15th March 2023 (Attended remotely)
This event is available to view on-line.
Speakers:
- Daisy Ray, Innovation Programme Lead – Advanced Nuclear, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
- Juan Matthews, Visiting Professor in Nuclear Energy Technology, Dalton Nuclear Institute.
- Tom Purnell, Business Development Director, Nuclear AMRC.
- Robert Exley, Superintending Inspector, ONR.
- Mike Crawforth, Business Development Manager, Rolls Royce.
My enjoyment of this meeting was slightly reduced by the difficulty in hearing some of the speakers, notably the Chair.
The first speaker Mike Crawforth, RR stated that his Company is trying to be at the forefront of deploying nuclear solutions. He was concerned about the day’s budget and whether Government money is available for development (RR spend a lot of time demanding state handouts). No worries about the size of market, just de-risking the first build. (Actually, while they seem to be making steady progress they are quickly falling behind their international competitors particularly Russia, China and Canada).
They admit that they need to prove that they can drive down the costs by mass production (this needs a mass market) and by modularisation. Need to not over promise (but rather cocksure about the lack of technical risk). They are interested in district heat (which has a poor history in the UK) and synthetic fuels (which are important to RR’s other industries).
Second Speaker. Tom Purnell, AMRC. Lots happening in the market and internationally. AUKUS will take up resource as will British submarine build and power station decommissioning. Government investment decisions will be important. The declaration of nuclear as “clean energy” is good news. Quite a lot of positivity. Need confidence to invest in new processes such as new PV welding processes which reduce the weld time from 10 days to 2 hours which saves CO2, and programme time/costs.
Prof Juan Matthews. Worked on SIR in 1989 but could not build it because the price of gas was so low. He pointed out that only 20% of energy used in the UK is electricity so there is more market for nuclear in heating and transport.
He thinks we need dedicated SMRs for hydrogen production (for which we’ll need a market for hydrogen which does seem to be developing), thermal energy storage (to cope with intermittency of renewables), and high temperature reactors for industrial use and more efficient hydrogen production.
Robert Exley (ONR) leading GDR of RR-SMR. Explained roles of the three main regulators (planning Inspectorate – impact on community) Environment Agency (Discharges etc), ONR (nuclear and conventional safety, security, safeguards) and the role of the 36 site license conditions.
Spoke a bit about the Generic Design Assessment (which has approved four types of reactor, only one of which has proceeded to construction so could be seen as a poor use of resource).
Dr Ray spoke about AUKAS as a showcase for British Nuclear and suggested that a nuclear renaissance was due or underway. The ambition of her department is a demo reactor by the end of the 2030s.
Lots of thought being put into how AMRs might be used in industry (I’m sceptical of the model that has a foundry, or whatever, having its own reactor. Too many eggs in one basket and issues about load following that are only partly answered by molten salt energy stores. If Companies find it easier to outsource their office cleaning, why would they take running a nuclear reactor in-house? It does make some sense in the far north which is why Russia and Canada are more likely to progress the model than the UK ). Much better to have companies that sell electricity on to the grid and customers who take energy off the grid. But maybe I’m old fashioned).
She mentioned the potential issue with the availability of skilled workforce in the future with so many branches of the industry dreaming of good times ahead. Some good work with Universities and Colleges heading in the right direction.
When asked about the technical risks facing the RR SMR Mike Crawforth was confident (over confident? – remember Admiral Rickover https://whatisnuclear.com/rickover.html) that there weren’t really any and the project would stand or fall based on funding, market and manufacturing and assembly innovation. The current cost estimates are made assuming boring technology and boring manufacture in the expectation that innovation will drive costs down over the build time of the fleet.
There was a suggestion that we need bigger reactors than the current RR-SMR design opening the possibility of the initial design being very conservative but later iterations pushing the boundaries more.
There was a question about fuel supplies availability given a worldwide surge in nuclear and the international situation. Confidence was expressed about the near future but the need for a closed cycle was mentioned.
There was a brief discussion about Countries working together to assess and approve the designs of reactors. The ONR representative thought it possible but the UK would retain the final say on reactor designs for the UK. (I’ll only believe international licensing when I see it).
There was a brief discussion about engaging with local communities where a reactor is suggested. Seems to be considered a good idea.
It is a pity that a question about whether or not ONR would license a reactor design and admit that no off-site plan was required was not answered as we ran out of time.
This was an interesting collection of expertise and an interesting topic of discussion. Given that, one hour was probably too short to make the best of the assembled team and while remote attendance is far better than no attendance it does not match the experience of being there and being able to interact more strongly.
My thanks to the organisers for the invitation to the event.