DOCSLIB.ORG

Nuclear Research and Technology: Breaking the Cycle of Indecision

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nuclear Research and Technology: Breaking the Cycle of Indecision SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SELECT COMMITTEE Nuclear research and technology: Breaking the cycle of indecision Oral and written evidence Contents AMEC Foster Wheeler (AMEC FW) – Written evidence (PNT0044) ................... 4 Atkins – Written evidence (PNT0015) ....................................................... 14 Atomic Acquisitions (AA) – Written evidence (PNT0040) ............................. 23 Professor Colin Boxall, Lancaster University – Written Evidence (PNT0051) ... 31 Bristol University/SW Nuclear Hub – Written evidence (PNT0043) ................ 37 Professor Grace Burke, University of Manchester, Centre for Nuclear Engineering, Imperial College London and Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (Nuclear AMRC) – Oral evidence (QQ 1-8) ........................ 42 Cambridge Nuclear Energy Centre, University of Cambridge – Written evidence (PNT0056) ............................................................................................ 43 Centre for Nuclear Engineering, Imperial College London – Written evidence (PNT0054) ............................................................................................ 58 Centre for Nuclear Engineering, Imperial College London, Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (Nuclear AMRC) and Professor Grace Burke, University of Manchester – Oral evidence (QQ 1-8) .................................... 66 Dalton Nuclear Institute, University of Manchester – Written evidence (PNT0018) ............................................................................................ 67 Mr Simon Dawson – Written evidence (PNT0002) ...................................... 74 EDF Energy – Written evidence (PNT0039) ............................................... 75 EDF Energy, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) – Oral evidence (QQ 20-30) .......................................... 86 Energy Technologies Institute (ETI) – Written evidence (PNT0012) .............. 87 Professor Martin Freer, University of Birmingham – Written evidence (PNT0058) ............................................................................................ 92 GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy – Written evidence (PNT0030) ..........................101 Government – Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) – Written evidence (PNT0029) ...............................................................106 Government – Professor John Loughhead OBE, Chief Scientific Adviser, Craig Lucas, Director of Science and Innovation for Climate and Energy and Jesse Norman MP, Minister for Energy and Industry, BEIS – Oral evidence (QQ 31- 37) .....................................................................................................112 Government – Craig Lucas, Director of Science and Innovation for Climate and Energy, Jesse Norman MP, Minister for Energy and Industry and Professor John Loughhead OBE, Chief Scientific Adviser, BEIS – Oral evidence (QQ 31-37) .113 Government – Jesse Norman MP, Minister for Energy and Industry, Professor John Loughhead OBE, Chief Scientific Adviser and Craig Lucas, Director of Science and Innovation for Climate and Energy, BEIS – Oral evidence (QQ 31- 37) .....................................................................................................114 Government – Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) – Supplementary written evidence (PNT0060) ..........................................133 Gwynedd Council – Written evidence (PNT0011) ......................................134 Professor Neil Hyatt, University of Sheffield – Written evidence (PNT0028) ..147 Dame Sue Ion, NIRAB – Written evidence (PNT0031) ...............................153 Dame Sue Ion, NIRAB and the Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) – Oral evidence (QQ 50-59) ............................................................................165 Mr Robin H Jones, Reactor Physicist, Wylfa Nuclear Power Station – Written evidence (PNT0003) .............................................................................182 Professor William E Lee, Imperial College London – Written evidence (PNT0004) ...........................................................................................184 Mr Piers Manson and Mr R Nash – Written evidence (PNT0023) ..................187 Dr Leslie A Mitchell FREng – Written evidence (PNT0007) ..........................191 Moltex Energy – Written evidence (PNT0037) ...........................................195 National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) – Written evidence (PNT0046) ..............199 National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) and UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) – Oral evidence (QQ 38-49) ......................................................................210 National Skills Academy for Nuclear (NSAN) – Written evidence (PNT0048) .227 North Wales Economic Ambition Board – Written evidence (PNT0059) .........232 NSG Environmental Ltd – Written evidence (PNT0050) ..............................236 Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (Nuclear AMRC) – Written evidence (PNT0026) .............................................................................239 Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre (Nuclear AMRC), Professor Grace Burke, University of Manchester and Centre for Nuclear Engineering, Imperial College London – Oral evidence (QQ 1-8) ...................................245 Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) – Written Evidence (PNT0036) ...261 Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) and EDF Energy – Oral evidence (QQ 20-30)............................................268 Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) – Written evidence (PNT0041) ..............284 Nuclear Industry Association (NIA) and Dame Sue Ion, NIRAB – Oral evidence (QQ 50-59) ..........................................................................................289 Nuclear Institute (NI) – Written evidence (PNT0033) ................................290 Nuclear Skills Strategy Group – Written evidence (PNT0014) .....................296 2 NuScale Power – written evidence (PNT0049) ..........................................299 NuScale Power, Sellafield Ltd and Rolls-Royce Nuclear – Oral evidence (QQ 9- 19) .....................................................................................................308 Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) – Written evidence (PNT0024) .............309 Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR), EDF Energy and Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) – Oral evidence (QQ 20-30) ...........................................314 Penultimate Power UK – Written evidence (PNT0013)................................315 Plaid Cymru – Written evidence (PNT0042) ..............................................321 Prospect – Written evidence (PNT0019) ...................................................326 Mr Chris Rogers – Written evidence (PNT0009) ........................................329 Rolls-Royce plc – Written evidence (PNT0006) .........................................330 Rolls-Royce Nuclear, NuScale Power and Sellafield Ltd – Oral evidence (QQ 9- 19) .....................................................................................................340 Sellafield Limited – Written evidence (PNT0052) .......................................341 Sellafield Ltd, Rolls-Royce Nuclear and NuScale Power – Oral evidence (QQ 9- 19) .....................................................................................................346 Snowdonia Enterprise Zone (SEZ) Advisory Board – Written evidence (PNT0055) ...........................................................................................360 Mr Gary Swift – Written evidence (PNT0001) ...........................................365 Terrestrial Energy Inc. – Written evidence (PNT0057) ...............................366 Rory Trappe, Prospect Union Representative, Trawsfynydd site – Written evidence (PNT0008) .............................................................................375 TUV SUD Nuclear Technologies – Written evidence (PNT0021) ...................378 U-Battery – Written evidence (PNT0047) .................................................379 UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) – Written evidence (PNT0035) ..........384 UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) and National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) – Oral evidence (QQ 38-49) ......................................................................390 UK Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) Research Hub and Network – Written evidence (PNT0020) ...........................................................................................391 UK Nuclear Data Network (UKNDN) – Written evidence (PNT0016) .............393 University College London (UCL) Nuclear Centre – Written evidence (PNT0025) ..........................................................................................................395 University of Leicester – Written evidence (PNT0022) ...............................397 University of Oxford – Written evidence (PNT0034) ..................................402 Weinberg Next Nuclear – Written evidence (PNT0045) ..............................405 Westinghouse UK – Written evidence (PNT0027) ......................................407 3 AMEC Foster Wheeler (AMEC FW) – Written evidence (PNT0044) AMEC Foster Wheeler (AMEC FW) – Written evidence (PNT0044) Introduction This evidence is being presented by Clean Energy business of AMEC Foster Wheeler (AMEC FW) to the Select Committee on Science and Technology in response to the Call for Evidence for ‘Priorities for Nuclear
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download a Copy
    Cover image: Courtesey of EDF Energy — www.edfenergy.com/energy CONTENTS... 1 AT A GLANCE... 2 A BRIEF HISTORY OF NUCLEAR ENERGY... 4 BENEFITS OF NUCLEAR ENERGY... 5 WHAT THE PUBLIC THINK... 6 HOW NUCLEAR CREATES ENERGY... 7 HOW A REACTOR WORKS... 8 THE NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE... 9 MANAGING WASTE... 10 RADIATION EXPLAINED... 12 NUCLEAR AROUND THE WORLD... 14 UK NUCLEAR SITES... 16 NUCLEAR NEW BUILD... 17 NEW BUILD IN NUMBERS... 18 LOOKING TO THE FUTURE... 19 DECOMMISSIONING... 20 CAREERS IN NUCLEAR... 21 FUTHER INFORMATION... AT A GLANCE... Nuclear is a major part of our energy mix. Today it accounts for 21% of electricity generated in the UK and has been providing secure low carbon electricity for over 60 years. Low carbon energy, including There are 15 nuclear power and renewables, nuclear power account for almost 51% of the reactors operating UK’s generation electricity mix across eight sites in the UK In 2016 nuclear energy avoided 22.7 million metric tonnes of CO2 emissions in the UK BEIS,Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2018 That’s equivalent to taking around a third of all cars in the UK off the road Civil nuclear contributes over £6 billion to the jobs in the UK civil nuclear sector UK economy as much as aerospace manufacturing 12,159 Women in civil nuclear 1,981 People on apprenticeships Three quarters of the public 914 believe nuclear should be part People on graduate schemes of the clean energy mix Jobs Map figures generated from participating NIA members 1 This simple timeline charts some of the key people, events and legislation A BRIEF HISTORY OF NUCLEAR ENERGY..
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Industry Council Proposals to Government for a Sector Deal
    The Nuclear Sector Deal Nuclear Industry Council Proposals to Government for a Sector Deal l Foreword The UK’s civil nuclear sector is amongst the most advanced in the world. Our global leadership status has been earnt through a record across the entire nuclear lifecycle – from enrichment, through fuel production, generation, operation, new build, research and decommissioning – and increasingly enhanced by our world class regulatory system as the country’s new build programme takes shape. Our sector is an economic powerhouse – currently equivalent in scale to aerospace manufacturing – providing tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs, driving growth in diverse regions across the UK. Our world leading research and development puts us at the forefront of waste and decommissioning, with UK companies well placed to benefit from opportunities in a global market worth £100bn. The existing fleet of nuclear power stations provides more than 20% of the UK’s electricity supply, and its low carbon, reliable baseload characteristics complement a changing energy system with a greater penetration of intermittent and variable renewable sources of generation. The combination of low carbon power sources has helped the UK reduce its carbon emissions, and will be vitally important to maintain that progress as both transport and heat become less carbon intensive, and more reliant on clean electricity in the future. The potential to build on that record is real, and the Nuclear Industry Council has worked under my leadership to present the opportunities for where greater collaboration by industry, with the right levels of facilitation from the government, can maximise that potential, and make a significant contribution to meeting the objectives set by the government in its Industrial Strategy white paper.
    [Show full text]
  • 小型飛翔体／海外 ［Format 2］ Technical Catalog Category
    小型飛翔体／海外 ［Format 2］ Technical Catalog Category Airborne contamination sensor Title Depth Evaluation of Entrained Products (DEEP) Proposed by Create Technologies Ltd & Costain Group PLC １．DEEP is a sensor analysis software for analysing contamination. DEEP can distinguish between surface contamination and internal / absorbed contamination. The software measures contamination depth by analysing distortions in the gamma spectrum. The method can be applied to data gathered using any spectrometer. Because DEEP provides a means of discriminating surface contamination from other radiation sources, DEEP can be used to provide an estimate of surface contamination without physical sampling. DEEP is a real-time method which enables the user to generate a large number of rapid contamination assessments- this data is complementary to physical samples, providing a sound basis for extrapolation from point samples. It also helps identify anomalies enabling targeted sampling startegies. DEEP is compatible with small airborne spectrometer/ processor combinations, such as that proposed by the ARM-U project – please refer to the ARM-U proposal for more details of the air vehicle. Figure 1: DEEP system core components are small, light, low power and can be integrated via USB, serial or Ethernet interfaces. 小型飛翔体／海外 Figure 2: DEEP prototype software ２．Past experience (plants in Japan, overseas plant, applications in other industries, etc) Create technologies is a specialist R&D firm with a focus on imaging and sensing in the nuclear industry. Createc has developed and delivered several novel nuclear technologies, including the N-Visage gamma camera system. Costainis a leading UK construction and civil engineering firm with almost 150 years of history.
    [Show full text]
  • The Economics of the Green Investment Bank: Costs and Benefits, Rationale and Value for Money
    The economics of the Green Investment Bank: costs and benefits, rationale and value for money Report prepared for The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills Final report October 2011 The economics of the Green Investment Bank: cost and benefits, rationale and value for money 2 Acknowledgements This report was commissioned by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). Vivid Economics would like to thank BIS staff for their practical support in the review of outputs throughout this project. We would like to thank McKinsey and Deloitte for their valuable assistance in delivering this project from start to finish. In addition, we would like to thank the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), the Carbon Trust and Sustainable Development Capital LLP (SDCL), for their valuable support and advice at various stages of the research. We are grateful to the many individuals in the financial sector and the energy, waste, water, transport and environmental industries for sharing their insights with us. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors and not those of BIS or any other party, and the authors take responsibility for any errors or omissions. An appropriate citation for this report is: Vivid Economics in association with McKinsey & Co, The economics of the Green Investment Bank: costs and benefits, rationale and value for money, report prepared for The Department for Business, Innovation & Skills, October 2011 The economics of the Green Investment Bank: cost and benefits, rationale and value for money 3 Executive Summary The UK Government is committed to achieving the transition to a green economy and delivering long-term sustainable growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Nanoscience and Nanotechnologies: Opportunities and Uncertainties
    ISBN 0 85403 604 0 © The Royal Society 2004 Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted under the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1998), no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of the publisher, or, in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK, or in accordance with the terms of licenses issued by the appropriate reproduction rights organization outside the UK. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the terms stated here should be sent to: Science Policy Section The Royal Society 6–9 Carlton House Terrace London SW1Y 5AG email [email protected] Typeset in Frutiger by the Royal Society Proof reading and production management by the Clyvedon Press, Cardiff, UK Printed by Latimer Trend Ltd, Plymouth, UK ii | July 2004 | Nanoscience and nanotechnologies The Royal Society & The Royal Academy of Engineering Nanoscience and nanotechnologies: opportunities and uncertainties Contents page Summary vii 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Hopes and concerns about nanoscience and nanotechnologies 1 1.2 Terms of reference and conduct of the study 2 1.3 Report overview 2 1.4 Next steps 3 2 What are nanoscience and nanotechnologies? 5 3 Science and applications 7 3.1 Introduction 7 3.2 Nanomaterials 7 3.2.1 Introduction to nanomaterials 7 3.2.2 Nanoscience in this area 8 3.2.3 Applications 10 3.3 Nanometrology
    [Show full text]
  • NEWSLETTER Issue No. 7 September 2017
    NEWSLETTER September 2017 Issue no. 7 Nuclear Industry Group Newsletter September 2017 Contents Notes from the Chair ................................................................................... 3 IOP Group Officers Forum .......................................................................... 4 NIG Committee Elections ............................................................................ 6 Nuclear Industry Group Career Contribution Prize 2017 .......................... 7 Event – Gen IV Reactors by Richard Stainsby (NNL) ................................ 8 Event – Nuclear Security by Robert Rodger (NNL) and Graham Urwin (RWM) ......................................................................................................... 12 Event – The UK’s Nuclear Future by Dame Sue Ion ................................ 13 Event – Regulatory Challenges for Nuclear New Build by Mike Finnerty. .................................................................................................................... 15 Event – European Nuclear Young Generation Forum ............................. 18 Event – Nuclear Fusion, 60 Years on from ZETA by Chris Warrick (UKAEA), Kate Lancaster (York Plasma Institute), David Kingham (Tokamak Energy) and Ian Chapman (UKAEA) ....................................... 19 IOP Materials and Characterisation Group Meetings .............................. 25 “Brexatom” – the implications of the withdrawal for the UK from the Euratom Treaty. ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Uranium Isanaturallyoccurring,Verydense,Metallic Definition Andcharacteristics Deposits Definition, Mineralogyand Proportion Ofu-235Tobetween 3And5percent
    Uranium March 2010 Definition, mineralogy and Symbol U nt deposits Atomic number 92 opme vel Definition and characteristics Atomic weight 238.03 de l Uranium is a naturally occurring, very dense, metallic 3 ra Density at 298 K 19 050 kg/m UK element with an average abundance in the Earth’s crust ne mi of about 3 ppm (parts per million). It forms large, highly Melting point 1132 °C e bl charged ions and does not easily fit into the crystal struc- Boiling point 3927 °C na ai ture of common silicate minerals such as feldspar or mica. st Accordingly, as an incompatible element, it is amongst the Mineral Hardness 6 Moh’s scale su r last elements to crystallise from cooling magmas and one -8 f o Electrical resistivity 28 x 10 Ohm m re of the first to enter the liquid on melting. nt Table 1 Selected properties of uranium. Ce Minerals Under oxidizing conditions uranium exists in a highly soluble form, U6+ (an ion with a positive charge of 6), and is therefore very mobile. However, under reducing conditions Other physical properties are summarised in Table 1. it converts to an insoluble form, U4+, and is precipitated. It is these characteristics that often result in concentrations Mineralogy of uranium that are sufficient for economic extraction. Uranium is known to occur in over 200 different minerals, but most of these do not occur in deposits of sufficient Uranium is naturally radioactive. It spontaneously decays grade to warrant economic extraction. The most common through a long series of alpha and beta particle emissions, uranium-bearing minerals found in workable deposits are ultimately forming the stable element lead.
    [Show full text]
  • Hot Particles at Dounreay
    SEPTEMBER 20, 2007 | No. 660 HOT PARTICLES AT DOUNREAY The Dounreay nuclear complex, situated on a remote part of the north coast of Scotland, was once home to a variety of experimental nuclear facilities including two prototype fast breeder reactors, a reprocessing plant and a materials test reactor. Nearly all of these are now closed, but the legacy of their waste, pollution and accidents HOT PARTICLES AT DOUNREAY 1 lives on. One of the main areas of concern is the radioactive particles ILLEGAL TRAFFICKING: INCREASE found near the complex. The latest radioactive fragment found on INCIDENTS INVOLVING THEFT OR LOSS 2 Sandside beach is one of the hottest yet detected. SLEBOS CASE REVEALS FAILURE OF DUTCH AND EU NUCLEAR NON- (660.5826) WISE Amsterdam - The They entered the drains, which should PROLIFERATION POLICIES 4 particle of cesium-137 picked up during have carried only low-active waste a sweep of the beach on September 7 waster, either from the reprocessing RECORD URANIUM PRICE - WHAT was the third recovered since monitoring plant or from a controversial waste shaft. IS BEHIND AND WHAT ARE THE resumed on August 5 after a lengthy The highly radioactive particles were CONSEQUENCES 5 gap. This brings the legacy of pollution known as 'swarf' -the outside cladding from the nearby Dounreay plant to 97 from spent fuel assemblies which are cut HEAVY SUBSIDIES IN HEAVY used reactor fuel particles and an off at the very start of the reprocessing WATER: ECONOMICS OF NUCLEAR unidentified radioactive object. procedure to expose the fuel rods. These POWER IN INDIA 6 are some of the most highly radioactive After being taken back to a lab at the wastes from spent fuel reprocessing.
    [Show full text]
  • Movement of Radioactive Material Sellafield Site
    Proceedings of the 18th International Symposium on the Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Materials PATRAM 2016 September 18-23, 2016, Kobe, Japan Paper No. 3034 Movement of Radioactive Material Sellafield Site Maz Hussain Sellafield Ltd., United Kingdom. Abstract Background The UK nuclear decommissioning priority is to reduce risk and hazard and to deliver the clean-up mission cost effectively. This is particularly relevant at Sellafield where the Legacy Ponds and Silos pose the most significant challenges. The availability of safe packaging for the movement and storage on the Sellafield site is a key enabler to meet the NDA mission for safe interim storage ahead of its subsequent treatment, packaging and final storage to a Geologic Disposal Facility (GDF). There are a significant number of packages and package design types operating on the Sellafield site. Some packages are licensed to the IAEA regulations for safe transport and others comply only with the Sellafield site specific requirements. Introduction Packages to and from the Sellafield site need to comply with the IAEA regulations for safe transport and must meet the Sellafield site requirements. However, the IAEA regulations do not apply to packages within a licensed site. For on-site safe package operations compliance is required against Sellafield site specific procedures, standards and guidance. Package Management System There are a significant number and types of package transfers routinely undertaken safely on the Sellafield site. The packages range from small (18Kg) hand held sample castles to large complex (100Te) packages some with in-built gamma gates, mechanical interlocks and hoisting drive mechanisms. The Sellafield Package Management System (SPMS) efficiently manages package operations and includes for asset register, package tracking, operational history and maintenance.
    [Show full text]
  • Our Vision: First in UK Power
    Operator: kevin Date: 02.06.2008 Server: studio 3 Set-up: Dave First Read/Revisions Our vision: First in UK power British Energy Group plc Annual Report and Accounts plc Annual ReportBritish Energy Group and Accounts 2007/08 British Energy Group plc GSO Business Park East Kilbride G74 5PG United Kingdom Registered in Scotland Number 270184 Annual Report and Accounts 2007/08 MM60056005 BBEE CCover.inddover.indd 1 99/6/08/6/08 007:24:147:24:14 Operator: kevin Date: 02.06.2008 Server: studio 3 Set-up: Dave First Read/Revisions British Energy is the lowest carbon emitter of the major electricity generators in the United Kingdom and the only low carbon baseload generator. BUSINESS SUMMARY Our Power Stations 01 Highlights 1 02 Our Strategy Torness Two advanced gas-cooled reactors 03 Key Performance Indicators 2 Hartlepool 04 Chairman’s Statement Two advanced gas-cooled reactors 3 Eggborough DIRECTORS’ REPORT – BUSINESS REVIEW Four coal-fi red units 06 Chief Executive’s Business Review 4 Sizewell B 14 Financial Review One pressurised water reactor 5 28 Corporate Social Responsibility ' Dungeness B / Two advanced gas-cooled reactors 6 Hinkley Point B DIRECTORS’ REPORT – CORPORATE GOVERNANCE 32 Board of Directors Two advanced gas-cooled reactors 7 1 34 Corporate Governance Heysham ( Two advanced gas-cooled reactors 42 Remuneration Committee Report 8 Heysham 2 49 Other Statutory Information . Two advanced gas-cooled reactors - ) 9 Hunterston B FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Two advanced gas-cooled reactors 51 Independent Auditors’ Report to the Members of
    [Show full text]
  • Name Surname
    OFGEM FINANCIAL INFORMATION REPORTING YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2010 Under the Ofgem issued “Energy Supply Probe – Proposed Retail Market Remedies”, changes to generators and suppliers licences were made requiring licence holders to publish financial information to aid comparability of suppliers and generators. This “Segmental Reporting” satisfies Standard Licence Condition 19A of the Gas and Electricity Supply Licences and Standard Licence Condition 16B of the Electricity Generation Licence. EDF Energy (UK) Ltd and its subsidiaries (“EDF Energy”) operate through 3 operational business units supported by corporate services. These are “Energy Sourcing and Customer Supply”, ”Nuclear Generation”, “Nuclear New Build” and “Corporate Steering Functions and Company Shared Services & Integration”. The principal activities of these business units and support services are: Energy Sourcing and Customer Supply (ESCS): the provision and supply of electricity and gas to residential, commercial and industrial customers, the provision of services relating to energy, including purchasing of fuel for power generation and the generation of electricity; Nuclear Generation (NG): the generation of electricity through its fleet of nuclear power stations and Nuclear New Build (NNB): the development and construction of new nuclear power plants in the United Kingdom Corporate Steering Functions and Company Shared Services and Integration (CSF/CSSI): the provision of support services including HR, Finance, Property and IT, and the development of greater integration and synergies across the company where possible. The results of NNB are excluded from the scope of the Ofgem requirements hence NNB indirect and direct costs are not included in the analysis below. No consolidated statutory accounts have been prepared which include all UK operations of the EDF Energy group of companies.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power and Deregulated Electricity Markets: Lessons from British Energy
    Nuclear Power and Deregulated Electricity Markets: Lessons from British Energy EPRG Working Paper 0808 Simon Taylor Abstract The privatisation in 1996 and subsequent financial crisis in 2002 of the company British Energy plc shed some light on the difficulties of running a nuclear generator in a deregulated electricity market. This paper explains the causes of the company’s financial difficulties and argues that they do not amount to evidence that nuclear power cannot survive in liberalised markets. The causes of the financial crisis were complex and varied but nuclear power risks are not conceptually different from those successfully handled by markets in other sectors. In particular there is no reason in principle why new nuclear power stations should not be viable in a deregulated power market, assuming they are fundamentally cost competitive. Keywords Keywords: Electricity markets, nuclear power, risk management, corporate strategy, financial strategy, G PAPER privatisation. N JEL Classification G32, L94, Q48 Contact [email protected] Publication February 2008 EPRG WORKI www.electricitypolicy.org.uk 1. Introduction The British government privatised the more modern UK nuclear power stations in the form of the company British Energy plc in 1996. The company was unusual in being a wholly nuclear merchant power generator in a deregulated power market. It was also unusual in having full financial responsibility for its back end nuclear liabilities. The company initially raised output and profits and saw its shares rise strongly. But by 2002 it had run out of cash and had to get emergency financing from the government to avoid going into administration.
    [Show full text]