PDA

View Full Version : Hinkley C Nuclear Power Plant: Approval Halted by the Government



-:Undertaker:-
30-07-2016, 10:41 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/30/theresa-may-opposes-chinese-investment-in-britain-vince-cable-sa/

Hinkley C Nuclear Power Plant approval is halted by the Government

The scheme has been dogged with problems and would produce electricity at one of the most expensive rates ever seen


http://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/thumbnails/image/2015/08/27/23/Hinckley-Point.jpg


The Prime Minister Theresa May had "objections" to a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point during the coalition, the then Business Secretary Sir Vince Cable has said. Lib Dem Sir Vince said the prime minister had worried about a "gung-ho" approach to Chinese investment in it. The government said nuclear energy was important but it would review plans and make a final decision in the autumn. French firm EDF, which is financing most of the £18bn project, says it is "confident" the project would go ahead.

Sir Vince, who was business secretary from 2010-15 and a supporter of Hinkley, said Mrs May, who was home secretary during that period, had been "unhappy" about the government's approach to Chinese investment. "Certainly when we were in government Theresa May was, I think, quite clear she was unhappy about the rather gung-ho approach to Chinese investment that we had - and that George Osborne in particular was promoting - and as I recall raised objections to Hinkley at that time," he told BBC's Today programme.

The excellent at ever at finding out utter scams, Christopher Booker, wrote back in September...


Two bizarre interviews last week again highlighted how woeful has been much reporting on the costliest engineering project Britain has ever embarked on. Their cue was George Osborne’s announcement that UK taxpayers are to “guarantee” £2 billion of the money paid to firms owned by the Chinese and French governments, to build in Somerset the most expensive nuclear power station in the world.

Although it was originally claimed that Hinkley Point C would cost only £10 billion and be “cooking Christmas dinners by 2017”, its completion date is now likely to be well after 2023, and its cost has spiralled so fast it will be way over the current figure of £24.5 billion. This would already make it more expensive than the Channel Tunnel and half the estimated cost of the vast, as-yet unapproved HS2 rail project.

But all we might get for this colossal sum would be 3.2 gigawatts of heavily subsidised “low-carbon” electricity, when the latest £1 billion gas-fired power station at Pembroke can already provide 2GW of unsubsidised power at half the price and at less than a 20th of the capital cost. Furthermore, the two obsolete European Pressurised Reactors the French firm EDF plans to install in Somerset have so many design problems that those it is already building in France and Finland have massively overrun on cost and time, while a modern nuclear plant built by South Koreans in Qatar is completed on time and at a fraction of the cost.

Everything about Hinkley Point indicates that it is as absurd a project as any government has ever fallen for. Yet when Channel 4 News reported the story on Monday, Jon Snow could think of no one better to interview on it than that great energy expert Vivienne Westwood, the dress designer, who could only repeat that “renewables” are getting “ever cheaper”, while subsidies to fossil fuels (non-existent) are rising ever higher.

So approval has now been halted by the government and hopefully it is scrapped. Next up, halt and scrap HS2 please.

Another outbreak in common sense following the EU referendum. Maybe thinking is catching on in Whitehall!

Thoughts?

FlyingJesus
30-07-2016, 10:51 PM
I thought you were pro nuclear power

-:Undertaker:-
30-07-2016, 10:56 PM
I thought you were pro nuclear power

Partly. The main objective with energy is price. The cheaper the energy provided is the key aim you go for as energy affects everything else economically. The second objective with energy (nuclear) is military and research. Plants are obviously needed to produce weapons-grade plutonium on an industrial scale.

For the vast part of energy policy though, you go with the cheaper option. At the moment the likes of gas, coal and oil are the cheapest to build and run so the majority of energy in this country should come from those sources. I'd keep maybe 25% to 10% (depending on plant price) of the grid on nuclear for weapons purposes.

I'm pro any form of energy so long as it economically makes sense and works.

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!