All posts by Alison Downes

New Civil Engineer 4 July 2024

Work to show nuclear ‘environmentally sustainable’ incomplete, 16 months after government announcement

 

04 JUL, 2024 BY THOMAS JOHNSON

Government work to justify classifying nuclear energy generation as “environmentally sustainable” cannot be produced as it is incomplete, despite ex-chancellor Jeremy Hunt making the announcement in the 2023 Spring Budget, NCE can reveal.

NCE submitted a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) requesting all the documentation that was produced to back Hunt’s claim, but was refused because it is “still in the course of being completed”.

In March 2023 during the Spring Budget statement, Hunt announced the government would be consulting on listing nuclear energy as “environmentally sustainable” in a bid to increase private investment in the sector.

Hunt stated nuclear was a “critical source of cheap and reliable energy” to meeting the UK’s net zero obligations.

On the reclassification of nuclear energy, the government’s budget document stated: “Nuclear energy will also be included in the green taxonomy, subject to consultation, encouraging private investment.”

DESNZ’s reasoning for not responding to the FOI is due to the fact it has not completed the consultation as to whether it should go ahead with its plans to deem nuclear as “environmentally sustainable” which it started 16 months ago.

DESNZ stated that it “does hold information in scope of this request, however we will not be releasing this at this time as it is covered by exemption 12(4)(d) which states ‘a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that the request relates to material which is still in the course of completion, to unfinished documents or to incomplete data’. Your request falls within the scope of this provision because the requested information relates to material still in the course of completion”.

It continued: “In order to apply the exemption detailed above we must also consider whether withholding such information is within the public interest. The consultation document to which the requested information relates has not been published, meaning the policy pertaining to the content of the consultation document is not finalised. For this reason, we feel it would not be in the public interest to release the information at this time.”

In its Mobilising green investment: 2023 green finance strategy document related to the consultation for nuclear to be included within the green taxonomy, it states the government intended to consult on this in autumn last year.

It further stated the consultation and getting this policy through was a priority that would be achieved by Q1 of this year.

Reaction

Stop Sizewell C executive director and company secretary Alison Downes believes labelling nuclear as green was a ploy to allow investors to justify their investment in the project.

She said: “The green taxonomy seems to be the final piece of the puzzle because the whole emphasis behind adopting the RAB model was to coax non-typical investors, like UK pension funds.

“Obviously the theory behind labelling nuclear as green would allow them to tick another environmental, social and governance (ESG) box that would enable them to justify the investment.”

Downes hypothesises that the reason behind the policy review not being completed yet could be due to the fact that Sizewell C’s recent attempt at leveraging private capital for the project in Spetember last year didn’t bring forward any atypical investors.

“If investors have an appetite for nuclear then great but if they don’t, this isn’t going to tip the balance,” she said.

“In our regular engagement with government officials they kept saying it’s coming, it’s coming, which in government speak it is ‘in due course’, which means sometime soon, maybe never.

“It was very much plugged for Q1 this year and then it didn’t happen.

“I wonder whether the fact they launched the capital raise last September where they had to get bidders to go through the pre-qualification process and it was apparent that very few were from that target market.

“Suddenly they mave have thought if we’ve got a lot on our plate, is it a priority to push this taxonomy review through?”

UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLAs) secretary Richard Outram said it is astounding that the government was unable to come up with any justification for making the claim back in March 2023.

He said: “It is notable that even now 16 months after Jeremy Hunt claimed that nuclear is a ‘sustainable and environmentally friendly energy generation solution’ that officials in the DESNZ despite their resources, are unable to come up with the justification that underlines this claim.

“That says a lot.”

Stop Sizewell C and other anti-nuclear groups maintain that nuclear is not a environmentally energy generation solution due to the waste it creates, its contamination of the earth and other nature surrounding the power plants and the highly emission intensive methods of decommissioning old plants.

Outram continued: “The NFLAs believe that nuclear is simply too costly (Hinkley Point C’s original budget was £18bn now current real budget is £46bn and rising), too slow (Hinkley Point C was meant to be generating power to cook turkeys in time for christmmas 2017 but will now be 2031 earliest), always comes with the possibility of an accident, always cause environmental contamination, and leaves a massive and costly legacy of decommissioning redundant nuclear power plants and managing and disposing of nuclear waste (NDA current estimates £260bn).

“Events in Ukraine have also demonstrated that nuclear power plants represent a massive target and a potential ‘dirty bomb’ in the event of war with a hostile state actor and Britain’s nuclear reactors have historically been powered by uranium from Russia which is now an unreliable supplier as it is that hostile state actor.”

The NFLAs are instead calling on an energy strategy that prioritises the reduction of energy usage in the UK.

“We would see a truly ‘sustainable and environmentally friendly’ energy strategy as one instead predicated upon reducing energy use and addressing fuel poverty through implementing a nationally funded government programme to retrofit insulation to inefficiently heated homes and public buildings, coupled with a rapid expansion of generation using a range of proven renewable technologies that draw upon the natural resources that this island nation possesses (the sun, wind, tides, waves, rivers, and geothermal heat) alongside storage solutions, smarter grids and greater grid interconnection,” Outram said.

“The NFLAs also strongly support domestic, community and municipally owned renewable energy generation, and we have advocated for a more favourable regulatory regime and greater financial support to enable this to grow, to empower households, communities and local authorities to be ‘green energy independent’, and to allow local generators to sell electricity to the grid.

“For us every pound spent on nuclear is a pound wasted – it represents a massive opportunity cost – when that money could be far better deployed on generating electricity through renewables to reduce soaring energy bills, help eliminate fuel poverty, and tackle climate change now at an affordable cost, not in the never-never at an astronomical one.

“One of the NFLA’s first tasks, upon the installation of a new government in office, will be to make representations to the newly appointed ministers in Desnz o advocate for this vision, and ask them to confine plans for new nuclear to the bin.”

Sizewell C

A big part of the allocation of nuclear as sustainable surrounds the final funding decision of the proposed Sizewell C nuclear power plant, planned in Suffolk.

The government has to date invested £2.5bn in the project in numerous tranches but intends to find private investors to cover the majority.

It commenced the search for investment partners in the circa £20bn project last September. It said it is seeking companies with “substantial experience in the delivery of major infrastructure projects” and added “ministers will be looking for private investors who can add value to the project and will only accept private investment if it provides value for money, while bolstering energy security”.

The former government had promised to cement the final investment decision in the last parliament but this was scuppered by the announcement of the General Election, leaving the funding for the station in a state of limbo.

The project will be funded through a regulated asset base (RAB) model, like those used on Tideway and Heathrow Terminal 5. This sees the investors pay a large upfront contribution that is recouped through a surcharge on taxes, with the amount being set by an independent regulator, in this case Ofgem. While it means a small increase in taxes, the government estimates it will save consumers at least £30bn on the project.

The RAB model means the risk is shared between investors and taxpayers and in theory incentivises the investors to push the project through to completion on schedule.

Potential investors were required to register their interest by early October 2023 but there has been little news in the nine months since then.

What the election means for Sizewell C

This government had made a commitment to reach a Final Investment Decision (FID) on Sizewell C within the current parliament, but a 4 July election makes this look to be essentially impossible. Sizewell C’s future is therefore dependent on the election outcome. See bullet points for more details.
Stop Sizewell C said: “The impossibility of a Final Investment Decision on Sizewell C being made before the election lets the Conservatives off the hook for signing away another HS2. It also presents a likely Labour government, looking to drive down bills and reach net zero by 2030, an opportunity to focus on more cost effective renewable projects. We are going to do everything in our power to ensure that this election signals the death knell for slow, expensive, risky Sizewell C.”
  • Stop Sizewell C understands that the capital raise is still ongoing, and final bids have yet to be submitted, reportedly due by the end of June. A likely change in government may increase the risks perceived by investors and influence or even deter bids. The capital raise will be subject to a Value for Money (VfM) assessment. If, as reported, investors are seeking high returns, the VfM – and therefore the capital raise – is likely to fail.
  • In this event, Ministers would have to decide whether to take a FID with the taxpayer as Sizewell C’s majority stakeholder. An additional VfM assessment will be required as well as multiple internal procedural steps and approvals.
  • While Labour’s stated position is in favour of Sizewell C, the implications of having to make a FID with billions of taxpayers’ money and which would additionally push much of the risk and cost of the project onto household bills via use of the RAB funding model, in addition to the impossibility of Sizewell C contributing to the goal of net zero by 2030, may give pause. Rising costs and inflation make the current government’s estimate of a Sizewell C RAB costing consumers on average £1 month improbable.
  • A new government would be expected to conduct a Spending Review ahead of an autumn budget, which seems likely to also lead to a pause before any decision about a Sizewell C FID was made.
  • Sizewell C Chair Rob Holden acknowledged the risk associated with a change in government telling the The Times recently “Clearly there has to be a risk there. There is with any big decision on this.” In the same interview Rob Holden also highlighted that further widening of the gap between Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C would reduce any replication “benefits”.
  • Even in the very unlikely event a FID could be fast-tracked, pre-election guidance states that Ministers should “observe discretion” in making big announcements. This must be especially pertinent if a large commitment of taxpayers’ money was necessary for a Sizewell C FID. Having sucked up £2.5bn in taxpayers’ money already, which we understand is all committed, it’s possible yet more funds will be allocated to keep the project going over this period of uncertainty.

EADT Opinion: Nuclear Industry Should Learn to Deliver Projects on Budget and Time

It’s been quite a start to the year. Firstly Energy Minister Andrew Bowie visited Suffolk for the triggering of Sizewell C’s legal planning mechanism – the Development Consent Order – a step we considered wholly premature given that a Final Investment Decision is still some months away. Someone had thought it would be nice if the Minister used the same spade David Cameron had used to ‘break ground’ at Hinkley Point C in 2013. I’m not sure this was the best idea, given Hinkley C’s problems, and the fact that it was another three years before Hinkley C reached a Final Investment Decision in 2016.

A week later the government announced a further £1.3 billion would be invested in Sizewell C, taking the taxpayers’ stake to a total of £2.5 billion. This news was pushed out the night before a crucial EDF board meeting about Hinkley C, presumably because the government knew bad news was coming. 

As indeed it was….Hinkley C will now cost up to £35 billion, almost twice the £18 billion when contracts were signed. Including inflation, the cost becomes a jaw-dropping £46 billion. Completion of Reactor 1 has been pushed to 2029 to 2031, with Reactor 2 about a year later, making the project as much as 6 years late – or 14 years if you consider former EDF chief Vincent de Rivaz’s infamous 2007 claim that we’d all be cooking our Christmas turkeys with HInkley’s power in 2017.

France now appears to be threatening its involvement in Sizewell C unless the UK stumps up more money for HInkley C. Finance Minister, Bruno Le Mair is reported to be planning discussions with Jeremy Hunt, and has previously made no secret of his view that EDF should prioritise the French government’s objectives back home.

This leaves our government in a pickle. The official line is “Hinkley C is not a government project so any additional costs or schedule overruns are the responsibility of EDF and its partners”. How then do Ministers plan to explain to the electorate about Sizewell C, with its billions of taxpayers’ money and intended use of the RAB finance model which would put a nuclear tax on the energy bills of every household throughout construction? Given the inevitability of Sizewell C costing more and taking longer than claimed, the line would have to be “Sizewell C is a government project so any additional costs or schedule overruns are the responsibility of the taxpayer and consumers”. Good luck with that one. How can the government justify doubling our hard earned taxes into Sizewell C when Ministers clearly knew that Hinkley C was spinning out of control? Sizewell C has all the makings of another HS2, sucking up public resources while our schools and the NHS struggle.

Some of you are no doubt saying “you would say that, wouldn’t you, being Stop Sizewell C”? Well it’s worth remembering that Stop Sizewell C’s former iteration, Theberton and Eastbridge Action Group on Szewell (TEAGS) was not opposed to the project but sought to mitigate its impacts. It was a combination of – as one of my colleagues put it – “EDF’s tin ear” and its disastrous track record of building this type of reactor that pushed us into opposition. I’ve been involved since TEAGS was formed. As a Theberton resident with a background in campaigning on environmental and human rights issues, I felt I could make a contribution. Hard to believe that was more than ten years ago!, 

But it’s not just us. Even pro-nuclear, energy advisor Michael Liebreich, in his blog “Don’t say I didn’t warn you”, is in despair about the failure of largescale nuclear projects to deliver. He writess ”I..demand that the nuclear industry owns its problems, stops blaming activists or regulators, and learns to deliver projects on time and on budget. Otherwise, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, “if Hinkley C, Flamanville and Olkiluoto are the way the nuclear industry treats its projects, it does not deserve to have any”.

Alison Downes is Executive Director of Stop Sizewell C