All posts by Alison Downes

Government’s hopes Sizewell C could provide ‘value for money’ are “pie in the sky”, say campaigners

For Immediate Release 14 December 2020

Government’s hopes Sizewell C could provide ‘value for money’ are “pie in the sky”, say campaigners

[SUFFOLK] The financial problems underlying the proposed new nuclear power station at Sizewell C are insurmountable, say local campaigners Stop Sizewell C, despite the government’s announcement today of negotiations with developer EDF. The government says it will explore funding the double-reactor plant through a ‘nuclear tax’ and consider a direct stake, subject to “a value for money deal” being achievable. [1] 

The government requires assurances that EDF has learned lessons at Hinkley Point, but none of this type of reactor being constructed in Europe are on time or budget. Hinkley Point is billions overspent, Olkiluoto in Finland and Flamanville in France also overspent and a decade late [2] and Sizewell C’s site next to protected habitats on an eroding coast will present different challenges to those at Hinkley. Huge questions surround who will pay for the inevitable cost overruns in any deal between the French-goverment owned developer and the UK. 

The Regulated Asset Base (or RAB) funding model suggested in the White Paper would require a levy on all electricity bills even before construction starts, to recompense private investors. Even consumers on ‘Green’ or ‘100% Renewable’ tariffs would have to shoulder this extra cost.

In the last week, Stop Sizewell C has been told by confidential sources that – if Sizewell C ever went ahead – China General Nuclear would withdraw from the construction phase, the government would take a 10% stake, EDF’s share would reduce to 10%, leaving at least £16 billion of the estimated £20 billion to be found. CGN’s withdrawal has been reported by the Daily Mail. Stop Sizewell C also opposes the project because it would have unacceptable impacts on host communities and east Suffolk’s fragile coast and natural environment, including internationally-famous RSPB Minsmere; it wouldn’t contribute to net zero until at least 2040 nor help ‘level up’ the UK. [3] 

Reacting to the Energy White Paper Stop Sizewell C [4] representatives said:

Alison Downes: “As Alok Sharma said, this is not a green light to build Sizewell C and the idea that it could provide value for money is “pie in the sky”. Costing at least £20 billion, Sizewell C remains too slow and expensive to help our climate emergency, and both the government and any pension funds considering the project must beware the reputational risk of investing in a still unproven reactor design that even the French are abandoning, [5] to be constructed on an eroding coastline, neighbouring the world famous Minsmere reserve.

Charles Macdowell: “The government’s financing ideas – which are still just ideas – will open a real can of worms. Both RAB and a direct stake in Sizewell C would suck vital funds away from renewable and storage  technologies that are already revolutionising our energy. Since both a direct stake and RAB go on the government’s balance sheet, they are also inextricably bound up in the ongoing saga of the UK’s transition out of the EU.” [6] 

 

Paul Collins: “EDF is more than a year from a decision on planning consent, and our energy landscape is transforming all the time. Just 18 months ago, then Business Secretary Greg Clark said the UK needed 40GW of ‘baseload capacity’ by 2050, [7] inferring that this would come from new nuclear, but none of the Climate Change Committee’s five energy scenarios published last week had more than 10GW; and three had just 5GW. [8] If Sizewell C went ahead, it would be obsolete before it was completed and interfere with the progress towards 80% renewable supply. Sizewell C is the wrong project in the wrong place: it should not be part of a truly green recovery and there is still time for the government to realise this.”

 

Opposition to Sizewell C is strong and growing as the impacts on local communities and the environment of the 10-12 year build become clearer,  alongside concerns that EDF’s claims of economic benefit are unproven. [9] Sizewell C is opposed by Suffolk MP Dan Poulter, thousands of individuals, [10] organisations such as the RSPB and Suffolk Wildlife Trust, and dozens of Parish and Town Councils including Aldeburgh and Woodbridge. Suffolk County Council has stated it “cannot support” EDF’s proposals. More than 100 rural businesses [11] and over 60 influencers have sent letters of opposition to Ministers. [12] National Infrastructure Commission Chair Sir John Armitt [13] and Committee on Climate Change Chair Lord Deben [14] have both raised questions about the need for Sizewell C. 

 

Notes

  1. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-sets-out-plans-for-clean-energy-system-and-green-jobs-boom-to-build-back-greener 
  2. No country in Western Europe has any operating EPRs or new builds besides Hinkley Point C and the catastrophic Flamanville (France) and Olkiluoto (Finland) projects which are a decade behind schedule and multiple times overspent.
  3.  Information from EDF’s application for Development Consent: Funding Statement and Climate Change docs (page 33). See also our report www.stopsizewellc.org/sizewell-c-and-climate-change/ and RSPB statement.
  4. Stop Sizewell C is a campaign group formed by local people in the community on the frontline of the project. We did not start out opposing Sizewell C but were driven to it after 8 years of EDF’s failed engagement and the destructive nature of its proposals. 
  5. The EPR has been described by Dr Paul Dorfman of UCL as “too complex to build to time and budget”. EDF will build no more of this design in France and aims to have a new EPR design by 2021,  but Sizewell C would be the old design.
  6. State aid is widely reported as one of the sticking points in Brexit negotiations
  7. https://www.edie.net/news/10/Clark-UK-may-need-40GW-of-new-baseload-generation-by-2050/38818/
  8. https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Sector-summary-Electricity-generation.pdf page 29
  9. See an independent critique of EDF’s Economic Statement www.stopsizewellc.org/economic-impacts/ 
  10. In the last 2 weeks over 50,000 people have signed an RSPB petition opposing Sizewell C https://e-activist.com/page/71193/petition/
  11. https://stopsizewellc.org/over-100-rural-businesses-oppose-sizewellc/
  12. https://stopsizewellc.org/bill-nighy-joins-campaign-to-stop-new-sizewell-nuclear-power-station/
  13. Sir John Armitt: “Hopefully by 2025, we will be able to rely on much smarter systems and won’t have to rely on nuclear” Quoted in https://utilityweek.co.uk/treasury-still-unconvinced-rab-model-nuclear/ 
  14. Lord Deben has described nuclear as a “transitional” energy source whose need reduces as grid-balancing improves. As reported in Utility Week http://www.utilityweek.co.uk/lord-deben-politicians-finally-grasped-reality-climate-change/ 

 

EADT Opinion by Andy Wood: ‘Be wary of Sizewell C’s promise of boom times’

https://www.eadt.co.uk/news/opinion-andy-wood-adnams-sizewell-power-plant-1-6950551

Dr Andy Wood, chief executive of Adnams Southwold, argues that building the proposed Sizewell C nuclear power station will not create ‘boom times’ for Suffolk and there are better and cheaper ways to create new jobs.

Suffolk Community Foundation’s latest report on our county’s Hidden Needs makes for some heart-breaking reading.

Whether it is somebody in an isolated village with no transport or a young person from a family where multi-generational unemployment is the norm, or someone old and lonely, this report highlights that targeted and often complex solutions are called for.

It reminds us that spending money to create long-term new jobs may be good for the economy but will not necessarily benefit everyone and not necessarily those that have been left behind. We should be wary of suggestions that the “boom times” are just around the corner because of a major construction project such as the proposed new nuclear power station at Sizewell.

Leiston, host to Sizewell A and B, was described by Suffolk Safeguarding Partnership in this newspaper earlier this month as “a significantly deprived population with higher levels of childhood obesity, tooth decay and smoking [with] little social mobility.”

If it ever found the funding, and overcame numerous objections locally and nationally, Sizewell C should create 900 new long-term jobs according to EDF, at a total cost of £20 billion. That’s over £22 million per new job. A fraction of this sum invested in the sort of solutions required to alleviate Suffolk’s hidden needs would have a much bigger impact and leave plenty of change to create new long-term careers in sectors which are much more suited to this county’s significant strengths, such as in tourism, offshore wind and IT to name a few.

Whilst we were told in the Prime Minister’s 10-Point Plan that the government was supportive of large nuclear projects, this is not unconditional. Tucked away in background materials is the phrase “subject to value for money”. That is key to my own and others’ opposition to Sizewell C.

Sizewell C would be the biggest construction site in Europe, adding 12,000 vehicles each day to the A12. EDF has made no secret of its need to save money and reduce the significant risks of a complicated build by using the Hinkley Point supply chain and workforce. 6,000 relocated workers will need accommodation, pushing up rents and house prices for local people, especially those in lower cost housing. Many of the remaining workers are expected to travel from 90 minutes away – not exactly local and well outside the county.

EDF admits many hundreds would be displaced from existing employers, causing recruitment problems. Meanwhile, independent studies found that up to £40 million would be lost to our valuable tourism industry each year of construction. With a build time in excess of a decade when its technology is highly likely to have been superseded, is this really worth the risk to Suffolk and its communities?

It would be wrong to object to Sizewell C without either evidence of its impacts or offer alternative solutions. Of course, our young people deserve training and the opportunity of a rewarding career, but Sizewell C is not the only option. This part of Suffolk needs more well-paid, long term jobs which work with the grain of the existing economy rather than threatening it.

Both public and private sector leaders need to come together to celebrate the area’s many strengths and help it to remove remaining barriers so that it becomes the best place to start a new business. Small and medium-sized businesses create most of the new, long term employment opportunities in our area and there is huge potential for these to expand and grow. Many exploit ideas and technologies which do not depend on being in cities to succeed and Suffolk, with all its amenities, has much to offer.

Local estate agents have reported a tide of interest from city dwellers who already realise this and want to bring their own business ideas to less-congested counties like Suffolk.

There are significant opportunities linked to our green recovery. Investment in offshore wind, responsibly delivered to shore, is going to bring us much cheaper energy and many more jobs in the medium and long term than the eye-wateringly expensive Sizewell C.

The green think tank e3g has calculated that labour intensive tasks like insulating homes can cut CO2 emissions and create jobs at a fraction of the cost of Sizewell C.

Despite EDF’s many years and millions of pounds spent persuading us that Sizewell C will be good for Suffolk, more and more of us are realising that the opposite is true.

We have no issue with the existing Sizewell B, but it is time we fought back against a proposal which will damage existing jobs and could ruin the place upon which so many of our livelihoods are founded. It is not too late to stop Sizewell C.