2The potential role of small nuclear power
7.We have noted in previous reports that as a low-carbon source of electricity, nuclear power could contribute towards the UK’s long-term climate change and energy security goals, but a new generation of nuclear plant will be required to deliver this.11 In the medium term this contribution rests on plans set out by industry to develop up to 16 GW of nuclear power in the UK by 2025. However, there have been concerns about the length of time it takes to build new nuclear power stations and the costs of doing so.
Do all good things come in small packages?
8.Small modular reactors (SMRs) are an attractive proposition because:
- Unlike conventional nuclear power stations, which have tended to be positioned on coastal sites due to their cooling requirements, small reactors would open up potential inland sites;
- They may be suited to new customers: for instance, some heavy industrial users of energy have expressed interest in having secure, reliable power generation on-site or nearby, to provide a degree of insurance against future energy price volatility or interruption;
- If deployed closer to users they would not necessarily require substantial investment in transmission infrastructure;
- They may have a reduced capital cost, which opens up nuclear power to a wider range of electricity utilities who cannot contemplate the massive multi-billion pound outlay of the conventional large designs; and
- The ability to manufacture many parts (or the whole) of the reactor off-site in factory locations may lead to significantly shorter construction periods than their larger counterparts.12
9.Over the long term there are also potential costs savings from serial production of SMRs. That said, the nuclear industry’s “immediate priority is the successful delivery of the UK’s current new build programme”.13 Paul Stein, Chief Scientific Officer at Rolls Royce, agreed that:
we have to get on with building the large reactors, […] but hot on the heels of that will come small modular reactors—not in a 15 to 20-year time frame but more like a five to seven-year time frame, as long as we use existing, proven designs. That can then take nuclear power on from, say, the first 16 GW up to the next 24 GW of nuclear power that the UK needs and will also provide an exportable product for the UK.14
The five to seven year timeframe suggested by Mr Stein was the most optimistic we heard, with others suggesting that bringing SMRs to market would take closer to 10 or 15 years.15
10.Small modular reactors are an attractive proposition and we welcome the Government’s work looking into the feasibility of these reactors in the UK. However, we recognise that the nuclear industry’s immediate priority is rightly the successful delivery of the UK’s current conventional new build programme.
Choice of technologies and fuels
11.The length of time taken to develop SMRs and other small or medium reactors will to some extent depend on the type of technology chosen. Different technology options–including light water reactors, gas cooled reactors, fast spectrum reactors and molten salt reactors–are described in detail throughout many of the submissions we received.
12.New technologies may bring with them the possibility of improved technical features in nuclear reactors, for example through enhanced safety or through reuse of waste materials. For example, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) recently undertook some work on the management of separated civil plutonium stocks in the UK; it concluded that reuse is the preferred approach and is now investigating three technology options for reuse:
i)MOX in light water reactors;16
ii)CANDU EC6 reactors;17 and
iii)PRISM fast reactors.18
13.The NDA previously noted that “all the technologies being considered have pros and cons and that no ‘perfect’ solution exists. It may be that a multi-track approach offers best value for money”.19 Dr Adrian Simper, Director of Strategy and Technology at the NDA, explained that the NDA continues to investigate technical matters such as what proportion of the plutonium stockpile could be managed through that proposed technologies.20 He added that the NDA is also working with the Office of Nuclear Regulation (ONR) on licensing aspects to ensure that the technologies are licensable within the UK’s regulatory framework.21 Dr Eric Loewen, Chief Consulting Engineer at Ge-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, told us that he hoped that the NDA would, within the next two years, hold an open and transparent competition between the three different reuse options.22 Liz Keenaghan Clark, Head of Nuclear Decommissioning Waste and Safety at DECC, informed us that the NDA is hoping to present its evidence towards the middle of 2015 so Government can then take a decision about the plutonium disposition programme.23
14.In addition to looking at different technologies, we heard that a different choice of fuel cycle might also warrant consideration. Thorium fuel for example has been “successfully demonstrated in over 20 reactors worldwide, including the UK’s High Temperature ‘Dragon’ Reactor which operated at Winfrith from 1966 to 1973”.24 In our Building New Nuclear report, we explained that thorium has several advantages including that it is more abundant than uranium and that thorium fuel cycles are intrinsically more proliferation resistant as the spent fuel is more difficult to use for nuclear weapons.25 A more detailed appraisal of the pros and cons of using thorium is set out in the evidence we received.26
15.Despite the potential advantages of using a thorium fuel cycle, we heard from Dame Sue Ion, Chair of the Nuclear Innovation and Research Advisory Board (NIRAB), and Dr Fiona Rayment, Director of Fuel Cycle Solutions at the National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL), that the price of uranium would be the key to triggering a change from uranium to thorium fuel cycles.27 Dr Rayment added that:
What we have here in the UK at this moment in time is an infrastructure that is very suitable for a uranium fuel cycle. A lot of the skills and expertise, and also the facilities that are in place all understand how that fuel cycle can operate. That being said, that does not mean that at some point in the future a thorium fuel cycle isn’t something that we should perhaps consider should uranium prices go up by a significant amount and new build going up by a significant amount as well.28
16.Dr Rayment also acknowledged that countries sitting on large thorium reserves, for example China and India, were looking at thorium from an energy perspective and that it was important for the UK to participate actively in collaborative research with international partners.29 This might help to ensure that the UK would be in a position to accelerate deployment if that should be the likely route in the future.30 The Rt Hon Matthew Hancock MP, Minister of State for Energy, stated that he would be “open-minded” to industry developed reactors based on different fuels.31
17.There are a number of advantages to switching to a thorium fuel cycle; however, the evidence we have heard suggests that this will not be a viable option unless the price of uranium changes drastically. The UK must for now remain an active participant in thorium research and development. We recommend that the Government commission a study to confirm the potential benefits of thorium in the longer-term and how any potential barriers to its use might be overcome.
Moving forward with known technologies
18.In order to move forward with small nuclear reactors, and SMRs in particular, we heard that focussing on known technologies would be the preferred approach for faster deployment times.32 EDF Energy provided a helpful overview of the nuclear technology currently favoured in the UK:
Globally, light water reactors are the dominant technology and have the greatest regulatory and operational experience. Additionally, future large-scale nuclear new build power plants in the UK are likely to deploy light water reactor designs (e.g. EPR, ABWR, AP1000). It can therefore be expected that the first SMR designs to be commercialised will be based on light water designs rather than more innovative technologies or more radical fuel cycles. Small light water reactors are also used for submarine and ship propulsion. All existing or proposed small nuclear designs would still require significant design work and component testing to gain regulatory approval and become competitive with large nuclear or other alternative generation technologies.33
Dame Sue Ion agreed that there was still a significant amount of detailed design work to do on SMRs and suggested that there was potential to work with other partners on the completion of the designs as well as on developing IP and manufacturing potential for the UK in the process.34
International interest in SMRs
19.We heard from a number of contributors to our inquiry that while the UK has the capability to push ahead with developing and deploying its own SMRs it was worth considering collaboration with international partners. Paul Stein, Chief Scientific Officer at Rolls Royce, considered that:
the UK has a choice. We have the capability to do our own, if that is what we wish to do, and maybe that is the right thing to do, but we could also consider partnership with America, France, China or other nations that have similar designs. We need to look at the political landscape, at affordability and at what intellectual property the UK wants to end up with as a result of such a collaboration to give us the ability to create wealth and export, as well as to meet our climate change objectives.35
20.However, Dame Sue Ion, Chair of NIRAB, warned that while it was clearly possible for the UK to bring forward an SMR on its own, “in terms of the cost and the time that it would take to do that, we [would be] starting from behind”.36 For example, the US Department of Energy (DOE) is already helping to accelerate the timelines for the commercialisation and deployment of SMR technologies through its “SMR Licensing Technical Support program”.37 This six-year long $452 million program supports certification and licensing requirements for US-based SMR projects through cooperative agreements with industry partners, and by supporting the resolution of generic SMR issues. Partners that have received US DOE funding in support of their SMR projects include Generation mPower LLC and NuScale Power LLC. Governments of other nation states are also financing SMR design, with the intention to deploy.38
21.We spoke to representatives of Generation mPower and NuScale Power through the course of this inquiry. While they provided a useful overview of their experience to date, their enthusiasm was somewhat guarded as they were clearly wary of the obstacles to SMR deployment. Bill Fox, Chief Executive of Generation mPower, put this in context:
The mPower broad programme is an excellent technology. We are very much committed to it; passing it through licensing; our testing facilities have confirmed the design; it is buildable; we have a very good partner Bechtel who supports it […] One of the concerns […] is the timescale to deploy and also the cost, the hurdles that have to be overcome with getting this project through licensing, and then that other large funding capital investment that is required to finish the detailed design engineering. Enthusiasm and passion does not work very well in especially Government or publicly traded companies. Shareholders are looking for returns in shorter order than five years or 10 years.39
22.In order for shareholders to see a return on their investment it is vital for these SMR projects to secure customers. Mr Fox recognised that the mPower SMR did not currently have any customers but that they were “preparing for deployments in the early to mid-2020s” and he believed “the customers will come”.40 He added that discussions with investors were also ongoing.41 The Nuclear Industry Association stressed that:
If SMRs are going to be developed in the UK, they will need to be financially competitive and they will clearly have to meet all the safety and environmental requirements, but most of all the prospective developer would need to be absolutely clear that the design was viable from an economic and regulatory perspective.42
In the next chapter we look at how developers seeking to show the viability of their reactors might deal with some of these barriers to deployment.
11 Energy and Climate Change Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2012–13, Building New Nuclear: the challenges ahead, HC 117
14 Q43 (Paul Stein)
16 MOX = Mixed oxide fuel, such an approach has been proposed by AREVA
19 Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, Progress on approaches to management of separated plutonium, 20 January 2014
20 Q204 (Dr Simper)
21 Q204 (Dr Simper)
22 Q143 (Dr Loewen)
23 Q266 (Liz Keenaghan Clark)
25 Energy and Climate Change Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2012–13, Building New Nuclear: the challenges ahead, HC 117
26 Including: National Nuclear Laboratory (SNP0014); Nuclear Innovation and Research Advisory Board (SNP0017); Thorea (SNP0021); All Party Parliamentary Group on Thorium Energy (SNP0029); and Alvin Weinberg Foundation (SNP0031)
27 Qq160-161 (Dr Rayment, Dame Sue Ion)
28 Q161 (Dr Rayment)
29 Qq162-163 (Dr Rayment)
30 Q163 (Dame Sue Ion)
31 Q264 (Rt Hon Matthew Hancock MP)
32 Q45 (Paul Stein, Dr Clarke, Peter Haslam)
34 Qq148-149 (Dame Sue Ion)
35 Q44 (Paul Stein)
36 Q149 (Dame Sue Ion)
37 DOE Office of Nuclear Energy, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, accessed Nov 2014
38 Q149 (Dame Sue Ion)
39 Q143 (Bill Fox)
40 Q89 (Bill Fox)
41 Q89 (Bill Fox)
42 Q43 (Peter Haslam)
 | |
| © Parliamentary copyright 2014 | Prepared 17 December 2014 |