At an estimated cost of £30 billion to the bill-payer, the new Hinkley Point nuclear power plant has sparked accusations of being a huge white elephant.
Preparation works at the site in Somerset started last year, but now the scheme has been given the go-ahead by the Government, construction is expected to gear up rapidly.
The decision will not end the controversy, however, as the energy sector continues to change at a pace that could leave traditional “base load” power stations as a relic of the past.
Supporters of new nuclear say the low-carbon power source, which currently supplies around 20% of the UK’s electricity, is a key component of efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions – which by law must fall by 80% on 1990 levels by 2050.
But what was once a low-cost option compared to other “clean” technologies is now looking less attractive.
The “strike-price” – the guaranteed price energy company EDF will get for the power generated by Hinkley Point – has been agreed at £92.50 per megawatt hour, or £89.50 if another scheme at Sizewell, Suffolk, goes ahead.
These are index-linked prices, with experts estimating the actual price for power once the plant finally starts generating in 2025 could be in the region of £120 per megawatt hour.
Onshore wind power and solar farms can already deliver low-carbon electricity at a cost below that of Hinkley Point’s agreed price, critics say.
And the costs of offshore wind – while still higher in the UK – are falling fast and are already below Hinkley’s prices elsewhere in Europe.
Subsidies for wind and solar typically only last 15 years, while EDF will carry on being paid for 35 years, by which time the energy sector could have transformed beyond all recognition.
Since Hinkley was first mooted in 2008, renewables have gone from being a niche sector of the power industry to a significant player in just a few years.
Their share of UK electricity generation has risen from less than 6% in 2008 to 25% in the first quarter of this year.
Dr Nina Skorupska, chief executive of the Renewable Energy Association, said: “Renewables such as solar, onshore wind and biomass are already cheaper than nuclear, are quicker to deploy, and
have none of the construction or economic risk.
“Our analysis shows that for nearly every renewable technology the equivalent amount of capacity could be procured at much lower cost using renewables.”
Those who support nuclear warn that renewables are intermittent and “base-load” power is needed to ensure the lights stay on.
But nuclear power is not seen as the best way to balance the system, as it runs all the time regardless of demand, and cannot be turned up and down to meet peaks.
It could even push cheaper renewables off the system, so that consumers have to pay more for their energy than they need to, according to Professor Paul Ekins, deputy director of the UK Energy
Research Centre.
The concept of base-load is also coming under pressure as the energy system changes, with more of a focus on managing demand than on building new power plants.
National Grid’s new executive director Nicola Shaw has suggested that a “smart energy revolution” will allow households to have solar panels and batteries and shift their grid electricity use
away from peak periods to when it is available cheaply.
Businesses are already securing contracts to shift electricity use to manage demand for power, while large-scale battery storage is being developed as prices fall – potentially providing cost-effective ways of storing and using renewables.
Recommended for you
