Nuclear power in the United Kingdom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 United Kingdom energy related articles |
| Government energy policy |
| Energy use and conservation |
| Nuclear power |
| Wind power |
| Energy efficiency in housing |
| Climate Change Programme |
| Other UK energy articles |
As of 2006, the United Kingdom has 24 nuclear reactors generating one-fifth of its electricity (19.26% in 2004). The UK also has major nuclear reprocessing plants, including Sellafield.
The UK's first commercial nuclear power reactor began operating in 1956 and, at its peak in 1997, 26% of the nation's electricity was generated from nuclear power. Since then a number of stations have been closed, and others are scheduled to follow. The two remaining Magnox nuclear stations and four of the seven AGR nuclear stations are currently planned to be closed by 2015. This is a cause behind the UK's forecast 'energy gap', though secondary to the reduction in coal generating capacity. However the oldest AGR nuclear power station was recently life-extended by ten years, and it is likely many of the others can be life-extended, significantly reducing the energy gap. The last nuclear power station in the UK will be in Suffolk and will cease generation in 2035, [1]
All UK nuclear installations in the UK are overseen by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.
Contents |
[edit] Economics of UK nuclear power
The history of nuclear power plant construction and operation in the UK has in general been poor by international standards. Even the UK's most modern and efficient nuclear power station, the Sizewell B pressurised water reactor operational from 1995, has a total generating cost of 6p/kWh (2000 prices, 8% discount rate) [2], which is about twice the economic cost for a base load power station.
When the rest of the UK generating industry was privatised, the Government introduced the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation, initially as means of supporting the nuclear generators, which remained under state ownership until the formation of British Energy. British Energy, the private sector company that now operates the UK's more modern nuclear plants, came close to bankruptcy and in 2004 was restructured with UK government investment of over £3 billion.
There are several reasons to expect significant improvement if new third generation nuclear power stations are built:
- modern designs are expected to be simpler, use fewer materials and require less on-site fabrication
- big-project management techniques have improved over the last 15 years
- more competitive international process for letting a nuclear construction contract
- turnkey (fixed price) contracts rather than the cost-plus contracts that were characteristic of past UK nuclear construction [3]
As of 2007 no third generation power station has been completed in Europe, confirming these improvements. The construction of the first such power station, a European Pressurized Reactor at Olkiluoto in Finland, is running 18 months behind schedule, creating doubts that recent improvements sufficiently improve construction costs. However some observers suggest that such delays should be expected as this is the first reactor of its kind and the contractors are not used to working to the standards of the nuclear industry.[4] The project is based on a "turnkey" contract which means the price to the customer is fixed regardless of the delays.
Any future nuclear project would be in the private rather than the public sector, so there is likely to be a closer concern for economics and risk. It is still uncertain if the private sector would wish to risk investing in new nuclear power plant in the UK, even if the political climate and public opinion favoured such an investment.
[edit] Decommissioning
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), formed in April 2005 under the Energy Act 2004, oversees and manages the decommissioning and clean-up of the UK's older Magnox power plants and associated reprocessing facilities at Sellafield, which were transferred to its ownership from BNFL. BNFL's subsidiary, British Nuclear Group, continues to operate the plants.
In 2005 the cost of decommissioning these sites was forecast to be £55.8 billion [5], however in 2006 cost estimates were increased to about £72 billion. [6]
In addition, latest forecasts indicate that the liabilities incurred by British Energy in relation to spent nuclear fuels have risen to £5.3 billion [7]. The costs of handling these is to be met by the Nuclear Liabilities Fund (NLF), the successor to the Nuclear Generation Decommissioning Fund. Although British Energy contributes to the NLF, the fund is underwritten by the Government.
[edit] Waste management & disposal
Most of the UK's radioactive waste is currently held in temporary storage at Sellafield. The issue of long term storage and disposal has remained unresolved despite a number of options being considered over the years.
On July 31, 2006, the latest body to consider the issue - the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) - published its final report [8]. Its main recommendation was that geological disposal should be adopted. This would involve burial at a depth between 200 – 1000m deep in a purpose built facility with no intention to retrieve the waste in the future. It was concluded that this could not be implemented for several decades, and that there were social and ethical concerns within UK society about the disposal option that would need to be resolved as part of the implementation process. Such a repository should start to be closed as soon as practicable rather than being left open for future generations. 14 additional recommendations were also made.
The report was criticised by David Ball, professor of risk management at Middlesex University who resigned from CoRWM in 2005, who said that it was based on opinions rather than sound science[9].
[edit] Government policy
[edit] 2006 Energy Review
In April 2005, advisers to British Prime Minister Tony Blair were suggesting that constructing new nuclear power stations would be the best way to meet the country's targets on reducing emissions of gases responsible for global warming. The energy policy of the United Kingdom has a near-term target of cutting emissions below 1997 levels by 20%, and a more ambitious target of a 60% cut by 2050.
In November 2005 the Government announced an Energy Review [10], subsequently launched in January 2006, to "review the UK's progress against the medium and long-term Energy White Paper goals and the options for further steps to achieve them" [11].
Critics of nuclear power have suggested that the main reason behind the review is to provide a justification for the building of a new generation of nuclear reactors. They also say that doing so will not be able to help meet the 2010 target due to the length of time needed to plan, construct and commission such power plants, and will be too late to fill the 'Energy Gap' predicted to result from the closure of existing nuclear and coal fired power stations. However backers say nuclear power will help meet the longer term target of a 60% cut by 2050. (wikinews) The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, expressed reservations about the 2006 Energy Review, its dependence upon nuclear power and its likely impact upon London and Londoners.[12]
[edit] 2007 High Court Ruling
 |
This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. |
On February 15, 2007, environmental group Greenpeace won a High Court ruling that threw out the government's 2006 Energy Review. Mr Justice Sullivan presiding said that the government's review was 'seriously flawed', in particular in that key details of the economics of the argument were only published after the review was completed.[13] [14] Justice Sullivan commented that the review's wording on nuclear waste disposal was "not merely inadequate but also misleading", and dismissed the decision to proceed as "unlawful". The judicial review was launched by Greenpeace in October 2006 [15].
Responding to the news, Trade and Industry Secretary Alistair Darling said that there would be a fresh consultation, but that a decision was required before the end of 2007. He stated that the government remains convinced that new nuclear power plants are needed to help combat climate change and over-reliance on imported oil and gas.[16]
Greenpeace hold the view that carbon emissions can be cut more cost-effectively by investment in a decentralised energy system that makes maximum use of combined heat and power and renewable energy sources. [17]
[edit] 2003 Energy White Paper
The Government's Energy White Paper, published in 2003 and titled "Our Energy Future - Creating a Low Carbon Economy" [18] concluded that:
- Nuclear power is currently an important source of carbon-free electricity. However, its current economics make it an unattractive option for new, carbon-free generating capacity and there are also important issues of nuclear waste to be resolved. These issues include our legacy waste and continued waste arising from other sources. This white paper does not contain specific proposals for building new nuclear power stations. However we do not rule out the possibility that at some point in the future new nuclear build might be necessary if we are to meet our carbon targets.
[edit] 2002 Energy Review
In relation to Nuclear power, the conclusion of the Government's 2002 Energy review [19], carried out by the Performance and Innovation Unit, was that:
- The immediate priorities of energy policy are likely to be most cost-effectively served by promoting energy efficiency and expanding the role of renewables. However, the options of new investment in nuclear power and in clean coal (through carbon sequestration) need to be kept open, and practical measures taken to do this.
The practical measures identified were:
- Continuing to participate in international research.
- Ensuring that the nuclear skill-base is maintained, and that the regulators are adequately staffed to assess any new investment proposals.
- Shortening the lead-time to commissioning, should new nuclear power be chosen in future.
- Permitting nuclear power to benefit from the development of carbon taxes and similar market mechanisms.
- Addressing the problems of long-term nuclear waste disposal.
It went on to state that Because nuclear is a mature technology within a well established global industry, there is no current case for further government support and that the decision whether to bring forward proposals for new nuclear build is a matter for the private sector.
[edit] Public opinion
In the early 1990s concern was raised in the United Kingdom about the effect of nuclear power plants on unborn children, when clusters of leukemia cases were discovered nearby to some of these plants. The effect was speculative because clusters were also found where no nuclear plants were present, and not all plants had clusters around them. The latest studies carried by COMARE, Compete on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, in 2003 found no evidence between nuclear power and childhood leukemia.[20][21]
An opinion poll in Britain in 2002 by MORI on behalf of Greenpeace showed large support for wind energy and a majority for putting an end to nuclear energy if the costs were the same.[22] In November 2005 a YouGov poll conducted by business advisory firm Deloitte found that 36% of the UK population supported the use of nuclear power, though 62% would support an energy policy that combines nuclear along with renewable technologies.[23] The same survey also revealed an unrealistic public expectation for the future rate of renewables development - with 35% expecting the majority of electricity to come from renewables in only 15 years, which is more than double the government's expectation.
In the early 2000s there was a heated discussion about nuclear waste, BBC news leading to the creation of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (see above).
[edit] History
The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) was established in 1954 as a statutory corporation to oversee and pioneer the development of nuclear energy within the United Kingdom.
The first station to be connected to the grid, on 27 August 1956, was Calder Hall, although the production of weapons-grade plutonium was the main reason behind this power station.
[edit] See also
- List of nuclear reactors in the United Kingdom
- Energy policy of the United Kingdom
- Energy use and conservation in the United Kingdom
- Politics of the United Kingdom
- Civil Nuclear Constabulary
[edit] In the media
- June 21, 2006, ePolitix.com, British Energy: Nuclear power stations need no guarantee or subsidy
- June 20, 2006, ePolitix.com, Campbell: Nuclear power stations will only be possible with vast subsidies
- June 12, 2006, The Daily Telegraph, Nuclear stations may stay on line to bridge the gap
- May 14, 2006, The Times, Minister's links to nuclear lobby
- February 13, 2006, The Daily Telegraph, Tories could drop nuclear energy option and go green
- November 24, 2005, The Times, Let's stop tilting at windmills
- November 23, 2005, The Times, Who says nuclear power is clean?
- May 9, 2005, wikinews:A leak at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing facility on Cumbrian coast, England
[edit] External links
- Trade and Industry Committee's "New Nuclear" report, July 2006
- Estimated closure dates of the existing nuclear power stations, House of Lords Hansard column WA232, 24 Feb 2005
- 10-year life extension at Dungeness B nuclear power station, British Energy, 15 September 2005
- bellona.no
- World-nuclear.org - Nuclear Power in the United Kingdom
- Uranium Information Center: Nuclear energy in the United Kingdom
- Committee on Radioactive Waste Management
- British Energy
- British Nuclear Group
- BNFL
- No New Nukes - Anti Nuclear Power Campaign Group
- Greenpeace UK - Anti Nuclear Power
- Supporters of Nuclear Energy (SONE) - Pro Nuclear Power
- BBC News Special - Nuclear Power in the UK
- Histories and memories, Ray Hall - former Chief Exective of Magnox Electric, Nuclear Energy, April 2002, pages 107–120
