Compared to some of his favorite projects – the bridge over the Irish Sea or a floating airport on the Thames – Boris Johnson’s plan to get 25% of Britain’s electricity from nuclear power by 2050 is not overly imaginative.
The same mark was reached in living memory after Sizewell B went live in 1995.
As if the climate crisis wasn’t reason enough, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has crystallized the case for any energy technology that will allow us to abandon fossil fuels supplied by foreign despots.
The Prime Minister is expected this week to outline his plan to make Britain more energy self-sufficient, with nuclear power likely to be a key component. However, charging full force into a nuclear future is far from easy given the history.
Even when Britain was producing a quarter of its electricity from nuclear weapons, the road to get there was long and bumpy. Sizewell B was connected to the national grid in 1995, but it was first announced in 1969, with groundbreaking not taking place until 1986.
Recently, the industry has been in a steady decline. Since that peak in the mid-1990s, capacity has dropped from nearly 13 GW to 6.8 GW, which is about 16-18% of the power mix.
Hunterston B retired this year, Hinkley Point B said goodbye this summer, and by the time Hartlepool I and Heysham I shut down in 2024, nuclear capacity will have fallen to a meager 3.6 GW, just 5-6% of what it was They would have needed at 6pm on a cold weekday in winter.
Hinkley Point C is scheduled to make up 3.2 GW of lost ground, but only by 2027 barring new delays. It’s nowhere near enough to get close to Johnson’s goal.
This will require the successful implementation of almost every nuclear project that has been considered in recent years, including some that have so far struggled to get off the ground. It would likely mean extending the life of Sizewell B and giving the green light to Sizewell C, which stalled when the government got cold feet over Chinese involvement.
Wylfa on Anglesey, who was sidelined after Japanese firm Hitachi pulled out in 2020 due to a lack of government investment, would need to be thrown into the mix. Also consider Rolls-Royce’s “mini-nuclear” small reactors, which have government support but carry the risk of novelty. Some of the GE Hitachi partnership’s own small reactors may also need to be included.
All that brings you to about 15 GW, which is likely to fall below 25% of 2050 demand when you consider that the quest for net zero will involve significant electrification of home heating and vehicles to decarbonize.
Some in the nuclear industry dare to breathe the names of semi-mythical places like Oldbury and Moorside, where major nuclear projects have been abandoned but could be awakened from their slumbers.
The government, previously warm but cold on nuclear power, seems warm to such ideas, heads focused on sky-high fossil fuel prices. As Tom Greatrex, executive director of the Nuclear Industry Association, says: “It has reminded people why they rely so heavily on something that is traded internationally [oil and gas] is not a good place.”
There are fences to jump. Funding problems have thwarted major projects in the past. The Treasury has still not approved proposals for a Regulated Asset Base (RAB) funding scheme that could stimulate private investment by shifting some of the risk of multi-billion pound projects to the taxpayer.
Britain also needs to resolve the “taxonomy” issue already settled in the EU, which uses environmental and social criteria to determine whether nuclear energy is suitable for investment funds. There is also a question mark over the number of qualified engineers available, especially if the nuclear push is repeated across Europe.
But George Borovas, head of nuclear practice at global law firm Hunton Andrew’s Kurth, believes Britain is among the best-placed countries in the world to go nuclear.
“Britain did the groundwork, it did the site assessment, it has a sophisticated regulator, good heavy industry and an existing fleet. I’ve always thought the UK was a great place for new nuclear power.”