The coalition government has torn up its “no subsidy for nuclear” commitment with a series of measures aimed at financially supporting the construction of new nuclear power stations.
Today’s announcement by Energy Secretary Chris Huhne on “electricity market reform” includes a range of mechanisms aimed at making low carbon sources of electricity more economic in comparison to polluting fossil fuels like coal and gas. But while generators of carbon-free renewable electricity will no doubt be pleased, the nuclear industry will be celebrating a successful lobbying exercise.
“Private companies like EdF have already said that they can’t build nuclear power stations without additional financial incentives,” said Stop Hinkley spokesman Crispin Aubrey. “These new measures are aimed at helping them make a profit from a technology that carries massive future liabilities, including dealing with dangerous radioactive waste for up to 160 years."
The pro-government Daily Telegraph newspaper describes the measures unequivocally as a subsidy for nuclear. “Years of lobbying by nuclear companies has finally paid off as the Government will today reveal plans to subsidise the price that they are paid for generating electricity”, it concludes .
The fragile economics of nuclear power are already on the line as the first European Pressurised Reactor being built - the type proposed for Hinkley C – has doubled its initial cost estimate to 5.7 billion Euros.
Nuclear power has been covertly subsidised for many years in two obvious ways - through taxpayer support for its decommissioning and waste disposal costs and through the limit set on its liability in the event of a serious accident. These new proposals will increase electricity bills - by as much as £500 a year according to one estimate - in order to help pay for nuclear new build.
The changes to the electricity market proposed today still have to be agreed by parliament and squared with European legislation, so there are opportunities for their bias towards nuclear to be exposed and ruled out of order.
Stop Hinkley will be supporting national action to push nuclear power out of the “clean energy” basket and expose it as a diversion from a genuinely green future involving energy saving and a range of renewable sources.
http://www.stophinkley.org/
Showing posts with label nuclear subsidies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear subsidies. Show all posts
Friday, 17 December 2010
Sunday, 20 June 2010
The real costs of nuclear power
The Guardian Thursday 17 June 2010
Paul Spence says the nuclear industry expects to pay the full cost of decommissioning a new generation of nuclear power stations (Response, 15 June). But his words about "our full share of waste management and disposal costs" were carefully chosen. The consultation document reveals that EDF considers their full share of these costs to be around 20% of the total.
As our report Nuclear Power? No Point! highlighted last year, nuclear is only responsible for 4% of the energy consumed in the UK. http://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/reports/Nuclear_Power_No_Point.pdf
More energy can be saved by energy conservation measures in homes and businesses. Focusing on the nuclear industry takes resources away from building new renewable capacity, which, given sufficient political will, could provide more than enough electricity for the UK.
Darren Johnson Green party spokesperson on Trade and Industry
• EDF's claim that they "have not asked for subsidy for new nuclear" is not all that it seems. The nuclear industry, owned by British Energy (in turn owned by EDF), will be receiving huge sums of windfall profits under government proposals for a floor price on carbon emission allowances. British Energy will greatly expand its profits for no increase in nuclear power production, all subsidised by electricity consumers.
Based on Royal Academy of Engineering analysis (a pro-nuclear source) a carbon floor price of £30 per tonne is likely to lead to electricity price increases of around 2.5p/Kwh. Given that British Energy produces
(according to their website) around 50 TWh per year, this would give them annual windfall profits of around £1.25bn a year. Many argue that the "floor price" would have to be higher than this to make new nuclear power stations profitable. A floor price of £50 per tonne would give EDF windfall profits (at 50 TWh a year) of over £2bn a year. Indeed British Energy and EDF are already receiving hundreds of millions of pounds a year of subsidy by another name through existing levels of carbon prices.
Dr David Toke Senior lecturer in energy policy, University of Birmingham
• Paul Spence's defence of new nuclear power stations based on the assertion that they won't be a financial burden to the public ignores the taxpayer's liability in the event of a "new Chernobyl". No insurance company will offer cover for such an event or the consequences of a terrorist attack or any other less serious but still
unquantifiable risk. In its determination to sanction new nuclear power plants, the government is underwriting these risks; without such an undertaking no commercial company would even contemplate building a new nuclear power station. No hidden subsidies?
Paul Spence says the nuclear industry expects to pay the full cost of decommissioning a new generation of nuclear power stations (Response, 15 June). But his words about "our full share of waste management and disposal costs" were carefully chosen. The consultation document reveals that EDF considers their full share of these costs to be around 20% of the total.
As our report Nuclear Power? No Point! highlighted last year, nuclear is only responsible for 4% of the energy consumed in the UK. http://www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/reports/Nuclear_Power_No_Point.pdf
More energy can be saved by energy conservation measures in homes and businesses. Focusing on the nuclear industry takes resources away from building new renewable capacity, which, given sufficient political will, could provide more than enough electricity for the UK.
Darren Johnson Green party spokesperson on Trade and Industry
• EDF's claim that they "have not asked for subsidy for new nuclear" is not all that it seems. The nuclear industry, owned by British Energy (in turn owned by EDF), will be receiving huge sums of windfall profits under government proposals for a floor price on carbon emission allowances. British Energy will greatly expand its profits for no increase in nuclear power production, all subsidised by electricity consumers.
Based on Royal Academy of Engineering analysis (a pro-nuclear source) a carbon floor price of £30 per tonne is likely to lead to electricity price increases of around 2.5p/Kwh. Given that British Energy produces
(according to their website) around 50 TWh per year, this would give them annual windfall profits of around £1.25bn a year. Many argue that the "floor price" would have to be higher than this to make new nuclear power stations profitable. A floor price of £50 per tonne would give EDF windfall profits (at 50 TWh a year) of over £2bn a year. Indeed British Energy and EDF are already receiving hundreds of millions of pounds a year of subsidy by another name through existing levels of carbon prices.
Dr David Toke Senior lecturer in energy policy, University of Birmingham
• Paul Spence's defence of new nuclear power stations based on the assertion that they won't be a financial burden to the public ignores the taxpayer's liability in the event of a "new Chernobyl". No insurance company will offer cover for such an event or the consequences of a terrorist attack or any other less serious but still
unquantifiable risk. In its determination to sanction new nuclear power plants, the government is underwriting these risks; without such an undertaking no commercial company would even contemplate building a new nuclear power station. No hidden subsidies?
Sunday, 16 May 2010
Chris Huhne wants nuclear industry to pay their own insurance
Unlike the Labour government, which agreed to provide insurance to the nuclear power industry at the tax payers' expense, Mr Huhne said. “One of the things the coalition agreed with some passion in the current circumstances of fiscal restraint was that there will be no public subsidy for nuclear power.” Even support in the event of a disaster was out of the question, he said. “That would count as a subsidy absolutely. There will be no public bailouts . . . I have explained my position to the industry and said public subsidies include contingent liabilities.”
This is an important hardening of the position held by the Labour administration and could make it much harder for companies to finance the plants. “It is a challenge for them, as no one has yet built a nuclear power station without public subsidy for some time.” Charles Hendry, the Tory Energy Minister, will be responsible for overseeing nuclear policy, Mr Huhne said. He added that he would prefer not to give his personal preferences.
Times 15th May 2010
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7127202.ece
Finance, not politics, the main obstacle to nuclear, say campaigners
Ecologist
14th May, 2010
Nuclear industry's need for subsidies rather than political opposition remains main obstacle to building of a new generation of power plants in the UK
The nuclear industry is still likely to require 'hidden subsidies' to support the building of a new generation of power plants in the UK, say campaigners.
The new coalition government in the UK cleared the way for nuclear power in its environmental policy statement released earlier this week.
Despite his election manifesto pledge to oppose nuclear, new energy and climate change secretary Chris Huhne said he would not block proposals for new plants in the UK, provided they were built 'without new public subsidy'.
No political objections
Friends of the Earth campaigner Martyn Williams said permission had never really been an obstacle to new nuclear power plants, given consistent support from both Labour and the Conservatives. But Williams said that finance would remain a problem:
'They [the Conservatives] have said [nuclear plants] will have to be built without subsidy, but the question is whether they uphold that commitment or allow themselves wriggle room through giving the companies tax breaks, covering security and insurance costs or rigging the electricity pricing system to guarantee them a higher price for the electricity they produce.'
Williams also said that the companies planning to build new nuclear power plants could also benefit from publicly funded nuclear waste facilities, built to clean up existing atomic waste and likely to cost around £70 billion.
Jim Duffy, from the Stop Hinkley campaign group, said campaigners would be following policy developments closely to watch out for any 'hidden subsidies' being agreed, but he remained hopeful that the Liberal Democrats would force through a public enquiry on the justification for nuclear power.
Planning
Even with a green light from Westminster there is likely to be continued resistance to new nuclear plants at a local planning level. Residents groups have complained about 'farcical' consultations over the new sites for nuclear power stations and called for them to be re-run.
In a bid to overcome long-running local opposition, Labour created the Infrastructure Planning Committee (IPC) last year to fast-track the approval process for big power projects over 50 megawatts (MW).
It is not clear whether the new coalition Government will keep the IPC, but it has already put forward proposals for four nuclear power plants on its 'waiting for approval' list: Sizewell in Suffolk; Wylfa in Anglesey; Oldbury in Gloucestershire and Hinkley Point in Somerset.
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/484875/finance_not_politics_the_main_obstacle_to_nuclear_say_campaigners.html
This is an important hardening of the position held by the Labour administration and could make it much harder for companies to finance the plants. “It is a challenge for them, as no one has yet built a nuclear power station without public subsidy for some time.” Charles Hendry, the Tory Energy Minister, will be responsible for overseeing nuclear policy, Mr Huhne said. He added that he would prefer not to give his personal preferences.
Times 15th May 2010
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7127202.ece
Finance, not politics, the main obstacle to nuclear, say campaigners
Ecologist
14th May, 2010
Nuclear industry's need for subsidies rather than political opposition remains main obstacle to building of a new generation of power plants in the UK
The nuclear industry is still likely to require 'hidden subsidies' to support the building of a new generation of power plants in the UK, say campaigners.
The new coalition government in the UK cleared the way for nuclear power in its environmental policy statement released earlier this week.
Despite his election manifesto pledge to oppose nuclear, new energy and climate change secretary Chris Huhne said he would not block proposals for new plants in the UK, provided they were built 'without new public subsidy'.
No political objections
Friends of the Earth campaigner Martyn Williams said permission had never really been an obstacle to new nuclear power plants, given consistent support from both Labour and the Conservatives. But Williams said that finance would remain a problem:
'They [the Conservatives] have said [nuclear plants] will have to be built without subsidy, but the question is whether they uphold that commitment or allow themselves wriggle room through giving the companies tax breaks, covering security and insurance costs or rigging the electricity pricing system to guarantee them a higher price for the electricity they produce.'
Williams also said that the companies planning to build new nuclear power plants could also benefit from publicly funded nuclear waste facilities, built to clean up existing atomic waste and likely to cost around £70 billion.
Jim Duffy, from the Stop Hinkley campaign group, said campaigners would be following policy developments closely to watch out for any 'hidden subsidies' being agreed, but he remained hopeful that the Liberal Democrats would force through a public enquiry on the justification for nuclear power.
Planning
Even with a green light from Westminster there is likely to be continued resistance to new nuclear plants at a local planning level. Residents groups have complained about 'farcical' consultations over the new sites for nuclear power stations and called for them to be re-run.
In a bid to overcome long-running local opposition, Labour created the Infrastructure Planning Committee (IPC) last year to fast-track the approval process for big power projects over 50 megawatts (MW).
It is not clear whether the new coalition Government will keep the IPC, but it has already put forward proposals for four nuclear power plants on its 'waiting for approval' list: Sizewell in Suffolk; Wylfa in Anglesey; Oldbury in Gloucestershire and Hinkley Point in Somerset.
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/484875/finance_not_politics_the_main_obstacle_to_nuclear_say_campaigners.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)