nuclear-news

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

Emmanuel Macron is slow to clarify his nuclear promises

Why Emmanuel Macron is slow to clarify his nuclear promises. The President
of the Republic was initially to present before the end of 2021 the details
of his strategy for relaunching new reactors. Procrastination which reminds
us that his position has often varied on the subject.

 Le Monde 16th Jan 2022

https://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2022/01/16/pourquoi-emmanuel-macron-tarde-a-preciser-ses-promesses-sur-le-nucleaire_6109671_823448.html

January 17, 2022 Posted by | France, politics | Leave a comment

Regulated Asset Base – UK’s nuclear tax on electricity consumers – supposed to attract foreign investment

Energy costs and energy investment, Renew Extra Weekly,  January 15, 2022  ”………………………  Energy prices are accelerating seemingly out of control. But actually the way the Contracts for Difference (CFD)  is structured, with competition for capacity slots and a claw back of any excess income over strike price costs, it may not be too bad- it does seem to limit excess cost pass-though, unlike the old Renewables Obligation system, which some now see as much less attractive.    So, with the CfD apparently doing well, it might be thought to be a bit odd that the government has shifted away from using it for nuclear, to a new Regulatory Assets Base (RAB) system for new large plants. The CfD was used to finance Hinkley Point C  EPR, but it did so excessively, with a £92.5/MWh index linked contract being awarded to EDF without competitive bids being considered.

The CfD could in theory have been used again for the next big nuclear project, this time with a competition, but evidently the high project costs, and the high resultant strike prices likely, made it less attractive. So instead the government is going for Regulated Asset Base (RAB), basically a nuclear tax on electricity consumers, raising capital to fund construction of new plants, so that income starts flowing before construction starts. 

It’s claimed that this element of RAB will make it easier for companies to finance nuclear, so that they can eventually charge consumers less. Well, we will see.  But equally, if there’s a cost overshoot or delay, consumers will get hit hard, and, if the project is abandoned, their involuntary investment will be lost. Interestingly that includes Scottish consumers, despite anti-nuclear Scotland not being likely to allow any new plants to be built there. So Scots would be subsidising projects in England and Wales.

That won’t go down well with the SNP. 
The RAB plan, which, even if all goes well, will put some extra costs on power bills, does in any case look odd for all consumers, given that the government says it wants to remove energy taxes from electricity and impose them instead on domestic gas heating.  That may be sensible, but, with RAB, it’s going the wrong way.

A subsidy too far? 

So why is government adopting for RAB for new nuclear? Evidently it’s to attract foreign investors! The Regulated Asset Base nuclear finance bill has just got through a House of Commons vote unamended. 

During the debate, Business & Energy Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng said: ‘The existing financing scheme has led to too many foreign nuclear developers walking away from projects, setting our nuclear industry back a number of years. While the existing Contracts for Difference model was right for Hinkley Point C, the lack of alternative funding models has significantly contributed to the cancellation of recent potential large-scale projects. And this includes Hitachi’s project at Wylfa and Toshiba’s project at Moorside. We urgently need a new approach to attract capital into the sector.’

Somehow that seems to clash with what Energy and Climate Minister Greg Hands said: ‘The Bill will finance new nuclear power stations, making us less dependent on foreign-owned developers and bringing in the private sector and institutional funding.’ 

All of this, remember.. is because nuclear projects are too costly to win under normal competitive markets terms, whereas, increasingly, mainstream renewables like wind and solar can do that……….

 there are some urgent infrastructure projects that could help cut energy costs quite quickly, the most obvious being investment in energy efficiency. For example, the Energy Efficiency Infrastructure Group said that improving insulation on the UK’s least efficient homes would save households around £500 a year on  energy bills, totaling £8bn p.a. nationally. ……………

RAB funding might make it cheaper to build new gas stores rather than relying on imports…………

All of which seems to make more sense that using RAB for nuclear, which shows little sign of getting cheaper no matter how much money is chucked at it. Instead it seems to just soak up money, as with the much delayed EPR still being built at Flamanville in France, currently not scheduled for completion until 2023 and full operation in 2024, at an expected cost now put at Euro12.5bn. That is well over three times the original Euro 3.3bn estimate made when work started on it in 2007. And that assumes there are no further problems, like the fault that has shut down the Chinese version of the EPR, just at the point when China is desperate for power. An odd sort of asset that…and a problem that may rebound on the French EPRs.  https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2022/01/energy-costs-and-energy-investment.html

January 17, 2022 Posted by | politics, UK | Leave a comment

Big fall in EDF’s shares

 

EDF’s shares fell by 14.6 per cent after Macron ordered the company to
sell cut price energy to its rivals to stave off price hikes. The scheme
will cost EDF €8bn (£6.7bn), the French state-controlled energy group
warned yesterday, forcing the company to revise annual earning estimates.

French President Macron promised in September to cap power price increases
at four per cent this year, passing the cost of a 44 per cent rise in
energy prices onto suppliers in order to protect households. The
announcement compounded the woes of EDF investors, who have seen shares
shed 25 per cent of their value in a month.

 City AM 15th Jan 2022
 https://www.cityam.com/edf-shares-plummet-as-macron-shields-public-from-soaring-energy-bills/

EDF takes hit as Macron shields public from soaring energy bills

January 17, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, France, politics | Leave a comment

Scotland’s electricity consumers will pay up for UK’s Hinkley nuclear plant, though it’s not even built

The UK Government’s commitment to new nuclear power stations in England
will push up energy bills for consumers in Scotland. Although Scotland has
used planning laws to prevent any new nuclear south of the border, the UK
Government has pressed ahead with projects like Hinkley Point, which will
charge bill payers upfront to subsidise nuclear power stations that
haven’t even been built yet.

The issue was raised in the Scottish
parliament this week by Scottish Greens energy spokesperson Mark Ruskell,
prompting the Net Zero secretary Michael Matheson to confirm that “in
2030 alone Hinkley could add almost £40/year to a consumer bill whereas an
equivalent offshore wind farm would reduce bills by £8/year.”

Commenting, Mark Ruskell said: “As well as leaving a toxic legacy for
generations to come, nuclear power is a bad deal for consumers now, at a
time when energy bills are pushing more and more households into fuel
poverty.

“Renewable energy is far cheaper, and since it doesn’t result
in toxic waste which will remain deadly for hundreds of thousands of years,
better for the environment too. That’s why with Greens in government
Scotland is doubling our onshore wind capacity and investing in offshore
wind and marine renewables too. “The UK Government’s energy policy is
more about helping its friends than following the science or tackling fuel
poverty. It’s important we do things differently in Scotland, which would
be helped with the greater powers of independence.”

 Scottish Greens 14th Jan 2022

https://greens.scot/

January 17, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Greenpeace France calls for a halt to Flamanville EPR nuclear project, to assess viability of EPR reactors.

EDF announced this morning that the start-up of the Flamanville EPR, which has been under construction for 15 years, has been postponed by several months, to mid-2023. The cost of this project, already multiplied by 6, increases again.

This umpteenth slippage of EPR technology questions the positioning of certain presidential candidates who promote it irresponsibly and disconnected from the facts.

Greenpeace France is calling for a moratorium on the work of the Flamanville EPR, in order to conduct an
independent assessment of the viability of EPR nuclear reactors. The incident that led to the shutdown of the world’s first EPR in Taishan,China, nearly 6 months ago, remains unresolved to this day. Beyond the
setbacks of construction sites, the EPR technology therefore proves to be faulty even in operation.

 Greenpeace France 12th Jan 2022

https://www.greenpeace.fr/espace-presse/epr-de-flamanville-un-enieme-retard-qui-disqualifie-les-annonces-de-nouveaux-reacteurs/

January 15, 2022 Posted by | France, politics, safety | Leave a comment

‘Nuclear obsession’: Tory bill to let firms charge customers to build plants

‘Nuclear obsession’: Tory bill to let firms charge customers to build plants  https://www.thenational.scot/news/19837771.nuclear-obsession-tory-bill-let-firms-charge-customers-build-plants/?fbclid=IwAR2qOsgM6f-vP8Y1Ieh4N2fAPD-00KK5j2I8Megxd7BEfa0hlLs-FmBI2ss

Gregor Young, 14 Jan 22, ONLY independence will rid Scotland of Westminster’s nuclear obsession ahead of a bill that will allow energy companies to increase consumer bills to build nuclear plants, the SNP have warned.

The Tories’ Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill, which received its third reading in the House of Commons yesterday, would allow energy companies to pass the cost of a future nuclear power station to their current consumers.

The bill comes amidst a Tory-made cost-of-living crisis as energy bills and food prices continue to soar, after a £1000 cut to Universal Credit, and ahead of a regressive National Insurance hike.

The SNP Scottish Government has made it clear that it is committed to opposing new nuclear power plants and prioritising renewable and low carbon sources of energy, with Scotland producing nearly all of its electricity from renewable sources.

SNP energy spokesperson Alan Brown MP said: “Scotland has made it clear time and again that we do not want nuclear power stations – yet we will foot the bill for them anyway as the Tory government hammer on with their nuclear obsession.

“It is madness that during a cost of living crisis, the Tories are pushing through a bill that could see energy bill consumers forced to pay for another Tory vanity project.

“We do not need nuclear energy to decarbonise and there are better, and cheaper, ways to produce energy. The experts have made this clear.

“The only way for Scotland to escape the Tories’ costly nuclear obsession is through independence.”

January 15, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Biden is urged to eliminate land-based nuclear missiles, as US policy is revised.

Biden Urged to Eliminate Land-Based Nuclear Missiles as US Policy Is Revised, https://truthout.org/articles/biden-urged-to-eliminate-land-based-nuclear-missiles-as-us-policy-is-revised/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=e59d913f-a733-43f1-8c81-c99670e89de9Mike Ludwig, Truthout,

As the Biden administration considers changes to Trump-era nuclear policy, 60 national and regional organizations released a statement this week calling for the elimination of 400 land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that are “now armed and on hair-trigger alert in the United States.”

“Intercontinental ballistic missiles are uniquely dangerous, greatly increasing the chances that a false alarm or miscalculation will result in nuclear war,” the statement reads. “There is no more important step the United States could take to reduce the chances of a global nuclear holocaust than to eliminate its ICBMs.”

Progressives, scientists and some Democrats in Congress are also pushing President Joe Biden, who has pledged to reduce U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons in its defense strategy, to adopt a “no first use” policy and declare that the U.S. will never be the first to launch a nuclear attack. Taking such a stance would strengthen the U.S. position in global nonproliferation talks, advocates say.

The White House is slowly pursuing such talks with other nuclear-armed governments including Russia, the United Kingdom and France, which recently issued a joint statement declaring that “nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” Pakistan and India, two regional rivals armed with nuclear weapons, issued statements calling the joint statement a positive development in international arms control.

A “no first use” or “sole purpose” policy, advocates say, would also be consistent with the Democratic Party platform and Biden himself, who has said that nuclear weapons should only be used to deter nuclear attack. The Trump administration went in the opposite direction with its 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, which says that deterring a nuclear attack is not the “sole purpose” of nuclear weapons and nuclear war could be used to deter “non-nuclear” attacks and achieve “U.S. objectives” if deterrence fails.

The Biden administration is working on a new Nuclear Posture Review, which could be completed early this year, according to Politico. The administration would not comment on internal deliberations for the review, but unnamed officials told Politico it is unlikely to include deep cuts to nuclear weapons spending as the U.S. works to overhaul and modernize its vast nuclear arsenal.

Federal spending on nuclear forces is projected to reach $634 billion over the next decade, a 28 percent increase over 2019 projections, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Advocates for arms control said Biden should have — and still could — put the most controversial nuclear weapons projects approved under former President Donald Trump on pause until the new posture review is completed.

Writing for Defense One, Tom Collins, the policy director at the peace group Ploughshares, argues that Biden must act fast to rein in a Pentagon bureaucracy intent on keeping money flowing to the nuclear war machine, or his own policy will end up looking a lot like Trump’s:

The good news is that President Biden knows more about nuclear policy than any commander-in-chief in recent history. If Biden makes this a priority, there is every reason to think that he will approve new policies that will reduce the risk of nuclear war and make the nation and world safer.

Unfortunately, the president has left these crucial issues to officials who are not committed to his vision. A key strategy document — called the Nuclear Posture Review — has been drafted by an entrenched Pentagon bureaucracy that apparently wants to keep core elements of the Trump agenda intact, including new nuclear weapons and more ways to use them.

Biden is under pressure from conservative war hawks in Congress and the Pentagon to avoid cuts to new nuclear weapons programs approved under Trump, as Russia and China are thought to be bolstering their own arsenals. These proposed weapons systems are different than the existing ICBMs, which require billions of tax dollars for upkeep and sit ready to launch in silos located on the U.S. mainland.

The U.S. maintains a vast nuclear arsenal that can strike from the air, sea and land. The statement issued this week reports that 400 ICBM missile silos — relics of the arms race with the Soviet Union that first raised fears that global nuclear war that would lay waste of all of human civilization — are scattered across Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota and Wyoming.

Citing a former Defense Secretary William Perry, the 60 peace and civil society groups issued the “call to eliminate ICBMs” on Wednesday. Perry has explained that the ICBMs are the weapons most likely to spark a catastrophic nuclear war. If enemy missiles were launched at the U.S., the president would only have about 30 minutes to decide whether to retaliate before the ICBMs are destroyed, a terrible decision that could result in “nuclear winter,” according to the statement.

“Rather than being any kind of deterrent, ICBMs are the opposite — a foreseeable catalyst for nuclear attack. ICBMs certainly waste billions of dollars, but what makes them unique is the threat that they pose to all of humanity,” the statement reads.

Even if the ICBMs facilities were closed, the U.S. would still retain a devastating nuclear arsenal that could respond to attacks across the world. Missiles carried on submarines and aircraft could kill millions of people. However, they are not subject to the same “use them or lose them” dilemma as the ICBMs.

“Until now, the public discussion has been almost entirely limited to the narrow question of whether to build a new ICBM system or stick with the existing Minuteman III missiles for decades longer,” said Norman Solomon, national director of RootsAction, one of the groups that signed the statement. “That’s like arguing over whether to refurbish the deck chairs on the nuclear Titanic. Both options retain the same unique dangers of nuclear war that ICBMs involve.”

January 15, 2022 Posted by | politics, USA, weapons and war | 3 Comments

France’s new-generation Flamanville nuclear plant delayed again.

France’s new-generation nuclear plant delayed again,  France 24 Paris (AFP) – Electricity giant EDF on Wednesday announced a further delay and cost overruns for France’s flagship new-generation nuclear plant, in a blow to President Emmanuel Macron’s strategy of making atomic power a cornerstone of energy policy.

EDF said that the Flamanville plant on the Channel coast would not be loaded with fuel until the “second quarter of 2023”, instead of late 2022.

The statement came after Macron announced plans for new reactors to provide low-carbon energy and as France backs classing nuclear as a “green” technology under future EU rules.

Projected costs had increased by another 300 million euros ($340 million) to 12.7 billion euros, EDF said — around four times more than the initial forecast of 3.3 billion euros.

Construction on the new-generation EPR plant began in 2007, and was supposed to be finished in 2012.

In November, Macron had announced that “for the first time in decades, we will restart construction of nuclear reactors in our country” — as well as “developing renewable energy”.

The plans would “guarantee France’s energy independence” and help reach its goal of being carbon neutral by 2050, he added.

But the president, who has yet to officially confirm that he plans to stand for re-election in April, was short on details like where or when the new plants would be built.

The Flamanville overruns were “a fiasco at the French public’s expense”, said Greens presidential candidate Yannick Jadot.

Left-wing candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon called the news a “shipwreck for the nuclear sector” — long one of the crown jewels of French industry.

Brussels battle

With 56 reactors providing over 70 percent of France’s electricity, according to EDF, Paris has led the charge for nuclear power to be recognised by the European Union as a green technology eligible for carbon-neutral investment.

Allying with eastern EU member states like Poland and the Czech Republic, the push to include atomic energy in the so-called green “taxonomy” has set it at odds with traditional partner Germany.

Berlin is in the process of shutting all its nuclear plants by the end of this year and Germany’s governing coalition now includes the Green party, rooted in part in opposition to the technology going back to the 1970s.

Environment Minister Steffi Lemke has said it would be “absolutely wrong” to include nuclear energy on the list, as it “can lead to devastating environmental catastrophes”.

“We agree to disagree on the issue” with the French, German Europe Minister Anna Luehrmann told AFP last week……….. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220112-france-s-new-generation-nuclear-plant-delayed-again

January 13, 2022 Posted by | France, politics | Leave a comment

UK’s Nuclear Financing Bill – very strange logic – with £40 billion to £60 billion for a new nuclear power station seen as a good thing.

Last week Tim Farron MP sent the following reply to Radiation Free Lakeland when we urged him to vote NO to the public paying for new nuclear build in the Nuclear Financing Bill yesterday. Our MP’s opposition to new nuclear is heartening. But this opposition was not reflected in the vote of
458 for to 53 against (how many others opposed did not vote?) the Bill at third reading.

The Bill will now be considered in the House of Lords. This vote is truly shocking. Alan Brown MP said during the debate Government “has been very good at telling us about the mythical savings that will
accrue via the regulated asset base funding model introduced by this Bill—they are estimated at between £30 billion and £70 billion. What the Government are not so good at is telling us what money they want to commit for the likes of Sizewell C. In effect, they are telling us, ”Let’s save money for bill payers by signing up to a less bad deal for a new nuclear project.”

According to the impact assessment, the capital and financing cost is going to be in the region of £40 billion to £60 billion for a new nuclear power station.

It is a strange logic to tell us that £50 billion being added to our energy bills at the time of a cost of living energy crisis is somehow a good thing. By default, the Government are also confirming just how much of a stinking, rotten deal Hinkley Point C was for bill payers if we are saying that we can save that much money compared with the contracts for difference model for Hinkley C.”

 Radiation Free Lakeland 11th Jan 2022

Tim Farron Strongly Opposes New Nuclear- Good! But …. Action against this New Nuclear Madness is needed

January 13, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | 1 Comment

UK’s Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill passes in House of Commons

New funding plan for Sizewell C station clears final hurdle in Commons https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/business/funding-plan-sizewell-c-suffolk-clears-commons-8612482

Matthew Earth January 10, 2022

Plans for a new way of funding nuclear power plants – including Sizewell C on the Suffolk coast – have cleared their final hurdle in the House of Commons.

Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng described the passing of the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill on Monday evening as the “path to leadership and innovation”.

The Bill creates a new framework for funding nuclear power plants, after worries from investors have led to current projects stalling.

It would allow pension funds and other institutional investors to provide cash for power stations through a regulated asset base funding model.

Energy bill payers would contribute towards the cost of new power stations during construction through their bills, with the aim of giving investors greater certainty after projects such as Sizewell C faced delays due to concerns over the financial risks of construction.

However, Labour has said bill payers could be exploited as a “milk cow” under the new scheme if power stations face delays during building work.

MPs voted 458 to 53 in favour of the Bill at third reading, and it will now be considered in the House of Lords.

The government has recently agreed a six-week delay to the final decision A final decision on whether the station will be built is expected later this year.

January 13, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

Ho hum – Flamanville nuclear power project delayed again.

 Electricite de France SA on Wednesday said that it has revised the
schedule for its Flamanville 3 nuclear reactor project in northern France,
citing the current stage of progress, and difficulties caused by the
coronavirus pandemic.

The French energy company said the fuel-loading date
has been rescheduled to the second trimester of 2023 from the end of 2022.
Costs are now estimated at 12.7 billion euros ($14.41 billion) compared
with an earlier estimate of EUR12.4 billion. Several operations still need
to be carried out before loading the fuel into the reactor vessel and
carrying out start-up tests, EDF said.

 Market Watch 12th Jan 2022

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/edf-says-flamanville-3-nuclear-power-project-has-been-delayed-271641975723

January 13, 2022 Posted by | France, politics | Leave a comment

Germany to stick to its guns on phasing out nuclear and coal energy

 https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-stick-guns-phasing-out-nuclear-coal-energy-scholz-2022-01-12/Reuters   BERLIN, Jan 12 (Reuters) – Germany will push ahead with phasing out nuclear and coal energy despite rising energy prices, Chancellor Olaf Scholz said on Wednesday, adding that nuclear power made no economic sense given the high cost of storing waste…….
Scholz told parliament that his government would instead expedite the process of gaining permission to expand solar and wind farms to push prices down and meet power demand expected to rise to about 800 terawatts (TW) in 2030 from around 600 TW today.

January 13, 2022 Posted by | Germany, politics | Leave a comment

Biden team weighs killing Trump’s new nuclear weapons


Biden team weighs killing Trump’s new nuclear weapons

Officials are considering canceling weapons that were backed by the last administration.  By BRYAN BENDER POLITICO , 01/12/2022

The Biden administration is considering killing off several nuclear weapons programs that were greenlit by the Trump White House as an internal debate over the nation’s atomic arsenal enters its final phase.

According to nine current and former officials with knowledge of the deliberations, the Nuclear Posture Review, which is expected to be completed as early as next month, is not expected to make major changes to nuclear policy. Nor is it likely to recommend deep cuts to multibillion-dollar plans to build new intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear-armed submarines and stealth bombers, they said.

But national security officials are debating whether to jettison a new nuclear-armed cruise missile now in the research phase, retire a Cold War-era thermonuclear bomb, and possibly even remove a new “low-yield” warhead that the previous administration deployed on submarines, the current and former officials said. Most spoke on condition they not be identified in order to discuss internal deliberations and private conversations.

Such changes would fall short of the overhaul of nuclear policy and programs that President Joe Biden has long argued would help blunt a nuclear arms race, namely a declaration that the United States would not be the first to strike an adversary using atomic weapons.

Yet halting the Trump-era “add-ons,” as they are called, are considered the most likely cuts if Biden wants to reverse the previous administration’s elevation of nuclear weapons in U.S. strategy, due to resistance from military leaders to big changes as Russia and China build up their arsenals……………………………………………….

Even for the relatively modest changes to the weapons portfolio being considered, there is likely to be strong resistance on the Hill and inside the Pentagon.  https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/12/biden-trump-nuclear-weapons-526976

January 13, 2022 Posted by | politics, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The European Union will need to invest 500 billion euros ($568 billion) in new generation nuclear power stations!

 France24 9th Jan 2022

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220109-europe-nuclear-plants-need-500-bn-euro-investment-by-2050-eu-commissioner

The European Union will need to invest 500 billion euros ($568 billion) in new generation nuclear power stations from now until 2050, the bloc’s internal market commissioner said in an interview published at the weekend.

“Existing nuclear plants alone will need 50 billion euros of investment from now until 2030. And new generation ones will need 500 billion!” Thierry Breton told the Journal du Dimanche newspaper. Breton also argued that an EU plan to label energy from nuclear power and natural gas as “green” sources for investment was a vital step towards attracting that capital. The EU is consulting its member states on that proposal, with internal disagreement on whether the power sources truly qualify as sustainable options.

 France24 9th Jan 2022

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220109-europe-nuclear-plants-need-500-bn-euro-investment-by-2050-eu-commissioner

January 11, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, EUROPE, politics | Leave a comment

To bankroll the failing nuclear industry, the UK government will push thousands into fuel poverty, with its Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill

Bad for fuel poverty, bad for climate action: why MPs should vote against the Nuclear Energy Bill on Monday.

Controversial legislation is being rushed through parliament which will transfer billions of pounds onto
individual consumers, whilst affording them no protection from the spiralling construction costs of nuclear power. Introduced at the end of October when attention was rightly focused on COP26, the Bill has received little attention.

Yet it will have a profound impact on millions of families forced to foot the bill and will push thousands more into fuel poverty. So why is the government forcing more families into fuel poverty?

To bankroll a failing industry. With all 15 British nuclear power plants set to be closed by 2030, funding for eight new ones is in a state of collapse. Only one plant – Hinkley Point C – is under construction and
this is running ten years late and £4.5 billion over budget. The Bill enables energy companies to use a regulated asset base (RAB) model to transfer the construction costs – and financial risks – onto consumers
and start making a profit even before the plants generate any electricity.

 Labour Outlook 9th Jan 2022

Bad for fuel poverty, bad for climate action: why MPs should vote against the Nuclear Energy Bill on Monday

January 10, 2022 Posted by | business and costs, politics, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »