renewable) or increases (nuclear).
Even those 2015 LCOE are already biased:
PV av.: €167/MWh (rooftop €192; commercial €142).
Germany av: €90/MWh
Wind average: €111/MWh (onshore €94 offshore €143).
Recent Dutch offshore: €73/MWh for 15years thereafter ~15years whole sale (€39), which implies av. price of €56/MWh.
Nuclear (third generation): €63/MWh
Compare Hinkley. now €111/MWh increasing with inflation. Add the liability limitation subsidies (accident, waste, decommission), loan guarantee subsidy, etc.
With that level of assumptions without considering reality, a study can reach any conclusion.