• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Archives

Atomic Insights

Atomic energy technology, politics, and perceptions from a nuclear energy insider who served as a US nuclear submarine engineer officer

Nuclear plant construction in U.K. will gain momentum from Brexit vote

July 1, 2016 By Rod Adams 12 Comments

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.

Filed Under: Atomic politics, Business of atomic energy, International nuclear, New Nuclear

About Rod Adams

Rod Adams is Managing Partner of Nucleation Capital, a venture fund that invests in advanced nuclear, which provides affordable access to this clean energy sector to pronuclear and impact investors. Rod, a former submarine Engineer Officer and founder of Adams Atomic Engines, Inc., which was one of the earliest advanced nuclear ventures, is an atomic energy expert with small nuclear plant operating and design experience. He has engaged in technical, strategic, political, historic and financial analysis of the nuclear industry, its technology, regulation, and policies for several decades through Atomic Insights, both as its primary blogger and as host of The Atomic Show Podcast. Please click here to subscribe to the Atomic Show RSS feed. To join Rod's pronuclear network and receive his occasional newsletter, click here.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. FermiAged says

    July 1, 2016 at 11:34 AM

    There’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.

    Reply
  2. FermiAged says

    July 1, 2016 at 11:39 AM

    “…EDF’s increased ties to Mitsubishi”

    This is reassuring – NOT!

    Reply
    • 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.

      Reply
      • Bas says

        July 3, 2016 at 3:27 PM

        SONGS 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.

        Reply
        • mjd says

          July 3, 2016 at 5:11 PM

          Easy 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.

          Reply
  3. Murray Chapman says

    July 1, 2016 at 2:09 PM

    Hi 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.

    Reply
  4. Brian Mays says

    July 1, 2016 at 10:20 PM

    As an island nation, the UK doesn’t have a large population of climate skeptics,

    Well, 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.

    Even though Areva, soon to become a part of EDF,

    That should be “Even though Areva, whose reactors, services, and fuels divisions are soon to become a part of EDF, …”

    Reply
    • Ville Tulkki says

      July 2, 2016 at 3:20 AM

      Areva’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

      Reply
      • 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.

        Reply
        • 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.

          Reply
  5. Bas says

    July 3, 2016 at 3:04 PM

    EDF, 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).

    Reply
    • Brian Mays says

      July 3, 2016 at 6:31 PM

      Bas – I don’t think so.

      Britain’s decision to leave the European Union will have no impact on EDF’s business and strategy and does not affect its project to build the Hinkley Point nuclear power station, the company’s chairman said on Friday.

      “As of today, we believe that this vote has no impact on our strategy,” CEO Jean-Bernard Levy told reporters in France, according to a transcript provided by EF’s British unit EDF Energy.

      source

      French economy and trade minister Emmanuel Macron said Tuesday his country will continue to invest in nuclear energy, including providing support for utility EDF’s plan to build a nuclear plant in the UK, despite delays on existing projects and a reorganization of the French state-controlled industry. …

      A key element remains the Hinkley Point C project in the UK, a proposed GBP16 billion ($19.8 billion) project to build 3,600 MW of nuclear capacity in the southwest of the country. A decision on whether to go forward on the project has French government support, but is opposed by some EDF unions and executives, with a decision now expected in the autumn.

      Hinkley Point C is “very important for the French nuclear industry,” Macron said. The construction of the two EPR reactors at the site will benefit from the “delays and glitches” affecting two other EPR reactor construction projects in Finland and France, he said.

      Despite the decision of UK voters last week to exit the European Union, the UK is still a leading economic partner, Macron said.

      source

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Primary Sidebar

Categories

Join Rod’s pronuclear network

Join Rod's pronuclear network by completing this form. Let us know what your specific interests are.

Recent Comments

  • Eino on Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin
  • Rod Adams on Can prototype nuclear reactors be licensed in the US under current rules?
  • Rob Brixey on Can prototype nuclear reactors be licensed in the US under current rules?
  • Jon Grams on Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin
  • Rod Adams on Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin

Follow Atomic Insights

The Atomic Show

Atomic Insights

Recent Posts

Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin

Atomic Energy Wells

Enough with “renewables!”

Can prototype nuclear reactors be licensed in the US under current rules?

Atomic Show #303 – Bret Kugelmass, CEO Last Energy

  • Home
  • About Atomic Insights
  • Atomic Show
  • Contact
  • Links

Search Atomic Insights

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Atomic Insights

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy