Last week I have attended a couple of different events on the subject of nuclear power, and how to deliver it faster in the UK. Since coming to power, the new Labour Government has indicated it has different views on energy than its predecessor, and while details are as yet scarce, it is clear that Labour intends to base the GB power system on wind and solar, with an emphasis on wind. In terms of nuclear it has said little, but there are reports that Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has asked officials to review future nuclear plans, and in particular the prospects for the 24 GW nuclear target and the plans for a GW scale reactor at Wylfa. Backtracking on either would be a serious error.
This is worrying – the time for reviews has long since passed, and it is time to get on with building. The consequences of failure to do so could be severe.
The answer most definitely is not “blowing in the wind”
Miliband loves wind. He loves it so much he filmed himself playing a ukelele under a wind turbine, singing that song. He waxes lyrical about how “home grown” clean energy will replace fossil fuels, a noble-sounding ambition, but one which fails to stand up to scrutiny. In fact, the term “home-grown” was used 10 times in the founding statement for Great British Energy.
“Our country faces huge challenges. More than 2 years on from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, families and businesses continue to pay the price for Britain’s energy insecurity. Bills remain hundreds of pounds higher than before the energy crisis began and are expected to rise again soon. At the same time, we are confronted by the climate crisis all around us, not a future threat but a present reality, and there is an unmet demand for good jobs and economic opportunities all across Britain.
In 2024, the answers to all these challenges point in the same direction: investing in clean energy at speed and scale. In an unstable world, the only way to guarantee our energy security and protect billpayers permanently is to speed up the transition away from fossil fuels and towards home-grown clean energy,”
– Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero
The statement goes on to claim that “unlike fossil fuels, the advantage of home-grown clean energy is that it is not priced and sold on international markets and controlled by other states”.
None of this is true. As we will see from the charts below, when wind output is low, which it inevitably is from time to time, Britain is forced to import electricity, at prices determined by the international markets, and has to increase its consumption of gas for electricity generation, using gas prices on international markets.
It is also impossible to separate international energy prices from the cost of building new renewable generation as evidenced by the significant increase in the subsidy prices in the AR4 and recent AR6 Contracts for Difference auction rounds. And many of the materials used in delivering these new renewables, particularly solar panels and the rare earth magnets that are essential for wind turbines, are not only produced in China, but their markets are dominated by China. International gas prices are not “controlled by other states” but the supply chains for some of the components needed for renewables certainly are.
That a reliance on renewables embeds a reliance on energy imports can be demonstrated with the aid of some simple charts of the GB generation mix.
This was a low wind day. Low wind lasted all day, far longer than the 1-4 hours (average 1.5) duration of batteries. Coal was needed for most of the day with pumped hydro running in the evening peak. Interconnector imports were close to maximum capacity during the day and gas generation was high.
Consecutive low wind days, clearly far exceeding the capability of batteries to provide a backup for wind generation. Again coal is needed, in this case as solar declines into the evening and there is a small contribution from pumped hydro. The use of gas is reduced by the presence of solar.
Another low wind day, but it is striking the extent to which solar output has reduced in just six weeks since late July. Together the maximum contribution from wind and solar was just 4.5 GW. This was a Saturday so peak demand was lower than during the week. Pumped hydro, electricity imports and gas all make significant contributions.
This chart from late January demonstrates the extremely low contribution of solar in the winter, on a low wind day. The maximum contribution from wind and solar on this day was just 2.7 GW. This chart is also a striking demonstrator of the negligible contribution of solar in the winter months both in terms of magnitude (bare MWs) and duration (c 7 hours). Electricity imports remain strong but the market is dominated by gas-fired generation. Without this it would have been impossible to meet demand at any time during the day. Without it, backouts would have been guaranteed.
It is clear from these charts that it is impossible to build a robust and reliable electricity system that is both built on wind power and does not rely on imports: when wind output is low we rely heavily on both electricity imports and gas imports to burn in gas fired power stations. Labour’s plans to reduce North Sea gas production means this gas has to be imported so when wind output is low large parts of the electricity used on the GB grid are imported rather than “home grown”.
The case for nuclear power
There are three core ambitions that have been identified in relation to long-term energy policy: decarbonisation, affordability and security. Until the invasion of Ukraine, energy security had been neglected for quite some time with almost all the policy focus being on decarbonisation and cost. However, following the start of the war, it quickly became apparent that energy security was not only important but a priority – countries delayed decarbonisation ambitions and invested in new fossil fuel infrastructure particularly in European countries which replaced pipeline gas from Russia with LNG through newly built floating regas terminals.
Affordability also became a major consideration since the shortages caused by the removal of Russian pipeline gas from the European market, along with the asymmetric recovery from covid where demand recovered faster than supplies, pushed up prices in late 2021, and made energy unaffordable for both households and businesses. Large subsidies were offered to support both.
However, some of the lessons taken from the crisis were the wrong ones. Yes, a gas shortage was the first order cause of the price spikes observed from late 2021, but these were unaffordable because over the previous 15 years, households had been burdened with £billions in costs resulting from the deployment of intermittent renewables. These costs are both direct (subsidies and curtailment fees) and indirect (the capacity market back-up scheme, higher network costs due to the need to connect low energy density generation and higher balancing costs resulting from the real-time intermittency of weather-based generation).
Renewables are also not especially good for the environment. They may generate electricity without creating carbon dioxide emissions through their operation, but they create a lot of carbon dioxide emissions and other forms of both air and water pollution in their construction. The low energy density of wind and solar means a lot more infrastructure is needed to meet demand compared with conventional generation. This is rarely considered by green energy cheerleaders.
Fortunately there is a generation technology which is both carbon dioxide-free in operation, has very high energy density, and is not intermittent: nuclear power.
The common objections to nuclear energy are cost, safety and waste. But when the full costs to the consumer are properly considered on a firm power basis, nuclear is cheaper than wind and solar, and in terms of deaths per unit of electricity generated, nuclear and solar are by far the safest forms of generation with fatality rates so low as to be within the margin of statistical error.
Even the waste problem is much smaller than people think – the main issue is with legacy waste and while that is indeed a challenge, the volume of high level waste is small. According to the Nuclear Industry Association, the volume of high level waste from all nuclear activity in the UK ever, amounts to one dishwasher tablet’s worth per person. The Canadian Nuclear Association calculated that if a person relied on nuclear power for all of their energy needs across their lifetime, the resulting waste would fit into a drinks can. This is tiny compared with the volume of other types of highly toxic industrial waste generated in the economy every year, and the processes for handling and storing this was are well established and safe. At some point a long-term geological storage site will be identified and developed, but there is no urgency given the small amounts of new nuclear waste being generated each year.
It’s a bit depressing, however, that the nuclear industry fails to deliver these messages clearly. At the APPG for Energy Studies (PGES) meeting on nuclear power this week, speakers gave rather convoluted answers to questions of cost and waste, with some rambling about grid connection costs and water ingress issues in possible geological waste storage depositories. Industry insiders need to be able to give quick, snappy and memorable answers: nuclear is cheaper than renewables when the all-in costs to consumers are considered, nuclear is safer than any generation technology other than solar, and with very small volumes produced each year, waste is a much smaller challenge than people might think.
Controlling the regulators
The real issue is that regulators have been allowed to become barriers to rather than enablers of nuclear power. As nuclear was de-prioritised by policymakers, regulators were largely unaccountable for helping to deliver new nuclear, and allowed to behave in a hyper conservative way – according to EDF, the Office for Nuclear Regulation (“ONR”) and other regulators such as the Environment Agency, the Heath and Safety Executive and so on, required some 7,000 changes to the EPR design that was approved in France and Finland. Arguably, the French nuclear regulator has far more experience than its British counterpart in regulating the nuclear industry so it is both curious and depressing that the ONR was allowed to behave in this way. While I’m no fan of the EPR, there is no justification for the ONR to cause so much trouble over the reactor design.
Another example of out-of-control regulation relates to environmental permitting. I’m told the Environmental Impact Assessment for Sizewell C ran to thousands of pages when really it should have been a very brief statement to the effect of “about the same as for Sizewell A and Sizewell B next door”. Britain’s environmental regulators regulate from the bottom up, on a site by site basis. They have no mandate to look at the big picture. Nuclear has very high energy density, so a small geographic area can produce massively more electricity than an equivalent area given over to renewables. On a national level, the environment might be better served if (say) the newt population was decimated on the nuclear site if it was then allowed to thrive everywhere else, with everywhere else being bigger and resulting in more newts overall (in fact, Sizewell has newt ladders so the critters aren’t decimated, but the point stands).
It is hoped that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill announced in the King’s Speech will help, particularly in accelerating the process for Development Consent Orders, and there are nuclear supporters in Parliament working on the Bill so the scope for hope is real. But other changes are needed. The ONR currently reports to the Department for Work and Pensions – this was to create a “separation of duties” so that nuclear regulators would not be pressured in terms of say energy security concerns. But such pressures are actually necessary – if premature closure of the existing reactors or delayed opening of new reactors contributes to the risk of blackouts which in turn carries a risk of death, then the nuclear regulator should be mindful of this. ONR should be held responsible for all the consequences of its actions, not just those directly relating to radiation, and this would be helped if it was part of the Energy Ministry.
Saying nuclear is too expensive and takes too longs is a lazy objection and without it there is no current route to a reliable, decarbonised electricity system. Nuclear is not cheap – although arguably it is cheaper than intermittent renewables when the all-in cost to the consumer is properly calculated – but net zero itself is not going to be cheap. However, nuclear does not have to be as expensive as it currently is, nor does it need to take as long.
The Government needs to stop searching for easy answers and quit its wishful thinking. A reliable home-grown clean energy system can only be delivered with the inclusion of a meaningful amount of nuclear power. Otherwise we will be condemned to either an un-reliable system or one which is propped up with the very imports Labour says it wants to avoid.
Great article, thanks for sharing
Controlling the regulators: it’s my (second hand) under that the FR regulator agreed a number of tests with EDF that , once successfully completed, would result in the approval of the reactor/site
In GB, the regulator asks the company to demonstrate that its tests are appropriate leading to a much greater burden on the company
The above can probably be clarified by others closer to the coal face
Oh dear.
At best, new nuclear adds only as much electricity in a year as renewables add every few days. For example, China is now installing wind and solar capacity equivalent to five new nuclear reactors every week.
https://bylines.scot/environment/the-future-of-new-nuclear/
Good summary in your article Paul. I agree with it. It’s seemingly a never-ending debate between “religions”.
I have no problem with nuclear at all in theory, except exactly what you summarised: costs and delays. Plus one thing: independence. If a country is not a nuclear power itself, it will always be rely on the nuclear fuel coming from those ones.
Dr Dortman,
I don’t think the facts fit your view that renewables can be added in a few days? (Domestic solar excepted, but that is tiny and largely unwanted)
What China does is not relevant to the U.K., the scale is much larger, and have you considered the availability of all that renewable capacity.
Over twenty years ago the government of the day scrapped a nuclear programme and went with second and third rate generation that is renewables. Had the original plan been implemented we would be in a far better position and with much cheaper electrcicty to boot. These plants would have decades of life left, wind and solar built then are now at the end of their life.
Wind and solar do not meet any of the criteria for a stable and economic grid source of electrcity.
These are controllable on demand, have inertia, have reactive power input and can support short circuit current level.
Renewables have none of those and require considerabvle and expensive support for then to contribute the small amount they do, relevant to installed capacity, to our incresaingly unstable grid.
I’ve seen many such articles and even produced some.
The question is always: on which side /lobby do you stand.
I’ve never seen such huge difference between total costs of produced electricity of nuclear and PV/wind generation for the favor of nuclear.
I believe that people agree in principle that nuclear power is the only sustainable source of power for civilization over the next thousand years, as long as it can be made to be safe. To that end, the molten salt reactor experiments (MSRE) from the Oak Ridge National labs of the late 1960’s show the path forward. The work on the MSRE was done in order to develop the LFTR type molten salt reactor. The LFTR reactor has all the needed elements working for it to: Cleanly burn breed Thorium into Uranium 233 at a greater than 95% efficiency. The ability to use depleated nuclear fuel from third generation reactors as fuel to burn and make that fuel safe to dispose of.
Why don’t governments listen to Kathryn Porter and her ilk? Not only do regulators largely block nuclear power, they vastly increase the cost by setting radiation limits orders of magnitude below what might be harmful. Learn more by buying or reading my book, accessed through https://lnkd.in/eEVSxtN5
https://lnkd.in/e4KwX7zi
When you present the cost of generation/LCOE, what geography does this assume? Because European gas is a very different cost from US gas, and additionally the carbon pricing is very different.
A brilliant article, Kathryn! Congratulations! May I recommend you take a look at Paul-Frederik’s analyses of keeping Denmark’s tiny (6GW) grid balanced at http://pfbach.dk/firma_pfb/weekly_exchanges_2024.htm and read his paper on the same subject at http://pfbach.dk/firma_pfb/references/pfb_peaks_of_solar_powe_%20challeng_%20system_control_2024_08_04.pdf? BTW, Robert Hargreaves, your little pdf is a classic which I will do my best to publicize in Denmark where at the age of almost 84, I live after a lifetime’s energy business around the World, starting when I graduated from Imperial College, in 1962! We are living in perilous times for our whole civilisation! This “net zero” cult, threatening to bring all Europe into destitution, lives alongside a stupid terror of nuclear power! Global CO2 emissions have risen have risen by 48% since the year 2000, driven by the pragmatic understanding of the 85% of Humanity that does not live in Europe nor North America, that fossil fuels (and nuclear power) are essential to deliver badly needed increased prosperity!
Jack Devanney at https://gordianknotbook.com/ has been writing about the political failures of nuclear power for a long time. Not only his book but many articles (at the link). In one 2023 piece (“Only autocracy can save nuclear power”) he starts:
❝Nuclear power in the Western democracies is in total disarray. The build times are four
times longer than they need be. The costs are ve to ten times larger than they should be.
The solution is to extract still more taxpayer money and circulate it to bureaucrats, studies,
and politically connected vendors. This just results in the plants becoming still more expensive.
Nuscale, a major beneciary of this ripoff , just topped $20,000 per kW installed. It is easy to
despair.❞
I have despaired, to be frank.
People will only understand when the lights go out.
Until then they will play their ukeleles
Looking at the facts there is no discussion that renewables alone cannot keep the lights on 24/7. Wind varies from 50% of demand to a mere 4-5%. At night solar provides nothing so when demand is high around 5pm on a freezing cold and windless day only nuclear and FF keep the lights on. (Hydro supplies a bit.) The question is how we fill these substantial gaps. Looking at Gridwatch we can get a maximum of 10GW from abroad. (Provided they are willing to supply it?) Battery storage looks anemic for now and hydrogen generation isn’t looking viable. That leaves nuclear and fossil fuels to power the country. Is it viable to have CCGT plants on standby to ramp up when wind and solar are producing very little? How costly is that – I’m not sure. and it still produces CO2. So that leaves nuclear?
It is somewhat unfair to criticise the regulators. People, in the CEGB, were suggesting that decisions should have been made by 2000 about nuclear. That would have given them ample time.
Speeding up the certification process is what they should be considering; this is generally something the the government should be doing so that they can respond to important and urgent procurement needs and information.
{Covid vaccines demonstrated how this could be done – but I believe that most of the useful actors were not the civil service – in compressing time to vaccine development and deployment; I doubt that the lessons have been understood or learnt – common sense is required}
I had wondered if Great British Nuclear would demonstrate that they were a clever and wise procurement agency; and that they were specify features they would like to see in modern nuclear reactors and modern and advanced manufacturing they would expect.
The developers of nuclear power stations do not give much visibility of the breakdown of costs and times of construction and, presumably, because of the slow pace of certification are not willing to suggest changes that would add even longer to the certification process, despite reducing the build time and costs and improving safety.
But there is a fear that the regulators will penalises any changes that improve safety and reduce costs – so the philosophy is to build things very much like what has already been approved.
What are the figures for the breakdown of times (and lead times) and costs for construction of nuclear power plants? Such is not clear and is vague and hard to find (foundations, generators, turbines, nuclear reactor, water handling and cooling towers, and containment vessels or manufacturing technology); knowing such would make it easier make judgements and find appropriate suppliers.
Mention has been made of use of molten salts as coolant rather than water. I believe that there have, also, been some interesting developments of using molten salt in the fuel rods (rather than have a large pot of radioactive molten salts). The relatively low temperatures (compared to the AGRs at 650C) suggest that these may be used with off-the shelf designs of titanium heat exchangers (though this could be also used for PWRs with synthetic oils for thermal storage and to these coupled to steam generators outside of the containment vessels)
It is difficult to compare costs with renewables because of the their lack of backup energy capacity/storage that is not gas powered (Battery storage is only short term – lasting some hours)
Perhaps if the costly incentives/subsidies necessary for renewables were removed ( extra grid capacity , constraint payments, preferential purchase were to be removed) then, with the full costs of renewables appreciated then renewables might come invest in necessary technologies such as long duration storage.
Excuse me . forgot to ask what the full system costs might be in the LFSCOE specified in the comparison of different generation types.
Starmer’s ambition for power has secured mad Miliband at the top of Government. And Miliband’s antics are rapidly laying our country to waste. His pathetic act of attempting to play the Ukelele while singing out of tune speaks volumes about this idiotic manchild. But Starmer is responsible for allowing Miliband to squander our taxes and run up billions of pounds in debt to facilitate insane energy policies which are putting thousands of people out of work while industry and business is closing down or moving abroad. Many people already can’t afford to heat their homes and without reliable and affordable energy we have no national security or defence against aggressors. Welcome to the future – a cold, poor defenceless UK.
Kathryn you have the logic and facts and the patience of a saint, but unfortunately you are not our Energy Secretary. And the problem we face is that Starmer’s ambition for power has secured mad Miliband at the top of Government. And Miliband’s antics are rapidly laying our country to waste. His pathetic act of attempting to play the Ukelele while singing out of tune speaks volumes about this idiotic manchild. But Starmer is responsible for allowing Miliband to squander our taxes and run up billions of pounds in debt to facilitate insane energy policies which are putting thousands of people out of work while industry and business is closing down or moving abroad. Many people already can’t afford to heat their homes and without reliable and affordable energy we have no national security or defence against aggressors. Welcome to the future – a cold, poor defenceless UK.
The 2030 Mission – “We have a problem”
Chris Stark of Mission Control has on 28th August sent an urgent message, titled SOS, to Fintan Slye of NGESO ( available on DESNZ website).
Chris is battling with units of power and energy and requires immediate mission assistance.
Relax Chris – Have a cup of tea and share (or transfer) your problems.
Chris’s problem requires a daily cup of relaxing tea made using no implications low CO2 emission electricity.
Intermittent wind and solar will provide him with these 365 cups a year (with 90% certainty) but on some days he will have none and on others ten. What is he to do about this feast and famine?
Four options are publicly mooted but not analysed, quantified,costed or discussed.
Demand Management – Would Chris find it acceptable to change his drinking habits? His new weather dependent drinking would be encouraged by weather dependent pricing.
Storage – Store in the feasts for drinking in the famines. How much storage would Chris require and at what cost?
Trading – Chris could trade his cups of tea with his neighbours. Will the neighbours be cooperative and not in the same feast/famine cycle? Will their tea be made with renewable electricity? Some say that trading your surplus tea with others who have none will make you extremely wealthy.
Back up – During famines Chris could make his tea using back up gas equipment. What is the additional investment cost for Chris? How often will the back up be required? What will be the resulting emissions?
There is a fifth technical solution that dare not speak its name although Kathryn Porter does .
Fintan now has a serious and very public reputational dilemma.
Will he change his sales pitch?
Will he produce a fully engineered and costed solution to save the mission?
Has he sufficient time? (a 3 month deadline is looming before a nasty clash)
Further instalments will reveal.
Great insights on the current energy landscape! It’s crucial that we have a balanced approach to our energy needs. While renewable energy is important, we must also recognize the role of nuclear power in ensuring a stable and secure energy future. Let’s hope the government makes informed decisions that prioritize both sustainability and reliability!
This commentary raises significant concerns regarding the UK’s current energy policy under the new Labour government, particularly its focus on wind and solar power while seemingly sidelining nuclear energy. The argument that wind and solar alone cannot provide reliable, cost-effective, and “home-grown” energy is well-supported by examples of low wind days requiring gas and electricity imports. The emphasis on nuclear power as a critical part of a stable energy mix is compelling, given its high energy density, reliability, and safety.
The points about regulators slowing down nuclear development also highlight important bureaucratic barriers. It’s clear that a balanced approach, including nuclear, is necessary to achieve energy security and decarbonization goals. Without it, the UK risks relying too heavily on imports, contradicting the government’s own ambitions. A rethink of energy policy is needed to avoid jeopardizing the UK’s long-term energy future.
Hi Kathryn…immensely enjoyed a revisit to a great posting on a very misaligned topic which seems to be totally ignored by our energy minister & the media. I note you make no reference to SMR’s, a favorite sound bite of all & sundry these days. Do you have a view re dispersed mini nuclear plants across our small heavily populated island ? Surely this would be a security issue & yet another obstacle for the regulators to savour.
Barry Wright, Lancashire.
As you have introduced a new metric (LFSCOE) there is a name for the fallacy arising from inappropriate metrics (eg saying wind power is cheap…) . It is known as the McNamara Fallacy (that I have just become aware of https://bigthink.com/business/the-mcnamara-fallacy-when-data-leads-to-the-worst-decision/ )
The McNamara fallacy (also known as the quantitative fallacy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy
or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_fixation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
Hi again…..The Case For Nuclear Power begs the question.
(1) Why no reference to SMR’s ?
(2) Surely breeders will feature further down the line; when ?
(3) High Level Waste; could the “tiny” quantities referred to not be stored above ground in repurposed decommissioned reactors ?
Somewhat of a wild card but pretty certain these structures will never be demolished.
Barry Wright, Lancashire.
It does seem that the industry is not making the case for nuclear power well. The Great British Nuclear is all about talking to suppliers of old technologies rather than giving visibility of new technologies that could be developed (being innovative and using modern manufacturing technologies). There is no public visibility of what is being done and how things are progressing.; no transparency – of costs and time-scales
There seems to be little research being done to improve the design of the systems and the manufacturing of them
There are no suggestions as how to speed up the regulatory and approval systems so that, also, advances in technology might be encouraged (being cheaper and safer); indeed if the suppliers said how their designs based on old manufacturing and construction are being moved forward to improve safety
There is not a hint of what is being done to develop breeders and waste burners (for high level waste – and an alternative for exorbitant and very tardy geological waste disposal)).
If high temperatures are required then the very difficult and slow improvement of materials, for molten salt or lead cooling, is required to reach those temperatures already attained by AGRs (which are required for a combined cycle gas turbine). And a gas turbine would, also, be needed if liquid sodium (which does not have corrosion issues) were the coolant – as corrosion issues with high temperature steam would be a safety issue.
Heat storage buffers would alter the design so that faster response and even above power rating might be achieved, as well as isolating modules from each other (improving safety and simplifying designs).
Many of these things could be incorporated into existing and proposed reactors (even by companies such as Rolls-Royce). But it is unclear who or what bodies , in the UK, are, now that the CEGB is no longer extant, supposed to help develop the technologies and supporting research
Julian Spence
Julian Spence big tech and AI moguls in the US seem to be making all the moves on AMRs, they know they’ll need a vast supply of reliable power and won’t wait for Governments like ours to deliver the crumbs off the Net Zero policy table. It’s such a pity we have lost most of our nuclear power industry, the one area of zero-carbon power generation where we did ‘lead’. And we’ll soon lose what’s left of our expert workforce. The Labour Party has brought to an end the era of our great industrial revolution and the prosperity and rising living standards it delivered. Any hope that we can engineer a new prosperous industrial era based on Miliband’s eco fantasies is for the birds.
Hi Mairede. I must admit with what you say that we no longer lead; however that does not mean that companies like Rolls-Royce could not. For instance RR has capabilities of making high efficiency and hight integrity titanium heat exchangers (suitable for hot oils or molten salt ) – and so could enhance PWRs by using thermal storage to improve responsiveness, safety (low pressure oils) and even increase peak daily power.
In addition RR could design (and construct) gas turbines suitable for AGRs and their option of solid state thermal storage (a much lower temperature than current gas turbines – but stiff useful as part of a combined cycle approach).
Unfortunately (possibly because of exceptionally slow approval cycle) there is no visibility of such thinking and appreciation either from the procurers (GBN) and from Rolls-Royce. I feel such would enhance the profile and appreciation if UK technology abilities – but see now sign of smart procurement from GBN or, if anyone knows, of a UK oriented web-site (GBN do not – and talk only to selected suppliers …) relating to such innovation (without invention) as well as manufacturing technology research.
Julian Spence