2017 February 04 « nuclear-news

The costs of Hinkley nuclear project to Scotland

NuClearNewsNo92 February 2017 Scotland and Hinkley A report, called ‘Scotland’s Wind’ (1), by Dr David Toke – Reader in Energy Politics at Aberdeen University and published by the Scottish Greens shows that UK, electricity consumers are set to pay around £16 a year for 35 years to subsidise Hinkley Point C. If Scottish consumers could go it alone their £16 levy could fund almost twice as much power from onshore and offshore wind farms.

The report says:

“If Scottish consumer s money was spent on supporting renewable energy rather than paying for their share of Hinkley Point C … then, even on conservative calculations, nearly double the amount of electricity would be generated from wind power as from Hinkley C”.

The costs of onshore windfarms and also offshore windfarms even on current prices need much less support from consumer surcharges to generate an equivalent amount of electricity compared to HPC. Wind power costs are falling rapidly, with some especially low prices being reported in Denmark and The Netherlands. Under such a programme organised by the Scottish Government the cheapest onshore windfarms could start generating in 2020 and offshore windfarms organised under a new, Danish-style framework, could be online in 2026.

The Scottish Government s own preference for renewable energy over nuclear power lends support to the suggestion that the Scottish Government should be able to use Scottish consumers money to pay for new renewable energy rather than new nuclear power. Moreover the best value for money for Scottish consumers in terms of generating non-fossil fuels is likely to come from the Scottish Government having powers to fund its own renewable energy programme from Scottish consumer bills. This is because the Scottish Government will be able to decide on what contract length to offer wind developers, for example offering to pay guaranteed prices for 20 years rather than 15 years as done by the Westminster Government now with renewable energy. Also, the Scottish Government will be able to organise a much more effective offshore windfarm programme than is being done by the Westminster Government. The Westminster Government’s methods are increasing the costs of offshore wind by leaving too much uncertainty to be dealt with by developers. The Scottish Government could organise a much cheaper offshore wind programme on the lines done by the Danish Energy Agency. This is likely to lead to lower costs and less confrontation in the courts over planning issues than is the case with the current offshore windfarm programme. (2)

In January the Scottish Government published

A draft Climate Change Plan (RPP3) http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/01/2768
A consultation of a Draft Scottish Energy Strategy: http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/01/3414
A consultation on Fracking: http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/01/8538

Scotland’s Wind by Dr Dave Toke 9th Jan 2017 https://greens.scot/sites/default/files/Scotland%2527s%20Wind.pdf 2.

Dave Toke’s Blog 9th Jan 2017 http://realfeed-intariffs.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/how-scotland-could-doubleamount-of-low.html http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo92.pdf

February 4, 2017 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Next Entries »

1.This Month

Why Nuclear is NOT a Solution to Climate Change

No to Nuclear Power petition

We, the undersigned, call on theUK Government to:

• Cancel all plans for new reactors,

• Phase out all nuclear power production,

• Commit to developing an energy system based on renewable energy.

Major disasters at Windscale, Chernobyl and Fukushima show the dangers associated with nuclear reactors while studies reveal their routine operation leads to increased local child leukaemia. They produce large volumes of radioactive waste, much of which will remain dangerous for millennia to come. And nuclear power and nuclear weapons industries are inextricably linked: nuclear power grew out of the nuclear weapons programme.

The costs of new nuclear are extremely high and rising, compared with the low costs of the renewables which continue to decline. Yet the Government gives large subsidies to nuclear not the renewables.

We need safe, healthy, inexpensive, and sustainable energy sources, not the dangerous diversion of nuclear power. Renewable energy offers a clear alternative to nuclear. Sign here: https://cnduk.org/actions/no-to-nuclear-power-petition/