The question mark hanging over Britain’s nuclear future
In these energy crisis days, EDF is ready to make a crucial decision on whether Heysham 1 station’s life will be extended, writes Matt Oliver
‘You are standing on one of the most powerful sources of electricity in the country,” says my tour guide. Inside a huge, cathedral-like space at the Heysham 1 power station in Lancashire, there are not just one but two vast nuclear reactors beneath our feet. Together they can generate
2.3 gigawatts of electricity – enough to power 4m homes for a year.
From where Ian Pilton, the station’s plant manager, is speaking, 324 fuel channels reach down into the reactor core. It is cooled using carbon dioxide, which leaves at a temperature of 650C (1,200F) and is sent to boilers that turn water into steam. That steam then drives a turbine to generate electricity.
It is a scientific marvel that has provided a reliable flow of carbon-free power to Britain’s grid this winter, just as the rest of the energy industry fretted over gas supplies and whether the wind would blow.
But Heysham 1 is getting old and will not be around much longer. Like its sister station, Hartlepool, it is scheduled to close in March next year after more than 40 years of operation – far more than its British designers dared to hope for when it was first proposed. EDF, the French state energy giant, has owned both facilities since 2008 when it purchased all seven of the country’s advanced gas-cooled reactor (AGR) power stations, plus the pressurised water reactor (PWR) station Sizewell B, in a £12.5bn deal.
Today, only four of the original seven AGRS remain in service. Bosses at EDF are to decide within weeks whether they will seek to extend the lifespans of Heysham 1 and Hartlepool, depending on regulatory approval.
The looming deadline leaves a question mark hanging over Britain’s nuclear future and in turn the country’s energy supply.
Rachael Glaving, EDF UK’S commercial director of generation, says: “You can see that for March 2024, we are getting quite close and there’s a lot that needs to be organised if you are going to extend. We will review the technical aspects but we also need a business case and we will have to work out what the right balance is between those two things.”
One factor weighing on the business case will be Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s new tax on electricity generators, which came into force this month and sees a 45pc levy put on “exceptional” profits made by generators as a result of high market prices.
Even if EDF presses ahead, the maximum extension possible is only two years. Under any scenario, Britain will only have three nuclear power stations left going into winter 2026 and two of those – Heysham 2 and Torness – are to close in 2028.
Under-construction Hinkley Point C in Somerset is scheduled to come online in 2027, limiting the loss of supply, but it means Britain will be left with just two power stations overall, the other being Sizewell B in Suffolk.
“We’ve really left ourselves out on a limb,” warns Malcolm Grimston, a nuclear engineering expert and senior fellow at Imperial College London.
The looming shutdowns have focused minds in government after decades of feet-dragging, with ministers now positioning nuclear power for a major role in the future electricity grid.
Under a strategy published last year, nuclear plants are to supply as much as a quarter of the country’s power by 2050 – up from the 14pc supplied on Friday – and at least one large power station is to be given final approval within the current Parliament. But given the decade-long lead times involved that will require decisions to happen soon.
Since 2011, eight sites have been earmarked for new nuclear power stations: Bradwell (Essex), Hartlepool, Heysham, Hinkley Point, Oldbury (Gloucestershire), Sellafield (Cumbria), Sizewell and Wylfa on Anglesey.
Alongside its work on Hinkley Point C, the Government is progressing EDF’S plans for a large plant at Sizewell, while a consortium led by US nuclear company Westinghouse is pressing for another at Wylfa.
These larger plants could eventually be complemented by smaller siblings, known as small modular reactors (SMRS), which Rolls-royce and a host of rivals are racing to bring to market. Based on mini-reactors long used to power submarines, they would be far less expensive and easier to build and could revolutionise the industry.
Beyond that, futuristic, hightemperature “advanced modular reactors” may also one day be developed for industrial uses, such as the production of green hydrogen and synthetic fuels. Imperial’s Grimston says building a fleet of identical SMRS would have huge advantages, not only providing greater flexibility in output but also giving the nuclear industry better economies of scale.
“The nature of SMRS is that you would aim to have several on the same site, so you still get the advantage of having the wires coming into the same point but they are also considerably more flexible.”
Specifically, they are better suited to “load following” – where a power plant frequently turns its output up or down depending on demand – because they will require less fuel and fewer staff.
Boris Johnson’s administration gave its full backing to SMRS and other new plants and pledged to set up a new body, Great British Nuclear (GBN), to prepare and bring forward development sites.
Simon Bowen, a nuclear engineer tasked with setting up the agency, submitted his recommendations in September. However, progress has slowed under Rishi Sunak amid reported wrangling inside Whitehall over GBN’S remit and budget. Adding to a sense that momentum has stalled
‘We are getting quite close to March 2024 and there’s a lot to be organised if you are going to extend’
‘The only certainty we need is that Heysham will be a future site for a nuclear power station’
is reported resistance from the Treasury, which was said to have been queasy about the generous public subsidies required for new plants.
Yet most experts argue Britain’s plan for a “net-zero” power grid, post-coal and gas, is simply not achievable without new nuclear plants. That is principally because, for now at least, we cannot store electricity generated by wind and solar in large enough quantities – meaning that on calm or cloudy days, the grid will still need reliable and readily dispatchable power from other sources.
This point was echoed in a government review by Chris Skidmore, former energy minister, published on Friday, which argues that nuclear power is a “no-regrets option, despite high upfront costs and long construction times. The main barrier for new nuclear projects is the need for stable, long-term policy and funding commitments, given the long timeframes involved.”
It urges ministers to commit to capacity targets for 2035, not just 2050, and to speed up the approval process to prevent delays.
“The net-zero review underlines what every reputable and credible analysis has shown – nuclear is an integral part of a future secure, clean power mix,” said Tom Greatrex, chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, following the report’s publication. “Rather than further procrastination, the Government should respond with urgency.”
Martin Cheetham, Heysham 1’s station manager, wants certainty for his staff as soon as possible.
“We’re proud to have played a role keeping the lights on for this long,” he says, “and some of our people have worked here for 40 years.” He hopes SMRS and other burgeoning nuclear technologies in the UK will provide a future for his team.
At the moment, however, he fears there will be a gap between when the AGRS come offline and when new power stations are expected to replace them, posing questions both for electricity supply and his employees.
“It’s vital that we maintain the skills through that period,” he says, “and we are looking for direction that we hope [the Government] will give. The only certainty we need is that Heysham will be a future site for a nuclear power station.”