Austria To Challenge Hinkley Point Deal
By Paul Homewood
Austria are still fighting the Hinkley Point nuclear deal, as an “unworthy subsidy”.
PEI report:
The Austrian government has reiterated its determination to take the European Commission to court once the approved decision on Hinkley Point nuclear power plant is officially entered into law.
In a letter dated March 30 in reply to a query from Power Engineering International on Austria’s intentions once the decision is published in the EU’s Official Journal, the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management stated it would not be swayed from proceeding with its stated challenge.
Maria Auer of the chancellery office referred to Chancellor Werner Faymann’s statement on the matter last month, when he said that nuclear power can only be maintained artificially through subsidies and ‘
Austria will continue to oppose it by all available means.’
“Atomic energy is not worthy of support. We will therefore, as already stated, lodge a formal complaint against the subsiding of the British nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point C, whether the nuclear lobby or the British prime minister likes it or not,” Faymann said.
The Federal Chancellor had emphasised his government’s opposition to nuclear in a speech on February 11 to commemorate the Fukushima incident. He said: “The only thing that is sustainable about atomic energy is its permanent risk, its permanent costs and the permanent fear it disseminates.”
“The technology is outdated, not marketable and represents an incalculable danger. The catastrophe at Fukushima four years ago gave clear evidence of this.”
The letter to Power Engineering International concludes by referring to remarks made by Andra Rupprechter (left), Federal Minister for the department, who said that the European Commission’s decision on the matter "contradicts the objectives of EU laws on state aid" before confirming that Vienna’s legal action "is currently in progress".
Entry of the judgement in the EU’s Official Journal can take place any time since the start date of March 20, however the decision has not yet been recorded. It is only after publication that member states and other entities can take the step to officially challenge it.
Luxembourg confirmed to PEI last month that it would follow Austria in contesting the decision, while the UK has expressed its fury with its EU colleague for its aggressive stance.
Apparently subsidies for a nuclear power plant, which can supply electricity reliably round the clock is “not worthy”, but double the subsidy for unreliable and intermittent offshore wind farms is.
Quite what Britain’s energy policy has to do with the Austrians, or for that matter the EU, is a mystery.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
Could be a good test case showing who gets to decide what in national energy policy.
As long as the UK is a member, it has everything to do with the EU and Austria.
We are no longer an independent nation and as long as we can’t control the inflow of EU workers, we effectively have a unified economy with the rest of the EU.
No subsidies for permanently disseminating fears?
How could Austria’s government operate?
The madness spreads in all directions – The layers of stupidity are a wonder to behold.
my wife says I should stop reading that Paul Homewood, it just makes me grumpy.
Don’t worry Paul I will still be here, she admits I would be grumpy anyway.
Yes Dave, it’s widely spoken about !!!!
“Catastrophe at Fukushima”?? Remind me Chancellor, how many died? Oh! he must mean his fellow politicians reaction which indeed was catastrophic for the nuclear industry in Japan and Germany.
“The catastrophe at Fukushima four years ago” … and yet nobody died in the Fukushima disaster. Only four died, but they died in the tsunami. The reactor survived an earthquake a hundred times the strength it was designed for, but all this politician can do is lie about it. But that is what politicians do, isn’t it. Lie.
Look no further methinks:
It’s all very well (and – on a certain level, understandable) to laugh-off this sad-but-earnest little event…. but it’s perfectly foreseeable that tiny, vociferous groups like the Greens could have influence in a next so-called Government after the election. Think about how you vote in May!
As I understand it, the point they are making is: “The technology is outdated, not marketable and represents an incalculable danger. The catastrophe at Fukushima four years ago gave clear evidence of this.” and presumably since winds across the UK are prevailing westerly, they fear that a nuclear accident in the UK could conceivably contaminate their country – much as Chernobyl did for us.
If that’s their specific point, they’ve forgotten to make it in their generalities. They refer to Fukushima only. They could have added Chernobyl. But they didn’t.
They have a point. Uranium technology is outdated and dangerous, it was designed for bombs, power was a by-product and cover. Safe thorium reactors are coming.
Also subsidies are wrong for all energy sources ( wind, I’m talking to you).
I partially agree. The strike price for nuclear power is roughly four times that for coal. Wind and solar are about ten times as expensive as coal.
“Safe thorium reactors are coming.”
And if they hadn’t wasted so many trillions of dollars on irregular, unreliable, non-alternative, non-energy ……
….. those thorium reactors would probably be here already .