Nuclear Power Everywhere All at Once

A sensible energy policy for 2050 must include vast amounts of nuclear power

Introduction

Over the past months we have looked at the ruinous costs of renewables as well as their damaging economic and environmental impact. We have also reflected on the range of rational energy policies set out by David MacKay and the nonsense that passes for energy policy at the National Grid and DESNZ.

The time has finally arrived where I must stick my neck out and articulate my own views about what a sensible energy policy should look like. In short, the answer is Nuclear Power Everywhere All at Once. This article will set out my motivations for a new energy policy, my estimate of future UK demand, a short evaluation of the potential generation technologies, proposals for a nuclear-heavy generation mix to meet the demand profile and finally an action plan.

Motivations for a Sensible Energy Policy

Whether we like it or not, the world is changing. We are probably reaching the point of peak, cheap energy from fossil fuels. Global investment in new sources of supply has dwindled over the past decade or so. Moreover, the limited big new oil and gas discoveries are offshore in deep water making them more expensive to extract. In addition, many of the world’s oil and gas resources are controlled by countries that are not particularly friendly towards the West.

The global geo-political tectonic plates are shifting. Many countries such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Nigeria, Iran, Argentina and Indonesia are applying to join the BRICS grouping of countries. If these applications are successful, these countries would control around 60% of global natural gas reserves. Many of the BRICS countries and applicants are seeking to reduce their dependence upon the US dollar and are moving to conduct their trade in Chinese yuan instead. There is also a growing Sino-Russian axis where China has the manufacturing facilities and Russia has the commodities to feed them.

My own view is that the geological reality and changing geopolitical situation are far more significant than the risks posed by a slowly warming planet. Against this backdrop, it makes sense for the UK and the West as a whole to diversify away from fossil fuels and seek alternative sources of energy. However, there does not need to be a panicky rush to meet artificial deadlines. As is becoming clear, if our economies are to grow, we need cheap, abundant and reliable energy. It is likely that we will need to re-shore some energy intensive industries to maintain economic and food security, as Macron is already suggesting for France. Intermittent renewables do not and never will achieve that goal.

I also believe we should make the change while seeking to minimise our overall environmental footprint. Again, renewables consume vast amounts of critical minerals and take up vast amounts of space so do not fit the bill. Nuclear fission is a proven, safe technology and the only way we know of to deliver reliable energy with a small environmental footprint.

Future Energy Demand Profile

In the past two articles we covered how UK total energy consumption has changed since 2008 and the current plans for the future. Broadly speaking, we consumed 2,725TWh in 2008 and 1,978TWh in 2020. The Government and National Grid ESO expect our electricity consumption to be in the range of 600-800TWh by 2050 and since they imagine almost everything to be electrified by then, that’s a good proxy for overall primary energy consumption. David MacKay’s work implied 1,873TWh of total primary energy use by 2050. It is clear that already, the Government is planning for energy scarcity. Shipping and aviation were excluded from those estimates.

I have attempted to come up with my own estimate of future energy consumption by looking at what we consume today and making some broad-brush assumptions about the efficiency improvements that might come from electrifying domestic heating with heat pumps and EVs for transportation.

My methodology is as follows:

1. Start with 2020 monthly electricity consumption as a baseline, taken from Energy Trends Table 5.5

2. Gas was a bit trickier because the Energy Trends and the DUKES total consumption data for the year do not match. So, to profile gas consumption, I used the monthly Energy Trends Table 4.2 profile together with the larger DUKES Table 4.1.1 consumption data.  I subtracted gas used in generating electricity and profiled domestic and commercial gas use as per the monthly variation in Energy Trends and assumed industrial gas use was flat during the year as it is largely used in industrial processes that run pretty much 24x7.

3. I then assumed that the total petrol and diesel use from DUKES Table 3.2 in 2019 (avoiding Covid distortions) was flat throughout the year. Adding all this up gets to within 10% the DUKES overall primary energy consumption for 2020, excluding aviation.

4. For 2050, I took the core current electricity from 2020, then added the electricity required to power industry, heat domestic and commercial property and move us around. For the electricity needed for Domestic and Commercial Gas heating and to replace petrol and diesel for transport, I scaled these figures down by a factor of 2 to recognise the efficiency gains of heat pumps and EVs. I then scaled these figures up by 20% to account for the missing 10% in 3) above and to allow for the expected 9% population growth from 2020 to 2050. For electricity to replace industrial heat I assumed a 1:1 replacement of gas because it is unlikely heat pumps will be used in such applications and scaled up by 33%, because I think we will need to re-shore some of our industrial base due to the geo-political shifts outlined above.

This gives an expected annual electricity demand of 1,081TWh with a profile shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 - Estimated UK 2050 Electricity Demand Profile

Of course, many might quibble with the assumptions I have made. Go ahead, make your own estimates and revise the plan. If we find that in practice, the factors are too high or too low, the generating capacity plans can be scaled up or down accordingly. Everyone agrees we will need much more electricity in the future, so these relatively minor disagreements should be no obstacle to getting started.

Personally, I am sceptical about heat pumps as a solution for much of our aging housing stock. However, hybrid heat pumps that can boost output by direct electric heating of water may overcome these problems together with more cheap insulation solutions such as double glazing and loft insultation. I am not convinced that it will be economic or kind to the environment to change the very fabric of the outer walls of these types of buildings. I also remain to be convinced that EVs can ever be as flexible as combustion-engined cars. I am even more sceptical about battery powered HGVs. We might find that hydrogen is a better solution to power HGVs. If we can avoid the need to store vast amounts of hydrogen underground, then this maybe viable. But surely, the only sensible way to produce so much hydrogen will be as pink hydrogen, from electrolysis powered by reliable nuclear energy, rather than green hydrogen from intermittent wind power. The efficiency losses from making hydrogen will push up the electricity demand somewhat.

It is clear that a lot of technology needs to be invented and implemented to make heat pumps, EVs and hydrogen HGVs work in the real world as well as, or better than today. But we are an ingenious species and we can probably overcome many of the problems that we see today. This technological uncertainty means we need to build a supply-side response that can be flexible in the face of changing circumstances.

Review of Electricity Generation Technologies

There is a range of technologies we can consider to meet our electricity requirements. Let us briefly summarise them.

Biomass

I view biomass, particularly in the guise of burning trees at Drax to be an environmental and thermodynamic disaster. It requires lots of land for the forests and has a low overall EROEI. It only qualifies for “green” subsidies because we choose to ignore the CO₂ emissions, comforting ourselves that the trees might grow back in the next half-century. The particulate emissions, emphasised as a problem for coal, are quietly ignored for biomass. However, we are currently short of generating capacity that can deliver reliable power, so we must keep Drax going until it can be replaced or perhaps even converted back to coal.

Bio-energy with Carbon Capture (BECCS) is even worse, with the Royal Society of Chemistry estimating that overall, this technology has an EROEI less than one making it a net energy sink. Any further applications made to subsidise BECCS should be greeted by laughter and a polite single word answer of “No.”

Wind Power

As discussed in previous articles, this is an expensive solution that has a large environmental footprint, has a relatively low EROEI and in the end only produces intermittent energy that requires an unfeasibly large amount of storage or back up from reliable sources. If wind needs reliable back up, I cannot understand why we do not just invest in the back up and leave out the wind altogether. In addition, wind requires cobalt, most of which is mined in Congo often with child labour and rare earth metals that are largely controlled by China. By all means, continue generating from the current installed capacity, but do not provide any new subsidies to this technology. All of the current installed capacity will likely have been decommissioned by 2050. I see no reason to replace it.

Solar PV

At UK latitudes, solar PV is another low EROEI, mineral intensive solution that on a grid scale requires vast amounts of land that would be better utilised producing food. The basic physics do not work because solar PV produces most on summer days when demand is low and nothing at all on winter evenings when demand is highest, so again requires back up.

Most of the solar panels in use today are made in China, often using slave labour and energy from coal-fired power stations. I see no place for grid-scale solar in the generation mix in 2050. Again, most current installed capacity will have worn out by 2050. If individuals want to install solar panels on their homes or offices, then by all means go ahead, but without subsidy. The amount of energy produced will be trivial in comparison to the >1,000TWh we need.

Solar PV is more viable at tropical latitudes, but I do not think we can ever guarantee energy security from panels located in North African deserts, so I discount it from our future energy mix.

Wave Power

This is a technology that has held much promise for several decades but never delivered anything of significance. By significant, I mean a working project delivering gigawatt-scale power. At best it will deliver only a small proportion of our energy needs so for the purposes of this article, I am going to ignore it.

Tidal Power

Again, this technology has been held out as a solution to our needs for decades, but no significant project has ever been commissioned. Moreover, the environmental damage of, for instance, a barrage across the River Severn will be enormous. Even though such a development could deliver a theoretical 8GW, there is no guarantee that it will be able to deliver power at times of peak demand. So, for those reasons, I discount tidal power as a significant player in our future generation mix.

Hydro Power

We already have about 4.7GW of hydropower installed, including 2.8GW of pumped storage. Hydro can deliver reliable power with high EROEI, does not use much land or critical minerals. However, it does use a lot of bulk materials (concrete) for the dams. Of course, any energy delivered is very secure because all it relies upon is rainfall on UK territory. Pumped storage is especially useful to balance the grid at times of big changes in demand and should be retained. There are six projects underway to increase pumped storage capacity to 7.7GW. As the total power delivered increases, this extra capacity will be needed to balance the grid. There might be potential for more hydropower to be installed, but it will only ever be a small part of the overall energy mix.

Coal

Coal has been the mainstay of baseload generation for decades in many countries. EROEI is high and utilisation of critical and bulk materials is low. Coal has been demonised in the West, but nevertheless China started construction of 50GW of coal power in 2022 and 106GW of new coal capacity was permitted. Coal is frowned upon because of its emissions of CO₂ as well as noxious particulates, SOx and NOx. However, we do have 77m tonnes of coal reserves. I am not a huge fan of coal, but if energy security is paramount, then provided we can scrub the particulates, SOx and NOx from the emissions, it should not be ruled out as a source of dispatchable power to balance the grid at times of high demand.  

Natural Gas

In the UK, natural gas makes up a large share of electricity production today. In particular, gas comes to the rescue when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. Gas has a high EROEI, low land use and requires little in the way of critical or bulk materials. CO₂ emissions are about half those of coal per TWh generated. We are blessed with significant offshore gas reserves and as yet untapped onshore resources in shale rocks, mainly in the North of England. Gas is also used to produce fertiliser, chemicals and plastics. There is no pressing need to stop using gas as a fuel for electricity, but if we do believe in the peak cheap energy thesis, it might make sense to use it more wisely for its other purposes.

Waste Incineration

We already generate power from waste incineration. Power exported from these plants was 8.6TWh in 2021. There might be scope to increase this further, but it is unlikely to deliver much more than 1% of our electricity needs in 2050.

Nuclear Power

That leaves nuclear power. Zero-emissions, extremely high EROEI, low mineral use and extremely low deaths per TWh generated. Nuclear power plants deliver reliable power for many decades. Moreover, five-eyes allies Australia and Canada have large Uranium resources, so access to fuel should be assured, enhancing energy security. Nuclear power should be the backbone of our electricity generation capacity in 2050. In other words, nuclear power everywhere all at once.

2050 Generation Mix – Nuclear Power Everywhere All at Once

Bearing all that in mind, what should our generation mix look like in 2050? One problem with nuclear plants is that currently they are not particularly good at load following. That is to say, generally speaking, they are either on or off, with only limited ability to vary output or “load-follow.” This presents some difficulty in meeting intraday fluctuations, so some dispatchable power sources will be needed to balance the grid. In addition, interconnectors to other countries as well as smart charging and Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) technology can help manage day to day demand fluctuations.

Nuclear power plants also need maintenance and refuelling every couple of years. If we organise the maintenance and refuelling to happen over the summer months, with a quarter of the plants offline for 2.5 months from early-May to mid-July and another quarter from mid-July to end September, then the gross output can follow the seasonal profile of demand quite well.

Therefore, I have produced a generation mix of 120GW of nuclear capacity, complemented by 32GW of other dispatchable capacity from hydro, waste, natural gas and possibly coal (with particulates, SOx and NOx scrubbed). This means about 79% of generating capacity is nuclear, but it delivers 92% of our electricity. This gives a generation profile that is able to meet the demand profile as per Figure 2.

Figure 2 - Estimated UK 2050 Electricity Supply Profile

The additional 32GW of capacity is chosen so that it is never more than 80% loaded on average in a given month, so there is scope to flex up at times of peak demand or possibly send power to the Continent when there is a wind lull.

In time, new designs of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) such as TerraPower’s Natrium SMR and the MoltexFlex reactor that utilise a reservoir of molten salt to flex output up and down may be able to take over from the proposed flexible generation. It will also be important to ensure that the conventional PWR reactors are capable of running with MOX fuel, to help close the nuclear fuel cycle. In addition, we should invest in the development of advanced fast-reactors that can use re-processed spent nuclear fuel to further close the fuel cycle and reduce the nuclear waste problem.

Benefits of Nuclear Power Everywhere All at Once

Primarily, this plan is a plan for energy abundance not scarcity. There’s no need for the draconian behaviour change mind games being planned to get us to accept the Net Zero dystopia. Nuclear power has an extremely high EROEI and does not require much in the way of critical minerals. It is very efficient, especially when compared to the inefficient manufacture and burning of hydrogen required to make the wind-heavy plans work. It also does not rely on unproven high-pressure hydrogen storage and retrieval from vast underground salt caverns. This plan would also mean we can ditch the idea of spending £20bn on unproven, expensive carbon capture and storage. Norway has recently halted its flag ship CCS plant because of high costs. Nuclear also takes up much less space than renewables. Nuclear power does not require vast amounts of battery storage either. The fuel for nuclear power can come from countries that have been allies for centuries and is not reliant on expertise or minerals from unfriendly countries.

A largely nuclear-powered grid will mean we can avoid the £54bn bill to transport power from remote offshore wind farms to the grid. New nuclear plants can be built on existing, connected nuclear sites and SMRs on disused coal sites or existing industrial sites.

In the domestic arena, planning for abundant, reliable energy does not require water tanks to act as thermal storage or batteries to be installed in our homes. We can also avoid spending £90K per house to bring them in line with Net Zero insulation requirements. All of this plan can be delivered with technology that is available today and upgraded with load-following nuclear technology if and when it comes on stream.

Industry will not have to plan their production around the weather. Indeed energy for industrial processes could be could be supplied from SMRs as Ineos are considering.

Potential Drawbacks

Primarily, this is not a Net Zero plan. But what it does do is alter the energy mix from 80% fossil fuels in 2021 to well over 90% coming from zero emissions sources. That is quite a big swing, plus it eliminates the particulate emissions from biomass. The UK produces less than 1% of global GHG emissions, this plan would reduce our emissions to a rounding error.

The main criticisms laid at the door of nuclear power are cost and delivery time. I will write another article about how to bring down the costs of nuclear, but in any event, the levelised-cost of energy calculations bandied about by wind and solar advocates do not include the costs of intermittency. The actual costs of renewables are far higher than we have been led to believe. I covered the hidden costs here and the ending of the cheap offshore wind fantasy here. Delivery time for nuclear is a function of technology choice, practice and political will. France managed to go from <3GW of installed nuclear capacity in 1976 to nearly 63GW installed by 1997. China is planning to add 150 new nuclear reactors to its fleet by 2035. It is a tall order to go from the aging 6GW we have now to 120GW by 2050, but it can be done. It may take a little longer, but fundamentally the task is achievable if enough political will is put behind the project.

Action Plan

What do we need to do to enact this plan? I have some ideas:

1. Repeal Climate Change Act 2008 to remove the artificial legal framework that is driving panic measures that will fail and instead take measured, rational steps in the right direction.

2. Dismantle CCC and withdraw Government Net Zero funding from quangos, lobbyists, pressure groups and researchers like UK FIRES.

3. Replace senior echelons of DESNZ civil servants with people who understand physics, engineering, economics and maths. Reduce the overall size of DESNZ and redeploy the numerate ones on designing a nuclear focused grid that works instead of producing ever more elaborate subsidy schemes for technologies that will never work.

4. Ditch all of the subsidies planned for hydrogen generation, CCUS and all new subsidies for wind, solar and biomass.

5. End the windfall tax on North Sea producers and lift the moratorium on fracking to increase domestic energy production and security.

6. Offer re-training to civil servants, renewable energy workers, lobbyists and quangocrats currently focused on renewables. Reskilling the latter two groups to write fairy tales and fantasy fiction will not be too much of a stretch.

7. Expand Great British Nuclear to deliver this massive nuclear programme including:

   • Mix of large PWR reactors operating with MOX fuel.

   • Pursue at least two different SMR technologies including Rolls-Royce plus at least one other including an advanced fast reactor design that can follow load and use up spent fuel.

   • Build a domestic strategic stockpile of uranium in the form of U3O8.

   • Sign strategic agreements with Canada, Australia and US to secure supply of U3O8.

   • Work with allies to build UK majority-owned facilities for Uranium conversion, enrichment and fuel reprocessing.

   • Increase research and international collaboration on advanced fast-reactors, fusion and Thorium reactors.

This plan will deliver far more than intermittent renewables ever can and allow the UK economy to begin to flourish again. Energy is life, we can thrive again with clean, reliable and abundant nuclear power.

---

I will be taking a break for a few weeks now. Next article will be towards the end of June, focusing on how we can make nuclear energy cheaper. If you have enjoyed this article, then please sign up for more content like this and share it with your family, friends and colleagues.