France’s nuclear corporation EDF warned on legal action over the Hinkley nuclear project debacle
Pressure rises on EDF board over Hinkley Point nuclear plant, FT.com, 19 Apr 16, Michael Stothard in Paris A group of managers at French utility EDF have sent a letter to its board of directors warning they could all face legal action if the company pushes ahead with its contentious Hinkley Point C nuclear project in the UK.
The letter, dated April 19 and seen by the Financial Times, said that if a board decision in favour of Hinkley Point led to the “destruction of the value” at EDF its directors could be held personally responsible……….
French president François Hollande is also meeting ministers at the Élysée Palace on Wednesday to discuss financing options for Hinkley Point. The French state has an 85 per cent stake in EDF.
The letter by the group of EDF managers highlights the internal battle that has raged within the company over Hinkley Point, with chief financial officer Thomas Piquemal resigning last month because of concerns that the UK project could threaten the company’s future…….
Two other nuclear projects in France and Finland using the same reactor technology proposed for Hinkley Point are both severely delayed and billions over budget…….. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d6d16bd0-0628-11e6-9b51-0fb5e65703ce.html#axzz46IzsG72i
UK energy secretary admits energy supply would be OK even if Hinkley nuclear cancelled or delayed
Minister admits lights would stay on even if Hinkley nuclear plant is delayed Guardian, Damian Carrington, 19 Apr 16 UK energy secretary admits for the first time that any delays or cancellations to new nuclear reactors would not compromise national energy supply. The UK’s energy secretary has admitted for the first time that the lights would stay on if new nuclear reactors at Hinkley were cancelled or delayed.
Amber Rudd has previously said that “energy security has to be the number one priority” and that new gas and nuclear power would be “central to our energy-secure future”.
But in a letter released on Tuesday in reply to MPs on the energy and climate change select committee, which asked what contingency plans were in place if Hinkley is delayed or cancelled, she said: “While we have every confidence the deal will go ahead, we have arrangements in place to ensure that any potential delay or cancellation to the project does not pose a risk to security of supply for the UK. I am clear that keeping the lights on is non-negotiable.”
She also said that delays to the troubled plant could risk the UK missing its targets to cut carbon emissions, and that alternatives could cost more but would not represent a “significant increase” in cost in the short term.
The final decision by French-state owned company EDF to go ahead with Hinkley has been repeatedly delayed and the billion of pounds of state subsidies and the feasibility of the giant project have been widely criticised. Last week one of the UK’s major investors, Legal and General, called Hinkley “a total waste of money”………
A report from the government’s National Infrastructure Commission in March found that “smart power – principally built around three innovations, interconnection, storage, and demand flexibility – could save consumers up to £8bn a year by 2030, help the UK meet its 2050 carbon targets, and secure the UK’s energy supply for generations.”
Angus MacNeil, chair of the energy and climate change committee, said: “[Rudd’s] letter shows the government has had to finally concede the need for a Plan B on Hinkley, although the detail is sketchy. New capacity must be brought online in a way that is compatible with our decarbonisation targets. That means limiting the role of fossil fuels and maximising the use of smarter low carbon options to meet demand.”……..
ohn Sauven, Greenpeace’s UK director said: “There is absolutely no reason that the UK could not meet our decarbonisation targets if the government dropped Hinkley and gave renewable energy businesses a fraction of political and financial support that nuclear and fossil fuel companies enjoy.” http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/19/minister-admits-lights-would-stay-on-even-if-hinkley-nuclear-plant-is-delayed
Clean water for 10 million people, due to London’s new floating solar farm
World’s Largest Floating Solar Farm to Provide 10 Million People with Clean Water, Luminary Daily, By Gary Joshua Garrison / 20 March 2016 The solar farm will span 57,500 square meters (or about eight soccer stadiums) of the Queen Elizabeth II reservoir and will consist of 23,000 solar panels, covering about a tenth of the reservoir. It is slated to be completed by the end of March.
Utility company Thames Water runs the reservoir, while Lightsource Renewable Energy — a private solar energy company based in London — is responsible for the funding and operation of the revolutionary farm.
“This will be the biggest floating solar farm in the world for a time — others are under construction,” Angus Berry, energy manager for Thames Water, told The Guardian. “We are leading the way, but we hope that others will follow, in the UK and abroad.”………
Similar floating solar farms are under construction, or have already been completed, both in England and around the world. Recently, a 45,500 square meter solar farm opened in Greater Manchester, England and water company United Utilities, also in Manchester, is currently constructing a similar project that will have about half the capacity of the Thames Water project. In Japan, solar company Kyocera is in the process of building an 180,000 square meter floating solar farm (see featured image at the top) that is set to be completed in 2018.
For their dedication to providing clean, renewable energy, for their innovation, and for helping to lead the charge in the energy revolution we are happy to name the folks at Lightsource and Thames Water our Luminaries of the Week. http://luminarydaily.com/worlds-largest-floating-solar-farm-to-provide-10-million-people-with-clean-water/
France committed to investing in Hinkley nuclear plant, even if it bankrupts EDF
French ‘committed’ to investing in Hinkley C nuclear plant Plymouth Herald April 17, 2016 By Kate Langston The French government is “completely committed” to building the Westcountry’s new nuclear power plant at Hinkley, the country’s ministers have confirmed.
In an interview with the BBC, the French economy minister Emmanuel Macron stressed the £18 billion project is “very important” to the French state, which owns 85% of energy firm EDF.He added that backers still need to finalise some “technical and industrial” aspects of the Hinkley C deal, but should be in a position to sign in
a “week or more”.
The assurances from Mr Macron come less than a week after he sparked fresh fears for the Somerset-based development by announcing he had “not yet made a decision” about the investment.
They also follow the publication of a letter from the main union representing EDF workers stating the firm is “on the edge of bankruptcy”, and should not be risking billions of pounds in the UK……..
The original date for the generator to come online has been pushed back from 20203 to 2025, and the estimated cost has soared from £16 billion to between £18 and £24.5 billion…….
Mr Macron told journalists that Hinkley is “important for [France’s] commitment to nuclear energy”. “We back Hinkley Point project, it’s very important for France, it’s very important for the nuclear sector and EDF,” he said.
“Now we have to finalise the work, and especially the technical and industrial work, very closely with EDF, with the British government, to be in a situation to sign in the coming week or more.”
The EDF board was due to meet to make a final decision on its investment in Hinkley in January, but this was postponed and is now expected to take place in May.
But John Sauven, director of environmental pressure group Greenpeace which is opposed to the new plant, has accused Mr Macron of saying one thing to a UK audience “and another to the French”.
“He has made it abundantly clear in French that no decision has been made,” he told the BBC. “The reasons are clear: the costs are rising, the problems are mounting, and the opposition in France is growing.
“The alternatives are looking increasingly attractive no matter which language you speak.”……….http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/French-committed-investing-Hinkley-C-nuclear/story-29126276-detail/story.html
Widespread support for Church of England’s stand against Exxon Mobil
Church of England takes on energy giant ExxonMobil http://www.christiantoday.com/article/church.of.england.takes.on.energy.giant.exxonmobil/83931.htm Mark Woods CHRISTIAN TODAY CONTRIBUTING EDITOR 13 April 2016 The Church Commissioners have won widespread support for a move to put pressure on energy giant ExxonMobil to disclose the impact of climate change policy on its business.
The Church Commissioners manage a fund of around £6.7 billion, whose revenues are used to support the Church of England. The Commissioners co-filed a shareholder motion with the New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli. It asks Exxon to disclose the effect on its business if measures to restrict global warming to two degrees are successful.
More than 30 institutional investors have so far said they will vote for the motion.
Exxon’s competitors Shell and BP have already agreed to disclose how much they will be impacted by efforts to lower greenhouse gas emissions. They were targeted by similar shareholder proposals co-filed in 2015 by the Church Commissioners and other investors. Exxon had attempted to have the resolution struck down by the Securities and Exchange Commission but its request was denied last month.
Church Commissioners spokesman Edward Mason said: “We are delighted with the scale of support this resolution has received so far. The resolution is part of a much wider trend following the Paris Agreement for investors to ask companies to improve disclosure on how they are positioned for the risks and opportunities posed by climate change.”
Exxon has funded groups spreading information denying human-induced climate change and lobbying politicians against climate change legislation. While it pledged to cease doing so in 2007, a Guardian report last July claimed it was continuing the practice.
It has a long history of rejecting shareholder motions on climate change and of rejecting the scientific consensus.
When Exxon challenged the most recent shareholder motion, DiNapoli said: “ExxonMobil risks becoming an outlier among its peers who have publicly supported reining in climate change.
“As investors, we need to know how ExxonMobil’s bottom line will be impacted by the global effort to reduce emissions and what the company plans to do about it.”
Exxon is also under under pressure from a coalition of 17 US attorneys general, Attorneys General United for Clean Power (AGUCP), who have banded together to enforce climate change laws. New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman announced at a press conference on March 29 that the coalition was working to find “creative ways to enforce laws being flouted by the fossil fuel industry and their allies in their shortsighted efforts to put profits above the interests of the American people and the integrity of our financial markets”.
Schneiderman referred to a “relentless assault from well-funded, highly aggressive and morally vacant forces that are trying to block every step by the federal government to take meaningful action” to fight climate change.
The initiative by the attorneys general was criticised by some religious conservatives, however.
Jeffrey Riley, professor of ethics at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, told Baptist Press: “Few deny that the climate is changing – it always has. The debate is on the cause. In spite of the public rhetoric that declares scientific consensus, the debate is still out. Public and political rhetoric on this issue is neither truth nor an argument for truth. Christians who hold that we are stewards of the earth ought to be interested in truth, and for that reason should not support any action that stifles legitimate scientific and economic debate.”
UK vulnerable to cyberattack if planned nuclear deal with China goes ahead
How Chinese nuclear deal leaves UK vulnerable to CATASTROPHIC cyber attack GEORGE Osborne has been warned that granting the Chinese a large stake in Britain’s nuclear energy infrastructure poses a “substantive” threat to UK national security. Sunday Express, By TOM BATCHELOR Apr 10, 2016 Beijing is planning to invest in two major nuclear power plant projects in a multi-billion pound contract that would give them access to Britain’s strategic energy network.
No formal agreement between China and the UK has yet been signed, but energy experts have spoken out about the potential for “catastrophe” if the Chinese are given the green light to invest.
Security concerns centre on access to IT systems, with analysts warning the UK would be left vulnerable if relations continue sour to China over the coming years.
Britain’s friendship with the communist state was strained recently over the Tata steel crisis with China putting a highly punitive tax on the metal produced in south Wales to further damage the UK industry.
But experts say a nuclear power deal would put the UK at the mercy of Beijing.
Dr Paul Dorfman, an advisor to the British Government on nuclear security and a senior research fellow at UCL’s Energy Institute, said: “You don’t want to let the Chinese into complex, strategic, national energy infrastructure and you certainly don’t want them anywhere near nuclear.
“There are some real security issues here.”
Fears have been raised about “backdoors” in IT technology that could be exploited by the Chinese government or rogue hackers.
Malicious IT breaches could allow data to be extracted or inserted into complex computer systems, allowing Beijing to circumvent British control of a nuclear plant and shut it down.
GCHQ will be on standby to protect the UK from the threat of a cyber attack if the Chinese are allowed to build at Hinkley Point in Somerset and Bradwell in Essex…….. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/658755/Chinese-nuclear-deal-leaves-UK-vulnerable-to-catastrophic-cyber-attack-on-power-plants
France suggests UK’s Hinkley Point nuclear project could still be postponed
Hinkley Point nuclear project could still be postponed http://www.theweek.co.uk/60778/hinkley-point-nuclear-project-could-still-be-postponed
Delaying £18bn development is ‘up for discussion’, says France’s Segolene Royal Plans to build the world’s most expensive nuclear power station at Hinkley Point, near Somerset, could hit further delays, a French government official has hinted. Speaking during a radio interview this week, ecology minister Segolene Royal was asked whether the £18bn project, which is two-thirds funded by French state-backed energy giant EDF, would be postponed. She responded by stating simply that it is “still under discussion”, says The Guardian.
“There’s an agreement between France and Britain so things should go ahead. But the trade unions are right to ask for the stakes to be re-examined,” Royal said.
In particular, there should be “further proof” that the venture would not affect investment in renewable energy, she added.
Last week, the Financial Times reported that a group of senior engineers at EDF had circulated a white paper among executives calling for a delay of at least two years to overcome deficiencies in design and the “very low” competency of fellow state-owned reactor supplier, Areva. Board member and employee director Christian Taxil has also publicly called for the plans to be postponed.
Supporters for the deal include the British government, which has staked its reputation on Hinkley Point as the core part of its carbon-light energy strategy for future decades, and French economy minister Emmanuel Macron, who has said it will almost certainly get approval at an EDF investor meeting next month.
The incentives for the company are long-term and come in the form of an energy price guarantee that is almost three times current wholesale prices. A new agreement also offers £20bn protection against a future UK government pulling the plug.
The FT reports that 100 EDF engineers also responded to their colleagues concerns by issuing an open letter stating that the company can “build and deliver the two Hinkley Point reactors on time”.
Future’s children will blame us for those wrong energy decisions
We are making the wrong energy choices for future generations, Guardian, Andrew Simms, 8 Apr 16
Our children’s children will not thank us for investing so heavily in technologies like nuclear at the expense of safer, low-carbon options “……It’s easy to see the superficial political attraction of projects like Hinkley C – they look like big, simple solutions to a problem. They’re technologically shiny, highly visible, seemingly easy to keep an eye on and have large, influential lobbies behind them.
With so much seemingly in its favour, it says a lot about the state of the nuclear industry that Hinkley C is heading south faster than a great snipe in migration. In a new report for theIntergenerational Foundation, co-published with the New Weather Institute, I found the economic case alone for new nuclear to be as leaky as a plastic bag of plutonium.
Discounting the untold extra billions, typically hidden and underwritten by the public, required by nuclear reactors to pay for complex security, disposal of radioactive waste, insurance (and, perversely, liabilities from under-insurance), over the course of its initial 35-year contract period, Britain could save at least £30-£40bn on electricity generated by solar and onshore wind with their costs steadily falling.
The costs for nuclear generation, meanwhile, have been doing exactly the opposite. From a government estimate of £5.6bn in 2008, by the time EU officials signed off the deal to build Hinkley C just six years later, the expected construction cost had risen to over £24bn. As obstacles, the burden of the financial architecture for the deal is only beaten by the problems with the technology itself which was meant to be state-of-the-art and a flagship for its operator EDF.
A range of renewable energy options are readily available that prove to be cheaper, safer, more secure, quicker to deliver and, overall, better value for Britain. Yet, instead of grasping this option, the government seems to have gone out of its way to hamper renewables by slashing support and creating a capricious, unstable policy environment…….
If we really are to have policies for the long term and with future generations in mind, we need to ensure energy choices are made to protect and promote their interests. A rational, evidence-based, intergenerational energy system won’t just emerge from political rhetoric, it needs to be designed and based on clear principles.
Such principles would include having an energy system most likely to preserve a climate convivial for future generations; a system with the least toxic environmental burden and which maximises ancillary economic benefits such as local jobs, manufacturing and services.
As an opening bid, here’s a set of intergenerational design criteria to aid intelligent, future energy planning. They are:
- Employment and broader economic return on investment – how much value to the broader economy does investment in different technologies bring; in other words, what is its economic multiplier effect?
- Environmental return on investment – how efficiently does an investment lower carbon emissions and minimise other toxic pollutants and contribute to a healthy environment?
- Energy return on investment – how much energy is generated for the amount of money invested to produce that energy?
- Security return on investment – how much does the technology contribute to domestic energy security and what other security risks does it carry?
- Transition return on investment – how does it contribute, comparatively to the speed and scale of deployment of low carbon energy generating capacity?
- Conviviality return on investment – the degree to which a technology can be responsive to and supportive of a society’s or a community’s own vision and pathway for its development, and that of future generations.
Paul Massara, is the chief executive of the energy supplier, RWE npower. Reflecting on the prospect of Hinkley C, he commented: “We will look back and think that nuclear was a expensive mistake. It’s one of those deals where my children, and my children’s children, are going to be thinking ‘was that a good deal’?”
It’s easy to imagine what conclusion they will come to, and the bewilderment they will feel at why better options were not more aggressively pursued. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/07/we-are-making-the-wrong-energy-choices-for-future-generations
UK sending nuclear wastes to America – dangerous and unwise
In such circumstances it becomes tempting to look for short cuts. One occasionally raised is to put all the world’s problematic waste somewhere very remote like the west Australian desert. This is a non-starter. The Czech and Slovak experience illustrated this. As a single country they planned a single repository, but after their “velvet divorce” each insisted it would not permanently manage the other’s waste. Such an international solution also contradicts the aforementioned issue of being responsible for your own legacy.
The other major hope is that science will find a convincing way either to use waste as fuel for reactors, and/or that “partitioning and transmutation” would drastically reduce the half-lives of the relevant isotopes. Yet these approaches are complex and expensive, involving molten salt reactors or accelerator-driven systems. And critically, there would still be some volume of long-lived waste that needed to be managed – no method can yet promise to drastically reduce the half-lives of all the different waste types. The only credible way forward is deep burial.
Britain is sending a huge nuclear waste consignment to America – why?, The Conversation, Gordon MacKerron, April 5, 2016 “……..The vast majority of the UK’s waste comes from its fleet of nuclear power stations. Most of it is stored at the Sellafield site in north-west England. But the material being sent to the US is a particularly high (weapons usable) grade of enriched uranium that you wouldn’t want to move to Sellafield from its current location at Dounreay in the north of Scotland without building a new storage facility – presumably more expensive than the cost of transportation.
The decision to move this radioactive waste out of the UK has been presented as making it harder for nuclear materials to get into the hands of terrorists, but this is implausible. The UK is capable of managing homegrown highly enriched uranium itself. The plan also contradicts the principle that countries are responsible for managing their own nuclear legacy…….
we are talking about substances which could harm human health for tens of thousands of years into the future. It raises profound ethical issues of equity between generations.
Deep burial
The scientific community does in fact agree on how to dispose of these materials safely: deep underground in appropriate geology such as clay or granite, with well engineered radiation barriers as an extra defence. Yet only Sweden and Finland, with political systems built on more trust and consensus than most countries, have a clear repository plan – and it will be several years before they become operational.
Most of the storage facilities at Sellafield are designed to last mere decades. The UK has been sporadically focused on deep disposal since the early 1980s, but for a long time approached it top-down and secretively. This became known as the “DAD” method – decide, announce, defend. But it has always led to “abandon” when local communities, having had no part in the siting decision, have rebelled successfully.
It was not until 2008 that the government introduced a system of rules under which local communities would conditionally volunteer a site and then negotiate a deal with the authorities. So far it has produced no result: attempts by district councils around Sellafield to volunteer it were overruled in 2013 by Cumbria county council, the local-authority tier above them, and no other communities have come forward. The government has reserved the right to override the voluntary process but shows no sign of doing so yet.
In such circumstances it becomes tempting to look for short cuts. One occasionally raised is to put all the world’s problematic waste somewhere very remote like the west Australian desert. This is a non-starter. The Czech and Slovak experience illustrated this. As a single country they planned a single repository, but after their “velvet divorce” each insisted it would not permanently manage the other’s waste. Such an international solution also contradicts the aforementioned issue of being responsible for your own legacy.
The other major hope is that science will find a convincing way either to use waste as fuel for reactors, and/or that “partitioning and transmutation” would drastically reduce the half-lives of the relevant isotopes. Yet these approaches are complex and expensive, involving molten salt reactors or accelerator-driven systems. And critically, there would still be some volume of long-lived waste that needed to be managed – no method can yet promise to drastically reduce the half-lives of all the different waste types. The only credible way forward is deep burial…….. https://theconversation.com/britain-is-sending-a-huge-nuclear-waste-consignment-to-america-why-57074
Report: £40bn in savings, if UK scrapped Hinkley nuclear, and went for renewables instead
The report says that at £24bn, Hinkley Point C would be the “most expensive building on Earth”, and argues that the new reactors would pass not just economic costs to future generations, but the burdens of nuclear waste and climate change because nuclear is not quick enough to build at scale to stave off dangerous global warming
Scrapping Hinkley for renewable alternatives would save ‘tens of billions’
Solar and wind would generate the equivalent power to Hinkley over the plant’s planned lifetime for £40bn less, says analysis comparing future costs, Guardian, Adam Vaughan, 5 Apr 16, Scrapping plans for new nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset and building huge amounts of renewable power instead would save the UK tens of billions of pounds, according to an analysis that compares likely future costs.
The Intergenerational Foundation thinktank calculated that Britain would pay up to £40bn less for renewable alternatives that would generate the equivalent power to Hinkley over the plant’s planned lifetime.
A final investment decision by EDF on the nuclear power plant’s expansion is expected in May. The deal involves the government committing £92.50 per megawatt hour over 35 years for its electricity output, more than twice the current wholesale price.
But a report published on Tuesday by the thinktank, which campaigns on fairness between generations, found that onshore windfarms would cost £31.2bn less than Hinkley, and solar photovoltaic power £39.9bn less over 35 years to build and run. The estimate is based on both the value of subsidies paid by the taxpayer for the electricity and the cost of building the infrastructure.
The analysis is based on the government’s ‘contracts for difference’ subsidy levels for the technologies and projections by Bloomberg for how the cost of wind and solar power will fall in the future.
Andrew Simms, one of the report’s co-authors, said: “The government’s current plans for new nuclear power will break spending records, and pass both high costs and large, unknown economic risks onto every UK child for generations to come.
But, readily available, cheaper, safer and quicker renewable energy options would help Britain live both within its economic and environmental means, while also protecting and providing for future generations.”
The report says that at £24bn, Hinkley Point C would be the “most expensive building on Earth”, and argues that the new reactors would pass not just economic costs to future generations, but the burdens of nuclear waste and climate change because nuclear is not quick enough to build at scale to stave off dangerous global warming………
Renewable power has grown in the UK to the point where more electricity was generated from biomass, wind, hydro and solar power in 2015 than nuclear power stations. But it is unlikely the Intergenerational Foundation’s report will shift minds in government, which has cut subsidies for both solar and wind power while pressing ahead with the Hinkley project.
The analysis assumes the level of subsidy for solar and wind under the contracts for difference subsidy regime would remain constant, though in reality this would likely decrease as more capacity was built……. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/05/scrapping-hinkley-for-renewable-alternatives-will-save-tens-of-billions
Sellafield – what to do with its dilapidated nuclear waste facilities, and its wastes
Britain is sending a huge nuclear waste consignment to America – why?, The Conversation, Gordon MacKerron, April 5, 2016 “…..In the absence of a deep-disposal plan, the UK has a more immediately pressing issue – what to do with Sellafield’s contaminated materials and waste from the UK’s near-70 years in the nuclear power and weapons business, much of which is housed in dilapidated facilities that are not fit for purpose. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) expects itwill cost some £68 billion to clean up Sellafield by stabilising and safely packaging the waste and building new stores. This will only be completed by around 2120.
This problem is at least now getting serious attention and resource – despite the climate of public austerity. Currently the country is spendingover £1.5 billion a year on the site, which is one of the most hazardous in Europe.
Sellafield stores a further 140 tonnes of waste plutonium that also stems from British and some overseas nuclear power. If used in bombs this amount could obliterate humanity several times over. The NDA is now focusing on what to do about this too, after years of political inattention. Yet the decision-making is laboured and the currently favoured solutionof using the plutonium as fuel for conventional reactors lacks credibility – no operator wants to use plutonium-based fuel because it is more difficult and expensive to manage than conventional fuel; and moving it around the country is a security risk.
So nuclear waste remains the Achilles heel of the nuclear industry, in the UK and elsewhere. While the financial problems behind the proposed new nuclear station Hinkley Point C attract most of the headlines, the waste problem hangs over the industry behind the scenes. Until we find a way forward that is scientifically and politically acceptable, it will continue to do so.https://theconversation.com/britain-is-sending-a-huge-nuclear-waste-consignment-to-america-why-57074
Britain’s Wylfa Newydd nuclear plant not likely to go ahead
‘Slim chance’ Wylfa Newydd nuclear plant will go ahead By Steffan Messenger BBC Wales Environment Correspondent 5 April 2016
Plans to build a new nuclear power plant on Anglesey have a “slim to zero” chance of going ahead, an industry expert has claimed.
Independent consultant Mycle Schneider is a lead author of the annual World Nuclear Status report. He said the Hinkley Point C project’s difficulties would affect Wylfa Newydd’s ability to attract investors. But Horizon Nuclear Power said it was very confident the new power station would be delivered successfully.
Speaking to BBC Radio Cymru’s Post Cyntaf programme, Mr Schneider, who has advised both the French and German governments on nuclear policy, said: “The Hinkley Point project is in great difficulties and you could argue that the uncertainties are even larger in the case of Wylfa Newydd.”
The Anglesey plant, he said, would need “very clear and very large subsidies to get off the ground”.
Horizon is in talks with the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) on issues such as the strike price, which will be key to attracting additional finance. Richard Foxhall of Horizon Nuclear Power told BBC Wales other investors would need to be brought on board to deliver Wylfa Newydd and that talks were ongoing.
“What is important is that the right conditions for investment are made and part of that is discussions with the government,” he said.
“But we’re very, very confident that we can reach a successful conclusion to those negotiations and make sure the conditions are there to attract investment.”
The chairman of Horizon’s parent company Hitachi has warned it may walk away from the project if a viable deal cannot be reached………http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-35959840
Would UK government impose Small Nuclear Reactors on communities?
experts have warned that new power stations must not be imposed on local communities.Mini nuclear power stations in UK towns move one step closer, Telegraph UK, Kate McCann, senior political correspondent 2 APRIL 2016 Mini nuclear power stations in towns around the UK have moved a step closer after it emerged the Government is assessing suitable sites to push ahead with a build……….. campaigners are warning the plans could mean communities have new power stations forced on them if suitable sites are identified nearby.The Sunday Telegraph understands that sites in Wales, including the site of a former reactor at Trawsfynydd, and in the North of England where ex-nuclear or coal-fired power stations were stationed are being looked at as possible options.Other areas including Bradwell, Hartlepool, Heysham, Oldbury, Sizewell, Sellafield and Wylfa are also thought to be possibilities. Small modular reactors are attractive because they can be built in factories and assembled on-site. They take less time to develop than conventional nuclear power stations but they produce much less power – meaning there must be more of them to generate sustainable energy and they must be built close to the communities they serve.
A former Government advisor warned the plans were dropped under the Coalition after pressure from Liberal Democrat Ministers because of fears that communities would reject nuclear power stations close to towns.
But in the Budget in March, George Osborne announced a funding competition to get the industry off the ground in the UK.
The document revealed: “The government is launching the first stage of a competition to identify a small modular nuclear reactor to be built in the UK, and will publish an SMR delivery roadmap later this year. It will also allocate at least £30m of funding for research and development in advanced nuclear manufacturing.”
A number of companies are already working on plans for the small power stations…………..experts have warned that new power stations must not be imposed on local communities.
Liberal Democrat energy spokesman Lynne Featherstone said: “It is just striking how little regard the Conservatives have for communities around this country, and the ridiculous lengths they’ll go to to avoid positive investment in renewables. Continue reading
Chinese nuclear corporation decides not to get involved in UK’s dubious Hinkley nuclear project
CGN Power’s dropped nuke deal in UK is a “sensible move”: analyst. Asian Power, 28 Mar 16 It would’ve locked up a bulk of capital in the long-term.
Last October, China signed a deal with the UK to participate in three UK nuclear power projects, with CGNPC, the parent of CGN Power, owning a 20.0%-66.5% stake in each of the projects.
Under a non-competition deed granted by CGNPC, CGN Power has the option of investing in any UK nuclear project that is either being planned or constructed by the parent group. Thus far, the independent non-executive directors of CGN Power have elected not to pursue the UK projects.
According to CCB International’s Cathy Chan and Felix Lam, the decision by CGN Power’s independent non-executive directors not to get involved in the construction of the UK nuclear projects did not come as a surprise given the company’s strategy of refraining from involving itself in nuclear power projects that do not have at least one unit already in commercial operation.
The UK project does not yet meet this criterion as it is still at the initial stage of development and has several major hurdles to negotiate, not least of which is insufficient funding from other stakeholders, in particular Électricité de France (EDF FP, NR), a French power company…….. analyst http://asian-power.com/power-utility/news/cgn-powers-dropped-nuke-deal-in-uk-sensible-move-analyst
Further doubt on future of Hinkley Point nuclear project, as costs rise again
Hinkley, No2NuclearPower, 31 March 2016
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (92)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
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
nuclear-news 