This debut post is a submission to the TxP Progress Prize (https://txp.fyi/progress-prize) aiming to get Britain out of its malaise and moving again. There are many other wonderful proposals so please follow TxP on Twitter/X (@txp_io) to see additional suggestions, as well as the winners when they are announced.
Introduction
Energy is foundational to prosperity and security, with Governments having to contend with the Energy Trilemma (1). A correlation can be drawn between the UK as a net energy exporter and sustained compounding economic growth in the 80’s, 90’s and early 00’s, vs being an energy importer with weaker growth in the 70’s and the period since (2, 3). Neglecting energy security has left the UK exposed to volatile global energy markets, which further impacts energy affordability. Nuclear power is a solution to increase energy security, sustainability and affordability if approached correctly, with cascading positive effects across society.
Proposal
Nuclear power could provide reliable energy generation in the UK but has encountered multiple headwinds (cost, safety & security concerns, and NIMBYISM) reducing its advancement. Each will be addressed in this paper, but first, how much nuclear would the UK have to build?
The UK currently consumes 326TWh of energy for electricity production (Table 1) which would require 27 1340MWe APR-1400 reactors, such as the Shin Hanul 1 in South Korea (4), to produce a fully nuclear grid. Daniel Yergin would not approve of throwing all your energy eggs in one basket (5), therefore, maintaining an energy source mix and decarbonising UK electricity production would require 22 APR-1400 reactors (Table 1).
Next up is deciding where to place these reactors. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) is the second largest landowner in the UK (7), holding 232,300 hectares (Figure 1). It would require just under 30 square miles to build these reactors (8), only 3.3% of total MOD land. Without knowing the use case of each landholding it’s above this analysis to decide on exact placement, but proximity to population will be a key criterion to reduce transmission energy losses, as well as having a 2km buffer from the plant to the edge of the landholding for safety reasons.
(Figure 1: 9)
Costs
Anyone familiar with UK nuclear power construction would have already thought about the Hinkley Point C (HPC) elephant in the room. The latest projections place total costs at £33bn for a 3260MWe plant (10). HPC falls foul of almost every problem with major construction (11), most of all using brand-new, bespoke technology (12). In contrast, Shin Hanul 1 cost $6bn (~£4.72bn) (13), offering equivalent energy output for 35% of the cost. South Korea has three operating APR-1400 reactors with three more under construction, the UAE has three operational with one under construction (14) and further exports of the reactor are expected in the US, Poland and Egypt (15). This is a proven technology with an accurate price attached already approved by several regulators the UK should trust.
To build 22 APR-1400 reactors at a unit price of $6bn would cost $132bn (~£103bn), which is a lot of money. However, given the scale, one would hope the Government could negotiate a discount, which KEPCO E&C should be able to fund due to economies of scale in materials purchasing and production, as well as reduced labour costs from learning curves during concurrent but staggered construction of the plants (11).
Financing such a project would have been preferable back when interest rates were effectively 0% (16) but are still worth undertaking. The design lifetime of the APR-1400 is 60 years, but being conservative to keep the math simple, building this fleet would have a monthly household cost of less than £21 (Table 2). However, nuclear plants are robust with over 30% of the current global fleet operating passed their initial lifespan, with some running 20+ years after (17, 18). It’s not inconceivable to see these reactors powering UK homes well into the next century.
(Table 2: 19)
Safety & Security
Despite common perception, nuclear power is incredibly safe (Figure 2). That said, it is not risk-free as some like to claim (20) and the probability of a sizable release of radioactive material in the future is 1. Jack Devanney estimates based on past performance that such a release will happen once every 4,000 reactor-years (20). This is conservative as design and safety have improved, but regardless, if our fleet was retired at 60 years, it would have accumulated 1,320 reactor-years. At 80 years the accumulation would be 1,760 years. It’s probable across the entire life of this fleet that no detectable release of radioactive material will occur, but it’s possible.
(Figure 2: 21)
If a release occurs, then dose rate is the determinant of harm (22, 23). Having a 2km buffer (24) between the plant and the edge of the MOD land, conceivably the closest point to any residential property, should mitigate most physiological damage from a release if we adopt a Sigmoid No Threshold model of radiation harm (23, 24). This might not be enough to placate some people and a compensation scheme should be employed in case a release occurs causing detectable harm. A condition of operating the plant should be to take out compensation insurance for that scenario (25).
From a security point of view, MOD land is some of the most secure within the UK, making it ideal to host nuclear power plants, including waste storage facilities. Whilst designed for the long term, these facilities need to store waste for only 600 years rather than the often-claimed thousands (26).
NIMBYISM
Despite best-laid plans, the ability of local minorities to thwart proposals that would benefit the whole country often prevents or slows construction in the UK. A solution would be for the Government to pass specific legislation to bypass The Town and Country Planning Act (TCPA), allowing the construction of nuclear power plants on MOD land.
This could be emergency legislation for national security reasons, both energy and climate related. The Shin Hanul 1 reactor took 10 years to build, so even with concurrent but staggered construction, the first plants won’t be operational until 2034 at the earliest. It would be lucky if they were all online by 2040. If the Government is serious about its Net Zero targets, there is no way to achieve this without a vast and fast build-out of nuclear.
Even if still constrained by the TCPA, the 2km buffer reduces the number of residents who will be directly affected, whilst incentives such as reduced energy bills for those living within a set radius can help bring people on side.
Conclusion
Whilst decarbonising the electricity grid is worthwhile, helping expand the security, sustainability and affordability dimensions of the Trilemma, electricity production is only 16% of the UK’s energy consumption (6), which won’t completely insulate the UK from volatile energy markets. Transport is the biggest component of energy consumption in the UK, almost exclusively using hydrocarbons (27), so more work is needed to holistically overhaul the UK energy market away from fossil fuels. Nuclear provides part of this solution, enabling the Government to accelerate towards the UK’s 2050 Net Zero target, whilst developing a domestic high-tech sector producing tens if not hundreds of thousands of new high-paying jobs.
Energy is fundamental to prosperity. Providing safe, affordable and reliable power is the best way for the UK to exit its malaise. This will give confidence to citizens to consume and businesses to invest, allowing all members of the country to flourish.
Sources and Footnotes
2) https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn04046/
3) https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2
4) The Shin Hanul 1 plant has a design net capacity of 1340MWe and since opening has had a capacity factor of 100%, which is unrealistic in the long run. In the US total nuclear generation has a capacity factor of 92.7%, so this calculation uses 90% to be slightly conservative.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/reactor/default.aspx/SHIN-HANUL-1
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity
5) The quote is “But that's not enough: To maintain energy security, one needs a supply system that provides a buffer against shocks. It needs large, flexible markets. And it's important to acknowledge the fact that the entire energy supply chain needs to be protected.”
6) https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/united-kingdom
8) An average 1000MWe reactor requires 1 square mile to build. Given the APR-1400 has a net capacity design of 1340MWe the land required to build 22 of them is (1340*22)/1000=29.48. If anything this is probably conservative given power output scales quicker than land use for Nuclear plants.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2019/01/f58/Ultimate%20Fast%20Facts%20Guide-PRINT.pdf
9) https://whoownsengland.org/2016/08/14/mod-land/
10) https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/civils/hinkley-costs-set-to-hit-33bn-20-02-2023/
11) More information can be found in Bent Flyvbjerg and Dan Gardner’s excellent book
Flyvbjerg B. and Gardner, D. (2023) “How Big Things Get Done”. London: MacMillan
12) https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuclear-new-build-projects/hinkley-point-c/reactor
13) https://www.power-technology.com/projects/ulchin-nuclear-power-plant/?cf-view
14) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APR-1400
15) https://www.kepco-enc.com/eng/contents.do?key=1533
16)
20)
21) https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
22)
23)
24)
25) https://gordianknotbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/essays_compensation_v6.pdf
26)