nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Minister confirms taxpayer will foot bill for UK nuclear power strategy

Minister confirms taxpayer will foot bill for UK nuclear power strategy LBC,  TOM SWARBRICK, 31 October 2021  On the fourth time of asking, the Energy minister admitted energy bills will rise to fund the construction of nuclear plants in the UK.

As COP26 gets underway in Glasgow, Tom Swarbrick was joined by Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth Greg Hands to discuss the UK’s strategy to achieve net zero.

Tom asked Mr Hands about the Regulated Asset Base model for nuclear, which is the government’s plan to build “at least one large-scale nuclear project” by the end of parliament.

How much are bills going to go up to pay for that?” Tom asked for the first time. The Tory MP dodged the question and insisted that the RAB model “increases our level of choices” for energy production in future.

He repeated that the construction of nuclear plants “creates more options for us.”………..

Before it has been built, how much are prices going to go up as a result of this model?” Tom asked for the third time.

The Energy Minister insisted that “depends on the deals that are being done”, adding that energy bills will “be reduced by around £10.”

Can I just try one more time, and it can be a nod or a shake of the head for an answer,” a dejected Tom said.

“Can you guarantee that through this new way of funding nuclear, that bills will not go up prior to it being built?”

“No, we’re expecting that bill-payers will make a contribution based on the Regular Asset Base model” the Minister confirmed on the fourth time of asking.

“It will end up being cheaper overall for bill-payers by in the region of £10” he repeated, clarifying that the saving is “over the lifetime of that power station.” https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/tom-swarbrick/british-taxpayer-will-pay-for-nuclear-energy-program-minister-confirms/

November 1, 2021 - Posted by | politics, UK

5 Comments »

  1. The problem for Greens is that, unless the UK as a society decides to find ways to drastically and permanently cut its energy use, it will need nuclear and fossil fuel sources of that energy for the foreseeable future. The sums don’t add up: renewables cannot supply everything, not by a very long way. The choice is ours. If we continue as a capitalist society, we must power it with everything we can find. There is, of course, the alternative of socialism. But that is unthinkable, isn’t it?

    Comment by John Smith | November 1, 2021 | Reply

    • I disagree that renewable energy cannot supply 100% eneergy for UK, while I have to admit that it would be a tough and tortuous process, to bring about that 100%. But, if we’re talking about ”the forseeable future” – nuclearpower is not in it – will never be ready in time to be effective, even if we disregard the high carbon emissions of the fuel chain. Especially if they’re planning on ”small” nuclear reactors – that is a joke

      Comment by Christina Macpherson | November 1, 2021 | Reply

      • Renewables could supply all our needs – if those needs were greatly reduced. The UK has barely begun this. Electrification of all road transport, for example, would require enormous increases in generation. The energy density of renewables is much lower than fossils, needing much greater amounts of land. Why do you think we abandoned wind power in the 19th century in favour of coal?

        My point is not to praise fossil fuels but to argue that we need to reduce our energy consumption in order to replace them. Bear in mind that our capitalist society is growing its production and consumption exponentially, so all energy sources will be growing at the same rate. Without ecological forms of socialism, that will continue.

        Comment by John Smith | November 1, 2021

      • I agree completely with your argument for reducing energy consumption. I should have stressed the need for enerrgy conservation to lead the fight, with renewables joining this. As for socialism, – well, it sounds a better bet than the rampant dog eat dog individualism that we have now.

        Comment by Christina Macpherson | November 1, 2021

    • Don’t know why ”socialism” is regarded as such a dirty word. It is not the same as communism

      Comment by Christina Macpherson | November 1, 2021 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: