Meeting of the Parliament 24 June 2026 [Draft]
I congratulate the member for securing the debate, which seems, in effect, to be on behalf of the trade body the Nuclear Industry Association. It will come as no surprise to the member that I disagree with a lot of what he said, but I also have to say that his motion contains several inaccuracies.
Nuclear is not green. It is low carbon, but producing radioactive nuclear waste, which in some cases must be stored underground for thousands of years, cannot be classed as green.
As for energy security, we were originally told that Hinkley would be required to be online by Christmas 2017 in order to keep the lights on. Once the contract was signed, the project was to be delivered by 2025. Hinkley is now delayed to 2030, while three existing nuclear stations have now shut down, yet there is still no panic for energy reliance. The reality is that a new station that has taken 15 years to build does not address energy security.
The other point concerns low cost. The projected cost of Hinkley Point C station is now £50 billion, but the original estimate was £18 billion. Sizewell C has an upper estimate of £48 billion, and all the financial risk on the project is borne by bill payers.
I will look at the strike rates, as I interpret them differently from Liam Kerr. He is right that the Hinkley Point C strike rate is currently £130 per megawatt hour, which is indexed to 2024. That is far more expensive than onshore and fixed offshore renewables. Critically, however, the Hinckley strike rate is over a 35-year contract, unlike the 15 to 20-year contracts for renewables.