Professor Paul Howarth and the Future of Fast Breeder Reactors in the UK

Is it reasonable to surmise that this individual in charge of this organisation could well dictate the UK's nuclear direction for the foreseeable future?

Will he dictate the timing or even the prospects of UK deployment of breeder reactors?

As of mid-April 2012, no apparent utterances on his opinions of the potential or capabilities of the GE Hitachi PRISM.

This is the situation so far:

Legal Status and Ownership

The National Nuclear Laboratory is a UK registered private limited company in which the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change holds all of the shares through a holding company NNL Holdings Ltd.

Objectives

The Government’s objectives for the NNL are for it to:

• operate as a sound commercial business;
• demonstrate value for customers;
• create a platform for UK and internationally funded R&D;
• ensure the latent value of the UK’s R&D can be demonstrated and realised;
• become an international centre of excellence in nuclear research and development, playing a vital role in cleaning up the UK’s nuclear waste legacy and contributing to the programme of nuclear new build;
• safeguard the UK’s high tech nuclear expertise, facilities and skills;
• ensure the stability of the immature UK civil nuclear R&D market;
• provide a basis for opening up the UK market to nuclear facility operational and clean up R&D; and
• safeguard the contribution that the NNL makes to the West Cumbrian economy and local ambitions to become an Energy Coast.

Professor Paul Howarth
Director of Science,
Technology and Project Delivery,
National Nuclear Laboratory, UK

Vision, Mission, Values:

Our strategic vision is the overarching guide to what NNL aims to achieve:

To be a valued and successful nuclear science and technology laboratory, world renowned for its exceptional staff, cutting edge facilities and excellent value for money.

GE Hitachi - NNL Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

“With our recognised technical capability and long experience in fuel cycle analysis, we are pleased that GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy has looked to NNL to provide independent and authoritative input to the potential U.K. application of a PRISM reactor,” said Paul Howarth, managing director of NNL.

 

Add caption

April 2012 Issue of Ethos Journal:  Paul Howarth - "Nuclear Future"

".....There are three approaches to managing the UK’s plutonium stockpile: store it, treat it as waste, or use it as fuel. My feeling is that it should be turned into fuel – we should derive the benefit of electricity from it....."

News:  13 April 2012

NNL Managing Director participates in Prime Minister’s top level business delegation to Japan

Managing Director of the UK’s National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL), Paul Howarth, was part of the top level business delegation which visited Japan this week.

The group was led by Prime Minister David Cameron..... During the visit UK and Japanese officials agreed and signed a Framework on Civil Nuclear Cooperation, providing the basis for UK companies to engage in multi-billion pound decommissioning opportunities in Japan. In a separate development, the UK Nuclear Industry Association and the Japan Atomic Industrial Forum signed a Memorandum of Understanding to further industrial collaboration between companies from the UK and Japan.

Paul Howarth said: “I was delighted to be invited as a delegate on this tremendously important trip to Japan. There is clearly a huge opportunity ahead for the UK and Japan to work together to address nuclear challenges across the sector – including the areas of new nuclear build, waste management and decommissioning....”

In keeping a close eye on Professor Howarth's utterances in respect of the Plutonium Question and Breeder Reactor Deployment, I intend to publicise any developments with alacrity.

Nuclear Waste Problem - What Nuclear Waste Problem?

Memorandum of Understanding to study the Breeder Reactor Solution to the UK's Plutonium Stockpile.

GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH) has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) on handling UK plutonium.

NNL will provide expert technical input to the potential U.K. deployment of GEH’s innovative PRISMreactor, which would be specifically designed to deal with the UK’s plutonium while generating 600 megawatts of low-carbon electricity.

GEH met with a number of skilled nuclear workers in West Cumbria to learn how they could work with GEH on PRISM’s potential deployment.

The country is currently storing more than 87 metric tons (and growing) of plutonium at the Sellafield nuclear complex in West Cumbria, England. 

“We are excited for the potential opportunity to utilize the expertise of NNL and help the U.K. continue to take a leadership role in the reuse of plutonium,” said Danny Roderick, senior vice president of new plant projects for GEH.

“With our recognized technical capability and long experience in fuel cycle analysis, we are pleased that GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy has looked to NNL to provide independent and authoritative input to the potential U.K. application of a PRISM reactor,” said Paul Howarth, managing director of NNL.

Today, GEH, along with leading U.K. engineering firms Costain, Arup and Pöyry, (GEH’s “CAP Alliance” partners), met face-to-face with the number of highly talented and experienced nuclear sector suppliers in West Cumbria.

Should PRISM be approved for construction, in addition to creating about 900 permanent jobs and thousands of expected indirect jobs for the local community, this multibillion-pound investment would stand to create a range of opportunities for suppliers while continuing to develop the country’s nuclear energy skills base.

Drawing of the PRISM Reactor
(Power Reactor Innovative Small Module) 

About PRISM

PRISM is based on technology that was demonstrated in a fast reactor in the U.S. called the EBR II (Experimental Breeder Reactor) that operated successfully for 30 years. Calculations have shown that PRISM technology would use practically all the stored plutonium at Sellafield, as PRISM consumes much of the plutonium as a true fuel.

LFTRs are 'in the air' in the Corridors of Power

But not in a short term, optimistic way. Email your local MP - http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/  and find out their views.

House of Lords - Written Answers

Tuesday 8 November 2011

Energy: Nuclear Reactors

Question

Asked by Lord Stoddart of Swindon

To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the desirability of supporting the building of thorium-fuelled nuclear power stations in preference to uranium-fuelled stations.[HL12948]

Baroness Stowell of Beeston: Ultimately it is for industry to propose what type of fuel to use in any future nuclear reactors, the designs of which would be subject to independent regulatory assessment and acceptance. To date, no potential operator has put forward proposals for a thorium-fuelled plant in the UK.

That said, the department is aware of the potential of thorium-fuelled nuclear reactor designs and is in the process of assessing claims regarding its suitability as an alternative to uranium based reactors in the longer term.

The current view of thorium reactor technologies from the nuclear industry is that, whilst the science is reasonably sound, developing reactors based on a thorium fuel cycle would carry major technological and commercial risks. The resources required to develop these technologies to the point at which they might be deployed successfully at a commercial scale are also very significant.

To date, both in the UK and elsewhere in the world, this has prevented private industry and government from investing significantly in the development of the technology. No thorium reactor design has been implemented beyond relatively small, experimental systems, whilst many either only exist on paper or have only had specific subsystems demonstrated.

As an indicator of the challenge of taking this technology further, the Chinese Academy of Sciences estimates that a development period of at least 20 years will be required before a demonstration thorium molten-salt breeder reactor might be available.

While thorium does not appear to have a part to play in the UK's near to mid-term energy market, we do maintain an interest in its development. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has asked the National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) to look further into the wider benefits of next-generation reactor designs and to compare the use of thorium and uranium fuels in them. We are expecting the findings to be available in due course.

Open Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The Most Reverend and Right Honourable the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury
House of Lords,
London,
SW1A 0PW

Dear Archbishop Rowan,

Re: Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs).

I have written to you on 2 previous occasions about LFTRs, but the replies made clear that the letter contents were not appropriate for your attention. However, in September of last year, I wrote to many of the Lords Spiritual, including the Bishop of Hereford,  and in May of this year was most gratified to see in Hansard, several written LFTR-questions posed by the Bishop  and written replies from Lord Marland. 

It is virtually certain that the Government's future nuclear policy and any prospects of considering thorium technology, will be 100% influenced by the NNL's report due for publication imminently (late summer). I have a letter from Professor Paul Howarth, Managing Director of NNL, which completely rules out the thorium fuel cycle for use in any form of future UK reactor.

Were you to study the Bishop of Hereford's questions and the platitudes of Lord Marsland's replies, you might conclude, as I did and the Bishop probably does, that the NNL is locked into the existing uranium-fuel lobby and therefore lacks independance. The Government will accept their recommendations and thorium technology could be in stasis for decades.

There should be a Christian perspective on the lack of independance of a commercial operation as influential as the NNL. "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" "Heaven will direct it".

Would you please have your energy advisors get under the political skin of this unsavoury situation?

Yours sincerely,

Colin Megson.

The Rt Revd Lord Bishop of Hereford - Batting for LFTRs

Lord Bishop of Hereford, Rt Revd Anthony Priddis   

Written Answers

       Tuesday 24 May 2011                   

Energy: Nuclear Reactors

Questions

Asked by The Lord Bishop of Hereford

To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Marland on 4 May (WA 157) on liquid fluoride thorium reactors, what assessment they have made of the independence of the assessment undertaken by the National Nuclear Laboratory, given the involvement of Nexia Solutions, a wholly owned subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels.[HL9194]

Written Answer By: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland): Nexia Solutions was a subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels Limited (BNFL), which focused on research and development. In 2008, it was transferred out of BNFL under the Energy Act Transfer Scheme to form the National Nuclear Laboratory, which is an independent company, owned wholly by Her Majesty's Government and is operated as a commercial entity under the management of a consortium led by Serco. The assessment referred to in (WA 157) was a position paper produced entirely by the NNL at its own initiative. While it is assumed that the technical expertise retained by the NNL from Nexia has underpinned the opinions in the paper, no assessment of the paper has been undertaken by my department.           

----------------------------//-----------------------------

To ask Her Majesty's Government, following the independent assessment undertaken by the National Nuclear Laboratory, what plans they have to undertake further independent work to address issues associated with liquid fluoride thorium reactors.[HL9195]

To ask Her Majesty's Government, in the light of the readiness of the Government of China to undertake research and development work on liquid fluoride thorium reactors, whether they will commit to more work, either nationally or with international partners, on this source of energy.[HL9197]

Written Answer By: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland):

As noted in the Answer to your Question of 26 April 2011, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has asked the NNL to conduct further analysis of the wider benefits of next generation reactor designs and to compare the use of thorium and uranium fuels in them. This study includes assessments of safety, radio-toxicological hazard, scale, economics, and outstanding technical barriers. Molten salt reactors, within which category liquid thorium fluoride reactors fall, are one of the reactor designs being considered. We are expecting the findings of this study to be available by the end of the summer.                                                     ----

-----------------------------//--------------------------------

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will commission independent work specifically on the safety, cleanliness, scale and economics of liquid fluoride thorium reactors and any particular advantages they may offer in the United Kingdom context. [HL9196]

Written Answer By: The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Lord Marland): The Government support relevant R&D into nuclear technologies through a range of mechanisms and organisations, including universities and research councils, the National Nuclear Laboratory, the Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre and others. Any future R&D on liquid thorium fluoride reactors would be done through these organisations. Findings of the NNL's forthcoming study and the position of potential international partners on this technology would be expected to inform any decision to support any new R&D.

NNL's Professor Paul Howarth RULES!! OK!!

Please! Please! Please! - Professor Howarth, listen to Kirk Sorensen's evidence of the past successes of thorium fuelled Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) and what the future holds for LFTRs. At the end of the summer, you can then present a balanced report to Chris Huhne, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change; this will rectify the omission of a mention of the use of the Thorium Fuel Cycle in MSRs, in your Position Paper of August 2010, of that name.

I do hope I shall get an early response to my letter, posted to you today, 16 July 2011, asking if you are willing and able to invite Kirk Sorensen to make the case, to you and your NNL staff, that any country with decent scientific, technological and economical resources can 'make LFTRs happen' - this means the UK.

In all probability, you and only you will influence politics to take the path of increased UK manufacturing jobs, growth and prosperity not seen in 3 generations, versus a bit-part in the future of nuclear power across the globe.

Keep It Simple Stupid and Save £50 Billion!

Have you ever seen such a mish-mash, hodge-podge of a dog's-dinner than:  http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/emr_oral/emr_oral.aspx

Electricity Market Reform - Oral statement by Chris Huhne

How could we have ended up with such a woolly-minded believer in Renewables, driving through an energy policy, which might hold sway for decades, and cost an unnecessary extra £50 billion into the 'bargain'. And, most confidently, "commend this statement to the House".

Mr Huhne - Let's hope that the late-summer report by the National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) will point out that:   The first-of-a-kind Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) could be up and running in 5 years, at the piddling cost of £300 million. There are half a dozen UK companies that could manufacture this (glorified) hot-salt chemical plant, so 5 years after that, 100 MWe modular LFTRs could be rolling off production lines at one per day, for £150 million each. In 2 years, we could replace all of our coal and gas fired power stations (LFTRs are load-following), at a cost of £30 billion per year for 2 years.

Do the sums and you will see 'keeping it simple' will save you £50 billion of the £110 billion investment you quantified in the Commons. A few pats-on-the-back from colleagues and a few 'eyes to the heavens' and 'thank-goodnesses' from tax payers everywhere.