• Skip to content
  • Skip to nav
  • Become a member
  • Technical communities

Return to IOM3 home

  • Contact IOM3
  • About IOM3
  • Member network
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Current issue
  • News
  • Features
  • Back issues
  • Media Information
  • Subscriptions
  • Contact us
  • Discuss

Material Matters is the regular Materials World column on topical issues, written by Craig Durham CEng MIMMM. Craig is a Senior Completion Engineer working in the UK upstream oil industry. He is President-elect of the Mining Institute of Scotland and sits on the IOM3 Petroleum and Drilling Engineering Division of the International Mining & Minerals Association.

The column was established by Jack Harris who penned it for many years until he passed away in February 2009.

IOM3 Home › Materials World Magazine

Comparing nuclear power in France and England

My reaction on hearing that the state-owned French electricity company EDF had purchased UK nuclear company British Energy (BE) was a mixture of pleasure and pain. The former arose because I believe that nuclear power is an essential weapon against global warming and it is eminently sensible for us to forge a link with EDF, the world’s largest nuclear company. I welcome the news that EDF plans to construct four large (1.6GWe) reactors shared equally between the existing BE sites at Hinkley Point and Sizewell.

Where then is the pain? It arises from a sadness that we have fallen so far behind our neighbour France in the scale and enterprise of our nuclear industry. EDF has a staff of 158,000 with 58 reactors at 19 sites, whereas BE has 8,000 employees with 15 reactors at eight sites. Moreover, almost half of BE’s reactors are either subject to long shutdowns for repairs or are operating at reduced power. In truth, EDF are more interested in acquiring the sites than the reactors themselves.


The UK proceeds with Advanced Gas Cooled Reactors

How has this imbalance with France come about, bearing in mind that in the immediate post-war years the UK was a pioneer in the peaceful applications of nuclear power, and for a brief period generated more nuclear electricity than the rest of the ‘free’ world combined? Our pivotal error occurred in 1965 when, based on limited operational experience of a small windscale prototype, the UK selected the Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor (AGR) to be constructed at Dungeness (known as Dungeness B). This became the first reactor of a series of AGRs constituting the second phase of the UK nuclear reactor programme. This was a disaster – it took 25 years for Dungeness B to become fully operational – thus spelling the end of hopes of export orders and ambitions to become a leading nuclear nation.


Selection of nuclear power systems

The French, like the British, started their nuclear power programme with gas-cooled reactors, a Hobson’s choice in the absence of largescale facilities to enrich nuclear fuel. However, they soon acquired experience of water-cooled reactor technology from their nuclear submarine programme and association with the Belgians in the construction of a 240MW Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR). They also recognised that light water reactors were becoming common around the world and that there would be a huge benefit arising from other countries’ operating experience.

The PWR became the preferred choice for the second stage of development. This bore rich fruits – almost 80% of France’s electrical power is nuclear-generated and it is an appreciable exporter of nuclear electricity to its neighbours, including Britain. Currently, UK electricity costs are up to four times those in France.

The Thatcher Government, which came into power in May 1979, was broadly in favour of the PWR, and indeed one reactor (Sizewell B), after an over-long inquiry, was approved in June 1987 and became operational in February 1995. However, plans for further PWRs were abandoned and huge damage was done to our nuclear prospects by the manner in which the administrations privatised the Central Electricity Generating Board. They isolated the nuclear component from the more profitable conventional generation.

Among the casualties were world-class laboratories at Berkeley, Marchwood and Leatherhead, and with similar cuts in UK atomic energy R&D, our country is poorly placed to respond to the challenges of the nuclear power renaissance, which is apparently about to start. One recalls industrialist Sir William Lithgow’s recent remark, ‘Technological illiteracy is the hallmark of the British administrative class’.


Further information

EDF Energy

British Energy

'Bureaucracy spawns chaotic energy policy', by Sir William Lithgow, The Times, 8 October 2008

 

Materials World Magazine, 01 Nov 2008
  • Login or register to post comments
  • Printer-friendly version

Comments

08 Jan 2009, 16:16 ALEXANDER

Energy Autonomy = Renewable Energy

Once again Jack Harris has subtly pointed the way to improved renewable energy sources. The link is provided in the online version of his monthly letter "Material Matters" not in the print version. The link title is: "Bureaucracy spawns chaotic energy policy', by Sir William Lithgow, The Times, 8" which hopefully will soon be entitled as say "Scotland rises to the UK, Materials World-Energy Challenge via the Lithgow Bill" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article4901899.ece PS I still enjoy the print edition.
  • Login or register to post comments
18 Dec 2009, 06:53 jh

The cost of nuclear energy

The cost of nuclear energy is in line with what we are currently paying for electricity. Power can be generated on demand e.g. using solar panels.

  • Login or register to post comments

on Twitter, Facebook, Digg, your blog, and more

What is ShareThis?

  • Home
  • Contact IOM3
  • About/FAQ
  • Venue hire
  • Press room
  • Privacy
  • Copyright
  • Accessibility
  • Terms
  • Login