Hinkley Point C Delay ‘Political’: Consultant

The UK government’s "astonishing" announcement that it needs to check the contract for the 3.2-GW nuclear complex at Hinkley Point C before signature is a political one, in the opinion of David Cox, an independent energy consultant. The French giant EDF voted to develop the plant on July 28 and expected the UK government – and dozens of other entities – to sign the paperwork the next day.

“These are the same people who were in government before, admittedly in different jobs. They cannot undo the deal and it is a crazy story after all these months,” he told NGE July 29. 

Theresa May, the prime minister, was the Home Secretary for the previous six years; finance chief Philip Hammond has held cabinet posts in transport, defence and foreign affairs; while Greg Clark, who made the announcement about the need to spend another month or so checking the contract, formerly managed the government's planning department.

EDF was not expected to make the decision until September to invest in the two 1.6 GWe "EPR" nuclear reactors for Hinkley Point C. But it brought the decision forward, and planned a major celebratory event for political and business partners, including some from China, with marquees and champagne at the ready for July 29. 

But hours after the vote was taken, the Business and Energy Secretary Greg Clark said that while the government believes that nuclear energy is an important part of the mix, it would nevertheless "consider carefully all the component parts of this project and make its decision in the early autumn.” The government perhaps did not want to have its schedule speeded up, or it might want a further round of consultations.

The decision to press ahead was not an easy one for the project leader, EDF, seven of whose 18-strong board reportedly voted against it, with another resigning, according to the company on the day of the vote, saying the project was financially risky. Its finance chief Thomas Piquemal had quit earlier in the year over fears the costs would destroy the company. The output will receive a guaranteed £92.50/MWh, or more than twice today's wholesale electricity prices, but all project risk lies with the builder.

This cannot be discounted as two prototype plants using this untested technology are already late and over-budget: Flamanville in France and Olkiluoto in Finland. There might also be concerns in the UK about Chinese involvement with such a strategic project. 

The Flamanville plant, like Olkiluoto in Finland, is based on the same Areva 'EPR' reactor type as would be used at Hinkley Point C (Photo: (c) EDF)

Cox however said the UK needs nuclear energy “on days like today, when wind generates 2% and nuclear 25% of the output.” Nuclear capacity is being wound down over the next decade, with the last reactor, Sizewell B, due to shut by 2035. “This is bad timing and unnecessary posturing,” he said. Building combined-cycle gas turbines would be good for gas, he said, but bad for the UK’s emissions.

The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) was also in support of new nuclear, while not discounting the importance of gas. Michelle Hubert, CBI Head of Energy and Climate Change, told NGE in an email: "Shoring up our energy supply for the future is critical for businesses as they look to make long-term investment decisions. Gas plays an important role in UK energy, and should form part of a balanced energy mix that includes renewables, nuclear and carbon capture and storage."

A few hours before the surprise government statement, Dr Jenifer Baxter, Head of Energy and Environment at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, had assumed Hinkley Point C would go ahead once the French had approved it.

“Given the UK is facing a 40-55% supply gap the UK government must put in place clear guidance for developing near and long term sustainable power generation that meets the needs of UK carbon targets, creates a good mix of low emission technologies and develops skills and economic growth in the sector,” she said in a statement. The Institution of Mechanical Engineers agrees that the UK needs nuclear, but is also keen on small modular reactors, which do not yet exist but would be built to generate from 45-300 MW to meet local needs flexibly rather than from one 3.2-GW piece of centralised infrastructure. The government has set aside £250mn as a prize for a design.

There will be a need for gas for the foreseeable future, but more work needs to be done on efficiencies in the production, storage and transmission sectors as unabated fossil fuel is societally unacceptable, she told NGE the day after the decision.

Energy consultant Lisa Waters of WatersWye told NGE: I hope that the government is doing a reality check on the costs of the project in light of the fact that the world has moved on. The contract looked very expensive, compared with other renewable technologies, and goes on far longer than any other contract for differences support as well. In the time available, investors could deploy other technologies such as biomass, combined-cycle gas turbines, storage, and so on. The nuclear industry has such a shocking record on delivering new plant on time and on budget, so we may well need these other technologies anyway. As we have not seen the full terms, we can only hope that they were well balanced in favour of the GB consumers.”

William Powell