tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/hinkley-point-c-13861/articlesHinkley Point C – The Conversation2023-11-02T19:14:00Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2168912023-11-02T19:14:00Z2023-11-02T19:14:00ZIs nuclear the answer to Australia’s climate crisis?<p>In Australia’s race to net zero emissions, nuclear power has surged back into the news. Opposition leader Peter Dutton <a href="https://ipa.org.au/research/climate-change-and-energy/peter-dutton-address-to-ipa-members-sydney-7-july-2023">argues</a> nuclear is “the only feasible and proven technology” for cutting emissions. Energy Minister Chris Bowen insists Mr Dutton is promoting “<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-18/energy-minister-says-nuclear-power-too-expensive/102868218">the most expensive form of energy</a>”.</p>
<p>Is nuclear a pragmatic and wise choice blocked by ideologues? Or is Mr Bowen right that promoting nuclear power is about as sensible as <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/radionational-breakfast/-unicorn-and-a-fantasy-energy-minister-slams-nuclear-energy/102866944">chasing “unicorns”</a>?</p>
<p>For someone who has not kept up with developments in nuclear energy, its prospects may seem to hinge on safety. Yet by any hard-nosed accounting, the risks from modern nuclear plants are orders of magnitude lower than those of fossil fuels.</p>
<p>Deep failures in design and operational incompetence caused the Chernobyl disaster. Nobody died at Three Mile Island or from Fukushima. Meanwhile, a Harvard-led study found <a href="https://seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought">more than one in six deaths globally</a> – around 9 million a year – are attributable to polluted air from fossil combustion.</p>
<p>Two more mundane factors help to explain why nuclear power has halved as a share of global electricity production since the 1990s. They are time and money.</p>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-973" class="tc-infographic" height="400px" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/973/534c98def812dd41ac56cc750916e2922539729b/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>The might of Wright’s law</h2>
<p>There are four arguments against investment in nuclear power: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant">Olkiluoto 3</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3">Flamanville 3</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station">Hinkley Point C</a>, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant">Vogtle</a>. These are the four major latest-generation plants completed or near completion in Finland, the United States, the United Kingdom and France respectively. </p>
<p>Cost overruns at these recent plants average over 300%, with more increases to come. The cost of Vogtle, for example, soared from US$14 billion to $34 billion (A$22-53 billion), Flamanville from €3.3 billion to €19 billion (A$5-31 billion), and <a href="https://illuminem.com/illuminemvoices/nuclear-economics-lessons-from-lazard-to-hinkley-point-c">Hinkley Point C</a> from £16 billion to as much as £70 billion (A$30-132 billion), including subsidies. Completion of Vogtle <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/vogtles-troubles-bring-us-nuclear-challenge-into-focus-2023-08-24/">has been delayed</a> by seven years, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/after-18-years-europes-largest-nuclear-reactor-start-regular-output-sunday-2023-04-15/">Olkiluoto</a> by 14 years, and <a href="https://www.nucnet.org/news/decree-sets-startup-deadline-of-2024-4-3-2020">Flamanville</a> by at least 12 years.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-beat-rollout-rage-the-environment-versus-climate-battle-dividing-regional-australia-213863">How to beat 'rollout rage': the environment-versus-climate battle dividing regional Australia</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>A fifth case is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Generating_Station">Virgil C</a>, also in the US, for which US$9 billion (A$14 billion) was spent before cost overruns led the project to be abandoned. All three firms building these five plants – Westinghouse, EDF, and AREVA – went bankrupt or were nationalised. Consumers, companies and taxpayers <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/07/18/hinkley-points-cost-consumers-surges-50bn/">will bear the costs</a> for decades.</p>
<p>By contrast, average cost overruns for wind and solar are <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/we.2069">around zero</a>, the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629614000942">lowest</a> of all energy infrastructure.</p>
<p><a href="https://ark-invest.com/wrights-law/">Wright’s law</a> states the more a technology is produced, the more its costs decline. Wind and especially solar power and <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline">lithium-ion batteries</a> have all experienced <a href="https://www.irena.org/News/pressreleases/2023/Aug/Renewables-Competitiveness-Accelerates-Despite-Cost-Inflation">astonishing cost declines</a> over the last two decades.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-australia-urgently-needs-a-climate-plan-and-a-net-zero-national-cabinet-committee-to-implement-it-213866">Why Australia urgently needs a climate plan and a Net Zero National Cabinet Committee to implement it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>For nuclear power, though, Wright’s law has been inverted. The more capacity installed, the more costs have increased. Why? This <a href="https://www.cell.com/joule/pdf/S2542-4351(20)30458-X.pdf">2020 MIT study</a> found that safety improvements accounted for around 30% of nuclear cost increases, but the lion’s share was due to persistent flaws in management, design, and supply chains.</p>
<p>In Australia, such costs and delays would ensure that we miss our emissions reduction targets. They would also mean spiralling electricity costs, as the grid waited for generation capacity that did not come. For fossil fuel firms and their political friends, this is the real attraction of nuclear – another decade or two of sales at inflated prices.</p>
<h2>Comparing the cost of nuclear and renewables</h2>
<p>Nevertheless, nuclear advocates tell us we have no choice: wind and solar power are intermittent power sources, and the cost of making them reliable is too high.</p>
<p>But let’s compare the cost of reliably delivering a megawatt hour of electricity to the grid from nuclear versus wind and solar. According to both <a href="https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP2022-5511&dsid=DS1">the CSIRO</a> and respected energy market analyst <a href="https://www.lazard.com/media/typdgxmm/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf">Lazard Ltd</a>, nuclear power has a cost of A$220 to $350 per megawatt hour produced.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/beyond-juukan-gorge-how-first-nations-people-are-taking-charge-of-clean-energy-projects-on-their-land-213864">Beyond Juukan Gorge: how First Nations people are taking charge of clean energy projects on their land</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Without subsidies or state finance, the four plants cited above generally hit or exceed the high end of this range. By contrast, Australia is already building wind and solar plants at under <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/act-starts-to-bank-its-cheapest-wind-power-yet-in-next-stage-to-kick-out-fossil-fuels/">$45</a> and <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/nsw-gets-stunning-low-price-for-wind-and-solar-in-biggest-renewables-auction/">$35 per megawatt hour</a> respectively. That’s a tenth of the cost of nuclear.</p>
<p>The CSIRO has <a href="https://www.csiro.au/-/media/EF/Files/GenCost/GenCost2022-23Final_27-06-2023.pdf">modelled the cost</a> of renewable energy that is firmed – meaning made reliable, mainly via batteries and other storage technologies. It found the necessary transmission lines and storage would add only $25 to $34 per megawatt hour.</p>
<p>In short, a reliable megawatt hour from renewables costs around a fifth of one from a nuclear plant. We could build a renewables grid large enough to meet demand twice over, and still pay less than half the cost of nuclear.</p>
<h2>The future of nuclear: small modular reactors?</h2>
<p>Proponents of nuclear power pin their hopes on <a href="https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-are-small-modular-reactors-smrs#:%7E:text=Small%20modular%20reactors%20(SMRs)%20are,of%20traditional%20nuclear%20power%20reactors.">small modular reactors</a> (SMRs), which replace huge gigawatt-scale units with small units that offer the possibility of being produced at scale. This might allow nuclear to finally harness Wright’s law.</p>
<p>Yet commercial SMRs are years from deployment. The US firm <a href="https://www.nuscalepower.com/en">NuScale</a>, scheduled to build two plants in Idaho by 2030, has not yet broken ground, and on-paper costs have already <a href="https://ieefa.org/resources/eye-popping-new-cost-estimates-released-nuscale-small-modular-reactor">ballooned</a> to around A$189 per megawatt hour.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-original-and-still-the-best-why-its-time-to-renew-australias-renewable-energy-policy-213879">The original and still the best: why it's time to renew Australia's renewable energy policy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>And SMRs are decades away from broad deployment. If early examples work well, in the 2030s there will be a round of early SMRs in the US and European countries that have existing nuclear skills and supply chains. If that goes well, we may see a serious rollout from the 2040s onwards.</p>
<p>In these same decades, solar, wind, and storage will still be descending the Wright’s law cost curve. Last year the Morrison government was spruiking the goal of getting solar below <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/ultra-low-cost-solar-power-a-priority-for-australia-20220108-p59msj.html">$15 per megawatt hour by 2030</a>. SMRs must achieve improbable cost reductions to compete.</p>
<p>Finally, SMRs may be necessary and competitive in countries with poor renewable energy resources. But Australia has the richest combined solar and wind resources in the world.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/too-hard-basket-why-climate-change-is-defeating-our-political-system-214382">Too hard basket: why climate change is defeating our political system</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Should we lift the ban?</h2>
<p>Given these realities, should Australia lift its ban on nuclear power? A repeal would have no practical effect on what happens in electricity markets, but it might have political effects. </p>
<p>A future leader might seek short-term advantage by offering enormous subsidies for nuclear plants. The true costs would arrive years after such a leader had left office. That would be tragic for Australia. With our unmatched solar and wind resources, we have the chance to deliver among the cheapest electricity in the developed world.</p>
<p>Mr Dutton may be right that the ban on nuclear is unnecessary. But in terms of getting to net zero as quickly and cheaply as possible, Mr Bowen has the relevant argument. To echo one assessment from the UK, nuclear for Australia would be “<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-10-30/u-k-risks-looking-economically-insane-with-edf-nuclear-deal?">economically insane</a>”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/216891/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Reuben Finighan is a research fellow at the Superpower Institute.</span></em></p>When Australia’s government and opposition argue over how to get to net zero emissions, nuclear power is the flashpoint. The argument against nuclear is stronger, but not for the obvious reason.Reuben Finighan, PhD candidate at the LSE and Research Fellow at the Superpower Institute, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1505692020-11-23T11:20:55Z2020-11-23T11:20:55ZNuclear power: what the ‘green industrial revolution’ means for the next three waves of reactors<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/370561/original/file-20201120-17-1j4eyog.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Vaclav Volrab / shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The UK government has just announced its “<a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/936567/10_POINT_PLAN_BOOKLET.pdf">Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution</a>”, in which it lays out a vision for the future of energy, transport and nature in the UK. As <a href="http://blog.policy.manchester.ac.uk/sci-tech/2020/09/nuclear-powered-decarbonisation/">researchers into nuclear energy</a>, my colleagues and I were pleased to see the plan is rather favourable to new nuclear power. </p>
<p>It follows the advice from the UK’s <a href="https://www.nirab.org.uk/application/files/6315/9160/6859/NIRAB_Achieving_Net_Zero_-_The_Role_of_Nuclear_Energy_in_Decarbonisation_-_Screen_View.pdf">Nuclear Innovation and Research Advisory Board</a>, pledging to pursue large power plants based on current technology, and following that up with financial support for two further waves of reactor technology (“small” and “advanced” modular reactors). </p>
<p>This support is an important part of the plan to reach net zero emissions by 2050, as in the years to come nuclear power will be crucial to decarbonising not just the electricity supply but the whole of society. </p>
<p>This chart helps illustrate the extent of the challenge faced: </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/370547/original/file-20201120-19-rb98gv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Pie chart showing UK GHG emissions by sector in 2017" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/370547/original/file-20201120-19-rb98gv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/370547/original/file-20201120-19-rb98gv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=545&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/370547/original/file-20201120-19-rb98gv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=545&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/370547/original/file-20201120-19-rb98gv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=545&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/370547/original/file-20201120-19-rb98gv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=685&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/370547/original/file-20201120-19-rb98gv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=685&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/370547/original/file-20201120-19-rb98gv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=685&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Electricity generation is only responsible for a small percentage of UK emissions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/net-zero-technical-report/">William Bodel. Data: UK Climate Change Committee</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Efforts to reduce emissions have so far only partially decarbonised the electricity generation sector. Reaching net zero will require immense effort to also decarbonise heating, transport, as well as shipping and aviation. The plan proposes investment in hydrogen production and electric vehicles to address these three areas – which will require a lot more energy generation. </p>
<p>Nuclear is well-placed to provide a proportion of this energy. Reaching net zero will be a huge challenge, and without nuclear energy it may be unachievable. So here’s what the announcement means for the three “waves” of nuclear power.</p>
<h2>Who will pay for it?</h2>
<p>But first a word on financing. To understand the strategy, it is important to realise that the reason there has been so little new activity in the UK’s nuclear sector since the 1990s is due to difficulty in financing. Nuclear plants are cheap to fuel and operate and last for a long time. In theory, this offsets the enormous upfront capital cost, and results in competitively priced electricity overall.</p>
<p>But ever since the electricity sector <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48284802">was privatised</a>, governments have been averse to spending public money on power plants. This, combined with resulting higher borrowing costs and cheaper alternatives (gas power), has meant that in practice nuclear has been sidelined for two decades. While climate change offers an opportunity for a revival, these financial concerns remain. </p>
<h2>Large nuclear</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuclear-new-build-projects/hinkley-point-c">Hinkley Point C</a> is a large nuclear station currently under construction in Somerset, England. The project is well-advanced, and due to come online in the middle of this decade. While the plant will provide around 7% of current UK electricity demand, its agreed <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/hinkley-point-c#:%7E:text=Contract%2520for%2520Difference,-Under%2520the%2520umbrella&text=This%2520means%2520that%2520for%2520each,the%2520duration%2520of%2520the%2520contract.">electricity price</a> is <a href="https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/wholesale-market-indicators">relatively expensive</a>. </p>
<p>The government’s new plan states: “We are pursuing large-scale new nuclear projects, subject to value-for-money.” This is likely a reference to the proposed Sizewell C in Suffolk, on which a final decision is <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-54977401">expected soon</a>. Sizewell C would be a copy of the Hinkley plant – building follow-up identical reactors achieves <a href="https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-EDF-Energy-expects-20-cost-saving-for-Sizewell-C-18011801.html">capital cost reductions</a>, and an <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/regulated-asset-base-rab-model-for-nuclear">alternative funding model</a> will likely be implemented to reduce financing costs. </p>
<p>Other potential nuclear sites such as Wylfa and Moorside (shelved in <a href="https://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/ir/en/news/20181108_4.pdf">2018</a> and <a href="https://www.hitachi.eu/sites/default/files/fields/document/press-release/20190117_horizon_nr_hnp.pdf">2019</a> respectively for financial reasons) are also not mentioned, their futures presumably also covered by the “subject to value-for-money” clause.</p>
<h2>Small nuclear</h2>
<p>The next generation of nuclear technology, with various designs under development worldwide are Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), such as the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-54703204">Rolls Royce “UK SMR”</a>. These are essentially scaled-down versions of the reactors you would find in a large power station.</p>
<p>Reactors small enough to be manufactured in factories and delivered as modules can be assembled on site in much shorter times than larger designs, which in contrast are constructed mostly on site. In so doing, the capital costs per unit (and therefore borrowing costs) could be significantly lower than current new-builds. </p>
<p>The plan states “up to £215 million” will be made available for SMRs, Phase 2 of which will begin next year, with anticipated delivery of units around a decade from now.</p>
<h2>Advanced nuclear</h2>
<p>The third proposed wave of nuclear will be the Advanced Modular Reactors (AMRs). These are truly innovative technologies, with a wide range of benefits over present designs and, like the small reactors, they are modular to keep prices down. </p>
<p>Crucially, advanced reactors operate at much higher temperatures – some promise <a href="https://www.jaea.go.jp/04/o-arai/nhc/en/data/index.html">in excess of 750°C</a> compared to around 300°C in current reactors. This is important as that heat can be used in industrial processes which require high temperatures, such as ceramics, which they currently get through electrical heating or by directly burning fossil fuels. If those ceramics factories could instead use heat from <a href="https://www.u-battery.com/uk">AMRs placed nearby</a>, it would reduce CO₂ emissions from industry (see chart above).</p>
<p>High temperatures can also be used to generate hydrogen, which the government’s plan recognises has the potential to replace natural gas in heating and eventually also in pioneering <a href="https://theconversation.com/hydrogen-where-is-low-carbon-fuel-most-useful-for-decarbonisation-147696">zero-emission vehicles, ships and aircraft</a>. Most hydrogen is produced from <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20060204211916/http://www.getenergysmart.org/Files/HydrogenEducation/6HydrogenProductionSteamMethaneReforming.pdf">natural gas</a>, with the downside of generating CO₂ in the process. A carbon-free alternative involves splitting water using electricity (<a href="http://www.fsec.ucf.edu/en/consumer/hydrogen/basics/production-electrolysis.htm">electrolysis</a>), though this is rather inefficient. More efficient methods which <a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f9/solar_thermo_h2.pdf">require high temperatures</a> are yet to achieve commercialisation, however if realised, this would make high temperature nuclear <a href="https://85583087-f90f-41ea-bc21-bf855ee12b35.filesusr.com/ugd/2fed7a_0b6f336cd110438fa77b7f127a64ffcb.pdf">particularly useful</a>.</p>
<p>The government is committing “up to £170 million” for AMR research, and specifies a target for a demonstrator plant by the early 2030s. The most promising candidate is likely a <a href="https://www.nnl.co.uk/blog/2020/10/16/nnl-and-jaea-broaden-existing-agreement-to-include-htgr-technology/">High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor</a> which is possible, if ambitious, over this timescale. The Chinese currently lead the way with this technology, and their version of this reactor concept <a href="https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Cold-tests-completed-at-first-HTR-PM-reactor">is expected soon</a>.</p>
<p>In summary, the plan is welcome news for the nuclear sector. While it lacks some specifics, these may be detailed in the government’s upcoming <a href="https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2020-10-20/debates/8EE32A16-3782-4479-AE06-5F2B6C5CA1D4/WorldEnergyOutlook2020?highlight=%2522energy%2520white%2520paper%2522#contribution-B9D71E6D-4144-4CC7-B53B-4E293F3FB365">Energy White Paper</a>. The <a href="https://www.nirab.org.uk/application/files/6315/9160/6859/NIRAB_Achieving_Net_Zero_-_The_Role_of_Nuclear_Energy_in_Decarbonisation_-_Screen_View.pdf">advice to government</a> has been acknowledged, and the sums of money mentioned throughout are significant enough to really get started on the necessary research and development. </p>
<p>Achieving net zero is a vast undertaking, and recognising that nuclear can make a substantial contribution if properly supported is an important step towards hitting that target.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/150569/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>William Bodel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Good news for large, small and advanced nuclear reactors.William Bodel, Research Associate in Nuclear Energy, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1040802018-09-28T15:46:01Z2018-09-28T15:46:01ZJeremy Corbyn was once a high-profile opponent of nuclear power – what happened?<p>The <a href="http://www.ukpol.co.uk/rebecca-long-bailey-2018-speech-at-labour-party-conference/">announcement</a> by the shadow business and energy secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey, that Labour will target “net zero” emissions by 2050 is of course welcome for anyone interested in achieving a low-carbon economy. But the party is plugging in to an existing and growing movement, rather than leading the way.</p>
<p>Indeed, several governments, including those of of <a href="http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/10/20/jacinda-ardern-commits-new-zealand-zero-carbon-2050/">New Zealand</a> and <a href="https://unfccc.int/news/sweden-plans-to-be-carbon-neutral-by-2045">Sweden</a> have already endorsed zero emissions, along with companies such as <a href="https://www.unilever.com/sustainable-living/reducing-environmental-impact/greenhouse-gases/how-were-becoming-carbon-positive-in-our-operations/">Unilever</a> and <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/536fb55a-374e-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e">Tesco</a>, as well as a <a href="https://www.theclimatecoalition.org/joint-letter/">cross-party group of British MPs</a>. Even the prime minister, Theresa May, recently <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-expertise-to-help-developing-countries-tackle-climate-change-and-move-to-cleaner-energy">announced</a> that the UK will join the Carbon Neutral Coalition, hopefully signalling a step towards a net zero target.</p>
<p>So, the pledge itself might not be radical, but it will still be difficult for the UK to achieve. Transforming energy systems is technically, socially, economically and politically complex and Labour’s announcement was backed up a <a href="https://www.labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Achieving-6025-by-2030-final-version.pdf">briefing</a> on aspects of how it might be achieved. It foresees rapid growth of both offshore and onshore wind, as well as solar power. It will also require a much-needed concerted effort to improve domestic energy efficiency, particularly in the use of heat in our homes.</p>
<p>But the briefing only gives a partial picture and the scope and feasibility of the plan is yet to be established, as full details will only be revealed later in the year.</p>
<h2>Labour is split over nuclear power</h2>
<p>The lack of detail raises lots of questions, but one of the most politically interesting is what role new nuclear energy might play in Labour’s vision of a net zero future. Long-Bailey’s speech did not mention it. The <a href="https://www.labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Achieving-6025-by-2030-final-version.pdf">background briefing</a> does, but only in passing. And the final, complete report is not yet out. So how much of Labour’s renewables pledge and net zero target depends on new nuclear stations being built?</p>
<p>At the heart of this lack of clarity is the split in the Labour Party about nuclear power – and at the heart of that is Jeremy Corbyn. Back in the day – pre-leadership – Corbyn was a <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/8f051c78-4ef3-11e8-a7a9-37318e776bab">high-profile opponent</a> of the nuclear issue on both environmental and proliferation grounds. None of the problems with nuclear waste and plutonium which so concerned him then have been solved, but his approach has shifted, leading to some awkward exchanges as people seek to understand what his views are now.</p>
<p>Most notable among these was the painful <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/in-nuclear-copeland-its-jeremy-corbyn-thats-radioactive-a7586266.html">Copeland by-election</a> in 2017. Copeland is home to Sellafield, the heart of the UK’s nuclear waste industry, and the seat was solidly Labour for decades.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/238470/original/file-20180928-48650-tugewe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/238470/original/file-20180928-48650-tugewe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/238470/original/file-20180928-48650-tugewe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=262&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/238470/original/file-20180928-48650-tugewe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=262&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/238470/original/file-20180928-48650-tugewe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=262&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/238470/original/file-20180928-48650-tugewe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=329&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/238470/original/file-20180928-48650-tugewe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=329&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/238470/original/file-20180928-48650-tugewe.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=329&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sellafield, Cumbria.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ashleycoates/8022929287/">Ashley Coates</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Corbyn’s nuclear position was a key focus of by-election campaigning, with the Conservatives highlighting his statements opposing the nuclear industry generally and new nuclear power in particular. Despite a last-minute <a href="https://labourlist.org/2017/01/nuclear-power-will-have-a-place-in-britains-future-corbyn-tells-copeland-members/">endorsement</a> from Corbyn for a new nuclear station at Moorside near Sellafield, Labour lost the seat, with a <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39075061">lack of belief</a> from voters on this new nuclear stance widely identified as a reason.</p>
<p>Elsewhere in the party, though, nuclear power is seen as an intrinsic part of the UK’s energy future. Long-Bailey is <a href="https://www.prospect.org.uk/news/id/2017/September/18/Labour-commits-future-nuclear-industry">very keen</a> on it, for instance. This side of the debate reflects the accepted political paradigm that achieving climate targets won’t be possible without nuclear power.</p>
<p>This view, though, is a paradigm – a recognised and unquestioned way of thinking about what is “acceptable”. It hasn’t really been challenged since new nuclear power was endorsed in the 2008 <a href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.berr.gov.uk/files/file43006.pdf">Nuclear White Paper</a>. Since then the energy world has changed. The cost of renewables has plummeted, storage has emerged as an increasingly viable option for managing the fluctuations in solar and wind power, and increased interconnection between the electricity systems in the UK and Europe are providing new opportunities for balancing power.</p>
<p>Coupled with this, the UK’s nuclear plans are floundering because of the high costs associated with new stations. Hinkley Point C requires much higher subsidies than was envisaged in 2008 – and financing of other new projects such as Wylfa and Moorside have led the government to think about measures such as <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/statement-to-parliament-on-horizon-project-at-wylfa-newydd">partial nationalisation</a> as a way of managing the construction and financial risks. This isn’t what the White Paper promised.</p>
<p>So, when Labour’s energy plan is finally published, the issue will be one of the most fascinating. Will the party endorse new nuclear plants, despite their ever present financial problems? It seems likely that it will, because there has been no detailed examination of the case for new nuclear power for ten years – instead, both the Conservative and Labour have generally accepted that nuclear is necessary in a world of climate change.</p>
<p>This is a real shame. One of the opportunities that putting forward a new vision of the UK’s energy systems offered was a new way of thinking about things. From this perspective, just accepting that nuclear power is an inevitable part of the energy future is lazy thinking which fails to recognise the changing energy world. If Labour really want a new, radical energy plan, it needs to reassess the nuclear paradigm.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/104080/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bridget Woodman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Labour should not accept nuclear power as an inevitable part of its climate policies.Bridget Woodman, Course Director, MSc Energy Policy, University of ExeterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1001812018-08-28T11:22:22Z2018-08-28T11:22:22ZUK nuclear industry could be a national treasure – if it tackles these key issues<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233295/original/file-20180823-149484-1r11p2k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Wylfa nuclear power station on Anglesey in North Wales.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/panoramic-view-wylfa-nuclear-power-station-726878560?src=Sy2-wVbzJu5eKNOzC8h_rg-1-0">Shutterstock/AndrewAstbury</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The nuclear industry provides about <a href="https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/electricity-generation-mix-quarter-and-fuel-source-gb">15% of the UK’s electricity</a>, makes a vital contribution to the country’s <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/700496/clean-growth-strategy-correction-april-2018.pdf">carbon cutting ambitions</a> and is a remarkably safe form of energy with no major accidents since the <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/cumbria/content/articles/2007/09/17/windscale_fire_feature.shtml">Windscale Fire</a> in 1957. But despite all this, it still seems to suffer from disinterest and distrust from the public and these factors continue to dominate the nuclear narrative.</p>
<p>The industry is green, safe and has the potential to <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/720405/Final_Version_BEIS_Nuclear_SD.PDF">create many high-tech jobs</a>. Why then is the nuclear industry so often seen as a guilty secret rather than a national treasure, with most of the public opting for <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/426157/united-kingdom-uk-attitudes-towards-nuclear-energy/">ignorance or ambivalence</a>?</p>
<p>Perhaps one reason the public has so far failed to embrace nuclear power is that people feel excluded from the journey it is taking and lack any influence over how new nuclear solutions might emerge. It is high time the industry found a way to make its case and forge its future, hand in hand with the British public. So here are a few thoughts on why this is so important and how, over time, it might be achieved.</p>
<h2>Cutting carbon emissions</h2>
<p>Nuclear power is making a key contribution towards the government’s <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/clean-growth-strategy">Clean Growth Strategy</a> which aims to reduce carbon emissions. Within this strategy, the government has committed to supporting the replacement of existing reactors as they come to the end of their lives. This has resulted in huge multi-billion pound projects at <a href="https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuclear-new-build-projects/hinkley-point-c">Hinkley Point</a> in Somerset, <a href="https://www.horizonnuclearpower.com/our-sites/wylfa-newydd">Wylfa</a> on Anglesey and <a href="https://nugeneration.com/moorside/">Moorside</a> in west Cumbria. </p>
<p>But all of these projects (particularly Hinkley Point) continue to attract significant controversy around <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hinkley-point-nuclear-power-national-audit-office-slams-government-high-cost-risky-deal-a7803446.html">affordability</a> – a debate which does nothing to promote long-term public confidence. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1023820006029778945"}"></div></p>
<h2>Risk and control</h2>
<p>To guard against nuclear accidents like <a href="https://theconversation.com/fukushima-seven-years-later-case-closed-93448">Fukushima</a> and <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456957/html/nn1page1.stm">Chernobyl</a> – and in an attempt to make the public feel safe – the nuclear industry has always looked to shield, protect and distance society from <a href="http://www.onr.org.uk/documents/tolerability.pdf">risk</a>. It has sought to offer reassurance through the power of its own expertise and the promise of strict control.</p>
<p>Of course, telling the public they don’t need to worry about something they can’t hope to fully understand – and traditionally associate with cataclysmic destruction – is virtually guaranteed to get their palms sweating. So, for many, nuclear investment has never risen above the status of a reluctant distress purchase, and is often better not <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hinkley-point-theresa-may-nuclear-power-poll-majority-uk-opposes-plant-edf-china-a7308701.html">contemplated at all</a> </p>
<p>In reality, the UK’s nuclear energy story encompasses all the features necessary to capture the public’s attention and hold onto it. It’s an amazing technical concept and a high stakes journey of risk and reward with the future of the planet as the prize. If the industry wants to truly engage, then surely it needs to find new ways to invite people along for the ride.</p>
<h2>‘Hybrid forums’</h2>
<p>One new approach to public consultation uses so called <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/acting-uncertain-world">“hybrid forums”</a>. These forums bring together scientists and a diverse range of concerned stakeholders (such as local citizens, pressure groups and academic experts). These forums are convened to let problems emerge and to create a vision of the future that is common to everyone. </p>
<p>One example of a hybrid forum took place to address chronic flooding problems in <a href="http://knowledge-controversies.ouce.ox.ac.uk/video/">North Yorkshire</a>. The forum enabled everyone who took part to share their knowledge and expertise and alight on the <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-flooding-how-a-yorkshire-flood-blackspot-worked-with-nature-to-stay-dry-a6794286.html">radical alternative solution</a> of gradually arresting the flow of floodwater, rather than providing expensive defences in the area itself.</p>
<p>Today’s nuclear grand challenges – like providing affordable nuclear power stations and disposing of nuclear waste – are “social” problems with resolutions which lie in creating and maintaining public support over many years. This is a common feature which makes them well suited to such a hybrid approach.</p>
<h2>Geological Disposal Facilities</h2>
<p>The hunt is already on for a volunteer host community for a <a href="https://geologicaldisposal.campaign.gov.uk/">Geological Disposal Facility</a> (GDF) for the underground disposal of radioactive waste. Volunteer communities are compensated for hosting the facility through community investment funding.</p>
<p>With a GDF, radioactive waste would be put hundreds of metres underground. This is internationally recognised as the safest long-term solution to nuclear waste disposal. Having one in the UK will create jobs and guarantee investment for whichever community takes it on.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nKvE0hp2nv0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>Small Modular Reactors</h2>
<p>There is also growing interest in <a href="https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/POST-PN-0580#fullreport">Small Modular Reactors</a> or SMRs. These are lower cost, factory-built units that provide localised power. Widespread adoption of SMRs as a more affordable alternative to large scale plants would mean many new nuclear sites would need to be established – many in urban areas. This, again, requires long-term public support. </p>
<p>SMRs have generated government and industry interest internationally because designers have suggested they may offer lower investment risk, cost less and offer greater compatibility with the electricity network.</p>
<p>The University of Manchester has set up <a href="http://www.manchester.ac.uk/thebeam">The Beam Nuclear and Social Research Network</a> to investigate the social challenges bound up in the UK’s nuclear future. We want to tackle all these questions head-on and bring fresh insights. But the ultimate test will be whether these insights can be made to resonate within the industry itself.</p>
<p>The nuclear debate must be expanded and enriched for the benefit of everyone. I hope that our research will help the general public to think more passionately about what the UK’s nuclear future could be like and whether current nuclear policy is taking us there.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100181/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Taylor does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The benefits of nuclear power often seem to get overshadowed. It’s time the industry began sharing its vision for the future.Richard Taylor, BNFL Chair in Nuclear Energy Systems, University of ManchesterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/935192018-03-19T15:04:37Z2018-03-19T15:04:37ZThe unholy alliance that explains why renewable energy is trouncing nuclear<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210996/original/file-20180319-31596-bujmzn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">'I was the future once.'</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/rusty-door-on-chernobyl-atomic-station-6508090?src=V82f5ywKRL8FJjRdH7xGKg-1-70">Betacam-SP</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If recent <a href="https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/en/corporate/pdf/energy-economics/statistical-review-2017/bp-statistical-review-of-world-energy-2017-full-report.pdf">trends</a> continue for another two years, the global share of electricity from renewables excluding hydropower will overtake nuclear for the first time. Even 20 years ago, this nuclear decline would have greatly surprised many people – particularly now that reducing carbon emissions is at the top of the political agenda. </p>
<p>On one level this is a story about changes in relative costs. The costs of solar and wind have plunged while nuclear has become almost astoundingly expensive. But this raises the question of why this came about. As I argue in my new book, <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Low-Carbon-Politics-A-Cultural-Approach-Focusing-on-Low-Carbon-Electricity/Toke/p/book/9781138696778">Low Carbon Politics</a>, it helps to dip into cultural theory. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210974/original/file-20180319-31624-13ja6ut.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210974/original/file-20180319-31624-13ja6ut.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210974/original/file-20180319-31624-13ja6ut.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210974/original/file-20180319-31624-13ja6ut.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210974/original/file-20180319-31624-13ja6ut.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=351&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210974/original/file-20180319-31624-13ja6ut.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210974/original/file-20180319-31624-13ja6ut.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210974/original/file-20180319-31624-13ja6ut.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=442&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2017.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Culture wars</h2>
<p>The seminal text in this field, <a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520050631">Risk and Culture (1982)</a>, by the British anthropologist Mary Douglas and American political scientist Aaron Wildavsky, argues the behaviour of individuals and institutions can be explained by four different biases:
</p><ol>
<li><strong>Individualists</strong>: people biased towards outcomes that result from competitive arrangements;</li>
<li><strong>Hierarchists</strong>: those who prefer ordered decisions being made by leaders and followed by others;</li>
<li><strong>Egalitarians</strong>: people who favour equality and grassroots decision-making and pursue a common cause;</li>
<li><strong>Fatalists</strong>: those who see decision-making as capricious and feel unable to influence outcomes.</li>
</ol><p></p>
<p>The first three categories help explain different actors in the electricity industry. For governments and centralised monopolies often owned by the state, read hierarchists. For green campaigning organisations, read egalitarians, while free-market-minded private companies fit the individualist bias. </p>
<p>The priorities of these groups have not greatly changed in recent years. Hierarchists tend to favour nuclear power, since big power stations make for more straightforward grid planning, and nuclear power complements nuclear weapons capabilities considered important for national security. </p>
<p>Egalitarians like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth usually oppose new nuclear power plant and favour renewables. Traditionally they have worried about radioactive environmental damage and nuclear proliferation. Individualists, meanwhile, favour whichever technologies reduce costs. </p>
<p>These cultural realities lie behind the problems experienced by nuclear power. To compound green opposition, many of nuclear power’s strongest supporters are conservative hierarchists who are either sceptical about the need to reduce carbon emissions or treat it as a low priority. Hence they are often unable or unwilling to mobilise climate change arguments to support nuclear, which has made it harder to persuade egalitarians to get on board. </p>
<p>This has had several consequences. Green groups won subsidies for renewable technologies by persuading more liberal hierarchists that they had to address climate change – witness the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/apr/29/renewableenergy.energyefficiency">big push</a> by Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth for the feed-in tariffs that drove solar uptake in the late 2000s, for example. In turn, both wind and solar have been optimised and their costs have come down. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210998/original/file-20180319-31599-1k04sha.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210998/original/file-20180319-31599-1k04sha.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210998/original/file-20180319-31599-1k04sha.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210998/original/file-20180319-31599-1k04sha.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210998/original/file-20180319-31599-1k04sha.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210998/original/file-20180319-31599-1k04sha.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210998/original/file-20180319-31599-1k04sha.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210998/original/file-20180319-31599-1k04sha.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Hot property.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/solar-farm-green-energy-field-thailand-204711964?src=WFLFHWuAd1EGRrA4FzvwaA-1-6">kessudap</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Nuclear largely missed out on these carbon-reducing subsidies. Worse, greens groups persuaded governments as far back as the 1970s that safety standards around nuclear power stations needed to improve. This more than anything <a href="https://www.routledge.com/Low-Carbon-Politics-A-Cultural-Approach-Focusing-on-Low-Carbon-Electricity/Toke/p/book/9781138696778">drove up</a> costs.</p>
<p>As for the individualists, they used to be generally unconvinced by renewable energy and sceptical of environmental opposition to nuclear. But as relative costs have changed, they have increasingly switched positions. </p>
<p>The hierarchists are still able to use monopoly electricity organisations to support nuclear power, but individualists are increasingly pressuring them to make these markets more competitive so that they can invest in renewables more easily. In effect, we are now seeing an egalitarian-individualist alliance against the conservative hierarchists.</p>
<h2>Both sides of the pond</h2>
<p>Donald Trump’s administration in the US, for example, <a href="http://energypost.eu/trumps-coal-nuclear-subsidy-cost-u-s-economy-10-billion-year/">has sought</a> subsidies to keep existing coal and nuclear power stations running. This is both out of concern for national security and to support traditional centralised industrial corporations – classic hierarchist thinking. </p>
<p>Yet this has played out badly with individualist corporations pushing renewables. Trump’s plans have even been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/08/donald-trump-coal-industry-plan-rejected-rick-perry">rejected</a> by some of his own appointments on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. </p>
<p>In similarly hierarchist fashion, electricity supply monopolies in Georgia and South Carolina started building new nuclear power stations after regulatory agencies allowed them to collect mandatory payments from electricity consumers to cover costs at the same time. </p>
<p>Yet even hierarchists cannot ignore economic reality entirely. The South Carolina project <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-25/duke-asks-to-cancel-planned-south-carolina-nuclear-reactors">has been</a> abandoned and the Georgia project only survives <a href="https://www.fitsnews.com/2017/09/29/georgia-gets-nuclear-windfall-from-federal-government/">through</a> a very large federal loan bailout. </p>
<p>Contrast this with casino complexes in Nevada like <a href="https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/how-mgm-prepared-itself-to-leave-nevadas-biggest-utility#gs.F2Ag7fY">MGM Resorts</a> not only installing their own solar photovoltaic arrays but paying many millions of dollars to opt out from the local monopoly electricity supplier. They have campaigned successfully to win a state referendum supporting electricity liberalisation. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210999/original/file-20180319-31624-1bykk42.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210999/original/file-20180319-31624-1bykk42.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/210999/original/file-20180319-31624-1bykk42.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210999/original/file-20180319-31624-1bykk42.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210999/original/file-20180319-31624-1bykk42.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=374&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210999/original/file-20180319-31624-1bykk42.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210999/original/file-20180319-31624-1bykk42.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/210999/original/file-20180319-31624-1bykk42.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=470&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Casino solar, Las Vegas.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The UK, meanwhile, is an example of how different biases can compete. Policy has traditionally been formed in hierarchical style, with big companies producing policy proposals which go out to wider consultation. It’s a cultural bias that favours nuclear power, but this conflicts with a key priority dating back to Thatcher that technological winners are chosen by the market. </p>
<p>This has led policymakers in Whitehall to favour both renewables and nuclear, but the private electricity companies have mostly refused to invest in nuclear, seeing it as too risky and expensive. The only companies prepared to plug the gap have been more hierarchists – EDF, which is majority-owned by France, and Chinese state nuclear corporations. </p>
<p>Even then, getting <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c-dreadful-deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant">Hinkley C</a> in south-west England underway – the first new nuclear plant since the 1990s – required an extensive commitment by the UK treasury to underwrite bank loans. There is also an embarrassingly high price to be paid for the electricity over a very long 35-year period. Such has been the bad publicity that it’s hard to imagine a politician agreeing to more plant on such terms. </p>
<p>Where does this reality leave hierarchists? Increasingly having to explain prohibitive nuclear costs to their electorates – at least in democracies. The alternative, as renewable energy becomes the new orthodoxy, is to embrace it. </p>
<p>In Australia, for example, a big utility company called AGL is trying to seduce homeowners to agree to link their solar panels to the company’s systems to centralise power dispatch in a so-called a “<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/australia-utilities/panel-beaters-australia-utilities-branch-out-as-customers-shift-to-solar-idUSL3N1KH2M2">virtual</a> power plant”. </p>
<p>When the facts change, to misquote John Maynard Keynes, you can always change your mind.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93519/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Toke has received funding from the ESRC, the EU, the World Future Council, Friends of the Earth, UNISON, and the Combined Heat and Power Association, for research into various issues involving renewable energy and energy. David Toke is a member of the trade association, RenewableUK. He is a member of the Green Party of England and Wales and also a member of the Scottish Green Party.</span></em></p>To understand what happened to our love of giant radioactive kettles, take a look at cultural theory.David Toke, Reader in Energy Policy, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/635732016-09-16T12:18:03Z2016-09-16T12:18:03ZHinkley C power project offers a lesson in how not to deal with China<p>The British government has <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-confirms-hinkley-point-c-project-following-new-agreement-in-principle-with-edf">given the go-ahead</a> to the Hinkley Point C nuclear power project, in partnership with the China General Nuclear Power Company (CGNPC) and EDF of France. Its announcement was as perfunctory as the previous announcement that the project would be placed under review <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/29/theresa-may-delays-hinkley-nuclear-decision-amid-concerns-over-c/">back in July</a> by Theresa May, the new prime minister. Apparently, new safeguards, giving the government the right to prevent other partners taking a majority stake, have made all the difference. </p>
<p>It is difficult not to arrive at a rather different interpretation. Namely, that the decision to review the project was carried out in a way that quite unnecessarily put Britain’s future relations with China in jeopardy. As a result, the only way out was to reinstate the project with the fig-leaf of new safeguards.</p>
<p>The Hinkley deal, agreed by Theresa May’s predecessor in 2015, was the culmination of the Cameron government’s policy of closer co-operation with China. The <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-the-hinkley-c-nuclear-deal-looks-astonishing-thats-because-it-is-47947">main criticisms</a> of the project were financial: the huge cost of building the power plant and how it locks British consumers into paying for energy above the market rate. There have also been questions about EDF’s <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/04d4d886-e6c2-11e5-bc31-138df2ae9ee6">financial viability</a>.</p>
<p>There were therefore many reasons why the UK government might wish to review the project. The one that was given prominence, however, was that it was unwise from a security point of view to embark on a strategic energy project with the Chinese. Why did this receive prominence? <a href="http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-3735031/MAGGIE-PAGANO-Theresa-ammunition-needs-block-China-s-involvement-Hinkley.html">Reports</a> claim that a key adviser to May, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/6467ec08-5a6b-11e6-8d05-4eaa66292c32">Nick Timothy</a>, was instrumental. </p>
<p>His <a href="http://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/07/what-nick-timothy-wrote-on-conhome-about-china-and-hinckley-point.html">views</a> on the deal – and China’s involvement in particular – were that MI5 had serious concerns because “[China’s] intelligence services continue to work against UK interests at home and abroad”. Whatever the truth behind this allegation about security, what the episode demonstrates is the danger of letting political advisers, such as Nick Timothy, rather than civil servants, call the shots on policy and its presentation. </p>
<h2>A crucial juncture</h2>
<p>Let us suppose that the security concerns were genuine. If this were an episode of the sitcom Yes Minister, the all-powerful Sir Humphrey would have quietly pushed the project into review on some abstruse financial grounds that could take years to clarify, without any hint of security concerns about the UK’s Chinese partners. This kind of tact is a fundamental tenet of diplomacy. Instead, it was broadcast loud and clear to Beijing that the UK didn’t trust them, to the point of considering them enemies. </p>
<p>Compounding the issue, the same week that the review was announced, Britain’s new chancellor of the exchequer, Philip Hammond, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/24/philip-hammond-has-no-doubt-britain-will-be-able-strike-a-free-t/">was in Beijing</a>, in an attempt to start negotiations for a trade deal with China – something post-Brexit Britain could be heavily dependent upon. This was already a thankless task, given that the Chinese were <a href="http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2016/07/06/Brexit-The-view-from-China.aspx">known to be sceptical</a> about the practicality of such an agreement. Their enthusiasm for deepening ties with the UK had been very much in the context of Britain as a member of the EU. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138066/original/image-20160916-6307-q246oi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138066/original/image-20160916-6307-q246oi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=585&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138066/original/image-20160916-6307-q246oi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=585&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138066/original/image-20160916-6307-q246oi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=585&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138066/original/image-20160916-6307-q246oi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=735&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138066/original/image-20160916-6307-q246oi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=735&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138066/original/image-20160916-6307-q246oi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=735&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Chinese ambassador to the UK, Liu Xiaoming.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/chathamhouse/28480809261/in/photolist-pSTz6Y-qxkin9-dpMr22-yuZpRi-yNgSmk-yKbZWy-JzeAFB-KoKAkx-qYRbJm-r9MvE4-9Ugc6W-jNFa9Z-r7D6tm-ePhsZb-9Ugc6C-9Ugc6S-C9mZkE">Chatham House</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The diplomatic ineptitude did not stop there. A <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/08/china-warns-uk-relations-historical-juncture-hinkley-point-liu-xiaoming">speech</a> by the Chinese ambassador to the UK, Liu Xiaoming, in which he spoke of Britain and China being at a “crucial historical juncture” was widely interpreted as a warning from China that it should be trusted over the Hinkley plans. </p>
<p>Nobody, it seems, took the trouble to notice that the same phrase had figured in an entirely positive <a href="http://www.chinese-embassy.org.uk/eng/ambassador/t1092820.htm">speech by the ambassador on October 24, 2013</a>. Here he similarly referred to British-Chinese relations as being at a “critical juncture”, but in the sense that co-operation was accelerating at an unprecedented pace. Close followers of his speeches are therefore more likely to interpret his more recent one in the same way. If this was a warning it was at least a diplomatic one, which is more than could be said for what was emanating from London. </p>
<p>The clumsy way in which security concerns dominated discussion of the Hinkley review raised the diplomatic stakes so high that no serious review could take place and a rapid climbdown by Britain became inevitable. The strategic partnership will continue except that now it has been made clear to all concerned that Britain is only working with China because it has no alternative. All in all, this was the worst of all possible outcomes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63573/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adrian Campbell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The decision to review Hinkley Point C was carried out in a way that quite unnecessarily put Britain’s future relations with China in jeopardy.Adrian Campbell, Senior Lecturer in International Development, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/632932016-07-29T15:01:10Z2016-07-29T15:01:10ZHinkley Point C delay: how to exploit this attack of common sense in energy policy<p>These are extraordinary times for energy policy in the UK. After years of resigned acceptance that the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station would be built no matter how much of a basketcase it was, the government has surprised everyone by <a href="https://next.ft.com/content/181077e2-54dc-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c60">calling a halt to the process</a> until the autumn.</p>
<p>The proposed Hinkley Point C would have two European Pressurised Reactors (EPRs), providing around 3GW of electricity or about 7% of the UK’s total usage. The construction would be paid for by French energy firm EDF and Chinese nuclear companies, but the expense of building it would be underpinned by long-term supply contracts with the UK government, as well as a series of other financial undertakings designed to reduce the financial risks for the developers.</p>
<p>Few people argue that Hinkley Point C makes sense. The project’s budget has grown from original estimates of <a href="https://next.ft.com/content/372216e6-4ec0-11e4-b205-00144feab7de">£16 billion to £24.5 billion</a> today. Even this might be an underestimate given the experience of cost overruns similar reactors under construction in <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/new-nuclear-finlands-cautionary-tale-for-the-uk">Finland</a>, <a href="http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Flamanville-EPR-timetable-and-costs-revised-0309154.html">France</a> and <a href="http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1763315/taishan-nuclear-reactors-did-not-receive-most-updated-safety-tests">China</a>.</p>
<p>The long-term supply contracts – known as Contracts for Difference (CfDs) – are designed to guarantee a set income of £92.50 per MegaWatt hour of output, regardless of the actual price of electricity in the market. Since the contracts were agreed, the wholesale price of electricity has fallen, meaning that the estimated subsidy for the lifetime of the project has risen from <a href="https://www.nao.org.uk/report/nuclear-power-in-the-uk/">£6.1 billion to £29.7 billion</a>, a huge burden for UK electricity consumers.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132505/original/image-20160729-25643-1pqmh4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132505/original/image-20160729-25643-1pqmh4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132505/original/image-20160729-25643-1pqmh4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132505/original/image-20160729-25643-1pqmh4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132505/original/image-20160729-25643-1pqmh4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132505/original/image-20160729-25643-1pqmh4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132505/original/image-20160729-25643-1pqmh4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132505/original/image-20160729-25643-1pqmh4u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">France gets most of its energy from nuclear plants – managed by EDF.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">hal pand / shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And the CfD subsidy is complemented by a <a href="https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Nuclear-power-in-the-UK.pdf">suite</a> of other UK taxpayer subsidies and guarantees designed to mitigate investment risks for the French and Chinese investors and to guarantee costs for dealing with nuclear waste or paying compensation for nuclear accidents.</p>
<p>Putting all of these subsidies in place has required the UK government to essentially redesign the electricity market over the past few years in an effort to create a situation where investment in a new plant looked attractive. Pretty much every major policy design has been geared towards creating a perfect environment for Hinkley Point C. That’s why it’s such a surprise to see the government has now stepped back – a bit – from the brink.</p>
<h2>The get-out clauses?</h2>
<p>The contracts to put many of the subsidy structures are not yet signed – that was meant to happen today, as part of the official approval process – so the government could still pull out. Obviously that wouldn’t please the French and Chinese, but risking their short-term displeasure could avoid locking the UK into the extortionate project for decades to come. Once the contracts are signed the legal and financial ramifications are so high that the project will go ahead, whatever the evidence against it. </p>
<p>The UK has form on this, notably the <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Nuclear_Entrapment.html?id=z-T6MDZrq1MC&redir_esc=y">THORP</a> nuclear fuel reprocessing plant at Sellafield, which began operation despite the case for it collapsing on every front. But without those contracts in place the project can still falter at the last hurdle.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132504/original/image-20160729-25637-u46yoh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132504/original/image-20160729-25637-u46yoh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132504/original/image-20160729-25637-u46yoh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=262&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132504/original/image-20160729-25637-u46yoh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=262&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132504/original/image-20160729-25637-u46yoh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=262&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132504/original/image-20160729-25637-u46yoh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=329&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132504/original/image-20160729-25637-u46yoh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=329&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132504/original/image-20160729-25637-u46yoh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=329&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The controversial Sellafield is due to close in 2018.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ashleycoates/8022929287/">Ashley Coates</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So why the delay? There is all sorts of speculation going round: the new Theresa May administration is not <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/21/britain-nuclear-power-station-hinkley-edf">ideologically linked</a> to new nuclear plants in the way that Cameron’s administration was – and therefore has had an attack of common sense about the costs of the project. The government also has security concerns over <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/29/theresa-may-delays-hinkley-nuclear-decision-amid-concerns-over-c/">allowing significant Chinese investment</a> in the UK electricity system – in a post-Brexit world the government is worried about the level of <a href="https://www.lovemoney.com/guides/22318/who-owns-uk-big-energy-companies">overseas ownership</a> of UK electricity assets – most are owned by European rather than British companies. Then there was the less than ringing endorsement of the EDF board (which reportedly voted <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-edf-britain-nuclear-idUSKCN1082CB">only 10-7 in favour</a> of going ahead, following a couple of high-profile <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/28/resignation-edf-director-hinkley-point-gerard-magnin">resignations</a>) which has rung alarm bells in both the UK and French governments.</p>
<p>The real reason behind the decision may emerge over the next few weeks as the government mulls over the pros and cons of the project. That will be fascinating. Equally fascinating, though, will be the debate that must take place at the same time about <a href="http://projects.exeter.ac.uk/igov/new-thinking-hinkley-point-c-time-for-a-plan-b/">what an alternative might look like</a>. What might the UK energy landscape look like without the project that has shaped it for so many years?</p>
<p>Energy policy is often seen as a bit of a backwater – little tweaks to existing approaches tend to be preferred to massive shifts in strategy. The latest decision has the potential to change that. Without Hinkley Point C, the potential to have a real and considered debate about the future shape of the electricity system has loomed into view. Now is the time to start considering the sorts of options being considered widely around the world, with measures to encourage more flexible, smaller-scale, renewable systems incorporating demand-side measures and new technologies such as storage. A system that is the <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-hinkley-point-c-put-on-ice-the-uk-needs-to-get-over-energy-megaprojects-63166">absolute antithesis of what Hinkley Point C represents</a>. Suddenly UK energy policy has become very exciting indeed.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63293/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bridget Woodman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>For years UK energy policy has been focused on creating a perfect environment for a new nuclear plant. Now things just got exciting.Bridget Woodman, Course Director, MSc Energy Policy, University of ExeterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/631662016-07-28T15:37:52Z2016-07-28T15:37:52ZAs Hinkley Point C put on ice: the UK needs to get over energy megaprojects<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132356/original/image-20160728-12097-jziwhv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Hinkley Point B was built in the 1970s. The proposed plant, Hinkley C, will be built next door.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">jgolby / Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The board of French energy giant EDF has <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/28/hinkley-point-c-to-go-ahead-after-edf-board-approves-project">voted in favour of investing</a> in a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point in Somerset, England. However, in a surprise move the UK government has delayed a final decision on the project, sparking new debate on what is the right step forward for energy in the UK.</p>
<p>A recent <a href="https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Nuclear-power-in-the-UK.pdf">report</a> by the UK’s National Audit Office added to a long-running argument about how much new nuclear will cost in higher bills, higher subsidies or a mix of the two. The deal offered by the UK government had set a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/29/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-power-station-cost-customers-4bn">price for electricity from Hinkley</a> of £92.50/MWh (in 2012 prices) which is index-linked and runs for 35 years from when the power station starts. That’s roughly double recent wholesale electricity prices.</p>
<p>But what’s missing is a fresh discussion on what to do instead of large projects like Hinkley. This requires a challenge to the mindset that’s led the UK to paint itself into a corner.</p>
<h2>Central or distributed?</h2>
<p>There’s long been a culture of big is better when the UK considers energy – find the next big gas field or build another big power station and the problem is sorted.</p>
<p>Locally produced solar and wind energy is now more common. We have all seen how prices for panels and turbines have tumbled with forecasts that costs for solar and onshore wind will <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/company/new-energy-outlook/">fall a further 41% and 60% by 2040 respectively</a>. That’s great news but, as the much-missed David MacKay <a href="https://www.withouthotair.com/about.html">pointed out</a>, the space for such distributed supplies will become an issue at some point.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132358/original/image-20160728-12089-bpf3v3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132358/original/image-20160728-12089-bpf3v3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132358/original/image-20160728-12089-bpf3v3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132358/original/image-20160728-12089-bpf3v3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132358/original/image-20160728-12089-bpf3v3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132358/original/image-20160728-12089-bpf3v3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132358/original/image-20160728-12089-bpf3v3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A finite resource.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ell-r-brown/6949115457/">Elliott Brown</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Supply or consumption</h2>
<p>The big is better culture goes hand-in-hand with a focus on the supply side. Addressing Britain’s energy shortages traditionally meant finding new gas fields or building more power plants, but we’re now seeing a shift in investment to the consumption side with more focus on efficient cars, buildings or industrial processes. Across the world, <a href="http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/weo2015/">32% of energy sector investment</a> in 2015 went on efficiency measures that reduce demand – up from just 17% the previous year.</p>
<p>UK policy needs to reflect this shift. For the past eight years the government has had a standalone Department of Energy and Climate Change with a remit that often left transport, construction and industry in the control of other, larger departments. The new <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-business-energy-and-industrial-strategy">Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy</a> can aim for a balance between addressing both the supply and consumption of energy.</p>
<h2>Governments or Markets</h2>
<p>Moving DECC to within the business department raises the interesting question of what role energy might play in any industrial strategy.</p>
<p>EDF’s difficulty securing the investment for Hinkley is a reflection of the financial challenges faced by all of the major European power companies. In 2013, Gerard Mestrallet, the then CEO of GDF Suez (now renamed Engie) led a delegation of the major energy firms to the European parliament and <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c5f0949e-9316-11e3-8ea7-00144feab7de.html#slide0">said</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>European energy companies are experiencing difficulties for which there is no precedent: the impairment of their European assets, the early closure of power plants, and a reduction in investments amongst other problems. The entire sector’s business situation is under severe pressure. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Results since then have merely illustrated those pressures with mounting losses and plans for companies like E.On and RWE to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/04/eon-completes-split-of-fossil-fuel-and-renewable-operations">split themselves</a> into “old” and new" parts.</p>
<p>The oil and gas industry faces similar challenges. Its return on capital peaked in 2008, nearly halved by 2013, and now has <a href="http://www.guinnessfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2014.06-Return-of-returns.pdf">slumped</a> with hydrocarbon prices that look to be “lower for longer”. The UK’s North Sea oil and gas industry’s <a href="http://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/uksectoraccounts/bulletins/profitabilityofukcompanies/octobertodecember2015">net rate of return</a>, a measure of profitability, hit an all-time low of 0.6% in the fourth quarter of 2015, well below the country’s manufacturing sector at 7.2% or the service sector at 22%. Returns in oil and gas measured this way used to vary between 20% and 60% and consistently outpaced the other sectors.</p>
<p>The traditional investors in British energy look smaller and less able to take on very large scale projects than in the past. The evidence from Hinkley is that the UK government won’t invest up front in such projects. As EDF is 85% owned by the French government, the board’s decision will tell us something about the French state’s investment appetite.</p>
<p>The UK needs to get over the idea that huge megaprojects are the solution to everything. Instead, it should think of a new mix between smaller and larger, be more joined up in considering consumption as well as supply and think more decentralised than central. That expands the industries, companies, institutions and government departments involved. That calls for an industrial strategy focused on energy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63166/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Elmes receives funding from the UK Research Council's End Use Energy Demand programme. </span></em></p>Britain should focus on energy efficiency and small-scale renewable projects, not huge new power plants.David Elmes, Head, Warwick Business School Global Energy Research Network, Warwick Business School, University of WarwickLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/568212016-03-24T18:13:08Z2016-03-24T18:13:08ZThe end of coal: good riddance or dangerous gamble?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116409/original/image-20160324-17849-14c2kf2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Fife no more</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/gee01/2991864474/in/photolist-5yo65f-5yiGVa-99Vyvs-99SqoZ-99VyCQ-fQ7sG-fQ7sF-hhpex-hkj8L-NTP86-8aqrEn-guyXZi-eh2H9h-5fiHAv-5fTvLD-fAbsei-etuChR-5ShkAu-fQNB1S-iaDjVg-fzfnJN-4P7Kzy-5gq9Wx-99Vys5-NTNUg-obiuNS-fTNZ6P-NTfPG-7SXmvd-7SXmoL-egwhRW-ehmJ3c-4ZT9Ep-7SU5Sx-6gvsmo-65dUws-7SXmsj-tWnQ4s-6dR2ig-fkXyf-fkXyg-RZ2W7-79Lev3-79LiWo-4ZB43E-pRPGwn-6UNQ5G-qccbBg-6dR2PF-64EAzN">Graeme McLean</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Scotland has become the first part of the UK to stop burning coal to supply electricity following <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/mar/24/longannet-power-station-closes-coal-power-scotland">the closure</a> of Longannet, its largest power station, on March 24. It is a sign of the times, with the rest of the UK’s coal-fired power stations on death row after energy secretary Amber Rudd <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-plans-to-close-coal-power-stations-by-2025">announced</a> late last year that they will all be forced to close by 2025. </p>
<p>For many reasons, it is hard to mourn the demise of coal-fired power. Around 12,000 miners <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11533349">are killed</a> around the world each year, most of them digging for coal; abandoned mines <a href="http://www.springer.com/la/book/9781402001376">cause</a> widespread water pollution; and coal-fired plants pollute the air <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html#.VvPHzLyoIdU">with</a> the likes of nitrogen and sulphur compounds, as well as the highest greenhouse-gas emissions of any major source of energy generation. In the absence of carbon capture and storage, a technology which would be ready more quickly if the government <a href="http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/GRI_LSE_CCS_web.pdf">backed it properly</a>, plant closure may therefore seem sensible – even while we should help those that lose their jobs and regret the loss of skills from the workforce.</p>
<p>That would be all there was to say were it not for a few harsh realities of electricity supply. There are two reasons why coal-fired power plants have survived so long. Coal is cheap; only since the US shale-gas boom has it been consistently beaten on price. And coal-fired plants are particularly suited to providing power on demand at short notice, as well as providing crucial stabilisation services for frequency and voltage across the grid. </p>
<h2>Power on demand</h2>
<p>If we are unable to dispatch electricity on demand, we must expect blackouts. To do away with coal-fired power before alternatives are available is bold, to say the least. Gas-fired plants can play the same role, of course, but we have not been building them in the UK in recent decades. And the economics for doing so have been made very difficult by the <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-power-capacity-idUKKBN0TT2TK20151211">capacity-auctions system</a> that helps to fund them, which has also seen many existing plants mothballed. As for nuclear power, it is <a href="http://environmentalresearchweb.org/blog/2010/09/how-carbon-free-is-nuclear-1.html">low-carbon</a> but provides electricity at a constant rate and therefore can’t be increased to track demand. Besides, the <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/efc78d5a-f114-11e5-9f20-c3a047354386.html#axzz43opZDdUj">ongoing fiasco</a> over Hinkley C – and by extension nuclear new-build in general – hardly makes it look a great contributor to energy security in the foreseeable future. </p>
<p>Among the renewable sources, the only one that offers equivalent dispatchable power is biomass combustion – burning mainly wood – but it also entails <a href="http://www.pfpi.net/air-pollution-2">air-quality challenges</a> and its sustainability is <a href="http://events.imeche.org/ViewEvent?code=S1812">debatable</a>. Hydropower is seasonally limited, while wind and solar are incapable of dispatchable output. The consequences are not just for the future, either – to compensate for the reduced coal-fired and gas-fired power, National Grid <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/11/diesel-farms-built-subsidies-national-grid-auction">has been</a> quietly allowing energy companies to set up “diesel farms” of temporary generators in England to provide extra power in peak, <a href="http://www.ippr.org/files/publications/pdf/mad-maths_Dec2015.pdf?noredirect=1">even though</a> it’s more damaging than coal. </p>
<p>But can’t we just store renewable energy, whenever it is generated, and dispatch it at times of high demand? Let’s be clear: we have the technology – it’s the affordability and scale that are challenging. Of the myriad <a href="https://www.ice.org.uk/media-and-policy/policy/electricity-storage-realising-the-potential">potential storage technologies</a>, none are as yet close to being able to store electricity at comparable scale and cost to our only grid-level storage technology: <a href="http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/technologies/pumped-hydroelectric-storage">pumped-storage hydropower</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116412/original/image-20160324-17857-1bx60kh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116412/original/image-20160324-17857-1bx60kh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116412/original/image-20160324-17857-1bx60kh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116412/original/image-20160324-17857-1bx60kh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116412/original/image-20160324-17857-1bx60kh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116412/original/image-20160324-17857-1bx60kh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116412/original/image-20160324-17857-1bx60kh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116412/original/image-20160324-17857-1bx60kh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Foyers pumped storage facility near Inverness.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/inverness_trucker/7955401702/in/photolist-pUtGtQ-jYXbQm-jYXaZy-jYUvWV-d7Zv8S-jYVnfx-9VPR5A-jYVpKH-d7ZvLj-jYVp1X-jYVonx-pHbsLq-8P2gAv-xQYmEC-pjRkto">Glen Wallace</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But pumped storage can only do so much. Let’s assume the UK could muster sufficient wind power to meet one third of our typical <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/449134/ECUK_Chapter_3_-_Domestic_factsheet.pdf">daily electricity consumption</a> (40 GW to 45 GW). In the absence of dispatchable power on demand, to offset the kind of three-day calm period that is common during spells of high pressure in winter, we would need to be able to store around 1,000 gigawatt hours (GWh) of power. Yet pumped storage hydropower in the UK only totals 30 GWh, from four stations. </p>
<p>If we are going to manage without Longannet and all the other gas-fired and coal-fired power stations, we would need at least 970 GWh of storage – more than a hundred pumped hydropower stations of comparable size to those we already have. This would be unlikely to cost less than £100 billion. And do we even have 100 plus upland catchments we’d be happy to impound and manage for this purpose? Even if most of the UK uplands were not (rightly) zealously protected conservation areas, it seems implausible that the UK could find sufficient sites. </p>
<p>Add the important caveat that you lose energy sending it back and forth to a storage facility, <a href="http://energymag.net/round-trip-efficiency/">between 10% and 35%</a> depending on the technology. This means that relying on renewables and increased storage means you would need substantially more total generating capacity than at present. </p>
<h2>The voltage issue</h2>
<p>So far we have only talked about power quantity, whereas power quality is also crucial. To keep voltage within <a href="https://electricalnotes.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/importance-of-reactive-power-for-system/">prescribed bounds</a> requires “reactive” (or “wattless”) power. Coal-fired power-stations have long been the mainstay of this activity – not least in Scotland. It has to be done regionally, so you can’t make up for this with coal power from elsewhere. Wind turbines cannot provide reactive power control. Since nuclear is being phased out in Scotland, gas-fired power is again the only alternative. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116413/original/image-20160324-17840-8q1jcp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116413/original/image-20160324-17840-8q1jcp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116413/original/image-20160324-17840-8q1jcp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=687&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116413/original/image-20160324-17840-8q1jcp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=687&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116413/original/image-20160324-17840-8q1jcp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=687&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116413/original/image-20160324-17840-8q1jcp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=863&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116413/original/image-20160324-17840-8q1jcp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=863&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116413/original/image-20160324-17840-8q1jcp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=863&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Danger, danger …</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&searchterm=overhead%20cable&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=143651419">LisaS</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So as we close plants such as Longannet, we can expect serious problems with voltage control. This bodes ill for the electrical appliances and devices on which we all increasingly rely. With the closure of Longannet, Scotland thus becomes the first area of the UK to take a serious gamble with reactive power. It will take not just good management but a serious amount of good luck for the fossil-fuel funeral wake not to be spoiled by flickering or failure of the lights. </p>
<p>In short, we may be heading into dangerous territory. The UK needs to get a strategy together for building new gas-fired or coal-fired power, fitted with carbon capture and storage technology, before the situation deteriorates any further.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56821/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul's team at the university receives funding from the UK research councils (NERC, EPSRC) and the European Commission (FP7, H2020). He would like to thank retired energy consultants David Watson and Iain McKenzie for their comments on this piece.</span></em></p>Longannet, the last coal-fired power plant in Scotland, has closed. It might be good news for climate change, but it also signals major problems ahead.Paul Younger, Professor of Energy Engineering, University of GlasgowLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/473342015-09-29T13:17:51Z2015-09-29T13:17:51ZHinkley nuclear delays: is the UK facing a ‘power gap’ in the 2020s?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96493/original/image-20150928-30970-1jzi5e9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Without new nuclear generators, will Britain run out of electricity?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Stephen McCluskey / shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Despite government commitments to nuclear power, the proposed new plant at Hinkley Point is still some way off. This matters as new nuclear plants could have a critical role in providing the UK with low carbon electricity, while maintaining <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-34306997">secure supplies</a>. </p>
<p>Once complete, the new Hinkley plant alone should provide around 7% of the UK’s electricity. However further delays could pose a threat to the security of the UK’s electricity supplies. So is the country facing a looming “power gap” in the early 2020s?</p>
<p>Old coal and gas plants will be under increasing pressure to close in the next decade due to the UK’s domestic climate change commitments as well as European air pollution regulations. The EU’s <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/environment/industry/stationary/ied/legislation.htm">Industrial Emissions Directive</a> (IED) essentially forces plants that don’t meet its standards on emissions to choose between fitting clean-up technologies to remove harmful air pollutants, or accepting strict limits on their operation before a final closure by the end of 2023. This latter option is known as the “limited life derogation”.</p>
<p>The full effect of the IED is not yet clear. However, <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/12/britain-power-idUKL5N0LJ0QY20140312">according to Reuters</a>, the UK plants which are currently expected to close before the end of 2023 as a result of the directive represent around 12,000MW of capacity. This is equivalent to around 20% of the country’s peak electricity demand.</p>
<p>The major attractions of new nuclear plants in this context are their “baseload” – or unfluctuating – output, along with their sheer size: the planned Hinkley plant’s output is 3,200 MW. For comparison, the UK’s largest existing offshore wind farm, the London Array, weighs in <a href="http://www.londonarray.com/project/london-array-to-stay-at-630mw/">at 630MW</a>. With Chinese investors <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/52462048-5f8b-11e5-a28b-50226830d644.html#axzz3mYiiJeiG">showing interest</a>, the government clearly feels nuclear offers the most direct route for filling the gap and thereby avoiding the lights going out.</p>
<p>However, with the completion of Hinkley Point by its scheduled 2023 finish date <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11841733/Nuclear-delay-EDF-admits-Hinkley-Point-wont-be-ready-by-2023.html">now unlikely</a>, and with firm final investment decisions for other mooted UK nuclear projects <a href="http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/11/how-the-uks-nuclear-new-build-plans-keep-getting-delayed/">not yet taken</a>, the country needs additional solutions.</p>
<h2>Filling the ‘power gap’</h2>
<p>By 2030, nuclear could play a significant role in a heavily decarbonised UK electricity system. However its prospects for the more medium-term horizon of the early 2020s remain uncertain.</p>
<p>Although individual renewable projects are small in comparison to nuclear power stations, the renewable industry as a whole is showing that it can deliver <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/24/renewable-energy-outstrips-coal-for-first-time-in-uk-electricity-mix">substantial amounts of capacity</a> at a rate of <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/energy-trends-section-6-renewables">megawatts-per-year</a> that is starting to put <a href="http://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuclear-new-build-projects/hinkley-point-c">nuclear planning timsecales</a> firmly in the shade. The longer we wait for nuclear, the more the current government’s “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/22/cbi-chief-lambasts-government-approach-to-green-economy">mixed messages</a>” about renewables may themselves seem a threat to security of supply. </p>
<p>Public objections to wind and other renewables have been much publicised; however, there is evidence that <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-more-big-power-plants-civic-energy-could-provide-half-our-electricity-by-2050-38183">innovative approaches to ownership</a> and <a href="http://www.edie.net/news/6/Poll-reveals-huge-public-support-for-community-energy-projects/">distribution of benefits</a> within local communities could substantially increase support.</p>
<h2>Renewables alone won’t be enough</h2>
<p>Yet even with lots more wind, solar and tidal power in place the UK may still need more conventional capacity by the early 2020s, as the scale of IED closures becomes clearer – not least because variable weather makes it hard for renewables to guarantee full availability at peak times. </p>
<p>It may be that as the European regulations begin to bite, there will be some requirement for new, cleaner gas plants, which could be built relatively quickly. However these plants would have an increasingly intermittent operating schedule, getting called into action only to meet peak demands, or to cover weather-related drops in solar or wind output. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96502/original/image-20150928-30974-4w148m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96502/original/image-20150928-30974-4w148m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96502/original/image-20150928-30974-4w148m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96502/original/image-20150928-30974-4w148m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96502/original/image-20150928-30974-4w148m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96502/original/image-20150928-30974-4w148m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96502/original/image-20150928-30974-4w148m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Not so useful on calm days.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevepj2009/6869406438/">steve p2008</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The commercial case for building such rarely-operating plants would be dependent on them being able to make enough money back from this style of occasional operation. The government’s current approach – the “capacity mechanism” – is to <a href="http://www.nationalgridconnecting.com/keeping-the-lights-on/">pay a retainer fee</a> to generators in return for guaranteeing their availability if called upon at short notice.</p>
<h2>Don’t forget demand</h2>
<p>Faced with a possible shortage of supply, we’ve so far looked at ways to generate more electricity – but, clearly, another is to reduce demand. This could take the form of reductions in the overall level of demand, for example due to increased efficiency – better technologies, switching off lights, and so on.</p>
<p>However, just as effective could be shifting electricity usage to avoid coinciding with “peak demand”, the point at which the system is under greatest stress. People or organisations who take part in such arrangements should rightly be rewarded, for example with lower electricity tariffs for providing a useful service to the system and helping to reduce overall costs. </p>
<p>While such innovations are sometimes castigated with headlines invoking the three day week of the 1970s, or <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2563431/Factories-shut-save-bills-Staff-key-industrial-plants-having-sit-cold-doing-firms-switch-power.html">“third world” electricity systems</a>, in fact they constitute an economically rational approach to the problem of supply and demand, under which both <a href="http://wwwnews.live.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23343211">users and suppliers stand to benefit</a>. </p>
<p>The question of security of supply itself could also benefit from some more sober analysis. Any story which raises the spectre of <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/11311725/Britain-unprepared-for-severe-blackouts-secret-Government-report-reveals.html">the lights going out</a> implies it is the responsibility of the government, National Grid, or the energy suppliers to guarantee a system which never fails. </p>
<p>This is not the case. As with all aspects of life, risk is inherent, and the expectation of zero-risk is not reasonable. Rather, the question should be: how much are we willing to spend on reducing risk any further? For example, the capacity mechanism will reduce the risk of supply shortages, in part by guaranteeing back-up plants; however these guarantees cost money, and these costs fall on consumers through their bills.</p>
<p>The more secure we want our system to be, the more we will have to pay for it. It’s time for a more constructive debate on the balance between security and cost, including innovative demand-side responses, in the context of our transforming electricity system.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/47334/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick Hughes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The search for alternative ways to boost energy supply – or reduce demand.Nick Hughes, Research Associate in Energy Systems, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/480712015-09-28T13:38:22Z2015-09-28T13:38:22ZSimpler, smaller, cheaper? Alternatives to Britain’s new nuclear power plant<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96453/original/image-20150928-415-9n8sac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/24784125@N07/3286343773">na0905/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Britain appears to finally be on the way to building its first new nuclear power station for 20 years. The chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, recently announced a £2 billion loan guarantee linked to the development of the Hinkley Point C power plant, signalling that the final decision to build cannot be far behind. But the plans from French firm EDF have drawn <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2015/sep/21/hinkley-point-nuclear-station-enemies">criticism from an array</a> of experts and commentators for being too expensive and relying on an as yet unproven technology that is already <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/09/22/uk-edf-britain-hinkley-idUKKCN0RM0YG20150922">being redesigned</a>.</p>
<p>Although the basic principles of nuclear energy are relatively simple, the specific designs of different reactors can vary considerably. The two other companies hoping to build new nuclear plants in the UK, for example, each favour alternatives to EDF’s model. So are we in danger of backing the wrong technology with the current plans for Hinkley Point?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/nucreactor.html">Nuclear reactors</a> generate heat from uranium using a reaction <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Introduction/Physics-of-Nuclear-Energy/">known as fission</a>. This is a process where atomic nuclei split into two fragments, releasing energy in the form of heat. Fission of one atom also releases several neutrons that can spark the same process in neighbouring atoms, leading to a chain reaction throughout the uranium fuel within the reactor core. The chain reaction can be slowed or stopped by inserting control rods into the core to absorb the excess neutrons.</p>
<p>The heat from the reaction is used to create steam, which generates electricity via a turbine. The heat is carried away from the core by a coolant substance, which can also be used as a moderator to slow down the neutrons and increase the chances that they induce fission in other fuel atoms (although some designs use separate moderators).</p>
<h2>Overdue, over-budget, over-engineered</h2>
<p>The reactor EDF wants to use at Hinkley Point C is a type of pressurised water reactor (PWR) that uses water as both the moderator and coolant. The specific design is known as a European pressurised reactor (EPR) and evolved from earlier French models with innovations such as a concrete-ceramic <a href="http://pulitzercenter.org/reporting/russia-nuclear-technology-reactors-chernobyl-energy-atomexpo">core catcher</a> to prevent the molten core of the reactor escaping in the case of a meltdown. If built, it will deliver 3.2GW of electrical power, roughly equivalent to 7% of the UK’s electricity.</p>
<p>Power stations featuring this enhanced EPR design are being built in France, Finland and China, but none are yet online and the first two are <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/09/03/edf-nuclear-flamanville-idUKL5N1182LY20150903">billions of pounds</a> over budget and <a href="http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/nn-olkiluoto-3-start-up-pushed-back-to-2018-0109147.html">years overdue</a>. The Chinese projects are only delayed by <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/29/china-france-nuclear-idUSL4N0V86A320150129">around two years</a>, perhaps due to experience gained in the European projects.</p>
<p>The predicted cost of Hinkley Point C has steadily risen from £14bn to £24.5bn and has <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11148193/Hinkley-Point-nuclear-plant-to-cost-34bn-EU-says.html">steadily risen</a> from earlier estimates of £16bn. The complexity of the project is enormous, due to what is believed to be by many to be an <a href="http://www.theengineer.co.uk/opinion/reactors-to-speed/308102.article">over-engineered design</a>. There are also <a href="http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Flamanville-EPR-vessel-anomalies-under-scrutiny-0704154.html">reported issues</a> regarding the manufacture of the reactor pressure vessel for the EPR associated with anomalies in the composition of the steel.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96454/original/image-20150928-440-4t32mn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/96454/original/image-20150928-440-4t32mn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96454/original/image-20150928-440-4t32mn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96454/original/image-20150928-440-4t32mn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96454/original/image-20150928-440-4t32mn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96454/original/image-20150928-440-4t32mn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/96454/original/image-20150928-440-4t32mn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Proven technology in Japan.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungmen_Nuclear_Power_Plant#/media/File:台湾第四原子力発電所.jpg">Toach japan/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Simpler reactor</h2>
<p>EDF <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34149392">has admitted</a> that Hinkley Point C will not start operating in 2023 as originally predicted. As a result, the first new nuclear plant to come online in the UK may actually be an entirely different type: the <a href="http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Britain_to_have_boiling_water_reactors_3010121.html">advanced boiling water reactor</a> (ABWR), a proven Japanese design from Hitachi-GE that has been used in nuclear power stations since the 1990s.</p>
<p>This reactor is simpler because the water is allowed to boil in the reactor creating steam directly. In PWRs on the other hand, two stages are required to create the steam and the water in the core is maintained at pressure to prevent boiling. The ABWR is also self-compensating. This means it can maintain a stable temperature simply through normal operation. The hotter it gets, the more steam it produces. This reduces the amount of neutrons produced and so the reaction slows down, diminishing the amount of heat again. </p>
<p>On top of this, the ABWR has advantages from a manufacturing point of view. It has a modular design (it is build in sections assembled in factories rather than in one big piece) and so its construction is more straightforward and therefore cheaper. This means the electricity price the government will need to guarantee to the plant’s operator Horizon is <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10164435/Rival-nuclear-companies-cheaper-than-EDF-Ed-Davey-suggests.html">likely to be lower</a> than that of the 92.5p/MWh agreed with EDF for Hinkley Point C.</p>
<h2>New generation</h2>
<p>Looking further into the future, the NuGen proposal, backed by Toshiba, to bring the Westinghouse AP1000 design to the UK is another promising prospect. This advanced passive 1GW reactor is actually a PWR but is <a href="http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/New-Plants/AP1000-PWR">highly simplified</a> compared to the EPR with far fewer components and so far fewer things that could wrong. It also employs a large amount of passive safety features that work even without an external power source. In this instance natural processes such as gravity-induced flow and convection are used to drive the circulation of cooling.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the rather blinkered focus of the government on delivering the Hinkley Point project without recognising what is coming in the near future is a significant point of weakness for UK nuclear energy policy. An approach that gave greater recognition to the potential of other designs could avoid future embarrassment, as well as saving money for the taxpayer and energy bill payer.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/48071/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The Birmingham Centre for Nuclear Education and Research recieves funding from EPSRC related to nuclear power R&D.</span></em></p>The UK government looks set to allow EDF to build a new kind of nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point. But are there better nuclear technologies we could use?Martin Freer, Professor of Nuclear Physics, Director of Birmingham Centre of Nuclear Education and Research, University of BirminghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/479472015-09-22T11:39:42Z2015-09-22T11:39:42ZIf the Hinkley C nuclear deal looks astonishing, that’s because it is<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/95673/original/image-20150922-16682-s7t8ss.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&searchterm=nuclear%20power&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=136242767">Gui Jun Peng</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>I was rather perplexed to wake up to hear the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/11878566/Hinkley-Point-new-nuclear-plant-edges-closer-with-2-billion-Government-guarantee.html">news that</a> George Osborne was pledging £2bn in loan guarantees for the ill-fated Hinkley C nuclear power project in England. Hadn’t he <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/27/nuclear-power-10billion-financial-guarantee">already</a> pledged £10bn in loan guarantees more than two years ago? </p>
<p>Hinkley C, all 3.2 gigawatts of it, was <a href="http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/11/how-the-uks-nuclear-new-build-plans-keep-getting-delayed/">according to</a> earlier proud boasts supposed to be up and running in 2018, but will now <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34149392">be lucky to be started by 2025</a>. As recently as 2008, the total cost of such a plant <a href="http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/11/how-the-uks-nuclear-new-build-plans-keep-getting-delayed/">was estimated</a> by the UK department of energy at £5.6bn. Now it could easily be five times higher. </p>
<p>Has Osborne decided to cut the support he is offering French group EDF and the Chinese state nuclear companies to build the plant from £10bn to £2bn? No, it seems he is offering an “initial” £2bn. Has George made his <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34311675">current trip</a> to Beijing with £2bn in £50 notes in a secure luggage arrangement? No, of course not. So what does this mean? Well, absolutely nothing apart from, no doubt, some PR consultant coming up with a bright idea to distract attention from the sheer awfulness that is the British nuclear programme.</p>
<p>Although some may feel that how this (awfulness) is all an aberration and that somewhere else nuclear power is being done much better, in my studies I can’t find much evidence of this, certainly not in the US and Europe. Both of the two “generation III” reactors being developed, <a href="https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/e/epr.htm">EPR</a> (Finland, France, China) and <a href="http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/New-Plants/AP1000-PWR">AP1000</a> (China, US, Bulgaria), are taking ages to build and costing mountains more money than originally anticipated. Hitachi’s ABWR, another reactor tipped to be built in the UK, has a <a href="http://world-nuclear.org/NuclearDatabase/reactordetails.aspx?id=27570&rid=F98DE7C7-0F7F-467C-B98C-8E633BBD50D5">very chequered reliability record</a> that would make it a no-go zone for investors.</p>
<p>Even in China the <a href="http://thediplomat.com/2015/04/chinas-coming-nuclear-power-boom/">much-vaunted</a> nuclear construction programme is, as much as you hear about these things from Chinese authorities, <a href="http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/927146.shtml">a lot less vaunted</a> than one would think. And we need to understand that this is before we even know whether any of these upcoming generation III reactors work well or not. </p>
<h2>Nuclear numbers</h2>
<p>Really this is not much of a change compared with what went on in previous decades. The marvellous hype from the nuclear people suckered an eager-to-be-suckered UK body politic that there really is a magical nuclear answer to our problems. So why do we find this out now? </p>
<p>The answer is actually surprisingly simple. Up until now, nuclear power has not been treated like other energy sources. In the UK and many other countries it has always been given a blank cheque to cover its construction costs and its electricity has never been costed according to commercial risk criteria. Now, in a bowdlerised way, it has been costed according to some commercial criteria under the UK’s <a href="https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/electricity/wholesale-market/market-efficiency-review-and-reform/electricity-market-reform-emr">Electricity Market Reform</a> system for incentivising low-carbon power generation. </p>
<p>This produced what many found to be a surprising answer. Two years ago Hinkley C ended up <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/initial-agreement-reached-on-new-nuclear-power-station-at-hinkley">being offered</a> (still not signed) £92.50 per MWh (now £94 per MWh, rising with inflation) over 35 years with a £10bn loan guarantee – <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/cases/251157/251157_1615983_2292_4.pdf">said to</a> rise to £16bn with interest payments. This means the contract price is more than double the wholesale power price and the consumer will have to pay the difference for 35 years after generation starts. </p>
<p>It is a higher subsidy than that offered to onshore wind farms (which also get no loan guarantees and get 15-year contracts). Earlier in the year, the government awarded <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/407059/Contracts_for_Difference_-_Auction_Results_-_Official_Statistics.pdf">premium price contracts</a> to onshore wind farms for around £80 per MWh. And if nuclear had the same contract lengths as other power plants: 15 years – and certainly no more than 20 years – its contract price would rise to well over £100 per MWh. That would make it look more expensive than offshore wind. Well, we couldn’t have that, could we? And if the £16bn was not guaranteed, it would never be built. The risk of cost overruns would be considered far too great. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/95677/original/image-20150922-16666-1npo57t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/95677/original/image-20150922-16666-1npo57t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/95677/original/image-20150922-16666-1npo57t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/95677/original/image-20150922-16666-1npo57t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/95677/original/image-20150922-16666-1npo57t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/95677/original/image-20150922-16666-1npo57t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/95677/original/image-20150922-16666-1npo57t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/95677/original/image-20150922-16666-1npo57t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Off the agenda: onshore wind subsidies.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=&search_tracking_id=g_f2fDHQkzwXwKKIWG4Unw&searchterm=wind%20farm%20uk&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=214633147">Alastair Wallace</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Meanwhile the <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/United-Kingdom/">other nuclear power plant proposals</a> for the UK currently held by EDF, Hitachi and Toshiba seemed to have melted into the background. Even with the government’s very generous offer to get new nuclear power projects off the ground, will these players take the risk of investing in these new projects? Only the Chinese seem to be at the table, having <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/21/george-osborne-chinese-nuclear-power-station-bradwell-essex">apparently been</a> promised they can build their own reactor at Bradwell in Essex as part of the Hinkley C deal. </p>
<p>Of course many would point out that we could have lots of other things, including wind farms and solar farms generating loads of clean energy by the time (if ever) that our nuclear power programme gets going. But the government has made sure this is not going to happen, by <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34319458">cutting the incentives</a>. Even the CBI, the voice of business, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34319458">is raising concerns</a> about this. Instead the government seems to be pinning its hopes on a nuclear programme happening at the end of a Chinese rainbow. Stand by for the crock of gold at Bradwell to be just as eye-watering.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/47947/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David received funding from the ESRC for the project 'Delivering Renewable Energy Under Devolution' (2011-13).</span></em></p>The UK’s first new nuclear power station since the 1990s is coming at the expense of renewable energy and leaving us unnervingly in hock to the Chinese.David Toke, Reader in Energy Policy, University of AberdeenLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/437462015-06-23T20:31:49Z2015-06-23T20:31:49ZTories are backing the wrong horses when it comes to energy<p>What will become of UK energy policy now that the Conservative Party holds all the levers? The government has already <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33227489">given clear indications</a> of its plans to pare back onshore wind in recent days. June 24 is the turn of offshore wind, when energy secretary Amber Rudd gives one of her first keynote speeches at the <a href="http://www.renewableuk.com/en/events/conferences-and-exhibitions/global-offshore-wind-2015/">Global Offshore Wind Conference</a>. </p>
<p>Rudd <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2015/may/11/amber-rudds-appointment-as-climate-secretary">has been</a> described as “really green” in the past, but that is unlikely to reassure the offshore wind industry. With the government apparently committed to nuclear and shale gas and oil, renewables companies are wondering if they still have a place at the table. Here’s how the policy landscape looks to us. </p>
<h2>Damage onshore</h2>
<p>The government’s first big energy decision was confirmed with <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33227489">the announcement</a> that the renewables-obligation subsidy scheme would be closing next April 1, a year earlier than planned. Confidence in the renewables industry has been wrecked as a result, though it goes further than that: the companies supporting renewables are the big power companies. The move is arguably as much a move against them as anyone. </p>
<p>Relations with the Scottish government have been damaged, with Nicola Sturgeon and others <a href="http://www.thenational.scot/news/perverse-tory-plans-to-cut-windfarm-subsidies-put-scottish-power-at-risk.4271">describing the decision</a> as “wrong-headed”, “perverse” and “downright outrageous”. Scotland has backed onshore wind for more than a decade as a cheap and proven source of low-carbon electricity. <a href="http://www.scottishrenewables.com/news/early-end-onshore-wind-support-could-cost-3bn-inve/">According to</a> industry body Scottish Renewables, the decision will cost Scotland alone up to £3bn in investment and put at risk many thousands of highly paid jobs. </p>
<p>The move will also hit consumer utility bills. Keith Anderson, chief operating officer of Scottish Power, <a href="http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2015/jun/cameron-must-look-again-onshore-wind-proposals">has estimated</a> it will cost consumers between £2bn-3bn in more expensive electricity generation. This will increase the risk of <a href="http://www.nea.org.uk/policy-and-research/publications/2014/monitor-2014">fuel poverty across the UK</a> (which is much higher in Scotland than England).</p>
<h2>Anxiety offshore</h2>
<p>Even before the election, offshore wind was not a good place to be. The sector has seen many projects mothballed and a number of key players drop out altogether in the face of a subsidy regime that is insufficient. Offshore is <a href="https://theconversation.com/scottish-wind-could-fix-uk-energy-woes-dont-let-westminster-blow-it-31532">already now much smaller</a> than originally envisaged. It remains an expensive option in the UK even compared to new nuclear, and although <a href="http://cleantechnica.com/2015/02/28/offshore-wind-costs-continue-fall-study/">costs are falling</a>, it is not being deployed on the scale necessary to reduce costs to the point that it is commercially viable. If the subsidies are now cut, it will become a dead duck. </p>
<p>Compare Denmark, where the industry is <a href="http://www.energypost.eu/danish-offshore-wind-getting-better-time/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=linkedin&utm_source=socialnetwork">now seeing</a> costs fall dramatically through learning by doing. While the industry has benefited from highly competitive support mechanisms, deployment has been greatly facilitated by having 20% local ownership of projects. Shallower waters have helped too, but the UK could still learn from the Danish approach. Danish offshore wind costs are significantly less than the projected new nuclear build costs at <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/nuclearpower/11404344/Hinkley-Point-new-nuclear-power-plant-the-story-so-far.html">Hinkley Point C</a> in Somerset in the UK, the country’s first new nuclear plant since the 1990s. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86162/original/image-20150623-19386-qjf65x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86162/original/image-20150623-19386-qjf65x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86162/original/image-20150623-19386-qjf65x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86162/original/image-20150623-19386-qjf65x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86162/original/image-20150623-19386-qjf65x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86162/original/image-20150623-19386-qjf65x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86162/original/image-20150623-19386-qjf65x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86162/original/image-20150623-19386-qjf65x.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sheringham Shoal wind farm off East Anglia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/statkraft/14719851109/in/photolist-oqK5Un-oqK5Ag-oqKcYG-oqK5wi-pMJFrR-8TVwdi-qqYv2C-qjArKQ-nB4S62-gfnBKs-deS1aJ-kYzgxV-qjtdZ6-qgXLYe-bPtiy-kU4mZR-kYzh7F-9GEtLm-c93qvh-cqbvvb-deRZeN-c2jS53-qNZuBD-qt2xJ4-q8T7wm-pTHdPu-qP9tV4-rG5TCb-qKpe41-6YiWvR-q87qwz-3Krm3b-oActKT-kYzgTz-mfuXT8-diuucV-diutb7-rwtydP-8qzTQ1-qEhFE6-kYAKpJ-9L88X7-ptrCnN-ccJdMs-qjGP5a-pNGvPx-diuuBZ-kU51wn-pS9Fdo-oAaua1">Statkraft</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Bright nuclear future?</h2>
<p>The Tories have long backed new nuclear power as the panacea to combat the looming electricity crunch that is <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-coalitions-attitude-to-renewables-and-scotland-is-a-risk-to-national-security-27666">often talked about</a> in energy circles. Yet new nuclear is proving so challenging <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11546271/New-UK-nuclear-plants-under-threat-as-serious-anomaly-with-model-found-in-France.html">across the world</a> that delivering even one new station will be no easy task. </p>
<p>As Hinkley Point C has <a href="https://theconversation.com/george-osbornes-latest-nuclear-deal-is-another-step-in-the-wrong-direction-35054">already illustrated</a>, the financial costs of new nuclear are enormous, and construction overruns look inevitable. The government also faces an impending legal challenge by the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11119631/Austria-to-launch-legal-challenge-if-EU-approves-British-nuclear-plan.html">Austrian government</a> over the up to £25bn of state aid required to bring the project to fruition. This could <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/22/uk-nuclear-ambitions-dealt-fatal-blow-by-austrian-legal-challenge-say-greens">delay completion</a> by up to four years. Meanwhile Greenpeace <a href="http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2780807/greenpeace_energy_to_launch_legal_challenge_to_uk_nuclear_subsidies.html">is suing</a> the European Commission for <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11148193/Hinkley-Point-nuclear-plant-to-cost-34bn-EU-says.html">allowing the state aid</a> to go ahead. </p>
<p>In sum, it might well be 2030 before we see the plant generating any new electricity for UK consumers – about seven years later than intended. This is a big problem for Rudd. Hinkley Point was promising to generate up to 7% of the UK’s electricity demand by 2023, at a time when big coal-fired stations <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-32016538">in Scotland</a> and <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32806766">England</a> are closing. New and significant investment in energy infrastructure is needed before 2020 but it is currently unclear where this new generating capacity is going to come from. </p>
<h2>Fast-track fracking</h2>
<p>David Cameron has also <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/26/david-cameron-rejects-fracking-ban-shale-gas">made clear</a> the government’s commitment to shale gas and its desire to repeat the US revolution here. It promises new tax revenues, jobs and a more secure gas supply. Yet these benefits must be balanced against the need to protect land and water supplies and manage <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/26/fracking-trespass-law-changes-move-forward-despite-huge-public-opposition">hostile public opinion</a>. </p>
<p>One widely overlooked issue is the infrastructure, which will take time and money to build. Fracking in the US requires an oil price to be at least $60 per barrel to be economical, and in some areas up to $100. With <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business/market_data/commodities/default.stm">Brent Crude</a> in the new era of mid $60 per barrel, is fracking economically feasible? <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-30869873">Evidence</a> from the US suggests not.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86282/original/image-20150624-31476-ge97cu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86282/original/image-20150624-31476-ge97cu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/86282/original/image-20150624-31476-ge97cu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86282/original/image-20150624-31476-ge97cu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86282/original/image-20150624-31476-ge97cu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86282/original/image-20150624-31476-ge97cu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86282/original/image-20150624-31476-ge97cu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/86282/original/image-20150624-31476-ge97cu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fracks very much.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&autocomplete_id=143515695290612220000&searchterm=fracking&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=208265362">larryrains</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Earlier this year the Commons environmental audit committee <a href="http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/01/mps-brand-fracking-incompatible-with-uk-climate-targets/">questioned</a> whether fracking was compatible with UK climate-change targets. With the <a href="http://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/reducing-carbon-emissions/carbon-budgets-and-targets/">fifth carbon budget</a> due soon to set targets beyond 2027, this presents Rudd with another conundrum. The <a href="http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en">UN climate change conference</a> in Paris later this year may well prove a very challenging conversation for the government. It is hard to escape the conclusion that this central strand of the government’s new energy agenda has some serious credibility issues. </p>
<h2>The big picture</h2>
<p>Put this all together and the government’s emerging approach to wind looks very unwise. New nuclear looks a very costly and unreliable drain on the government’s budget, while fracking looks expensive, incompatible with emissions targets and probably uneconomic at current oil prices. It remains to be seen if these technologies will yield any long-term and positive outcomes for the country. If the government gets it wrong, the consumer could be saddled with soaring electricity and gas bills for years to come. If ever we needed some sign of reprieve for UK renewables, it is now.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/43746/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>With wind braced for more cutbacks, government backing of nuclear and fracking will end in tears.Peter Strachan, Strategy and Policy Group Lead and Professor of Energy Policy, Department of Management, Robert Gordon UniversityAlex Russell, Head of Department of Management and Professor of Petroleum Accounting at Aberdeen Business School, Robert Gordon UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/350622014-12-05T06:14:25Z2014-12-05T06:14:25ZTo cut carbon emissions and keep the lights on, it has got to be nuclear power<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/66346/original/image-20141204-7252-zsj74o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Despite the high capital costs, nuclear ticks boxes.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&searchterm=nuclear%20power&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=233921092">Kaissa</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>An experiment in liberalising power markets has been underway in the UK since the 1980s and three phases can be identified. The first ran from around 1989 to 1999, beginning with the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/29/contents">privatisation</a> of the generating industry and grid and ending by giving <a href="http://www.uswitch.com/gas-electricity/guides/ofgem/">customers</a> the freedom to shop around for their supplier. </p>
<p>When liberalisation proper started in 1999 the system was well supplied – even oversupplied – with generating capacity. So the next stage was one of cut-throat competition for market share. This led to a collapse in the wholesale price of power.</p>
<p>Another decade on and new problems emerged as power plants approached the end of their lives. Competitive markets are efficient at getting best value out of existing infrastructure but much less so at deciding when and how it should be replaced – especially when there is uncertainty about how much business coal and gas-fired plants will secure in an era where there are green energy targets to meet. </p>
<h2>It still comes down to intermittency</h2>
<p>The problem is that renewable power is not reliable enough to supply all demand, and is often least reliable in the middle of winter when most power is needed – the UK needs about three times as much electricity on a late January afternoon as on an early July morning. This means that to have security of supply, someone needs to build coal/gas/nuclear plants that offer enough reliable capacity to meet peak demand while knowing that for much of the year they won’t have a market at all. </p>
<p>On top of this, the economics of building new carbon-free power are very different from carbon-emitting power. Coal and gas-fired plants tend to be quicker to build and have relatively low capital costs – certainly in the case of the combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) – but they are expensive to run. Markets prefer this: investors get their money back quite quickly and if the gas price surges, consumers have little choice but to pay the higher power prices that result. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/66348/original/image-20141204-7252-1jyc4hw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/66348/original/image-20141204-7252-1jyc4hw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/66348/original/image-20141204-7252-1jyc4hw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/66348/original/image-20141204-7252-1jyc4hw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/66348/original/image-20141204-7252-1jyc4hw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=380&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/66348/original/image-20141204-7252-1jyc4hw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/66348/original/image-20141204-7252-1jyc4hw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/66348/original/image-20141204-7252-1jyc4hw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=477&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Investors prefer CCGT plants like this one at Enfield.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/roadscum/8103630216/in/photolist-7DYaRf-9hGakE-8MneV3-9hGa1W-ocYrqH-btXjsp-osq9qo-hSixHo-eT1yMz-dkMjEG-dnKP3o-dm6dWm-9hGabA-anf8UT-anf8kH-anhYpf-ani6ME-anfj9c-an9AQH-ancdnE-ouax8k-ppokyR-pFA4yP-pFPCga-ppknKn-myEkrn-myG8Wy-myG7Vf-myDEZT-myERWt-myEmNR-myDEzK-myEcbc-myEkpD-myG959-myEcXT-myFsLE-myESSr-myERdV-myES2t-myEcPM-myEcC4-myDExR-myEjVx-myESoR-myERsn-myERYx-myG7oU-myDEyT-myFtcj">Roadscum</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>By contrast nuclear power and renewables are expensive and slower to build though they use little or no fuel. Private investors find their capital tied up for longer periods of time without a cash flow. If the project runs over cost and time, as has been seen recently with a number of offshore wind farms, CCGT companies can pick up the business by having a new plant up and running in a couple of years.</p>
<h2>To choose a mix or not?</h2>
<p>So governments in the UK and elsewhere have faced real challenges. Do they stick to the market mantra, knowing that to do so they will need to transfer large portions of the risk associated with nuclear and renewables onto the consumer to prevent all investment going into CCGT? Or do they unequivocally renationalise the responsibility for plant mix (while still supporting a competitive market in operation)?</p>
<p>So far the answer has been the former. To persuade companies to build renewables, they are not expected to bear the costs of the hugely expanded grid necessary to support their output. When there is too much wind or solar being produced, threatening melting the wires or blowing electronic equipment, renewable generators also get paid to shut their plants down, a benefit not extended to any other players. On top of these enormous hidden subsidies, they also get guaranteed wholesale prices through the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electricity-market-reform-contracts-for-difference">“Contracts for Difference”</a> system – a subsidy from which nuclear benefit too. </p>
<p>Crunch point may be coming. Mitigating climate change is coming under threat from an alliance of Big Green and Big Sceptic. Both broadly agree that global warming is probably happening (Big Sceptic less enthusiastically than Big Green but there are very few who do not accept that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas). But in practice both argue that the costs of mitigating it are too high –- Big Sceptic focuses on the financial costs, while Big Green frets about nuclear’s environmental costs. (The complete lack of any criticism of increased greenhouse gas emissions in Japan and Germany as they shun nuclear power for purely political reasons is highly illuminating.) </p>
<p>If the fight against greenhouse gas emissions is abandoned under this twin attack from Nigel Lawson and the Greens, all bets are off. And don’t expect an explicit decision so much as a failure to change at the rate needed to meet the very long-term carbon reduction targets. A fracking revolution in Europe like the US one could then reduce dependence on Russia and Iran enough to make a second dash for gas (dwarfing the first) look acceptable. </p>
<h2>Why nuclear?</h2>
<p>On the other hand, if the concerns about security of supply and carbon emissions persist then nuclear power is in effect the only source which is both reliable and low carbon. (Two others come close – large dam hydro, which is not quite secure, and biofuels, which are not quite low carbon.) </p>
<p>This means that at least as far as the irreducible 20,000MW of power demand that exists throughout the year is concerned, nuclear is the obvious choice on economic grounds when all costs are concerned. It retains considerable support among British people – <a href="http://uknuclear.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/uk-public-support-for-nuclear/">even more</a> than before Fukushima, as people realise that in unimaginably stressful circumstance even 1970s nuclear technology did not release enough material to cause detectable health problems. The inevitable waste legacy from the experimental days in the decade or two after fission was discovered will be expensive to resolve but new plants have learned those lessons and volumes of waste will be much lower.</p>
<p>Two questions remain though – can the industry deliver to time and cost, and will the government abandon its attempts to persuade investors to carry out public policy at private sector rates of return and instead resume responsibility for the plant mix, allowing it to be carried out at public sector rates of return and slashing the cost to consumers? A yes to both would revolutionise nuclear power’s prospects and return it to its position as the only major technology that can be brought on line quickly. At this uncertain stage, the UK government’s <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/21/britain-nuclear-power-station-hinkley-edf">deal over</a> Hinkley Point C and its preliminary agreements over <a href="http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/700403-nugen-signs-treasury-deal-for-moorfield-funding.html">two other</a> new <a href="http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Loan-guarantee-for-Wylfa-Newydd-project-0412134.html">nuclear builds</a> are the only sensible course of action. </p>
<p><em>To get an alternative viewpoint on nuclear power, now read <a href="https://theconversation.com/george-osbornes-latest-nuclear-deal-is-another-step-in-the-wrong-direction-35054">this piece</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35062/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Malcolm was part of a consortium funded by EPSRC 2008-2011 and has from time to time carried out research work for the Nuclear Industry Association.</span></em></p>An experiment in liberalising power markets has been underway in the UK since the 1980s and three phases can be identified. The first ran from around 1989 to 1999, beginning with the privatisation of the…Malcolm Grimston, Senior Research Fellow, Imperial College LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/350542014-12-04T18:54:36Z2014-12-04T18:54:36ZGeorge Osborne’s latest nuclear deal is another step in the wrong direction<p>Westminster’s energy strategy to “keep the lights on” by relying on new nuclear build is looking increasingly like a recipe for economic ruin and political disarray. George Osborne, the chancellor, confirmed in this week’s <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30291460">Autumn Statement</a> a <a href="http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/700403-nugen-signs-treasury-deal-for-moorfield-funding.html">co-operation agreement</a> with a Franco-Japanese consortium to build a new plant at Moorfield in Cumbria as part of his <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-infrastructure-plan-2014">national infrastructure plan</a>. </p>
<p>There is already such an agreement <a href="http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-Loan-guarantee-for-Wylfa-Newydd-project-0412134.html">in place</a> for another plant at Wylfa Newydd in Wales, and of course a <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/21/britain-nuclear-power-station-hinkley-edf">full deal agreed</a> with the Franco-Chinese project to build Hinkley Point C in Somerset – the first new station in the UK in a generation. Yet that latter project’s huge estimated cost increase illustrates exactly what is wrong with nuclear – and why global sentiment has swung against it as the real costs become clearer. </p>
<h2>The EU challenge</h2>
<p>Westminster’s claim that Hinkley Point C would cost £16 billion has been <a href="http://news.sky.com/story/1349403/edf-go-ahead-for-hinkley-point-nuclear-reactor">countered by</a> experts at the EU who have placed the cost at nearer £25 billion (and note the original estimate <a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ErQ9RFTLUt0J:millicentmedia.com/2014/01/04/why-will-hinkley-point-c-cost-16bn/+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk">was £10 billion</a>). The deal involves paying twice the current price for electricity, with UK taxpayers and electricity consumers locked into a binding contract for an extraordinary 35 years. </p>
<p>The European Commission raised concerns that Westminster had breached state aid rules in the subsidies being offered to finance the project. Energy secretary Ed Davey’s huge sigh of relief in October, when the EC controversially gave the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11113445/UK-strikes-deal-with-EU-over-Hinkley-Point-nuclear-plant.html">green light</a> for the project, may be premature: it <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11119631/Austria-to-launch-legal-challenge-if-EU-approves-British-nuclear-plan.html">will be challenged</a> by the Austrian government in the EU courts.</p>
<h2>Money pits</h2>
<p>Even if these obstacles can be surmounted, the financial risks to these kinds of projects are simply huge. Severe delays to new-build stations at <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/09/01/finland-nuclear-olkiluoto-idUKL5N0R20CV20140901">Olkiluoto</a> in Finland and <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/adc90b3e-6f67-11e4-8d86-00144feabdc0.html">Flamanville</a> in France demonstrate a systemic problem. The Level-7 nuclear incidents at Fukushima and Chernobyl are evidence of the safety issues that are forever present – and then there is the insoluble problem of nuclear waste and the astronomical eventual decommissioning costs. </p>
<p>According to government figures, the waste problem at Sellafield alone hit <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21298117">nearly £68 billion</a> — and that was almost two years ago. Little wonder that there is both <a href="http://stophinkley.org">local opposition</a> to Hinkley Point and a <a href="http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/article3253-British-public-split-on-nuclear-power">fair amount</a> of concern about nuclear power across the British public. </p>
<p>Areva’s failing financial performance must also be of significant concern to the project. Its share price <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/finance?authuser=0&q=areva&ei=XFmAVJmeHaGnwAPdy4GoDA">plummeted</a> on November 19 and is yet to recover amid a <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/26/areva-strategy-idUSL6N0TG1E520141126">slew of</a> profit warnings and multi-billion-euro debts. </p>
<p>To blame for the company’s predicament are its exposure to the French and Finnish nuclear projects, Japan’s <a href="http://totalworldenergy.net/nuclear-power-to-resume-in-japan-following-fukushima/">reluctance</a> to resume its nuclear programme and reticence in other countries, not least <a href="https://theconversation.com/germanys-green-power-surge-has-come-at-a-massive-cost-33202">Germany</a>. If this leads to a restructuring at the company, it brings into question the future of Hinkley Point. While the project is being led by EDF, Areva is providing its European Pressurised Reactor technology and has a 10% equity stake in it. Without the company’s injection of billions of pounds and its technological know-how, the project has to be in jeopardy. </p>
<h2>Whose projects should they be anyway?</h2>
<p>Another issue is who should provide these projects. With Areva and EDF both under French state control, critics <a href="http://news.sky.com/story/1066793/hinkley-point-nuclear-plant-given-go-ahead">have said</a> that the project amounts to the UK treasury writing a “blank cheque” to the French government. The same could be said of China General Nuclear Corporation and China National Nuclear Corporation, who <a href="http://uk.areva.com/EN/home-805/news2013structure-of-the-partnership-for-hinkley-point-c-project.html">came onboard</a> last year. </p>
<p>EDF is also reputedly planning to hand over an additional and significant financial stake in Hinkley Point to other foreign corporations. Saudi Electric is <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/20b32b0c-6f36-11e4-b060-00144feabdc0.html">reportedly</a> in talks, while the Qataris have confirmed an interest too. British involvement in the project has been non-existent since the UK’s Centrica left a cavernous hole in the project by <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21319031">ceasing involvement</a> in early 2013. Should de facto control of such an important element of our national electricity security be placed in the hands of foreign corporations? </p>
<p>Taken together, these sets of very deep concerns mean that nuclear can only be an option of last resort. To the astonishment of many, the Telegraph <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/nuclearpower/11244499/Nuclear-power-may-not-be-needed-says-top-atomic-advocate.html">recently reported</a> that the former UK chief scientist and nuclear “salesman”, has arrived at the same conclusion.</p>
<p>Given this analysis, the Scottish government would appear more than justified in using its extensive planning powers to <a href="http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/markets-economy/ex-energy-minister-slams-scottish-government-over-nuclear-power.21102517">reject new nuclear build</a>. In light of this and the fragility of future fracking prospects, Westminster would be wise to rethink its national energy policy and give more and not less support to onshore and offshore wind and other marine renewables. </p>
<p><em>To get an alternative viewpoint on nuclear power, now read <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-cut-carbon-emissions-and-keep-the-lights-on-it-has-got-to-be-nuclear-power-35062">this piece</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35054/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Westminster’s energy strategy to “keep the lights on” by relying on new nuclear build is looking increasingly like a recipe for economic ruin and political disarray. George Osborne, the chancellor, confirmed…Peter Strachan, Strategy and Policy Group Lead and Professor of Energy Policy, Department of Management, Robert Gordon UniversityAlex Russell, Head of Department of Management and Professor of Petroleum Accounting at Aberdeen Business School, Robert Gordon UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.