Even George Monbiot condemns UK government’s new nuclear power plan
The farce of the Hinkley C nuclear reactor will haunt Britain for decades The Guardian, George Monbiot, Monday 21 October 2013 “………… the government has plumped for outdated technology at the worst price imaginable “…..Nils Pratley warned in the Guardian last week that “if Hinkley Point’s entire output is tied to the rate of inflation for 40 years, we could be staring at a truly astronomical cost by the end of the contract.” The City analyst he consulted reassured him that “the government surely can’t be that dumb”. Oh yes? Payment to the operators, the government now tells us, will be “fully indexed to the consumer prices index”. Guaranteed income for corporations, risk assumed by the taxpayer: this deal looks as bad as any private finance initiative contract.
That’s not the only respect in which the price is too high. A fundamental principle of all development is that we should know how the story ends. In this case no one has the faintest idea. Cumbria – the only local authority which seemed prepared to accept a dump for the nuclear waste from past and future schemes – rejected the proposal in January. No one should commission a mess without a plan for clearing it up….
New untested nuclear reactors – a gamble for UK
U.K. Nuclear Future Relies on Reactor Plagued by Delays: Energy Bloomberg, By Tara Patel & Sally Bakewell – Oct 22, 2013 To ensure the future of its nuclear power industry, the U.K. is relying on an unproven reactor design plagued by delays and billions in budget overruns.
The government’s deal yesterday with Electricite de France SA to build a $26 billion plant at Hinkley Point in England involves two European Pressurized Reactors. The first EPR project in Finland, led by Areva SA (AREVA), the French company that designed the technology, is seven years behind schedule and won’t be completed until 2016. The second, an EDF project at Flamanville in northwest France, will cost more than twice as much as expected…..
History suggests the plan for the U.K., which needs to replace aging reactors built in the 1970s, isn’t ironclad, said Roland Vetter, head of research at CF Partners (UK) LLP, which runs a fund that invests in utilities.
“Nuclear is the biggest gamble in power generation,” said Ingo Becker, an analyst at Kepler Cheuvreux in Frankfurt. “At 16 billion pounds ($26 billion) for two EPRs, they have probably taken into account possible cost overruns.”….
The U.K. project, expected to take 10 years, will be more expensive because soft local soil means it needs deeper foundations, requiring 30 percent more concrete, EDF said in a presentation yesterday. The Paris-based company also has to build an atomic waste facility and 3.8-kilometer (2.2-mile) pipes to carry seawater to cool the reactors….
The EPR was criticized in France for being too big and costly after an Areva-led group lost a $20 billion atomic contract from Abu Dhabi in 2009.
“The credibility of both the EPR and the ability of the French nuclear industry to successfully build new reactors has been seriously undermined by difficulties” at Finland’s Olkiluoto site and Flamanville, according to a report ordered by former President Nicolas Sarkozy and published in 2010. It found the plant’s complexity was “a handicap.”….http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-21/u-k-nuclear-future-relies-on-reactor-plagued-by-delays-energy.html
UK’s new nuclear power – a bad financial gamble
‘New generation’: The UK bets on a nuclear future, DW, Emma Wallis, 21 Oct
“….…Hidden costs Pete Roche works at “Spinwatch”, an organization that aims to highlight the true meaning behind government PR, or “spin.” Roche’s area of expertise is “Nuclear Spin.”
The UK government, he believes, “thinks they need [nuclear power] because there are an awful lot of coal fired stations due to close over the next few years, and the gas from the North Sea is also reducing.”
He also feels that consumers are not being told the true cost of nuclear energy. “At the beginning of all this we were told that nuclear is the cheapest for providing low-carbon electricity,” something he says is not necessarily true.
Price comparisons
By comparison, offshore wind costs 130 British pounds per megawatt, a figure that might drop to 100 by 2030. Although on the government press release for Hinkley Point, they estimate that Hinkley Point on 430 acres will be able to generate 26 terrawatt hours of electricity, compared to 130,000 acres of solar farms needed and 250,000 acres of onshore wind farms.
Roche told DW that Germany is “showing us the way,” clearly wishing that the UK had also decided after Fukushima to phase out its nuclear power, not increase them.
“The first difference that I like to highlight between Germany and the UK is that Germany expects to reduce energy consumption by about 20 percent, I think. And the UK is expecting our energy consumption to increase. If we went for the kinds of reduction in consumption that Germany is going for, it would be much easier to implement a renewable energy strategy.”…..http://www.dw.de/new-generation-the-uk-bets-on-a-nuclear-future/a-17171536
Financial reality makes UK’s new nuclear not look too good
The government has also already committed itself to providing financial guarantees of £10bn to cover the building of Hinkley Point, something not available to builders of solar or wind arrays.
Even Nick Butler, a former energy adviser to No 10 and a supporter of nuclear, believes the price is far too high. In a recent blog he warned: “Lower sources of power are available and have been rejected. When deals do not match the interests of both sides – producers and consumers – at a point of mutual advantage, they tend to unravel.”
China’s need for nuclear power leads Britain to revive outdated technology , Terry Macalister, The Guardian, Sunday 20 October 2013 Critics say the new plant in Somerset will be heavily subsidised and cushioned from financial reality.
- The signing of a nuclear deal between EDF and the government is a landmark event for power generation. Today’s go-ahead for the Hinkley Point C plant shows ministers are prepared to commit Britain to provide decades of guaranteed financial returns (paid for by you and me as energy users) to companies in return for winning huge slugs of investment for new power stations…..
- Ministers insist that the commitment to provide Hinkley Point with a guaranteed price of around double the market rate is not a subsidy. The final figure of £92.50 is a considerable step up from the £80 per MWhr said to be on the table when negotiations began in earnest, and that figure is said by some calculations to be worth around £80bn in guaranteed revenues, the cost of nine Olympics.
- Critics will accuse the government of providing subsidies to an old technology that should not need handouts, while pointing out the safety dangers and the unsolved waste disposal problems raised by new nuclear. Questions will also be asked about the wisdom of providing a country alleged to be involved in cyber-spying, access to sensitive energy infrastructure via the involvement of a state-owned firm…….. Continue reading
Britain has smarter, less costly energy options, than its new nuclear deal
COLUMN-British nuclear embrace fails to convince: Wynn By Gerard Wynn Oct 21 (Reuters) – Britain’s investment in new nuclear power is a result of a previous decision to limit the country’s options, and depends on an argument for energy security that fails to convince.
Britain has ruled out new coal power and adopted tough carbon emissions targets as well as a carbon tax on energy, given concerns about climate change.
In addition, European Union pollution curbs on sulphur and oxides of nitrogen require the imminent closure of several of the country’s existing coal-fired power plants.
That has created a dependence on gas and low-carbon power.
Britain’s Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) on Monday outlined the details of a commercial agreement with French state utility EDF to build the UK’s first new nuclear power plant since 1995, to be commissioned in 2023.
The agreed contract of about 90 pounds ($150) per megawatt-hour should not be compared with the wholesale power price, which records only operating costs including those from subsidised wind and solar power, which have zero fuel costs.
It should instead be compared with the calculated, full cost of power generation, including capital and operating costs.
In those terms, the contract appears competitive with renewable power but is more costly than gas.
Nuclear has the advantage over gas that it is less carbon-emitting, and over wind and solar power that it is baseload, available on demand rather than according to the weather.
But that is before taking into account the cost of radioactive waste, for which Britain still has not identified a long-term disposal site after a tentative agreement with a local council in northwest England recently collapsed.
And the government does not appear to account for the alternative of building sub-sea interconnectors, with which Britain could instead tap lower wholesale power prices in Germany and Scandinavia…….
COST
Monday’s announcement was thin on important details, such as the rate at which the operator will be compensated when its electricity is not required, for example when demand is weak…….
“The UK’s ‘energy island’ strategy for security of supply is not practical in light of excess power capacity across the EU,” argued the UK-based corporate advisory firm Alexa Capital in a report published on Monday, “UK energy in perspective: is there a better way forward?”.
“We ask whether British business and consumers would not be better off contracting for a greater proportion of electricity from interconnection.”
The cost of building an interconnector would add only a few euros per MWh to the cost of importing electricity.
The full cost of buying electricity from German gas plants would probably therefore be cheaper than the new nuclear deal, without the worries of radioactive waste disposal.
It may have been better for Britain to invest in new subsea cables and pick up the phone to E.ON and RWE , not EDF. ($1 = 0.6178 British pounds) ($1 = 0.7302 euros) (Editing by Dale Hudson) http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/10/21/column-wynn-nuclear-britain-idINL5N0IB0TV20131021
Many a slip likely in the China-France nuclear project in Britain
China’s need for nuclear power leads Britain to revive outdated technology , Terry Macalister, The Guardian, Sunday 20 October 2013“…..while EDF has now convinced government of the need to provide these different support mechanisms, the hard work begins for the French and its Chinese partner. The nuclear industry has a terrible reputation for completing new plants years late and over budget. Areva, the French nuclear engineering company providing the EPR design for Hinkley, is involved in similar plants at Flamanville in France and Olkiluoto in Finland. Both are proving more difficult than expected: the Finnish reactors are expected to be at least seven years late and at least £1.4bn over budget; Flamanville is two years late and believed to be as much as £2bn over budget.
And there is good reason to believe that British companies are going to miss out in Somerset. Centrica has already given up its opportunity to participate as an owner, while EDF has indicated the UK may not have the high-tech engineering skills to compete for supply contracts……
Western nuclear experts claim Beijing has a lot to prove that its own regulation is up to standard, and there will be intense pressure on the UK’s Office for Nuclear Regulation not to dilute standards to help Chinese firms operate their own plants here. There is already an inquiry going on into whether too many concessions have been made by George Osborne into a separate deal under which Chinese banks can operate more freely in London.
China General Nuclear Power Group is one of the biggest companies you have never heard of. In fact, it took a new name only six months ago. The change reflected its ambitions to establish itself on a world stage, outside its home base of Guangdong province. Involvement in Hinkley Point is a key part of the globalisation strategy…….http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/21/china-nuclear-power-britain-outdated-technology
China will control UK’s new nuclear power plants
Chinese companies will be allowed to own a majority stake in UK nuclear powerplants, George Osborne says Announcement is expected to hail start of ‘massive wave’ of Asian investment in British nuclear energy sector, ADAM WITHNALL The Independent, 17 OCTOBER 2013 George Osborne has announced that Chinese companies will be permitted to own a majority stake in future projects to build nuclear power stations in Britain.
The ground-breaking decision could see the first deal struck as early as next week, with Chinese investment now considered for a new £14 billion plant at the Hinckley C site….. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/chinese-companies-will-be-allowed-to-own-a-majority-stake-in-uk-nuclear-power-plants-george-osborne-says-8885829.html
AREVA joins the pack marketing nukes to Britain
Areva Said Ready to Join Group Building U.K. Nuclear Power Plant, Bloomberg News By Tara Patel and Francois de Beaupuy October 16, 2013 Areva will take a stake in the Hinkley Point project from Electricite de France SA, the people said, asking not to be identified before an announcement is made. China General Nuclear Power Corp. will also become a shareholder, the people said. Areva and EDF’s boards will meet in the next week to approve the deal, they said.
Bringing in Areva and China General as partners will allow EDF to share the expense of a project likely to cost about 14 billion pounds ($22 billion). The EDF-led group, expected to sign an agreement with the U.K. government next week, will build two Areva-designed EPR reactors able to supply about 3,600 megawatts, more than 4 percent of U.K. generation capacity. Officials at EDF and Areva declined to comment. Nobody at China General was available to comment outside office hours……http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-10-16/areva-said-ready-to-join-group-building-u-dot-k-dot-nuclear-power-plant
Setback for UK and others’ nuclear projects, as EU rules against subsidies
Blow to nuclear projects as Brussels drops plan for subsidy rules Ft.com By Alex Barker and Joshua Chaffin in Brussels, 9 Oct 13 Nuclear power projects in Europe face a legally uncertain future after Brussels heeded German concerns and ditched plans to issue specific guidelines on permitted state subsidies.
In a blow to the UK, France and countries in central and eastern Europe eyeing 
new nuclear programmes, the European Commission decided informally on Tuesday to carry on investigating programmes on a case-by-case basis. High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4bf0e37e-3033-11e3-9eec-00144feab7de.html#ixzz2hHtwoX29
This puts Britain in the uneasy position of acting as a test case for EU public subsidy rules on the next generation of nuclear plants when it seeks clearance from Brussels in the coming months.
The UK is offering various support mechanisms, including a guaranteed price for nuclear power and a financing “guarantee”, to entice the private sector into building a series of nuclear reactors.
The UK Treasury is locked in talks with EDF, the French energy group, over a price mechanism for energy from its proposed reactor at Hinkley Point in southwest England.
Brussels issued separate state-aid guidelines governing renewable forms of energy, as well as energy efficiency projects, in 2008. Joaquín Almunia, the EU competition commissioner, considered extending these to the nuclear sector under a broader review of the regime for policing state subsidies.
Edward Snowden revealed enormous surveillance powers of US UK governments
The totalitarian state in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four would need no broader legal justification than that: it really does allow a government to do anything it likes. It was at this point that I became convinced that Snowden’s revelations are not just interesting or important but vital, because the state is about to get powers that no state has ever had, and we need to have a public debate about those powers and what their limits are to be..
The Snowden files: why the British public should be worried about GCHQ John Lanchester The Guardian, Friday 4 October 2013
When the Guardian offered John Lanchester access to the GCHQ files, the journalist and novelist was initially unconvinced. But what the papers told him was alarming: that Britain is sliding towards an entirely new kind of surveillance society………
Problems and risks
The problems with GCHQ are to be found in the margins of the material – though they are at the centre of the revelations that have been extracted from the Snowden disclosures, and with good reason. The problem and the risk comes in the area of mass capture of data, or strategic surveillance. This is the kind of intelligence gathering that sucks in data from everyone, everywhere: from phones, internet use from email to website visits, social networking, instant messaging and video calls, and even areas such as video gaming; in short, everything digital. Continue reading
Fraudulent idea of media ‘balance’ promotes anti science
Complaints focused on the World at One programme on Radio 4 on Friday, which featured the Australian sceptic Bob Carter. A retired geologist, he leads a group called the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, and is funded by US libertarians. His words also dominated several subsequent news bulletins.
Earlier in the day, the Today programme had said it could not find any British climate scientists who disagreed with the IPCC’s core findings.
The biologist Steve Jones, who reviewed the BBC’s science output in 2011, told the Guardian he was concerned that the BBC was still wedded to an idea of “false balance” in presenting climate sceptics alongside reputable scientists.
“Science turns on evidence. Balance in science is not the same as balance in politics where politicians can have a voice however barmy their ideas are.
a stunning display of false balance when it devoted less airtime to IPCC scientists than it did to Bob Carter, a sceptic who is funded by a free-market lobby group in the US, the Heartland Institute. Carter was allowed to make a number of inaccurate and misleading statements unchallenged.”
BBC coverage of IPCC climate report criticised for sceptics’ airtime http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/01/bbc-coverage-climate-report-ipcc-sceptics Steve Jones among experts querying BBC ‘false balance’ in giving climate sceptics ‘undue’ voice on global warming study Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent The Guardian, Wednesday 2 October 2013 Steve Jones said he previously advised the BBC not to present climate-change sceptics as having equal scientific weight with mainstream researchers. The BBC has been criticised for its coverage of the most comprehensive scientific study on global warming yet published. Prominent climate experts have accused the corporation of bias towards “climate sceptics” at the expense of mainstream scientists. Continue reading
Renewable energy generation in UK breaking records
Record high for UK renewables Renewable Energy Focus 01 October 2013 Statistics published today by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) showed that the amount of electricity generated from renewable energy sources in the UK reached a new record high of 15.5% of total electricity generation in the second quarter of this year.
“The fact that we have seen the record for renewables generation broken twice in the space of a few months shows for itself the progress being made in the race to decarbonise our economy and secure our future electricity supply.” http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/34797/record-high-for-uk-renewables/
Possibility of Scottish independence raises nuclear arms worry
UK nuclear arms backup plan urgent ahead of Scottish vote – lawmakers 7 News, September 27, 2013 By William James LONDON (Reuters) – The British government must urgently draw up a contingency plan for where it can put its nuclear arsenal in case Scotland, where the submarine-based nuclear missile system is now located, votes for independence, a parliamentary study said on Friday………With less than a year to go to the September 18, 2014, referendum, the issue of what to do with Britain’s nuclear deterrent is urgent, lawmakers said.
“The possibility of Scottish independence represents a serious threat to the future operational viability of the UK’s nuclear deterrent,” said one of the conclusions of the year-long Defence Committee investigation into the impact of independence.
“The UK Government must now give urgent consideration to contingency options in the event of a ‘Yes’ vote,” it said.
Britain is one of only five officially recognised nuclear-armed countries. Four submarines equipped to carry nuclear missiles – the Vanguard, Victorious, Vigilant and Vengeance – are based in deep-water lochs along the west coast of Scotland, and concrete missile storage bunkers are built into the Scottish hillside. At least one of the four is always at sea……. If Scotland votes to break away, Britain would face a huge, expensive and time-consuming task to relocate the system.
The Ministry of Defence confirmed on Thursday it currently has no contingency plan…….Keith Brown, a minister in the devolved Scottish government, called the current nuclear programme a “huge waste of money” and said an independent Scotland would focus its military efforts differently.
“An independent Scotland can halt the disproportionate cuts to our defence footprint and deliver the defence jobs, the equipment and the security that Scotland needs,” he said…..http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/19133473/uk-nuclear-arms-backup-plan-urgent-ahead-of-scottish-vote-lawmakers/
The politicians are wrong – 100% renewable energy is possible Guardian UK Dr Nafeez Ahmed 25 Sept 13, If Miliband wants to beat the Big Six and deliver energy price freeze promise, he must fix his party’s broken policies first “…….In May this year, a report by the Committee found that investing in renewable energy, as opposed to a new ‘dash for gas’, would be the cheapest option for keeping the lights on while cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Investing in renewable energy was the best option even if shale gas prices were relatively low. The report identified “a clear benefit in committing to invest in low-carbon generation over the next two decades”, rather than “an alternative strategy of investing in gas-fired generation through the 2020s and delaying investment in low-carbon technologies.”
In other words, we don’t need shale gas to keep the lights on. Renewables can not just keep the lights on, they can keep them cheap, and perhaps therefore back-up a proposed price freeze. But it seems, politicians and ministers are not interested in listening to the independent scientific advice that they themselves are commissioning with taxpayer’s money. Continue reading
Scotland’s Sustainable Renewable Technologies (SRT) comes up with the SOLAR PYRAMID
The Solar Powered Pyramid http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=3947 18 Sept 13 The sight of solar panels on a rooftop mightn’t generally capture as much attention as it once did, but this installation certainly does.
Designed and installed by Scotland’s Sustainable Renewable Technologies (SRT), the 48.25 kW installation provides 85% of the power used by the pyramid-shaped headquarters of Survey Solutions at Bilston Glen, Loanhead, Edinburgh.
According to SRT, other solar companies approached to execute the installation shied away from the project; stating that it could not be done.
Design of the scaffolding system that would allow the panels to be positioned in place was quite a challenge, but even more so was the clients’ requirement that each face of the pyramid to be covered in solar panels must be a perfect triangle. There could be none of the stepping that would otherwise be seen with square solar cells of the cut-down panels along edges.
To achieve the “perfect triangle” effect wasn’t so much a case of high-tech wizardry, but more design ingenuity – the panels along the edge are dummies and do not generate power. The 193 panel array will provide a benefit to the building’s owners of around AUD$17,000 annually and avoid the creation of around 36 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions each year.
The system was installed in July 2012 and has been nominated for this year’s Solar Power Portal Awards, which recognises good practice, professionalism, quality, safety and innovation in the UK’s solar industry.
The SRT installation is unsurprisingly in the “Most Innovative System Design,” category. Also not surprising is the comment from Tom King, SRT’s managing director, who said the installation was the most challenging project he has planned so far.
We imagine the project has resulted in all sorts of weird and wonderful design requests for Mr. King and his team.
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 (109)
- 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
