Is Sizewell C Needed?
I am generally pro-nuclear, but I am not sure if building a large nuke at Sizewell is the right action.
Consider.
- East Anglia has 3114 MW of offshore wind in operation.
- East Anglia has 6772 MW of offshore wind under construction, with Contracts for Difference or proposed.
- Vattenfall are considering abandoning development of their large wind farms off the Norfolk coast, which are proposed to have a capacity of 3196 MW.
- If the two Vattenfall wind farms don’t get built, it is likely that East Anglia will have around 6700 MW of offshore wind capacity.
- Sizewell C has a proposed nameplate capacity of 3260 MW. Some might argue, that to back up East Anglia’s offshore wind power, it needs to be larger!
- Norfolk and Suffolk no large electricity users, so are Vattenfall finding they have a product no one wants to buy.
- National Grid is developing four interconnectors to bring power from Scotland to the Eastern side of England, which will back up wind power in the East with the massive Scottish pumped storage, that is being developed.
- National Grid and their Dutch equivalent; TenneT are developing LionLink to connect the UK and the Netherlands to clusters of wind farms between our countries in the North Sea.
- Kent and East Anglia have several gas and electric interconnectors to Europe.
- Sizewell is well-connected to England’s grid.
These are my thoughts.
Energy Storage At Sizewell
Consider.
- Sizewell is well connected to the grid.
- It has the sea on one side.
- It could easily be connected to the large offshore wind farms, thirty miles out to sea.
If large energy storage could be built on the Sizewell site or perhaps under the sea, then this energy could be recovered and used in times of low wind.
Perhaps the technology of the STORE Consortium, which I discussed in UK Cleantech Consortium Awarded Funding For Energy Storage Technology Integrated With Floating Wind, could be used.
In this system, energy is stored in 3D-printed concrete hemispheres under the sea.
A Small Nuclear Reactor Cluster At Sizewell
Rolls-Royce are proposing that their small modular reactors will have a capacity of 470 MW.
Perhaps a cluster of seven small modular reactors at Sizewell, with a building schedule matched to the need to back up wind farms would be better and easier to finance.
I also feel a cluster of SMRs would have less risk and would be less likely to be delayed.
Where Is Generating Capacity Needed In The UK?
These areas already have large amounts of offshore wind in operation or proposed to be built before 2030.
- Celtic Sea
- North Wales
- Liverpool Bay
- Cumbria
- Scotland
- Scotland’s Offshore Islands
- North East England
- Humberside
- Lincolnshire
- East Anglia
- Thames Estuary
- Kent
- Sussex
Amongst the back up for these wind farms, there are only two modern nuclear stations; Sizewell B and the still-to-open Hinckley Point C.
If you look at a map of England and its power generation, there is a tremendous gap of capacity South of a line between Hinckley Point and Brighton, with little or no offshore wind and no nuclear.
There is probably a need for a large nuke near Weymouth.
Alternatively, perhaps several SMRs could be built underneath places like Salisbury Plain, Dartmoor and Exmoor!
Conclusion
We probably need the nuclear electricity from another Hinckley Point C-sized nuclear power station, so that we have adequate back-up for offshore wind.
But I am not sure that Sizewell is the right place to build it.
The Anonymous Widower 
Nuclear plants aren’t there for “backup”, they’re there to provide baseload. They can’t be switched on/off depending on the levels of wind. It’s wind which will have to give. The existing nuclear plants provide some 4.5GW of baseload against average demand of 30GW (add in 1.5GW for Drax biomass). Hinkley C will basically just replace them. SMRs look promising, but atm no-one knows how they’ll measure up in practice. At least the gov now has a reasonably coherent strategy for nuclear (though I’m not sure where the money is coming from). There’s a map of the sites the gov currently sees as housing new nuclear plants at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48352/1138-map-nuclear-power-stations-uk.pdf
Tidal and geothermal are now getting support from CfD contracts, and have the potential to become something like baseload with some modest amounts of storage. But they’re currently tiny, and even if everything goes well they’re unlikely to meet substantial parts of demand for years. The Marine Energy Council is aiming for 1GW of tidal by 2035. The best hope for these sectors is that big energy companies buy up the current players, as they have the finance and the project management experience to dramatically increase the volume relatively quickly.
The problem with all these energy generators is that they take a long time to build/develop, so it’s hard to see any real alternative to gas for years to come. Wind is coming to a crunch point. In January it reached a record 21.69GW of output. Add in the baseload, and you’re getting close to average demand levels. Once that happens, prices go negative, and generators will have to either pay to get rid of the power they’re generating or stop generating – which rather messes up the finances. The more wind is added to the system, the more frequently this will happen during windy spells. The grid can dump some of this excess power through the interconnectors, but that depends on whether there’s demand at the other end. And of course it also depends on getting the power to the interconnectors, which in turn requires massive investment in transmission.
Conversely, during still periods, wind might produce just 1 or 2GW. Solar can provide some 1.5GW averaged over the year. Where’s the other 20GW coming from if not from gas?
Comment by Peter Robins | September 19, 2023 |
We are know that solar/wind are intermittent so they need to be backed up as there is no way storage can cover that unless we are prepared as a society to accept electricity when the weather conditions are right – answer very much doubt it as like everything in this country it will be iniquitous. We need a few more nukes on the system as even they can’t run continuously for ever. Personally can’t see how we can ever eliminate CCGTs from the grid so will need to offset there carbon production somehow perhaps they should adopt Drax approach and just plant a few trees somewhere every time they have to be used!!
Comment by Nicholas Lewis | September 29, 2023 |
Scotland now has three 25 GWh pumped storage systems about to start construction, with the announcement from ILI Group today.
I wonder, when Scotland will close its last nuclear and large gas-fired power station.
Comment by AnonW | September 29, 2023 |
Read your other post on possible pumped storage options in Scotland if all hydro stations converted which would provide good long run storage levels but max output isn’t very high so not total solution. That said seems a no brainer they aren’t cracking on with all of them given today we’ve already constrained off 56GWh of wind that could have been used to refill any storage lake that wasn’t full.
Comment by Nicholas Lewis | September 29, 2023