Why is the UK government so committed to building new nuclear power stations, despite the high costs and many attractive alternatives? Research published by the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex shows that it is the Government’s attachment to nuclear submarines which is an important factor in the pro-nuclear bias in UK energy policy.
Despite widespread criticism, the UK government of Conservative PM Theresa May decided last month to approve the controversial Hinkley Point C nuclear power project. In fact, this is only the first project in an ambitious attempt by the government to revive the British nuclear power sector. It has plans to build 16 GW of new nuclear power, of which the 3.2 GW Hinkley Point C plant is only the start.
What is even more remarkable is that the Government’s own detailed analyses show nuclear power to be an expensive and otherwise “unattractive” solution compared to other low carbon options.
A new report ‘Understanding the Intensity of UK Policy Commitments to Nuclear Power’, written by Emily Cox, Phil Johnstone and Andy Stirling of the University of Sussex, offers an explanation, based on detailed research, that has so far been neglected in the public debate. The researchers show that the UK government’s desire to maintain its nuclear weapons capability is an important factor in the pro-nuclear bias of its energy policy.
“What this research suggests is that British low carbon energy strategies are more expensive than they need to be, in order to maintain UK military nuclear infrastructures”
They note that the UK’s nuclear-propelled submarines, regarded in defence circles as a crucial military capability, are among the most complex engineered artefacts in the world. They cannot easily be built or maintained by a country with a declining manufacturing base not engaged in civil nuclear power.
“On the military side, we found strong fears that without continued commitment to civil nuclear power, the UK would be unable to sustain the industrial capabilities necessary to build nuclear submarines,” said report co-author Dr Phil Johnstone. (See this blog post on the University of Sussex website.)
“We systematically examined a range of different possible reasons for official UK attachments to nuclear power”, said report co-author Emily Cox. “None of these are satisfactory to explain the intensity of support for nuclear power maintained by a variety of UK Governments. It seems that pressures to continue to build nuclear submarines form a crucial missing piece in the jigsaw”.
“The Government’s own data shows the UK to be blessed with abundant, secure and competitive renewable energy resources”, said report co-author Professor Andy Stirling, “In a world turning much more to renewables than nuclear power, Britain might be expected to be taking a lead in these new technologies. Yet a greater priority in UK policy making appears to lie in maintaining ‘nuclear submarine capabilities’.”
Intense pressures
According to the researchers, “Parliamentary Select Committee Reports and many other policy documents on the military side reveal intense pressures for strong Government support for skills and training, design and manufacturing and research and regulatory capabilities linking with the civil nuclear industry.”
The report shows that “these military pressures reached a peak in the crucial period 2003-2006 – with many new policy measures following on since then spanning civil and military sectors. During that same period, UK energy policy underwent a dramatic U-turn that has remained unexplained until now – from a view of nuclear power as ‘unattractive’, to a commitment to a ‘nuclear renaissance’.”
“What is remarkable about this pressure for a nuclear bias is that it is well documented on the military side, yet remains completely unacknowledged anywhere in official UK energy policy documentation”
“What this research suggests”, said Johnstone, “is that British low carbon energy strategies are more expensive than they need to be, in order to maintain UK military nuclear infrastructures. And without assuming the continuation of an extremely expensive UK civil nuclear industry, it is possible that the costs of Trident would be significantly greater”.
According to the authors, their research “illuminates many important cross-overs between UK submarine and civil nuclear supply chains. One defence policy document even considers the possibility to ‘mask’ some of the costs of nuclear submarine capabilities, behind spending on civil nuclear power.”
“What is remarkable about this pressure for a nuclear bias”, said Stirling, “is that it is well documented on the military side, yet remains completely unacknowledged anywhere in official UK energy policy documentation. This raises serious questions about the transparency and accountability of decision making in this area – and the quality of British democracy in this regard”.
[adrotate group=”9″]
Mike Parr says
Rolls Royce is mentioned in the report as a key player. Well, look what just popped up in the news:
http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2016/09/rolls-royce-taking-steps-to-develop-smrs.html
& answering the final point in the article “and the quality of British democracy in this regard” – the quality is the best that money can buy – with an emphasis on “money” & “buy”.
Are Hansen says
…and these nuclear submarines are totally worthless. They cannot protect the UK from terrorism, and they cannot protect the UK from climate catastrophes
Time to get rid of those kind of people in your government, chaps. Give your vote to Mr. Corbyn – and enjoy a much lower utility bill forever
Diarmuid Foley says
Unfortunately for the anti-nuclear department @Sussex Uni the Govt has wisely decided to proceed with nuclear new build – as was long ago agreed between the major political parties.
The UK Govt has risen above the derisory attempts by the German-driven EU to limit it’s response to climate change to implementing a renewables only policy , and has correctly decided that a decarbonisation policy is the right objective.
Are Hansen says
This is the biggest white elephant in UKs history. This monster project will give extremely expensive electricity, something that will burden ordinary Brits for decades on their utility bills. Wind is already cheaper than nuclear, and if Hinkley C is ever finished – in 10-15 years – the price difference will be even bigger. By then solar will also be way cheaper than nuclear, even in northern latitudes like the UK
Diarmuid Foley says
Are,
You might be interested in this recent report by renewables developer TLSB. It puts new nuclear in a different economic light and explains the rational behind hedging our future energy requirements .
This is not a ‘ renewables v nuclear ‘ debate, this is about what is the best energy mix considering 1. Economics 2. Security of supply 3. The Environment
Diarmuid Foley says
The new power cost league table – TLSB
http://tidallagoon.spindogs-dev.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/New_Power_Cost_League_Table_2016_DIGITAL3.pdf
Mike Parr says
A misleading report (or would that be propaganda?) – the use of 2012 data skews the charts – which I guess was the intention? In the case of your previous post ” anti-nuclear department @Sussex Uni” whether they are anti or pro – I notice that you did not engage with the substance of their report. Either you felt it very difficult to do so (because the points they raise are valid) or you suffer from cognitive dissonance.
Your comment: “the Govt has wisely decided to proceed with nuclear new build” needs to set against Flammenville & the Finnish reactors both over time & over budget. If Osborne was gambling his own money – I’d say “good luck” – but the money he gambled (& the contract May et al signed) is not his – but Uk subjects (serfs?) – which casts the whole thing in a different light. Given the cost declines we have seen in other tech’ such as off-shore wind & the fact that on-shore wind can be built with no subsidy in locations such as Scotland – Hinkley etc looks very expensive & indeed & raises questions on the quality of Uk democracy – or lack thereof – Mrs “Maggie” May (I refer to the poem rather than the previous PM) may have been elected an MP – but she sure as hell was not elected PM – but none the less seems to think she has a mandate to commit the UK pop to contracts lasting 35 years (& index linked to boot). Perhaps you are blind to all this – others are not.
Bas says
@Diarmuid,
Your link states <£26/MWh for the costs of new nuclear.
That is clearly not in line with the guaranteed price of £100/MWh*) for the new Hinkley NPP???
Which price will be inflation corrected and guaranteed during 35years of operation. So with 1.5%/a inflation the price will be:
£114/MWh in 2025 (earliest year the NPP will start)
£147/MWh in 2042 (halfway the guarantee period)
£192/MWh in 2060 (earliest end of the guarantee period)
___
*) It’s now £100 due to UK inflation in the years since 2012.
Diarmuid Foley says
Bas,
The report highlights the forward contracted cost PREMIUM , over the current wholesale market price , of different technologies , under various UK support regimes ( primarily Feed in Tarrif , or FiT , and it’S replacement Contracts for Difference , or CfD ) .
£26/MWh is the current cost PREMIUM for new nuclear ( i.e. Hinkley ) and £18.7/MWh for solar pv under a 2017 CfD , – assuming current wholesale prices of £39/MWh, i.e. £65/MWh and £57.7/MWh respectively.
The report shows the sensitivity of the premium costs with respect to the wholesale price
Bas says
So av. UK whole sale price is ~£39/MWh.*)
I add the PREMIUM (£26) and find £65/MWh.
Far off from the 2016 CFD price of £100/MWh.
So the real PREMIUM for Hinkley is almost 3 times higher (£74/MWh in 2016 £).
And it may become higher as:
– whole sale prices are expected to decrease (even in Germany as the futures at Leipzig show);
– the CfD is inflation corrected!
____
*) UK price is ~£10/MWh higher than the German price. So install a new sea cable to NL, than we Dutch can earn more money and you have cheaper electricity. We are already more than doubling our interconnect with Germany.
Edward Knuckles says
The points made in the Sussex blog concerning the basis of the Johnstone report provide no convincing rationale for the conclusions of the report alluding to an apparent conspiracy afoot. Other than conjoining (a) The obvious fact that it is sensible policy for a nation to align its strategic interests rather than pursuing them independently along with (b) An unquestionable presumption that renewables are the most reliable and cost-effective choice to achieve energy independence. Since the presumption is at odds with the fact, the Sussex blog concludes the government is hiding something.
Mike Parr says
I think you need to read the report – it is not suggesting a conspiracy – however what is being glossed over is the link between the military nuclear prog and the civil nuclear prog – both are in plain sight but the MSM makes no attempt to link the two. It does make the point – that nuclear (civil) is very very expensive – this subject has been beaten to death & when even a gov’ mouthpiece like the Economist says it is a waste of money – you know the game is up. The report then quite rightly looks at why the Hinkley zombie still walks eh voila! military nuclear.
Diarmuid Foley says
Mike,
The report from Sussex University is indeed interesting. In essence it claims that the capability to build nuclear submarines would be subverted without ongoing support for the development of nuclear energy [ ” On the military side, we found strong fears that without continued commitment to civil nuclear power, the UK would be unable to sustain the industrial capabilities necessary to build nuclear submarines ” ]
The current pipeline of [ civil ] nuclear energy projects in the UK are being driven by EDF, Hitachi & Toshiba.
Are you suggesting a link between any of these companies and ” military nuclear ” [ i.e. Nuclear weapons ] , or a link between U.K. Civil nuclear policy and Nuclear Energy for submarine propulsion ?
It is assess to quantify the extent [ of the conspiracy you are suggesting ] without further clarification.