Nuclear plant in Hinkley gets planning consent

Ed Davey gives consent to EDF to build plant in Somerset

A new nuclear power plant will be built in the UK after planning permission was granted by energy secretary Ed Davey.

French firm EDF will be allowed to build two new reactors on the site of an existing power station, which is set to close in 2023, at Hinkley Point in Somerset. The new plant will become one of the biggest in the UK, with estimates suggesting the two 1.6-gigawatt reactors will produce 7% of the country’s energy, enough to power over 5m homes. The new plant at Hinkley will likely be the first in a new wave of power stations as the Coalition looks to replace aging coal and nuclear plants across the country.

The new plant will replace the existing one at Hinkley Point

(Image source - This Is Somerset)

Davey said following the announcement, ‘It's vital to get investment in new infrastructure to get the economy moving. [Hinkley] will generate vast amounts of clean energy and enhance our energy security. It will benefit the local economy, through direct employment, the supply chain and the use of local services’.

However, Davey and EDF are still in negotiations over how much subsidy the energy firm will get during the life of the plant. It is thought officials are discussing a contract that would guarantee the French company being paid nearly £100 for each megawatt hour of electricity produced over 30 to 40 years.

Are new coal plants a backwards move?

Plans for new coal-fired power plants raise questions

New research has revealed that over 1000 new coal plants are being planned in 59 countries, with China and India contributing to three-quarters of them. 

This coal expansion is going ahead despite warnings over the large amount of pollution the new plants will create, with scientists, politicians and climate change campaigners all agreeing that the world needs to move away from fossil fuels as the main energy provider. Many argue that fossil fuel assets will become worthless as action on climate change moves forward.

Coal plants are the most polluting of all types of power plants. The capacity of all 1200 proposed plants across the world will be around 1400GW, which is the same as adding another China to the world in terms of the level of greenhouse gas emissions.

A coal-fired power station in Michigan, USA

(Source - Wikipedia)

The report is said to be the most comprehensive made and was compiled by the World Resources Institute, who state that the proposed coal plants are ‘definitely not in line with a safe climate scenario’. Nick Robins, head of HSBC’s Climate Change Centre, believes it would be easier to ignore coal as an energy source, as several factors including tighter air pollution regulations, the increasing investment and commitment to renewable energies and the scarcity of water (as coal plants need massive amounts of water to operate) make coal energy not worth the hassle.

Despite these warnings however, the coal industry has seen economic rejuvenation in recent years, as global coal trade increased 13% in 2010. The UK, Germany and France are still in biggest importers, but countries like South Korea and Japan are fast-increasing their import levels. These countries, along with developing countries such as Senegal and Uzbekistan, have high numbers of coal plants but produce practically no coal of their own. Ailun Yang, of the WRI, believes that there is an issue of a lack of awareness in these countries that their energy needs can be met from sources ‘other than coal’.

How safe is nuclear?

With Hitachi investing over $1 billion into two new nuclear power plants in the UK, the issue of nuclear safety is raised once again

This week, Japanese company Hitachi bought the Horizon nuclear power project in the UK for $1.2 billion, which will create two new nuclear power plants in Anglesey, Wales and Oldbury, England, with around 12,000 jobs in constructing the sites and then 2000 permanent jobs once they are completed. Hitachi took over the project from German companies RWE and E.ON after they pulled out following the decision by Angela Merkel to phase out nuclear energy in Germany by 2022. This decision by one of Europe’s leading industrial powers to renounce nuclear energy in favour of renewables was made following the disaster at Fukushima, with fears raised about the safety of nuclear power. Now, with Hitachi opting to invest in this type of energy and start a ‘100 year commitment to the UK’ that question is brought up once again.

A typical nuclear power plant - but is it really that safe?

(Source - http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/NuclearEnergy.php)

Safety is the biggest factor in debates about nuclear power. Anti-nuclear campaigners state that the potential risk of a nuclear disaster (such as a complete nuclear meltdown – a nuclear explosion similar to an atomic bomb is a complete myth, as the uranium isn’t enriched enough in a power plant to explode) outweighs any benefits of nuclear power, as the damage that could be caused by a disaster would be catastrophic. That fear is understandable; a worst-case scenario would be a complete meltdown that contaminates the ground and water supply in the surrounding area, which would cause explosions as a result of radioactive material reacting with water and widespread exposure to radiation that could result in deaths. 

However, in nearly 15,000 cumulative nuclear reactor years, only three major accidents have occurred; Three Mile Island (USA, 1979), Chernobyl (Ukraine, 1986) and Fukushima (Japan, 2011), with only Chernobyl resulting in loss of life. These accidents weren’t caused by the nuclear power process itself, but by a series of specific factors. Three Mile Island was a result of human error, Fukushima was caused by damage from both an earthquake and a tsunami, and Chernobyl was the result of poor reactor design in an environment where safety regulations and security were a low priority. Nuclear energy is so much safer now with security measures and tight safety regulations in place.

The devastating aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster - but events like these are extremely rare

(Source - Liverpool Echo)

In terms of safety, renewable energy is much better than nuclear, as the only risk of damage or death from a wind turbine is if it fell over, which wouldn’t affect as many people as a nuclear meltdown would. With Germany looking to phase out nuclear power by 2022 in favour of renewable energy, they are showing they are willing to commit and support the development of renewable power (as nuclear energy currently provides a quarter of the country’s energy usage), which is a good thing, as it shows the country is prepared to move forward and is thinking about the future. 

However, nuclear power shouldn’t be ignored completely. There is always the worry that something could go terribly wrong with nuclear and, however safe nuclear energy can be made, the actual process of working with radioactive materials and the science behind it will always carry some level of risk. But with safety measures as tight and important as they currently are, the chances of something bad happening are very low. Nuclear power is still important to the world, as it is very efficient in terms of energy production. An average-size nuclear plant would produce the same amount of energy as around 2000 wind turbines. 2000 turbines would take up an area of land around 60,000 acres, whereas a power plant would take up only 1500 acres.

Hopefully in the future there will be a form of renewable energy so efficient and effective, with absolutely no risks, that nuclear power won’t be needed anymore. But until such a time, nuclear energy is still important, and still necessary. 

'Blackout Britain' in three years time?

Millions face ‘heat or eat’ choice as EU orders UK power plants to close

Britain will be hit by widespread blackouts in just three years time as a result of new EU regulations. Plans that mean nine coal-powered plants will have to close by 2015 to meet the EU’s green standards will cause Britain’s spare energy capacity to drop to just four percent, according to a report by energy watchdog Ofgem.

If the findings of the report come true, the country may become dependent on unreliable undersea cables that come from France, which could lead to scenes in Britain similar to the energy crisis of the 1970s, where the Conservative Government introduced a three-day week to conserve electricity.

As a result of these regulations, energy prices in the UK will most likely skyrocket if Britain has to rely on imported energy, which will leave more hard-working Britons out of pocket.

(To read the full story go to the Daily Mail.)