Nuclear power in the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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 four 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. [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.

However there are several reasons to expect significant improvement if new 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

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 invest in nuclear power 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 civil reactors, which were transferred to its ownership from BNFL. BNFL's subsidiary, British Nuclear Group, continues to operate the plants.

It is also planned that the NDA will relieve BNFL of its decommissioning liabilities, however the European Commission is currently investigating whether or not this amounts to illegal state aid [3].

As of 2005 the cost of decommissioning these sites was forecast to be £55.8 billion [4]. However it is thought that this may rise by a further £20 billion [5].

In addition, latest forecasts indicate that the liabilities incurred by British Energy in relation to spent nuclear fuels have risen to £5.3 billion [6]. 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 it's final report [7]. It's 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[8].

[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 [9], 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" [10].

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.[11]

[edit] 2003 Energy White Paper

The Government's Energy White Paper, published in 2003 and titled "Our Energy Future - Creating a Low Carbon Economy" [12] conclued 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 [13], 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.[14][15]

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.[16] 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


[edit] In the media

[edit] External links


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/u/c/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_Kingdom_cc18.html"