It's a good letter. it should be noted that the UK's existing programme of new nuclear plant construction is insufficient to make up for previous plant closures. At this time, Britain has only nine nuclear power reactors in service: Torness 1 and 2, Hartlepool A1 and A2, Heysham A1, A2, B1 and B2. Plus Sizewell B. Of these nine reactors, the first eight are all Advanced Gas Cooled Reactors. They must close over the next 10 years, leaving only Sizewell B in operation.
This means a further loss of nuclear power generation of 4,685 MW of baseload power generation operating at typically 80% capacity factor. The new nuclear capacity of the two reactors at Hinkley Point C will add a total of 3,260 MW. This means a net loss even after Hinkley Point enters service of more than 1,000 MW.
The government's current electricity strategy of providing new electric generating capacity from solar and wind means that in practice Britain will supply its electricity needs from:
1. more domestic gas-fired generation;
2. more electricity imports from France; or
3. retention or restart of existing coal-fired capacity.
The shortfall cannot be supplied by solar and wind. They cannot produce constant power to meet system requirements of constant voltage and frequency. Regardless of which of the above three approaches is chosen, this means the British government's intentions regarding Net Zero are an idle fantasy.
Nuclear Energy's 1st century has proven it is a game-changer for global Human flourishing, a vital, scalable technology uniquely able to meet key Energy, Health & Quality of Life needs while leaving a tri-generational legacy of geo-political, economic & environmental stability... https://x.com/nuclearforaus/status/1869850460233834713
There is no comment on dealing with nuclear waste. One of the major concerns of introducing nuclear power in Australia is nuclear waste risk and the requirement of power shedding impacting on renewables in particular home solar. Can you provide comment please? Thank you for providing an important view on nuclear energy.
The storing of nuclear waste is not a technical problem. A search of dry cask storage will explain where that material is now, and the potential long term solution of deep borehole disposal seems promising. But the most important thing to know is we are not talking about much material, it's heavy but it is not voluminous. In the US we could take all the used nuclear fuel we have produced over the last 70 years from our nearly 100 nuclear reactors, and put it all in one Walmart store. Also consider nuclear "waste" is really captured emissions, and the industry accounts for every ounce of it. Neither the storage or transportation of it has ever caused one death. And I am glad we have it, as I think it will come to be considered a national treasure. That waste is really just slightly used fuel. It's a solid (not liquid), and it has to be removed from a reactor because it slightly cracks and degrades under the heat and radiation. 95% of its total energy remains. We can recycle it and use it again (as France does), or put it into advanced molten reactors and melt the fuel into the salt, lead, or other metals used for cooling and use almost all the rest of it up, although there will always be a need for a permanent repository. There is enough energy in those dry casks to power the US for nearly 400 years. These facts will come up more with a process called "consent based siting," which is when a community is engaged and can decide for itself if it wants to host a repository, or a nuclear recycling center, or a new nuclear plant. Under that process cooler heads will prevail, and the risk can be accurately weighed. I hope Australia moves forward with nuclear energy.
It's a good letter. it should be noted that the UK's existing programme of new nuclear plant construction is insufficient to make up for previous plant closures. At this time, Britain has only nine nuclear power reactors in service: Torness 1 and 2, Hartlepool A1 and A2, Heysham A1, A2, B1 and B2. Plus Sizewell B. Of these nine reactors, the first eight are all Advanced Gas Cooled Reactors. They must close over the next 10 years, leaving only Sizewell B in operation.
This means a further loss of nuclear power generation of 4,685 MW of baseload power generation operating at typically 80% capacity factor. The new nuclear capacity of the two reactors at Hinkley Point C will add a total of 3,260 MW. This means a net loss even after Hinkley Point enters service of more than 1,000 MW.
The government's current electricity strategy of providing new electric generating capacity from solar and wind means that in practice Britain will supply its electricity needs from:
1. more domestic gas-fired generation;
2. more electricity imports from France; or
3. retention or restart of existing coal-fired capacity.
The shortfall cannot be supplied by solar and wind. They cannot produce constant power to meet system requirements of constant voltage and frequency. Regardless of which of the above three approaches is chosen, this means the British government's intentions regarding Net Zero are an idle fantasy.
Nuclear Energy's 1st century has proven it is a game-changer for global Human flourishing, a vital, scalable technology uniquely able to meet key Energy, Health & Quality of Life needs while leaving a tri-generational legacy of geo-political, economic & environmental stability... https://x.com/nuclearforaus/status/1869850460233834713
Hi Zion
There is no comment on dealing with nuclear waste. One of the major concerns of introducing nuclear power in Australia is nuclear waste risk and the requirement of power shedding impacting on renewables in particular home solar. Can you provide comment please? Thank you for providing an important view on nuclear energy.
Regards Bryn
Hi Bryn, I wrote a dedicated post on waste, which should answer your questions > https://zionlights.substack.com/p/everything-i-believed-about-waste-was-wrong
The storing of nuclear waste is not a technical problem. A search of dry cask storage will explain where that material is now, and the potential long term solution of deep borehole disposal seems promising. But the most important thing to know is we are not talking about much material, it's heavy but it is not voluminous. In the US we could take all the used nuclear fuel we have produced over the last 70 years from our nearly 100 nuclear reactors, and put it all in one Walmart store. Also consider nuclear "waste" is really captured emissions, and the industry accounts for every ounce of it. Neither the storage or transportation of it has ever caused one death. And I am glad we have it, as I think it will come to be considered a national treasure. That waste is really just slightly used fuel. It's a solid (not liquid), and it has to be removed from a reactor because it slightly cracks and degrades under the heat and radiation. 95% of its total energy remains. We can recycle it and use it again (as France does), or put it into advanced molten reactors and melt the fuel into the salt, lead, or other metals used for cooling and use almost all the rest of it up, although there will always be a need for a permanent repository. There is enough energy in those dry casks to power the US for nearly 400 years. These facts will come up more with a process called "consent based siting," which is when a community is engaged and can decide for itself if it wants to host a repository, or a nuclear recycling center, or a new nuclear plant. Under that process cooler heads will prevail, and the risk can be accurately weighed. I hope Australia moves forward with nuclear energy.