Thread by @doug_parr

HEALTH WARNING: THREAD

Here we go again on new #nuclear power...

Last night, when most sensible people were having an evening's rest, a shambolic piece of policy was published

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…

Here's the critical para

And that's all you're going to get as justification for major energy system choices, which will cost billions of ££ and commit UK to infrastructure legacy for decades

(in fact given nuke waste, hundreds of thousands of years)

What's being proposed is best explained here - the only coverage I see of this government paper this morning

The point of these proposals is to make it easier for investors to build #nuclear by throwing lots of risk onto the energy bill payer

ft.com/content/e2cf07…

But the key point is there's almost no explanation as the WHY. No justification

Whilst Government quote approvingly the National Audit Office saying this new way of financing can make nuclear cheaper, it doesn't refer to the recommendation below

nao.org.uk/wp-content/upl…

And here's UK's National Infrastructure Commission being cautious it - basically saying there should *not* at this point be a new nuclear PROGRAMME

nic.org.uk/assessment/nat…

And while we're at it, here's UK Parliamentary Committee responsible for energy writing a year ago to Sec of State demanding he follow up with a proper reply recommendation on justification for new nuclear

There was no substantive reply

parliament.uk/documents/comm…

And here's @BloombergNEF head Michael Liebreich actually advocating for new nuclear, but saying the current brand of reactor is hopeless

Just to be clear, this is the type that UK govt still wants to build, without justifying it

about.bnef.com/blog/liebreich…

Supporters of this new govt approach will say

'wait, there will be an assessment - it's later in the consultation'

And yes - there is something....

But it is a deeply flawed approach. Why?

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…

Here's National Audit Office again on widely-criticised Hinkley Point C (HPC) deal

Even when Treasury realised it was rubbish deal, the UK govt had so strung along state-owned companies from France &China that not going ahead would be a massive problem

nao.org.uk/wp-content/upl…

and by taking the same approach of waiting til the actual contract is nearly ready to be signed before looking at the justification, they are making exactly the same strategic mistakes as they did with Hinkley deal

One of Greg Clarks’s first major jobs was to sign up to Hinkley because he’d been handed a hospital pass by his predecessor. In the fine traditions of politics he will do the same to his successor. Pity the legacy will be expensive and risky for consumers

...and to manage the current politics of the moment, leave a legacy of nuclear waste that will be hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years , longer than the modern humans have existed

And can't help noticing there could be some massive liabilities for consumers

Here, if developers of a new station screw up really badly, they might even be paid to stop, having already got a lot of ££ off billpayers. For something that won't ever work

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…

And in case you think that's absurd, that's exactly what happened in S Carolina in USA. Consumers have got an extra 18% on energy bills - yes, 18% - and they'll be paying for some time yet, for nuclear plant that will never work

(see from p119 onwards)

worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/201809…

Also covered here by @JH_Ambrose

theguardian.com/business/2019/…