Nuclear decades
Extraordinary decisions governments sometimes have to make! Do you build a new nuclear power station that could cost up to £40bn or a 4,000km power interconnector? Well, the eventual choice between the two was not binary and there were plenty of other factors within the UK energy mix. It is safe to say the chosen nuclear bet is a very long-term option.
Since when did construction get so expensive? The last nuclear power project in the UK was the 1.2GW Sizewell B scheme built in the early 1990s. There was plenty of gnashing of teeth when the £2bn scheme came in £200m over the budget via John Laing and GEC-Alsthom. Happy days!
Step forward a few decades and we now have the UK HS2 rail infrastructure project that is chewing up ludicrous sums of money, £100bn?, with no end in sight. As pertinently for UK plc, costs are ballooning at the 3.2GW Hinkley Point C nuclear power station project. UK plc is not on the hook for the extra costs – although its French neighbours are hoping for some relief – but UK plc is waiting and waiting for the promised power.
From £2bn for 1.2GW we have gone to £40bn and counting for 3.2GW. Not that the 3.6GW interconnector option Xlinks was cheap, £25bn plus.
Sizewell B is due offline in 2035. Various other operating UK nuclear power plants have even shorter projected lives. What is to replace them is a hot topic although the sense of urgency is more akin to the Zhou Enlai quote about the impact of the 1790s French revolution in the early 1970s to Kissinger . . . it's too soon to say."
Apparently, Zhou could actually have been talking about the Paris riots from 1968. Either way EDF will be hoping its impact on new nuclear UK power will be measured in decades not centuries.
Nuclear power is coming back into fashion across the globe, as the article from King & Spalding published in today's PFI showcases. The 5.6GW Barakah scheme in Abu Dhabi was fully brought online by the end of last year by Kepco and Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power – although at a yet to be disclosed final cost. That said the two are in dispute with each other over a mere US$1bn in cost overruns. The scheme was originally slated to cost US$20bn.
Plenty of other nuclear schemes around the globe are in the works. Two plants using the EPR technology developed by EDF have come online in China, although the Olkiuoto and Flamanville schemes in Finland and France respectively have had decade-long delays.
The non-binary choice between Sizewell C and Xlinks reveals the strengths and weaknesses of various long-term power options. Nuclear power provides very reliable baseload power. And as the extensions of existing nuclear plants in the UK shows, once up and running, the plants can run and run.
Power is generated domestically with no need to utilise foreign sources. That said as one Xlinks non-exec said: "perhaps someone could show me where the uranium mines are in the UK".
Bottom line – the timelines for nuclear are challenging. They need to be shortened, extra costs notwithstanding.
Interconnectors are coming into their own. The UK already has several with power coming from Ireland, Germany and Norway.
Across Europe schemes are shaping up. It is a quick hop across the Med from North Africa to southern Europe. The schemes can be put in place relatively quickly.
Xlinks was made a project of national significance by the previous government but perhaps at 4,000km it was simply too long.
The other fear about the scheme is enemy action on the cables.
In addition, it relied on building a lot of new power generation in the host country, Morocco, in order to be able to generate baseload power.
Xlinks attracted a good deal of financial support so it will be interesting to see where it goes next. Germany is one option. Iberia might be a better bet, particularly since April 28.
The interesting thing about Sizewell C and Xlinks is they both promise baseload power.
Interconnectors are usually two-way bets with power flowing both ways. So there is a straight comparison to be made between the two, even though the UK government's decision was not that binary.
Xlinks introduced the concept of directly supplying power from its own generation sources rather than acting as a link between two countries. That idea clearly has traction around the world.
Take a look at the proposed links into Singapore for instance. Simply building interconnectors and hoping power will flow where it is needed is not enough. What happens when both participants are short? The Spanish blackout was not stopped by the French interconnector.
You could build a nuclear power plant at the end of an interconnector, if you could wait. New generation is the key. Interconnectors can supply it.
