Hinkley Point C - Part 2

The GMB Union’s national secretary Gary Smith, directly opposed the claims of Amber Rudd and the positivity that Point C and the further Sussex and Essex nuclear plans would provide. He argues against the openness and strong desire for Chinese capital – claiming it was simply a push to prevent the conservatives from having debt on their balance sheets (Macalister 2015).  Furthermore, the influx of Chinese equipment and contracts will mitigate the British economic potential, despite claims that 60% of contracts will be open to UK companies, the reality is the higher costs compared to the Chinese will mitigate the benefit. Additionally Smith states (Macalister 2015), that the influx of Chinese technology may place safety at risk, especially following the claims of He Zuoxiu, a leading Chinese scientist, that China has not invested significantly in safety controls in the nuclear sector (Graham-Harrison 2015). The Post-Fukushima reactor ban has been removed but safety has not improved, for example many Chinese reactors are planned in densely populated areas where there is a water supply for reactor cooling – potentially placing millions at risk (Graham-Harrison 2015). UK safety regulations will be applied, therefore mitigating the risk – yet the technology may not be available to a sufficient standard from the Chinese source.

Another concern (Macalister 2015) is the security issue of permitting the Chinese to enter the British nuclear programme – threats to national security and the possibility of atomic warfare are continually associated with the nuclear sector. This is often a strong argument of the opposition and will be examined in a future blog post!

With this many campaigns have arisen opposing the Hinkley Point C project such as Stop Hinkley. The group wrote to the UK government, highlighting the recent Chinse chemical explosions, the continually weak health and safety record and the scandalously poor human rights as being central reasons as to why the UK-China partnership should be scrapped (Stop Hinkley 2015). The two sides of the story provide very different evaluations, from British job creation to Chinese technology putting the UK public at risk.

Logo for the Stop Hinkley campaign (Stop Hinkley 2015).

A high profile opposition campaign comes from the Austrian Government (WNA 2015), this is despite Europe having around 27% of the energy produced by nuclear sources. The dominant argument from Austria is that it desires a nuclear-free Europe, with claims that nuclear is far more expensive and environmentally damaging than alternate sources such as wind and solar. However, if nuclear was removed then the Europe’s emission reductions would be dismal, due to other sources lacking behind the current nuclear capacity. The IPCC (2007) has recently confirmed the nuclear potential in reducing global emissions, along with the fact that nuclear can provide continual energy compared to the temporal variability of wind for example (WNA2015). Therefore I would argue that the complete dismissal of nuclear by the Austrian government would hinder climate change targets and detriment European energy security. The campaign has reached a stage of potential legal action from Austria and potentially Luxembourg also (Nelsen 2015), particularly over the EU Commission allowing state aid and the impact that has on the energy market. Such lawsuits are likely to cause delays and disruptions to the Hinkley construction! The opposition from Austria is not surprising with a long history of nuclear abstinence, with evidence of prolonged disputes with the bordering Czech Republic over previous plants and proposed future constructions (Černoch2015).

Anti-nuclear demonstration in Vienna, Austria 2011 - to mark the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster (Cryptome 2011).

Despite the fears of poor Chinese health and safety, there is evidence to suggest the power station design has learnt from previous mistakes – in particular the Fukushima disaster (Raby 2015). EDF claims that all possible sea level threats, from climate change, storms, tides and tsunamis are accounted for in the sea wall defence. The site is positioned in excess of 14m above the sea level, which gives leeway to the possible increases that may be experienced in the 60 year life span (Raby 2015). Therefore, protection from the pressure-based explosions seen in Fukushima is provided through precautious planning.

Proposed sea wall at Hinkley Point C (Raby 2015).

The UK governmental assistance to the private nuclear investors in the guaranteed pricing etc. was promoted by the European Commission, despite fears that it would disturb and damage the free energy market (Černoch 2015). With this confirmation of state assistance being a legal procedure in the energy sector, Point C could be viewed as a catalyst for similar projects to expand around the EU. Obviously not all countries will have the funds available to subsidies and assist a nuclear expansion, meaning there may be a disbalance in potential between Western and Central/Eastern Europe. However, it is not impossible that such countries as Czech Republic may exploit the European Commission ruling to stimulate private investment and increased nuclear capacity (Černoch 2015). Hinkley Point C may therefore be central to stimulating an expanded nuclear future within Europe.