Follow this blog:
RSS

Britain’s nuclear powered trains

By | January 16, 2013, 4:55 AM PST

The nuclear express. Railways are the U.K.'s single largest electricity consumer. Trains in the country's expanding electrification scheme, like this Virgin Pendolino, will run on nuclear power.

The company that runs the railway infrastructure across most of the U.K. will rely on nuclear power to keep the trains running on time and to slash CO2 emissions over the next decade.

No, Network Rail is not building some form of small, submarine style reactor into engine cars (not that it wouldn’t one day be possible!).

Rather, the privately held, government-backed rail operator - which is Britain’s single largest consumer of electricity - has struck a 10-year deal with utility EDF to provide the power that will enable it to expand the electrification of its lines and to reduce the number of CO2-spewing diesel-powered trains that run on Network Rail’s tracks.

But not just any power. The contract specifies nuclear.

“EDF Energy will ensure 100 percent of the electricity it supplies to Network Rail will be matched by low carbon energy generated from its eight nuclear power stations,” the companies said in a joint press release on both the Network Rail and EDF websites (as I reported earlier this week on my Weinberg Foundation blog).

Nuclear trainer. National Rail CEO David Higgins is counting on nuclear to power his tracks.

The CEOs of both companies extolled nuclear as a low carbon source of power.

“Rail is already the greenest form of public transport and this partnership with EDF Energy will help us make it greener still,” said  Network Rail CEO David Higgins, who described the supply arrangement as “an innovative contract for low-carbon energy.”

In addition to the nuclear stipulation, the contract allows Network Rail to purchase electricity 10 years in advance, thus eliminating the volatility associated with fossil fuel prices.

Today only 40 percent of the lines are electrified, representing 55 percent of the traffic. Network Rail wants to increase those numbers to 54 and 75 percent, respectively, by adding overhead cable and third rails by 2020 on an additional 2,000 miles of track (the private train companies that use its tracks would have a say in the switch).

“Rail is one of the least carbon intensive ways to travel and the huge investment in electrification will be backed by a stable and affordable supply of low carbon enegy,” said EDF Energy CEO Vincent de Rivaz. “The deal places nuclear energy at the heart of the U.K.’s infrastructure for the next 10 years and serves to underline that nuclear power is part of everyday life in Britain.”

Among other benefits, electrified trains are quieter, allow more seats, are often faster, can haul goods further than diesel trains, and cause less wear on tracks, the press release noted.

The commitment between Network Rail and EDF carries two broad lessons for the business of  a low-carbon economy.

Large industrial users can help shape the direction of power sources by putting financial commitment behind technologies such as nuclear (heavy industry could even help fund the development of small reactors that it might use for both heat and electricity). And other modes of transportation - like electric cars - would go much further toward carbon reduction if the electricity that feeds them comes from zero-carbon sources like nuclear power, rather than from fossil fuel plants.

Images: Virgin train by Phil Scott via Wikimedia.  Network Rail CEO David Higgins from Rail.co.

There are many stops along SmartPlanet’s nuclear tracks. Below are links to a few stories describing unusual or alternative nuclear:

For a long list of SmartPlanet nuclear posts, click here.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Mark Halper

About Mark Halper

Mark Halper is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Contributing Editor

Mark Halper has written for TIME, Fortune, Financial Times, the UK's Independent on Sunday, Forbes, New York Times, Wired, Variety and The Guardian. He is based in Bristol, U.K.

Follow him on Twitter.

Mark Halper

Mark Halper

Mark has no financial holdings in the companies he writes about. He occasionally travels at the expense of companies or their press relations agencies in order to report on a company or industry event related to it; Mark will prominently disclose this information when appropriate. This relationship will have no influence on his coverage. Companies he covers do not get to review columns in advance, or select or reject topics.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
7
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
-1 Votes
+ -
Nukes aren't CO2 free!
There is a common misconception that nuclear power does not produce CO2. While the amount is very small at the point of generation, Uranium does not come out of the ground ready to use and in the right place. Huge amounts of CO2 is produced in the mining, refinement and transport of this metal. It is also getting harder to find, making it all the more expensive to source (all the known 'easy' sources are likely to be exhausted by the end of the century). And then there is the important question of what to do with the waste. I can't believe there are people out there who believe fissile nuclear power is the future; it should be the past. Current photovoltaics are about 10-11% efficient, imagine if they were 50% efficient? That is the future surely, perhaps with some hydrogen storage for the days when the sun doesn't shine.
Posted by mjxguerra
16th Jan
+6 Votes
+ -
lets put that nonsense to rest
The single biggest culprit in so called CO2 emission in nuclear is the enrichment of the uranium fuel from 0.7% to say 4%. There are two processes, diffusion and centrifuge, you will hear about SWUs which means huge amounts of electricity.

The former uses 40 times the energy of the latter but it is already on the way out.
When a nuclear plant uses diffusion for its fuel enrichment, its EROI is about 17 which is comparable to solar or wind. If only centrifuge is used, the EROI jumps to 57 which puts nuclear right at the bottom of CO2 10g/kWh or so.

Nuclear power based on thorium as well as uranium breeders don't need that enrichment cycle. If a nuclear reactor doesn't have to enrich, then the ongoing energy inputs drops off to near zippo with respect to output. Then you can compare nuclear vs wind for steel and concrete use, it uses 1/10 the materials for a plant that lasts much longer.

For thorium, it takes only 100g/hr of that metal about $10 in value to produce 1GWh with a retail value of $100M at 10c/kWh. There is plenty of thorium and uranium fuel to last for centuries, long enough to get to fusion maybe.

PVs will never get to 50% eff at the scale that you dream of for mass produced cells that would blanket the country. I have been in semiconductors for most of my life, the improvements have all been on cost reduction, almost nothing in efficiency. The so called 40% cells are triple junction and incredibly expense, can only be used for concentrated solar, but economically they always get beaten down by cheaper plain old PV arrays.

Look up the Gemasolar power plant that uses molten salt to shift solar heat around most of the day so that it can almost be base load. The current plant is 12.5MWe avg. It would take 80 of those to match a 1GWe nuclear plant at a cost of $26B vs $5B for a AP1000. It would also use 57 sq miles of desert covered by helio stats to match the energy of 100g of thorium or uranium per hour.

Consider the capital cost of $26B, the hourly interest rate alone is $30k per point. Now consider a 80xGemasolar where all those helio stats are replaced by a small chemical processing plant that adds 100g of thorium to a much smaller molten salt loop.

Hydrogen storage is so not going anywhere. The problem with all solar and wind economy is a matter of energy diffusion, they must be backed up by fossil power.

If you hate nuclear, you fall back on coal, see Germany.
If you love wind, you fall back on nat gas, see Germany.

As a result of the greens pissing on German nuclear, 17GW of base load non CO2 power is being replaced by 30GWp of solar and 30GWp of wind and 20GW of new "clean" coal plants. But the solar only matches 3.5GW and wind matches 6GW of base load hence the need for coal that can now follow the load and intermittent nature of solar and wind.
Posted by energy_guy
16th Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
Nuclear's CO2 Neglible - Similar to Renewables
Even after accouting for all aspects of the generation process, nuclear's net CO2 emissions are ~5% of coal's, ~2% of gas, similar to wind, and lower than most other renewables. Solar PV has higher net CO2 emissions.

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/data/files/publications/Nuclear-paper2-reducingCO2emissions.pdf

The bottom line is that net, overall CO2 emissions from all non-fossil (i.e., nuclear and renewable) sources are essentially negligible. Comparing net emissions between different non-fossil sources is pointless, like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. No fossil fuels, no global warming problem, period.

We are not running out of high-grade uranium, and will not for the forseeable future (i.e., several centuries). Uranium is a ubiquitous element in the earth's crust, and we haven't even begun expend any significant resources looking for it (unlike oil and gas).

Nuclear's waste "problem", in terms of expense and risk to future generations is far smaller than that of most other waste streams. It is the just about the only waste stream that is (will be) responsibly disposed of.
Posted by JimHopf
16th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Good comment mjxguerra - if understated.
What most people don't get about many commodity ores is how absolutely dependent they are on petroluem (as you so well point out). Sure, some day mining might switch to solar electric powered earth moving equipment, but today all most all of it is petroleum fuel based. Worse, is the processing of commodity ores which require large amounts of petro chemicals that only the petro-chemical industry can supply. Now the disruptor that no one sees coming - the petrochemical industry's economics are solely dependent on having current scales of petrofuel sourcing and refining to produce petrochemicals within their current economic paradigms. Once a real switch from petro fuels to alternative power begins, the petro fuel industry will have shrunken dramatically, as it does the petro chemical industry will have to support all of the direct and indirect overheads now largely provided by the petro fuel industry. Many mining commodity economics will change dramatically and we have no functional plan to offset this economic disruption of our lives.

Refining nuclear ores be they uranium or thorium is a comparatively minor consideration because there are much less petroleum intensive energy sources as you point out. The absolutely petroleum dependent processing of potassium and rock phosphates with the coming much more expensive petro chemicals to turn the raw ores into the bio-available forms used in the production of NPK fertilizers that produce 95% of global food production - is a potential human species impacting event and not in a good way.
Posted by dduggerbiocepts
16th Jan
+1 Vote
+ -
Good article
Excellent marriage of base load energy supply to constant use of transport energy.

If anyone wants to know what their countries energy flow graph looks like, they can get it from the US based "LLNL energy flow graph" site in the international section although its from 2007.

From the UK graph, the UK used 9400PJ of energy in 2007, about 2500PJ of that was in transport, and almost 75% of that was waste heat. So it is well worth electrifying transport as quickly as possible and only nuclear can do that at scale without covering the countryside.
Posted by energy_guy
16th Jan
0 Votes
+ -
Not true.
Rail is one of the least carbon intensive ways to travel and the huge investment in electrification will be backed by a stable and affordable supply of low carbon enegy, said EDF Energy CEO Vincent de Rivaz.

Actually, inter-city diesel buses are less carbon-intensive than rail, and much less than HSR when the carbon costs of running and maintaining the entire system are accounted for.

I was about to include a link to a British government study on this, but surprise, surprise, they've removed it.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 16th Jan
+2 Votes
+ -
Uranium enrichment not necessary
There are power reactor designs example the KANDU system used in Canada that do not require fuel enrichment. In fact it will operate quite happily at isotope levels as the ore comes out of the ground. Admittedly they are more expensive to build. can operate very well on the "spent" fuel of enriched fuel reactors. The primary issue as to why the design is not in more common issue. They don't "burn" with neutron densities high enough to produce significant levels of plutonium. It was the demands of the military for this plutonium production most R &D went into enriched uranium reactors. and why they are so common today that many forget there are alternatives. In addition the KANDU design can use Thorium as is, no extra R&D required
Posted by csumbler
16th Jan
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!