Amber Rudd: Hinckley Point nuke £90/MWhr is “great value for money”

Posted: September 21, 2015 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

nuke-powerFrom the dept of barefaced lies we get Amber Rudd telling us on BBCR4 Today that guaranteeing EDF energy £90/MWhr for 35 years is “great value for money. Her justification for this outrageous heist on the public purse and billpayers wallet is that it’s ‘low carbon energy’.

Hello Amber? Global surface temperature has not risen in nearly two decades while global CO2 emissions have risen faster than ever. Oil and gas prices are at a historic low, and looking likely to remain low.

Amber says we need “a mix of energy sources”. So where are the plans for new gas fired plant?

The BBC interviewer weighed in asking why we don’t make more use of interconnects to cheap continental energy. You can rely on the BBC to continue it’s illegal role as the mouthpiece of the EU. Tethering the UK to Europe by energy interconnects as the closure of UK generating capacity continues unabated is a sure way to make withdrawal from the sinking EU ship more complicated.

Comments
  1. Looks like yet another sell-out by the Tories. We should be building our own energy destiny, rather than depending on foreign money to finance it. It will all end in tears

  2. wolsten says:

    Monumentally stupid.

  3. BLACK PEARL says:

    Nice report

  4. oldbrew says:

    ‘Tethering the UK to Europe by energy interconnects as the closure of UK generating capacity continues unabated is a sure way to make withdrawal from the sinking EU ship more complicated.’

    Yes, but fortunately Norway’s not in the EU🙂
    https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/09/18/does-the-uk-need-norwegian-hydropower/

  5. Why tie this to the EU – a link was established in 1961, before EU. This was replaced in 1986. It is now owned by “independent” operators on a commercial basis National Grid plc, Réseau de Transport d’Électricité.

    I do not see the EU membership being of any importance. Just the price of electricity.

    Presumably the pricing for new nuclear represents a figure required to entice the private sector to build the plants. Hinckley build is now perhaps in doubt since the build over-run, the quality failure, and price overrun has just about sunk Areva:

    A €9 billion (£6.5bn) new-generation French nuclear power plant – the same model sold to Britain – may have to be scrapped due to a faulty steel reactor vessel at risk of splitting.

    It was supposed to be France’s atomic energy showcase abroad, but the European Pressurised Reactor, or EPR, is threatening to turn into a nuclear nightmare with an astronomical price tag.

    Designed to be the safest reactors in the world and among the most energy-efficient, the EPR has suffered huge delays in models under construction in France, Finland and China.

    This week, Areva informed the French nuclear regulator that “very serious” anomalies had been detected in the reactor vessel steel of an EPR plant under construction in Flamanville, northern France, causing “lower than expected mechanical toughness values”.

    Pierre-Franck Chevet, president of France’s nuclear safety authority (ASN), told Le Parisien the anomalies were in the “base and lid” of the vessel, which is “an absolutely crucial component of the nuclear reactor on which no risk of breakage can be taken”.

    The vessel houses the plant’s nuclear fuel and confines its radioactivity.

    The plant was already running five years later and costs have tripled.

    French state-owned Areva is contracted to provide two of its EPRs to Hinkley Point in Somerset station, a development the European Commission estimates will cost £24.5 billion.

  6. wiki entry:
    On 21 September 2015 the British government announced it would provide a £2 billion support package for for Hinckley Point C as Britain’s first nuclear power station in 20 years. The estimated cost had risen from £5.6 billion in 2008 to £24.5 billion in 2015. Originally planned to enter service by the end of 2017 it is not estimated to enter service before 2024.

    In 2009, MIT updated its 2003 study, concluding that inflation and rising construction costs had increased the overnight cost of nuclear power plants to about $4,000/kWe, and thus increased the power cost to $0.084/kWh.[43][95] The 2003 study had estimated the cost as $0.067/kWh.[5]

    According to Benjamin K. Sovacool, the marginal levelized cost for “a 1,000-MWe facility built in 2009 would be 41.2 to 80.3 cents/kWh, presuming one actually takes into account construction, operation and fuel, reprocessing, waste storage, and decommissioning”.[96]

    In 2014, the US Energy Information Administration estimated the levelized cost of electricity from new nuclear power plants going online in 2019 to be $0.096/kWh before government subsidies, comparable to the cost of electricity from a new coal-fired power plant without carbon capture, but higher than the cost from natural gas-fired plants.

  7. Fanakapan says:

    A French/Chinese co operation to build something that has the potential to be a PITA for 10,000 years.

    I must be getting old, my automatic reaction to such a proposition is to imagine it part of a comedians repertoire. And that any politician suggesting such would be fast tracked to the Job Centre🙂

  8. michael hart says:

    I’ve always been a full on supporter of nuclear power, and I still am. But the fear and political uncertainty engineered by the greens has been very successful at raising the investment risks, halting technical development, and destroying the domestic nuclear industry.
    So here we are, at least three decades behind where we could have been, and paying a price which will increase.

    And then they (repeatedly) tell us we have only 5 years to save the planet from fossil fuels and CO2.

    It’s lol-tastic.

  9. tallbloke says: September 22, 2015 at 5:34 am

    Folk convincing charts! You truly are no fun at all! Your political ambitions are in the terlet!🙂

  10. oldbrew says:

    This reactor design has never produced any electricity and may never do so due to technical problems i.e. it could be deemed unsafe to operate.

    ‘The technical objections begin with the fact that the design, which was drawn up by troubled French company Areva, has never been successfully built, and the contractor Electricite de France (EDF) seems increasingly uncertain that it is possible. In the first attempt, in Finland, construction of the Olkiluoto reactor began in 2005 and was expected to be completed in 2009 at cost of €3 billion. The latest revision to the schedule puts the completion back to 2018 and the latest estimated total cost of the project has ballooned to €8.5 billion.

    A second project, at Flamanville in France, was scheduled to start in July 2005 and enter production in 2012 at a cost of €3 billion. This month, that was revised to a 2018 start with costs of €10.5 billion.’

    ‘Meanwhile, in the wake of delays at Flamanville, EDF has promised a new design, but it will not be ready in time to be used at Hinkley Point. Nick Butler, a former energy adviser to prime ministers, has written: “The deal will go down in history…as an example of the inability of the British government – ministers and civil servants alike – to negotiate complex commercial deals.” ‘

    http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/8186-UK-s-China-funded-new-nuclear-plant-lacks-rationale-says-growing-band-of-critics

    So Britain gets the rubbish old design😦

  11. oldmanK says:

    oldbrew says ” ministers and civil servants alike – to negotiate complex commercial deals.”

    Do not limit that to the British govt. They never were.

  12. gallopingcamel says:

    The cheapest electricity on the planet comes from “Old Nukes”. So why would anyone pay more than $50/MWh? That price would lock in an obscene profit margin for the operating company.
    https://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/electric-power-in-florida/