Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station Approved

[ABB125]

Sizewell C has been approved by the government. Excellent news in my opinion, although I'm not sure about the price.

£20bn Sizewell C nuclear plant gets planning green light | New Civil Engineer

Energy secretary Kwasi Kwarteng granted the development consent order application at the third time of asking. The decision had previously been scheduled

www.newcivilengineer.com

£20bn Sizewell C nuclear plant gets planning green light​

20 JUL, 2022 BY ROB HORGAN

The government has approved plans for EDF’s £20bn Sizewell C nuclear plant.
Energy secretary Kwasi Kwarteng granted the development consent order application at the third time of asking. The decision had previously been scheduled for 25 May but this was extended until 8 July to allow the government more time to look at new information, before again being pushed back.
Granting of the DCO effectively paves the way for construction to begin.
The Planning Inspectorate’s recommendation report sets out concerns about water supply strategy as well as impacts on natural habitats.
However, in his decision letter, Kwarteng concluded that “the very substantial and urgent need for the proposal outweighs the harms, and that development consent should therefore be granted for the Proposed Development.”
His decision letter adds: “The Secretary of State agrees that the Proposed Development will make a very substantial contribution towards meeting the national [energy] need […] and the substantial contribution it would make in terms of the delivery of low carbon energy, ultimately assisting with the decarbonisation of the economy in line with the UK’s legal obligations in the Paris Agreement 7 under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Climate Change Act 2008 (as amended).”

Reports released alongside the DCO decision letter reveal that a total of 1,282 relevant representations were made during the public consultation phase. Concerns raised during the consultation phase included flood risk, marine ecology, transport impact, and coastal geomorphology.
The decision comes after the government published documents showing significant progress towards implementing a new funding model which will give nuclear projects the financial support they need and attract private investment.
The new Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model will see projects receive a regulated payment from electricity suppliers. The Sizewell C project could be the first nuclear project to use this model, subject to the outcome of current negotiations.
Earlier this year it was revealed that the government is set to take a 20% stake in the nuclear plant at Sizewell C. This followed the Net Zero Strategy – published in October last year – which implied that Sizewell was favoured by government for a large scale nuclear plant.
Backers of the proposed nuclear power station were also given a £100M government funding boost in January. The funding commitment from business and energy secretary Kwasi Kwarteng will be used to continue the development of the project which will aim to attract further financing from private investors and, subject to value for money and relevant approvals, from the government itself.

Going forward, ministers have made a commitment to reaching a final investment decision on at least one large-scale nuclear power station this Parliament.
However, there is still a chance that government could back a second large-scale nuclear power station with the future of the Wylfa Newydd nuclear power plant under discussion. New plans for the Wylfa Newydd nuclear site on Anglesey would reportedly see a power plant built costing between £14bn and £17bn.

Sizewell C is 3200MW, same as Hinkley Point C. If the Wylfa project gets restarted (3000MW, I believe), that's nearly 10GW available, approaching 25% of UK electricity demand (based on the highest demand on Gridwatch's yearly chart of about 40GW).
However, the phrase "all the eggs in one basket" does spring to mind...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Excellent news, though it's a shame it's EDF doing it rather than us rebuilding a domestic competency. Either way more nuclear = good. Perhaps 3-4 more would be good.

 

[Sorcerer]

Truly some very pleasing news to hear that the UK hasn't bowed to the fearful green lunatics and is choosing to invest in clean, reliable energy that has unfairly had a bogeyman image thrust upon it. Now we just need a bit more of this and maybe a bit more hydropower and we'll be easily meeting net zero by 2050.

 

[najaB]

Truly some very pleasing news to hear that the UK hasn't bowed to the fearful green lunatics and is choosing to invest in clean, reliable energy that has unfairly had a bogeyman image thrust upon it.

To be fair, while there is overlap between "anti-nuclear" and "Green" the two are not synonymous.

 

[ABB125]

it's a shame it's EDF doing it rather than us rebuilding a domestic competency

That's true, but I dread to think how much more it would go over budget by (because it inevitably will) if it were being done by an organisation trying to rebuild competency, especially in this country!

 

[Sorcerer]

To be fair, while there is overlap between "anti-nuclear" and "Green" the two are not synonymous.

Oh of course, and I do commend Greens who take a more sensible stance in supporting nuclear energy, but unfortunately groups such as Greenpeace and the Green Party of England and Wales are still largely anti-nuclear. Seeing as the German Greens were large enough to influence the decision-making on nuclear energy in Germany (with truly awful results), I'm just pleased to know such influence doesn't seem to be wielded in the UK.

 

[brad465]

Excellent news, though it's a shame it's EDF doing it rather than us rebuilding a domestic competency. Either way more nuclear = good. Perhaps 3-4 more would be good.

Yes we should avoid foreign involvement in energy generation as much as possible. This latest project had Chinese involvement until recently when the Government finally realised how naive it was to include them.

 

[najaB]

That's true, but I dread to think how much more it would go over budget by (because it inevitably will) if it were being done by an organisation trying to rebuild competency, especially in this country!

Not necessarily. The budget would be based on the experience of the organisation responsible for constructing it. If it was being built to rebuild competency then the budget would be a lot higher in the first place. The likelihood of overruns would be about the same.

Yes we should avoid foreign involvement in energy generation as much as possible.

I disagree. What we should avoid is the involvement of hostile foreign powers. I would have zero problem with importing a CANDU design, for example, along with the Canadian experts that would come along with it.

Edit: Checked and it seems that the Chinese involvement in Sizewell C is financial-only as EDF refused technology transfer to China for the EPR design. That's not to say that they won't learn "by osmosis" but we're not going to be dependant on a Chinese reactor design.

 

[Yew]

That's true, but I dread to think how much more it would go over budget by (because it inevitably will) if it were being done by an organisation trying to rebuild competency, especially in this country!

It might be more expensive for one, but for three? five? ten?

 

[cjmillsnun]

Sizewell C has been approved by the government. Excellent news in my opinion, although I'm not sure about the price.

£20bn Sizewell C nuclear plant gets planning green light | New Civil Engineer

Energy secretary Kwasi Kwarteng granted the development consent order application at the third time of asking. The decision had previously been scheduled

www.newcivilengineer.com

Sizewell C is 3200MW, same as Hinkley Point C. If the Wylfa project gets restarted (3000MW, I believe), that's nearly 10GW available, approaching 25% of UK electricity demand (based on the highest demand on Gridwatch's yearly chart of about 40GW).
However, the phrase "all the eggs in one basket" does spring to mind...

Nuclear with renewables has to be the way forward. Even though I work in the gas industry I know that generation of electricity by gas is not sustainable.

It would be good to also get Bradwell B approved.

 

[yorkie]

I agree it is good news.

Oh of course, and I do commend Greens who take a more sensible stance in supporting nuclear energy, but unfortunately groups such as Greenpeace and the Green Party of England and Wales are still largely anti-nuclear. ....

The Green Party are completely unelectable; I should be within their target range of voters who they could get to vote for them but there is no way I would consider it as they are completely and utterly bonkers.

If someone like me, who doesn't own a car and walks/cycles most places sees the Green Party in this light then there is absolutely no hope for them whatsoever unless they get realistic. However the party is run by extremists and there is no prospect of them ever becoming remotely sensible or electable in the foreseeable future.

 

[Jozhua]

Nuclear with renewables has to be the way forward. Even though I work in the gas industry I know that generation of electricity by gas is not sustainable.

It would be good to also get Bradwell B approved.

I was staunchly nuclear-only for a while, but both have benefits. The key benefit of renewables is they are quick and cheap to add to the grid, reducing our dependence on gas to the point we should only need 'peaker' plants. However, nuclear is the reliable source of baseload energy we need for the grid!

Both can get us most of the way to net zero with existing technology and frankly, considerably cheaper than gas will be going forwards. Fossil fuel companies are not going to invest to scale up production when people are planning to move away from it anyway...these prices are here to stay. The 'sensible' slow transitions to Net Zero will end up costing more in terms of climate impact, but also just from how much we'll have to fork out for fossil fuels.

I agree it is good news.

The Green Party are completely unelectable; I should be within their target range of voters who they could get to vote for them but there is no way I would consider it as they are completely and utterly bonkers.

If someone like me, who doesn't own a car and walks/cycles most places sees the Green Party in this light then there is absolutely no hope for them whatsoever unless they get realistic. However the party is run by extremists and there is no prospect of them ever becoming remotely sensible or electable in the foreseeable future.

Completely agree. Me and my partner have a running joke that the Conservatives are more green than the Green Party. Typically green movements tend to be quite 'conservative', rather than 'progressive'. Not as in a left/right sense, but as in a willingness to accept change. Ranks are stuffed with a lot of ex-hippies, who generally have an axe to grind with industrialised society, despite it generally lifting the world out of poverty.

This explains the stance on high speed rail and nuclear. There is a wide unwillingness to look at any issues on a macro scale. Until the Greens can come up with proper coherent policies, they will be resigned to simply being a party of activists who's only political power is derived from gluing themselves to pieces of strategic infrastructure.

 

[Yew]

That's true, but I dread to think how much more it would go over budget by (because it inevitably will) if it were being done by an organisation trying to rebuild competency, especially in this country!

Perhaps the first one, but the second, or the third, or the ones we could build abroad for profit?

 

[Jozhua]

Nuclear technology competency is certainly not zero. Rolls Royce build nuclear reactors for submarines and are developing SMRs.

We have people skilled in operating nuclear plants and a good amount of people with knowledge in nuclear physics.

If we wanted to, we could definitely build our own designs. However, EDF have a design ready to go, so it's probably faster to bring those reactors onboard.

Worth noting, these newer reactors are 2x more powerful than most nuclear reactors in the UK. Hinckley C is 1600MW per reactor, Vs 800MW per reactor in most UK stations using the AGR design. With 2x reactors that's 3200MW per plant, so twice the output of every nuclear power station built so far.

Sizewell C looks to be the same design, so it will be 3200MW too.

The sheer size explains some of the sticker shock. Of course, taxpayers don't pay for the plants necessarily. The UK government guarantees a rate for electricity and then if it doesn't sell for that price, pays the difference to EDF. Similar scheme exists for renewables projects.

In the current energy market, it looks unlikely the government will have to pay to make up any difference!

 

[ABB125]

Nuclear technology competency is certainly not zero. Rolls Royce build nuclear reactors for submarines and are developing SMRs.

We have people skilled in operating nuclear plants and a good amount of people with knowledge in nuclear physics.

If we wanted to, we could definitely build our own designs. However, EDF have a design ready to go, so it's probably faster to bring those reactors onboard.

Worth noting, these newer reactors are 2x more powerful than most nuclear reactors in the UK. Hinckley C is 1600MW per reactor, Vs 800MW per reactor in most UK stations using the AGR design. With 2x reactors that's 3200MW per plant, so twice the output of every nuclear power station built so far.

Sizewell C looks to be the same design, so it will be 3200MW too.

The sheer size explains some of the sticker shock. Of course, taxpayers don't pay for the plants necessarily. The UK government guarantees a rate for electricity and then if it doesn't sell for that price, pays the difference to EDF. Similar scheme exists for renewables projects.

In the current energy market, it looks unlikely the government will have to pay to make up any difference!

Though 3.2GW pales in comparison to the 6GW of the besieged Ukrainian nuclear power plant whose name I've forgotten. Six 1GW reactors

 

[najaB]

Though 3.2GW pales in comparison to the 6GW of the besieged Ukrainian nuclear power plant whose name I've forgotten.

Zaporizhzhia - I'm only one step better than you though, remembered the name but had to look up the spelling.

 

[david1212]

Nuclear with renewables has to be the way forward. Even though I work in the gas industry I know that generation of electricity by gas is not sustainable.

It would be good to also get Bradwell B approved.

I am not a fan of nuclear but understand it is the only way we generate electricity without significant dependency on something. The mistake was not even replacing the first generation nuclear plants as they became life expired never mind building to replace coal fired plants.
Renewables are important but non are continuous and with the exception of pumped storage their peak output can not be consistently synchronised with peak demand.

 

[Jozhua]

Though 3.2GW pales in comparison to the 6GW of the besieged Ukrainian nuclear power plant whose name I've forgotten. Six 1GW reactors

True, but using 3x less reactors!

I would like to see more reactors on single sites, I guess it makes sense too, as opposition is not going to be any more for a plant with 4 reactors instead of 2.

Hopefully Bradwell will be next to get approved!

I am not a fan of nuclear but understand it is the only way we generate electricity without significant dependency on something. The mistake was not even replacing the first generation nuclear plants as they became life expired never mind building to replace coal fired plants.
Renewables are important but non are continuous and with the exception of pumped storage their peak output can not be consistently synchronised with peak demand.

I think your position is sensible. As a proponent of nuclear, I will admit it isn't a perfect solution, but I think the benefits massively outweigh the costs.

Nuclear waste is much easier to manage than increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that will take millenia to dissipate. We are continually working on improving recycling.

Nuclear meltdowns are unlikely and we can take steps to ensure they are contained. Unlike Soviet designs, the rest of the world tends to build reactors inside containment vessels that can withstand any reasonable internal/external incidents and hold the nuclear material inside. Likely an expensive pain to clean up, but not catastrophic for the communities living near the plant.

 

[Cdd89]

Renewables are important but non are continuous and with the exception of pumped storage their peak output can not be consistently synchronised with peak demand

My guess is that this is best to try to sort out on the demand side, with per-minute variable energy charges and internet connected appliances.

Home EV charging is the obvious thing, also heating which could have a wider acceptance range. Most thermostats’ hysteresis is about ±0.5°C, but that could be bumped up to ±1.5 based on energy availability and I doubt many people would notice. Tado keeps offering me something like the latter, but cheekily wants £30/year for it (and also we don’t have dynamic time-of-use electricity tariffs with per-minute accuracy here anyway).

We really need a solution for people who cannot install smart meters though (eg give them lower rates on the assumption they’re making the savings, like we do with water meters).