nuclear-news

Britain’s ‘Supporters of Nuclear Energy’ (SONE) giving up on new nuclear power

SONE wants their power stations to be directly funded by the Government. 

 the effective demise of the British nuclear construction programme will probably not be recognised by the Government itself in its public relations output.

British nuclear supporters issue surrender notice, Dave Toke’s green energy blog , 17 September 2012 Supporters of British nuclear power have effectively surrendered in their efforts to secure a new programme of building nuclear power stations.

Sir William McAlpine, a member of the McAlpine family which founded the major construction company of that name, has written to the British Chancellor, George Osborne, to ask that Government proposals to subsidise nuclear power should, in effect, be abandoned.
He has written as the Chair of the ‘Supporters of Nuclear Energy’ (SONE) group, which provides much of the lobbying inspiration for nuclear power in the UK. This is also a very significant move since the McAlpine group are among the companies who are most likely to
benefit from contracts given to build new nuclear power stations.
The Daily Telegraph says that:
‘Sir Williams tells the Chancellor that neither the consumer nor
businesses “should have to pay through the nose” for a subsidy system
“which seems to have very little justification.” ‘

This is in reference to what is reported to be EDF’s demands for a
high ‘strike price’ that would be well above £100 per MWh (as reported
previously in this blog). It seems SONE are advocating direct
financing the construction of the nuclear power stations by
Government. Direct financial support from Government, involving also,
as this logically means, the ‘underwriting of construction costs’ is
not going to happen outside of re-nationalisation of at least a part
of the electricity industry. This is very, very, unlikely. Hence
nuclear industry supporters are, in effect, running up the white flag
in the struggle to get a new fleet of nuclear power stations built.
This looks like an attempt to organise a dignified withdrawal in the
face of overwhelming odds. However, really, the effect is surrender
under cover of an attempt to save face.
The fact is that the Government set up a price competition between
nuclear, various forms of renewable energy, and carbon capture and
storage,  for who could offer the lower strike price at which each
unit of ‘low carbon’ electricity production would be sold. Nuclear
power has lost this battle, as discussed in earlier blogs. Its
supporters have reverted to advocating the only historical precedent
for building nuclear power stations – namely that somebody (other than
private investors) has to guarantee to pay the construction costs.
That is why SONE wants their power stations to be directly funded by the Government. But this is politically, and in very practical
business terms, impossible in the UK and the EU’s increasingly
liberalised energy markets.

It would certainly look bizarre if the Government’s plans to reduce
subsidies for wind and solar pv were implemented at the same time as a
much higher strike price for nuclear power – very bizarre in view of
the fact that nuclear power is much, much, less popular as reported in
opinion polls compared to the renewable fuels. Government plans to
reduce subsidies for both onshore wind and solar pv farms by 2013-2015
to around £95 per MWh  have already been announced, with the
likelihood that under the Government’s plans for its own version of
feed-in tariffs onshore wind will not be given more than around £80
per MWh from 2017. Even offshore wind’s costs for 15-20 year contracts
have, according to Government aspirations, to be brought down to £100
per MWh by 2020. So what political hope is there for EDF to be given a
lot more than £100 per MWh for a contract of 25 or 30 or even 50 years
in length? None whatsoever!

It is not surprising that SONE have now recognised political reality.
However, the effective demise of the British nuclear construction
programme will probably not be recognised by the Government itself in
its public relations output. This is partly because it wants to help
keep a few consultants in their jobs for a bit longer. However, this
refusal to admit the collapse of the nuclear programme  is also
because the Government would have to admit that either it has to
massively increase investment in renewable energy and energy
efficiency or abandon any remaining chance of getting at all close to
the UK’s carbon reduction plan.

For its part, EDF has something of an interest in continuing to
maintain that its nuclear plans are still
viable…….http://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.com.au/

September 20, 2012 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, UK