1 month ago
43
The Nuclear Free Local Authorities are disappointed that civil servants in the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero are concentrating their efforts on creating a siting policy for nuclear fusion plants rather that focusing on delivering the Labour Government’s plan to triple solar power.
DESNZ has today concluded an initial consultation, which was started under the Conservatives and features a foreword by outgoing Nuclear Minister Andrew Bowie, into siting policy. The NFLAs have sent a response opposing the plan to give nuclear operators greater largesse in selecting sites, subject to their meeting a set of criteria, instead of government making a strategic assessment in England. And we have called for nuclear fusion developments to be banned in National Parks, at other key heritage and beauty spots, and in at-risk marine environments.
However, we also feel the consultation is a waste of departmental resources and time when the new Labour Government is rightly instead focused on harnessing the sun’s power through proven solar technologies. Fusion energy is many years away, if ever, and it will do nothing to provide affordable and sustainable electricity and heat in the first term of a Labour Government at a time when energy consumers are struggling with higher bills and when Ministers are committed to achieving Net Zero by 2030.
One of the questions in the consultation was asking respondents to express a view as to whether there would be any value in setting a deadline for the deployment of fusion energy facilities.
Commenting, for the NFLAs, Secretary Richard Outram wrote: ‘We have been ten years away from the achievement of fusion energy sustainably, at scale, and economically seemingly in every decade in the last half century. The known technical challenges remain tremendous, and the economies remain uncertain.’
The new UK Government backed ‘STEP’ (Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production) prototype fusion energy plant, planned for the West Burton site in Nottinghamshire, will only begin operations in 2040.
And the revised plan for the commencement of operations at the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor now aims for ‘a scientifically and technically robust initial phase of operations, including deuterium-deuterium fusion operation in 2035 followed by full magnetic energy and plasma current operation’. The previous baseline, established in 2016, was for first plasma in 2025. This is a giant international collaborative project.
Neither of these are commercial fusion energy facilities.
An indicative timescale might provide a framework to prospective developers, but frankly at this time, and for the near future, fusion energy remains a complete fantasy, something akin to the timeless promise of alchemy.
Fusion will contribute nothing to providing affordable electricity for domestic consumers now, nor would it address the need for affordable electricity to facilitate the decarbonisation of industry and transport now, nor will it provide the necessary green energy to meet the challenge of achieving Net Zero in the critical next five years. Renewables WILL.
Consequently, the NFLAs would prefer that the government reemploy in the short term all its resources towards the gathering of fusion energy through an already proven, cheap, and completely safe mechanism, and one that generates zero radioactive waste – namely solar power.
The new Labour Government has committed to tripling the generating capacity of solar power to 50 GW by 2030. This, though a challenging, goal is achievable, but the NFLAs would like to go beyond that by seeking for every new home, every industrial building, every public building, every academic institution and every large carpark to be routinely equipped with roof-mounted solar panels, and in rolling out a funded programme of retrofitting solar on our existing infrastructure as a national emergency.
Richard said: ‘Roof-mounted solar should be logical choice in the built environment. I have spoken before about the desire to make every home, public and commercial building, and large carpark a ‘power station’, coupled with insulation and energy efficiency measures, to promote energy independence and security. We should all instead get behind that worthy objective, rather than this never-never fusion delusion’.
Ends://… For more information, please contact Richard Outram, NFLA Secretary by email to richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk or by mobile phone on 07583 097793
Notes to Editors
The NFLAs submission made via Citizen Space:
In response to the specific questions, the NFLAs wish to make the following comments:
Question 1. Do you agree that the planning process for fusion energy facilities should be aligned, and maintained with other complex energy generation facilities?
If this includes adherence to the planning regime applicable to nuclear fission projects, this would be logical and consistent.
Question 2. Do you agree with the Government’s proposal to include all fusion technologies in the NPS process?
Yes, this would be logical and consistent.
Question 3. Do you agree with the Government’s proposal to take an open-sited approach in the fusion NPS process?
As in the previous consultation on the proposed NPS for fission plants, this consultation document proposes a fundamental change in siting policy for fusion energy facilities from a strategic approach to an open sited one that is developer based and criteria led, whereby developers identify potential sites and then apply an assessment of criteria to them.
We oppose this approach for fusion, as we did fission. This enables Government to evade the challenge of selecting potentially suitable sites for fusion energy facilities and lays the burden on developers who may be ill-equipped to undertake the task. We believe that Government should assess potential sites consistently on a national basis, rather than charging developers with assessing individual sites on an inconsistent basis; furthermore, many will have no capacity nor credibility to consult effectively with potential host communities.
Question 4. Do you agree with the Government’s proposal to include all fusion energy facilities in England, independent of capacity, in the fusion NPS process?
Yes, that would be logical and consistent.
If the Government’s proposal is indeed to include all such facilities, regardless of capacity, then in our view it would also be logical and consistent to include research fusion facilities of all capacities.
The environmental and public health issues these facilities present require examination through the rigorous NSIP regime that enables stakeholders to fully engage in participation and decision making. We support the proposal.
Question 5. Do you agree with the Government’s proposal to include both thermal and electrical facilities in the fusion NSIP process?
Yes, this would be logical and consistent.
Question 6. Do you think the definition of a fusion energy facility, as provided in the Energy Act 2023, is suitable for distinguishing between a fusion energy facility and/or fusion research facility for the purpose of this NPS?
We believe that fusion energy and research facilities should treated the same for the purpose of the NPS.
Question 7. Do you agree with the Government’s proposal to not set a deployment deadline for fusion energy facilities?
Setting a deadline is unlikely to make any significant difference to the deployment of fusion energy facilities.
We have been ten years away from the achievement of fusion energy sustainably, at scale, and economically seemingly in every decade in the last half century.
The known technical challenges remain tremendous, and the economies remain uncertain.
The new UK Government backed ‘STEP’ (Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production) prototype fusion energy plant, planned for the West Burton site in Nottinghamshire, will only begin operations in 2040.
The revised plan for the commencement of operations at the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor now aims for ‘a scientifically and technically robust initial phase of operations, including deuterium-deuterium fusion operation in 2035 followed by full magnetic energy and plasma current operation’. The previous baseline, established in 2016, was for first plasma in 2025. This is a giant international collaborative project.
Neither of these are commercial fusion energy facilities.
An indicative timescale might provide a framework to prospective developers, but frankly at this time, and for the near future, fusion energy remains a complete fantasy, something akin to the timeless promise of alchemy.
Fusion will contribute nothing to providing affordable electricity for domestic consumers now, nor would it address the need for affordable electricity to facilitate the decarbonisation of industry and transport now, nor will it provide the necessary green energy to meet the challenge of achieving Net Zero in the critical next five years. Renewables WILL.
Consequently, the Nuclear Free Local Authorities would prefer that the government reemploy in the short term all its resources towards the gathering of fusion energy through an already proven, cheap, and completely safe mechanism, and one that generates zero radioactive waste – namely solar power.
The new Labour Government has committed to tripling the generating capacity of solar power to 50 GW by 2030. This, though a challenging, goal is achievable. Indeed, we should aim to go beyond that by seeking for every new home, every industrial building, every public building, every academic institution and every large carpark to be routinely equipped with solar panels, and in rolling out a funded programme of retrofitting solar on our existing infrastructure as a national emergency.
We should all instead get behind that, rather than this never-never fusion delusion.
Question 8. Should developers consider any other factors in assessing reasonable alternatives for fusion energy facilities?
No comments.
Question 9. Do you believe that the proposed criteria cover all aspects necessary for assessing the suitability of sites for fusion energy facilities?
Impact of multiple devices
In cases where a potential cluster of such facilities could be located on a single site, strategic assessment and permission must be based on the overall development footprint and generating capacity at the site. The overall impact of the maximum development at a site in terms of cooling water, land footprint, defensive measures, radioactive waste, transmission, and transportation etc must be assessed.
Groundwater
Nuclear facilities often discharge radioactive materials into the ground. Historic nuclear operations at Sellafield and Dounreay have contaminated land, beaches, and watercourses in their vicinity. It is critical to avoid the risk of seepage to groundwater by appropriate protections, including banning nuclear development in sensitive areas. Developers should provide an assessment of how they would prevent such groundwater contamination.
Related to groundwater protection is the need to ensure that there shall be sufficient water supplies to meet the needs of households, businesses and farming in the area surrounding a fusion energy facility as well as meeting the needs of that facility. Lack of potable water for the lifetime operation of Sizewell C was a reason for the qualified rejection by PINS of the proposal. At times of water shortage, demands of nuclear activity must not take priority over other users and there should be a requirement that potable supplies will be available into the far future under conditions of climate change.
We believe that the criteria should include a requirement that developers demonstrate that there is, and will remain, an adequate supply of potable water to meet the demands of all potential consumers for the lifetime of nuclear operations at a site, and, if this is not so, how the operator will meet its own water needs independently.
Nationally and internationally designated sites of ecological importance and Areas of amenity, cultural heritage and landscape value:
In our view there should be an absolute prohibition on the location of fusion energy facilities within the fifteen National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), World Heritage Sites, and in such recent creations as HM The King’s National Nature Reserves.
In 1810, Wordsworth described the Lake District as a “sort of national property in which every man has a right and interest who has an eye to perceive and a heart to enjoy”. This sentiment would be shared by millions of British citizens who have a deep-seated attachment to our National Parks and the many other areas of great beauty or historic significance with which our nation is blessed. They are all immensely valued and are a tremendous source of national pride and an unparallelled educational resource.
The National Parks Act of 1949 outlined the purpose of their creation: ‘conserving and enhancing the(ir) natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage’ and ‘promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the(ir) special qualities by the public’. Lord Sandford who chaired the National Parks Policy Review Committee which reviewed national parks of England and Wales in between 1971 and 1974 stated that: ‘The two purposes of national parks are, in short, 1. conservation of the natural environment and 2. access for the public’. The Environment Act 1995 slightly amended these objectives to ‘firstly, conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area and, secondly, to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the area by the public’.
The construction and operation of any nuclear power plant in such spaces would be enormously damaging and completely detrimental to these intended purposes.
Any nuclear power plant will be large and intrusive, standing stark against the beauty of the locality. Their operation comes with the possible risk of an accident and will certainly lead to radioactive contamination of the local environment. Their construction and operation would be massively detrimental to the peace and quiet enjoyed by residents and tourists. Consequently, there would be an impact on visitor numbers and the tourist economy.
Precedence for the exclusion of a national park from nuclear development was established when a decision was taken to exclude consideration of the Lake District National Park as the potential location for the Geological Disposal Facility. This recognised the importance of preserving this outstanding World Heritage Site from development.
Given this precedent has been set we can see no justification for permitting any other future nuclear development (fission or fusion) in any National Park, AONBs, World Heritage Site or King’s National Nature Reserve within the UK.
Access to suitable sources of cooling
We strongly believe that the development of fusion energy and research facilities should be ruled-out in locations where there is insufficient access to any required external cooling water, specifically where:
- There is insufficient volume of water, for example, in estuarial locations.
- There is a severe risk of detrimental impact on marine life and environment.
- Access to cooling water is technically difficult to achieve, for example, by long pipelines to the sea.
- Cooling towers would be necessary which would totally destroy the landscape and amenity.
Question 10. Are there any additional criteria that should be considered in the assessment process?
Impact on marine environment
An extra criterion should be a required assessment for coastal and estuarial sites of the impact on marine habitats. We believe the perceived need for nuclear energy cannot override the protection of the marine environment. There should be a test which bars development in circumstances where significant damage will be caused to the integrity of marine ecosystems.
Question 11. Do you think there should there be a separate set of criteria for different fusion technologies?
No, it would be logical and consistent to apply the same criteria on all technologies.
Question 12. Do you agree with the proposed model for implementation of the Fusion NPS?
Yes, this seems logical. We look forward to commenting in response to the consultation on the draft NPS in 2025.
