UK government to betray its promise on subsidising nuclear power
The Independent : Who pays the nuclear power bill?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/letters-who-pays-the-nuclear-power-bill-8219862.html by Dr Paul Dorfman and 8 other UK University dignitaries 21 October 2012 The Government have promised that they would never, under any circumstances, subsidise nuclear power. Ed Davey, the Coalition Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change, has stated that “There will be no blank cheque for nuclear – unless
they are price competitive, nuclear projects will not go ahead.”
However, the Coalition Energy Minister John Hayes, is now considering a major U-turn in energy policy by giving a blank cheque to nuclear by “underwriting” construction cost over-runs. This is despite the fact that the key to nuclear is its spiralling cost over-runs.
There are two nuclear reactors being built in Western Europe at the moment, one in Finland and one in France, and both are hugely over-cost and over-time. Both use the same technology as is proposed for the UK, the European Pressurised Reactor supplied by the French company Areva.
The Finnish reactor was planned to go online in early 2009, but the
Finns are now crossing their fingers and hoping to complete around
late 2014. Priced at €3bn, the reactor is now costed at €6bn and
rising. Because of this, the Finns are in a billion-euro legal battle
with the French nuclear construction firm Areva over who pays these
extra costs.
And things are no better in France. Here, the builder, EDF, the
company that would build in the UK, forecast the reactor would be
complete this year, but time-scales keep slipping and they now say
they hope to complete around 2016. Originally priced at just over
€3bn, their reactor is also currently estimated at €6bn and rising.
Whatever one’s view of the risks and benefits of nuclear energy, it is
clear that construction cost over-runs are highly likely. The taxpayer
and consumer must not end up footing a multi-billion pound bill for
what seem to be inevitable nuclear construction cost over-runs.
No comments yet.
-
Archives
- December 2025 (293)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
- January 2025 (250)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS


Leave a comment