The government has just revised downwards its forecast of the role that nuclear will be playing by the end of the next decade. This isn't the first time that our nuclear ambitions have been scaled back. So what has the government said over the years, and what effect would further slippage have on our plans to decarbonise the UK's power sector?
The UK has a longstanding association with the nuclear industry. The world's first civil nuclear reactor was built on British soil: Calder Hall at Sellafield. At one point in the mid-1990s over 25% of our electricity came from nuclear reactors.
In the 1980s there was to have been a major programme of ten new power stations. Ambitions were brought down to earth when Sizewell B did not go according to plan. Scepticism over the cost of nuclear power was compounded when British Energy became functionally bankrupt.
In 2000, the Department for Trade and Industry's energy projections paper suggested that "no new nuclear plants will be built" by 2020.
However, in the 2006 Energy Review the government proposed a major programme of 25GW of new plant by 2025, on the proviso that new reactors be "proposed, developed, constructed and operated by the private sector who would also meet decommissioning and their full share of long-term waste management costs".
EDF announced plans to have the first reactor up and running by 2017.
By 2008, that first reactor had already slipped to 2018.
By 2009, when the government published its low carbon transition plan, the forecast had fallen to "one station of around 1.6GW operating in 2020, up to one new station per year thereafter", or about 10GW by 2025.
DECC's nuclear team are still talking up the industry's plans "to develop up to 16GW of new nuclear power in the UK by 2025". They have just launched an initiative to secure jobs in the nuclear supply chain and even commissioned the nuclear lobby to tell them how to do it.
But without ceremony, DECC's forecasts have been revised downwards to just 3.3GW, or two reactors, by 2025. Tellingly, they've cut the number of reactors online by 2030 - a full 18 years away - to 9.9GW, or 6 reactors. That first reactor isn't expected to be operating until 2020.
Given its recent history, and the problems that have plagued similar projects at Olkiluoto and Flamanville, it is impossible to rule out further slippages. So what effect would that have on our CO2 reduction targets?
If our policy can't react, we're in difficulty. Those reactors, including some 3.6GW of existing capacity still on the system, are running full pelt - 86% load factor - and forecast to meet almost a third of our electricity demand. If the nuclear programme slips by a single nuclear reactor then the remaining plant would need to operate at an impossible 98% load factor.
The alternative would be to use more gas or renewables. Renewables are assumed to be operating at 30% load factor; this could be increased slightly if round three offshore wind (with a load factor of up to 40%) were to play a great role.
But unless we can see the delay coming and engender an unprecedented burst of investment in renewables (or demand reduction), then renewables wouldn't be able to be scaled up to fill the gap.
The obvious outcome if the nuclear programme is delayed further would be more gas in the mix. Yet gas would already be operating at a load factor of 33%, which according to DECC's calculations would produce a carbon intensity figure of between 100g and 200g / KWh (miles away from the Committee on Climate Change's decarbonisation pathway of 50g / KWh), and that assumes all the old coal is closed down.
You don't have to be a nuclear sceptic to recognise that this is a problem. The government, for one reason or another, is putting a lot of trust in an industry with a record of delays.
At the very least, it would be sensible for us to implement a commensurate programme of energy saving and demand management. Not only would that bring down bills, but it would also make it easier for us to fill the energy gap should any of the new reactors become waylaid.
Viewpoint pieces reflect the view of the author and/or his or her organisation.
