The UK Government’s pursuit of a new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point C represents not just a colossal waste of money, but could also be real danger to the UK’s national security, write Professors Alex Russell and Peter Strachan of Robert Gordon University. “Let us hope that the Prime Minister and Chancellor’s actions do not lead to the radicalisation of unemployed steel workers who are now being joined by unemployed renewable industry personnel.”
The Conservative government, arguably, has completely lost the plot in continuing to pursue its so called energy policy that depends so heavily on building a new fleet of nuclear power stations to keep the lights on in Britain. The government want to have 16 GW of new nuclear power stations built in the UK all using EDF’s troubled Generation-III design, of which Hinkley Point C (3.2 GW) is only the first installment.
With this project is George Osborne seeking an entry in the Guinness Book of Records as the first Chancellor of the Exchequer to commission the world’s most expensive nuclear power station? The Chancellor says the project represents good value for money. But the facts suggest otherwise. Further, and with the recent signing of a new nuclear accord as part of the State Visit of the President of China, not enough attention appears to have been given to national security issues.
Economic madness
All in all, Hinkley Point C will cost an estimated £76 billion, for up to 3.2 GW of new generation capacity. Building costs are now estimated by EDF, the owner, at £24.5 billion. As a sobering thought, even offshore wind looks cheap when compared to the full commercial costs of this project.
This apparent blank cheque for new nuclear build is all the more surprising coming at a time when the Treasury has slashed support for onshore wind and solar power and other low carbon projects. The fallout has seen companies such as Drax withdrawing from a £1 billion Carbon Capture project, and others such as the Mark Group, Climate Energy and Southern Solar, making staff redundant.
The Prime Minister David Cameron and George Osborne have, of course, been forced into a nuclear bunker by the failure of EDF to progress the Hinkley Point project in a timely manner. It now seems that the earliest possible date for new nuclear electricity in the UK might well be 2025. Will that stretch out to 2030 as time goes by? For example, evidence from Finland indicates that such a scenario is plausible.
The lights might well have gone out by then but when they come on again it will be at huge cost to bill payers. EDF has been guaranteed an inflation proof strike price of (initially) £92.50/MWh (at today’s prices £94/MWh) over 35 years.
Yep! More than double current wholesale electricity prices, and at a time when onshore wind costs were already much lower at around £80/MWh (with a significantly shorter contract). Furthermore these costs were set to fall and be largely subsidy free in the near future, if not for Amber Rudd’s (the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change) onslaught against all things renewable and energy efficient since May.
The feeling of bewilderment at the Alice in Wonderland cost of Hinkley Point C and the human misery of the aforementioned renewable company failures becomes transformed into total disbelief and dumbfoundedness when the national security risks of what is being proposed are taken into account.
Clear security risk
Heralding the new ‘golden age’ of UK and Chinese bonhomie, David Cameron and George Osborne have been setting the scene for a big announcement on nuclear cooperation between China and the UK.
Putting aside the £2 billion of sweeteners announced by George Osborne recently, on top of a previously announced £10 billion of subsidies, the Conservative government appear to have had a senior moment when it comes to the issue of national security. No risk appraisal appears to have been undertaken. If true, it beggars belief.
As ludicrous as it might seem, control of our domestic nuclear power stations is being handed over to foreign governments and companies, putting our safety and very survival as a nation at risk
By touting the provision of investment and technical expertise from the Chinese government and nuclear companies to assist the financially struggling French behemoth EDF, only now have the lights started to flash and the alarm bells started to ring with the UK military. One of the Chinese companies to be involved, CNNC, boasts of its achievement in helping to build China’s nuclear weapons! (The other Chinese company involved is CGN. Both are state-owned.)
Chinese involvement would extend beyond Hinkley Point in Somerset. The final deal might well involve the construction of two nuclear plants by the Chinese companies and EDF and another to be designed and built by the Chinese companies alone.
Cyber security appears to be the main concern. Would China like to have the upper hand and know exactly how these plants were being operated in years to come? If so, and it’s not really a difficult question, would they have the wit and expertise to somehow bug the plants, and even be able to switch them off at their whim? Consideration of these questions should send a shiver down the backs of all sane UK citizens.
As ludicrous as it might seem, control of our domestic nuclear power stations is being handed over to foreign governments and companies, putting our safety and very survival as a nation at risk. Will the Chancellor’s next move be to give the Chinese preferred status to bid for the renewal of the UK’s £100 billion Trident folly?
Real and potent danger
It is clear that this unprecedented handover of power and money to Chinese hands will prompt a justified reaction from those thousands of UK steel workers whose jobs are about to disappear due in part to the global dumping of steel by China.
Will the remnants of the steel industry and its workers see a fraction of the £76 billion to be spent by the Chancellor on his nuclear boondoggle? Not likely.
Let us hope that the Prime Minister and Chancellor’s actions do not lead to the radicalisation of unemployed steel workers who are now being joined by unemployed renewable industry personnel.
The nuclear option can and has been criticised in so many ways that the UK Government should think long and hard before proceeding with what many UK citizens will rightly consider an unpatriotic and unethical waste of money. It may even constitute a real and potent danger to our current lifestyle in Britain.
Editor’s Note
Alex Russell and Peter Strachan are professors at Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen. This article was first published on Oilvoice.com and is republished here with permission.
[adrotate group=”9″]
Mark Johnston says
The only signatures were on the EDF-CGN shareholder agreement. The CFD subsidy contract was not signed, so a start date for resumption of works remains an open question. The EDF press conference and press release contradicted each other, as did the prime minister and his energy secretary Amber Rudd (“are signing”/”may sign”). Technical, financial and legal hurdles in Paris, Luxembourg and elsewhere will take months if not years to overcome. All in all still a great big dog’s breakfast.
Mark Johnston says
Oh yeah, and Okiluoto-3 and Flamanville-3 EPR constructions taking 12-13 years and still counting, so 2025 opening for TWO EPR units at HPC is also fanciful.
Mike Parr says
I agree with most of the sentiments by the authors. Couple of comments. The costs for Hinkley seem to vary. I have seen Euro24 billion, £24 billion (Euro32bn) and so forth. I’m puzzled – what is the cost?
If we take a cost of around £1.5m for UK on-shore wind, £24 bn buys you 16GW. If you take a capacity factor of 25% then you have 4GW which is 0.8GW more than Hinkley (not forgetting that the weather tends not to send a bill). If the UK had a programme for 16GW of on-shore – that buys a great deal of leverage in terms of factories and value added, mostly with Euro wind turbine manufacturers.
In the case of Amber Rudd, she has as much decision making power as Sooty or Sweep (with Osborne as Harry H). As one of Osborne’s side-kicks at the treasury recently remarked (to the Ecologist) “She can go off to Paris and talk about climate as much as she likes, but that’s about all she can do. As far as UK energy policy is concerned, she might as well not be there……. yes, just a pretty face. Or not as the case may be (laughs). But yes, her role is just to present policy. Pure PR. She doesn’t decide a thing.” Sexism & cynicism interesting combo.
Camoron and Osborne make UK energy policy. Increasingly this is predicated on how this policy fills Tory-party coffers. The interests of UK serfs do not count and never have when the Tories make policy – which is aimed at making sure their doners provide them with the resources to win elections. When it comes to corruption, the UK political scene & particularly the Tory party can show banana republics a thing or two – which is doubtless why the Chinese are happy to do business with Dave n George – corrupt to the very core.
Karel Beckman says
On the costs, as far as I know EDF has said the plant would cost 18 billion UK pounds, but the European Commission’s State Aid inquiry revealed the real estimate is 24.5 billion UK pounds: https://energypost.eu/brussels-concludes-uk-measures-hinkley-point-nuclear-power-plant-compatible-eu-rules/
So that’s about $36 billion for a 3.2 GW plant, which translates into over $10 billion per GW.
That’s interesting because according to the Weekly Digest of the World Nuclear Assocation of 23 October, China is starting up three new nuclear power plants this year, which by my calculation cost $1.5 billion per GW. See here: http://www.world-nuclear.org/World-Nuclear-Association/Publications/Weekly-Digest/Latest-Updates/
Mark Johnston says
Outline options package with ownership % is:
> Hinkley Point 2xEPRs, EDF 66.5%, CGN 33.5%
> Sizewell 2xEPRs, EDF 80%, CGN 20%
> Bradwell, 1x1000mw, EDF 33.5%, CGN 66.5%
The subsidy offer with state aid clearance only applies to Hinkley. Sizewell isn’t notified to EC. Bradwell unclear what if any subsidy offer could be. (Built without subsidy?) Two other consortia and three sites left wonder what if anything is left for them and how to apply.
Mark Johnston says
Last word: EDF is overstretch. France is the weakest link.
Jan Veselý says
@Mike Parr: I love your calculations. You are living example of old mathematical truth that wrong assumption allows you to prove anything. You were assuming wrongly:
1) Capacity factor of wind farms (is/will be 40-60% or more in Britain)
2) Capacity factor of EPR reactors (is not 100%)
3) Cost of wind seems to be too much. Isn’t it 1.5 EUR/Wp? But you are right that cost will only be lower.
All in all wind is just MUCH cheaper alternative in Britain than you assumed.
Mike Parr says
Mr Vesely, I had assumed a 25% cap factor for wind in the UK. Of course it depends where you go – north west coast of scotland & you would be looking at 50%+. I gave the benefit of the doubt to Hinkley (I don’tknow why) of a 100% cap factor – probably more like 90 – 95%. As far as the cost in the UK goes – it tends to be a bit more expensive than Germany £1.5m/MW could be considered an upper bound with £1m/MW a lower bound (not that under the Tories any more on-shore is being built).
Gaetan Cerres says
Stop wiggling the national security boogeyman.
Both Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C will be entirely designed by teams of engineers stretched between France and England.
The I&C subcontractor (the company in charge of coding the plant software) won’t be a state-owned Chinese company but will likely be Siemens, Alstom or Emerson, depending on who will win the bid.
Construction will be done by British workers, supervised by European engineers, under the scrutiny of the ONR.
The four plants will be operated by British nationals and not by Chinese spies.
So yeah, it’s not because CGN (CNNC won’t be part of the deal) will invest in HPC and SZC that Britannia will fall.
For Bradwell, CGN will built has many Hualong as possible (likely 3). The design of the reactor will first have to go through ONR’s GDA, which is one of the toughest reactor assessment in the world. Westinghouse’s AP1000 still has not completed its GDA.
Construction of the plant will also be supervised by the ONR.
If once in operation, the Bradwell plant unexpectedly trip each winter during the worst day for the network be sure that the ONR and National Security will understand why, and promptly remove its licence to operate.
Mike Parr says
Mr Cerres your 1st five sentences illustrate well that a significant part of any reactor will be European. This then begs the question: given the Uk is (very) rich (compared to China on a per-capita basis) why does it not finance the whole thing itself – thus eliminating the (according to you) non-issue of security.