Sizewell C will cost much too much and there are much better alternatives. So says a new plan by Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C and Colin Hines of the Green New Deal Group. They argue that ‘there is a clear political advantage from halting Sizewell C and redirecting the billions saved into making millions of homes more energy efficient, thus reducing fuel poverty’. They say this approach ‘will benefit every city, town, village and hamlet in Britain. It will generate long term, secure jobs, particularly for young people. It will be quick to implement, so by the next election new jobs and cheaper, warmer, healthier homes will have appeared in every constituency’
By contrast, they say ‘should Sizewell C go ahead, it is expected to cost around £40bn between now and when it opens, potentially around 2040: an average of £2.7bn per year for the next 15 years’. But, ‘deducting money already spent, if Sizewell is cancelled now, the public money saved by 2030 is £7.1bn, assuming (as seems likely) no private investors are found to share the cost.’ And they propose that ‘this £7.1bn should be added to the £6.6bn to be spent over the current Parliament on home energy efficiency, as promised in Labour’s 2024 manifesto.’ They say ‘this shift of funds would massively increase the chances of achieving the Government’s aim to ‘Make Britain a clean energy superpower to cut bills, create jobs and deliver security with cheaper, zero-carbon electricity by 2030, accelerating to net zero’.
It certainly does sound a strong case. On costs, they say that ‘no European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) project has ever been completed even close to budget or on time. All six EPR reactors worldwide have or will cost at least double their expected budgets and are, or have been, six to 14 years late. The case of Hinkley Point C is especially stark: EDF’s most recent estimates of the construction cost is up to £35bn [2015], or £46bn in 2023 money - almost double its £18bn [2015] budget when the FID was taken in 2016. These costs do not include financing costs, which EDF has said might double the total construction cost. Hinkley’s Unit 1 is now delayed to between 2029 and 2031, four to six years late, with the second reactor at least a year behind. EDF has made five cost and completion revisions for Hinkley since FID, and with several years to go, it is implausible that there will not be further revisions.’
Claims that there will be ‘replication’ cost savings seem to be illusory: ‘Taishan 1 & 2 in China took well over double the predicted build time and were reportedly 50% over budget. Olkiluoto 3 in Finland was 14 years late and three times over budget, and Olkiluoto 4 was cancelled. Flamanville 3 in France came online (though is not yet up to full power) 12 years behind schedule and four times over budget; £11.2bn [2015] for a single reactor. These repeated failures suggest that learning from previous EPRs has not happened, and at £17.5bn [2015] for each of Hinkley’s two reactors, replication seems to have increased cost’.
As an alternative, the report argues, we should cancel Sizewell and use the money saved to boost home energy efficiency and the Warm Homes plan. It notes that ‘Labour has promised to invest an extra £6.6bn over the next Parliament, doubling the existing planned government investment, to upgrade five million homes to cut bills for families.’ It says the Warm Homes Plan ‘will offer grants & low interest loans to support investment in insulation and other improvements such as solar panels, batteries and low-carbon heating to cut bills. Another aim is to ensure homes in the private rented sector meet minimum energy efficiency standards by 2030, potentially saving renters hundreds of pounds per year.’
And it says this could and should be dramatically expanded, ‘by more than doubling its budget to decarbonise and make the UK’s 30 million homes & buildings energy-efficient’. It notes that ‘the Energy Efficiency Infrastructure Group (EEIG) estimates that to carry out all of the necessary work needed to dramatically reduce emissions from homes between now and 2030 will require at least 250,000 more tradespeople’. And the report says that ‘were the Government to scrap Sizewell C and transfer the £7.1bn saved to making UK homes more energy efficient, this would allow it to fund what the EEIG describes as an ambitious zero-carbon skills strategy, working with industry, unions, schools, and colleges, to tackle any skills gaps that could hinder progress. Examples of required skills include those for designers, builders, and installers of energy-efficient and zero-carbon heating, for which demand will increase sharply. This should also result in a major expansion of high quality and advanced apprenticeships, backed up with new sector-led national colleges.’ And why not! And they should start with the fuel poor and the left behind.
That is very much what the new green heat campaign also has in mind- something that is also being pushed by the Association for Decentralised Energy. It’s part of Labour International’s green deal, looking at all the new green technology options, aiming to create jobs locally, not least by releasing money from having to be spent on high cash-cost heat, with added environmental costs. It says that ‘clean heat can play a major role in regenerating flagging local economies, making them more attractive to new inward investment due to the improved levels of disposable household incomes that result from reduced energy outgoings and increased opportunities to secure better employment and income. Higher levels of local economic demand are most likely to be expended in the local economies in which they arose, growing local economies wealth, health, resilience and prospects; beneficial economic outcomes that will feed up into the national economy.’
Is this sort of future going to happen? The official position is that Sizewell C will be funded by recourse to the Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model, with consumers paying up-front, in advance, before construction even starts. It is claimed that this would mean that, all being well, developers and backers will face less investment risks than otherwise, and can pass on savings to consumers. But will they? And will all go well? There can be big delays and overspends, as we have seen in the past. The report notes that ‘RAB would require residential consumers… to potentially financing half the total construction cost,’ and, if it goes bad, they could even be stuck with paying off excesses into the 22nd Century, when the plant is forecast to be retired.
The other key message from the developers and government is that we need more nuclear- to balance variable renewables. Well this is easily squashed. The last thing you want, if you are trying to back up a variable energy source, is a large, costly and inflexible one that can only run continuously at full output. There are plenty of alternative option for flexible balancing systems including short and long storage. With renewables booming and storage at last getting established, who needs Sizewell? Well it seems not EDF- so the UK has had to provide a further £2.7bn!
Comments
Post a Comment