Home » economy » Hinkley. Oh no!

Hinkley. Oh no!

The political decision to power ahead with Hinkley Point C nuclear power station is the energy equivalent of appointing a tone deaf musical director to the London Symphony Orchestra. How much more evidence do Cameron and Co. need? A short litany of anti-Hinckley arguments should suffice.

2002 – British Energy bankrupted and rescued by British taxpayers to the tune of £10 billion (p.29, World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2011)
2005 – Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3, in Finland, built along the same design proposed for Hinkley 3. Construction began in July 2005, scheduled for completion in 2010 at a projected cost of €3 billion (£2.34 billion). Still incomplete in 2016 with total costs amounting to more than £6.6 billion so far and not a single unit of power generated.
China is offering to invest £6 billion in Hinckley while, in its own backyard, renewables outspend new nuclear five to one. (approx. £103 billion budgeted for nuclear upto 2020 compared to £62 billion spent on renewables in 2015 alone).
Hinkley 1

Hinkley 1

In a case of economics speaking truth to power, the OECD’s 2010 World Energy Outlook quietly increased the average lifetime of a nuclear power plant to 45-55 years, up 5 years from its 2008 edition.

Finally, the single paragraph below from p.31 of the 2011 Nuclear Energy Status Report (first link above) should make anyone sit up and pay attention.
It is important to note that the economics of nuclear energy are very different when considered from a societal point of view, rather than from a strictly corporate perspective. Most governments advocate the “polluter pays principle,” meaning that those who consume the energy from a nuclear plant should also pay for the wider impacts on society and the environment—including impacts associated with decommissioning and waste disposal. This assumes, however, that future generations will have the funds to carry out these hazardous tasks. The timescales for investment and return are so long that even the most conservative financing scheme will have a significant risk of failure. The mechanism to provide cash to pay for decommissioning nuclear facilities in the United Kingdom already has failed comprehensively, leaving undiscounted liabilities of some £100 billion ($165 billion) but few funds available, putting the burden on future taxpayers.
 How much more needs to be said?
Meanwhile, the BBC noted on 26-10-2005 “Wind turbine farms rejected.”
The exposed location of Hinkley Point meant that it was considered ideal for wind generation. However, a proposal to build 12 wind turbines close to the site of the nuclear power stations was turned down in October 2005.[4] The reason given by the local council for the rejection was safety fears over what would happen were a turbine blade to detach and hit “something or somebody”
For more by this author, see his Amazon page here.
Advertisements

2 Comments

  1. Guy Gadois says:

    The Chinese figures demonstrate again that nuclear energy is far better value for money.

    • aviottjohn says:

      £103 billion over six years = 17 billion per year for nuclear. £ 62 billion per year over 6 years = 372 billion for renewables in the same period. The UK figures are nowhere close to comparable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: