On the 10th January 2008 the British government announced plans to allow
energy companies to build a new generation of nuclear power plants in the UK.
In this 3 section report we take a brief look at the new plans, the
cost of going nuclear and the likeliest places for new nuclear power
stations to be built.
The UK government has come out strongly
in favour of a new generation of privately-built plants to replace Britain's
ageing reactors.
Section
1 - Q&A: Nuclear power plans
What has been announced?
The government has given its verdict after a review into the future of
nuclear power in the UK. It has come out strongly in favour of a new generation
of privately-built plants to replace Britain's ageing reactors. The Energy Bill
is also being published giving more incentives for renewable energy.
Is this a big change?
In theory there has been nothing to stop a private firm proposing to build a
nuclear power station in recent years. But given the amount of investment
needed, explicit government support is seen as necessary to persuade firms to do
so. The government also says it will identify what it believes are the best
sites for new reactors, set up a new independent body to monitor clean-up costs
and streamline planning for big infrastructure projects such as nuclear plants.
Why does the government want more nuclear power stations?
It says that the existing nuclear power stations, which provide 20% of UK
electricity, are scheduled to close over the next 20 years or so. They need to
be replaced to ensure Britain is not over-dependent on foreign sources of
energy, such as the Middle East or Russia, as North Sea oil and gas runs out,
the government argues. It also believes nuclear energy will help Britain meet
its carbon reduction targets and fight climate change. Business Secretary John
Hutton told MPs it was also a "proven" and "affordable" way of doing so.
Can't this by done just using renewable energy?
The government is planning a huge expansion of wind farms and other forms of
renewable energy but it believes there should be a mix of electricity generating
methods to ensure continuity of supply.
How much will it cost and who will pay for it?
Once the cost of decommissioning and disposing of waste is factored in,
nuclear can be an expensive way to generate electricity. Opponents say the
clean-up bill for current plants could reach £70bn and, they add, no plant has
ever been built anywhere in the world without public money. The government says
the next generation of reactors will be cleaner and cost less to decommission.
It insists operators will have to build and run them without subsidies. Firms
will also have to pay for decommissioning. There may be tax changes "ensure a
level playing field" with other forms of electricity generation. The government
will bail out firms in the event of an environmental emergency and also pay for
the construction of underground caverns for the storage of nuclear waste. The
amount new nuclear operators will contribute towards this has yet to be decided.
Where will the new reactors be sited?
The government has not decided yet, with a review expected to report by 2009.
However minister expect the new reactors to be built at or near the site of
existing reactors. A report prepared for ministers last year identified 14
likely sites, with Hinkley Point, Sizewell, Dungeness and Bradwell topping the
list.
What is going to happen to the nuclear waste?
The government believes it can continue to be stored above ground at
temporary facilities at Sellafield, on the Cumbrian coast, until a suitable site
for an underground bunker can be found. Another longer-term option might be to
refurbish Sellafield's reprocessing plant or even build a new one.
What do opponents of the plan say?
Nuclear power is expensive and leaves a legacy of waste that remains
dangerous for tens of thousands of years. They also say it provides terrorist
targets - and that Britain can meet its energy needs, maintain energy security
and tackle climate change through greater investment in renewable sources such
as wind and wave power, and clean carbon technology. Greenpeace is planning a
legal challenge to the government's public consultation, which it says was a
sham.
What do the other parties say?
The Conservatives support nuclear power but say it should go ahead without
public subsidies. The Lib Dems reject its use because of the risk of accidents
and what they describe as "the long-term legacy of waste".
Will the new plants be built in all parts of the UK?
According to last year's siting report, the most likely location of new
reactors is in the south of England. There are four existing reactors in
Scotland but The Scottish National Party say they will use planning laws, which
are devolved to Holyrood, to fight the construction of any replacements. There
are currently two reactors in Wales. There are no reactors in Northern Ireland
and no plans to build any.
Didn't the government announce something similar before?
Yes. In 2006 the then prime minister Tony Blair, said he believed new nuclear
stations should be built. But that decision was put on hold after the
consultation element of the government's energy review was ruled "seriously
flawed" and "misleading" by a High Court judge, following a challenge by
Greenpeace.
So when will the new plants be built?
The government is changing planning laws so that permission could
theoretically be given more quickly for major infrastructure developments like
power plants and airport runways. Ministers hope that the first new nuclear
power station could be open by 2020. But there could yet be new legal
challenges.
Section 2 - Q&A: The costs of nuclear energy
How much does it cost to build a nuclear power station?
There are few recent examples to draw on, but a new plant being built in
Finland gives some indications.
The Olkiluoto project is Western Europe's first new reactor in a decade and
is expected to cost about £2.25bn ($4.5bn), but there have been serious delays
there.
Other analysts put the cost of a plant at £1.5bn.
How does that compare with other types of power station?
Gas and coal-fired power stations are much cheaper to build.
RWE Npower is planning a gas-fired power station in the UK for £800m.
The controversial scheme for a coal-fired power station in Kent is expected
to cost about £1bn.
So is nuclear power good value for money?
Nuclear power stations are extremely expensive to build.
But if several stations are commissioned at once, then the cost should go
down because of economies of scale - a sort of bulk discount.
But they will still be more expensive to build than conventional power
stations. And there are fears that investment in nuclear will detract from other
sources of energy - such as renewable.
So how does nuclear power compete?
Once built, nuclear power plants have advantages.
In a gas-fired plant, the gas alone makes up 80% of the cost of electricity.
So firms and consumers are very exposed to the wholesale price of gas.
But at a nuclear power plant, the fuel is processed uranium, accounting for
just 10% of the cost of production.
One argument given in favour of nuclear is that consumers are less likely to
see huge variations in their energy bills, which have been rising in recent
months.
Nuclear power also produces much lower levels of greenhouse gases and the
nuclear industry wants incentives to reflect that.
What are the cost implications of nuclear power?
Germany's E.On, France's EDF, and British Gas parent company Centrica have
all showed eagerness to be involved in the operation of the new nuclear sites,
while French-owned Areva, the world's largest nuclear power group, said it also
wanted to build up to six new plants.
Energy companies running the new nuclear power plants will have to pay the
costs for decommissioning existing sites, and pay their share of waste
management costs, the government has said.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has said the cost will be £72bn over 20
years - up from an estimate two years ago of £56bn.
Critics, such as Greenpeace, say that the bill for building new waste dumps
will be a further £21bn and then £30bn to build the new nuclear power stations.
According to its figures, this equates to just under £250 per household.
It is unclear how much of this will be passed on to consumers through, for
example, higher energy bills.
But firms keen to invest in this area have strongly rejected this argument,
saying they will not need any sort of extra funding.
EDF, for example, has said it is willing to invest in a new nuclear power
stations in the UK "without subsidy", to include all the costs of construction,
operation, decommissioning and waste disposal.
But it, like other firms, has said this can only happen if the right
framework is in place. Ultimately, firms will only invest if it is competitive
with other forms of energy.
Some analysts say public opposition might make some investors reluctant to
fund schemes that are viewed as unpopular.
Section 3 - Study reveals prime nuclear sites
Hinkley Point, in Somerset, is the best place to build a new nuclear power
station, according to a confidential report commissioned by ministers.
It lists 14 suitable sites around the UK but says existing nuclear plants in
Southern England are the best choice.
It also reveals the first UK nuclear reactor was sited at Harwell, in
Oxfordshire, in the late 1940s, because it was "a pleasant place to live".
The government stressed the report was a "discussion paper only".
Independent consultants drew up a list of the most suitable sites for new
nuclear plants, based on the criteria that existing nuclear power stations were
the most suitable for development.
The report sets out the "major business, economic, safety, environmental and
technical factors that could influence the selection of a site".
'Feasibility'
It says there would be "little point" in the government considering
nuclear power if no suitable sites were to become available.
|
SUGGESTED NUCLEAR SITES |
1. Hinkley Point
2. Sizewell
3. Bradwell
4. Dungeness
5. Hunterston
6. Hartlepool
7. Torness
8. Wylfa
9. Heysham
10. Calder Hall
11. Oldbury
12. Chapelcross
13. Berkeley
14. Trawsfynydd |
|
Source: Jackson Consulting report, April 2006 |
"The availability of potential sites will therefore directly affect the
government's view of the overall feasibility of a new nuclear build
programme," the report adds.
Hinkley Point was deemed the most suitable, with only planning consent
for an additional power line and possible conflict with a nearby wind farm
standing in the way of development.
It was also available for new development "now," the document says.
Global warming
Sizewell, in Suffolk, is seen as the next most suitable, only needing
planning permission for power lines and "investigation of grid stability".
The least suitable of the 14 listed was Trawsfynydd, in Wales,
which uses a large man-made reservoir to cool its reactor.
But its inland location may prove attractive if the government
decides global warming is a major factor in the siting decision - it has said
rising sea levels could make coastal sites unsuitable over the 100-year lifespan
of a nuclear plant.
Three of the suggested sites - Hunterston, Torness and Chapelcross - are in
Scotland but the final decision on new nuclear plants is likely to rest with the
Scottish Parliament.
Scotland's First Minister, Alex Salmond has said there is "no chance" of any
nuclear power plants being built in Scotland, setting up the prospect of a
showdown between Westminster and Holyrood.
Consultation
The siting report was produced by Jackson Consulting in April 2006 for the
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), which published it on Wednesday as a
supporting document to its energy White Paper.
The government is planning its own investigation into suitable locations for
nuclear reactors, which will be launched in 2008 - if the government decides to
back nuclear power.
Launching the White Paper on Wednesday, Trade Secretary Alistair Darling said
his "preliminary view" was to allow more nuclear plants, but there would be a
five-month consultation period.
There will be a separate consultation on the criteria used for choosing the
location of new reactors.
If the government decides to back nuclear power, it will carry out a
Strategic Siting Assessment (SSA) to identify the best sites in the UK for new
nuclear plants.
The government says the SSA will speed up the planning process as it will
"deal with siting matters that are sufficiently generic for them to be sensibly
addressed nationally".
Wildlife habitats
Local people will still be able to object to the building of new nuclear
power plants - but only on strictly local grounds, such as noise and traffic
problems.
They will not be able to object on wider environmental grounds - such as the
potential effects of radiation and nuclear waste.
European legislation protecting wildlife habitats must also be met.
But the issue of whether a particular location is the most suitable place to
build a nuclear reactor will be off limits as it will already have been decided
by the SSA.
Critics say the government has caved in to pressure from the nuclear
industry, which has lobbied for the planning process to be streamlined.
But the government says it wants to avoid lengthy and expensive public
inquiries, citing the Sizewell B inquiry which it said cost £30m and only 30 of
340 days devoted to local issues.
Airfield sites
The Jackson Consulting report also reveals the Department of Trade and
Industry has been working on the policy planning assumption that 10 new
reactors will be built.
The government has stressed the actual number of new reactors will be decided
by the nuclear industry, which may decide not to build any at all.
The report also reprints an article first published in 1948 by Sir John
Cockcroft, on how the decision was reached to site Britain's first nuclear
reactors at Harwell, in Oxfordshire.
"We considered the desirable location for the future Establishment. It should
be not too far from London, there should be easy access to a University; there
should be some degree of isolation and lastly the countryside should be pleasant
to live in," wrote Sir John.
After a brief tour of airfield sites, a shortlist was drawn up and Harwell
was chosen as the site for the Atomic Energy Research Establishment.
Britain's first military reactor was sited in a more remote location, at
Windscale, now Sellafield, in Cumbria, in 1947, using a US siting system which
said it should be 25 miles from any town of 10,000 people or more.
|
