Campaign Update

100% Renewables is Possible

This week’s New Scientist says Donald Trump’s efforts to prevent the closure of unprofitable coal and nuclear are as “forlorn” as they are misguided. “It is because of sound economic reasons, not just environmental concerns that coal and nuclear are struggling to compete with natural gas and renewables such as as wind and solar. Thanks to an explosion of technology designed to counter variability of wind and solar, the reliability issue is a red herring that’s getting redder. Covering 100 per cent of our energy needs through renewable resources is no longer the impossible dream.”

The Observer called the proposed Wylfa deal “a rip-off” and “ridiculously costly for consumers” Alternatives are much cheaper. “Clark’s intervention shows the economics of new nuclear do not work. Why should consumers pay through the nose when there are lower-cost alternatives?”

The electricity generated at Wylfa “is likely to be much more expensive than power from the latest offshore wind farms.”

The decision to help to bankroll Japan’s troubled nuclear industry seems like an odd way to prove that the government can be trusted as a shrewd steward of public money”, says The Times. “While the cost of nuclear power seems to climb inexorably higher, the cost of viable renewable alternatives continues to plunge. Taxpayers should brace themselves for another fat loss.”

Every government makes mistakes”, says the FTbut it takes a really special administration to make a massive blunder and then go on to make the same fundamental error again, just months later.

You  have to wonder what on earth the Government is thinking about?

Posted: 11 June 2018

Wylfa can kicked down the road

Tom Burke, chair of the E3G consultancy, says the news from Hitachi’s Board meeting today (29th May) about Wylfa Newydd does not add a great deal of light. The only firm point is that talks will  continue. Much will depend on the exact legal status of the ‘basic agreement’. There is a vast difference between a binding contract and a memorandum of understanding. It is also not clear what is meant by ‘loans directly and indirectly’. The phrase ‘through a local financial institution’ is also obscure. If they are from HMG they will have to go on the UK’s balance sheet. Equally obscure is the phrase ‘a British group’. There is quite a big difference in both the economics and the politics between providing a loan and providing a loan guarantee.

Two other things to bear in mind: the loans for construction will not be forthcoming unless there is a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) to cover the commercial risk, and  any legally binding PPA would be subject to EU state aids clearance until March 2019 and potentially much longer depending on what else happens in Brexit. It is very hard to see how another tender free contract to build nuclear reactors would get such clearance.

In summary, this looks to me like another kick of the can down the road. There is just enough in this report for people, if they want to, to claim that negotiations are continuing but not enough for anyone to say the project is going to go ahead. It suits just about every one involved to save face by avoiding a decision of any kind.

Posted: 29 May 2018

No Need for New Nukes

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has been consulting on proposals for a new National Policy Statement (NPS) for nuclear power above 1GW single reactor capacity for deployment between 2026 and the end of 2035. National Policy Statements (NPS) are intended to establish the case for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects, as defined in the Planning Act 2008. The current nuclear NPS (EN-6), published in 2011, lists 8 sites as potentially suitable for the deployment of new nuclear power stations by the end of 2025 (Hinkley Point C, Wylfa, Moorside, Sizewell, Bradwell, Oldbury, Hartlepool and Heysham).

The Minister for Energy and Industry admits that the new nuclear programme has taken a long time to progress so he says it is now necessary to designate a new nuclear NPS. In July 2017, EDF Energy revealed that Hinkley Point C is likely to be delayed by 15 months to 2027 (1). More recently the former energy secretary, Sir Edward Davey, who signed off on Hinkley Point C has cast doubt on whether the project will ever get built at all, let alone by 2027. (2)

So, it’s now almost certain that no new nuclear power stations will be operational on any of the sites designated in the current NPS by 2025. Horizon Nuclear says it is aiming to generate the first electricity from Wylfa Newydd in the mid-2020s. (3) But it has yet to reach a deal on financing the reactors with the Government. (4) NuGen, which is planning to build new reactors at Moorside, near Sellafield, has said they will not be up and running by 2025 either. (5) Horizon says it’s unlikely that construction would even start at Oldbury until the late 2020s at the earliest. (6) Sizewell C is not expected to begin generating electricity until 2031 (7) and there is currently no overall defined timeline for the Bradwell B project. (8) No proposals have been put forward for Hartlepool or Heysham.

Instead of admitting that its new nuclear programme has been a failure, and that by the time any of the proposed reactors come on line nuclear power will be obsolete (9) the proposed new NPS simply carries forward the designated sites from the current NPS, and suggests that new sites may be designated in the 2020s.

Taken together with the overarching NPS for Energy (EN1), the Government says the current nuclear NPS sets out the need for nuclear power. Yet when the Government first endorsed Hinkley Point C, (HPC) it was projecting an increase in electricity consumption of 15% by now, whereas in practice we are consuming 15% less than a decade ago. (In 2005 it was 29,981 ktoe. By 2015 it had fallen to 26,031 ktoe –a 15.2% decrease.) In other words it made a 30% error. This is despite a 13% increase in GDP over the last decade. HPC is only due to deliver 7% of consumption. So, in fact, there is no “need” for new nuclear power stations before or after 2025. (10)

The Blackwater Against New Nuclear Response to the consultation is available here:

The Stop Hinkley Campaign Response is here: StopHinkley_NPS_Response[1]

The Together Against Sizewell C response is here:

The Nuclear Free Local Authorities Briefing on the consultation is here:


(1) BBC 3rd July 2017

(2) Sir Ed Davey: ‘There are doubts about whether Hinkley will ever get built’ Unearthed 15th December 2017.

(3) Horizon Nuclear website (accessed 2nd January 2018)

(4) Collingridge, J. Hitachi boss Hiraoki Nakanishi ups the ante over £10bn Wales nuclear site, Sunday Times 10th December 2017 

(5) Cumbrian nuclear plant set to be delayed, Whitehaven News 3rd October 2017.

(6) Horizon Nuclear website (accessed 2nd Jan 2018)

(7) Brodie, D Sizewell C nuclear power station could become operational in 2031, says head of EDF Energy, East Anglian Daily Times 30th October 2017.

(8) Bradwell B Project website (accessed 2nd January 2018)

(9). Vidal, J. Big power out, solar in: UBS urges investors to join renewables revolution, Guardian 27th August 2014 See also Green World 27th August 2014 

(10) Letter from Andrew Warren, Chair of the British Energy Efficiency Federation, Guardian 5th July 2017 

For more information on the need for nuclear power on energy efficiency watch Andrew Warren speaking at the CND Conference “No Need for Nuclear” in June 2017

Posted: 23 March 2018

Time to Cancel Hinkley Point C

Reflecting much of the media comment, since offshore wind costs as low as £57.50/MWh were announced earlier this month, (1) The Guardian’s editorial said the precipitous drop in the price of electricity from offshore wind turbines should “blow away” the UK’s nuclear plans. It describes Hinkley Point C as “like a dinosaur even before it arrives on earth”. Ministers should “open the door to a greener, cleaner future where Britain meets greenhouse gas targets without more expensive nuclear plants.” (2)

Now, in a new report, Emeritus Professor of Energy Policy, Steve Thomas, says it is time to cancel Hinkley Point C. EDF and the French and  UK governments may try to suggest that it’s too late to stop and will talk up the costs which have already been incurred. But the start of construction, when the first structural concrete is poured, is still between 2 and 4 years away. Preliminary works are conspicuous but relatively cheap. EDF Energy will have incurred expenses since signing the deal with the UK Government in October 2016 and some of these may be compensatable. But these costs would be dwarfed by the costs of going ahead

If wholesale electricity prices do not rise, the extra cost to consumers over the 35 years from opening the plant would be about £50bn. If the wholesale price rises to, say £70/MWh, the cost would be about £27bn.

Thomas says it would be surprising if there aren’t further delays and cost increases. EDF’s claim it will take the risk of cost increases does not seem credible, so further costs could fall on electricity consumers and taxpayers.

Thomas continued “Hinkley Point C would use a technology unproven in operation – the EPR – which has run into appalling problems of cost & time overruns in the 3 projects using it. It would be supplied by Areva NP, which is in financial collapse and might not be saveable and has been found to be falsifying quality control records for safety critical items of equipment for up to 50 years – a bizarre situation.

Stop Hinkley Spokesperson, Roy Pumfrey said:

We keep hearing warnings about the so-called energy gap. But when the government first endorsed Hinkley Point C, (HPC) it was projecting an increase in electricity consumption of 15% by now, whereas in practice we are consuming 15% less than a decade ago. In other words it made a 30 % error. We don’t need worry about the gap left by HPC – there isn’t one. The news has focussed on the rapidly falling cost of offshore wind, but  we have also learnt that Energy efficiency improvements could reduce the average householders bill by £270 a year and save the equivalent to the output of six Hinkley Point Cs”. (3)

Steve Thomas’ report is available here Time to Cancel Hinkley


(1) For instance even the Spectator says “Hinkley Point C was the best idea available when it was first mooted seven years ago, but time and technology are inexorably overtaking it.” Spectator 16th Sept 2017

(2) Guardian 13th September 2017 

(3) UK Energy Research Centre 6th Sept 2017

Posted: 25 September 2017

Risk of Hinkley Point C no longer justified (if it ever was)

According to the UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC), energy efficiency improvements to home heating, insulation, lighting and appliances could reduce the energy consumed in UK households each year by the equivalent to the output of six nuclear power stations the size of Hinkley Point C, saving consumers £270 off the average household energy bill of £1,100. (1) In fact, when the UK government first endorsed Hinkley Point C, (HPC) it was projecting an increase in electricity consumption of 15% by now, whereas in practice the UK is consuming 15% less than a decade ago. In other words Government projections were out by 30 %. (2)

The price of £57.50 per megawatt hour (MWh) unveiled recently for two giant wind projects, off the coast of the UK is almost half the level expected to be paid for electicity generated by Hinkley Point C – £92.50/MWh at 2012 prices (which by now will be around £100/MWh). What is more the offshore wind payments only continue for 15 years compared with nuclear payments which continue for 35 years.

According to the Daily Telegraph Britain could theoretically produce up to 595GW from offshore wind at competitive cost, an order of magnitude more than Britain’s entire power needs, even at peak times in the dead of winter (53GW). Some excess power could be sold to Europe through interconnectors, and some could be turned into hydrogen through electrolysis and used to replace fossil gas. (3)

Solar power, once so costly it only made economic sense in spaceships, is becoming so cheap that it will push coal and even natural-gas plants out of business faster than previously forecast according to the Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) outlook. (4) According to the 100% renewable utility, Good Energy, the wholesale price of electricity in the UK is falling, mainly due to the rise in solar photovoltaics (PV) and wind power. (5)  Emeritus Professor Keith Barnham says if renewable expansion had continued at the same rate it did between 2010 and 2015 we could have achieved an all-renewable UK electricity supply by 2025.Why cull such popular and successful industries? The UK has more than 32GW of renewable power, 10 times the power the Hinkley Point C nuclear plant may achieve in 2030. Hinkley’s power is not only almost irrelevant; its inflexible nature will make it redundant. Once operating, a nuclear reactor should run with constant output, 24/7, month to month, but power that complements wind and PV has to vary in less than one hour. What the UK needs is flexible, not continuous baseload power generation to back up wind and photovoltaic (PV) power. (6)

Clearly, the electricity which Hinkley Point C is expected to generate could be replaced by energy efficiency measures or renewable energy systems more cheaply, more quickly and without radioactive discharges to the environment or the generation of radioactive waste. The risk that the UK and European public will be subjected to by the construction of Hinkley Point C can, therefore, no longer be justified.

(1) UK Energy Research Centre 6th Sept 2017
(2) Guardian 5th July 2017 
(3) Telegraph 13th September 2017
(4) Bloomberg 15th June 2017
(5) Good Energy, “Wind and solar reducing consumer bills: an investigation into the merit order effect”, (2015)
(6) Guardian 10th May 2017

Posted: 15 September 2017

UK Nuclear Policies – recent changes and likely developments

Steve Thomas, Emeritus Professor of Energy Policy at the University of Greenwich, says many of the issues that arise with Hinkley Point C (HPC) that might derail it apply equally to the whole Government programme. He says we are probably at the point where we are looking at a public spending disaster. Financing HPC will stretch EDF Energy to the limit and maybe beyond. He thinks there is no possibility of Sizewell C being built on the timetable that the Government is looking at. He says we are in a surreal situation where we are planning the two largest construction projects ever built on UK soil – HPC and Moorside – and we are contemplating buying the equipment from bankrupt and disgraced companies using technologies that have abjectly failed wherever they have been built. None of the three consortia (excluding Bradwell which is further off in the future) are financeable in their present state. Here we look at the evidence presented by Steve Thomas and others which questions whether any of these projects will ever be successfully completed. On the other hand continuing with these projects will seriously damage renewable and energy efficiency programmes and delay real action to combat climate change.

UK Nuclear Policies[final]

Posted: 5 September 2017

The Legacy of Nuclear Power by Andrew Blowers, Earthscan, 2017 £37.99

From the resigned embrace of nuclear clean-up at Hanford in the USA to the resolute approach towards geological disposal as a permanent solution pursued in France, to the conflicting priorities that have beset Sellafield in the UK, and the vigorous resistance to nuclear developments at Gorleben in Germany, all have been socially shaped, says Blowers, by the evolving power relations of the nuclear industry and its antagonists. Each of these has the characteristics of what he calls ‘peripheral communities’.

Blowers has been involved with the nuclear waste issue since October 1983 when a site just south of Bedford near the village of Elstow, birthplace of Pilgrim’s Progress author John Bunyan, was designated as a possible nuclear waste site by Nirex. Blowers told TV audiences that Bunyan would be turning in his grave at the thought that the Slough of Despond could reappear in contemporary form as a nuclear waste dump. Blowers says he believes he was one of the first to pronounce that nuclear waste is a social as well as a scientific problem, so he feels an obligation to try to understand what this means and to fathom the consequences of this understanding.

The overarching theme of this book is the relationship between nuclear communities and radioactive waste – the inevitable and long-lasting arising from routine operations and accidents. The waste tends to be confined to established locations which tend to manifest ‘peripheral’ characteristics with a particular power relationship between the industry and community. Blowers’ hope is that understanding this may suggest some implications for radioactive waste management strategy.

Locally unwanted land uses – or LULUs – tend to be located in peripheral communities, and nuclear facilities – especially those associated with waste management are perhaps the classic case of a LULU. So much so that their location reproduces and reinforces processes of peripheralisation. Such communities are geographically remote and tend to be dominated by a single employer or sector. The economic power exercised by dominant companies may also be translated into political power and pre-existing traditional economic activities, like farming and fishing, become subordinated. There may be a growing inequality between those benefitting from the wealth and incomes generated by the new industry and those remaining in traditional occupations.

Acceptance of the environmental risk is a necessary condition of living in an established nuclear community and Blowers contrasts this with communities determined to resist environmental risks which could explain why it is so difficult to establish new nuclear sites beyond existing frontiers. Blowers contends that it is the inequality in resources possessed and mobilised by those communities able to resist, combined with the powerlessness of communities that have little choice but to accept, that ultimately and inevitably confirms a pattern of location of hazardous industries in peripheral locations.


The Hanford nuclear reservation in Washington State is truly massive – almost as big as Hertfordshire. It is the largest clean-up project anywhere in the world at an annual cost of $2bn. Established to produce plutonium for America’s nuclear weapons, by the early 1960s the workforce on the site was nearly 10,000. By 1962 the population of the Tri-Cities was 54,000 with around half in Richland – the company town. Even in the early years there was a concern about stigma and the awesome destructive power of the materials produced, but those feelings tended to be muted in a condition of willingly repressed awareness. Hanford’s defence lay in its purpose in the defence of the nation.

Eventually the community had to undergo a painful adjustment in attitudes and beliefs and face up to the fact that Hanford’s role in the defence of the nation had been replaced by its role in defence of the environment. The sheer scale of the legacy and the casual attitudes to risk that prevailed in the past are now revealed. Bob Alvarez, former advisor to President Clinton says “The costs, complexity and risks of the Hanford high level waste project rival those of the US manned space programme by have far greater potential consequences to the human environment.”

From the late 1980s to the early part of this century the community showed a marked reluctance to let go of production, a resistance to its new role and a yearning to grasp any activities which might prolong the nuclear culture. But as the commitment to clean-up has developed and the non-nuclear economy has begun to flourish, fears of decline have diminished. An economic transformation is taking place. Many mining, steel and textile towns in the US, though scarred by environmental degradation and toxic waste, have simply been left to die once their industry shuts down. But Hanford has survived in changing circumstances. Although the clean-up process displays institutional inertia, Hanford is no longer a mono-cultural economy. Although the stigma persists, in some ways there is a belief that the image of the area has improved as the benefits and achievement of clean-up campaigns are recognised.

There may be some lessons here for those supporters of President Trump who support the perpetuation of old fossil fuel-based industries.


Similar to Hanford, the main focus of activity at Sellafield has shifted from production to clean-up and especially clearing up the legacy from the early days of the nuclear programme when little attention was paid to dealing with the wastes. Blowers’ chapter on Sellafield also covers recent events in the nuclear waste ‘disposal’ saga, including the CoRWM recommendations of 2006 and how these were seized upon by the Government as a “sound basis for moving forward” with a focus on geological disposal as a means of demonstrating that radioactive waste would not be a barrier to a new nuclear programme. As at Hanford there has been a tendency among the workforce to cling on to production and to plead for new plants when the need for them is diminishing. Sellafield however, is spending more than Hanford – around $2.2bn per year.

According to former Cumbria County Council leader, Eddie Martin: “Copeland has some of the highest wages in Cumbria but Sellafield sits beside people living in abject poverty. We’ve borne the burden and are paying the penalty for living next door to Sellafield. We have a prehistoric infrastructure” and his successor Stewart Young said “We have some of the most deprived communities living in the shadow of a multi-million pound industry. It’s an absolute scandal”.

Sellafield drives a monocultural and unevenly developed economy that is relatively weak in its ability to diversify and draw inward investment. On the other hand the relationship of dominance and dependence between the nuclear industry and West Cumbria gives the area a measure of economic stability and leverage with the nation.

Breaking out of that vicious cycle which appears to leave an area dependent on a single hazardous industry, and the stigma attached, with only the option of hunting for yet more hazardous employment could be the best way to move beyond the resulting unequal society. There seems to be a way to go yet before the green shoots of a new economy beginning to appear at Hanford show signs of sprouting in West Cumbria.

La Hague and Bure

Unlike Sellafield and La Hague, Bure is not a nuclear community in the sense of an established population living and working in the area. While geology was the leading consideration in selecting Bure as a good site for a deep underground repository, it is an area which seems isolated and empty. The prospect of an underground laboratory was widely welcomed at the political level for the economic benefits it might bring. Bure is already showing the signs of the kind of social acceptance that are characteristic of peripheral locations. A major reason, according to Blowers, is the way the notion of geological disposal has been progressively embedded in the community as other options have, one by one, disappeared.


Gorleben is different from the other three communities Blowers examines. The industry has never become established on anything like the scale originally envisaged. Blowers considers, amongst other things, the opportunities Gorleben presents for a new approach to waste policy and the role of Gorleben in the continuing uncertainty about radioactive waste management in Germany.

One of the outcomes of the “consensual transformation of energy policy in Germany was the reanimation of the efforts to find a permanent solution to the management of highly radioactive wastes”. But a solution may not easily be found because it seems impossible to make progress while Gorleben remains a potential site, but also impossible without it.


Nuclear communities must endure both the physical threat of living with environmental risk and the social stigma that is often associated with proximity to radioactive waste. Blowers says they cannot live in a perpetual state of anxiety and dread, nor should they since, as custodians of these wastes, they have an obvious interest in their safe and secure management. But the possibility of an accident, however small, places these communities at a disadvantage compared to other non-nuclear communities.

Progress in finding sites for deep geological repositories for nuclear waste has been slow. Where progress has been made, as in Finland and Sweden, it has been through a process of comparative site evaluation eliminating all but those sites in existing nuclear locations. In Finland the choice has fallen on Eurajoki where there are two reactors at Olkiluoto and a third under construction. In Sweden the site chosen is Osthammar near the Forsmark nuclear power station and intermediate level waste repository. The tendency in almost every country is to proceed slowly and to focus on those locations where nuclear facilities are well established.

The problems associated with the safe management of the legacy of nuclear waste we have produced may be more complex than sending humans to the moon. If Whitehall is to have any hope of solving these intractable problems it is going to need people, like Blowers who have been analysing the sociology of these issues for more than 30 years. Civil servants involved today could do a lot worse than to start by reading this book.

Posted: 1 August 2017

National Audit Office issues devastating critique of Hinkley Point C deal

Commenting on the report issued on 23rd June by the National Audit Office Stop Hinkley Spokesperson Roy Pumfrey said:

This is a pretty devastating critique of the deal struck between the Government and EDF Energy on Hinkley Point C. Consumers would be locked into a risky and expensive project with uncertain strategic and economic benefits, according to the National Audit Office, and the government’s case for the project has weakened since the deal was agreed in 2013.”

Earlier this week the Financial Times highlighted the continuing fall in the costs of renewables saying they would allow the government to escape from the plans imposed by George Osborne in 2013 for a wave of expensive new nuclear plants. (1)

The CEO of one of the UK’s top utilities, SSE, said Hinkley Point C will probably be the only new nuclear station to go ahead, and only then if Flamanville in Normandy – which is the same reactor-type as Hinkley Point C – goes well from now on. He said Britain does not need Hinkley Point C to ensure the lights will stay on. (2)

Bloomberg New Energy Finance reports that solar power is becoming so cheap that it will push coal and even natural-gas plants out of business faster than previously forecast. The cost of offshore wind farms, until recently the most expensive mainstream renewable technology, will slide 71% making the technology another competitive form of low carbon generation. (3)

According to the FT “Nobody outside the industry now thinks the future of electricity generation is nuclear fission”. And it said scrapping Hinkley Point would be a good way to start sorting out the mess of UK energy policy. (4)

Roy Pumfrey said

It is pretty damning when your independent arbiter of what represents good value for money gives a big infrastructure project like this the thumbs down

He continued:

It’s not too late to scrap this backward-looking, expensive and dangerous project. The Government’s ill advised obsession with nuclear is locking consumers into 35-years of paying for expensive electricity to say nothing of the thousands of years of stewardship needed for the waste. It should instead stop trying to kill off the renewable industry which promises to cut electricity prices and embrace the future. Somerset needs to be allowed to get on with developing a cheaper green energy strategy for the coming decades.


(1) Why batteries are more important than Brexit, FT 19th June 2017 
(2) Reuters 19th June 2017
(3) Bloomberg 15th June 2017
(4) Nuclear is rightly vanishing as an answer to our energy needs FT 26th May 2017

Posted: 23 June 2017

Nuclear is vanishing as an answer to our energy needs as solar wins the race

Solar panels produced more electricity than Britain’s eight nuclear power stations for the first time on Friday 26th May. (1) Stop Hinkley Spokesperson Roy Pumfrey said:

It is clear now that the Government’s savage cuts to renewable subsidies were made to ensure that the wholesale price of electricity will rise in the future towards the already agreed price for Hinkley Point C – £92.50 per megawatt hour (MWh).”

Solar power accounted for 24.3% of electricity being generated at 12.30pm on Friday and exceeded nuclear output for three hours from 11am to 2pm. Solar power and other renewables are getting cheaper and more efficient as we install more of it around the country.

As solar power flooded the system on Friday, wholesale electricity prices fell to around £38/MWh, compared with about £50/MWh in spring 2013. Friday’s peak solar output was almost three times greater than the planned 3.2GW generating capacity of Hinkley Point C.

Pumfrey continued: “Renewables like wind and solar are among the cheapest options for generating power in the UK. Eventually plummeting costs mean solar will no longer need subsidies, but the Government has withdrawn subsidies much too soon so installations are slowing sharply.”

Deployments of rooftop solar panels fell by three-quarters in the first quarter of this year compared with 2016. The Solar Trade Association, which represents the UK industry, said reduced subsidies and higher taxes were threatening to stall further growth in the sector. (2)

In effect the Government is trying to kill off an industry which promises to cut all consumers electricity prices so that it can afford to pay the ridiculously high price it has guaranteed to EDF Energy for Hinkley Point C. As the Financial Times pointed out last week nobody outside the industry now thinks the future of electricity generation is nuclear fission. (3) If this unproven design ever gets built and produces electricity, the UK consumer will be obliged to pay over twice the current market price for the output. Surely, for the good of electricity consumers, it must be time to scrap Hinkley Point C.


For more background see Professor Keith Barnham’s article in the Independent

The author of “The Burning Answer: A User’s Guide to the Solar Revolution” says: “…a Tory government has intervened in two highly successful, exponentially expanding markets, PV and onshore wind, aiming to reduce their expansion to zero by 2020 so as not to threaten their top priorities: higher carbon and more expensive nuclear and natural gas electricity.”

 Also see Good Energy’s analysis which shows that renewables are actually cutting the wholesale price of electricity and lessening the impact of subsidies on bill payers.

(1) Solar power outshines nuclear for the first time, Times 27th May 2017

(2) Solar outshines nuclear as spring sun boosts UK output, FT 27th May 2017

(3) Nuclear is rightly vanishing as an answer to our energy needs FT 26th May 2017

Posted: 31 May 2017

Another month in UK’s failing new nuclear programme

The ongoing collapse of the Moorside nuclear project has hit the headlines. But the French nuclear industry continues to be mired in scandal as EDF starts pouring nuclear safety critical concrete at Hinkley. And now we learn that the chief executive of Wylfa Newydd developer Horizon Nuclear Power says he needs to raise cash or the Anglesey project will not go-ahead

Moorside Collapse

On 29th March 2017, Westinghouse Electric Company, a subsidiary of Japanese company Toshiba and the largest historic builder of nuclear power plants in the world, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. (1)

Toshiba now owns 100% of the NuGen consortium which is planning to build 3 AP1000 reactors at Moorside next to Sellafield in Cumbria afterench company Engie (33% owned by the French Government) exercised its right under the NuGen consortium agreement to sell all of its shares to Toshiba in the “event of a default”. Toshiba’s decision to place Westinghouse – into bankruptcy protection qualifies as such an event. (2)

Engie is the seventh international energy utility to give up on UK new nuclear build (8th if you count Siemens). Over the past decade, on top of Toshiba, E-on (Wylfa), RWE Npower (Wylfa), Iberdrola (Moorside), SSE (Moorside), and Centrica (Hinkley Point) have all pulled out of developing new nuclear reactors in the UK. (3)

This leaves a very limited field of companies for the UK to approach in its hunt for a new partner for the Moorside scheme. South Korea’s KEPCO remains the most likely suitor, but Reuters reports that the giant utility won’t be rushed. It is one of few utilities remaining with global nuclear ambitions, but despite the fact that the AP1000 reactor has now received approval from the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the Environment Agency may still want to use its own technology – the APR1400. This would delay the development by a further four to five years whilst the South Korean reactor is put through its Generic Design Assessment by UK Regulators. Greg Clark, the Business Secretary, was in Seoul for talks at the beginning of April, but offered no evidence of concrete progress in the negotiations. (4)

French nuclear scandal

EDF, Areva and the French nuclear regulator ASN have known since at least 2005 that Areva’s Creusot Forge factory was not capable of producing nuclear safety compliant components. Yet the factory has been allowed to continue manufacturing components which have now been found to contain anomalies, including the bottom and lid for the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) for the EPR at Flamanville. (5)

The Creusot Forge is under investigation by ASN after it was discovered to have produced potentially defective parts and substandard safety reports for reactors around the world. But the letters from 2005 and 2006 – obtained by France Inter – show that EDF and Areva were told by the ASN about “numerous incidents” at the facility, including “discrepancies during inspections”. This will raise serious concerns about EDF and Areva’s new nuclear project at Hinkley Point. (6)

The regulator – ASN – has been seriously at fault, according to the Observatoir du Nucleaire, since it has said nothing for many years about the criminal practices at Le Creusot. It says ASN is no less guilty than Areva and EDF because, although it was fully aware of the serious problems, it authorized EDF to install the pressure vessel in the EPR at Flamanville in December 2013. It is clear, says the website, that ASN is not able to withstand pressure from EDF and politicians who accuse them of seriously harming the industry if they enforce safety regulations. (7)

EDF’s oversight of AREVA, which will supply the Hinkley Point C reactors was questioned in an internal document by the UK Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR). In an ONR report about a visit to Le Creusot dated 16th December ONR said the nuclear safety culture at Creusot fell short of expectations and warned about the implications for Hinkley Point C. ONR said it has since decided to implement a series of additional inspections of EDF and its supply chain to ensure all components are manufactured to the required standard. The ONR report said after an inspection in late 2016, that an international team from France, Canada, the United States, China, Finland and Britain had concluded that the nuclear safety culture at Le Creusot Forge foundry fell short of what regulators expect from a major supplier of nuclear equipment. It added that improvement measures ordered by ASN were not yet effective and said despite the prohibition of the use of correction fluid on documents at the foundry, the inspectors found evidence of its continued use. (8)

Who will put up the cash for Wylfa?

Hitachi Ltd, the owner of Horizon nuclear, which is proposing to build two Advanced Boiling Water Reactors with a total capacity of 2.7MW at Wylfa on Anglesey, is set to lose tens of billions of yen this financial year after withdrawing from a uranium enrichment joint venture in the US. Hitachi is expected to report a 70 billion yen ($620 million) non-operating loss by the time books were closed at the end of March. The deficit is largely attributed to the joint venture GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy Inc. withdrawing from the uranium enrichment project. Hitachi no longer expects any profits from the North Carolina-based company, of which it owns 40% and the rest by General Electric. Hitachi and GE were expecting more nuclear power plants to be built when they launched the joint fuel enrichment business, but orders have been sluggish across the globe, forcing the project to be shelved. Nevertheless, Hitachi says it will be sticking with its nuclear power business and plans to proceed with its project to build Wylfa by ensuring costs are thoroughly managed. (9)

The chief executive of Horizon Nuclear, Duncan Hawthorne, says funding is the key issue to ensure the nuclear plant gets built. Wylfa Newydd would be the “showcase plant” for Horizon and Hitachi and important for the UK and Japanese Governments, which means there is huge resolve to get the project done successfully. But without the private investment and Government support the £14bn project would not happen. He said the deal that was struck for Hinkley Point would not work for Wylfa Newydd due to the fact they are private investors. Hinkley is supported by state backed Chinese and French enterprises. Hitachi are funding the project to the ‘Final Investment Decision’, with around £2.5bn of cash. He said he was very aware of the need to keep the Anglesey community behind the project, showing them what benefits the scheme could bring. He said: “Without community support we can’t do anything.” (10)

A longer version of this article appears in nuClear News No.94

(1) World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2nd April 2017
(2) FT 4th April 2017
(3) NFLA 4th April 2017 
(4) Reuters 5th April 2017 
(5) Energydesk 31st March 2017 
(6) Energydesk 31st March 2017 
(7) Nuclear Observer 31st March 2017 
(8) Reuters 24th March 2017  and Guardian 24th March 2017
(9) Asahi Shimbun 2nd Feb 2017 
(10) Daily Post 5th April 2017 

Posted: 12 April 2017