Government publishes energy strategy (07/04/22)

[brad465]

Tomorrow is expected to be the release of the long awaited energy strategy, which was initiated in response to trying to gain energy independence by moving away from Russian reliance, but has also been delayed over finer details including cost. There is now a preliminarily article here revealing some key expectations, and there'll probably be plenty of talking points when the full thing is released:

Energy strategy: UK plans eight new nuclear reactors to boost production

The government wants to boost UK energy production and independence as household bills soar.

www.bbc.co.uk

Up to eight more nuclear reactors could be built on existing sites as part of the UK's new energy strategy.
The plan, which aims to boost UK energy independence and tackle rising prices, also includes plans to increase wind, hydrogen and solar production.
But experts have called for a bigger focus on energy efficiency and improving home insulation.
Consumers are facing soaring energy bills after the Russian invasion of Ukraine pushed gas prices even higher.
Under the government's new plans, up to 95% of the UK's electricity could come from low-carbon sources by 2030.
It outlines, for example, the hope of producing up to 50 gigawatts (GW) of energy through offshore wind farms, which the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Beis) said would be more than enough to power every home in the UK.
But one of the big points of contention is thought to have been the construction of onshore wind turbines.

Nuclear plans​

The government announced that a new body called Great British Nuclear will also be launched to bolster the UK's nuclear capacity, with the hope that by 2050 up to 24 GW of electricity will come from that source - 25% of the projected electricity demand.
It has said the focus on nuclear will deliver up to eight reactors overall, with one being approved each year until 2030.
It also confirmed advanced plans to approve two new reactors at Sizewell in Suffolk during this parliament.
Wylfa in Anglesey and Oldbury in Cumbria have also been named as candidates to host either large-scale plants, smaller modular nuclear reactors, or possibly both.
Funding the construction of new nuclear power stations has proved challenging in recent years as they are expensive to build.
Critics of nuclear power say new facilities take so long to come on stream they will be too late to meet the UK's emissions targets or to reduce energy prices.
But Tom Greatrex, boss of the Nuclear Industry Association, said the plans marked a "vital step forward" for the UK to meet its climate goals, and could create thousands of jobs.
"The ambition and determination to do much more and quicker is very welcome," he said.

The government also said it will also reform planning rules to slash approval times for new offshore wind farms.
For onshore wind, the strategy only commits to consulting on developing partnerships with "a limited number of supportive communities" who want to host wind turbines in exchange for lower energy bills.
Although it is one of the cheapest forms of energy, new onshore wind projects have been declining since 2015 when the government ended subsidies and introduced stricter planning rules in response to some complaints that wind turbines were an eyesore and noisy.
Targets for hydrogen production are also being doubled.
As well as increasing the production of renewable energy, there are also plans to accelerate North Sea oil and gas projects.
A new licensing round for the projects is set for the autumn.
The government said it recognised the importance of these fuels to energy security "and that producing gas in the UK has a lower carbon footprint than imported from abroad".

Environmentalists and many energy experts have reacted with disbelief and anger at some of the measures in the strategy.
They cannot believe the government has offered no new policies on saving energy by insulating buildings.
They say energy efficiency would immediately lower bills and emissions, and is the cheapest way to improve energy security.
A Downing Street source said the strategy was now being see as an energy supply strategy.
Campaigners are also furious that ministers have committed to seeking more oil and gas in the North Sea, even though humans have already found enough fossil fuels to wreck the climate.
There is a strong welcome, though, for the promise of more energy from wind off-shore with speedier planning consent
The same boost has not been offered to onshore wind.
The decision to boost nuclear has drawn a mixed reaction. Some environmentalists say it's too dear and too dangerous. They ridicule the idea from some politicians that every city could have its own mini reactor.
But other climate campaigners believe nuclear must be part of the energy mix.

 

[david1212]

Nuclear has plenty of issues not least the initial construction and decommissioning timescale and costs plus safety risks. For the latter while probability is low if it happens significant effects. When it comes to design and the technical construction like so many areas the UK has lost the skills it had 50+years ago. For Hinkley Point C we had to get into bed with France.

Without it though we can not be more self sufficient for the current demand never mind the increase from electric cars and wanting to replace gas home heating with electric.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Excellent news for more nuclear. We need tidal, wind etc too, and probably another couple of Dinorwics to store it for peaks. Oldbury isn't in Cumbria so I think the writer is a bit lost!

We then need full electrification of the transport system to make use of its benefits.

Digging for more dead dinosaurs isn't great, but at least it reduces dependency on unstable regimes and is probably needed in the short term - new nukes take a while to put up.

 

[brad465]

My preference regarding nuclear is more Small Modular reactors, not large scale plants. They've been found to have a better cost effectiveness for the power generated, and as the tech comes from Rolls Royce, is not so toxic regarding foreign entities in strategic industry.

Nuclear has plenty of issues not least the initial construction and decommissioning timescale and costs plus safety risks. For the latter while probability is low if it happens significant effects. When it comes to design and the technical construction like so many areas the UK has lost the skills it had 50+years ago. For Hinkley Point C we had to get into bed with France.

Even worse was part of that deal involved getting into bed with China. A similar deal was planned for Sizewell, but efforts have been made to try and remove the Chinese stake in it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My preference regarding nuclear is more Small Modular reactors, not large scale plants.

SMRs are an interesting idea. I'm not however sure that distributing lots of them around the place is that great an idea, it may well be best to stick with a few large plants in established locations (=no NIMBY objections, as they're used to them and like e.g. the employment they offer) but make each up of maybe 10-20 of these modular reactors.

Also helps with fuel transport. You want them in rail-served places, because the last thing we want is a lorry crash with fuel rods on the back.

 

[AM9]

Excellent news for more nuclear. We need tidal, wind etc too, and probably another couple of Dinorwics to store it for peaks. Oldbury isn't in Cumbria so I think the writer is a bit lost!

We then need full electrification of the transport system to make use of its benefits.

Digging for more dead dinosaurs isn't great, but at least it reduces dependency on unstable regimes and is probably needed in the short term - new nukes take a while to put up.

The problem with sanctioning further fossil fuel drilling/mining is that those industries are:

a) generally in a shrinking mode given all the exhortations at COP26 less than 6 months ago. It would take a lot of capitaland a lot of time to reverse that trend enough to give any form of fossil fuel independence​

b) once that investment was made, turning the taps off again and weaning consumers away from an environmentally destructive habit would be both financially and politically extremely difficult, - potentially resulting a slide down to almost abandoning efforts to limit climate change.​

 

[Lucan]

Also helps with fuel transport. You want them in rail-served places, because the last thing we want is a lorry crash with fuel rods on the back.

There is nothing in a road crash or even a rail crash that could breach a spent nuclear fuel flask, they are massive. Remember that staged railway crash back in the 1980's? New fuel for a PWR reactor is not very active, being only slightly enriched uranium. It would do you no harm to pick up a new fuel rod up, although it would not be advisable to make a habit of it due to cumulative low-level effect.

All spent fuel flasks make most of their journey by rail but AFAIK Heysham is the only nuclear power station site where it is loaded directly onto rail without a road leg first. In some cases the flask-loading railhead is frustratingly close but short of the power station - Dungeness and Sizewell for example. I have been involved in planning for a further power station at Dungeness, where only a mile of extra track across existing gravel would be needed; it would need a level crossing re-instated (there is one at Sizewell anyway) but could have used some track scrapped from elsewhere. I advocated this but was met with blank looks unfortunately.

 

[jfollows]

It's not a strategy, it's a knee-jerk reaction to current events.
That's not to say that what's happening at the moment shouldn't be taken into account.
But if you'd woken me up on Monday, told me a few things about what's taking place, I could have come up with this strategy without much thinking.
The strategic decisions made by the government in 2010 are what matter today, and they got it wrong then, reliance on "market forces" and trusting that doing so would result in lower prices and good supply. Now the imperative has changed.
I'm not against nuclear power as long as it's part of a long-term plan, so maybe we are starting that now, but it's been ignored for 20 years, in the face of opposition, some of it uninformed, some of it understandable (cost, waste disposal) and some of it hysterical (Greenpeace, tritium, carbon-14). I'd have a SMR at the end of my garden; for one thing it puts out less radioactive pollution in the air than coal or gas stations do.
But more nuclear without grasping the solution for waste disposal is not a strategy, it's a continuation of hope over reality.
And what is the primary requirement? If it's self-sufficiency, then fine, but that's a complete volte-face to the last 20 years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not a strategy, it's a knee-jerk reaction to current events.
That's not to say that what's happening at the moment shouldn't be taken into account.
But if you'd woken me up on Monday, told me a few things about what's taking place, I could have come up with this strategy without much thinking.

At least they're doing it. I'm strongly in favour of the policy regardless of what has triggered it. We need to reduce or ideally remove our dependence on coal, oil and gas for power generation. That has not only environmental benefits but also political ones.

For resilience and for environmental benefit, this country needs to be much more self-contained on the basics - power and food, in particular.

More nuclear and wind are definitely silver linings in the cloud of the war. Next we need full electrification of the transport system and to be rid of all that mucky diesel...

 

[DarloRich]

strategy? Johnson? Hadaway and shi...........

( the answer is more nuclear, more wind and more solar - tida; i am note sure about tbh)

 

[seagull]

or resilience and for environmental benefit, this country needs to be much more self-contained on the basics - power and food, in particular.

Agreed: it's a pity though that those in power don't realise this. At the rate we're covering our agricultural land with housing estates, food self-sufficiency could become impossible too, if it isn't already.

 

[AM9]

At least they're doing it. I'm strongly in favour of the policy regardless of what has triggered it. We need to reduce or ideally remove our dependence on coal, oil and gas for power generation. That has not only environmental benefits but also political ones.

For resilience and for environmental benefit, this country needs to be much more self-contained on the basics - power and food, in particular.

More nuclear and wind are definitely silver linings in the cloud of the war. Next we need full electrification of the transport system and to be rid of all that mucky diesel...

But as so many are now pointing out that the key problem of the abysmally poor insulation standards of the UK housing stock is effectively being ignored again. It's the equivalent of if there was a water system that was riddled with leaks, the UK's fix for it would be to pay for a bigger supply pipe!
The stock answer on poor housing standards is that the new building requirements are being raised, so on that basis there will be little or no improvement when most of the existing stock has been flattened and new built in its place.
Insulation is an investment for the future, - if done properly, it only needs to be done once. Increasing energy supplies, - particularly hydrogen, gas or oil has a continuing cost burden. It's a strange coincidence the the Government's great scheme for fixing the current energy problem was announced in the same week as the discovery of why the dinosaurs disappeared, - another climate issue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed: it's a pity though that those in power don't realise this. At the rate we're covering our agricultural land with housing estates, food self-sufficiency could become impossible too, if it isn't already.

So much of the UK isn't built on that that is in essence a Daily Mail concern, not an actually valid one.

But as so many are now pointing out that the key problem of the abysmally poor insulation standards of the UK housing stock is effectively being ignored again. It's the equivalent of if there was a water system that was riddled with leaks, the UK's fix for it would be to pay for a bigger supply pipe!
The stock answer on poor housing standards is that the new building requirements are being raised, so on that basis there will be little or no improvement when most of the existing stock has been flattened and new built in its place.
Insulation is an investment for the future, - if done properly, it only needs to be done once. Increasing energy supplies, - particularly hydrogen, gas or oil has a continuing cost burden. It's a strange coincidence the the Government's great scheme for fixing the current energy problem was announced in the same week as the discovery of why the dinosaurs disappeared, - another climate issue.

I completely agree, that should be part of it as well. New houses need something like Passivhaus mandating, similar needs mandating for rentals, and funding needs to be available for existing owned stock to be upgraded.

 

[najaB]

At the rate we're covering our agricultural land with housing estates, food self-sufficiency could become impossible too, if it isn't already.

We actually haven't lost that much agricultural land, and the rate has slowed in recent years rather than increasing. Between 1961 and 2018 the land in agriculture decreased from 198,000 to 173.500 sq km (about 13% over 50 years), most of which happened before 1990. We were pretty much at the same place in 2018 as we were in 1995.

World Bank Open Data

Free and open access to global development data

data.worldbank.org

 

[DerekC]

Last time anyone tried to build wind turbines in our area there was a huge NIMBY fuss. At a meeting I dared to suggest that a big advantage of a wind turbine is that if you don't need it any more you can just take it down, leaving a small concrete pad. No major demolition, no contamination (radioactive or otherwise). I just got shouted down!

How much more NIMBY pressure will there be against a modular reactor nearby, however small?

 

[najaB]

How much more NIMBY pressure will there be against a modular reactor nearby, however small?

However much protest you are imagining - multiply it by at least two.

 

[jfollows]

At least they're doing it. I'm strongly in favour of the policy regardless of what has triggered it. We need to reduce or ideally remove our dependence on coal, oil and gas for power generation. That has not only environmental benefits but also political ones.

My problem with it is that it's probably just political hot air, modified to speak to current circumstances, but without a clear implementation plan which will in due course run into the usual parliamentary and political weeds.
I was trying to remember, but The Guardian did my research for me today: (https://www.theguardian.com/comment...mised-bold-visionary-energy-policy-sold-a-dud)

British nuclear power programmes have been the subject of many false dawns. In 1979, energy minister David Howell announced a programme of 10 nuclear reactors over the next decade. Only one reactor was built, at Sizewell in Suffolk. In 2010, the coalition government agreed to another eight-reactor programme. That new programme has also produced only one plant: Hinkley C in Somerset, which is due to start operating in 2026. While nuclear can reduce emissions and improve some aspects of energy security, the new plans will only be realised if the industry can bring down costs.

If either of these false starts had led to something, we might be in a better position today than we are. The problem is that it's easy to announce strategies, but it's hard to implement them.

 

[Yew]

SMRs are an interesting idea. I'm not however sure that distributing lots of them around the place is that great an idea, it may well be best to stick with a few large plants in established locations (=no NIMBY objections, as they're used to them and like e.g. the employment they offer) but make each up of maybe 10-20 of these modular reactors.

That's the nice thing about SMR's, if that is decided to be best, we can do it that way.

They're also small enough to fit on more existing nuclear licensed sites, in smaller numbers.

Agreed: it's a pity though that those in power don't realise this. At the rate we're covering our agricultural land with housing estates, food self-sufficiency could become impossible too, if it isn't already.

I'm not sure that line of enquiry is backed up by facts.

But as so many are now pointing out that the key problem of the abysmally poor insulation standards of the UK housing stock is effectively being ignored again. It's the equivalent of if there was a water system that was riddled with leaks, the UK's fix for it would be to pay for a bigger supply pipe!
The stock answer on poor housing standards is that the new building requirements are being raised, so on that basis there will be little or no improvement when most of the existing stock has been flattened and new built in its place.
Insulation is an investment for the future, - if done properly, it only needs to be done once. Increasing energy supplies, - particularly hydrogen, gas or oil has a continuing cost burden. It's a strange coincidence the the Government's great scheme for fixing the current energy problem was announced in the same week as the discovery of why the dinosaurs disappeared, - another climate issue.

I agree that insulation is important, but we also need to think of longer term things, and segmenting the concerns isa good way to help simplify the problem.

My problem with it is that it's probably just political hot air, modified to speak to current circumstances, but without a clear implementation plan which will in due course run into the usual parliamentary and political weeds.
I was trying to remember, but The Guardian did my research for me today: (https://www.theguardian.com/comment...mised-bold-visionary-energy-policy-sold-a-dud)

If either of these false starts had led to something, we might be in a better position today than we are. The problem is that it's easy to announce strategies, but it's hard to implement them.

If only the Tories hadn't sold off our reactor production capacity..

 

[Lucan]

more nuclear without grasping the solution for waste disposal is not a strategy, it's a continuation of hope over reality.

I was involved in the decommissioning of some older nuclear power stations. Waste disposal is not a technical problem, it is entirely a political problem. Unfortunately it is hyped up as a problem by both nuclear objectors and by a section of the nuclear industry itself. I visited decommissioning sites where the workers up to middle management level were making a big deal of decommissioning because when it was finished they would be out of a job. I was senior enough to cut out some of this nonsense and get things moving. Similarly waste disposal is tacitly seen by some in the industry as an area for "jobs for the boys", for example the jobs tending the stored spent fuel at Sellafield until someone can make up their political mind to let it go to final deep burial.

If either of these false starts [to a renewed nuclear porgramme] had led to something, we might be in a better position today than we are.

Part of the plans were to build new power stations at the sites of older ones being decommissioned, and in a series to a standardised design. Construction teams and their expertise would have moved from one site to the next. That would reduce costs enormously, and the decommissioning workers I mentioned above would have got a move on because jobs in the new power station would be waiting for them.

 

[AndrewE]

It's yet another dismal missed opportunity. We need to start reducing our carbon emissions now - if it's not already too late.
Nuclear takes 10 years to design and maybe 20 to build and get into use (and EDF is bankrupt because of its nuclear commitment. How are more uk nukes going to help alleviate fuel poverty?) Throughout all these decades the enormous amounts of concrete and steel used just add to emissions too...

Wind turbines can be designed and funded in a couple of years, and working a few months after that. For the money spent on any nuclear we could have hundreds or thousands of wind turbines, but all generating within a few dozen months, and using just a small concrete foundation, a steel tower and the generator, mostly recyclable too.

Nuclear locks us into going even further off the track we need to be on. SMR's are a pipe-dream and we haven't even started to deal with the long-term storage of high-level waste - which needs a huge deep mine which will have a big carbon footprint of its own and cost future generations to manage in perpetuity.

Yes we need to improve our housing stock, yes we need more pv but nuclear isn't going to help at all, it will just make everything worse.

 

[najaB]

Waste disposal is not a technical problem, it is entirely a political problem.

This, more than anything. Just look at what happened in the USA with Yucca Mountain - a perfectly technically feasible solution scuppered by partisan politics.

There's something on the order of half a million tons of high-level waste in the world - which sounds like a lot, but realistically you're talking about a couple of stadiums full of the stuff. Just stick it underground in the desert somewhere and get on with it!

 

[Lucan]

Wind turbines can be designed and funded in a couple of years, and working a few months after that. For the money spent on any nuclear we could have hundreds or thousands of wind turbines

They don't generate when there is no wind, so, like solar, there still the need for base load fossil-fired or nuclear power stations that do not depend on wind or light. So you still need to spend money building and running those base load power stations. Wind and solar generation are additional capital costs, not alternative costs. At the moment wind and solar are riding along on the coat tails of nuclear and fossil-fired stations, which makes them look financially attractive only because the nuclear and fossil-fired stations were already there to back them up.

If you want to shut down the fossil-fired power stations because of carbon emmissions, the only remaining option is to build new nuclear because many of the existing nuclear stations are near end of life. Don't expect much from batteries or hydro storage by the way.

 

[najaB]

If you want to shut down the fossil-fired power stations because of carbon emmissions, the only remaining option is to build new nuclear because many of the existing nuclear stations are near end of life.

Geothermal is also a viable option for supporting base-load. Tidal in combination with pumped storage (to cover slack tide) is another option.

 

[Trog]

I am not sure that additional home insulation would be that worth while, likely to be hugely expensive and governments of either persuasion would farm it out to dodgy contractors, and cause people all sorts of problems. Such as the common problem of damp after cavity wall insulation etc. Also I just don't think in many cases mine included that the savings in both money and energy would pay back for the work in a reasonable time. I did wonder about replacing my open hearth fire with a wood burning stove as they are about four times more efficient but building control inspection alone was going to be £300. Which is total extortion considering that the last time I fitted such a stove the inspector made a single 5 minute visit to my home, ending by telling me to give them a ring when I was finished and they would send me the certificate.

 

[najaB]

I am not sure that additional home insulation would be that worth while...

Pretty much every environmental and construction expert disagrees with you.

 

[mbonwick]

SMR's are a pipe-dream

We're a lot closer to SMRs than you think. In fact, you could argue we already have them powering Royal Navy submarines. Swap the oversized tin can of a submarine for some shipping containers, a few tweaks to the core design to avoid the need for Highly Enriched Uranium and you have the basics of a commercial SMR.

I'm told the SMR division of Rolls Royce are actively trying to recruit people with experience of PWR2/3 which is very telling....

 

[AndrewE]

They don't generate when there is no wind, so, like solar, there still the need for base load fossil-fired or nuclear power stations that do not depend on wind or light. So you still need to spend money building and running those base load power stations. Wind and solar generation are additional capital costs, not alternative costs. At the moment wind and solar are riding along on the coat tails of nuclear and fossil-fired stations, which makes them look financially attractive only because the nuclear and fossil-fired stations were already there to back them up.

If you want to shut down the fossil-fired power stations because of carbon emmissions, the only remaining option is to build new nuclear because many of the existing nuclear stations are near end of life. Don't expect much from batteries or hydro storage by the way.

I should have said that storage is also conspicuously absent from our "Strategy." Of course loads of storage will be - is - needed, but again we are fiddling while Rome burns. Only 2 or 3 schemes that I know of, all making glacial progress, and the best the govt. can do is fund research. That has already been done here and all over Europe and further afield, with quite a few options needing to go to the demonstration stage as they have already been proved.
Ofgem is currently consulting for a second time on removing the some of grid charges for storage (which are paid on both import and export, so make many schemes unviable.) In reality they are just kicking the can down the road (again.)

We're a lot closer to SMRs than you think. In fact, you could argue we already have them powering Royal Navy submarines. Swap the oversized tin can of a submarine for some shipping containers, a few tweaks to the core design to avoid the need for Highly Enriched Uranium and you have the basics of a commercial SMR.

I'm told the SMR division of Rolls Royce are actively trying to recruit people with experience of PWR2/3 which is very telling....

I suspect that turning something acceptable in a submarine into something which can be safely installed around the country isn't going to be as easy as you think.
I would bet that they are still decades away, and still don't address the waste disposal problem (or the ongoing CO2 generation while we wait for them.) Wind turbines (and tidal, etc.) are here, now, and could reduce dependance on imports as soon as they were built. By tidal I mean the "underwater windmills," which, like wind turbines are relatively small, easily built and deployed - and recycled - and could start to make a contribution to decarbonisation within months. Barrages are more like nuclear power stations: too big to be quick, and not dispersed so putting bigger loads on the grid.
It's as though the term "Climate emergency" has never been heard in the corridors of power.

 

[ainsworth74]

We actually haven't lost that much agricultural land, and the rate has slowed in recent years rather than increasing. Between 1961 and 2018 the land in agriculture decreased from 198,000 to 173.500 sq km (about 13% over 50 years), most of which happened before 1990. We were pretty much at the same place in 2018 as we were in 1995.

World Bank Open Data

Free and open access to global development data

data.worldbank.org

Quite. The issue is less the loss of agricultural land permanently but more that farmers are being incentivised and encouraged not to farm their land. Rewilding programmes and turning it over to forests and similar. I think there's a reasonable question mark over whether that's a good idea or not! Good from an environmental point of view perhaps but not from a food independence point of view (not that that's really possible in the UK!).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quite. The issue is less the loss of agricultural land permanently but more that farmers are being incentivised and encouraged not to farm their land. Rewilding programmes and turning it over to forests and similar. I think there's a reasonable question mark over whether that's a good idea or not! Good from an environmental point of view perhaps but not from a food independence point of view (not that that's really possible in the UK!).

I'd say food independence is entirely possible but would require a more seasonal diet than we tend to like these days.

 

[AM9]

I am not sure that additional home insulation would be that worth while, likely to be hugely expensive and governments of either persuasion would farm it out to dodgy contractors, and cause people all sorts of problems. Such as the common problem of damp after cavity wall insulation etc. Also I just don't think in many cases mine included that the savings in both money and energy would pay back for the work in a reasonable time. I did wonder about replacing my open hearth fire with a wood burning stove as they are about four times more efficient but building control inspection alone was going to be £300. Which is total extortion considering that the last time I fitted such a stove the inspector made a single 5 minute visit to my home, ending by telling me to give them a ring when I was finished and they would send me the certificate.

Once the government gets off its high horse about insulation and realise that it is an absolute necessity to reduce energy consumption in domestic heating, some sort of serious plan will be generated. Even if it reeuces that demand for energy by 25%, that would ease the decisions on providing the base load.
As far as log burners go, they are increasingly being seen as anti-social, especially in built-up areas, and with the increase in urban pollutants, they may become the trigger for the retur of smog. I expect new installations to be restricted more and eventually prohibited for domestic use.