I would be saying nothing new by pointing out the increasing disparity between electricity production and demand in the UK. Indeed, some grapevines have it that it was a good job that the recession (and it’s associated reduction in industrial demand) came along when it did, or we may have run into trouble already. Even today, at times of maximum demand electricity supplies are stretched to the limit and predicting and allowing for future demand is subject to major uncertainties. Not the least of these is the security of fuel supplies and future prices as world demand rises and home produced supplies diminish. There has been some tinkering around the edges by way of grid diversification with some renewables, but the uncertainties cast considerable doubt as to whether or not the lights will go out at some point in the not-so-distant future. But we are where we are, and all that remains to be seen is how UK industry proceeds and how the new government helps, hinders or otherwise interferes.
Labour have left this government with certain commitments toward reducing carbon emissions (80 per cent by 2050) and EU targets on renewables as a proportion of the grid (20 per cent by 2020). Problem is, your standard ‘green’ renewables really aren’t in a state of maturity and effectiveness such that they can replace conventional power generation in any significant manner. Wind power remains an intermittent source (by it’s very nature) with high maintenance costs and relatively short operating life. Consequently, after the initial fad, commercial turbine demand has fallen 38 per cent since 2008. On the back of this, the last government made up the difference by increasing the subsidy on wind farms by way of increased Renewable Obligation Certificates. Wave, tidal and estuarial resources, which to my mind hold a great deal of promise (The Severn estuary has the world’s second largest tidal range and is predictable to the minute for hundreds of years) , will nevertheless be in no position to contribute much any time soon due to scale, technological immaturity and the timescales involved.
Christ, they’re useless
There is also the fact that any future low-carbon fossil-fuelled plants are going to be forced to adopt carbon sequestration and storage (CSS) processes; a strategy fraught because, well, we’re not sure how many stations are going to be suitable for retro-fitting and the technology itself is, again, in it’s infancy. There is also the problem of geological repositories which needs sorting. Projections reckon that CSS will reduce power station efficiency by 7 per cent, making them unlikely to beat 40 per cent efficiency. This has negative production cost implications and is below what nuclear stations can achieve.
And on that note, let’s talk about nuclear power. Once again I have recruited My Mate Dave to cooperate on this post. Without fellating him too much, he is an expert in nuclear power, and so between us (mainly him) we’re going to tell you what to think on the matter. You’re welcome.
The first major stumbling block with nuclear power is that the industry has as a well-deserved reputation for wealth destruction, right up there with the airlines. But affordability is relative, and as the availability of cheap fossil fuels diminishes and the costs subsequently increase, that route starts looking a lot more attractive.
In a concession to the generally anti-nuke LibDems, the coalition government has decreed that nuclear power has to pay for itself without public subsidy. Despite being told they’re not getting a handout, EDF and E.On are still up to build, so they at least believe the economics favour them. EDF are still proposing to crack on and apply for planning permission for Hinkley Point C this winter, with a plan to complete construction by 2017. Likewise E.On say the change of government (and policy) doesn't bother them and that they'll announce their selected reactor supplier this year. E.On propose to construct first at the Wylfa site. They were both sounding committed in this weeks scintillating 'Nucleonics Week'.
It’s well known that in France and Japan people pay quite a lot more for power, but obviously not prohibitively so. More ‘stuff’ gets made in both than the UK, so clearly it's working for them. And since our government’s energy policy is fairly opaque beyond 2012, should pragmatism sway the state down the path of public subsidy, a benefit you can see glimmering on the horizon is geopolitical freedom, in addition to all that climate change goodness and improved air quality. A carbon tax (or trading scheme) would obviously be a good thing for the nuclear industry, assuming it was applied fairly (at present, nuclear power generators have to pay the full rate climate change levy in the UK - logic unknown).
By way of planning and longevity: a modern station will sell with a design life of 60-70 years. Most of the LWRs (Light Water Reactor) built in large numbers in the 70s and 80s were designed for 40 years. The vast majority of these are expected to actually operate for 60 years after some overhaul. The parts that typically need replacing (after 30-40 years) are steam generators, pressurisers and RPV (Reactor Pressure Vessel) heads. New ones will have better materials (notably the replacement of Inconel 600 SG tubes and head penetrations with Inconel 690 or 800M; which has much less susceptibility to stress-corrosion cracking - a corrosion mechanism not understood when they were originally built), so may last better. They replaced the head at Sizewell B after only 10 years to get one with new materials, so clearly they feel the lower future maintenance is worth it.
In terms of fuel requirement, a typical reactor will run for 18 months and then shut down for a month or two to replace 40% of the core. This is about 30-35 tons of fuel. So to make all of the UKs electricity from nuclear would need about 900 tons of finished fuel per year. Now the finished fuel is isotopically enriched from 0.7% U-235 to ~4.5%, so the original uranium requirement would be (according to the back of Dave’s fag packet) about 10,500te a year. This evidently can be stockpiled, as the density of uranium is so high it will fit into pretty small space. Dave tells me he has been in the same room as two thousand tons of uranium metal (density of 19g/cc - lead is a mere 11.3), and it wasn't a very big room. Perhaps 5-a-side pitch-sized, but 3D. That 2000te is, by the way, about 11 months of what the UK will need in this calendar year. That wasn't a strategic stockpile; this was about 2002 and typical of the efficiency of BNFL's manufacturing that we had that sort of mass of material 'in-process'. The thing with natural uranium is that it cannot become critical unmoderated, so you can pile it up without concern. It’s safe it it floods too, as normal water won't work. In the UK we have a domestic conversion plant at Springfields (to make the natural stuff into uranium hexafluoride for the enrichment plants to use), an enrichment plant (Capenhurst, Cheshire), fuel manufacture (Springfields again) and the reactors, so we could stock it as ore-concentrate as it come off the boat (in 200l drums).
As 40-50% of global uranium production is in Canada and Australia, this resource has the novel feature of being concentrated in countries that are stable, democratic and not currently economically shafted. It also has the feature that the cost of power produced is dominated by the capital cost of construction, fuel price is just a small part, and given that fuel manufacture is far more of an engineering activity than mineral processing, the ore cost is pretty minor. In the same way the cost of iron-ore is not noticeable in the sale price of a new Mercedes: $100/te or $200/te is negligible compared to whether you went for parking sensors. In the last 10 years the cost of fuel went from $7/lb U3O8 (Triuranium octoxide) to $45/lb. When the oil price nearly squares bad things often happen. The effect on price of nuclear electricity - pretty much zip.
Lovely, lovely yellowcake
Current 'reasonably assured' reserves (a strict category) at $45/lb of 5.5 million tons are enough for current demand (65,000te/year) for 80 years. There are also 10.5 million tons of other reserves (either less certain or more expensive) and 22 million tons in phosphate rock. Phosphate rock is not currently exploited for uranium but for fertiliser, but back in the 80s when uranium prices were high (to allow the really quite ridiculous build of weapons grade material embarked on during the cold war) this used to happen. About 20% of US production came this way, with other production from this source in Sweden and other places; so this isn't a speculative tech. All in, even with no reprocessing and just with current reactor designs, we could supply ALL -not just currently nuclear- Earth's current electricity generation for over 90 years. Calcs available for anyone who actually reads as far as the end in order to comment.
With current reactors and reprocessing tech we could expand this 30% or so by recovering the plutonium in spent fuel and putting it in new fuel. And then in the future we can go back to fast reactors, which would expand the resource base 50 times (without even thinking about the thorium - there's more energy in this planet’s thorium than in the uranium). There's one been running well in Russia for 20 years or so, and they're building it a big brother. The Chinese have also brought 2 of these off Ivan for themselves, which they plan to start building soon. The French plan one more generation of PWR (Pressurized Water Reactor) and then from 2040-2050 replace them with fast reactors. The Japanese are likely to follow suit.
So, if we replace the current electricity generating infrastructure (starting with coal) with nuclear, we get a huge CO2 reduction and a reduction on the need for imported gas. Now, back in the 80's the industry was completing about 20 reactors per year, so this rate is reproducible. To recover from it's current low level it'll need 10-15 years to develop a new supplier base. But as we now have much greater total industrial capacity, the WNA reckons 70 GW per year is on the cards by 2025. Continuing the growth after that, 150GW per year could replace all electricity generation in 30 years (including that which is already nuclear). So it's actually doable, amazingly. Which other low carbon energy source can say that? 1.6GW day-in, day-out for 18 months would be amazing for wind power; it's the basic unit for nuclear.
And with the impressive developments in electric cars (and this is from Dave, the world’s foremost luddite - who is still not sure about fuel injection), it's entirely realistic to expect a decent (as in so good you'd have to be him to stick to burning stuff) one of these to come along some time in the next 20-30 years. Which would mean cars and light goods vehicles could ultimately be run on nuclear generated power. That's about half global oil consumption that would go.
Fortunately they seem to have already started. All the worlds reactors suppliers are building at full stretch. The miners are opening new mines. More companies are getting qualified to make parts, including the huge forgings. Really, the WNA figure of 70 per year isn't mad. The press enjoyed reporting that there was only one company in the world (Japan Steel, fact fans) that could make the pressure vessels for nuclear reactors. Actually it was one part of the vessel for one design, but anyway; they're doubling production capacity there and there should be 7 suppliers in 6 countries in 5 years. Maybe including Sheffield Forgemasters. This is the sort of hi-end work we could still make money at.
If they can build 70GW per year that's 52-ish units. These could displace 2.2EJ of generating capacity per year; which would replace all current capacity in 70 years or so. The current nuclear plants won't last 70 years, so this includes replacing them. There is no other low carbon tech that has this kind of scale. For countries with slow growth in use, like the UK, that would work. Provide increased capacity with nuclear power, then replace coal, then gas. A slow changeover, but all of the UKs electricity from 35-40 reactors is possible. I would note that in 1989 there were 39 operating nuclear reactors in the UK (average unit size was smaller back then - needed the same number of staff though). With electric cars we could maybe even meet our 80% cut by 2050 target.
However, on a global scale cutting CO2 by 80% by 2050 is, I'd say, simply impossible. Building lots of nuclear plant is our best option, but the elephant in the corner is rising demand. They're adding about 50GW of capacity (almost all coal fired) per year in China - we'd use 35 units a year just stopping Chinese electricity generation emitting more CO2. And then there's India....
Fortunately, in gearing up for mass production humankind does well, so maybe the capacity to build and fuel 100 new units a year is possible. Coal production in Australia has doubled in 10 years, without a sniff of state support (indeed, whilst paying royalties), so I can't see what would be different with other resources there. The environmentalists and the 'that rock is sacred' brigade are, I think, a constant factor whatever you're digging for.
Going back to the most recent Energy Act that Labour produced, the narrative was very much all about 'fuel poverty' and carbon capture. With a cynical head on, we'd say it provides a way to bang out a few more coal burners that are "capable of being fitted with carbon capture equipment" whilst some sort of trial goes on to prove it won't work in practice and thus the plants are ultimately not fitted with it and everybody except the greenies rejoices in a good result. Any changes to the last government's plans to allow the nuclear industry to short circuit planning regs would be a pain though; a 4-year public enquiry to build on an existing site would screw things up royally.
So there you have it - feel our enthusiasm, hive-mind. All that remains is to see whether rationality wins the day.
Else, buy candles.
Damnit, you were just too awesome 
