British voters have spoken; they want to leave the EU by a margin of 52% to 48%. The split should provide a boost for the UK’s nuclear energy program. It should also improve the UK’s energy resiliency and improve the effectiveness of its effort to reduce CO2 emissions.
As an island nation, the UK doesn’t have a large population of climate skeptics, though there are many that question the notion that unreliables like wind and solar can replace fossil fuels.
The UK will be able to keep its new carbon tax and ditch the ineffective EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which has been a relative loss for UK companies who have purchased more credits than they have sold. It will be freed from EU required “renewable energy” standards and able to establish a more comprehensive “clean energy” standard that is more aggressive while allowing a greater range of potential solutions that include nuclear energy as a major contributor to the targets.
It will eliminate the leverage that the EU provides to antinuclear members like Austria to challenge its “contract for difference” deals as illegal state aid.
The exit should also provide a boon to UK construction workers, electricians and manufacturing employees because it will reduce the ability of contractors to fill their work forces with temporary workers from lower wage countries. That should also help avoid some of the construction difficulties that have plagued EPR projects in both Finland and France.
That’s not a racist comment; it’s strictly a comment about the project management challenge associated with language barriers. Training a work force to adhere to the incredibly complex procedural and documentation requirements associated with nuclear construction is a very challenging task. I can only imagine how difficult it would be to accomplish that task when dealing with more than a single language.
Fortunately for the UK, their engineers, managers and workers speak English. There is a huge worldwide pool of English-speaking workers. It might be especially useful for all concerned if a substantial portion of the nuclear construction work force was initially sourced from Australia so that they can develop the skills they will need at home after it has been “considered as a future low-carbon energy source to contribute to national emissions reduction targets.”.
As the UK shows the way to succeed with nuclear energy by applying strong project management, exceptional training programs, consistent standards and a firm, multi-party political support system, the cost of nuclear energy will fall. As has been shown in almost every type of manufacturing and construction effort known to man, learning by doing, reusing tooling, reusing designs and applying the same processes to multiple projects will push costs ever lower.
As nuclear costs fall, other European countries will have less ability to interfere. Instead of using EU rulemaking processes to bureaucratically tip the scales in favor of less capable power systems, they might have to pay attention and emulate. That would be good for Europe, good for the climate, bad for Russia and Iran and good for human prosperity.
My personal opinion is that the UK would be best off if the EPR projects at Hinkley and Sizewell ended up being replaced by an increased number of somewhat smaller, simpler designs like the ATMEA, AP1000, APR1400 or perhaps the Hualong One. Even though Areva, whose reactors, services, and fuels divisions are soon to become a part of EDF, has invested enormous sums of money in its robust, enormous but difficult-to-build EPR, EDF’s recent announcement of increased ties to Mitsubishi hints that the EPR projects under construction already might be the last ones built.
I received several intriguing responses from sources who are physically closer to the UK and the EU. I’ll provide a summary of those varying points of view in tomorrow’s post.
Note: A version of the above was first published on Forbes.com under the headline Brexit Will Boost Nuclear Energy In U.K.. It is reprinted here with permission.
FermiAged says
July 1, 2016 at 11:34 AMThere’s a reason the Union of Concerned (Trolls) Scientists are least hostile towards the EPR. It’s a financial turkey. I hope the UK scraps it in favor of any of the alternatives you listed.
FermiAged says
July 1, 2016 at 11:39 AM“…EDF’s increased ties to Mitsubishi”
This is reassuring – NOT!
Rod Adams says
July 1, 2016 at 12:08 PM@FermiAged
Why? Did you buy into the Mitsubishi demonization related to SONGS? Their steam generators had a minor flaw. They could have been repaired and functioned at full power for many years, but the owner gave up under political pressure.
It’s about like buying a beautiful new automobile and trashing it because there was a flaw in the radiator that could have been repaired by a plug.
Bas says
July 3, 2016 at 3:27 PMSONGS steam generator pipes suffered from too much/strong vibrations. Probably caused by less support structures for the pipes as well as thinner pipes (which would give SONGS
more flexibility, important with the introduction of more wind and solar in California).
Not easy to solve. It probably requires a new design, which in total implies that SONGS had to wait at least another 18months before it could restart.
mjd says
July 3, 2016 at 5:11 PMEasy to solve. Virtual technical agreement by all parties the “too much/strong vibrations” in the SG tubes were a problem for LONG TERM operations above 75% power (one of those units ran a whole cycle at 100% with no tube leaks). And due to engineering mistake on the power upgrade, which increased both Primary and Secondary side flow rates. Plug tubes on the Primary side to get Primary flow down to acceptable flow, and don’t operate the plant above 75% to limit the Secondary flow. It ain’t even rocket science.
The tube integrity is then proved just like it always is, initial hydro (instantaneous proof), and continued Surveillance Requirements (continuing proof).
There is no technical reason SONGS had to be decomm-ed.
Murray Chapman says
July 1, 2016 at 2:09 PMHi Rod, I’m a Brit and in general I agree with your comments but I’d like to point out the EU is full of English speakers. When I worked in Stockholm I was surprised at how many people spoke excellent English but after a while I found out that High School science and up was taught exclusively in English. In addition the many Polish workers in the UK speak good English. Where I live near West London has historically had a large Polish population centred around Free Poles who fought in WW2 but could not return afterwards.
I’d definitely agree that replacing EPR with something that’s been demonstrated to work is a good idea.
Getting rid of Austria’s influence may be harder – it depends on how the negotiations go.
Brian Mays says
July 1, 2016 at 10:20 PMWell, yes and no. The UKIP, who was a big proponent of “Brexit,” are so-called climate “deniers.” On the other hand, the UKIP is a strong proponent nuclear power in the UK.
That should be “Even though Areva, whose reactors, services, and fuels divisions are soon to become a part of EDF, …”
Ville Tulkki says
July 2, 2016 at 3:20 AMAreva’s fuel operations will not be sold – the new Areva will be built around fuel cycle services.
http://www.areva.com/EN/news-10784/areva-roadmaps-20162020.html
Brian Mays says
July 2, 2016 at 8:03 AM“Fuel cycle services” means mining, enrichment, reprocessing, and disposal.
The part that actually sells fuel assemblies to customers (and does core design, etc.) is going to EDF.
Rod Adams says
July 2, 2016 at 11:00 AM@Brian Mays
To clarify for other readers the people and facilities that are in Areva’s “fuels division” use raw materials to manufacture and sell commercial nuclear fuel that they have designed. That business is being purchased by EDF along with the reactors and services business units.
The raw materials used to manufacture commercial fuel are supplied by the business units in the fuel cycle services and a number of other competitors around the world.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I assume that once the split is complete, the fuels division operating under the ownership of EDF will have no obligation to prefer Areva as a supplier of those raw materials.
Bas says
July 3, 2016 at 3:04 PMEDF, mainly owned by the French state, is the owner / principal of the scheduled NPP at Hinkley.
With the Brexit, French state may no longer feel obliged to support EDF in such risky venture as a new NPP of £24billion (amount calculated by EU accountants). Especially since France itself intalled a law last year which implies that it moves away fast from nuclear.
When EDF starts to pursue alternatives, there is little UK government can do under present legislation. So the Brexit may cause that Sizewell may become the first new NPP in UK (estimation 2030-2035).
Brian Mays says
July 3, 2016 at 6:31 PMBas – I don’t think so.
source
source