Hinkley Point: For a prosperous, low-carbon future, the stakes could not be higher

“For those that want to see the UK achieve low carbon, secure electricity, and those who care about UK prosperity and growth, the review of the HPC project is a landmark decision.”

Hide

The journey to the realisation of Hinkley Point has regularly, and unceasingly, raised and dashed the hopes of supporters and opponents alike. Only in recent history there have been obstacles such as the European Commission’s examination of violation of the principles of state aid, failure to reach agreement between the French and Chinese partners, EDF and CGN, questions over if the EDF board would still back the project; would there be endorsement of the French unions? Were there issues with the manufacturing of the pressure vessel?

It seemed finally, for the supporters, on 28 July 2016, EDF had arrived at the Final Investment Decision. The marquee at Hinkley Point was erected, CGN and ministers were coming, and on Friday 29 July, contracts were to be signed.

For a few hours, those of us who had been supporters of the project, breathed a sigh of relief; finally the country was getting on with one of the most important infrastructure projects of our time which would have profound, and we believe, truly positive impact on the energy security of the UK. Then, hard on the heels of Brexit, the resignation of David Cameron and the succession of Theresa May, priorities shifted, everything was back on the table and Hinkley Point C (HPC) was again in doubt, until the Government finally decided to go ahead with the project.

It was a little disappointing that, as Ministers reviewed the project, the media was full of reports that the UK does not need HPC, that we can do it all with renewables, ratcheting up the pressure on the government to can the project. The evident truth is that, both for reasons of climate change, carbon reductions and energy security there is no reasonable alternative to nuclear energy. The contribution that is required is going to be at a scale which exceeds the installed capacity that the UK presently has, 20%, possibly closer to 40%, at a time when much of the current nuclear fleet will be decommissioned. It is vitally important that the UK does not take its foot off the accelerator if there is a hope in hell of reaching the climate change targets which requires decarbonised electricity.

It is true that HPC is going to be expensive, over the years the price tag has steadily risen to the present £18b. The strike price of £92.5/MWh, some argue, is expensive, but probably not given the price of offshore wind projects currently average over £130/MWh. The Committee on Climate Change argue that in the future the price of nuclear could reach as low as £65-70/MWh, which with a proper carbon price would make it one of the cheapest sources of electricity. The high cost of HPC is in part linked to it being the first of a kind. If one builds a succession of plants, even if they are different designs the cost will come down.

However, to get there you have to build the first of a kind.

If the Government had unpicked the agreement with CGN and EDF, which has taken years to hammer out, and the consortium collapsed there would have been trouble ahead. The scale of investment required for HPC and potentially the other nuclear power projects that come on the back of it at Suffolk, Anglesey, Cumbria require long term certainty. Governments over several cycles had managed to create the impression to international companies that ‘you can trust us’, that when we make a decision to invest in nuclear energy this has all party and long term support; the Contracts for Difference is an articulation of that. Unpicking an agreement does not provide investor confidence.

The scale of projects linked to nuclear and high speed rail will see tens of billions of pounds go into the UK economy at a time when many predictions are that on the back of Brexit there will be a recession. The scale of investment will see tens of thousands of new jobs, demand for British steel at a time when the steel industry needs it, a reason to continue to invest in the UK economy at a stage when many companies are questioning their future headquartering in the UK when it was once seen as a gateway to Europe. For nuclear power plant builders the UK remains a shop window where there is one of the toughest regulatory environments, giving the technology the UK Kitemark. For those that want to see the UK achieve low carbon, secure electricity, and those who care about UK prosperity and growth, the review of the HPC project was a rather high stakes and landmark decision.

Have your say...

Feedback
  • Gareth Pert
    External
    1. At 9:38PM on 23 September 2016, Gareth Pert wrote

    When nuclear power first appeared we were promised that we'd have cheap electricity. Instead nuclear has been subsidised more than any other fuel. HPC is the most expensive power plant ever and there are no guarantees it will bring the price of electricity down.

    We have compromised our power supply by allowing control by foreign governments.

    There is also the threat hanging over us of nuclear disaster. There may not be many examples of nuclear disasters, but when they go wrong it is spectacular. Chernobyl was 30 years ago but the area still hasn't recovered. Closer to home, Sellafield is linked with increased cases of leukaemia than the average.

    As for renewables, yes we can fill the gap with them. Other countries are showing it is possible. What is needed is the political will and the same funding that the nuclear industry has had.

  • Rodrigo Buzeta
    External
    2. At 12:19AM on 30 September 2016, Rodrigo Buzeta wrote

    I'm a student from Chile, South America, starting these days my MSc in Environmental and Natural Resources Economics and this topic interest me very much. In relation to this article and, in general, with the news of the HPC to be built I have the opinion that maybe this decision was taken with a lot of rush and pressure by the UK government. Our country, Chile, has a lot in common in terms of Energy Policy with the UK: we are very dependant on imported energy (our main source has been fossil fuels in recent years, due to a lack of rains in order to boost our hydro power) and we are starting to build a lot of renewable energy plants. In terms of nuclear energy for the UK, I think it's a great step to achieve the climate change goals, but this kind of projects will deliver a lot of externalities that are not taking into account and that should be. At any rate, I prefer nuclear than carbon based energy, but I think UK need to invest more in renewables and in Carbon Capture and Sequestration. I think UK needs more will to implement these projects and, in addition, have a better support for the Carbon Credits scheme in all the companies in the country. The only way to achieve zero carbon emissions is with the effort from all sectors.

  • 88952634
    External
    3. At 10:43AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    4. At 10:43AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    5. At 10:43AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    6. At 10:44AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    7. At 10:44AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    8. At 10:44AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    9. At 10:44AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    10. At 10:44AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    11. At 10:44AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    12. At 10:44AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    13. At 10:44AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    14. At 10:44AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    15. At 10:44AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    16. At 10:44AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    17. At 10:44AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    18. At 10:45AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    19. At 10:45AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    20. At 10:45AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    21. At 10:45AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    22. At 10:45AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    23. At 10:45AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    24. At 10:45AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634'`"(
    External
    25. At 10:45AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634-0
    External
    26. At 10:45AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634s3
    External
    27. At 10:45AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634'+'
    External
    28. At 10:45AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634'
    External
    29. At 10:45AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634'||'
    External
    30. At 10:46AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634'
    External
    31. At 10:46AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    32. At 10:46AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    33. At 10:46AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    34. At 10:46AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    35. At 10:47AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    36. At 10:47AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    37. At 10:47AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    38. At 10:47AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    39. At 10:47AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    40. At 10:47AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    41. At 10:47AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    42. At 10:47AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    43. At 10:47AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    44. At 10:47AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    45. At 10:47AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    46. At 10:47AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    47. At 10:48AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    48. At 10:48AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    49. At 10:48AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    50. At 10:48AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    51. At 10:48AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    52. At 10:48AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    53. At 10:48AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    54. At 10:48AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    55. At 10:48AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    56. At 10:48AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    57. At 10:48AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    58. At 10:48AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    59. At 10:48AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634

  • 88952634
    External
    60. At 10:49AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634'`"(

  • 88952634
    External
    61. At 10:49AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634-0

  • 88952634
    External
    62. At 10:49AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634s3

  • 88952634
    External
    63. At 10:49AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634'+'

  • 88952634
    External
    64. At 10:49AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634'

  • 88952634
    External
    65. At 10:49AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634'||'

  • 88952634
    External
    66. At 10:49AM on 11 December 2016, wrote

    88952634'

  • rb639
    External
    67. At 7:44AM on 07 January 2017, wrote
  • fzCK1
    External
    68. At 3:56PM on 29 January 2017, wrote
  • 91ZGLA
    External
    69. At 3:59PM on 29 January 2017, wrote
  • bf3sP
    External
    70. At 6:06PM on 31 January 2017, wrote
Add Your Feedback