8 thoughts on “Two fallacies around Hinkley Point”

  1. Posted 16/09/2016 at 13:18 | Permalink

    The revenues from Hinkley will be >£3bn per year, and the operational costs and amortized capital costs will be around £1.2bn. EdF can expect a whopping 10% return.

    That says more about the failure of the successive UK governments to plan than is does about the inherent cost of nuclear power.

    The ETS was dreamed up by ideologues, and has functioned how some predicted it would. By rewarding rent seeking parasites, not cutting emissions.

    A nice simple carbon tax, implemented 20 years ago, and rising with time would have done the job nicely. Yet, as Australia showed, twatish right wing politicians scuppered that idea.

    The French have low cost electricity and very low CO2 emissions. Would Prof Booth like to comment as to why the UK shouldn’t have simply copied that particular strategy?

  2. Posted 16/09/2016 at 18:03 | Permalink

    yes, their nuclear programme was not captured by rent seekers as ours was so that it ended up extremely expensive. I agree with your point about carbon tax versus emissions trading scheme (but, once you have a carbon tax, you do not need government to pick winners in terms of energy generation). There was a paper I saw recently that suggested that a carbon tax rising with time causes problems (that is, encourages more fossil fuel consumption today as the cost of leaving the stuff in the ground is higher).

  3. Posted 17/09/2016 at 10:56 | Permalink

    Daft “worst of all worlds” scheme, worthy of “Yes Minister” or “Men from the Ministry”. It will impose a huge brake on the UK economy. They might almost as well be building a pyramid at Hinkley Point – that would “create jobs” as well.

    As for its so called green credentials, it is also to important to remember that it will use a massive amount of concrete, the making of which creates vast quantities of pollution, not to mention all the fossil fuels consumed in mining and refining uranium.

  4. Posted 17/09/2016 at 17:12 | Permalink

    “The French have low cost electricity and very low CO2 emissions.”

    No – the French have low price electricity, not necessarily low cost electricity. Do French electricity consumers pay the full cost of constructing, running and decommissioning their nuclear plants? Unless you can demonstrate that that is the case, you cannot say that the cost is as low as the price.

  5. Posted 20/09/2016 at 10:53 | Permalink

    “Do French electricity consumers pay the full cost of constructing, running and decommissioning their nuclear plants? ”


  6. Posted 21/09/2016 at 21:17 | Permalink

    Benjamin Weenen – Can you provide some evidence for your assertion please?

  7. Posted 25/09/2016 at 16:56 | Permalink

    Dear Phillip,
    This was a truly superb analysis of the current situation with regard to Hinkley Point C.
    In 2013 my colleagues , Frazer Ball, Ann Thornton, Catherine Caine and I wrote a paper “Nuclear power: ecologically sustainable or energy hot potato? A case study @ http://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticle.php?artid=51926” where we argued with reference to Hinkley Point C from an economic perspective there are serious questions that need to be answered with regard to the decommissioning costs. Amongst other things this paper questioned the then government attitude to passing on financial responsibility for dealing with the current generation’s energy ‘solutions’ to generations 100 years in the future was in keeping with the principles of sustainability which theUnited Kingdom has signed up to.
    Best regards,

    Tilak Ginige
    Convener Environment & Threats Strategic Research Group
    Senior Lecturer in Environmental Law
    Faculty of Science & Technology
    Bournemouth University
    Talbot Campus
    Christchurch House
    Fern Barrow
    BH12 5BB
    Tel: 01 202 965680
    Mobile: 07946541641
    [email protected]

  8. Posted 05/01/2017 at 12:52 | Permalink

    HPC is an appalling bad decision, principally because the design of the reactor/s proposed is a truly dreadful one, which inherently dangerous and so needs 1001 safety features to make it pass H&S tests.

    Using an inherently SAFE reactor design would obviate the need for all those added-on safety features and so reduce the cost os building and running the reactor by 75%.

    I can only assume that the plutonium waste from HPC is required for future UK weapons, as there can be no other possible reason for choosing what is, fundamentally, the late 1960’s Westinghouse design

    Why not an updated CANDU reactor – or the modern S Korean design now being built there? The latter producing 75% more electricity at 25% the construction costs of HPC

Leave a Reply

Your e-mail address will not be published.