News Brief by Kip Hansen – 8 April 2022
“Britain bets on nuclear power in its plan to boost energy independence. The government said it aimed to fulfill a quarter of the estimated electricity demand in Britain with nuclear power by 2050.” [source NY Times ]
In a sudden burst of rationality:
“The British government revealed on Thursday its plan to increase the country’s energy independence as European nations try to quickly reduce energy imports from Russia over the war in Ukraine.
The cornerstone of Britain’s plan is an increase to nuclear capacity, with goals to deliver up to eight reactors this decade. Under the energy security plan, the country will aim to increase its capacity to 24 gigawatts of nuclear power by 2050, or a quarter of estimated electricity demand. There will also be more oil and gas projects in the North Sea and an expansion of offshore wind and solar power. The government said it wanted to wean Britain off expensive fossil fuels.“
As can be expected, there has been reported pushback from various interest groups. Some decried lack of stronger measures to insulate homes.
“Others denounced the plan to expand oil and gas projects in the North Sea, even as Britain has ambitious climate-change goals enshrined into law. The government said it would support domestic oil and gas in the “nearer term,” as it hopes to make 95 percent of electricity “low carbon” by 2030.”
The plan calls for more off-shore wind power, but does not encourage on-shore wind which has drawn strong resistance from citizens.
And then there is this odd statement: “Replacing gas power with more nuclear power is lower carbon, but nuclear isn’t renewable and it isn’t cheap,” Darren Jones, an opposition Labour Party lawmaker”.
Both Rolls-Royce and NuScale Power have submitted plans to the government to supply SMRs (small modular reactors) that will supplement the eight large scale reactors called for in the new plan.
Finally, some sensible energy thinking.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
Just when we thought that the UK would commit energy suicide by virtue signaling, they have seemingly been forced by the situation in Eastern Europe to come closer to their senses.
Let’s hear from readers in the UK what the public there is saying about this plan .
Thanks for reading.
# # # # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In the UK we have the Global Warming Policy Foundation who publish very good articles on their site, NetZeroWatch. https://www.netzerowatch.com/
Their arguments to the government on how to formulate a viable energy policy, consider both the practical and political hoops the government must negotiate.
In the here and now they propose an expansion of gas to keep the lights on. They also urge for the fracking ban to be lifted and to energise further exploration of North Sea oil and gas reserves.
The GWPF also support the retention of existing coal fired power stations, including the conversion of BioFuel power stations back to coal.
For the future they urge expansion of nuclear.
Their position on renewables is one I find acceptable, demanding they compete in the market on a level playing field, i.e., pay their own way without subsidies.
What’s not to like…_
https://www.netzerowatch.com/content/uploads/2022/03/Taking-Back-Control-Energy-Plan-.pdf
DiggerUK ==> Yes, the GWPF puts out great stuff with which I mostly agree.
a mysteriously funded bunch who trot out the same old stuff.
If we knew who was paying for it, we’d know why.
griff ==> The most stupid part of the climate debate is the continued insistence that all skepticism is bought and paid for by someone (usually Big Oil or the Kochs) — but at the same time insisting that consensus science findings and opinions are not biased by funding.
Foe instanmce, I am primarily skeptical, yet no one pays me. You seem consensus-ish, who pays you to comment endlessly?
You see, silly isn’t it?
Nuclear should never have been taken off the table, it was very shortsighted.
The irony is that people who are anti nuclear don’t realise that at times we import electricity from France, which is 80%(?) nuclear generated.
Renewable is a myth, you can never extract more energy than you put in.
It has been ‘on the table’ as a firm proposal since 2008.
But it just could not be funded.
I am not sure that Kip’s optimism is justified. The UK plans still include large amounts of offshore wind, and they are also moving to increased onshore and onshore solar, which they still seem to think is part of the solution and will help with energy independence.
I see no signs they have considered intermittency seriously in project management terms. That is, no quantified account of how much storage you need given the scale of their intermittent generation, and no account of how the management of this storage requires you to scale your intermittency higher. And no properly justified costings for any of this.
What has happened is increasing awareness of the implications of doubling the electricity demand by mandating EVs and heat pumps. Kwarteng for instance, and others, are now talking seriously about peak hour premium rate power charging via heat pumps.
From the UK Telegraph today:
Under the new billing system, households would be charged less when not many people are using energy, such as in the middle of the night. They would pay more at times – like Friday evenings – when lots of people are cooking, watching television or making a cup of tea.
The plans have already won support from energy companies but are likely to prove controversial with customers.
Speaking on a podcast published by Aurora Energy Research on Friday, Mr Kwarteng said: “If we’re serious about net zero and energy efficiency and having a more nimble system, then we have to probably examine what is called price discrimination.
“So that, if you charge your phone on a Wednesday morning at 2am, it’s going to cost you less than if you were to do the same thing let’s say on a Friday night where people use a lot more electricity.
“At the moment, it’s just the same blanket price. So I think there is a lot of work we can do to make a more nimble system that reflects actual economic activity in the moment.
“In order to make it more efficient, we probably have to have more continuous pricing, and more variation, in terms of you know, how we pay for charging electricity, or even putting a kettle on.”
You see what is happening? The costs of intermittency in terms of a fluctuating spot rate are being transferred to the user. And those costs will not simply be financial, they will be social. Living with continuously varying electricity prices, with perhaps a huge fee for making a cup of tea, charging a car, or cooking dinner or washing clothes at the wrong time, will force large scale social changes.
And to people who doubt this, I hear on good authority that some people in the UK are now refusing to take potatoes from food banks, because they feel they can’t afford the electricity it will take to cook them from raw.
This is a recipe for millions of the old sitting motionless in the cold January and February evenings, wrapped in fleeces to try to keep warm, afraid to even boil water for a hot water bottle, and no way turning on the heating.
michel ==> Of course, you are right. They have not shifted from “suicidal” to “perfect plan” in in policy change — the new announcement is far better than the ignorant, stupid and “let’s kill our country” NetZero plan they had a week ago.
The figure quoted by govt is 24GW of storage – they have not spelt out the important detail of ‘how long for’.
Bear in mind using HVDC links to mainland European grid remains and important part of their strategy
Yes. But calm spells are rarely confined to the UK, they extend over a lot of northern Europe too. Don’t think too much reliance can be placed on interconnects.
At a guess it would be prudent to provide enough storage to supply 30% of wind faceplate for two weeks.
And enough wind generating capacity to be able to recharge it in about two weeks, at the same time as meeting normal demand.
Whether this is right or wrong, until the government produces a plan with real numbers and a justification of the amount of capacity (both storage, and additional to recharge it), and an account of the technology and costs, there isn’t any plan. Its pure fantasy. Like the bridge from Scotland to Ireland, or the Estuary airport.
I don’t believe its either doable or affordable. But we need to see the numbers and the assumptions. Its truly weird that they are actively planning Net Zero without even seeming to realize that they need proper plans, cases.
Any staff planning department in a Fortune 500 company that presided over planning like this would be fired in short order.
Nothing any politician says can be taken as meaningful for any length of time. No matter the cost, no matter the need, what is set down today can, and frequently is, set off sometime soon thereafter — unless it really helps cement political power in place.
In the U.K. Luddite antinuclear sentiment is so pernicious and widespread, that Rolls Royce and others seeking licensing could be sabotaged by apparatchiks in the system with Luddite sympathies. Rolls Royce are already being frustrated by Britain’s uniquely turgid, complacent and dysfunctional bureaucracy.
Phil ==> “…Britain’s uniquely turgid, complacent and dysfunctional bureaucracy.” Always was…..
Well RR has got the funding and currently plan one new SMR by 2030 and 4 more by 2035.
but that’s only 2.5GW by 2035…
Hurrah for the nucleur proposals, but what happened to the Severn Tidal Barrage which it was estimated could privde 25 % of UK’s energy needs for eons to come? Almost a no-brainer and it was not included in the PMs announcements.
Captain Chris ==> see if you can find out and let us know.
The Severn Barrage would have flooded mudflats which are a site of world importance for wintering birds… 20% of the whole population of some species rely on them and they have nowhere else to go.
The barrage was cancelled on those grounds: it would have broken UK obligations under the RAMSAR treaty.
Though a tidal turbine ‘barrage’ would work and have no such side effects.
The British Government might be seeing some sense at last but the SNP-Green Government in Scotland haven’t yet reached that point. So the British Government’s decision might be good news for people living in England but not for those of use who are living in Scotland. Unless, of course, the anti-nuclear SNP and Greens plan to import nuclear-generated electricity from England when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining. (Yes, I know, it’s very confusing but on some matters the British Government only makes decisions for England.)
Yes: the Scottish govt remains opposed to new nuclear and what’s more has the independent planning powers to stop it, no matter what Westminster wants.
It will be fun indeed in 20 years time to witness from a safe distance the consequences for Scotland of having indulged in the antinuclear fantasy. Their internet will fall silent when the wind stops blowing. Bloggers and YouTubers will have to check weather forecasts when planning when to post content. If they want there to be anyone at the other end.
They promised something similar over a decade ago. I see no progress.
yes, in 2008 and 2010…
The nuclear element of this is pure fantasy…
If you look you can find the Labour govt announcing 8 new nuclear plants in 2008 and the new Tory govt announcing 8 nuclear plants in 2010.
In 14 years just one has started – Hinkley – and they are about to announce another delay to finishing that.
The Chinese were involved in Sizewell and were going to be entirely building Bradwell – now China isn’t allowed to participate, those plans are out the window.
Hitachi and other firms withdrew from Wylfa and Moorside because no funding could be arranged.
It remains to be seen whether new funding model with increased UK govt stake gets Sizewell off the ground – if it does it will be a decade building it even after the funding and planning are worked out.
griff,
Looking through the online bumph from the UK Government –
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/british-energy-security-strategy – there seems to be a lot of talk.
Not very much hard actions, with timelines, costs and constraints.
And it’s plain that the costs will, as ever, be lumped onto the population.
Auto
No mention of Rolls Royce or Nuscale in your antinuclear trip down memory lane.
What’s different this time is that the comfort blanket of endless cheap natural gas is gone. The gas on which wind and solar depend more cravenly than anything else. Plus net zero commitments and mandated electric cars mean that the space to hide from reality gets harder to find. Remaining choices are nuclear, coal or nothing.
Good ole Hinkley C being dragged up again. As an example of what? Certainly not modern nuclear plant construction. Hinkley C is an outlier and should be treated as such. Barakah in the UAE has Units 1 and 2 finished in 8 years each, on schedule, and is delivering reliable 24/7 power for the same domestic cost as previous.
More coal! They forgot coal. Sheesh. Coal is the Rodney Dangerfield of the energy industry.
Bruce == Well, coal made the UK a manufacturing powerhouse for a almost a century.
Read something interesting about nuclear in an annual report of my largest stock holding.
For those who do not know, at a certain age in the US we are required to take a distribution from our untaxed retirement saving so the goverment can tax it. So I have been more active in managing stocks in recent years.
I am heavily invested in power companies that have nuclear power plants outside of California. My logic is that nuclear power requires good management. Two of the companies are also leaders in harvesting renewable energy incentives.
The annual reports starts with all the BS about commitment to the environment and zero by unicorn date. Then comes the serious discussions. All 11 of the nuke plants will apply for extensions to run for 80 years.
That is leadership! The reason the US makes more electricity with nuclear power than any other country is we do such a good job running our plants. We learn form each other and other countries. We share information.
“hey have seemingly been forced by the situation in Eastern Europe” It wasnt that at all, it was the lack iof wind last September, and the 700% spike in electricity prices. They ordered 12 SMRs off Rolls Royce way way, long before the war started. I know, I bought RR stock and yellow cake last year knowing the govt would have to go nuclear.
Sykes ==> Good Lad. Thanks for conforming that RR has 12 SMR orders in hand. Got a link for that? Some have said no orders.
I thought this was well known, Slovakia bought 8 last year, thats when I first heard about them and decided to buy stock. But yes, Boris ordered 12 last year about late september.
I was surprised how quickly the UK got in the shit with its energy policy, I was expecting it to be a few years down the road. Clearly it was worse than I thought.
Matthew ==> For the Davos In-Crowd, everything is worse than we thought.