Hinkley Point C (HPC) is supposed to cost 18B UK to build;
Spend 60% of that amount (~ 10B UK) using domestic firms;
Have the entire cost of construction borne by the foreign owners;
And agree to a 92.5 UKP per MWh wholesale price for 35 years.
HPC is expected to have a generation capacity of 3.2 million kW. I have used 100% capacity utilization for my napkin math although that is no doubt excessive. Then I calculated how much extra the UK will pay for the electricity generation for each 1 pence extra than alternatives would cost. I suspect that wind can be built at 3 -4 pence a kWh, but I'll leave that for another topic
Annual generation is 28 Billion kWh a year, so each year a pence extra costs 280 Million UKP. If my guess is correct that the UK will end up paying some 6 pence per kWh more than other clean alternatives, the country will have given back the 10B UKP in about 6.5 years before interest in considered, and then will be on the hook for an extra 1.68 Billion UKP a year for the next 28 years or so.
And for what ?
To have a nuclear waste 'problem' ?
To have a massive terrorist target ?
To have another nuclear accident possibility ? I wonder who is covering insurance.
To avoid developing a domestic wind industry ?
I'd like to know if my math is wrong, because this decision just seems insane. Trumpish, even.
My cynical side says this is politicians listening to the construction firms who will benefit handsomely during the construction years, and my even more cynical side says the Brits are betting on 3-10x cost over-runs that will either kill the project before it ever generates a watt or infuse that fold more money into the economy to make the financials something less than an embarrassment.
Any errors on my side ? Opposing opinions ?
Spend 60% of that amount (~ 10B UK) using domestic firms;
Have the entire cost of construction borne by the foreign owners;
And agree to a 92.5 UKP per MWh wholesale price for 35 years.
HPC is expected to have a generation capacity of 3.2 million kW. I have used 100% capacity utilization for my napkin math although that is no doubt excessive. Then I calculated how much extra the UK will pay for the electricity generation for each 1 pence extra than alternatives would cost. I suspect that wind can be built at 3 -4 pence a kWh, but I'll leave that for another topic
Annual generation is 28 Billion kWh a year, so each year a pence extra costs 280 Million UKP. If my guess is correct that the UK will end up paying some 6 pence per kWh more than other clean alternatives, the country will have given back the 10B UKP in about 6.5 years before interest in considered, and then will be on the hook for an extra 1.68 Billion UKP a year for the next 28 years or so.
And for what ?
To have a nuclear waste 'problem' ?
To have a massive terrorist target ?
To have another nuclear accident possibility ? I wonder who is covering insurance.
To avoid developing a domestic wind industry ?
I'd like to know if my math is wrong, because this decision just seems insane. Trumpish, even.
My cynical side says this is politicians listening to the construction firms who will benefit handsomely during the construction years, and my even more cynical side says the Brits are betting on 3-10x cost over-runs that will either kill the project before it ever generates a watt or infuse that fold more money into the economy to make the financials something less than an embarrassment.
Any errors on my side ? Opposing opinions ?
