The British Way Forward on Energy

The current British government is a coalition between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, an awkward marriage considering that the Conservatives favor increased use of nuclear energy and the Liberal Democrats most definitely don’t.

As part of the coalition agreement – or compromise – the liberals got much of what they want in energy policy, as laid out by new Energy Minister Chris Huhne (who is a Liberal Democrat):

The UK is blessed with a wealth of renewable energy resources, both on and offshore. We are committed to overcoming the real challenges in harnessing these resources. We will implement the ‘Connect and Manage’ regime [this has to do with connecting off-the-beaten-path energy sources to the electricity grid] and I am today giving the go ahead to a transitional regime for offshore wind farms.

Ah, wind. And a little more:

We also need incentives for small-scale and community action. We are currently consulting on a new micro-generation strategy. I am today laying an order to allow local authorities to sell renewable electricity to the grid.

This is all pretty small-bore, especially when you consider:

We face short term challenges as a result of the legacy inherited from the previous government. We have the third lowest share of renewable energy in the EU – the same ranking as in 1997.

Remember, in this context, renewable doesn’t include nuclear energy, so percentages of renewable and carbon emission-free energy generation are different. By this standard, for example, France produces about 12 percent of its electricity via renewable energy, but virtually all its production is carbon emission free due to nuclear energy (and those renewables, of course.)

Britain isn’t quite as low on the renewables scale as Huhne suggests, but it is at around 4.6 percent, clumped with small and eastern European countries. (Austria is best, at about 62 percent.)

Where does this leave nuclear energy?

The coalition agreement is clear that new nuclear can go ahead so long as there is no public subsidy. The Government is committed to removing any unnecessary obstacles to investment in new nuclear power. In the Memorandum I have outlined some clear actions to aid this. As a result, I believe new nuclear will play a part in meeting our energy needs.

In an exceptionally fair editorial, the (U.K.) Telegraph sees the difficulty here:

In the years to come, we will need both renewable and nuclear energy, but also honest thinking and straight talking about how they work in concord. Judging by what Mr Huhne says today, the necessary elements of a long-term strategy may be in place – but the correct emphasis is not.

And here’s why:

Yet by making nuclear power the poor relation among potential energy sources, Mr Huhne is making a strategic error. Although the exploitation of renewable sources such as wind, wave and solar power is undoubtedly sensible, Britain will imminently require substantial and reliable alternatives to fossil fuels, and there is little chance that renewables can deliver the assured quantity of energy in the necessary time-frame.

So true. There’s a reason why the Conservatives and Labour parties both embraced nuclear energy as a way forward and this is it. The smaller Liberal Democrats have seized their moment, as why shouldn’t they, but that may last only as long as the coalition is sustainable (er, or renewable).

I couldn’t find much beyond speculation whether Huhne’s approach will actually set back nuclear energy in Great Britain – but the speculation, as in this article at Der Spiegel (in English) – thinks that it will. That means it’s in wait and see mode.

So let’s wait and see.

U.K. Energy Minister Chris Huhne

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog