Hinkley Point to go ahead

September 15th, 2016

Posted by Suzanna Hinson

The controversial Hinkley point C in Somerset has finally been given the go-ahead by the government. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy said,[1]

“the Government has decided to proceed with the first new nuclear power station for a generation. However, ministers will impose a new legal framework for future foreign investment in Britain’s critical infrastructure, which will include nuclear energy and apply after Hinkley.”

The decision in July by Prime Minister Teresa May to stall and review the £18 billion project, planned to produce 7% of UK electricity, shocked the industry. The ensuing debate was weighty and is unlikely to subside as the “white elephant” project goes through its expected 10-year construction.

The questions and concerns over the project are wide ranging. The strike price is high, and many are worried about being committed to expensive energy for many years, whilst other options get increasingly cheaper. There are also concerns over the foreign investment, particularly that of the Chinese. New Nuclear Watch Europe dismissed this security issue in their recent guest blog for Weinberg Next Nuclear.[2] The government’s “new legal framework” supposedly addresses some of the financial and security concerns though the opposition has called it “window dressing”.[3] Perhaps the main concern is the technology. The European Pressurised Reactor, planned for Hinkley, has encountered extensive problems where it has been built in France and Finland and to a lesser extent in China. It has not yet been delivered on time or on budget anywhere.

In response to the news, Weinberg Next Nuclear’s director Stephen Tindale said,

“The EPR is not the most promising reactor design – very complex and so very expensive. But now that the Government has decided to go with the EDF proposal, I hope Hinkley Point C is built as quickly as possible, without major problems and without going significantly over budget. And Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial strategy Greg Clark can now turn his attention to other nuclear projects: those at Wylfa and Moorside, the Small Modular Reactor competition and some advanced nuclear reactors to use spent fuel and plutonium as fuel.” 

Weinberg Next Nuclear previously reported and wrote to Greg Clarke, that there are more promising nuclear technology options than Hinkley. However we also strongly believe that new nuclear is necessary to mitigate the energy and climate crises. As such, we now hope Hinkley’s progress goes as smoothly as possible to provide much needed low carbon electricity, whilst advanced nuclear options continue to be pursued to ensure the UK has a bright nuclear future.

 

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-confirms-hinkley-point-c-project-following-new-agreement-in-principle-with-edf

[2] http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2016/09/07/theresa-may-has-nothing-to-fear-from-foreign-investment-in-nuclear-a-guest-blog-by-tim-yeo/

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/15/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-power-station-gets-go-ahead

Comments

  1. Toby Thatcher says:

    A disappointing outcome when considering what Moltex, Terrapower and Flibe could have yielded to the National Grid for the £18bn cost of Hinkley. Consequently we now face decades of expensive energy prices driving industry from our shores and yet more waste accumilating at Sellafield without a viable further use/disposal method to say nothing of fuel poverty and climatic consequences. This was a cowardly decision not to leap from the sinking ship of solid U235 fuel, which our children will not thank us for.

    • Pedro says:

      No one knows the cost of Moltex, Terrapower and Flibe because no one has ever been built. Please consider that even the EPR had, at the beginnig of the desing had an estimated cost of 1.5b€, and at the end of the design an estimated cost of 3.5b€ before skyrocketing to 10b€ when construction became embarrrasing. So, maybe you’re right (and I wish it) or maybe not. But we know that there are other reactors with similar quality that are much cheaper: AP-1000, VVER-1200, APR-1400, ABWR… It’s disapointing that EPR has been chosen por political reasons, not economical neither technical.

  2. JIMJFOX says:

    DISASTROUS–
    “The UK government will guarantee at least £2bn of debt. And it has promised that we, the electricity customers, will buy the power produced by Hinkley for 35 years at a price of £92.50 per megawatt-hour (MWh) in 2012 prices. The price would now be about £99/MWh (and will increase further with inflation). Contrast that with the current wholesale price of power in the UK, about £35/MWh.”
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/14/hinkley-point-costly-mistake-france-britain-edf

Leave a Reply

Sign up for our Weinberg Next Nuclear Newsletter
* = required field

The Alvin Weinberg Foundation’s work has helped us to understand the potential benefits of thorium and next generation nuclear reactors, such as the Molten Salt Reactor.

— All-Party Parliamentary Group on Thorium Energy

@thorium_wf

Highly recommend this Rushlight Summer Showcase event at the @RGS_IBG this June. Have a look and register here https://t.co/xTuCD5r11i
- Monday Apr 24 - 2:26pm

The Power to Change the World. See our Technology Officer @JohnCHLindberg in this thought-provoking TED talk https://t.co/ogi2Km37aR
- Thursday Apr 20 - 7:19am

Categories

  • Economics (90)
  • Efficiency (54)
  • Policy (14)
  • Proliferation (34)
  • Regulation (10)
  • Safety (65)
  • Security (18)
  • Technology advances (24)
  • Uncategorized (54)
  • Waste (54)
  • © The Alvin Weinberg Foundation 2014
    The Alvin Weinberg Foundation is a registered UK charity. Charity number: 1155255
    The Alvin Weinberg Foundation web site uses cookies to record visitor patterns.
    Read our data protection policy

    Design by Tauri-tec Ltd and the Alvin Weinberg Foundation