Thread by @guynewey

A thread on nuclear in the UK, in light of the unsurprising, although disappointing, decision by Hitachi to walk away from Wylfa....

Our analysis @EnergySysCat finds that the strategic case for nuclear remains robust. We think it is likely low regrets to commit to 10GW of nuclear beyond HPC (there is a recording of an excellent webinar discussion of the findings at the link).

es.catapult.org.uk/reports/nuclea….

That case has weakened a bit in recent years, due to the remarkable success of renewables. Offshore wind will likely be the workhorse of the power system in the coming decades, and our ability to manage a 'windier' is improving all the time, although much more needed.

And you CAN get to Net Zero without nuclear. Our landmark Innovating to Net Zero analysis tests some options. If you don't do nuclear, you are likely to need a significant amount of Gas CCS (not exactly straightforward). Chart below shows 100 power sector simulations.

You are also relying on a lot of speculative measures to Get To Net Zero (diet change, reduction in aviation demand, land use, direct air capture etc).... Full report linked below es.catapult.org.uk/reports/innova…

And yes, you can also construct scenarios without either nuclear or CCS, but you are likely to need 100GW of wind and 100GW of solar and a lot of backup (58GW of hydrogen fired power stations, say, up from zero today). Not impossible, but again hard work....

So the central challenge for nuclear now is how do you get the costs down to make it more competitive. There are two broad options:

1. Switch from current developer-led model, you switch to a more programmatic approach to large-scale nuclear projects. You capture learning when you move from project to project. This is the approach that was successful in South Korea. es.catapult.org.uk/reports/nuclea…

We have an opportunity to test this with the upcoming decision on Sizewell. Learn from HPC, and push for significant cost reductions in build (that is before you consider financing, which is also important). This is where Government needs to be closely scrutinising plans.

2. Reducing build costs by making as much of the plant in a factory as possible. Turn nuclear into a product, not a series of bespoke projects. We recommend, over the next 5 years, a new stage-gated programmes for such Small Modular Reactors and advanced Gen IV reactors.

Such a programme should be tailored towards future system needs -- there is also potential that such reactors can help provide heat and hydrogen production, where the Net Zero challenge is even harder than in power. See this @LucidCatalyst report lucidcatalyst.com/hydrogen-report

If I was in Government's shoes, I would pursue both options. It may be that we learn one is not feasible in the coming 10 years and step away. At the same time, we need to pursue significant market reform to test the potential of 'flexibility', inc. whether consumers are keen.

Either approach needs a clear focus on cost reduction AND quality. Not always clear parts of the industry have taken the first bit seriously enough.... The long term aim ought to be to try and get nuclear power built by the market, not through huge Governmental negotiations.

And it may be that renewables plus storage (inc. hydrogen) is the right future power system. But there is significant uncertainty about that right now. And, in my view, the global challenge of Net Zero is too significant to be taking large-scale options off the table now.

The essence of the nuclear debate for Government is the same as it always was, whether they really WANT to do it. You can't be half-in with such a technology....