The go ahead for a new nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point, in Somerset, was announced today amid a hail of criticism. Ministers were immediately forced to defend the deal that will involve British taxpayers subsidising a French company to build Britain’s first nuclear power station for 25 years. Ed Davey, the Energy Secretary, said that the deal - which guarantees an inflation-linked price of £92.50 per megawatt hour to the French firm EDF for the power it generates at the new site, double the current wholesale price for electricity - was better value than the alternative, which would have been to rely on imported gas for the country’s future energy needs.

However, the news that British consumers will be subsidising a French state-owned company to the tune of billions of pounds was set to fuel the row over rising energy bills, as npower followed British Gas and SSE by announcing substantial price increases this morning.

Labour denied that Davey had struck a good deal, responding that said that he had put the Prime Minister in the “ridiculous” position of guaranteeing prices 35 years in advance for big companies, while refusing to
match Labour’s promised 20-month energy price freeze for UK consumers.

“We will scrutinise the details of this deal to ensure it delivers value for money for consumers,” said Caroline Flint, the Shadow Energy Secretary. “The potential costs of this agreement make it all the more crucial that we end the rip-offs and have an energy market that people trust.”

The building of a new nuclear plant has far wider implications than simply the effect on energy bills, however.

Tim Deere-Jones (independent marine radioactivity consultant who has acted on behalf of NFLA, Greenpeace International and others) commenting on the announcement, flagged up a number of issues which he claims are being swept under the carpet. He said:

"This decision is based on an absolute refusal on the part of the UK Nuclear regulators and planning inquiries to look at three major issues relating to sources of radioactive pollution.

1: The fate and disposal of all the solid nuclear waste generated by the new stations

2: The issue of nuclear accidents, especially in the light of the recent disaster at FUKUSHIMA. The UK government and UK regulators have taken no notice of a report produced on behalf of the Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) on the implications of a FUKUSHIMA type event, especially it's advice relating to the release of millions of gallons of highly radioactive water into the UK coastal waters in the event of a similar massive breach of containment at UK reactors. There has been no discussion on how to prevent such a disaster occurring or how to respond if it did.

3: The management of both gaseous and liquid wastes by "pollution export" via emission stacks and discharge pipelines, which initiate the transport of radioactive wastes away from the site. There has been no serious empirical research into the long term behaviour, distribution and fate of such exported wastes. A body of independent (non-industry-non-government) research evidence points to the fact that some populations distant from the discharges may be more exposed to higher doses of radioactivity from normal/routine operation of the new sites than the people living immediately around them."

Dr Nina Skorupska, speaking on behalf of the Renewable Energy Association, (RAE) was also critical of the announcement, and said:

“Today’s announcement does nothing to address the looming capacity crunch warned of by the Royal Academy of Engineers last week. Hinkley will still be a construction site when old coal and nuclear capacity is shut down. In contrast, the Government could start plugging the generation gap straight away with another reliable low carbon solution: biomass. Biomass plants take only three or four years to build and provide flexible power when we need it. It is not too late to provide support for biomass in the EMR package, and we urge the Government to do so.

“In terms of the contracts, Government must explain why it is subsidising nuclear for 35 years compared to 15 years for renewables. This is not a level playing field. The infographic pitting nuclear against solar and wind is also unhelpful. As Ed Davey stressed today, it is not an either/or choice – we need a diverse energy mix.”

And on the issue of the promised jobs, Deere-Jones pointed out that it now appears that only 2 of the 90 contracts to be awarded will go to UK companies, and that the bulk of UK and Somerset jobs on this project look like being the unskilled low value jobs which Ken Owens (EDF UK Commercial director of new build) calls "muck shifting and enabling work"

EDF's other projects in Finland and France, to build the same EPR reactor type stations proposed for Hinkley are now many years behind schedule and hugely over cost. Their Finland project is now six years over time and has a cost overrun of 8 billion Euro (almost twice the original costing). Their French project is now running at twice the time originally proposed for completion while cost overuns are about 3 times originally proposed. At this time...there is no reason to suspect that this will not also happen at Hinkley.