Follow this blog:
RSS

Top scientists recommend alternative nuclear for UK

By | February 21, 2013, 6:14 AM PST

There's more than one way to harness an atom. A report co-authored by the UK's top scientific adviser Sir John Beddington will urge development of unconventional nuclear technologies.

If Britain is to rely on nuclear power to meet low carbon energy goals, it should use reactor designs that depart from convention and that could include the use of thorium fuel instead of uranium, a report by the government’s top scientific advisers will say.

Besides thorium, the report will urge development of fast reactors that can use nuclear “waste” as fuel. It will also encourage development of fusion, of small “modular” reactors that auger lower costs, and of advances in conventional reactors which are known as “light water reactors” (LWRs), as I reported in The Guardian.

These will all be necessary if the U.K. is to deploy the more nuclear-intensive of four electricity generating scenarios it has sketched out to hit an 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050.

The most ambitious of those plans calls for nuclear to generate 68 percent of the country’s electricity. The others envisage 28, 20 and 10 percent. The share was 18 percent in 2011, the last full year tallied by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC).

“In order to potentially deliver against the upper end of this scope it is likely that more advanced and diverse options will need to be explored by the market,” a DECC spokesman told me in summarizing some of the report’s recommendations.

“Such options may include: development of newer fission technologies such as evolutionary LWR’s, small modular reactors (SMRs) or Generation IV ; options for closing the uranium fuel cycle and reprocessing spent fuel; progressing the development of fusion; and consideration of alternative fuel cycles such as thorium.

“Ensuring that these options are not foreclosed or essential skills lost will be an important long term objective and the R&D Roadmap element of the work will set out a number of pathways and key decision points for any future R&D programmes to consider.”

Many of the alternative reactor designs can not only burn “waste,” but can also burn fuel more efficiently than today’s reactors while leaving behind much less long lived waste and making it more difficult to turn waste into weapons. They can also potentially improve upon nuclear safety.

The government will publish the report this quarter, the DECC spokesman said. My sources tell me it could emerge as soon as tomorrow or next week.

The report comes in response to a 2011 inquiry from the House of Lords on nuclear power. Its lead co-authors are Sir John Beddington, the governement’s chief scientific adviser; David MacKay, the chief scientific adviser to DECC and author of the critically acclaimed book Sustainable Energy - without the hot air; and John Perkins, the scientific adviser to the government’s Department of Business Innovation and Skills.

It will come against a backdrop of recent difficulties the government has faced in trying to convince industry to build 8 new nuclear reactors.

Photo: CGIAR Climate via Flickr

More from SmartPlanet’s nuclear chain:

For a longer list click here

And elsewhere re the forthcoming “Beddington Report”:

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...
3
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
UK alternative nuclear
Excellent. And Mark, you deserve a raise!
Posted by DrAlexC
22nd Feb
0 Votes
+ -
Still a loser...
Thorium won't make construction cheaper nor quicker. It's financing the high construction cost over a large number of years that makes nuclear expensive.

And thorium won't make nuclear compete against wind and solar any more effectively. Wind and solar do not have fuel costs (or large capex and financing nuts to cover). When the wind is blowing or the Sun shining they can sell for close to zero per kWh and still make money.

Nuclear can't shut down, nor stop its loan payments, so it will have to sell at a loss and then try to make up that loss by selling at a premium during sunless, windless hours. That makes it more likely that other generation technologies will be cheaper sources.

We've got reactors, paid off reactors, in the US that are closing because they can't turn a profit.

Crystal River (Tampa, Florida) is facing a significant repair bill and future earnings wouldn't pay for those repairs. It was announced this week that CR will not restart. Kewaunee, Wisconsin is closing this spring even though it is working fine. It simply is not breaking even. About a quarter of all paid off US reactors are in financial trouble. Their operating expenses are almost as much as the wholesale price of electricity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/business/energy-environment/economics-forcing-some-nuclear-plants-into-retirement.html?_r=1

The only hope for nuclear in the UK is that the government forces customers to pay for the power coming from them, even if it significantly increases their monthly utility bills. That's what is happening in the state of Georgia.
Posted by Wallace Bob
22nd Feb
0 Votes
+ -
neutron-free
Thorium fuel is undoubtedly cleaner and safer than uranium, but I believe much better is neutron-free nuclear fusion. http://youtu.be/VUrt186pWoA
Posted by rbrtwjohnson
25th Feb
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!