1 year ago
62
The UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities were incredulous to hear the recent claim by Sizewell C’s Joint Managing Director that EDF’s project plan was based on ‘a mature reactor design’.
Julie Pyke’s bold assertion was included in the media statement issued last week by government ministers announcing they were seeking private sector investment in the controversial project.
EDF Energy, the wholly-French-stated-owned operator of Britain’s nuclear reactor fleet, intends to deploy its European Pressurised Reactor (or EPR) at Sizewell C, should the project ever become operational.
Cynics have assigned the EPR a less complimentary sobriquet, ‘European Problem Reactor’, for this is the same reactor design that was involved in an accident at the Taishan-1 plant in China. Here radioactive gas leaked, seemingly because of corrosion and faulty parts. It is also same reactor which, at Olkiluoto-3 in Finland, took over a year to bring online, after being delivered fourteen years late, following the discovery of repeated faults.
In response to last week’s official investment launch for Sizewell C, Andy Mayer, the Chief Executive of the Institute of Economic Affairs, was quick to rubbish its prospects saying that:
“The underlying EPR tech is junk, resulting in projects that run over-time/budget [and] when built are riddled with corrosion…investors would be mad to back Sizewell. If built, it will be late & obsolete”.
And in December of last year, the former Chief Executive of EDF (surely a man who should know), Henri Proglio, told a hearing of the French National Assembly in exasperation that:
“The EPR is too complicated, almost unbuildable. We see the result today.”
The Chair of the NFLA Steering Committee, Councillor Lawrence O’Neill, said in response to Ms Pyke’s claim:
“Whether you believe the EPR is turnkey or turkey, we suspect that this is a classic case of someone in authority adopting an attitude of hope over expectation as the history of EPRs has so far been the stuff of nightmares rather than something to write home about.
“Hinkley Point C will be delivered around a decade late at a cost of at least £33 billion, nearly double the original budget. The development at Sizewell C with its extra geographical complexities, will we suspect take even longer and cost so much more – and that is assuming that the whole project is not kiboshed by the serious legal challenge being pursued by our friends in Together Against Sizewell C and their allies”.
The timing of the government’s announcement is itself suspect as Barclays have previously been appointed by government to solicit investors and there have been many pronouncements, usually negative, by the leaders of major financial institutions on their prospects of investing in Sizewell C.
Being of similar mind to Mr Mayer, the NFLAs have been active in backing our friends in the campaign group, Stop Sizewell C, in writing to prospective investors to point out the pitfalls that might befall backing the White Elephant.
Gratifyingly, so far, the market has proven lukewarm in embracing new nuclear, with a typically prescient comment made by a spokesperson for Legal & General Capital to The Telegraph:
“Our stance hasn’t changed: we are focused on investing in and supporting other innovative, viable, and cost-effective clean energy solutions that are already delivering results.”
The NFLAs hope that this will be the uniform response of the market and that this unwanted and unneeded nuclear waste of public money will soon be abandoned.
Ends//…
For more information, please contact NFLA Secretary Richard Outram by email to richard.outram@manchester.gov.uk
