ENERGY MATERIALS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN ATTAINING THE UK'S 2020 TARGETS FOR NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Knowledge
Transfer
Network
Knowledge Transfer Networks
Accelerating business innovation:
Materials
a Technology Strategy Board programme
ENERGY MATERIALS: OPPORTUNITIES
AND CHALLENGES IN ATTAINING THE
UK’S 2020 TARGETS FOR NUCLEAR
ELECTRICITY GENERATION
www.materialsktn.net
AUTHOR Dr Kathryn P Jackson National Metals Technology Centre Ltd (NAMTEC) DISCLAIMER The views and judgements expressed in this report reflect the consensus reached by the author and contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of the organisation to which they are affiliated. Whilst every care has been taken in compiling the information in this report, neither NAMTEC nor the Materials KTN can be held responsible for any errors, omission or subsequent use of this information. FURTHER INFORMATION Please contact: Materials KTN Metals and Alloys Group National Metals Technology Centre Ltd (NAMTEC) University of Sheffield Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre Wallis Way Catcliffe Rotherham S60 5TZ T +44(0)114 222 1747 E info@namtec.co.uk
ENERGY MATERIALS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN ATTAINING
THE UK’S 2020 TARGETS FOR NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Nuclear energy will have a significant role to seven threats have been identified: uncertainty
play in the UK’s future energy mix, providing in the economic climate; engagement of Tier 1
a zero-carbon base load alongside a mixture suppliers; supply of ultra large forgings; global
of renewables and low-carbon fossil fuel competition; manufacturing capabilities; culture
sources. The UK’s ambitions for nuclear of quality; and shortage of skills and loss of
energy in 2020 offer significant challenges knowledge. Overall, the UK is regarded as
and opportunities for UK manufacturing strong in terms of manufacturing capabilities,
industry; ambitious timescales for new builds
with some improvement in capacities required
will be progressed to replace existing fleet
in some areas.
which is close to decommissioning, which
will be followed by further expansion to Opportunities to alleviate these threats include
increase the UK’s nuclear capacity. The aim engagement with nuclear OEMs, development
of this Materials KTN review is to highlight the of the UK’s capacity for ultra large forgings,
opportunities and challenges for materials and support for Tier 2 to 4 suppliers, and training
manufacturing arising from the UK’s nuclear and skills. Knowledge transfer with other
new build programme in three areas: supply high value manufacturing sectors such as
of raw materials; manufacturing supply chain; oil and gas, aerospace and fossil fuel power
and operations and maintenance. This review generation will help the UK to develop
has been derived from a combination of a its capabilities and quality of culture in
stakeholder consultation and literature survey.
preparation for penetrating the market for
Four areas of potential risk arising from the nuclear new build.
supply of raw materials have been identified:
In the area of operations and maintenance,
availability of speciality alloying elements;
the UK has established capabilities for
availability of certain grades of stainless
operating and maintaining nuclear plant
steels; the impact of REACH regulations;
and maintaining the traceability of supply of developed through the UK’s civil nuclear
materials across the supply chain. The risk legacy. Challenges to the operations and
of supply of speciality alloying elements is maintenance of new build plant include limited
regarded to be low, whilst the availability of access to data and knowledge sharing on
down-stream materials is of greater concern materials for PWRs, and loss of knowledge
to the nuclear industry. through aging of personnel.
Opportunities for innovation to mitigate these Opportunities to mitigate these risks include
risks include consolidation of production of engagement with international knowledge-
specialised steel grades to mitigate supply sharing programmes, knowledge retention
chain bottlenecks and improve quality control, and storage, and development of condition
retention of scarce materials by closed-loop based monitoring. Knowledge transfer with the
recycling, and quality control of the supply aerospace and fossil fuel power generation
chain by monitoring and training. sectors will help to develop approaches to
In the area of the manufacturing supply chain, operations and maintenance.
www.materialsktn.net 3
ENERGY MATERIALS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN ATTAINING
THE UK’S 2020 TARGETS FOR NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report has been written by the Materials
KTN Metals and Alloys Group in co-ordination
with the Materials UK Energy Materials Working
Group (EMWG). The author would like to
express her gratitude to the EMWG alongside
all other contributors to the stakeholder
consultation for their input to the report. The
contributors are listed below.
Steve Court Nuclear AMRC
David Hall Nuclear AMRC
Martin Ride Nuclear AMRC
Rob Mitchell Rolls-Royce plc
Juan Matthews UKTI
Chris Savage Nuclear Industry
Association (NIA)
Michael Burke Dalton Nuclear
Institute
4 www.materialsktn.net
ENERGY MATERIALS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN ATTAINING
THE UK’S 2020 TARGETS FOR NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION
CONTENTS
1 Introduction 7
1.1 Trends in the UK Nuclear Energy Landscape 8
1.2 Technology Overview 11
2 Supply of Raw Materials 16
2.1 Threats to Supply of Raw Materials 17
2.2 Opportunities to Alleviate Threats to Supply of Raw Materials 19
3 Manufacturing Supply Chain 21
3.1 Threats to Manufacturing Supply Chain 22
3.2 Opportunities to Alleviate Threats to Manufacturing Supply Chain 30
4 Operations and Maintenance 35
4.1 Threats to Operations and Maintenance 36
4.2 Opportunities to Alleviate Threats to Operations and Maintenance 38
5 Conclusions and Recommendations 41
References 44
www.materialsktn.net 5
ENERGY MATERIALS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN ATTAINING THE UK’S 2020 TARGETS FOR NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION
ENERGY MATERIALS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN ATTAINING
THE UK’S 2020 TARGETS FOR NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION
1 INTRODUCTION
Nuclear power generation will have a Written by the Materials KTN in co-ordination with the
significant role to play in the UK’s energy Materials UK Energy Materials Working Group (EMWG),
the aim of this review is to provide a fresh perspective
mix in 2020 and beyond, providing a zero
on the threats and opportunities for the UK’s 2020
carbon base load to supplement a variety
nuclear targets, focussing specifically on materials
of renewable and low-carbon fossil fuel aspects. The review is based primarily on stakeholder
energy sources. The UK’s existing nuclear consultation, the contributors to which are listed in the
capacity of around 10GW is predicted Acknowledgements, with references to supporting
to be mostly be decommissioned by literature made throughout the text wherever possible.
2020, meaning that the initial focus of This review will build on the findings of previous
the nuclear new build programme is reviews of the manufacturing supply chain for nuclear.
to replace the existing capacity before The UK’s capability to deliver a new nuclear build
expanding capacity. This section outlines programme was reviewed by the Nuclear Industry
Association (NIA) in 2006 [1] and updated in 2008
the trends in the UK’s nuclear energy
[2]. The review gave a detailed evaluation of the
landscape towards 2020 which are driving
UK’s capability to deliver both the AREVA EPR and
the need for development in materials and Westinghouse AP1000 designs. A new issue of
manufacturing. the report is currently under review and is due to be
released later this year. The supply chain for a nuclear
new build programme was also reviewed by NAMTEC
in 2008 [3], which reviewed both the capability
and capacity of supply chains including aspects of
planning, construction, operation, maintenance, waste
management, and decommissioning of a nuclear
power station.
As part of the introduction, the trends in the UK’s
nuclear energy landscape are outlined in section 1.1.
The technology of future nuclear plant in the UK is
summarised in section 1.2, with the two major plant
designs (Westinghouse AP1000 and AREVA EPR)
considered in sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 respectively.
Opportunities and challenges arising from the supply
of raw materials, the manufacturing supply chain and
operations and maintenance are reviewed in sections
2, 3 and 4 respectively. Each section highlights the
threats arising in each of the areas and opportunities
to alleviate these threats through innovation and
knowledge transfer.
Conclusions and recommendations are given in
section 5. References are listed at the end of the
report, with hyperlinks to the original online sources
where possible.
www.materialsktn.net 1
ENERGY MATERIALS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN ATTAINING
THE UK’S 2020 TARGETS FOR NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION
1.1 TRENDS IN THE UK NUCLEAR ENERGY and widely regarded as safe; control of radioactive
LANDSCAPE waste is well understood and control systems and
structures are designed to fail-safe and minimise
The UK currently has ten operational nuclear power risk. Concerns over safety which were raised by the
stations, ranging in capacity from 434 to 1210 MW, Fukushima disaster in 2011 were investigated and
with a total installed capacity of around 10 GW (Table found to have no serious implications on the UK’s
1). Nuclear provided 16% of the UK’s electricity plans for a nuclear new build programme [4]. It is
supply in 2010, the third largest contributor to the for these reasons that nuclear power will continue to
energy mix (Table 2, Figure 1). Nuclear energy has make a significant contribution to the UK’s energy
the advantages of being zero-carbon, economically mix for the foreseeable future, helping the UK to
competitive, and producing a steady and controllable achieve its carbon emissions targets whilst ensuring
base-load of supply. The technologies involved that supply continues to meet demand and mitigating
in nuclear power generation are well-established future price increases of electricity.
2 www.materialsktn.net
ENERGY MATERIALS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN ATTAINING
THE UK’S 2020 TARGETS FOR NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION
Year of
Installed commission or Cease
Operator Plant Reactor type
Capacity (MW) year operation generation
began
Dungeness B 1040 1983 2018 AGR
Hartlepool 1190 1984 2019 AGR
Heysham 1 1160 1984 2019 AGR
Heysham 2 1210 1988 2023 AGR
Hinkley Point B 870 1976 2016 AGR
British Energy
Sizewell B 1191 1995 2035 PWR
Hunterston B 890 1976 2016 AGR
Torness 1205 1988 2023 AGR
Oldbury 434 1967 2012 Magnox
Wylfa 980 1971 2012 Magnox
Total installed 10170
capacity (MW)
Table 1
Nuclear power stations
in the UK operational at
the end of May 2011 [5].
Cease dates from [6-7].
Primary and Secondary
GWh Percentage
Production
Gas 175,003 46
Coal 107,694 28
Nuclear 62,140 16
Other renewables 12,837 3
Wind 10,216 3
Oil 4,860 1
Hydro 3,603 1
Other 1,625 0
Total production 377,977
Table 2
Primary and secondary
production of electricity
in the UK in 2010 [5]
www.materialsktn.net 3ENERGY MATERIALS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN ATTAINING
THE UK’S 2020 TARGETS FOR NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION
UK Primary Electricity Production 2010, GWh
3,603
4,860
1,625
10,216
12,837
Gas
Coal
Nuclear
62,140 Other renewables
Wind
175,003 Oil
Hydro
Other
107,694
Figure 1
Primary and secondary production of
electricity in the UK in 2010 [5]
Seven of the ten nuclear power stations which are sources, possible scenarios for the future energy
currently operational in the UK are due to cease mix have been put forwards by the National Grid [8],
operation by 2020 (Table 1). The UK has steadily which predicted that the UK’s capacity for nuclear
reduced its nuclear capacity over the last two in 2020 could be between approximately 5 and 10
decades, with most of the older Magnox reactors GW, depending on the rate of growth of the various
reaching the end of their lives. The initial objectives for energy generation methods. In 2011 the Government
the nuclear new build programme to 2020 and beyond suggested that by 2030 new nuclear could contribute
are therefore to replace the UK’s existing capacity 10–15 GW, with up to 20 GW achievable if build rates
for nuclear. However, it is possible that the operation are higher [9]. Industry has announced ambitions
of the existing fleet may be safely extended for a to build 16 GW by 2025, and if one reactor could be
limited period of time to supplement supply whilst the completed each year from 2019 onwards, it would
new fleet is built. This will be dictated by materials be possible to reach around 20 GW by 2030 [9]. The
degradation issues, and hence understanding of total new build programme is predicted to consist of
materials will be essential to underpin any possible approximately 8 plants, with the first one likely to be
lifetime extension. Hinkley Point C (3,260 MW output) operated by EdF
The UK government is committed to a low-carbon Energy, which is currently the subject of a nuclear site
economy and transitions in the UK energy mix will licence application [10] due for completion before
make a significant contribution to this. The UK is the end of 2012. EdF will not give a target date for
setting a leading example for low-carbon energy generation until after it has made its final investment
generation by supporting innovation and development decision [11], but this is likely to be set a few years
of skills in energy technology which have the potential behind its previously stated date 2017. Electricity
to be a major facilitator of economic growth in the generated by nuclear is currently cost-competitive with
immediate term, whilst providing a sustainable, other electricity generation technologies, and recent
affordable and low-carbon energy supply in the longer independent studies indicate that new nuclear is likely
term. The coming decades will be an exciting and to become the least expensive generation technology
dynamic time for the UK’s energy industry, with the in the future [9].
low carbon transition mainly facilitated through rapid
Despite the UK’s clear commitment towards a nuclear
growth in offshore wind, carbon capture and storage
new build programme, progress has been hampered
and new nuclear.
by economic uncertainty and the Fukushima disaster.
Although the UK government has not defined targets Plans for the second plant at Wylfa in Anglesey had
for the UK’s future energy mix with the aim of leaving been expected to be submitted by Horizon Nuclear
the market open for competition from different energy power (joint venture of E.ON UK and RWEnpower).
4 www.materialsktn.netENERGY MATERIALS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN ATTAINING
THE UK’S 2020 TARGETS FOR NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION
However, in March 2012 Horizon withdrew its plans for 1.2 TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
nuclear new build at Wylfa due to uncertain economic
conditions and the accelerated nuclear phase out Two designs have passed generic design assessment
in Germany [12]. As a result, plans for nuclear new (GDA) in the UK and therefore can be used for
build in the UK have been delayed from the 15-year the UK’s new nuclear fleet: the Westinghouse
timelines that were initially projected in 2010, and AP1000 (1154 MWe) [13] and the AREVA European
a revised timeline of development is impossible to Pressurised Reactor (EPR) (>1650 MWe) [14].
predict with any certainty at this stage. The delays Both designs are Generation III+ pressurised
have placed additional pressure on the timescales for water reactors (PWRs) and are based on similar
completion and commissioning of the new nuclear technologies and materials. However, there are
plants, and extended safe operation of aging fleet may some fundamental differences in the designs which
be necessary to support the early build phases of the will have implications on the required capabilities of
new nuclear fleet. the supply chain, the manufacturing processes and
the method of construction. The technologies of
these two designs and the key issues related to their
manufacturing are summarised in this section.
Figure 2
Basic principle of operation of a pressurised
water reactor (PWR) based on [5]
Steam Generator
Pressurised
water reactor Steam
Control
rods
Turbine
Reactor
core Generator Electricity
Water
Condensor
Hot water
Containment Structure
www.materialsktn.net 5ENERGY MATERIALS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN ATTAINING
THE UK’S 2020 TARGETS FOR NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION
The basic principle of operation of a PWR is illustrated etc, and hence increases construction costs
in Figure 2. In a PWR the primary coolant (water) and complexity. The reactor pressure vessel is
is pumped under high pressure to the reactor core manufactured from ductile steel but as the plant is
where it is heated by the energy generated by the operated neutron flux from the reactor causes this
fission of atoms. The heated water then flows to a steel to become less ductile (radiation embrittlement).
steam generator where it transfers its thermal energy Eventually the ductility of the steel will reach limits
to a secondary system through a large number of determined by the applicable boiler and pressure
narrow tubes which act as a heat exchanger. This vessel standards, and the pressure vessel must be
generates steam in the secondary circuit which repaired or replaced. This might not be practical or
turns a steam turbine which, in turn, spins an electric economic, and so determines the life of the plant.
generator. After passing through the turbine the A further risk associated with PWRs is the need for
secondary coolant (water-steam mixture) is cooled ongoing cooling for one to three years after shut
down and condensed in a condenser before being down to avoid overheating and meltdown. If the
pumped back to the steam generator as feedwater, primary coolant is lost (as in the Fukushima disaster
prior to which it is sometimes preheated to minimise in 2011) the zirconium alloy used for casing the
thermal shock. The condenser maintains a vacuum nuclear fuel rods can reach very high temperatures
at the turbine outlet so that the pressure drop across (above 2200oC), at which it spontaneously explodes
the turbine, and hence the energy extracted from the in contact with water, producing hydrogen and oxygen
steam, is maximised. and therefore hydrogen explosions.
PWRs constitute the majority of all western nuclear power
plants and are favoured for the following reasons:
1.2.1 Westinghouse AP1000
|| The primary and secondary steam circuits are
separated, and hence the transfer of radioactivity The Westinghouse AP1000 is the only Generation
from the reactor core to the steam turbine is III+ reactor to receive Design Certification from
mitigated the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
[13]. Around half of the world’s 440 nuclear plants
|| PWRs are inherently stable and therefore safer
are based on Westinghouse technology. The
than other designs because they produce
Westinghouse design is rated at 1154MW, slightly
less power as temperatures increase because
smaller than the APR at >1650 MWe, which
pressurised water is used as the moderator and
allows for modular construction (Figure 3). Safety
primary coolant
systems unique to the AP1000 include the passive
|| PWRs operate with a fail-safe design because containment cooling water tank held above the
in the event that power is lost the control rods reactor core for release in an emergency (4 on Figure
drop by gravity because they are held by 3) and the steel containment vessel which surrounds
electromagnets, and therefore shut down the the nuclear island (3 on Figure 3).
primary nuclear reaction Westinghouse achieved significant improvements
Whilst the design of the PWR offers a range of in the number of components, volume of materials
advantages in terms of safety and operation, this and construction time of the AP1000 in comparison
is accompanied by materials challenges. The high to earlier Westinghouse designs. The construction
pressure of the primary coolant water requires high period is approximately 36 months from the pouring of
strength piping, a heavy pressure vessel, reactor the first concrete to the loading of fuel. Savings in the
coolant pumps, pressuriser, steam generators, materials and construction are illustrated in Figure 4.
6 www.materialsktn.netENERGY MATERIALS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN ATTAINING
THE UK’S 2020 TARGETS FOR NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION
1. Fuel-handling Area 7. Reactor Vessel
2. Concrete Shield Building 8. Integrated Head Package
3. Steel Containment 9. Pressuriser
4. Passive Containment Cooling 10. Main Control Room
Water Tank 11. Feedwater Pumps
5. Steam Geneartors (2) 12. Turbine Genearator
6. Reactor Coolant Pumps (4)
Figure 3
Sectional 3D view of Westinghouse
AP1000 [16]. Image courtesy of
Westinghouse Electric Company
Figure 4
Savings in the materials and
construction of the Westinghouse
AP1000 [16]. Image courtesy of
Westinghouse Electric Company
50% Fewer 35% Fewer 80% Less 45% Less 85% Less
Valves Safety Grade Pipe Seismic Building Cable
Pumps Volume
7ENERGY MATERIALS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN ATTAINING
THE UK’S 2020 TARGETS FOR NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION
1.2.2 AREVA EPR
The AREVA European Pressurised Reactor (EPR)
(Figure 5) is the first Generation III+ reactor to be
deployed on an international scale, being built in
three different countries. The EPR is rated at a higher
capacity than the Westinghouse AP1000 at around
1650 MWe. The method of construction of the EPR is
therefore more strongly focussed on assembly on site
rather than modular construction off site. The EPR is
currently under construction in Finland (Olkiluoto), in
France (Flamanville) and in China (2 units in Taishan),
and is currently undergoing certification in the United
States and the UK [14]. EdF has applied for a nuclear
site licence for the AREVA EPR at Hinkley Point C,
and hence the EPR is likely to be the first Generation
III+ reactor built as part of the nuclear new build
programme in the UK.
Figure 5
Sectional 3D view of the AREVA
EPR [17]. Courtesy of AREVA.
© Image et Process – AREVA
1: Reactor building reinforced
concrete shell
2: Reactor building metallic liner
3: Reactor vessel
4: Steam generators
5: Pressuriser
6: Reactor coolant pumps
7: Corium spreading area
8: Turbine building
9: Diesel generators
8 www.materialsktn.netENERGY MATERIALS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN ATTAINING
THE UK’S 2020 TARGETS FOR NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION
2 SUPPLY OF
RAW MATERIALS
A wide range of materials will be used in 2.1 THREATS TO SUPPLY OF RAW MATERIALS
the UK’s new nuclear fleet. Beyond the Threats to the supply of raw materials for the UK’s
vast quantities of concrete used in the 2020 nuclear targets are reviewed in this section.
construction of the plant, the majority Four areas for potential threats are discussed below:
of materials will be steels, with coatings the availability of speciality alloying elements; the
used to enhance performance where availability of specific grades of stainless steel; the
necessary. Four areas of potential threats impact of REACH regulations; and maintaining the
traceability of materials through the supply chain.
in the supply of raw materials have been
identified: availability of speciality alloying 2.1.1 Availability of Speciality Alloying Elements
elements; availability of certain grades The availability of raw materials that constitute the
of stainless steel; the impact of REACH alloys used in nuclear plant has previously been
regulations; and maintaining traceability investigated by Oakdene Hollins on behalf of the JRC
of supply of materials through the European Commission in 2011 [18]. A total of 21
supply chain. Opportunities to alleviate speciality metals were identified used in a variety of
components in nuclear reactors. The starting point for
these threats include consolidation of
this review was to ascertain through the stakeholder
production of specialised steel grades, consultation whether any of these risks associated
retention of scarce materials through with the availability of speciality alloying elements are
closed-loop recycling; and quality control perceived to be a threat to the nuclear industry.
of the supply chain. These threats and The consensus of opinion obtained through the
opportunities are discussed below. consultation was that, although constraints in the
availability of these materials caused by economic
or political factors may cause increases in the prices
of these materials, these price increases can be
accommodated by the nuclear industry. Application
of alternative compositions of materials is generally
regarded as not an option for the safety-conscious
nuclear industry in which confidence in designs is
developed through lengthy testing of known materials;
the risks associated with substitution of materials
outweigh the cost increases associated with the
continued use of materials with constrained supply.
The levels of risk that have previously been associated
with the availability of raw materials are further
mitigated by decreases in demand in comparison
to earlier projections, which is likely to be a result
of constrained economic growth and the curtailing
of nuclear plans in several countries following the
Fukushima disaster. This suggests that demands
are not currently causing shortages or lead time
lengthening. However, if economic demand continues
www.materialsktn.net 9ENERGY MATERIALS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN ATTAINING
THE UK’S 2020 TARGETS FOR NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION
to be weak this may lead to some reductions in the quantities of certain specialised grades required
output, which could subsequently lead to price by individual manufacturers may not be enough to
increases. constitute a full melt (around 500 t) in themselves,
Where availability of raw materials could be perceived and therefore bottlenecks in supply may occur; (3)
as a risk for other industries, the nuclear industry is older grades that have largely been superseded by
in a strong position of influence to secure supply due newer grades elsewhere may still be used in some
to its large market size, ability to absorb increases in areas by the conservative nuclear industry where
cost, and its demand for primary products as well as tried-and-tested materials are not always substituted
by-products of extraction. For example, the largest by alternatives, hence leading to bottlenecks in supply
use of zirconium is in the nuclear industry for fuel (e.g. 304 has largely been superseded by 316 which
cladding due to its low neutron absorption coefficient, has superior corrosion resistance).
whilst a by-product of zirconium production is 2.1.3 Impact of REACH Regulations
hafnium which is also used extensively in the
nuclear industry due to its high neutron absorption The impact of REACH regulations is regarded
coefficient for nuclear shielding applications. Hence as a risk affecting the use and supply of raw
continued demand for zirconium helps to sustain materials for the nuclear industry. The introduction
the supply of hafnium, whilst the supply of both is of REACH regulations in Europe necessitates the
largely concentrated in the countries which have the rapid development and introduction of alternative
strongest nuclear programmes. materials or manufacturing processes which meet the
required safety and environmental standards, offering
2.1.2 Availability of Grades of Stainless Steels
opportunities for innovation across the manufacturing
Availability of certain grades of stainless steels supply chain. However, the rapid implementation of
was highlighted as a potential threat through the changes is at odds with the conservative and risk-
stakeholder consultation. The majority of steels aware nuclear industry, in which tried and tested
that are used in nuclear power stations are nuclear materials and processes are preferred to minimise
grades of low alloy steels (with limits on the content risk. An example of this is electroplating of cobalt in
of Cu, Ni, S and P due to radiation embrittlement). valves and pumps which may be replaced with vapour
More specialised grades that are used in nuclear deposition as a result of REACH regulations.
power stations include SA508 and SA533 (plate and
forgings for shelves, heads, bodies, primary pipework, 2.1.4 Maintaining Traceability of Supply of Materials
reactor pressure vessel (RPV), pumps and steam across the Supply Chain
generator), austenitic stainless grades 316 (used for A threat to the nuclear industry that has been
weld overlay cladding, typically 6mm thickness) and reiterated across other power generation sectors is
304, martensitic stainless grades 403, 410, 416 (pump the propensity for sub-standard materials to enter
shafts, turbine blades) and martensitic precipitation the supply chain, either as a result of deliberate
hardening grades 600 and 690 (steam generator counterfeiting or inadequate knowledge of quality
tubes, exchanger tubing, pressuriser). control procedures amongst suppliers. The threat
Three reasons have been highlighted why the is particularly acute for safety-critical components
availability of the above grades of steel for the UK’s such as high pressure and temperature steam supply
nuclear new build programme could be compromised: systems. OEMs generally have less control over
(1) demand from the UK may compete with growing the lower tiers of the supply chain, and materials
demand from other countries which simultaneously that originate from China or India are recognised as
execute ambitious nuclear new build programmes; (2) particularly strong risks.
10 www.materialsktn.netENERGY MATERIALS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN ATTAINING
THE UK’S 2020 TARGETS FOR NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION
2.2 OPPORTUNITIES TO ALLEVIATE THREATS TO have been highlighted for offshore wind [19] and
SUPPLY OF RAW MATERIALS combined cycle gas turbine power generation [20].
For example, improved retention of chromium,
Three opportunities to alleviate threats to the supply of molybdenum, vanadium and nickel through closed-
raw materials have been identified: (1) consolidation loop recycling of steels from a range of applications
of production of specialised steel grades; (2) retention could help to mitigate price increases and maintain
of scarce materials through closed-loop recycling; availability into the future. Note that closed loop
and (3) quality control of the supply chain. These recycling from the nuclear industry itself is unlikely to
areas are discussed below. be able to contribute to this due to the low number
2.2.1 Demand Aggregation of Specialised Steel Grades and long lifetime of nuclear plants, the need for careful
processing of radioactive waste, and the variety of
There is the potential to improve control over the designs that have been used in the UK’s nuclear
quality of raw materials and mitigate bottlenecks in legacy.
supply by consolidating the bill of materials to enable
the material for several components to be produced 2.2.3 Quality Control of the Supply Chain
in a single melt from a single known supplier, where Control of quality in the supply chain is an opportunity
the quality and composition are closely monitored. to alleviate risk arising from the supply of raw
Whilst diversity of suppliers for steel is desirable materials. The supply chain is already acutely aware
to reduce cost through open competition, it is of the need to monitor and control quality to prevent
possible that consolidation of requirements of some the infiltration of sub-standard or counterfeit material,
specialised grades for safety-critical applications which is particularly concerning for safety-critical
could help to control quality whilst also ensuring that and high integrity components such as the nuclear
bottlenecks in supply are mitigated by increasing the steam supply system (NSS) and secondary steam
total volume of material required from a single melt. circuit. The higher tiers of the supply chain already
This would require co-ordination across the supply take a pro-active approach towards monitoring and
chain to allow the materials requirements for a range improving quality from their suppliers, which includes
of components fabricated by a range of suppliers spot checks on material compositions alongside
to be brought together. Sourcing of materials for training of quality procedures to improve the skills of
components is currently carried out by a large number their suppliers. This approach is effective although it
of companies across the supply chain to meet their places additional demands on resources from top-tier
individual requirements and commercial sensitivity manufacturing companies, which are likely to become
restricts communication between these various facets increasingly challenged over the coming decade
of the supply chain. Hence consolidation of the as the nuclear supply chain expands. Ensuring the
bill of materials across the supply chain could be a availability of suitably skilled and qualified quality
challenge without the assistance of OEMs at the top engineers will help to alleviate this risk.
level.
2.2.2 Retention of Scarce Materials through Closed-
Loop Recycling
Whilst the availability of speciality alloying elements
is not considered to be a significant risk for the UK’s
2020 nuclear targets, the availability of materials
in the long term could be improved by retention
through closed-loop recycling. Similar opportunities
www.materialsktn.net 11ENERGY MATERIALS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN ATTAINING
THE UK’S 2020 TARGETS FOR NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION
3 MANUFACTURING
SUPPLY CHAIN
Manufacturing of components and sub- 3.1 THREATS TO MANUFACTURING
assemblies for the UK’s nuclear new SUPPLY CHAIN
build programme offers considerable The manufacturing supply chain for nuclear can
opportunities and challenges for the UK’s be categorised into at least four tiers: Tier 1 –
manufacturing industry. Seven areas of technology suppliers and architect engineers; Tier
potential threats have been identified: 2 – large companies with nuclear experience; Tier
3 – smaller mechanical or electrical equipment
uncertainty in the economic climate;
suppliers and niche service providers; and Tier 4
engagement of Tier 1 suppliers; supply of – raw material or basic component suppliers. The
ultra large forgings; global competition; origin of this hierarchy is the licensees, e.g. EdF
manufacturing capabilities; culture of Energy. Vendor companies such as AREVA and
quality; and availability of skills. Four Westinghouse are focused on design, engineering
opportunities to alleviate these threats and project management. In general, the number of
have been identified: engagement with companies at each tier and hence the propensity for
competition in the market place and diversification
nuclear OEMs; development of the
in manufacturing methods increases as the level of
UK’s capacity for ultra large forgings; the tiers increases (Figure 6). The supply chain for
support for Tier 2, 3 and 4 suppliers; nuclear is global, and hence UK companies that
and training and skills. These threats participate in the nuclear industry are competing on
and opportunities are discussed in this an international level.
section.
Figure 6
Nuclear new build market •EDF Energy/Centrica
structure. Based on a diagram •Horizon Nuclear Power
by Doosan Babcock in [21] Licensees •NuGeneration Ltd
•Nuclear Power Delivery UK
Tier 1 -
•Westinghouse
Technology •Toshiba
Suppliers, Architect •Shaw Group
Engineers •Laing O’Rourke
Tier 2 - •Civil Enabling Works
•Main Civil Contractors
Large Companies with
•Marine Works
Nuclear Experience •Infrastructure Works
•Mechanical Equipment Suppliers
Tier 3 -
•Electrical Equipment Suppliers
Smaller Mechanical or Electrical •EC&I Installation Companies
Equipment Suppliers, Niche Service Providers •Mechanical Installation Companies
Tier 4
12 www.materialsktn.netENERGY MATERIALS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN ATTAINING
THE UK’S 2020 TARGETS FOR NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION
Supply chain challenges are different for This was in spite of a clear commitment towards
Westinghouse and AREVA due to the sizes of the nuclear new build from the UK Government; it was
plants, the way that they are constructed, and economic rather than political factors that were the
their strategic plans for supply chain development. major influence on Horizon’s decision.
Westinghouse hopes to source everything locally
The consensus of opinion across the manufacturing
from the UK, which will present opportunities but
supply chain is that there is a need to develop their
place pressure on suppliers. The Westinghouse
knowledge and capabilities in preparation for a
AP1000 is smaller than the AREVA EPR at 1154 MW,
nuclear new build programme now, but investment to
and therefore can use modular construction. This
expand capacities is expensive and therefore will not
means that large sub-assemblies can be assembled
take place to its full extent until the market is at a more
off site, e.g. in shipyards, and there are significant
advanced state of readiness. In the first instance,
opportunities for plate materials, pipes and joists for
this will be after EdF Energy has achieved its nuclear
skid-mounted modules. UK shipyards are already
site license for Hinkley Point C and civil engineering
preparing to address this need through international
works are underway. The timing of investment poses
consortiums. In contrast, AREVA reactors are much
a challenge for UK companies in comparison to
larger (1500MW) and therefore must be fabricated
companies in other countries which already have
onsite. There is less opportunity for modular
large capacities and established track records in the
construction, but significant opportunities in terms
of pumps and pipework for the turbine island. The nuclear supply chain; UK companies need to develop
rapid expansion and upskilling required for nuclear the capabilities and capacities to manufacture
new build from both AREVA and Westinghouse for nuclear in enough time to win business whilst
will necessitate a high level of technology transfer, postponing large scale investment until a high level of
innovation of new technologies and investment in certainty is achieved to mitigate investment risk. The
capacities, and therefore the opportunities for the UK first UK contracts for Hinkley C are likely to be won in
supply chain are considerable. mid to late 2013.
This section considers the threats to the UK’s 2020 Whilst most companies are not yet ready for large
targets for nuclear arising from the manufacturing scale investment, some Tier 1 suppliers already have
supply chain. Seven areas of potential threats have the confidence at this stage to invest in capacity for
been identified through the stakeholder consultation: nuclear new build, and example being Rolls-Royce
uncertainty in the economic climate; engagement of which is planning to build a factory in Rotherham
Tier 1 suppliers; supply of ultra large forgings; global adjacent to the Nuclear AMRC [22]. The commitment
competition; manufacturing capabilities; culture of of companies such as Rolls-Royce will help to build
quality; and shortage of skills and loss of knowledge. confidence at lower tiers of the UK supply chain.
These are discussed further below. 3.1.2 Engagement of Tier 1 Suppliers
3.1.1 Uncertainty in the Economic Climate The engagement of Tier 1 suppliers is regarded
Uncertainty in the economic climate is an overarching as essential in securing the UK’s place in the
threat which is stifling investment at all tiers of the manufacturing supply chain for nuclear. It is
manufacturing supply chain for nuclear in response to recognised that the winning of major supply
increased risk. As highlighted in Section 1.1, in March contracts by leading Tier 1 suppliers such as Rolls-
2012 Horizon withdrew its plans for nuclear new Royce, Doosan Babcock, BAE Systems, Sheffield
build at Wylfa in the UK due to uncertain economic Forgemasters, Wyman Gordon and Balfour Beatty will
conditions and the accelerated nuclear phase out in help to ensure that more UK companies are recruited
Germany as a result of the Fukushima disaster [12]. as Tier 2 to 4 suppliers.
www.materialsktn.net 13ENERGY MATERIALS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN ATTAINING
THE UK’S 2020 TARGETS FOR NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION
It is widely regarded that the UK’s Tier 1 suppliers IFA and Firth Rixson, and large forgings such as the
are well prepared for engagement in the nuclear primary pipework for the pressuriser and main coolant
supply chain, and as a result there are no support pump through Sheffield Forgemasters Limited (SFL),
programmes specifically aimed at the top tier of the UK does not have the capacity to manufacture the
the supply chain, although Tier 1 suppliers are largest forgings required for nuclear, including casting
developing the technical capability to compete on the required size ingots.
cost, quality and delivery through membership of the
Nuclear Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre The number of suppliers of ultra large forgings is
(Nuclear AMRC) [23]. Whilst the UK’s capabilities and limited to a few suppliers worldwide, and individual
capacities to manufacture for nuclear have diminished large presses have a low throughput of around four
over the previous two decades, capabilities and pressure vessels per year, though the potential is
capacities have been retained particularly strongly greater than this. A summary of the world’s forging
amongst the top tier of the supply chain as a result capacity for large pressure vessels is given in Table 3.
of supply to the new build programmes of other The limited number of suppliers of ultra large forgings
countries, the ongoing maintenance programmes is generally not regarded as a bottleneck in the
of the UK’s existing nuclear fleet, and the UK’s nuclear new build programmes of the UK or other
nuclear submarines. Tier 1 suppliers are generally countries. Although in 2009 Westinghouse was
well equipped for nuclear new build in terms of restricted in that the AP1000 pressure vessel closure
accreditation for the nuclear industry, a culture of head and three complex steam generator parts could
quality, the relevant skills and expertise, and an only be made by Japan Steel Works, the demand for
established track record in the global market place. large forgings has been reduced by the curtailing of
The UK’s newest nuclear reactor, Sizewell B, which nuclear plans from several countries following the
was commissioned in 1995, allowed the UK to Fukushima disaster, and the capacity of many of
acquire and retain some knowledge of PWR systems, the forging presses is predicted to increase to 2013
although the designs of the new-build PWRs will have as a result of investment, as shown in Table 3. The
some considerable differences to Sizewell B and the manufacture of large forgings for nuclear new build
supply chain structure has changed significantly. is carefully scheduled to ensure that enough time is
3.1.3 Supply of Ultra Large Forgings allowed, for instance some large forgings for Hinkley
C have already been ordered from La Creuset forge in
The area that has been identified as the greatest
France and Japan Steel Works.
threat arising from Tier 1 supply in the UK is ultra-
large forgings, which require forging presses of A greater concern arising from the supply of ultra large
around 14-15,000 tonnes and capacity to accept forgings is that the UK’s incapacity to deliver in this
hot steel ingots of 500-600 tonnes [24]. A defining area may mean that the UK also loses opportunities to
feature of Generation III+ reactors is the need for supply at lower tiers of the supply chain. An example
larger integral forgings; around twice the amount of this would be the RPV head; if the forging of the
of large forgings are required by Generation III+ head takes place overseas, it is more likely that the
reactors than Generation II, and integral forgings are drive assembly for the control rods attached to the
preferred to welded split forgings. The UK does not RPV head will do also.
have the capability to deliver forgings of this size for
3.1.4 Global Competition
components such as the reactor pressure vessel
(RPV) head, steam generator and large turbine. Whilst The competiveness of UK suppliers in the global
the UK has the capability to deliver small to medium market for nuclear is highly renowned as a result of the
sized forgings through a range of suppliers such as UK’s long-established expertise developed through
14 www.materialsktn.netMATERIALS KTN TECHNICAL TEXTILES:
DEVELOPMENTS IN OLYMPIC CLOTHING AND TEXTILES
Table 3
Summary of world forging
capability for large pressure
vessels. Courtesy of Rob
Mitchell, Rolls-Royce plc [24]
Heavy forging Heavy forging by Max. ingot - tonnes
Country or region Company
press mid 2009 2013 (2013)
Japan Steel Works 14,000 t 14,000 t x 2 600 (650)
JCFC 13,000 t from 2010 500
Japan
Nil, uses forgings to
MHI
make RPVs
South Korea Doosan 13,000 t 17,000 t from 2010 540
China First Heavy
15,000 t, 12,500 t same 600
Industries (CFHI)
Harbin Boiler 8000 t same
China
Shanghai (SEC) 12,000 t 16,500 t 600
China Erzhong +
12,700 t, 16,000 t same 600
Dongfang
L&T 9000 t 15,000 t 600 (in 2011)
India BHEL 10,000 t
Bharat Forge 14,000 t
AREVA, SFARsteel 11,300 t same 250
Sheffield Forgemasters
10,000 t 15,000 t ? 500 ?
Limited
Pilsen Steel 100 MN (10,200 t) 12,000 t 200 (250)
Europe
Vitkovice 12,000 t same
Saarschmiede 8670 t 12,000 t (in 2010) 370
Nil, uses forgings to
ENSA
make RPVs
USA Lehigh 10,000 t same 270
OMZ Izhora 12,000 t 15,000 t 600
Russia
ZiO-Podolsk
South Africa DCD-Dorbyl
our nuclear submarines, design and operation of our However, competition in the expanding global market
existing nuclear power plants, our current participation place for nuclear against established suppliers
in nuclear supply chains for other countries, and our remains a formidable challenge for UK manufacturing
renowned expertise for high-value manufacturing companies. Expansion of UK companies to the
acquired through other sectors including oil and required capacities may take place at a late stage to
gas and aerospace. UK companies are preferred mitigate investment risk, placing overseas companies
to overseas suppliers in many areas of the nuclear that already have the required capacities in a stronger
supply chain due to our trusted culture for quality and position to penetrate supply chains for nuclear new
ability to deliver reliably to the required price, quality build. A specific challenge is developing an ‘export
and timescale. package’ derived from a fully integrated supply chain,
www.materialsktn.net 15ENERGY MATERIALS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN ATTAINING
THE UK’S 2020 TARGETS FOR NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION
from raw material to finished component manufacture. all forged components and tubing materials to supply
Components that will be required in large quantities its own needs and that of other countries, although
include extruded steel pipework, joists and plates. its rate of growth in the nuclear sector is lower than
Pumps and valves will offer significant opportunities, China’s.
with around 8000 valves in around 20 packages
3.1.5 Manufacturing Capabilities
required for the AREVA EPR and over 5400 valves
required for the Westinghouse AP1000. Improvement of manufacturing capabilities to achieve
the required quality standards for nuclear products
An example of the challenge associated with capacity
is a formidable challenge and opportunity for UK
expansion is the manufacture of stainless steel manufacturing companies at all tiers of the supply
pipework for the primary circuit. Sandvik Materials chain. This is because, whilst the technology and
Technology [25] and Valinox Nucléaire [26] are processes for manufacturing to the high integrities
established suppliers in this market, and it is a required for nuclear already exist elsewhere in the
considerable challenge for UK companies to compete global supply chain, these technologies are generally
alongside them even when the can already achieve proprietary and therefore the UK is required to
the required quality. A further example is the major innovate its own technologies that can achieve or
primary circuit large bore thick walled pipework, where exceed the required quality whilst also competing
Germany is already better placed in this market than on cost to achieve competitiveness in the global
the UK. market place. The nuclear industry is notoriously
The UK has strong competitors for nuclear new conservative and risk aware, which has stifled
build from within Europe where cost competiveness, development in some areas in recent years, but
capacity and track record are challenges. Italy is also plays to the UK’s advantage because there
regarded as more cost competitive than the UK, with is the opportunity to accelerate rapidly through a
four to six companies that are already established learning curve facilitated by knowledge transfer
in forging, casting and heat treatment for nuclear. with other high-value manufacturing sectors and
The Czech Republic and France are formidable innovation. Key challenges for manufacturing process
competitors, both with fully integrated supply chains development include high quality forgings, machining,
from supply of raw materials to manufacture, and the weld cladding, welding, fuel cladding and powder
ability to supply to the UK market whilst competing technologies. These challenges are summarised
on cost. Finland, Germany, Italy, Scandinavia and below.
Spain also have strongly established supply chains High Quality Forgings
for nuclear and are competitive in the supply of ASME
accredited materials for nuclear. A significant challenge is manufacture of forgings
that have the required properties and microstructure,
Outside Europe, many countries which already have are machined to tolerance, assembled by high
operational nuclear plant, e.g. China, Japan, India quality welds, and can maintain integrity in exposure
and Korea, have developed capabilities for supply to radiation, temperature, pressure, corrosion and
for nuclear through repairing and maintaining their erosion for 60 years.
own plants which were originally supplied by other
Machining
countries. China has a rapid rate of development for
nuclear but is more likely to focus its attentions on Machining to high tolerances including deep hole
supplying to its own nuclear new build programme boring is a key challenge area for manufacturing. The
than other countries. India is competitive on cost and recently-opened Nuclear AMRC is addressing this with
has its own forge with the capability to manufacture the use of state-of-the art machining centres and the
16 www.materialsktn.netENERGY MATERIALS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN ATTAINING
THE UK’S 2020 TARGETS FOR NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION
support of leading machining companies. online in 2013 for the UK to assist with material de-
risking in support of nuclear new build.
Weld Cladding
3.1.6 Culture of Quality
New methods of laser weld cladding are being
developed to deposit a lining of stainless steel in A culture of quality is paramount across all levels of
the primary steam supply system to protect from the nuclear supply chain. It is widely regarded that
corrosion and erosion. manufacturing companies that are already engaged
in high-value manufacturing for other sectors such
Welding
as oil and gas, aerospace and fossil fuel power
Welding poses some significant challenges for generation are well prepared for making the transition
manufacturing including narrow gap welding using to the nuclear industry, although it is perceived to be a
lasers and high-integrity transition welds between low greater challenge for small to medium size companies
alloy steels and transition steels at the connection of that are at lower tiers of the supply chain.
the pipework with the reactor. Two main internationally recognised accreditation
Fuel Cladding systems are used for nuclear: the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) ‘N’ stamp and
The fuel cladding material currently used for PWRs
RCC-N developed in France. N-stamp accreditation
is Zircalloy due to its very low neutron absorption
means that the authorised vendor has produced the
coefficient, adequate strength and resistance to
commercial nuclear grade components in accordance
corrosion in the operating temperature range.
with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Nuclear
However, the temperature range of Zircalloy limits the
Codes and Standards. It applies to both design and
operating temperature range of the reactor, and if the
fabrication of components, but is only likely to be
material overheats it loses its strength rapidly due mandatory by companies and contractors involved
to ballooning whilst reacting with water to produce in the supply of safety critical components. RCC-N
hydrogen. If the hydrogen leaks into the surround is used outside the USA for nuclear mechanical and
building, it can produce an explosive mixture with air pressure components. Specifications of components
which is what caused the explosions in the Fukushima will be developed by the project lead contractors and
disaster of 2011. As a result alternative fuel cladding then fed down the supply chain ultimately arriving
materials are being researched in addition to coatings with the companies tasked with the production of the
which would slow down the rate of reaction of Zircalloy components. Suppliers will be required to provide
with water. One alternative material that is receiving a manufacturing and quality plan for approval which
attention is carbon-silicon carbide composites. This must then be adhered to during the manufacturing
has the potential to operate at up to 400oC higher than process. A summary of the two nuclear accreditations
Zircalloy. is given in Table 4.
Powder Technologies 3.1.7 Shortage of Skills and Loss of Knowledge
Powder based (hot isostatically pressed or HIP’d)
Availability of skills is widely recognised as a concern
technologies will have a significant role to play
for the UK manufacturing supply chain for nuclear. A
in the nuclear industry of the future as a result of
rapid increase in the numbers of skilled personnel
improvement in mechanical properties and reduction
of material wastage and hence cost. Work on code employed in the nuclear manufacturing sector will
case development for powder based technologies be required to facilitate the growth anticipated in the
are rapidly advancing and the Nuclear AMRC will be manufacturing supply chain, whilst also retaining the
bringing HIPing technology development capabilities knowledge of ageing personnel who are approaching
www.materialsktn.net 17ENERGY MATERIALS: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES IN ATTAINING
THE UK’S 2020 TARGETS FOR NUCLEAR ELECTRICITY GENERATION
RCC-M ASME
Section III Rule for Construction of Nuclear Facility
Section 1 Nuclear Island Components
Components
A General Requirements NCA General requirements
B Class 1 components NB Class 1 components
C Class 2 components NC Class 2 components
D Class 3 components ND Class 3 components
E Small components None
G Core support structures NG Core support structures
H Supports NF Supports
J Storage tanks NC / ND 3800 – 3900
P Containment penetrations NE Class MC components
Z Technical appendices Appendices
Section 2 Materials Section II Materials
Section 3 Examination Methods Section V Non Destructive Examination
Section 4 Welding Section IX Welding and Brazing
Section 5 Fabrication Various parts of Section III
Table 4
Summary of RCC-M and
ASME nuclear accreditations.
Courtesy of David Hall,
Nuclear AMRC
retirement age or already retired from the UK’s earlier 3.2 OPPORTUNITIES TO ALLEVIATE THREATS TO
nuclear programmes. Some knowledge of methods MANUFACTURING SUPPLY CHAIN
of manufacture and drawings of components from In response to the threats to the manufacturing supply
the UK’s existing nuclear fleet has already been lost chain identified above, four opportunities to alleviate
as a result of retirement of personnel or ineffective these threats have been identified: engagement with
storage and retrieval of data, which will diminish the nuclear OEMs; development of the UK’s capacity
UK’s ability to take forwards our previous learning for ultra large forgings; support for Tier 2, 3 and 4
experiences for the economic and technical benefit suppliers; and training and skills. These opportunities
of future nuclear plant. Skills shortages that are are discussed further below.
recognised include accredited welding engineers
3.2.1 Engagement with Nuclear OEMs
and hands-on skills such as machining, fabrication,
inspection and testing. The more highly skilled Engagement of the UK supply chain with the
engineers are generally over 50 with fewer in the 20-30 OEMs for nuclear (AREVA and Westinghouse) will
age group, and hence there is a need for up-skilling help to prepare companies for the challenges and
of the younger demographic. The supply of forgings opportunities that the nuclear industry has to offer by
informing of the procurement procedures and work
and castings must be underpinned by metallurgical
packages, facilitating knowledge transfer and helping
knowledge, and currently there is a burden on OEMs
to raise the confidence of the nuclear OEMs in the
and Tier 1 suppliers to educate their supply chain
UK’s capabilities. The need to increase the level of
in these areas. This is can be a strenuous burden
expertise in the UK supply chain is recognised by
whilst also trying to expand their own capabilities. EdF Energy and its established suppliers in France,
The shortage of skills for nuclear will be further and hence EdF are working with the UK supply
compounded by competing demands from other chain with the support of UKTI, OND and the NIA in
growing industries such as oil and gas and other preparation for Hinkley Point C to help to develop
power generation sectors. UK expertise through partnerships with established
French suppliers [27]. This includes UK nuclear
suppliers’ forums, such as the one held by EdF in
18 www.materialsktn.netYou can also read
