Energy security: positive action is desperately needed for carbon-free energy infrastructure

• 2 months ago (2024-02-19)
• Junior Isles

Nuclear 640 Renewables 752

---

By Vince Zabielski, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman

In election years, it’s not uncommon for political parties to announce flagship funding commitments for key national infrastructure, and carbon-free energy is often a target for these displays of intent. It may have come as a surprise to many, then, to the see the Labour party recently doing the opposite by announcing that it would be drastically scaling back its proposed funding for infrastructure projects that would reduce carbon emissions and bolster the UK’s energy security.

Regardless of who resides at “Number 10” (the home of Britain’s Prime Minister) next year, the press reporting that greeted the announcement is perhaps indicative of wider concerns over whether the UK will be able to achieve energy security, let alone be a global clean energy powerhouse. These concerns are justified, as for either of these visions to be realised, the party in power will need to first understand that infrastructure projects can only be delayed so long, and we are at the point where positive action is desperately needed.

Of the renewable energy sources available, nuclear is arguably our best bet, as it is not hamstrung by a reliance on weather conditions in the way that wind or solar energy are. Nuclear generates power whether or not the wind blows or the sun shines; and, by the same token, it also not reliant on long-term energy storage, which won’t be advanced enough to provide stability in energy supply for some time, if ever.

It’s therefore been encouraging to see both the current government and the opposition include nuclear energy firmly at the centre of their net zero strategies. The government last year created a dedicated sector body in the shape of Great British Nuclear, which in Labour’s plans would be absorbed into a new publicly-owned company, Great British Energy, to ensure that nuclear energy continued to receive sufficient backing.

More recently, the government launched its Civil Nuclear Roadmap, which includes consideration for a new full-scale power station, continued support to develop small modular reactors (SMRs), and £300 million in funding to produce HALEU – the fuel that modern reactors use, which is currently not produced at scale in the West. This last point is a key piece of the nuclear energy puzzle that could really elevate the potential of the UK’s nuclear sector and see it become a leading producer and potentially even an exporter of carbon-free energy, if the government has the fortitude to stay the course.

Overall, the roadmap has promised to increase installed nuclear capacity to 24 GW by 2050, and given the higher capacity factor, this is about equal to roughly 200 GW of solar or 75 GW of wind power. The ambition is certainly there, the question that remains is whether the money is too.

These commitments were mirrored in the early drafts of Labour’s plan, which promised to back and build both the Sizewell C and Hinkley Point C nuclear power plants, extend the lifetimes of existing nuclear plants, and support the development of a fleet of SMRs. Whilst Labour has yet to confirm exact figures on how funding for carbon-free energy would be allocated, it had seemed that nuclear was firmly front of mind. Where Labour now stands on funding new nuclear is unclear.

Labour’s most recent funding announcement has given cause to take stock of where we are on the road the to net zero and energy security. Unfortunately, the problem of energy security is more immediate than many realise, with the national grid often hanging by a thread during the UK’s cold, dark winters. National Grid has been forced to develop programmes and emergency procedures that are implemented when demand for electricity is expected to exceed available supply. The bad news is things are only going to get worse as aging power plants are retired.  There is a good chance that an exceptionally cold UK winter would result in rolling blackouts.

With regards to nuclear, it appears to be a case of one step forward, two steps backwards. Despite the power source seemingly being a priority for both political parties moving ahead, Advanced Gas Cooled Reactors (AGR) nuclear plants across the country are being decommissioned over the next several years. Between 2022 and 2023, three plants were taken offline, and by 2030, a further four will be wound down.  Meanwhile, new plants including Sizewell C and Hinkley Point C are expected to be operational by 2030 at the earliest.

The result is that despite these two major projects, expected to produce a combined output of 6.4 GW in the short term, we can expect to see the share of nuclear in the UK’s energy mix drop significantly this decade. Research from Statista has forecast that nuclear capacity will drop from the current 5.8 GW to 3.6 GW in 2024 and will only recover to 4.4 GW by 2030. So, even if the current plans are fully funded, it is becoming obvious that it is already too late to avoid the upcoming energy shortage. We should have been preparing for this situation decades ago, but successive governments kicked the can down the road. The can has now reached the end of that road.

If we are ever going to change this dismal reality, we simply cannot afford to be cutting funding for nuclear infrastructure. Whether the Conservatives will stick to the funding it has pledged for nuclear energy long-term, or Labour has ringfenced comparable financial support despite its scaling down, remains to be seen. The salient point, however, is that the UK is running out of time to solve its energy problem and urgent action is needed right now.