All posts by Alison Downes

Stop Sizewell C projects “Don’t Buy Sizewell C” to Boris Johnson in Manchester

6 October 2021.

For high resolution images see: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15xoh09StJW3YVcHCtD1xknxsRn_dHahB (credit Stop Sizewell C)

[MANCHESTER] Stop Sizewell C last night projected a series of messages close to the Conservative Party Conference [1] to Boris Johnson ahead of today’s conference speech, urging him not to announce significant financial support for Sizewell C. It has been widely reported that the government is considering taking a direct stake in Sizewell C, as well as introducing legislation that would add a nuclear ‘tax’ onto already-stretched consumer bills. through a regulated asset base (RAB) financing model during construction, as an incentive to draw in new investors. [2]

Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C said: “Committing financial support for a project as slow, risky and expensive as Sizewell C, especially since the EPR reactor may not even work [3] is – to borrow expressions from the Chancellor – economically irresponsible, even immoral, given that taxpayers and consumers would be forced to pay for it. We say to the Prime Minister, Don’t buy Sizewell C. We can’t afford it, or afford to wait for it, so don’t waste our money on something that would be obsolete before it was completed. He should have the guts to build back faster and greener by supporting renewables, energy storage, clean heat and energy efficiency.” [4] 

Large-scale nuclear plants are considered by many experts to be too inflexible to be a good fit with renewable energy generation. According to Lord Deben, Chair of the Climate Change Committee “Nuclear isn’t the best way of getting that base energy because you can’t turn it on and off: you have to use it all the time”. A Good Energy report by Energy Systems Catapult published in June 2021 found that “beyond the existing Hinkley Point C plant, new nuclear is both unnecessary to reach net zero and would be difficult to manage alongside such a large fleet of renewables.” [5]

Sizewell C is expected to cost at least £20 billion, [6] and significant concerns remain about its location on a fragile eroding coastline, in an area with limited infrastructure and where no long term water supply has yet been identified. [7] The planning examination concludes on 14 October. The Secretary of State would be expected to rule on planning consent by mid April 2022, with decisions on site licenses and permits likely to follow later in the year. EDF’s Simone Rossi said he hoped a Final Investment Decision could be made by the end of 2022. [8]

 

Notes

  1. The messages projected on Manchester One read “Don’t Buy Sizewell C – Too damaging, too costly, too risky”, “Build Back Greener, Faster – we can’t afford to wait for Sizewell C” and “Sizewell C is a taxing issue – we’ll all pay the £20 billion construction cost”. Designer Antony Easton, projection POW.
  2. The Regulated Asset Base model would expose consumers to construction and cost overruns and add to rising energy bills 10-12 years before any power. Over 85,000 people have signed a petition opposing use of the RAB for new nuclear projects. Major UK infrastructure investors Legal and General have said “no” to Sizewell C. Stop Sizewell C has also secured similar statements from Prudential, Nest pensions and Phoenix Group, owners of Standard Life and Sun Life (correspondence available on request). China General Nuclear’s removal from the project has not yet been achieved. The project remains subject to value for money assessments amid demands the industry make cost savings of 30%. There is little evidence that nuclear electricity can compete cost-wise with renewables. Analysis by Professor Steve Thomas of Greenwich University concluded that it would be decades before EDF’s claim that power from Sizewell C would reduce to £60/kwh was realised.
  3. EDF claims the EPR reactors at Taishan in China – the only two completed anywhere in the world – prove the technology works, yet Taishan I has fuel failure after only 3 years of commercial operation. A Freedom of Information request reveals that The Office of Nuclear Regulation has access to very little information about the cause. The ONR needs to urgently establish if there is any link between this incident and the EPR design or use of high burn-up fuel, and assess the implications for Hinkley C. 
  4. During the 12 years it would take to construct, renewables would be built more quickly and cheaply and storage options developed. Here are increasing numbers of credible, affordable energy models that exclude Sizewell C eg Energy Systems Catapult found that further nuclear power would disrupt and diminish the overall economic value of a more flexible electricity system championed by the National Infrastructure Commission; Imperial College’s analysis met system security standards without Sizewell C and noted that new nuclear at plausible prices led to increased consumer bills. The most ambitious decarbonisation scenarios of both National Grid ESO and the Climate Change Committee do not include Sizewell C; indeed National Grid’s “Leading the Way” scenario is net negative for CO2 emissions by 2032, at least two years before Sizewell C would be on line. If, despite the above, the government is determined to build new nuclear capacity, it should look at other options, such as Small Modular Reactors which could be delivered with less significant construction impacts, and more suitable sites such as Wylfa, which would make a greater contribution to levelling up the UK. It’s hard to imagine that money could be found to support all of these.
  5. See www.utilityweek.co.uk/lord-deben-politicians-finally-grasped-reality-climate-change and www.thetimes.co.uk/article/big-is-not-so-beautiful-in-grid-talks-to-power-down-8w0qxbtgg and Good Energy (referenced above) http://www.goodenergy.co.uk/business/exclusive/renewable-nation
  6. EDF’s estimated cost is £20bn but is “illustrative and non-binding”. EDF is reassessing the cost but a revised cost assessment will not be available until after the planning examination.
  7. The Sizewell site is considered the most environmentally sensitive in the National Policy Statement EN-6, being wholly within the Suffolk Coast & Heaths AONB. Sizewell C would permanently take around 10 football pitches of rare SSSI habitat at Sizewell Marshes and the RSPB says it could be “catastrophic for wildlife” at Minsmere. At a meeting with the Environment Agency on 28 September 2021, coastal defences were named as an outstanding issue of concern. EDF has been forced to propose a water desalination plant for the period of constructing Sizewell C, and does not yet have an identified long-term water supply.
  8. Financial Times https://www.ft.com/content/7c3a4e77-9889-43b4-a7fa-1bbb5b6bd985

 

Anthony Horowitz in The Sunday Times

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5bb659b8-22c1-11ec-891d-7de285af3d9c?

Britain’s energy policy cannot be determined by today’s crises

Anthony Horowitz
The Sunday Times

The French have a saying: “Le malheur des uns fait le bonheur des autres”, which essentially means that there’s always someone who will benefit from the misfortune of others.

EDF, the French-owned energy company, will certainly know this, and the nuclear industry is cheerfully demonstrating it. Soaring gas and electricity prices, along with the panic caused by the long queues outside empty petrol stations, have led to a predictable knee-jerk reaction in government and the media.

Nuclear is the answer! As someone who has been a regular visitor to the Suffolk coast for 30 years, I, along with thousands of others, have been opposing the £20 billion reactors that are being planned at Sizewell C. They will cause untold damage to Minsmere, one of Europe’s best-loved nature reserves, which is right next door. There aren’t the roads in Suffolk to cope with the extra 10,000 cars and HGVs heading their way.

But these arguments sound feeble when there’s a real fear that the lights could soon be going out all over Britain and even the proven fact that wind power is much cheaper and safer than nuclear doesn’t add up to much when the wind refuses to blow.

Pro-nuclear voices will argue it is needed to help wean us off gas — in particular imports from places such as Russia. This ignores the fact that it will take at least 12 years before Sizewell C is complete.

Who is going to pay for Sizewell C? Until recently EDF was in bed with CGN (China General Nuclear), which might have taken a 20 per cent share in the project, but because of national security issues having China as a business partner has become politically unacceptable.

Unfortunately, very few pension funds have shown any inclination to invest. This puts more emphasis on the regulated asset base (RAB), which the protest group, Stop Sizewell C, has termed “the nuclear tax”. RAB will pile the upfront costs of construction on to consumers’ bill years ahead of it becoming operational. Is this the best time to be considering another stealth tax on electricity bills . . . particularly as the amount will almost certainly rise with the cost overruns and overspends for which the nuclear industry is notorious?

The chancellor seems to have changed his mind about nuclear energy, throwing caution, well . . . to the wind. Is he unaware of the catastrophic delays at the Olkiluoto 3 nuclear reactor in Finland? It was supposed to be finished in 2009. Or that electricity generated at Hinkley Point C, which is also late, will cost more than double the strike prices of offshore wind farms?

The trouble is that the European pressurised reactors, or EPRs, proposed by EDF are cumbersome, massively expensive, environmentally destructive and technologically unproven. Only two of them have been completed anywhere in the world, in Taishan in China, and one of those is closed because of fuel failure after less than three years of commercial operation.

The bottom line is that Sizewell C could be obsolete before it is even built, especially as battery storage technology improves and the cost of renewables continues to fall.

That’s not to say that nuclear energy doesn’t have a part to play in the journey to net zero by 2050. Nobody is protesting against the SMRs – the small modular reactors favoured by the business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng. He is said to be about to approve the development of 16 plants to be built by Rolls-Royce, and interestingly they won’t depend on RAB. If built, they would provide more power than two Sizewell Cs.

I haven’t been to Suffolk recently. My car’s tank is empty and like everyone else I’m wary of making unnecessary journeys. So I haven’t walked in the woods that are going to be cut down for car parks or visited the marshes, 10 hectares of which will be destroyed. I haven’t strolled along the beach, a large stretch of which will be closed for ten years while a massive sea defence is constructed behind it.

Quite soon, the government assures us, the petrol crisis will be over. But decisions made in the heat of the moment when nobody is going anywhere and winter is drawing in will be with us for generations. We cannot allow our energy future to be dictated by the headlines of a single day.

Don’t waste our money Rishi!

Recent news reports suggest the energy crisis has contributed to the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, being finally persuaded to back nuclear. Here is why it is neither logical nor – yet – a done deal, and what you can do about it.
  • Sizewell C cannot fix the immediate crisis. It would be 12 years till there was any power. Meanwhile more renewables will be built and storage options developed. There are credible, affordable energy models (eg Energy Systems Catapult, Imperial, and even by National Grid and the Climate Change Committee) that exclude Sizewell C.
  • The £20 billion cost is only likely to rise, and there are limits both on the public purse and on consumers’ ability (or willingness) to pay. Adding too great a financial burden on consumers could be a real vote loser. Pension funds do not appear to be queuing up to invest and China still needs removing from the project.
  • Backing new nuclear does not have to mean backing Sizewell C. There are other options for the government, such as Small Modular Reactors and revived discussions on Wylfa. It’s hard to imagine that money could be found to do all of these.
  • There are significant problems with the Sizewell C proposals, especially a sustainable water supply. There is no guarantee Sizewell C would get planning consent. We maintain it is the wrong site for such a damaging project.
  • The EPR reactor is still an unproven technology. There are only two completed reactors in the world, at Taishan in China, and one is shut down because of fuel failure, with very little information emerging as to the cause, or the implications for Olkiluoto, Flamanville, Hinkley C or Sizewell C.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
  • Write to the Rt Hon Rishi Sunak MP urging him not to waste our money on Sizewell C for all the reasons mentioned above. Email public.enquiries@hmtreasury.gov.uk, Salutation Dear Chancellor.
  • Send your message also to the BEIS Secretary of State, Rt Hon Kwasi Kwarteng MP: enquiries@beis.gov.uk, Dear Secretary of State.
  • Send your message to your MP (do not cc). In Suffolk Coastal this is Rt Hon Dr Thérèse Coffey therese.coffey.mp@parliament.uk, Dear Dr Coffey.