Hinkley Point nuclear plant gets OK from EU

Hinkley Point nuclear plant in England gets an approval from the European Union to subsidize the construction and operation of the plant. Environmentalists who oppose Hinkley Point were furious over the decision.

Yves Logghe/AP
EU Commissioner for competition Joaquin Almunia addresses the media at the European Commission headquarters in Brussels, on Wednesday Oct. 8, 2014. The European Union's competition watchdog has accepted Britain's bid to heavily subsidize the construction and operation of Hinkley Point, a new 16-billion pound (dollars 26 billion) nuclear power plant.

The European Union has approved Britain's bid to heavily subsidize the Hinkley Point nuclear power plant, overriding opposition from environmentalists and questions over the project's 24.5 billion pound ($39 billion) price tag.

The EU's executive Commission said Wednesday it found the subsidies for construction and operation of the Hinkley Point plant won't distort fair competition.

"After the Commission's intervention, the UK measures in favour of Hinkley Point nuclear power station have been significantly modified, limiting any distortions of competition in the Single Market," Commission Vice-President Joaquín Almunia said in a statement. "These modifications will also achieve significant savings for UK taxpayers. On this basis and after a thorough investigation, the Commission can now conclude that the support is compatible with EU state aid rules."

Britain will guarantee all the loans for the project's construction and grant plant operators a fixed above-market electricity price — roughly double the current wholesale price — for 35 years to ensure their investment will break even.

To gain EU approval, Britain agreed to change some terms, including raising the price for the loan guarantees, which should save British taxpayers 1 billion pounds, the Commission said.

The project is to be carried out by France's EDF energy and a group of Chinese investors who estimate the construction costs to be 16 billion pounds. However, the EU Commission says it will cost 24.5 billion pounds plus another 10 billion pounds for operational costs such as waste management.

When asked about the price difference, EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia told reporters his service has worked with these numbers in its exchanges with British authorities for a year, and he had no explanation for the lower figures. Queries to EDF remained unanswered.

The few nuclear power plants built in the West over the past decades were all plagued by significant cost overruns. Analysts say building new nuclear power plants isn't economically viable without state subsidies.

Like this article?

Subscribe to Recharge, the Monitor's weekend digest of global energy news.
Click here for a sample.

The EU decision was controversial as the 28-nation bloc seeks to switch its electricity supply to renewable sources like wind and solar energy. But securing approval for the two Hinkley Point reactors was a top priority for the British government as older plants will go offline in coming years. British Treasury chief George Osborne hailed the EU decision as "excellent news."

Environmental groups were furious.

"This is a world record sell-out to the nuclear industry at the expense of taxpayers and the environment," said Andrea Carta, a legal adviser for Greenpeace EU. "There is absolutely no legal, moral or environmental justification in turning taxes into guaranteed profits for a nuclear power company whose only legacy will be a pile of radioactive waste," she added.

Several EU countries, including Germany and Austria, are also hostile to new nuclear power projects as they bet on renewables. The Austrian government has floated the idea of suing the Commission at a European court to overthrow the approval of the Hinkley Point subsidy.

The Commission said its decision didn't involve a judgment on the merits of nuclear power, only the legality of this particular subsidy.

"This will not create any precedents," said EU Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia.

The two nuclear reactors, planned to start working in 2023 for 60 years, would have a production capacity equivalent to 7 percent of Britain's electricity generation. The government contract guarantees operators an electricity price of 92.5 pounds per megawatt hour, or about twice the current wholesale price. The guaranteed price will be raised annually in line with inflation.

The reactors will use the so-called EPR technology, which has yet to go online anywhere in the world. There are only three similar projects currently under construction, in France, Finland and China. Finland's Olkiluoto 3 power plant is already nine years behind schedule and faces billions of dollars in cost overruns.

___

Matti Huuhtanen in Helsinki and Greg Katz in London contributed to this report.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.