China General Nuclear Power Corp. has halted funding for the UK’s Hinkley Point C nuclear station in a fresh sign of tension between London and Beijing.
CGN skipped several installments in recent months, according to people familiar with the matter. That means Electricite de France SA, which was building the £32.7 billion ($41 billion) plant with CGN, may have to pay for its completion alone, they said, asking not to be identified discussing private information.
The withdrawal comes after the UK took over CGN’s stake in a similar nuclear project in Sizewell last year amid national security concerns. Back then, the government didn’t rule out intervening in other cases of Chinese involvement in energy supply. CGN’s plan to build another atomic plant in southeast England is also up in the air.
It’s unclear whether the Hinkley funding halt is temporary or definitive, some of the people said, adding that the project will continue in any event. A representative for EDF declined to comment, and CGN didn’t respond to requests for comment.
The UK government has signalled it will not step in to help France’s EDF fund Hinkley Point C after its Chinese partner CGN halted payments to cover mounting cost overruns on Britain’s flagship nuclear power project. The reluctance of the British government to intervene comes as the price tag for the power plant under construction in south-west England is likely to exceed the revised £32.7bn estimate EDF put on it earlier this year, according to people close to discussions.
£32.7bn is ~$41.5bn
EDF = Électricité de France
EDF Energy is their British subsidiary
EDF Luminus is their Belgian subsidiary
(Ah, I see that the money conversion was mentioned in the Bloomberg article.)
As has been said before, there are two reasons why nuclear is not a solution for climate change:
1. Nuclear is too expensive
2. Nuclear is too slow
Meanwhile:
“The planet is now adding a gigawatt a day of solar power. A nuclear plant’s worth every day of solar power”
For discussion, see Bill McKibben’s Oct. 7, 2023 substack commentary:
The Rays of the Sun
https://billmckibben.substack.com/p/the-rays-of-the-sun
The recent Climate Crocks post on nuclear fusion included this quote from Mark Jacobson:
“Am I nuts or are our policymakers so out of touch with what is going on that they focus on everything except what actually works?”
1. Saving the world is too expensive.
2. Speed the fck up.
If the source of funding for nuclear power plants is independent of the money available for wind, solar and storage, then go for it. Otherwise, in the US and Europe it’s just taking money away from projects that have faster implementation, quicker ROI and earlier carbon payback.
There’s a tsunami coming. Using a bike to flee is faster and easier than just running from it, but if the bike won’t be working until after the tsunami hits then its superiority to running doesn’t matter.
Love that “Am I nuts?” quote.
As has been said before, there are two reasons why nuclear is not a solution for climate change: 1. Nuclear is too expensive 2. Nuclear is too slow
Meanwhile: “The planet is now adding a gigawatt a day of solar power. A nuclear plant’s worth every day of solar power”
For discussion, see Bill McKibben’s Oct. 7, 2023 substack commentary:
The Rays of the Sun
https://billmckibben.substack.com/p/the-rays-of-the-sun
The recent Climate Crocks post on nuclear fusion included this quote from Mark Jacobson:
“Am I nuts or are our policymakers so out of touch with what is going on that they focus on everything except what actually works?”
>
Exactly!
I’ve been looking into the finances of nuclear new-build in England and France, and my conclusion is that it IS NOT and CANNOT be competitive with renewables.
In fact, the only logical reason I can find for continuing to pour money into these behemoths is that they make pots of money for a handful of multinationals and their shareholders.
Business plans are transparently phony, based as they are on assumptions about capital returns extending 60 years and more into the future. Who can guarantee that degree of stability in a world on the cusp of massive climate disruption?
“The planet is now adding a gigawatt a day of solar power. A nuclear plant’s worth every day of solar power”.
A gigawatt of solar is not worth a gigawatt of nuclear. Especially in the UK (capacity factor about 10%.) Even more so in winter. Yesterday 15 GW of British solar provided 13 Gigawatt/hours over the 24 hours. 5 GW of nuclear provided 110 GWh. So if you built 27x as much solar, you’d have got the same output – all bunched up over a few hours around midday. So add a mass of batteries. Then consider that yesterday was by no means the nadir of British solar performance- on a couple of days last week it did less than half as much. @ElectricityMaps
How much is a gigawatt of solar now worth compared to 5 gigawatts of nuclear a decade from now? How many tons of CO2e emissions has Flamanville 3 displaced since 2007? How much has Hinkley Point C displaced since 2017? For that matter, how much of Vogtle 3&4 displaced (with #3 now operating) since 2013? When will their carbon payback points be reached?
If it’s less than the average in winter (when offshore wind peaks, btw) then it’s more in the summer. Why is every single thing you post an attempt to deceive?
So you split the money and buy a heap of batteries as well as a heap of solar arrays and wind turbines.
You’d still come out *way* ahead, compared to the nuke.