2016-09-15 Hinkley C nuclear go-ahead: May caves in to pressure from France and China
The French and the Chinese may be celebrating the UK's decision to press ahead with the Hinkley C 'nuclear white elephant', writes Oliver Tickell. But the deal is a disaster for the UK, committing us to overpriced power for decades to come, and to a dirty, dangerous, insecure dead end technology. Just one silver lining: major economic, legal and technical hurdles mean it still may never be built.
The UK's energy department, BEIS, today announced the go-ahead for the controversial Hinkley Point C (HPC) nuclear power plant in Somerset. Only weeks ago Theresa May's government delayed the signing of the deal with EDF to confirm its subsidy package which is likely to cost UK energy users anywhere from £30 billion to over £100 billion for 35 years after it opens. The surprise move was widely welcomed due to a broad range of concerns about the HPC project, including: its very high cost, more than double the current wholesale power price and far more than the current cost of even high-cost renewable power from offshore wind; security concerns over China's involvement in core UK infrastructure; the lack of any single example of a working EPR reactor anywhere in the world; the severe delays, cost overuns and technical problems at all EPR construction sites; the low value of HPC's contribution to UK energy supply in the new decentralised 'smart grid' era; and, common to all nuclear power, the continued absence of any solution to the nuclear waste problem.
It still might never happen
But despite today's announcement there remains considerable uncertainty as to whether HPC will actually be built - among them legal challenges in the European Court to the unbelievably generous subsidy package for the project which appears to be incompatible with the EU's 'state aid' regulations. In addition both EDF and CGN, poised to take a 33.5% share in HPC, are unlikely to commit significant further capital to HPC until the Flamanville situation is resolved, and there is at least one working EPR to demonstrate that the design is constructable and operable - something that is still years away. The highly risky (if potentially very profitable) project is also widely opposed within EDF as if it fails to ever generate power, or to operate reliably, it is likely to bankupt EDF. Also the company has yet to to line up the £16 billion (or more) it will need to finance its share of the project. "This decision is unlikely to be the grand finale to this summer's political soap opera", said Greenpeace executive director John Sauven. "There are still huge outstanding financial, legal and technical obstacles that can't be brushed under the carpet. "There might be months or even years of wrangling over these issues. That's why the Government should start supporting renewable power that can come online quickly for a competitive price." Richard Black, director of the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), added: "Despite this being called a 'final decision' to build Hinkley C, other hurdles, including technical and legal challenges, may well lie ahead for the project. "French trade unions don't like it, nor do some of the likely candidates for the French Presidential Election next year, EDF's finances are not the healthiest, and the French nuclear regulator is examining flaws in steel used for a similar reactor being built in France. So it may turn out not to be quite as ‘final' as it looks now. "Although China is reportedly happy with the new position, questions also remain over its main ambition - building its own nuclear reactors at Bradwell in Essex as a route into the Western market. The Chinese reactor hasn't even begun the process of gaining UK safety approval, which usually takes four years, so negotiating a contract for Bradwell would fall to the next UK Government, not this one. "And by then, electricity from other sources might look a whole lot cheaper than it does now."
Original article: Hinkley C nuclear go-ahead: May caves in to pressure from France and China',
This UK government announcement is despite widespread condemnation beforehand, including from:
1) The National Infrastructure Commission.
2016-03-18, 'Five ways to power the UK that are far better than Hinkley Point', and:
2016-03-04, 'Smart power: A National Infrastructure Commission Report'
2) The Infrastructure and Projects Authority.
2016-07-07, 'Estimated cost of Hinkley Point C nuclear plant rises to £37bn' and:
2016-07-07, 'IPA annual report on major projects 2015 to 2016'
3) The National Audit Office.
2016-07-13, 'Hinkley Point C may cost £30bn in 'top-up payments', warns watchdog' and:
2016-07-13, 'Nuclear power in the UK'
4) The Economist,
2016-08-06, 'Hinkley Pointless'
See also my reports on nuclear disasters and their consequences.The French and the Chinese may be celebrating the UK's decision to press ahead with the Hinkley C 'nuclear white elephant', writes Oliver Tickell. But the deal is a disaster for the UK, committing us to overpriced power for decades to come, and to a dirty, dangerous, insecure dead end technology. Just one silver lining: major economic, legal and technical hurdles mean it still may never be built.
Recent articles
2021-09-29 Nuclear Power and the EU Taxonomy
Around September 2021, the European Commission considered the inclusion of nuclear power in the taxonomy for future investments in energy. This was based on a single report from the European Joint Research Centre, which still has close links with the nuclear industry and is widely perceived as playing a promoting role for nuclear energy within the European Union. The JRC Report ignored the report of the German Ethics Commission for a Safe Energy Supply of 2011, which had lead to Germany phasing out nuclear power by 2023. The European Commision also ignored 'Sustainability at risk, A critical analysis of the EU Joint Research Centre technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the "do no significant harm" criteria of the EU Taxonomy Regulation, of 2021-09 by Dr. Christoph Pistner, Dr. Matthias Englert and Dr. Ben Wealer, for the Heinrich Boell Foundation.2023-06-06 Nuclear Power Has No Future
The UK government proposes to build nuclear power plants totalling 24 GW.This implies Hinkley Point C, Sizewell C and about six more of similar size.The Labour party proposes to include nuclear power in it’s new ‘green’ energy policy.Yet nuclear power has no future, as shown in this document of 3 pages with 52 references. The first section shows that nuclear fuel may be effectively exhausted before 2050, when the climate targets should be met. The second section shows that the costs of nuclear power have risen over time, and are now uncompetitive. So nuclear power must be replaced by sustainable and affordable options such as energy savings and renewables like wind, solar and storage. The third section shows that nuclear power conflicts with energy savings and renewables, so impairing the business case and deterring investment.So the UK should phase out nuclear power and join the rest of the world in deploying energy savings and renewables.Although this document is published after the latest Government and Labour Party proposals,I have published many earlier documents on nuclear power, dating from 2006-0-19. (See below).Most notably, my report on the Fukushima disaster was published on 2012-04-11, with copies sent to several MPs and Ministers.2022-10-05 Nuclear Nonsense
The new UK government appears to support the previous government’s proposal of building new nuclear power plants. The Labour party proposes to include nuclear power in it’s new ‘green’ energy policy. However such nuclear proposals are nonsense, as shown in this 4-page due diligence assessment.2022-08-12 Stopping Sizewell C and all nuclear power in favour of a rational energy policy
Among the last acts of the Johnson government was the approval of a new nuclear plant - Sizewell C. The claim was that it would increase energy security and reduce carbon emissions. But the invasion of Ukraine has underlined that all nuclear sites are targets, and reduce national security. Also nuclear power would be far more costly than energy savings and renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, with storage, and could not be generating electricity before 2030. They need uranium for fuel, yet almost half comes from Russia and Kazachkstan, so that the money and carbon costs would increase twice as fast. Moreover, they require huge amounts of energy to manufacture and build, so reducing energy security until construction is complete, and this energy repaid. Yet Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C are coastal sites, at risk from flooding by sea level rise and storm surge by 2100. As decommissioning and site clearance would take at least 50 years, they would need to be shutdown before 2050. Many reasons for stopping Sizewell C and all nuclear power are given in this collection of five documents.2022-08-13 Nuclear Power And Weapons Are Killing Us
The Manhattan Project in the US covered every stage of the production of nuclear weapons. This included the mining and refining of uranium, enrichment to 80 to 90% U235 for uranium bombs, fuelling nuclear reactors with uranium to produce plutonium, and reprocessing the spent fuel to extract the plutonium for plutonium bombs. It was recognised from the beginning that these processes and plants would give rise to radioactive releases that would be harmful to the plant operators and the general public, yet they were never informed. This continues to the present day, when the nuclear weapon and power industry does everything in its power to deny and understate the many and extensive harms done to all living things. To this has been added the use of uranium in bunker-breaking bombs and tank-busting shells, that spread the dust so formed over their own forces, the enemy forces, and innocent bystanders, harming them all for generations to come. The human harms include many and extensive cancers, and also non-malignant diseases such as stillbirths, deformities and mental impairment and heart disease. With so much harm already done to humans that will take up to lifetimes to express, and so much nuclear debris laying in wait to harm even more humans, it is essential to identify every strategy and measure that can reduce the total harm.This document covers the first warnings of nuclear harms in the 1950s and - following studies beginning in the 1960s - five books of evidence by Dr Ernest Sternglass in 1981, Mr Harvey Wasserman et al in 1982, Dr John Gofman in 1990, Mr Paul Zimmerman in 2009, and Professor Chris Busby et al in 2010.2022-06-14 Energy Transition Technologies
This is prompted by the Energy Hierarchy of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. From the most to the least sustainable, Tier 1 is Energy Demand Reduction, Tier 2 is Energy Efficiency, Tier 3 is Utilisation of Renewable, Sustainable Resources, Tier 4 is Utilisation of Other, Low-GHG-Emitting Resources, and Tier 5 is Utilisation of Conventional Resources as we do now.2022-06-18 Nuclear Insecurities
This is a three-page re-cast of 2016-08-09 Nuclear Insecurities (below).It includes 16 criteria under the original 10 headings, supported by 21 references.2021-06-09 The Futility of Fusion - A Dream Too Far
For the Presentation, Conclusions and a document with references, click on Read More. Nuclear fusion power on earth poses extreme technical challenges. One is the attainment of at least 100 million degrees C for long enough to produce net energy. Another is that any power plant fuelled with Deuterium and Tritium must 'breed' enough Tritium to sustain itself. Yet fusion power is futile because it cannot be deployed at a meaningful scale before 2050. This is the target date for Zero Carbon - hopefully limiting Global Warming to less than 2 C. So by this date all energy must be supplied from proven renewable sources such as Solar Photovoltaics, Wind Power, Hydro Power, sustainable Biomass and Solar and Deep Geothermal Heat.2021-03-26 District Heating for the UK
This is a proposal for District Heating for carbon reduction in the UK.It follows the passing of enabling legislation in Scotland, with help from Denmark.2016-12-01 Energy Solutions for Sustainability
This note reflects Danish and German precedents on energy solutions, from which I have learnt the underlying principles.Humankind requires not energy but energy services such as illumination, movement and thermal comfort. Germany realisesthat it is not enough to set targets for reducing carbon emissions; policies, plans and actions are also required. It has adoptedthe ‘Energiewende’ energy transition plan for 80 to 95% carbon reduction by 2050. 1 Solutions for sustainable energy servicescan be determined by following a few fundamental principles and metrics, enumerated in this document.
