Hinkey Point C - Part 1

Hinkley Point C - Projected construction (Greenpeace 2015).

As mentioned in the previous posts, the future of a nuclear expansion is likely to be rooted within global alliances. Hinkley Point C in Somerset is being constructed under such an alliance with a 65.5% EDF share and 33.5% with the state owned China General Nuclear Corporation (EDF 2015). Further alliances are expected with EDF suggesting they are aiming to sell more shares in the nuclear plant construction (EDF 2015). The two current shareholders have also expressed plans for further joint projects in Essex and Suffolk, illustrating the long term, joint commitments to nuclear expansions within the UK. The Energy Secretary, Amber Rudd was quick to highlight the positives of this deal, with the ability for the power station to power 6 million homes and to provide in excess of 25,000 new jobs, boosting both financial and energy security.

The partnership is not new, with EDF and GCN collaborating for decades (EDF 2015),  the experience both companies have had in nuclear expansions, especially in France – will benefit the UK programme greatly. Allowing the growth of a modern, safe and efficient nuclear sector. Many may fear that the benefits will be experienced outside of national boarders; however it has been ensured that the majority of the service contracts will be opened to British companies allowing for British economic expansion and job creation to be a secondary benefit.

EDF and GCN sign Strategic Investment Agreement (EDF 2015).

The reactor is planned to be completed by 2025, with costs claimed to be $18 billion (EDF 2015), yet other reports (Gosden 2015) suggesting costs in excess of $24 billion. These exponential costs require sureties, which is why there is a guaranteed electricity price - £89.50/Mwh for the first 35 years - which the investors will receive. The cost is going to be greater than current fossil fuel costs, yet competitive in the renewable market (EDF 2015). It must also be realised that despite the vast construction costs, the public are not paying – with the construction costs totally covered by the private sector. Therefore the public only pay when they are receiving the electricity, which may mitigate opposition to the power station and the astronomical costs.

Point C will provide 7% of the country’s electricity generating needs (EDF 2015), a significant proportion from a single station. Along with the electricity and employment potential, the environmental benefits must also be noted, with the zero-carbon production central to the drive for a greater nuclear future. It is predicted that Point C will prevent 600 million tonnes of CO2 from entering the atmosphere, over its 60 year life span (EDF 2015). Allowing climatic forcing to be reduced and particulate matter risks to be mitigated (Yim 2012). Continued nuclear expansions, as have been planned, will be influential in meeting emission targets in the UK, with a desired 80% reduction on 1990 levels by 2050 (CCC 2008). This level of reduction will enable the 2C global temperature increase threshold to be maintained, or breached to the minimal amount. Further information on climate change targets can be found here (Curtis 2015, Wong 2015).

Observed and projected trends of global CO2 emissions and the warming consequence - under four RCP scenarios (Sanford 2014).

However, opposition questions the funding – with Greenpeace (2015) suggesting that the governmental subsidies will provide £1.1 billion public costs a year, despite the fact that the borrowing needs have drastically been reduced with further Chinese investment. Furthermore, Greenpeace highlights the fact that the fixed electricity price will mean £81 billion will be generated from electricity sales in the 35 years of the fixed cost. France and China therefore receive around £30 billion and £15 billion from the tax payer, once maintenance and construction costs are accounted for (Kahya 2015). Some would argue that this level of capital leaving the country is diabolical and will limit UK economic growth. The 25,000 UK jobs created are unlikely to compensate for this calculated monetary emigration.