Saturday, February 03, 2024

UK

What a Turkey: Hinkley Point C Costs Hit a New High


 
 FEBRUARY 2, 2024
FacebookTwitter

 The Great Mosque of Mecca is considered the most expensive building in the world at $115.2 billion. Right behind it comes….a nuclear power plant! The two-reactor 3,260MW Hinkley Point C nuclear site still under construction in the UK will now cost at least £46 billion ($59 billion) according to the latest figures released by its developer, the French energy giant, EDF.

As such, Hinkley Point C has now earned the dubious honor of becoming the second most expensive building in the world. And it’s not even finished. The price could soar still higher.

EDF originally bragged that Britons would be baking their Christmas turkeys powered by Hinkley Point C by 2017. The completion date has now been pushed to “after 2029”.

The nuclear power industry is very good at tripling things. Perhaps not global nuclear installations by 2050 as it bragged would happen during an announcement at the COP28 climate summit last December. But the price tag for a new reactor? Timelines for new reactor construction? Straight A grades all around!

That’s almost what’s happening at Hinkley Point C where the new price is more than double the original estimated cost of £18 billion ($23 billion). Getting to triple the cost still seems eminently achievable given the new completion date.

This not-so-shocking news, given nuclear power’s track record, comes after the recent, overblown announcement by Rishi Sunak’s Conservative government that Britain would launch its “biggest expansion of nuclear power for 70 years to create jobs, reduce bills and strengthen Britain’s energy security.”  The plan will of course achieve none of these things.

Far from reducing electricity bills for British consumers, the Hinkley nuclear project will in fact increase them “far above the market electricity price,” predicted Dr Norbert Allnoch, CEO of the International Economic Forum for Renewable Energies (IWR), based in Münster, Germany.

According to estimates by IWR, the cost of the electricity generated by Hinkley Point C will be “significantly higher than the 15 cents/kWh mark” and will continue to rise. This is because the UK government agreed a “state-guaranteed price for nuclear power being paid to EDF, which is linked to the inflation rate,” says IWR.

All of this came after the recent announcement that UK authorities had granted a Development Consent Order (DCO) to EDF’s identical twin EPR reactor project on the Suffolk Coast at Sizewell, while committing £1.3 billion ($1.6 billion) in funding for the project. The French company has already been tearing up pristine countryside there, destroying habitat and disturbing wildlife at the adjacent Minsmere Nature Reserve.

Meanwhile, France is pushing the UK to pay for the cost-overruns at Hinkley and the expected ballooning bills at Sizewell once work begins. France reportedly blames Britain for prompting the Chinese firm CGN to withdraw its 33.5% share from the Hinkley plant after Britain booted China out of the Sizewell C nuclear project.

Chinese investment in UK nuclear projects has been a hot political potato for some time, and came to be viewed as “an unacceptable national security risk.” A proposed new reactor project at Bradwell in Essex, a joint project between China and France, looks unlikely to go forward, at least in part due to security concerns about Chinese involvement.

Stop Hinkley campaigners warn citizens they’re about to be nuked — and fleeced. (Photo: CND)

These challenges prompted the UK government to seek  alternative sources of funding, inevitably settling on ratepayers using something called a Regulated Asset Base (RAB). RAB effectively funds future nuclear projects by charging ratepayers up front in their electricity bills for the anticipated costs of nuclear plant design, construction, commissioning, and operation.

“Hinkley Point C has been a shambolic money pit,” said a spokesperson from Together Against Sizewell C on X (formerly Twitter). “It’s been hit by delay after delay and the costs are escalating at an alarming rate. Nobody can say with any confidence when it will go live or how much money will have been wasted on it.”

The story of Hinkley C illustrates that the nuclear sector is “out of control economically,” said Paul Gunter, director of the Reactor Oversight Project at Beyond Nuclear. The cost of EDF’s EPR reactor being built in France at Flamanville and still incomplete, has more than quadrupled to close to $15 billion. Another EPR, at Olkiluoto in Finland, went from $3.2 billion to more than $12 billion and launched 12 years late.

On U.S. soil, two AP 1000 reactors at the Vogtle nuclear power plant site in Georgia, will likely come in at a total price tag of at least $35 billion, $20 billion more than originally estimated, with the second of the two reactors still not on line.

This first appeared on Beyond Nuclear International.

Linda Pentz Gunter is the editor and curator of BeyondNuclearInternational.org and the international specialist at Beyond Nuclear. 

Is this the World's Most Expensive and Most Delayed Power Project?

Yes, they are still building the Hinckley Point C nuclear power station in the United Kingdom, and yes the latest estimated cost is more than the previously estimated cost and the completion date has receded another two years into the future. 

This nuclear project received its license for construction in 2012, with an estimated cost of £18 billion and completion date in 2025. The last estimate calls for 2029-2031 completion at a cost of £46 billion. To the extent that these estimates can be trusted, the plant would end up costing double the original estimate in real terms. In the same time period, solar and wind costs will decline by at least one half. We are not sure yet whether Hinckley Point will set an all-time record as the most expensive and most delayed power-related project in history, but it certainly will be a contender.

As is the case for so many climate- or security-related projects, the UK government offered significant subsidies to the builder. But in a different way.  Most governments, nowadays, offer start-up subsidies in order to bring production levels up to a point where economies of scale kick in, after which costs drop rapidly and consumers get real benefits.  The cost curves for wind, solar, and energy storage show how well this strategy works. Give the industry a kickstart and watch the action take place. Not so with nuclear, where costs seem to rise with encouragement rather than fall. Opting for nuclear, then, seems more like an ideological rather than a technological or economic choice, especially for British Conservative politicians. “Nuclear has to be part of the package”, they seem to say. Even if the nuclear cost per kW installed is five-eight times higher than non-fossil alternatives. But, fortunately, the UK government is not directly on the hook for the added costs, the Chinese co-investor in the project has declared that it will not contribute more, and it looks as if French utility EDF will bear the increased costs if it does not get a new power contract. But if the UK decides to stick EDF with the bill, what will that decision do to discourage further nuclear construction? Given the perilous nature of that construction (namely the danger of cost inflation), who could take the risk of initiating new projects other than a government agency?

Hinkley Point might cause us to examine the premises underlying nuclear projects. Building a nuke has two purposes: to ensure national security and to reduce carbon emissions. As for reducing carbon emissions, those reductions could take place anywhere in the world and still benefit the planet. Some contractors (Russians or South Koreans?) in some countries apparently can build nuclear plants for less than contractors in Europe or the United States. So why not let them build nukes where it is economic to do so and pay the host countries for the carbon reductions? And maybe, if there still are savings, the paying countries that have natural gas supplies and wish to use that gas for national security reasons could contribute the savings to an international carbon reduction fund. In other words, the substantial nuclear savings made possible by differences in construction costs might create an opportunity for nuclear cost arbitrage. Just a thought. Our point: Hinkley Point C could put the kibosh on new nuclear construction in the West, but it need not discourage nuclear building everywhere.

By Leonard Hyman and William Tilles for Oilprice.com


It’s Not Inflation: Here’s the Proof We’re Getting Ripped Off


 
 FEBRUARY 2, 2024
Facebook

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

Many Americans are still experiencing the sticker shock they first faced two years ago when inflation hit its peak. But if inflation is down now, why are families still feeling the pinch?

The answer lies in corporate profits — and we have the data to prove it.

Our new report for the Groundwork Collaborative finds that corporate profits accounted for more than half — 53 percent — of inflation from April to September 2023. That’s an astronomical percentage. Corporate profits drove just 11 percent of price growth in the four decades prior to the pandemic.

Businesses have been quick to blame rising costs on supply chain shocks from the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. But two years later, our economy has mostly returned to normal. In some cases, companies’ costs to make things and stock shelves have actually decreased.

Let’s demonstrate with one glaring example: diapers.

The hyper-consolidated diaper industry is dominated by just two companies, Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark, which own well-known diaper brands like Pampers, Huggies, and Luvs. The cost of wood pulp, a key ingredient for making diapers absorbent, did spike during the pandemic, increasing by more than 50 percent between 2020 and 2021.

But last year it declined by 25 percent. Did that drop in costs lead Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark to lower their prices? Far from it. Diaper prices have increased to nearly $22 on average.

These corporate giants have no plans to bring prices down anytime soon. In fact, their own executives are openly bragging about how they’re going to “expand margins” on earnings calls. Procter & Gamble predicted $800 million in windfall profits as input costs decline. Kimberly-Clark’s CEO said the company has “a lot of opportunity” to expand margins over time.

It’s not just diapers — while many corporations were quick to pass along rising costs, they’ve been in no hurry to pass along their savings. A recent survey from the Richmond Fed and Duke University revealed that 60 percent of companies plan to hike prices this year by more than they did before the pandemic, even though their costs have moderated.

Corporations across industries, from housing to groceries and used cars, are juicing their profit margins even as the cost of doing business goes down. And they’re not hiding the ball. Since the summer of 2021, Groundwork began listening in on hundreds of corporate earnings calls where we heard CEO after CEO boasting about their ability to raise prices on consumers.

Now we hear something slightly different: CEOs crowing about keeping their prices high while their costs go down.

PepsiCo raised its prices on snacks and beverages by roughly 15 percent twice in the last year while bragging to shareholders that their profit margins will grow as input costs come down. Tyson’s earnings report flaunted how their higher prices have “more than offset” their higher costs. The CFO of Hershey said last quarter that pricing gains more than offset inflation and higher costs.

So what can we do about it?

The Biden administration has taken important steps to rein in corporate profiteering and address the longstanding affordability crisis, from eliminating junk fees to strengthening global supply chains and cracking down on corporate concentration.

With the 2017 Trump tax cuts set to expire, Congress should also take this opportunity to raise taxes on corporations. Taxing profits helps disincentivize price gouging and profiteering because large corporations will have to send a greater share of their windfall to Uncle Sam.

We’ve come a long way in bringing inflation down since its peak in 2022. But stamping out inflation once and for all will require a concerted effort to rein in the corporate profiteering.

Lindsay Owens is the Executive Director of the Groundwork Collaborative.  Elizabeth Pancotti is Strategic Advisor to Groundwork.