Skip to main content

Britain Could Be Short on Electricity in a Few Years

From the Daily Express:
Britain is "quite simply running out of power" and blackouts are almost inevitable within the next few years.

This is the stark warning from the head of an energy think-tank who believes power cuts could be serious enough to spark civil disorder.

Campbell Dunford of the respected Renewable Energy Foundation said: "It’s almost too late to do anything about it. Nothing will stop us having to pay very high prices for power in future."

...

The “retirement” of a string of nuclear and coal-fired power stations will see 37 percent of the UK’s generation disappear by 2015, partly because of EU environmental directives.
But here's what caught my eye:
The [REF] report concludes: "A near fatal preoccupation with politically attractive but marginal forms of renewables seems to have caused a blindness towards the weakening of the UK’s power stations and a dangerous and helpless vulnerability to natural gas."
Wow, I'm a bit stunned (and impressed) that a renewable think-tank admitted this conclusion. Hopefully many in the U.S. are watching and taking notes on Britain's experience.

Hat-tip to Eric McErlain!

Comments

George Carty said…
Are there any energy traitors in the New Labour government, comparable to Gerhard Schroeder in Germany?
Bill said…
The “retirement” of a string of nuclear and coal-fired power stations will see 37 percent of the UK’s generation disappear by 2015, partly because of EU environmental directives.

Do the nukes have to be retired? Most US plants have had their licenses extended.
MartinJ said…
The UK AGRs might get a few extra years squeezed out of them, but are unlikely to get the size of life extension typical of most US LWRs due to issues with their graphite cores.

The Express article is quite sensationalist, however. The idea that the UK would meekly shut down its old coal stations and suffer powercuts because of an EU directive is farfetched. Modernisation of old plants or payment of fines for non-compliance are the far more likely consequences of the directive.
Alistair said…
The fear of power shortages in the UK has pushed up the forward price of wholesale electricity to over $160/MW so it is not surprising that nuclear power is looking very attractive with new generation in the UK likely to cost around $100/MW.
drbuzz0 said…
The reactors may not be able to get that much of a life extension but that means nothing of the plant. The steam turbines will run just fine off of any reactor. Many plants in the US have old reactors that have been retired but new reactors have been installed to replace them. They could just build new reactors at the existing plants and that only takes a couple of years.

They'd still need more plants than they have though.

That might not be politically possible though. Without new nuclear reactors though, they're not necessarily not going to be able to power the country. They'll just need more submarine cables to France, since they're not stupid about nuclear energy there.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …