Hinkley C go ahead will see consumers ripped off for the next 40 years

New nuclear power stations fail every possible test - economic, consumer, environmental and arguably legal. Hinkley C will lock a generation of consumers into higher energy bills and distort energy policy by displacing newer, cheaper, cleaner technologies.

Emma Gibson is deputy head of campaigns at Greenpeace

The last nuclear power station to come on line in the UK was on Valentine’s Day 1995. This afternoon Ed Davey stood up in the House of Commons and sealed the Lib Dems’ newly discovered love affair with nuclear power by announcing planning permission for a new power station at Hinkley in Somerset.

It’s arguable that at some point in the last decade, us greenies took our eye off the ball while the nuclear industry rebranded itself as the magical solution to the problem of climate change. As someone who once led a protest team of Homer Simpsons over the fence at Sizewell nuclear power station, this is hard to stomach.

New nuclear power stations fail every possible test – economic, consumer, environmental and arguably legal. Hinkley C will lock a generation of consumers into higher energy bills and distort energy policy by displacing newer, cheaper, cleaner technologies.

It’s rumoured that the government is about to agree a ‘strike price’ with Hinkley’s operators EDF which is twice the current market price of electricity and will be fixed for 40 years. And to think we’re always being told that wind farm push up energy bills up. British taxpayers will be footing this colossal bill for the next four decades.

Nuclear is a mature technology as it has been operating for over 50 years – it should no longer need this kind of leg-up.

DONG Energy, who are about to open the world’s largest off-shore wind farm off the coast of Ramsgate, said this month that it could reduce its costs to be on a par with nuclear power by 2020. That’s still before Hinkley C would be switched on (assuming no more delays – nuclear power stations do not have a good reputation for being on time or on budget.)

There are two reactors being built in Europe that are similar to Hinkley – both are overdue and considerably over budget.

In Flamanville France, Italian utility, Enel recently pulled out after repeated delays and cost over-runs. In Finland the Olkiluoto 3 project (already four years overdue) recently announced it will fail to meet its latest deadline of 2014 and a new deadline has not been set.

The delays are forcing Finland to burn more fossil fuels and have led it to rule out further reactors to the same design. 

Even if built, nuclear power is far from an ideal energy source. The need to run it constantly forces significant investment in storage, as for renewables, and nuclear power plants are prone to outages, requiring significant gas or even coal backup, and grid reinforcement.

But what about the potential for jobs from building Hinkley C?

EDF has claimed that the construction of the power plant will involve 25,000 jobs and that it will then directly employ around 800 people. But if the UK hits its target of 15 per cent renewables by 2020, it will create 10 times more new jobs than Hinkley, even the peak employment during of its construction.

Finally, there’s the six billion dollar half-life question: what do you do with the nuclear waste?

In a speech in the Greenpeace warehouse just before the last election, the prime minister himself said that until the waste issue is sorted, no new nuclear is possible.

The decision by the Cumbria local authorities to reject a waste storage site beneath the Lake District leaves the government with no plan for waste disposal from existing or new nuclear power plants. No other local authorities have volunteered to host a waste store. Greenpeace has written to the government warning it that new nuclear without a solution to waste may be illegal.

Despite today’s decision, it’s far from certain whether Hinkley C will ever be built. But if it is, UK households will be getting ripped off for the next 40 years.

As you’re here, we have something to ask you. What we do here to deliver real news is more important than ever. But there’s a problem: we need readers like you to chip in to help us survive. We deliver progressive, independent media, that challenges the right’s hateful rhetoric. Together we can find the stories that get lost.

We’re not bankrolled by billionaire donors, but rely on readers chipping in whatever they can afford to protect our independence. What we do isn’t free, and we run on a shoestring. Can you help by chipping in as little as £1 a week to help us survive? Whatever you can donate, we’re so grateful - and we will ensure your money goes as far as possible to deliver hard-hitting news.

7 Responses to “Hinkley C go ahead will see consumers ripped off for the next 40 years”

  1. Iain McGowan

    Thank Goid we in Scotland can still resist tjsi type of Nuclear development through the planning system, but if we lose the 2014 referendum we will lose that right. Westminster will amend the ‘Scotland Act’ to take the planning power back.

  2. cynicalhighlander

    Nuclear power insights

    The politicians want to control the press to tell the ‘truth’ it would be nice if we got politicians to start to tell the truth about the corrupt nuclear industry.

  3. SadButMadLad

    “DONG Energy, who are about to open the world’s largest off-shore wind farm off the coast of Ramsgate, said this month that it could reduce its costs to be on a par with nuclear power by 2020.”

    So Nuclear IS cheaper than wind power. So Greenpeace want us to have expensive electricity. then. Massive fail. And well done for looking after the poor. Very progressive.

    And it’s good that the new power station will only have 800 jobs. The whole history of industrialization has been about cutting the number of jobs to do particular tasks. That’s what allows more people to specialize and to do the things that would otherwise not be done because everyone is busy creating power. Think back to the agricultural age. When nearly everyone had to work on the farm to provide food for the rest of the population. Now only a very small number of people work on farm producing more food than their ancestors did. And that means that the rest of us can do things like be hair dressers, nurses, teachers, writers, artists, software engineers, etc.

    So if Greenpeace want ten times as many people stuck in jobs making windmills then it means fewer of them actually doing productive work.

  4. Newsbot9

    That’s right, you keep backing coal and gas! (Oh, and incidental wind)
    And telling scare stories. Where’s your source?

  5. Newsbot9

    Thanks for coming out against the poor having power. Always nice when you stand up and be counted,

    You’re the one who supports far-above-market subsidies…but only for gas with incidental wind, and tidal projects which have been called (rightly) a type of scam, and…

Comments are closed.