The UK’s Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) on 12 March published a short list of reasons why the proposed 3.2 GWs of nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point should be built. The publication, 5 Reasons why we are backing Hinkley Point C, is a mix of truth, unprovable assertions and omissions which could also be construed as lies, writes independent energy consultant Mike Parr.
1. “New nuclear is the only proven low carbon technology that can provide continuous power, irrespective of whether the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, giving hardworking families and businesses year-round energy security.”
This fails to deal with the on-going argument of dispatchable generation vs intermittent and the role of storage. The DECC statement assumes that the problem of intermittent generation plus storage will not be solved any time soon. It also relies on ignorance amongst the UK population with respect to the true state of affairs with respect to dispatchable vs intermittent supply. Did DECC read the interview with Steven Holliday, CEO of National Grid, who said in September last year that “the idea of large coal-fired or nuclear power stations to be used for baseload is outdated” and who said about “intermittent” renewables that “We will have the intelligence available in the system to ensure power is consumed when it’s there and not when it’s not there.”
The last time the English used English labour was in the 19th century to build their railways
The comment on “hardworking families” is a regular meme used by Tories. Extending this comment: one supposes then that those not working (such as the idle rich or the out-of-work – of which there are a growing number in the UK) will not get access to reliable electricity?
2. “Hinkley will give a boost to our energy supply and our economy, bringing in billions of pounds of investment into the UK and creating 25,000 jobs during construction. This is about British security and British jobs.”
This is an unsubstantiated assertion. One of the questions asked by French nuclear unions sitting on the EdF board was: where will the French jobs come from, given the English are talking about 60% of the overall cost of Hinkley going to UK companies? Putting this (internal EdF dispute) to one side, what, if anything, will English industry supply? Concrete (but there are no English companies that make cement/concrete anymore – they are all foreign owned), labour?
On-shore wind is not mentioned even though it could deliver energy at around ÂŁ40/MWh
The last time the English used English labour was in the 19th century to build their railways. The post World War II reconstruction was accomplished by mostly Irish labour, the English being too feeble. The Dubliner’s iconic song “McAlpines Fusiliers” reflected accurately the historical reality of the 1950s and 1960s with respect to construction in what then passed for the UK. In keeping with historical precedent, most of the Hinkley jobs will go to, probably, East Europeans. As for the engineering jobs, there are declining numbers of UK citizens taking engineering degrees. Still, there is always the Chinese, the UK finance minister Osborne loves them.
3. “Hinkley will power close to six million homes, twice as many as the whole of London, for nearly 60 years, providing 7% of UK electricity. There is no question that new-nuclear is cost competitive. Offshore wind cleared at over ÂŁ110/MWh in the last auction for renewables. New gas could cost around ÂŁ65/ MWh and new-nuclear has all the advantages of providing low carbon, baseload power for decades. In addition, we’re getting 60 years of power from Hinkley but we’re only paying for 35.”
The first sentence is mostly true, assuming it runs for 60 years. The rest is a mix of omissions and lies. The second sentence is true only if one looks at the UK, otherwise, it is a lie. Off-shore wind in the UK is expensive (at ÂŁ110/MWh) compared to nuclear (at a still eye-watering ÂŁ92.50) only if other countries are not considered. Denmark and the Horns Rev 3 project will deliver electricity at roughly ÂŁ55/MWh over the lifetime of the project. Other Danish off-shore projects being bid for this year will be even cheaper. This is partly because Danish off-shore projects are bid for on the basis of being shovel-ready.
By contrast, bidders for UK off-shore projects have to undertake all the pre-bid work themselves – thus increasing the risk and thus the cost. The UK takes this approach on political/ideological grounds that (by coincidence?) make nuclear look good. On-shore wind is not mentioned even though it could deliver energy at around ÂŁ40/MWh. As for the pay for 35 and get 60 – there is no such thing as “something for nothing”.
4. “Hinkley will be safe. It will need to comply with the UK’s robust nuclear regulations (overseen by the independent Office for Nuclear Regulation) – one of the most stringent and safest in the world.”
“Hinkley will be safe” is an unsubstantiated assertion and falls into the same class of statement as (if I were making it in 2010) “Fukushima will be safe”. If I had made that statement in 2010 I would have been guaranteed the support of the entire global nuclear establishment, the whole of the Japanese government and most of Japanese industry.
One conclusion to draw from the DECC PR is that it regards UK subjects as at best incredibly ill-informed, at worst totally ignorant and thus worthy of being misled
How times change. The DECC assertion that Hinkley needs “to comply with the UK’s nuclear regulations (overseen by the independent Office for Nuclear Regulation)” overlooks one unfortunate fact: the last time the English built a nuclear power station was more than 21 years ago (Sizewell B). Senior engineers will be retired or dead, middle ranking engineers will be close to retirement and the junior ones will not have cut their teeth on anything since then. This thus calls into question the competence of the Office for Nuclear regulation (or perhaps, like so much in England it has been outsourced to foreigners – maybe those nice French people just across the water?). Note: designing and building a nuclear reactor is fundamentally different from running one.
5. “Hinkley will be a significant step forward in our transition to a low-carbon future, a milestone in our efforts to reduce emissions and to meet our climate change commitments in the most cost-effective way.”
A straightforward lie. “To meet our climate change commitments in the most cost-effective way” ……….would be to deploy significant energy efficiency measures. These were classified by Camoron, the current UK prime minister as “Green crap” and in 2015, shortly after the Tories won the last election, all the “green crap” was cancelled including all energy efficiency programmes.
One conclusion to draw from the DECC PR is that it regards UK subjects as at best incredibly ill-informed, at worst totally ignorant and thus worthy of being misled. It suggests that DECC buys into the P.T Barnum view of humanity “there’s a sucker born every minute” and with Hinkley, it certainly looks like UK peasants are being taken for a 35 year ride.
Editor’s Note
Mike Parr is Director of energy consultancy PWR which undertakes research in the area of climate change and renewables for clients which include a G7 country and global corporations. See his author archive on Energy Post.
Donough Shanahan says
This is a terrible article. Plenty of assertions and no backup whatsoever.
Just take point 1; no evidence to back up the claim that the statement is false. Yet we have evidence to back up the claim made by DECC and the German example gives us this. For 15 years Germany has embarked on a high renewable and low nuclear strategy and yet, its emissions from its grid have hardly budged. It is clear that removing nuclear and coal and replacing them by renewables is not possible.
““We will have the intelligence available in the system to ensure power is consumed when it’s there and not when it’s not there.””
That must be one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard in this debate. If the power is not there, then it obviously means no consumption can occur. It also means people are going without.
Mike Parr says
I’d stick to steel making Mr Shanahan because your linkedin profile suggests you know little about power systems. Point 1: Renewables are a proven low carbon technology. Significant progress is being made in making them dispatchable and given the time it takes to build nuclear stations (remind me how Flammenville is progressing) by the time Hinkley is built (if ever) most of the issues surrounding intermittency and dispachability will be resolved.
Germany is moving from fossil systems to renewables. The decision to phase out nuclear was made in 2011. Your statement “For 15 years Germany has embarked on a high renewable and low nuclear strategy” is thus wrong. You can argue the rights and wrongs of the nuclear phase out: fact – a steady 70 – 75% of the German pop want nuclear phased out. They have a functioning democracy in Germany – get used to the idea. Between 2004 and 2015 CO2 from fossil generation declined by more than 10%. Not bad given the phase out of nuclear – & could be a lot more were not the usual suspects (RWE, EON etc) not hanging on to their old smokers.
Regarding dumb statements, you would be an expert on demand response? thought not. Nat Grid estimated that there is around 9GW of demand response sitting in the UK waiting to be used (to cover peak periods). That it is not, is mostly a function of an incompetent Uk government (do remind me how they are coping with the Chinese steel problem) and the department responsible – step forward DECC. Feel free to read my article on DECC’s capacity auctions & how they failed to encourage low cost demand response & by the way starting 2018 you will be paying ÂŁ10 per year for their failure. UK governments of all sorts (plus Ofgem) have badly handled UK power (non)markets. Before calling Nat Grid stupid – you may wish to focus your attention on a) elected representatives (MPs), b)gov ministers, c) the non-regulator Ofgem because between these three groups, they are working hard to a)close your steel works and b)make sure the lights you enjoy go out some time soon.
Robert Temple says
Mr. Parr: Your comments about energy storage being ready to replace large coal and nuclear are false. There are small examples being deployed by several companies, but energy storage and renewables are not up to the task of replacing base load energy. Is it possible that one day they will? Yes, but there is not evidence that can be deployed within the next decade.
David Drury says
Well, at the risk of having my Linkedin profile dissected in public, and also of seeming to support the UK government’s claims, I will say that I too found this article rather too heavy on assertion and light on convincing analysis.
For example, to say that claiming Hinkley Point will be safe is in the same class of statement as claiming before the disaster that Fukushima was safe, is a throw away remark that can presumably be levelled against any nuclear power station. Does the author think no nuclear power is safe? If so he should come out and say it and then we’d know where he stands.
And on the issue of jobs and the economy, does the nationality of the workers that build the plant really matter?
And the riposte to point 5. is just a bit of a rant…
Mike Parr says
May be the nationality of the workers does not matter (but it’s not me saying “creating 25,000 (British?) jobs”)- but the steel – where will that come from (Uk steel plants are closing), or the steam turbines, the Uk does not makes these, or the 800MW generators (Uk does not make these) or the nuclear control system (Uk does not make these) – I could go on for a very long time. Tell me Mr Drury – what do you think UK “industry” will contribute to building the plant – hospitality? or maybe a “warm welcome”. Point 5 a rant? well I’m in good company since those who think energy efficiency is a key response to de-carbonisation ranges from Mckinsey through to Friends of the Earth. Was it me that said “get rid of the green crap”? Tell you what – you write an article – go on I’d love to see you views on the DECC points. Really & honestly. Please impart your pearls of wisdom to us, at length & indepth.
Aloysius Fekete says
“…claiming Hinkley Point will be safe is in the same class of statement as claiming before the disaster that Fukushima was safe, is a throw away remark that can presumably be levelled against any nuclear power station.”
I think that’s precisely the point, this statement can be made about any all nuclear plants – and not just nuclear plants but any kind of device. As long as “meltdown” remains a failure mode of a nuclear plant then there exists some statistical probability that this failure mode will occur. Accidents happen and what Fukushima teaches us even with the best and brightest minds we cannot reduce this risk to a negligible level.
MSR reactors may be an answer, but it doesn’t seem to me that the industry is truly focused on this.
light a candle says
If I were energy minister, I would like to see a mix of renewables, from solar, on shore, off shore wind, to wave and tidal barrage. I would not turn my nose up at new ideas, encourage every existing home and new build to convert/install a renewable source, given a realistic subsidy. Then if this was my pitch for the job, I would never be energy minister. What about all those oil rich nations, political dealing with the oil and gas giants. the car manufacturers.
It is ironic, that consumers are encouraged to switch energy suppliers, to save a few pounds a year, when/if Hinkley ever gets on stream, they will be paying more than double for their electricity.
Like the banks deemed “too big to fail” Hinkley will go ahead, no matter what!! or the French, Chineese and British ministers would never live it down, never mind that the English and French consumers, will pick up the tab for generations to come.
with carbon capture, now being taken seriously, “at last!” would it not be better to invest in our coal plants, far less risky than nuclear and they are already built and functioning and have been for years.
Nuclear waste is a “nasty topic” like you said, i am sure the public don t need to know about this, they are simple folk, if this sounds like an excerpt from Yes Minister, it was meant to, laughable but saddly true.
Apart from the sheer scale of the economics involved, in the building of these new nuclear plants, which seem to be a “moveable goal post” due to the endless delays, caused by the lack of funding/confidence and the engineering problems, associated with the design and function of the new E P R s, which are still unproven/safe?????
Excuse me for being a peasant, but give me the vote and I say NO to nuclear power, for me, my children, their children and the generations to follow them.