George Osborne claims that the government’s decision to guarantee £2bn of Chinese investment in the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station will shore up Britain’s nuclear energy plans and pave the way for more collaboration between the two countries. With which of the following statements do you most strongly agree?
The largest group of the 632 respondents to last week’s poll registered their discomfort with George Osborne’s announcement of a 2billion guarantee for Chinese investmnent in the Hihnkley Point C power station project on security grounds, with 61per cent saying that a country suspectyed of cyber-attacks against our allies should not be involved in domestic energy infrastructure. A further 7 per cent said that China’s poor human rights record made them uncomfortable with the announcement. Howevcer, 22 per cent decalred themselves happy with the deal, providing that the UK supply chain was involved with the project as much as possible, and five per cent welcomed the chance to bring the UK’s nuclear plans back on track, and a similar proportion thought that the project would be so expensive that Osborne’s guarantee would have little effect.
Please continue to send us your opinions on this subject.
None of the above. The money should be going to a UK led effort. There is enough expertise in the industry but the government do not listen to their own people. When you hear George Osbournes simplistic take on the deal you really have to wonder what is going on. Today’s announcement suggests a link up between our stock exchanges. That will simply turn into a takeover at a later date.
It seems to me that there is little difference between spending money we haven’t got and guaranteeing money we haven’t got at the macro level of Government spending. Whilst I do not know enough about the Chinese technology, there is certainly no reason we should not consider it and equally every reason to go our own way with our own expertise.
Where are the men of vision? Once again, our politicians have sold out our own industry for short-term benefit. For a once world leader to buy in technology displays a chronic lack of foresight, and from a country whose USP is low cost manufacturing… when will the London elite realise that wealth is not ‘created’ by trading shares and that manufacturing matters.
Having worked with Chinese companies I can say their attitude to health and safety and the environment is terrible. If they have little regard of these factors in their own country how little will the care about ours. Additionallty the stratigic issues of allowing a represive, totalitarian regime get involved with fissile material in the UK beggars belief. We might as well have let Hitler have control of British aircraft production in 1938
The Chinese want our technology and expertise to set up their own nuclear industry.
1. 2bn is far too cheap, more like 20bn/year payable in advance. tied in with a 100bn bond in case of default at any time.
2. Our nuclear power experts who know the true value of the deal should be controlling the negotiation all along the line need to doing the negotiation and signing, not Osborne.
responsibility and accountability.
Sadly, this has little to do with the undoubted logic of civil nuclear power and everything to do with political hogwash! Rather like the flawed Private Finance Initiative our governments (of both colours) are too keen to get something done “off the balance sheet” while leaving future governments to pick up the extra costs. If a foreign government can raise the capital to build our infrastructure on the basis of guaranteed high returns how come we can’t do it ourselves? Makes no sense to me but what would I know – I’m only an engineer!!!!!
This is the same China that is doing this in international waters and makes completely unjustifiable claims right up to other countries coasts. I’m sorry but George Osbourne or any other politician should not be allowed to sign up deals like this. It is utter madness.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-22/south-china-sea-islands-before-and-after/6794076
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13748349
I agree with the last statement on the list. Additionally, why are we even thinking about China inputting 2Bn. Take it of the overseas aid fund which is grossly over funded anyway. Power is a critical part of our infer structure and allowing an unproven Chinese Nuclear Power design on our shores is madness.
I have had dealings with the Chinese in the past, they always think of themselves as No 1 however when it comes to putting projects into practice more often than not, the product produced was not as good as in the west due to inferior materials, build and corruption. .. Although it would be built to our regulations the design still has to be proven. We are just guinea pigs along with South America. .
With China & Russia having cosy pacts on energy and other areas why are we also laying ourselves open to possible in bedded software attacks similar to Stuxnet etc.
The Treasury hasn’t had the competence to handle any fiscal strategy since it became infected by the scourge of neoliberal doctrine in the ‘80s. Nuclear is the biggest faux pas and the whole sorry mess is overseen by the puppets of the European Commission.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29541482 – From £16bn to £24.5bn in one year; that’s good going!!
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/16/uk-running-out-of-money-to-pay-for-clean-energy
“Under a £7.6bn-a-year scheme set up by the coalition government. . .” The DECC isn’t paying, so it can’t be “running out of money.” On the other hand, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority accounts for around two thirds of the DECC’s budget.
“The subsidy is paid for by a levy on household energy bills which was supposed to be capped.”
Therefore it is NOT part of the DECC’s budget and ‘taxpayers’ don’t foot the bill. Why do these thick journalists keep calling it a ‘subsidy’? The European Court has ruled that FiTs, RoCs and CfDs are not subsidies, so they are permitted under the European Commission’s rules.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34319458
Lord Stern told BBC News it was “potty” to put a carbon tax on renewables, whereas the case for low-carbon development taking climate and air pollution into account was “inarguable”.
Osbourne has placed a £3.9bn carbon tax – the Climate Change Levy – on wind, solar power and biogas, which emit no net carbon.
“Unfortunately, taking a holistic view of energy is not how we organise policy and certainly not how we organise research. We can confidently say that the current energy system is sub-optimal, but we cannot begin to answer the question what the optimal energy system would look like.”
I began to answer that question eight years ago, by integrating energy storage in off-shore wind.
I know exactly what the optimal renewable electricity system should look like, but I work alone in developing it, precisely because the “holistic view is not how we organise research.” It is an article of faith in all UK governments that R&D projects are selected by ‘business’, the misapprehension being that this spending will return the best value for ‘taxpayers’. In reality, it ensures that no R&D is done on truly disruptive innovation such as energy storage.
I agree that we should take the 2Bn or whatever may be offered/needed as well as the Chinese technology.They have the money to continue their UK investments and this would be just another small one compared to what China has invested in the UK in the last 5 years. They also have the nuclear technology and have many thousands of highly trained engineers and physicists to ensure success. The UK has shamefully lost this technical ability, or cannot muster enough trained people to do the job on time at an economical price.
The more I think about it the more I think there should be some sort of enquiry into the Governments behaviour on this. I cannot see any way that this is in our best interests.
With the ridiculous deal to subsidise the cost to EDF and now paying the Chinese to lend us money – why do we not do the right thing and take our power back into our own hands and let engineers/business men run the operation. Do all the building and fabrication here apart from power security we would have the technology here. I would not live anywhere near a Chinese designed and built nuclear power station.
Foxes and chicken coops come to mind with this deal. All we need now is a deal with Putin to guarantee gas supplies in perpetuity.
Safety of operation, longevity and decommissioning (SLD) are dominant areas of UK expertise. To be acceptable to this planet new nuclear power generation facilities should be putting SLD etc. at the head of requirements. China seeks these attributes and is prepared to collaborate. Case in point Qenos Polymers, Botany, Australia – Qenos is well aware that the Chinese are hardnosed bargain hunters. With the right UK negotiating team, China can accept that the UK will call the regulatory and financial tune and China will provide the secure funding as well as developing its nuclear industry.. Collaboration is needed to create a world class consortium. UK has organisations (state and private), knowhow (written procedures) and large scale computer modelling facilities, all of which are well set to tackle the SLD parts of the collaboration. Cases in point UK Atomic energy Authority and son of, ACEL at Daresbury and Loughborough University. UK also has Don Valley. In my earlier blog I suggested ball park numbers – any advance?
The problem with this is who ends up paying for the decommissioning of the power station when its end is nigh. It won’t be the Chinese, that’s for sure. They will use this move to start taking over various businesses in the UK. Eventually there will be nothing left that is British. The government both past & present think they can get new business by selling off bits & pieces; but slowly there won’t be nothing to make any money for the country to keep going. The UK will end up a “third world” country, & who will step in to help us then.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2015/sep/21/hinkley-point-nuclear-station-enemies
Let’s start with well-known energy analyst Peter Atherton, who is no tree-hugger. He said the deal is “one of the worst ever signed by a British government”, who are buying the “most expensive conventional power station in the world”.
He calculated Hinkley would be pumping out vast profits by the end of the 35-year index-linked deal: £5bn a year, paid for by you and me. “The numbers are eye-wateringly attractive for EDF and its partners; not so good for the national purse,” he said. Osborne’s loan guarantees – a taxpayer bailout for lenders if the project fails – are “a clear case of socialising risk and privatising profits”.
The hard-headed number crunchers at HSBC agree, noting the high costs and vast delays to EDF’s two other new plants in France and Finland: “We see ample reason for the UK government to delay or cancel the project.”
Turning to the sober suits at the Financial Times, the message remains the same: that the costs are far too high, more expensive than every kind of renewable energy, bar offshore wind. “Backing out might upset the French and embarrass the government. But a wish to spare ministerial blushes is no excuse for saddling the country with costs it cannot afford,” concluded the FT editorial.
There’s more. Lord Turnbull, who knows his way around Whitehall, having led the civil service, recently told Osborne the Hinkley deal was a “bottomless pit and a big white elephant”.
Energy security is serious, affordability is serious and tackling global warming is serious. But when serious people queue up to condemn Hinkley as a colossal waste of time and money, risking security, affordability and the climate, ministers should swallow their pride and ditch it.
“. . . more expensive than every kind of renewable energy, bar offshore wind.” A few thousand pounds worth of unbiased research can prove that would no longer be true, if the conventional HAWT is scrapped in favour of a new design of floating VAWT which also harvests wave energy and incorporates before-generator energy storage. Married to tidal power, it’s a winner.
The costs of all of this infrastructure are only eye-watering due to the high interest rates demanded by the money men. Whichever technologies promise to do the best long-term job, they are the ones the government should pick to be built, using taxpayers’ money, and/or QE, and/or state debt, and/or by reallocating funds from HS2 and Trident.
The UK should start with marine energy. To set that in motion, one or two government-owned dry docks need to be built. . . I’ve set out all the reasons over the past few years. And don’t give any of the work to the Chinese. Licence our IP to save China from environmental degradation and export OUR manufactured goods to help them on their way.
George Osbourne has proved on this trip to China that he is a seriously unhinged buffoon and completely economically inept! I cannot believe he is allowed to do this in our name.
Borrowing money is quite innocuous, to my mind, other than providing reasons why China should not do anything that might damage its investments in Britain.
If you’re so concerned, start a fund and invest yourself – especially if you think that it’s overly lucrative.
So let’s see: UK Industry – Defence, nuclear, amongst others – spend a serious amount of time and effort in combating Counterfeit, Fraudulent and Suspect Items form getting into the supply chains and final product…. many of these unfortunately apparently come from Chinese sources. And now we want to give them a nuclear power station to build? Really?
As for the money, well, the UK taxpayer has been made to find the billions of pounds required to underwrite the £1.4 TRILLION (as announced by D Cameron in Parliament) debt liability of the UK banks back in 2008/9. Strange how there is money for that ‘magicked’ out of thin air, but we can’t find money for critical UK infrastructure projects.
I’m sure the real reason is that once again we are sacrificing UK domestic arrangements on the altar of foreign policy – in other words, what deals has Osborne done that will benefit UK corporations to tune of billions or trillions in overseas (probably offshore tax-haven banked) profits and thereby accepted this Chinese ‘investment’ (really another UK infrastructure sell-off) as a quid-pro-quo??
“The UK will end up a “third world” country, & who will step in to help us then.”
Come on, look at the whole strategic plan. We will have two large white elephants capable of sailing all over the world (that is if we have the cash to buy the fuel and anywhere still friendly enough to let us enter their ports) -(likewise the 17 planes (at £35,000,000 each) which though not yet capable of flying from such …you get the idea)and £ 100 billion’s worth of useless missiles and the submarines to launch them from…that will be just right for carrying the entire Establishment on over the seas and far away! If that sounds like the end of a fairy tale…it probably is.
As we are certainly entering the ‘mad-house’ and the lunatics have already got there…what more do you want.
For those who ask: how can all this be done in ‘our’ name…have you forgotted the ‘con’ (it was called an election, but no matter) that the Eton Mess-ers played earlier this year. Your world, Grumpy, and you are welcome to it. The solution is in the hands of we technocrats alone: and we should implement it, and soon.
Mike B
Its all about an agenda and nothing else, most of us know that a small minority of the very wealthy run the world and they want large multi-nationals, but how many have asked why?
To understand this we have to look at the EU agenda and this is to remove self reliance of all countries or individual states so we are reliant on other EU states for a percentage of necessary services. By doing this the EU elite have control of all member states and it is this control they have to attain to achieve their objectives. Much of our electricity is imported, we are not self sufficient, much of our gas comes from the former eastern bloc countries and travels across other EU member states. Much of our fuels such as oil based products come from, or through other EU countries.
By controlling such commodities it gives the EU an assumed power and authority which they have confirmed they would use in secret documents leaked by whistleblowers. This is also the reason they are spending lots of UK contributions on super grids for gas and electricity.
This is now being done on a world scale and following the EU prototype and will pit country against country as in the future no country will be self reliant in anything and this is what the few want to take and maintain authority over every country in the world.