Hinkley nuclear deal to be followed by an Essex nuclear deal with China?
China to build nuclear reactor in Essex after Hinkley deal approved, Telegraph UK, Emily Gosden, energy editor 15 SEPTEMBER 2016
China is to begin developing a new nuclear power station in Essex after the Government heralded a new wave of UK reactors by approving the £18bn Hinkley Point plant in Somerset.
Chinese state nuclear firm CGN will fund one-third of Hinkley, which is led by French state energy giant EDF, in return for the chance to build its own design of reactor at Bradwell with EDF’s support………
The only change to the Hinkley deal is that the Government has taken powers to veto EDF selling its controlling stake in the project, leading critics to call Mrs May’s review “a lot of hot air”……..Both CGN and EDF made clear they did not regard the new safeguards as any obstacle to proceeding with the plans for a Chinese reactor at Bradwell.
Although ministers made no mention of Bradwell in their announcement, sources told the Telegraph that CGN had privately received Government assurance its plans, which were endorsed by the previous administration, were still welcome.
CGN said it was “delighted” by the Hinkley decision which would allow it to “move forward and deliver” Bradwell.
It is understood the firm hopes to begin the process of seeking UK safety approval for its Hualong One reactor design in the autumn. EDF has previously said such a plant could begin construction as early as 2022, subject to approval by UK regulators.
Mrs May’s joint chief of staff, Nick Timothy, has previously raised concerns that China could use its role in UK nuclear plants to “build weaknesses into computer systems which will allow them to shut down Britain’s energy production at will”………http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/15/china-to-build-nuclear-reactor-in-essex-after-hinkley-deal-appro/
Hinkley nuclear debacle should lead to a rethink of Britain’s nuclear programme
It’s astonishing. British governments have fiddled for a decade with the terms and structure of the Hinkley Point deal. The proposed agreement runs to thousands of pages, as you would expect with an £18bn contract to build the first new nuclear power station in the UK for a generation. Yet nobody seems to have considered what would happen if EDF, an over-indebted outfit over-reliant on the goodwill of current and future French politicians, ever wanted to sell Hinkley.
Theresa May’s review is a let-down on the central question of whether theHinkley Point C project should proceed; she should have binned the project because the technology was unproven and the financial terms a rip-off.
But she has addressed the question of future ownership. The UK government will be able to block EDF from selling its stake before and after construction. Similar powers will be secured in future by the UK government taking a special share in infrastructure projects deemed critical to the nation’s security.
This is welcome and overdue. Before the clause was inserted, it would have been possible, in theory, for EDF to sell its majority stake in Hinkley to its Chinese co-financiers, the state-backed CGN firm. Overnight, 7% of the UK’s energy supply could have been in the hands of a country with a long and dishonourable history of cyber espionage.
David Cameron and George Osborne, as they conducted their love-in with Beijing in recent years, ignored the worry in their desperation to find a new partner for EDF after Centrica, the owner of British Gas, dropped out of the Hinkley consortium in 2013. The energy select committee, shamefully, also danced around the subject of national security. May deserves some credit for addressing it.
The Brexit vote, incidentally, may have strengthened her hand. The EU tends to hate golden shares. Outside the club, it should be easier for the UK to adopt stronger protection over ownership of critical infrastructure. But the government is overstating matters when it says the UK’s policy will now fall into line with other big economies. The US imposes far stricter restrictions on foreign ownership of nuclear plants on its soil.
That is why, one assumes, the Chinese appear happy to accept May’s “significantnew safeguards”. For Beijing, the big prize has always been the chance to gain international recognition for Chinese technology by building a nuclear power station in Bradwell, Essex, to its own design. That prospect is still alive.
But let’s hope May’s brief probe of Hinkley heralds a deeper rethink on the UK’s entire nuclear programme. On cost and design, the adventure has lost touch with common sense.
First, cost. Hinkley, as everybody knows by now, is hideously expensive. If it were up and running today, EDF and CGN would be receiving annual revenues of £2.8bn, calculates Peter Atherton, of Cornwall Energy. But only £1.2bn would represent the market price of the electricity produced. The rest, £1.6bn, would be a top-up payment ultimately paid by the public.
The figure is large but, if it were a one-off, perhaps tolerable. The UK’s 27m households use about 40% of the country’s energy. Crunch the numbers and a theoretical “Hinkley subsidy” works out to about £24 per household a year at current prices.
The problem, of course, is that Hinkley in north Somerset is not a one-off. It will provide about 3,200MW of capacity. The government’s decarbonisation programme envisages up to 18,000MW of nuclear capacity by 2035. If Hinkley-style handouts are repeated, you’re talking serious money for consumers and a big hit to the competitiveness of UK industry.
That risk is real because of the second issue: the madness of a nuclear new-build programme in which all are invited to pitch. It’s not just China that wants to bring its kit – Japanese, South Korean and US firms are also on the ticket for new plants. The UK could end up building four different reactor designs from five different manufacturers. That is inherently more expensive than picking the best design, replicating it and harvesting economies of scale. The UK’s approach, argues Atherton, is “the equivalent of having the four new Trident nuclear subs built in different shipyards to different designs”.
It’s too late, it seems, to stop Hinkley. But May should order a rethink of the rest of the UK’s nuclear plan. It’s a badly designed mess that no other country would copy.
Hinkley nuclear and Brexit b- a bad deal for everyone concerned
How Hinkley delivers a bad deal for everyone http://blogs.reuters.com/breakingviews/2016/09/15/how-hinkley-delivers-a-bad-deal-for-everyone/ By John Foley
The economics of building Hinkley Point C for 18 billion pounds haven’t changed since last year, but they’re still not good. British energy users will effectively pay the difference between what operator EDF has been promised per megawatt hour, and the going market price. In September the UK government put that at 37 billion pounds over the contract’s 35-year life, or 15 billion pounds in today’s money.
It’s not much better for the French group. Should all go to plan, EDF could make a return on investment of around 9 percent a year, it says. But similar plants underway in France and Finland have run wildly over time and over budget.
Britain loses in another way too, because the new government is using Hinkley to launch a wide-ranging review of its authority to intervene in foreign takeovers of “critical infrastructure”. Over a decade ago, lawmakers deliberately took politics out of mergers. Interventions have been limited to matters of national security, media plurality and the stability of the financial system. The government now points out that other “major economies” have more stringent controls on foreign investment in infrastructure projects. That misses the point that Britain’s appeal has been that it is more open than places like France, China and the United States.
Why go ahead with such an unappealing project? The answer is Brexit. Voters’ decision to leave the European Union means Britain needs friends prepared to sign favourable trade deals. Scrapping Hinkley would poison the water for future talks with China, which is putting up a third of the cost of the project. Meanwhile, since almost half of Britain’s gas comes from continental Europe, developing more home-grown nuclear power may strengthen Britain’s hand ahead of negotiations over access to the single market.
Seen that way, going ahead with Hinkley may deliver a short-term benefit in the next couple of years, as Britain’s post-Brexit arrangements are hammered out. But the long-term disadvantages and financial costs will, like nuclear waste, contaminate the country for decades
Latest roundup on news on Britain’s planned Hinkley nuclear station
Bridget Woodman, Course Director, MSc Energy Policy, at the University of Exeter, says the Hinkley delay makes it possible to start debating the sorts of options being considered widely around the world, with measures to encourage more flexible, smaller-scale, renewable systems incorporating demand-side measures and new technologies such as storage. These are extraordinary times for energy policy in the UK.
After years of resigned acceptance that Hinkley would be built no matter how much of a basket case it was, even though few people argued that it makes sense, there is now a potential to have a real and considered debate about what sort of future electricity system we need. Now is the time to start considering the sorts of options being considered widely around the world, with measures to encourage more flexible, smaller-scale, renewable systems incorporating demand-side measures and new technologies such as storage. A system that is the absolute antithesis of what Hinkley Point C represents. Suddenly UK energy policy has become very exciting
Hinkley Notes NuClear News No. 888 September 16 The Downing Street review of the proposed Hinkley Point C nuclear power station is coming to an end – and a decision will have to be made soon, probably before the end of September. The latest wave of public relations activity from EDF, the company that hopes to build the plant, shows how nervous the company is about the outcome. Given the range of doubts about the costs, the construction risks, the reactor technology and the involvement of the Chinese, that nervousness is well justified. (1)
Here are the news highlights from the last month.
It’s about the security stupid! The Times says the review centres on the security threat posed by allowing a Chinese company to invest in critical infrastructure in the UK. But officials are also puzzling over cost and value for money. Continue reading
Britain’s pro nuclear National Policy Statement on Energy is outdated and must be reviewed
In deciding when to review part of a national policy statement the Secretary of State must consider whether there has been a significant change in circumstances. If there has been a significant change in circumstances on which the policy regarding the need for new nuclear power stations was based; and if those changes were not anticipated at the time then the policy should be reviewed.
TASC concludes that the case for a review of EN-1 is unanswerable
National Policy Statement on Energy NuClear News No 88 Sept 16 The government has a legal duty under section 6 of the 2008 Planning Act to review the National Policy Statement (NPS) on Energy, according to lawyers Leigh Day, because of dramatically changed circumstances over the last five years since the national policy statements enshrining the nuclear element were first published.
A report by Together Against Sizewell C (TASC) underlines the government’s duty to undertake a review and demonstrates why new nuclear has to be written out of the government’s energy policy.
The sections of the Overarching NPS on Energy (EN-1) which the TASC report says show the policy needs to be reviewed are section 3.5.1 to 3.5.11. Continue reading
Majority in Wales want electricity from renewable energy sources, not from proposed Wylfa nuclear station
Wylfa NucClear News No 88 September 16 A second consultation on the proposed nuclear power plant in Anglesey has been launched. Horizon Nuclear Power estimates Wylfa Newydd, which will include two reactors with a total capacity of 2,700MW, will take around nine years to build and have an operational life of 60 years. The consultation will run until 25th October. (1)
Nearly two-thirds of people in Wales want all of Wales’ electricity to come from renewable sources, a poll for the conservation organisation WWF has found. They also want the Welsh Government to invest more in improving the energy efficiency of homes. First Minister Carwyn Jones will publish his Programme for Government during the next few weeks and the focus is likely to be on how Wales adapts to Brexit. WWF is calling on the Government not to sideline investment in reducing emissions and tackling climate change. http://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/nuclearnews/NuClearNewsNo88.pdf
UK’s Hinkley nuclear deal teetering, but PM Theresa May claims good relations with China
G20 summit: Theresa May says UK-China relations are about more than ‘Hinkley’ as deal teeters on edge The Prime Minister’s comments came as she prepared for a meeting with the Chinese premier at the end of the G20 summit Independent, Joe Watts Political Editor @JoeWatts_ Tuesday 6 September 2016 Theresa May has said the UK’s relations with China are “about more than Hinkley” as speculation mounted that the Prime Minister could pull back from the symbolically important £18bn nuclear scheme.
Ms May made the comments as she prepared for a meeting with Xi Jingpin, in which the Chinese President relieved a little pressure on her by saying he was willing to have “patience” in allowing her time to work out what she plans to do with the scheme his government has committed £6bn to.
The half-hour meeting that took place at the end of the G20 Summit in Hangzhou also saw Mr Xi say China would be “open” to bilateral trade arrangement.
It has already emerged that security around the planned nuclear power initiative at Hinkley is an issue officials are reviewing, and that at least one senior member of Mrs May’s team has serious reservations about the project.
Under the current deal which is yet to be signed, the Chinese would contribute funds towards building two reactors at Hinkley Point in a scheme led by French firm EDF, but it could then in turn lead to a further Chinese-designed power station at Bradwell in Essex.
The delay in finalising the agreement has threatened to overshadow Mrs May’s first major international summit, also her first visit to China. In Hangzhou, she and her team tried to move the story on UK/China relations off the Hinkley Point project and on to other areas. ……..http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/g20-summit-theresa-may-uk-china-hinkley-point-xi-jingpin-edf-power-relations-are-about-more-than-a7227046.html
Energy chief says Hinkley Point is a deal out of date and too expensive
Hinkley Point deal out of date and too expensive, says energy chief, Telegraph, UK, Emily Gosden, energy editor 3 SEPTEMBER 2016 The head of energy giant ScottishPower has waded into the row over Hinkley Point, insisting that the controversial subsidy deal for EDF’s proposed nuclear plant should be renegotiated because it is too expensive.
Keith Anderson, the firm’s chief corporate officer, said the deal, provisionally agreed by the Government in 2013 following lengthy negotiations, no longer made sense in the light of lower gas and offshore wind costs.
“It looks like a contract that was written five years ago on a business case that was probably pulled together 10 years ago. It looks out of line with what’s going on in the market now,” he said.
In an interview with Telegraph, Mr Anderson praised Theresa May’s “brave” decision to review the £18bn project and urged her to look at it in its entirety, not just her apparent concerns over Chinese state nuclear firms’ involvement.Becoming the latest high-profile figure to criticise the deal, Mr Anderson said that it now looked “expensive” and that gas and offshore wind offered faster, easier and cheaper ways of keeping the lights on and decarbonising, respectively.
“I can’t understand why anybody feels we need to sign a contract of that size and over that time period, at that price,” he said.
ScottishPower is seeking government support to develop both offshore wind and gas-fired power stations.
Its East Anglia offshore wind farm project last year won a subsidy contract at nearly £120 per MWh for 15 years. However, costs are falling rapidly, with ministers setting a cap of £105 per MWh on future contracts and a target of £85. EDF has insisted the deal is good value……http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/03/hinkley-point-deal-out-of-date-and-too-expensive-says-energy-chi/
Dangers of Sellafield nuclear site – a concern for nearby Isle of Man
Isle of Man government ‘concerned’ about Sellafield safety, BBC News, 8 September 2016 Isle Of Man / Ellan Vannin The Manx government is “concerned” about the safety of the Sellafield nuclear site, a spokesman said.
On Monday, the BBC’s Panorama programme uncovered several safety concerns, from staffing levels to waste storage.
The Mannin Branch of the Celtic League has called on the Manx government to campaign for a full, independent inspection of the plant in Cumbria…….
The Isle of Man is located about 34 miles (55km) from the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant.
Due to its potential impact on the Manx fishing industry, the Manx government began monitoring radioactivity levels in the Irish Sea in 1989.
A government spokesman said: “Seafood fished in Manx waters can contain traces of radio-nuclides associated with effluent discharges from Sellafield to the Irish Sea, therefore these are monitored regularly to confirm that they remain well below maximum safe limits.”
The BBC investigation was prompted by a whistle-blower – a former senior manager who was worried by conditions at the plant…….http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-37307763
Britain’s national disgrace: nuclear reprocessing at Sellafield
The National Audit Office (NAO) stated these tanks pose “significant risks to people and the
environment”. One official review published in The Lancet concluded that, at worst, an explosive release from the tanks could kill two million Britons and require the evacuation of an area reaching from Glasgow to Liverpool. These dangerous tanks have also been the subject of repeated complaints from Ireland and Norway who fear their countries could be contaminated if explosions or fires were to occur.
In short, the practice of reprocessing at Sellafield has been and remains a monumental national disgrace.
Especially serious are the ~20 large holding tanks at Sellafield containing thousands of litres of extremely radiotoxic fission products. Discussing these tanks, the previous management consortium Nuclear Management Partners stated in 2012:
“there is a mass of very hazardous [nuclear] waste onsite in storage conditions that are extraordinarily vulnerable, and in facilities that are well past their designated life.”
most of all, we should recognize that nuclear policies, in both weapons and energy, have poorly served the nation.
Sellafield exposed: the nonsense of nuclear fuel reprocessing http://www.theecologist.org/reviews/2988095/sellafield_exposed_the_nonsense_of_nuclear_fuel_reprocessing.html Ian Fairlie 6th September 2016 Last night’s BBC Panorama programme did a good job at lifting the lid on Britain’s ongoing nuclear disaster that is Sellafield, writes Ian Fairlie. But it failed to expose the full scandal of the UK’s ‘reprocessing’ of spent fuel into 50 tonnes of plutonium, enough to build 20,000 nuclear bombs – while leaving £100s of billions of maintenance and cleanup costs to future generations.
Many readers will have seen the interesting Panorama programme on the poor safety record at Sellafield broadcast on BBC1 last night.
The BBC press release stated this was a “special investigation into the shocking state of Britain’s most hazardous nuclear plant” – and it certainly was.
The most important of several whistleblower revelations was that the previous US managers had been shocked at the state of the plant when they took over its running in 2008.
Although the programme producers are to be congratulated for tackling the subject, it was only 30 minutes long and tells only a fragment of the whole sorry story.
This article tries to give more background information, and importantly, more analysis and explanation. The full story would require several books, and provide exceedingly painful reading.
What is reprocessing for? Continue reading
At G20, British PM Theresa May confirms that UK is reviewingHinkley nuclear project
G20 Summit: May confirms Hinkley nuclear power station security being reviewed It comes on the eve of a crucial bilateral meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Independent Joe Watts and Ted Jeory Political Editor
Theresa May has confirmed that her officials are reviewing security around the Hinkley nuclear project in which the Chinese government is involved.
The Prime Minister signalled while speaking at the G20 Summit in Hangzhou that security would be a component in work to review the Hinkley scheme. It comes as Mrs May prepares for her first meeting with President Xi Jinping of China, and just hours after she failed to answer a direct question on whether she trusted the Chinese government.
A full withdrawal from the project could spark a major diplomatic row, severly damaging the “golden era” relations with China that Mrs May claims she wants.
The Independent has already reported how Mrs May’s officals were said to be looking for a way out of the deal. ……http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/g20-theresa-may-xi-jinping-hinkley-nuclear-security-review-a7224786.html
Great danger in air transport of nuclear wastes: anger in Aberdeen
Fury over “dangerous” nuclear flights from the Highlands to US, Aberdeen Press and Journal 2 September 2016 by Iain Ramage Road around Wick Airport will be regularly shut over the next 18 months so nuclear waste can be taken be flown to the US. Plans to transport highly enriched uranium (HEU) from Dounreay in Caithness to the US emerged late last year.
Politicians and activists have condemned the move, warning that flying the material is excessively dangerous.
The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) has remained silent on the issue, but an £18million upgrade of the airport was recently carried out to make it suitable for larger planes.
And, now Highland Council has published a road closure order which reveals minor routes around the airport will be closed over the coming months. The closures could happen at any time from today, and will last up to five hours each time.
A spokeswoman at Dounreay said she could neither confirm nor deny that nuclear waste from the redundant power station would be flown from Wick.
Former Prime Minister David Cameron confirmed earlier this year, after talks with President Obama, that it was the UK’s intention to transport uranium from Dounreay to the South Carolina. It will be swapped for other forms of uranium to be shipped to Europe which, it is believed, will be used in producing medical isotopes.
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross SNP MP Paul Monaghan has described the deal to transport the waste by plane “morally reprehensible”. And Highlands and Islands Green MSP John Finnie last night said many people would be surprised to find out about the road closures – but that the disruption was nothing compared to the risks involved with flying the waste.
“Many will be astonished that it is considered appropriate to move, let alone fly, this waste material from Dounreay,” he said. “The local disruption is nothing compared to the risks any transit poses. This waste should be retained at Dounreay.”
The council’s local area leader Gillian Coghill said: “We were not briefed about this, which is absolutely shocking……….
Independent nuclear consultant John Large raised concerns about the transport of the material. He said if there was an accident it would involve an extremely vulnerable and potentially radiologically significant material. “The radiological consequences of even a relatively small amount of this material would be very serious,” he said.
“In terms of nuclear safety, the International Atomic Energy Agency recognises that the transportation of radioactive materials is the one at most risk and is most prone and vulnerable to terrorist attack.
“The risk in transport by aircraft is the fuel being engulfed in fire, the packages breaking down and the fuel igniting.”
Mr Large added that it was incumbent on Dounreay to provide sufficient information for the public to come to an informed judgement about the move. “It doesn’t matter whether the material is for civil or military stock, it presents the same risk,” he said. https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/highlands/1014760/fury-over-nuclear-flights/
Missing firearm among 130 security breaches at nuclear sites
The Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) experienced 130 security breaches since 2011, Freedom of Information data has revealed, Police Professional 2 Sep 16
Of these, two were classed as high-risk and two more as medium-risk. The most serious incident saw an unloaded handgun go missing from the National Shooting Centre in Surrey in July 2012. The case was reported to Surrey Police, but it was never confirmed whether the weapon was lost or stolen.
In the other high-risk incident, confidential information was texted to an officer at Sellafield nuclear site. The two medium-risk breaches involved gate access keys for Hinkley point in Somerset being lost, and a force camera being stolen in 2012. The remaining incidents mostly comprised the loss of documents and windows being left open……..http://www.policeprofessional.com/news.aspx?id=27041
Britain’s Greens uncompromisingly oppose nuclear power and fracking
Caroline Lucas: No compromise on fracking or nuclear http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37257618, 3 Sept 16, The Green Party has elected two leaders in a job-sharing arrangement they describe as a “first in Westminster politics”.
Caroline Lucas, the former leader and the party’s sole MP, will be co-leader with Jonathan Bartley, its work and pensions spokesman.
Ms Lucas got big cheers from members at the party’s conference in Birmingham when she discussed climate change and promised to oppose nuclear power and fracking.
England’s Tories are still pro nuclear enthusiasts
‘We’re still backing nuclear’ – New Energy Minister’s pledge 2 September 2016 THE new Energy Minister has underlined the Government’s commitment to nuclear energy, boosting hopes of a new power plant in west Cumbria.
Baroness Lucy Neville-Rolfe was making her first visit to Sellafield following her appointment as Energy Minister in July.
One of the first actions of Theresa May’s new administration was to delay a decision on a nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset.
The surprise announcement cast doubt on NuGen’s plans to build three nuclear reactors at Moorside, Sellafield.
But Baroness Neville-Rolfe made it clear that the Government remains committed to nuclear in principle, whatever reservations there may be about the Hinkley Point project……. ““Nuclear energy is clean and it doesn’t have the problems around discontinuity of supply that you see with wind power for example.” “Nuclear power plants are costly to build but they last for 60 years”……http://www.nwemail.co.uk/Were-still-backing-nuclear-New-Energy-Ministers-pledge-c794da03-6d39-49d3-b834-9547935d57c8-ds
1 This Month
Read the Public Inquiry Report, the Commissioners’ report, Surrendering Australia: The AUKUS Deception is available to download for free at aukuspublicinquiry.com. Or just watch the replay of the National Press Club Luncheon.
19 November – Webinar – The Reality of Reprocessing
Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Time (US & Canada) / 2:00 PM Eastern / 7:00 PM UK / 8:00 PM CET
Register for the Zoom Event Here
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- November 2026 (103)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
-
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
