Left Foot Forward understands that via complicated, structural measures, the government is planning on green-lighting a multi-billion pound taxpayer giveaway to the nuclear industry.
“Liberal Democrats have long opposed any new nuclear construction. Conservatives, by contrast, are committed to allowing the replacement of existing nuclear power stations provided that they are subject to the normal planning process for major projects…
“And also provided that they receive no public subsidy.”
That’s the Coalition Agreement on nuclear power. It’s pretty clear – no taxpayers’ money for new nuclear power.
Energy secretary Chris Huhne – who in opposition called nuclear power a “failed technology” – elaborated on this shortly after taking the job, telling The Times (£):
“I have explained my position to the industry and said public subsidies include contingent liabilities.”
But Left Foot Forward understands that via complicated, structural measures, the government is planning on green-lighting a multi-billion pound taxpayer giveaway to the nuclear industry.
Here’s how:
Firstly, Chris Huhne has:
“…agreed to reduce the risk to industry of building nuclear plants by setting a fixed price for disposal of waste.”
This transfers the huge risks associated with nuclear power to taxpayers. As the Oxford Professor of Energy Policy, Dieter Helm, explained back in 2008:
“It’s a fixed-price contract for the government to take the waste. The government absorbs the final-end risk.”
Helm has said recently Mr Huhne’s pledge not to subsidise nuclear plants is “more rhetoric than substance”; he told (£) The Times:
“There has never been a nuclear programme which is entirely funded by the private sector.”
Secondly, as The Sunday Times explained (£) back in May:
“The government is planning to rig the carbon trading market in a move that will encourage the creation of nuclear power plants.”
Peter Atherton, head of European utilities at Citigroup, said:
“Putting a floor under the power price would effectively transfer risk from the nuclear developer to the electricity consumer.”
That sounds a lot like a subsidy. Today the Financial Times published new findings showing the nuclear industry could receive a £3.43 billion windfall this way between 2013 and 2026 via a plan outlined in Mr Huhne’s new energy market reform proposals.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with introducing a floor price for carbon. It could even be a good idea – offering greater support for clean energy projects and improved energy efficiency. But it should not be used as a backdoor way of giving taxpayer support to a nuclear industry that has already benefited from more than £10 billion in public support in the last decade and that has proven that it can’t stand on its own two feet.
For example, in 1995 the Sizewell B nuclear power plant was completed at a cost to electricity consumers of more than £3bn, yet a year later when the newer nuclear plants were privatised as British Energy, it and seven other nuclear power plants of about the same size were sold for only about half this cost.
In 2002, despite acquiring eight nuclear plants for a fraction of their construction cost, British Energy went bankrupt and was saved only by the government committing £10bn of taxpayers’ money.
The government should find ways to avoid channelling our money into the black hole that is the failing nuclear industry, especially at a time when Ministers say there is such need for cut backs. Green campaigners including WWF point out windfalls for nuclear utilities could be avoided via a windfall tax on those companies to claw back these revenues.
30 Responses to “Ministers are breaking their promise on subsidies for nuclear power”
salardeen
RT @oranjd: Ministers are breaking their promise on subsidies for nuclear power http://bit.ly/hARknB
John Busby
Subject: DECC’s four nuclear “incentives”
The supposed “incentives” need further analysis.
Carbon trading has ceased in Chicago and is suspended in Europe because of fraud, but the operation of a “floor” auction price for carbon remains obscure. At an auction if the reserve price is not exceeded there is “no sale”. If the floor price at a UK sale is set too high the buyer can revert to another exchange to get a lower price. It is unlikely that EC competition rules would allow the UK Treasury to load up the carbon price with a supplementary tax.
In any case it would only favour companies with no fossil fuel generation, such as EdF. RWE and E.On have considerable gas-fired generation and, well before their nuclear sector was generating, the revenue from their other activities would be subject to penalties.
An over generous application of feed-in-tariffs (FiTs) would reduce the market for realistic tariffs. For instance the distributor has to pay perhaps three times the wholesale rate for consumers’ solar power, while losing revenue when the consumer enjoys free electricity. A realistic FiT for nuclear would also be three times the wholesale price and because of the high output could not be absorbed in the overall pricing.
The idea of rewarding nuclear for providing peak low-carbon power is also weak in that electricity demand is falling fast and will continue to do so as air and road transport attenuates with the rising oil price, which now that peak oil has passed will ramp up fast.
As to an imposition of drastic emission standards on nuclear’s competitors, by the time nuclear electricity is available its fossil fuel competitors will be bankrupt and unable to purchase allowances. Coal CCS is not viable as retrofitting is impractical and even if it was, it would reduce the revenue by a third while adding to costs.
As far as assisting investment in nuclear the “incentives” are too obscure to be of value. In a background of a failing nuclear sector in France, where the tariffs are suppressed by government and EdF’s debt is doubling every two years, only state funding as in the past will suffice. EdF’s revenue has worsened as it has had to sell its profitable UK distribution subsidiary and half of its shares in RTE, the French national grid with consequent loss of income.
Nuclear power is not an economic activity and measures to make it so artificially will fail. When anti-nuclear Huhne stated that nuclear would get no subsidy he knew that he would never see it arrive in the UK!
See http://www.after-oil.co.uk/edf_financial.htm “Edf’s financial meltdown”
Anna-Lujz Gilbert
RT @leftfootfwd: Ministers are breaking their promise on subsidies for nuclear power: http://bit.ly/edHmd9 reveals @JossGarman
christinamac1
RT @leftfootfwd: UK Ministers are breaking their promise on subsidies for nuclear power http://bit.ly/dWnw82
UK coalition govt betraying promises on nuclear power « nuclear-news
[…] Ministers are breaking their promise on subsidies for nuclear power | Left Foot Forward […]