Psychic power: The future of nuclear

If anything does go badly wrong with Britain’s plans to build £20bn worth of nuclear power stations it won’t be because of a lack of willingness: both main parties are behind them, a host of utilities have said they will invest in them and even non-governmental organisations with anti-nuclear histories say they are vital for hitting carbon targets. Smiling pro-nuclear activists predict that EDF will have a reactor running at Hinkley Point in Somerset in time to power the Christmas lights in 2017.

But making predictions is tricky, especially about the future, and many things can happen to frustrate the construction industry’s hopes of a decade of steady work.

The main problem is probably just that the stations are so damn hard to build: last week we reported that the licensing process for reactors was already in danger of falling behind. Planning and public opinion will also have to be dealt with, and nobody knows what the economy will look like in a few years’ time. Here, we resort to mystical methods and lay out the cards to assess five of the obstacles that need to be overcome if the 2017 target is to be met – and assess how much of a risk they pose to the programme.

Licensing

Why it’s a concern

Before licences for new plants can be granted, reactor designs have to be approved by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Two models are being assessed: Areva’s European pressurised reactor (EPR) and Westinghouse’s AP1000. Although the HSE says it expects the process to finish on time in June 2011, its latest progress report contained serious concerns.

Areva and Westinghouse were criticised for not putting enough resources into dealing with the safety assessment process, and the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) – the arm of the HSE managing the programme – is itself short of staff.

Issues with the designs could also waylay the schedule. Problems with Areva’s design are being worked through, while the HSE says it has not yet seen evidence that Westinghouse’s civil structure design “conforms to the standards we’d expect”.

What needs to be done?

The NII has warned Areva and Westinghouse that they must “step up their teams if a meaningful assessment is to be completed on time”. It says it has addressed its own resource issues and is increasing the pace of its work, although some in the industry question this. “Most of the delay has come from the government rather than the private sector – so there may be a bit of a blame shift going on,” says one source. A small slippage is unlikely to derail the whole programme, but lengthy delays will be painful for all concerned.

Risk factor 2/5

Planning

Why it’s a concern

Any successful bid to get nuclear online by the end of 2017 will depend on swift planning approval. However, the coming election has plunged the regime into uncertainty. The newly formed Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), which was set up to fast-track projects like nuclear power stations – may be abolished by a Conservative government. And the Tory pledge to put localism at the heart of its manifesto does not bode well for projects so effective at provoking Nimby outrage. The Liberal Democrats are against nuclear power, so a hung parliament could cause headaches.

What needs to be done?

The next stage for the government is to issue the national policy statement that sets out potential development sites, and brings the IPC into play. Although a draft version for consultation is promised next month, alongside statements for other energy sources, there have been rumours of delays. They would not be the first: statements on renewable energy, electricity networks and fossil fuel generation have already been held up. “If these aren’t released until the new year, they may run up against the election and we will end up having a delay of a year,” says Alistair Smith, nuclear services director at Parsons Brinckerhoff.

The Tories have said they will keep the statements, but have yet to clarify how they will tackle hold-ups in the planning system.

Risk factor 3/5

Investment

Why it’s a concern

Under current plans, the UK nuclear programme is to be financed entirely by the private sector. EDF, a joint venture between German utilities RWE and E.ON and a consortium comprising Scottish and Southern, Iberdrola and GDF Suez have all said they will invest. But these days, nothing involving bank finance and commodity prices is certain. E.ON has already shelved one project in Britain, blaming the poor return on electricity provision. And in July, Vincent de Rivaz, the chief executive of EDF’s UK arm, said the firm would not “press ahead regardless” with nuclear.

Concerns were further heightened at last month’s Tory conference when shadow energy minister Charles Hendry warned that German utilities may decide to invest in their domestic market after the election of nuclear enthusiast Angela Merkel. Then there was the report from the CBI that warned that current energy policy – which heavily subsidises renewables but not nuclear – could drive investors away.

What needs to be done?

The CBI argues that a radical overhaul in policy is needed and has called for a joint government–industry taskforce to look at additional market mechanisms to encourage nuclear. The security of investment is also intimately connected with planning and licensing concerns – if the conditions aren’t right, the utilities won’t invest.

Risk factor 2/5

Protesters

Why it’s a concern

Although some leading environmentalists, such as Green party activist Chris Goodall, have performed a volte-face and are backing nuclear, others remain firmly against it – and are not short of grit and tenacity. Greenpeace has already threatened legal action over E.ON’s Oldbury site in Gloucestershire, arguing that preparatory work there would prejudice the planning process. The organisation has launched challenges before: in 2007 it successfully contested the government’s energy consultation process, thereby sending it back to the drawing board. More challenges are expected, particularly around waste storage policies and planning consents. Legal experts have also suggested that anti-nuclear groups could latch on to concerns raised by the HSE during its safety assessment.

What needs to be done?

Early engagement with communities will be key to keeping a lid on local opposition. Any legal challenges will have to be dealt with as swiftly as possible to make sure they do not hold up the whole programme. The government must also move quickly to formulate a coherent waste storage policy and prove that it is making progress with decommissioning old plants. These are requirements set out in the 2007 energy act, and make this a vulnerable area to challenges.

Risk factor 3/5

Construction

Why it’s a concern

You only have to consider Finland to see how difficult nuclear construction can be. Efforts to build an EPR plant at Olkiluoto are running three-and-a-half years behind schedule and something like £1.5bn over budget. Problems have ranged from using the wrong type of concrete to worries about the design, and the scheme is festooned with red tape and writs. It is the same design that is to be used by EDF at Hinckley Point. What’s more, Britain’s civil engineers have not built a nuclear plant since Sizewell B in the early nineties, so there is lots of scope for beginners’ mistakes. So, all in all, we will be lucky to build the station without running into one or two grievous difficulties.

What needs to be done?

Areva and Westinghouse need to hammer out design issues to the satisfaction of the regulator before building begins. And the construction industry itself needs to beef up its skills base. Firms such as Atkins are running nuclear training programmes, but the National Skills Academy for Nuclear estimates that 1,500 skilled people will be needed each year to keep the programme properly staffed. Many firms are forming cross-Channel consortiums, such as Carillion and Eiffage, to benefit from French engineers’ formidable experience and expertise – and we can certainly expect to see more of that in the future.

Risk factor 4/5