Hinkley C and the rising cost of net zero
By Paul Homewood
h/t Philip Bratby
A short piece by Ross Clark in the Spectator on the looming problems at Hinkley C:
Should we be bothered that Hinckley C nuclear power station has run even further over budget (the latest estimate is £35 billion, nearly twice that quoted when the project was given the go-ahead in 2016) and that its completion date has been put back yet further, to 2031? After all, the whole point of offering French energy giant EDF a guaranteed ‘strike price’ at the then juicy rate of £92.50 per megawatt-hour (at 2013 prices, rising with inflation) was supposed to be to transfer financial risk to EDF and its financial backers. ‘It is important to say that British consumers won’t pay a penny, with the increased costs met entirely by shareholders,’ EDF’s managing director of the Hinkley project state this morning.
What if EDF threatened to cut its losses and withdraw?
I wouldn’t be so confident. Yet more delays to Hinkley C punch a huge hole in the government’s net zero plans, which include the full decarbonisation of the national grid by 2035 (Labour says it will do it by 2030). By 2028, all but one of the UK’s existing five nuclear power stations are due to close – and the other one, Sizewell B, is due to be gone by 2035. From generating nearly a third of the UK’s power at its peak in 1998 the nuclear industry could be down to virtually nothing by the time Hinckley C eventually opens.
The government simply cannot afford not to have a strong nuclear industry. It has pledged over £200 million to go into the development of small nuclear reactors – the subject of a competition now being conducted – but even if all goes well with those they will not be operational until the mid 2030s.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
And people wonder why the Soviet Union failed.
Central Planning and institutional bias,
plus incompetence and ignorance.
Only TWICE the initial price? Going by EDF’s track record that is a bargain as both the Finland plant and the Flammanville plant were or are FIVE times over the budget price. Third time lucky they might get it closer and it would be interesting to know why the others were so expensive. Not only over budget but delayed as well. No surprise here either as both the other plants are TWELVE years late, which might go some way to explaining the budget issue if you are paying workers for an additional 12 years. I think a gulf state completed one in 4 years but this needs checking.
Olkiluoto is reported as costing €11bn for 1.6GW. That’s way cheaper than Hinkley Point which is now over £10,000/kW.
Yes the UAE who started their new build at the same time as us and rule out the EPR (probably as the thing sounded unbuildable even then) instead going with with the Korean APR1400 PWR which was cheaper, built quicker and is more capacity 4 x 1400 MW (3 unit are completed) vs 2 x 1600 MW. Furthermore the UAE had to start without an existing nuclear energy sector and with a language barrier.
The real question that needs to ask why was the EPR choose in first place as it was clearly the worse choice of the available options based on the cost & the delay in Finland especially with the UKs history with problematic nuclear designs I.e AGR see Dungeness B the clear lesson that should have being learnt with the AGR fiasco (see Dungeness B) is that a full size prototype should have being build and running for a period of time to give some time to find the bugs before committing to a fleet, with the existing builds considerably delayed & other countries who also considered the EPR at the same time the UK ruled it out like the UAE & its clear that even China won’t be building another 1.
As it would have made more sense to instead just continue with the PWR design used for Sizewell B although personally I would choose the CANDU as we don’t seem to have the heavy forging capacity for pressure vessels for PWR or BWR in the UK and we could work with the Canadians to build 50hz replica of Darlington Nuclear Generating Station but with 8 units like Bruce Nuclear Generating Station.
I think we need a criminal investigation to see if any of the civil servants/ politicians (or close friends/family) involved in choosing the EPR have serious financial conflicts of interest which they haven’t properly disclosed and they made a choice the average person with the same information wouldn’t have.
It was chosen by Ed Davey. Enough said, perhaps.
But it is quite likely that Davey was not allowed to 100% veto nuclear, so deliberately chose the worst, most unlikely to be completed on time or in budget, most French and most Chinese scheme, in the hope that his successors would manage to cancel the project.
Don’t forget that the Finland and the Flammanville plants were very deep in the mire before Davey picked EPR.
I hope I won’t bore readers by again pointing out that, whilst “earning” £18,000 per year for his genius “advice” to a Solar Energy firm, Davey bragged that he had effectively banned fracking, by imposing a maximum seismic intensity when fracking for gas of “0.1”. (Actually, there is no such intensity, it is only “1”, “2”, “3” etc. up to “9”). If it was a thing, being logarithmic, “0.1” would be some 3,100 times less energetic than the “normal” “level 4” intensity “concern” (not ban!) for pile driving, quarrying, drop forging, or fracking for geothermal.
“I hope I won’t bore readers”
Your not – where have the investigative journalists gone?
To ask that exact question
or actually better idea ITV could make a docudram or even a tonight about the EPR reactor and hinkley point c.
Also what is the difference legally between a bribe and job?
“The real question that needs to ask why was the EPR choose in first place as it was clearly the worse choice of the available options”
The reason, apparently, was that it was the only Reactor design that had been passed by the ONR at the time. It simply was the only option available., the APR1400 was not “approved” in the UK. This begs the obvious question of why we simply do not just accept other reliable nations regulators designs. Japan, Korea, Canada, the US etc all have good regulatory bodies so surely if it is good enough for them, then we should simply do some verification checks, and pass it for here.
It takes literally years upon years to get a design through the ONR and they cannot handle multiple designs at a time.
Many on here go on about Rolls Royce SMRs but even these have not yet fully passed through the ONR.
“The reason, apparently, was that it was the only Reactor design that had been passed by the ONR at the time. It simply was the only option available.”
Surely the PWR design used at Sizewell B would have being grandfathered in since Sizewell B was meant to be part of a fleet of near identical reactors and ONR has only existed since 2011 which predecessor organisation approved Sizewell B PWR design.
I wonder which energy secretary is behind this?
“Many on here go on about Rolls Royce SMRs but even these have not yet fully passed through the ONR.”
I agree the way SMRs and thorium have being promoted as the holy grail ignores the clear lesson that should have being learnt with the AGR fiasco (see Dungeness B) a full size prototype should have being build and running for a period of time to give some time to find the bugs (materials not performing as well as expected) before committing to a fleet of a near enough identical design.
That is why I think Britain’s best bet is a 50hz replica of the CANDUs at Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Ontario Canada the bugs have being found with the CANDU and it doesn’t need the heavy forging capacity for pressure vessels like a PWR and I think pressure tubes are a better idea anyway as they are replaceable and the pressure vessels is likely to be the life limiting feature of PWRs https://www.reddit.com/r/nuclear/comments/11arhza/studies_on_changing_the_pressure_vessel_in_light/ (what said is about the EPR here is interesting)
I also recall reading somewhere the quality control of pressure vessels was one of the reason the CEGB was unsure about the American design PWR & BWRs in the 1960s and I believe the pressure vessels for Sizewell B & Hinkley Point C were built in France so gaining the skills to be able to build enough (I think we need to build 40 GW+) in the UK without the possibility of a quality control scandal in a few decades time could be problematic.
Zed you certainly do not need to remind me about Dungeness B…I worked there!
@Ray Sanders Do you have any idea why the AGR program was not paused (the constitution of Hinkley Point B) & some kind of review when the issues with Dungeness B (and thinking about it the magnox reactors) came to light especially the bizarre consortia arrangement as this appears be yet another example of the lack of accountability of the British civil servants/ politicians?
Back in December my supplier Shell Energy (and broadband) was sold to Octopus although so far little has been done to merge to business. What has happened is being pestered by phone calls to have a ‘smart’ meter installed. I have a phone block that requires identifying yourself before my phone will ring. You can count the number of caller who do this in a year on the fingers of one hand. This lot actually do and I did answer once and got a load of spiel from some woman in India. I told her the truth about them and what to do with her £70 rebate. Having got so pissed off with more than a call a day I finally fired off an email of complaint to Shell Energy. They have replied and said that the calls will stop for a year but that under Ofgem rules they must start pestering me again!!
I’ve never been phoned by my supplier to have a smart meter fitted. My planned response is to ask if I can have a dozen smart meters since they are free.
In the days when the UK had nuclear expertise, Sizewell B was built in about 5 years. Mind you it took about 12 years to get from the design licence from Westinghouse to permission to start construction. The bureaucracy and meeting the regulations were a nightmare. The public inquiry took about 2 years and cost a fortune. A Preliminary Safety Report was written, followed by a Pre-Construction Safety Report, a Pre-Operation Safety Report and a Final Safety Report. It was to be the first of 4 PWRs of similar design, but the Governmnt soon put a stop to that and the nuclear expertise was gradually lost. Now the regulations and bureaucracy are worse, so nothing gets built on time and to budget.
As we don’t seem to have the heavy forging capacity for pressure vessels for PWR or BWR in the UK.
How difficult do you think it would be with the regulations and bureaucracy to work with the Canadians (especially as the skills for the refurbishments are similar to a new build) to build a fleet of 50hz replicas of Darlington Nuclear Generating Station but with 8 units like Bruce Nuclear Generating Station?
As I can’t see any realistic alternative to guard Britains’s national security as we are too dependant on natural gas (what happens if something happens to Qatar & the US also limits LNG exports to control the price at home) even if fracking works in the UK I don’t think it would be wise to use it for electricity generation so other than large scale return to coal but I don’t see that being politically possible until the almost inevitable rolling blackouts start and the big question where would we get the coal from.
Yes we do. Sheffield forgemasters has been bought by the MoD, presumably to guarantee that capability to Rolls Royce, for nuclear sub power plants and key engine special steels, at least. It also secures the forgings for poetential RR SMRs,which ate not “S” really at 0.5GW. Two on any major site will hook up to grid, driving new or existing turbines. It’s only a nuclear boiler in the end. Am I wrong, I thought this was well known?
Sheffield Forgemasters was probably the first victim of the Limp-Dim Secretaries of State for Energy and Climate Change, Chris the Perjury-Convict Huhne and Potato Ed Davey, after they took over from the cretinous Ed Miliband.
Our real problem now is that the government has given the go ahead to build another EPR for Sizewell C. It has learned nothing from the catalogue of delays and problems with all the EPR projects around the world. It has learned nothing from the success of the Barakah project built at less than half the cost, and so fast that in the end they had to slow construction down because they hadn’t finished training the operators which delayed the start of the first reactors.
Areva/EDF/French incompetence should not be attributed to other suppliers of nuclear equipment because of Hinkley Point. Inter governmental corruption was also involved in this one bid deal handed to the French by UK Civil Service. The South Koreans, Chinese or American Westinghouse who supplied Sizewell B can all deliver a competent PWR style reactor for about £65 per megawatt hour and probably do it in under seven years – as long as there are no artificial greeny planning objections, simply replacing what is there on site already, be it gas or nuclear. It’s only a problem because we make it so in planning, and the one bid French government owned EPR vendors are useless at both design and construction at scale. The whole industry and bureaucratic processes need a rocket up they arses. Shoot a few of the worst bureaucrats and lefty lawyers pour encouragee les autres. Put protestors in jail until the build is complete? Our future as a nation is exquisitely dependnent on cheap plentiful energy at any scale needed to meet demand, on demand. Particualrly as more electrification is geneuineltneeded, not because of net zero ideology. What works best without subsidy on all the measures except CO2 is the only rational choice. Nothing else will do.
nb: CO2 is a net beneficial gas to humans on Earth currently, less deaths from extreme temperature events and over 10% more agricultural productivity. So less is bad for humans. Extreme weather increase is simply not a real science thing, per the UN IPCC itself. It’s made up by charlatans who claim to be experts but are in fact simply delusional or con men/paid shills for the rackets , paid by the subsidies that are our energy poverty..
Surely the rational thing to do is place RR SMR’s on the existing nuclear sites which have gone into decommissioning ?
The local population is accustomed to having nuclear reactors nearby, and they will be glad of the jobs.
The only thing is, we will need several SMRs on each site to make much of a dent in the anticipated electricity demand in the future.
Quelle surprise an inevitable announcement. The real issue here though is that the ESO needs to secure 3.2GW for several years longer and that means the CCGTs will need to be incentivised to stay on the grid so even bigger capacity payment me thinks. Also any sane govt would be onto Uniper before now to test the water to keep Ratcliffe available for as long as possible.
The SXB construction project was on time and on budget. SXC (twin PWR) should have followed on from SXB in the 1990s
From 1993: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/science-cheap-power-as-simple-as-abc-nuclear-electric-wants-to-build-a-third-sizewell-station-with-two-pressurised-water-reactors-tom-wilkie-reports-1485792.html
” Nuclear Electric also wants to build two more PWRs at Sizewell. Mr George believes that the average cost of power from such a twin-reactor station would be less than 3p per kilowatt hour, ‘competitive with any other form of generation slated for 2001 or 2002’. ” (From 1993)
An opportunity missed due to incompetence.
There were also to be twin units at Druridge Bay Northumberland. The protesters went into overdrive and managed to stop them. I would love to meet some of these morons now and punch their lights out.
Needless to say the scum at the Grauniad consider such people heroes.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/29/remembering-the-anti-nuclear-protests
According to EDF’s Hinkley Point C news video :
Part of the extra cost is because the design needed to adapt to UK regulations which meant 7000 design changes resulting in 35% more steel and 25% more concrete.
Does anyone know what UK regulation/design changes were requested that resulted in such large increases in steel and concrete?
As you probably know all designs have to be passed by the Office of Nuclear Responsibility (ONR) through a process known as Generic Design Assessment (GDA).
A long slog but you will find all 31 of the modifications endlessly detailed here
https://www.onr.org.uk/new-reactors/uk-epr/design-acceptance.htm
It has been said many times, but surely once a design is safety accepted in one major nuclear economy (USA, UK, Canada. Korea, Japan etc) it should be universally acceptable..
When the EPR was “chosen” it was actually the only one available that had fully passed GDA by the ONR. Had they waited for a better design to go through GDA it would probably not even have started construction yet! The whole process seems to be ridiculously over the top to such an extent that the “Standardised Nuclear Unit Power Plant System” SNUPPS i.e. as is Sizewell B ( working since 1995) is not even passed by the ONR – how effing crazy is that?
Well, yes to that, but to be picky the GDA didn’t exist in 1995, and Sizewell B wasn’t built to the standard anyway. (It’s got two turbines for a start!) From their site:
“We (The Office for Nuclear Regulation and the Environment Agency) developed the Generic Design Assessment process in response to a request from the Government following its 2006 Energy Review.”
Given that it took 5 years to approve the EPR, I’m not sure it was an improvement on whatever went before. Mind, that’s how long they take – nearly 2 years into the RR assessment now.
In passing, to some of the other comments, this is why we can’t just build some RR reactors, or use a Korean APR1400, or a CANDU. They weren’t put through the approval process, and, as we stand today, it would take 5 years to do it. If you have a successful, proven, built design and are maxed out building them in countries not putting speed bumps in your way, why would you spend millions to go through the UK approval process? The Hualong 1 (UK version, of course) is approved, though.
The ONR are looking at speeding things up…
Agreed Stuart the system is simply not working effectively. My point re SZB was that even if we wanted to replicate an existing unit, the “system” would not allow it. It would probably take longer going through GDA than it took to build SZB in the first place. The turbine issue is a classic demonstration of the difference between then and now. The biggest domestic manufactured turbines were the 660MW units, anything bigger would have had to have been imported so we stuck with our own units and created the “option” of running at half power (bizarrely used during lockdown so we could continue imports) .
Now, we no longer seem to care about our own industry and agreed to import the 1700 MW Arabelle units from France.
A purely personal view is we have reached a point where private sector involvement is a lost cause and drastic emergency measures are imminent.
The ONR have replied to this point writing :
“In relation to the volume of additional steel and concrete required at Hinkley Point C, we do not recognise our regulatory requirements as being the principal factor in these increases, as they are broadly similar to the requirements in France.”
https://news.onr.org.uk/2024/01/hinkley-point-c-project-update/
^^ It’s almost as if the design hadn’t been finalised before construction commenced, shades of Dungeness B.
With a broadbrush, is the HPC construction contract a “design and build” contract ? i.e. the detailed design is not complete before the contract is awarded?
A 1990s PWR design could probably be “turnkey” i.e. “off the shelf” .
The current mess at HPC could be a big boost to the RR SMR project.
” A purely personal view is we have reached a point where private sector involvement is a lost cause and drastic emergency measures are imminent. ”
= An energy emergency.
Wasn’t the historical standardisation to 660MW generators to match coal-fired e.g. DRAX and thus gain benefit from common spares etc ?
So Hinckley C is going to be late into service and cost (even) more than previously forecast.
There’s a surprise – not!!
Gory details here:
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/EDF-announces-Hinkley-Point-C-delay-and-big-rise-i
One particularly disappointing para:
“He said that 70% of equipment had now been delivered for unit 1, and “many risks are behind us, like the unique British instrument and control system which has been designed and manufactured, with testing under way”. He added: “We had to substantially adapt the EPR design to satisfy British regulations, requiring 7000 changes, adding 35% more steel and 25% more concrete. This adaptation and approval process is the same for other developers bringing new designs into Britain. Now the design of our UK plant is complete in detail meaning contractors have certainty over exactly what is needed to build the plant.”
What on earth are they doing designing a “unique British I&C system”? That reeks of not-invented-here conceit/arrogance.
Then why were so many changes required? Do the French really know so little about designing and building nuclear power plants? The nuclear industry really needs to get a grip on this insularity and learn to accept other countries’ standards.
This looks so woeful when contrasted with Kepco building nearly twice the capacity (4 x 1400 MW) for significantly less money.