Hopefully it goes well and we'll have a positive example of new nuclear to bolster new development of nuclear power in the US.Britain eyes 10 new nuclear plants
Official: ‘The threat of climate change means we need to make a transition’
By Anthony Faiola
The Washington Post
updated 5:26 a.m. PT, Tues., Nov . 10, 2009
LONDON - The British government unveiled plans Monday to launch one of the world's most ambitious expansions of nuclear-power capacity, calling for the construction of 10 plants to help meet surging energy demands in the era of global warming.
After years of resistance to construction of nuclear-power plants, the British plan underscored how nations around the world are scrambling to find ways to generate more energy while slashing the emissions that cause climate change. To do that, nations including the United States are considering more reliance on nuclear power, which, while generating radioactive waste, produces almost no carbon emissions.
To keep the lights on in Britain while meeting strict goals to slash emissions, the government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown identified 10 sites in England and Wales for new nuclear plants, with the first expected to come online by 2018. Many of the plants are envisioned to replace aging plants that are set to be decommissioned in coming years and are a vestige of a period of accelerated nuclear construction from the 1950s to 1980s.
"The threat of climate change means we need to make a transition from a system that relies heavily on high-carbon fossil fuels to a radically different system that includes nuclear, renewable and clean-coal power," Edward Miliband, Britain's energy and climate secretary, told Parliament on Monday.
As part of the plan, Miliband said, the government would forbid the construction of coal-fired power plants without carbon-capture technology, which allows the plants to catch the carbon emissions produced when coal is burned to generate electricity. He also reiterated goals of generating 30 percent of British electricity from renewable sources such as wind and solar power by 2020; today Britain generates less than 3 percent from renewables, compared with 7 percent in the United States and 15 percent in Germany.
Higher bills?
Because of high costs, coal carbon-capture systems are not considered commercially viable at the moment, and there has been strong resistance in Britain, as in other parts of the world, to the construction of wind farms because they would destroy views of the countryside. The nuclear plants, meanwhile, would go up in communities with existing reactors where the population remains generally supportive of nuclear-power generation.
Experts have warned that the government may have to relent on vows to avoid major subsidies for the plants, which will cost billions to build. Some utilities planning nuclear-power plants in Britain are calling for special levies to help defray costs, which could mean higher electric bills for millions of Britons.
"One of the sticking points is, how do you pay for expensive new nuclear plants?" said Malcolm Grimston, associate fellow for energy and environment at Chatham House, a London-based think tank. "The government says it doesn't want to subsidize them directly, but in the end, they will likely have to offer something."
© 2009 The Washington Post Company
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33821302/ns ... gton_post/
© 2009 MSNBC.com
Here's another source that seems to have some additional details:
Contract Journal
I'm pleased to see nuclear replacing coal to some extent, although the bit near the beginning about high level waste seems odd - doesn't Britain reprocess waste? Granted, reprocessing can't eliminate it all, but it still seems like they shouldn't need to build a whole underground complex if they do - they could use dry casks aboveground. Maybe someone here can shed more light on that?The Government has paved the way to build 10 nuclear power stations at a cost of up to £50bn. It also hinted at future intentions to store high level radioactive waste in a new underground facility, which could cost up to £18bn.
The Government decision to earmark 10 sites signalled its increasing ambition for nuclear power as it tries to head off the threat of power cuts in the next decade.
It also revealled plans to raise a new levy on electricity to fund carbon capture and storage schemes from coal-fired power stations. It plans to raise £9.5bn from the levy to subsidise up to four CCS schemes.
More details about the nuclear power station building programme will be revealed in coming months, but the first new nuclear plant is likely to be built by EDF Energy at Hinkley Point, Somerset, and should come into service by the end of 2017.
New reactors at Sizewell, Suffolk, Wylfa, Anglesey, and Oldbury, Gloucestershire, are also likely to be among the first wave. Hartlepool, Co Durham, Bradwell, Essex, Heysham, Lancashire and three sites near Sellafield, West Cumbria, were also named.
Ministers have ruled out construction of a new plant at Dungeness, Kent, citing the risk it faced from rising sea levels.
Radioactive waste from a new generation of British nuclear power stations will be buried deep underground in a storage facility under plans announced by the Government.
Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, intends that construction of the stations should be quick enough to help to meet Britain’s 2050 target of reducing carbon emissions by 80 per cent while bolstering energy security as North Sea gas supplies decline.
To fast-track the build programme local authorities were recently stripped of the right of veto over new nuclear plants. Decisions will instead be taken by the Infrastructure Planning Commission, which was created to slash the period required to secure consent for energy projects from seven years to one year.
Mr Miliband said: “The current planning system is a barrier to this shift. It serves neither the interests of energy security, the interests of the low-carbon transition, nor the interests of people living in areas where infrastructure may be built.”
The reactors should meet at least a quarter of electricity demand by 2025. “New nuclear is right for energy security and climate change and will be good for jobs too,” Mr Miliband said.
None of the plants, which will cost at least £4 billion each, will be ready before 2017 — too late to replace eight coal-fired stations earmarked for closure by 2015.
