According to calculations by the British association of solar, in the 35 years of life expected the central Hinkley Point C will cash subsidies to 29.7 billion pounds, up from 14.7 billion needed to get the same amount of energy with a mix solar photovoltaic and energy storage systems.
Not only the new nuclear is a bad deal that stand up only with public aid, but for the community would be much cheaper to invest that money in solar and storage systems. Even in the sunny little Britain.
To prove it is a new report of the association of the photovoltaic British Solar Trade Association (attached below), presented in conjunction with the announcement of the entry of Chinese Cgn initiative of EDF to build the new nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point C.
The solar combined accumulations – emerges from the document – would provide the same amount of electricity of 3,200 MW EPR nuclear power plant with half the subsidies.
As we know, even to build the new reactor, the British government has granted the project a high incentive: for 35 years the energy produced will be paid at a strike price of 92.5 pounds per MWh (2012 price), or about twice the current market value.
Conversely, when the large PV parks in the UK are entitled to the incentive for 15 years, with a rate that is determined by a competitive auction: in 2014 the strike price was set at £ 79.23 / MWh (also in 2012 prices – for both the incentive to nuclear to renewables to the public it covers the difference between the wholesale price of energy and the strike price).
According to the study, in the 35 years of life expected Hinkley Point C will cash subsidies to 29.7 billion pounds, up from £ 14.7 billion to the same energy produced using a mix of solar, storage systems and flexibility measures . Much of subsidies – £ 10.9 billion – in this scenario that requires installations are installed from 2017 to 2024, they would go to the storage systems and flexibility, while the PV suffice £ 3.8 billion.
The study does not take into account other forms of public support for new nuclear power plant, such as guarantees on billions in loans, nor does it consider the mix of renewables that would still be cheaper, for example, also including wind power.
Even so (and in the rainy UK) choose solar and storage systems users would save £ 15 billion in 35 years, to which should be added the advantages in terms of safety and employment.
“We do not support that solar is the solution of energy problems, or that could replace all other technologies, but the Government must explain why it is drastically cutting support to this source, while delivering twice the subsidy at Hinkley Point C” He denounces the Director of Policy, Mike Landy.
According to the accounts made by Greenpeace, the incentives for new nuclear reactors planned sites of Hinkley, Sizewell and Bradwell increase the bills of British £ 33 a year: over 5 times the £ 6 paid by consumers for existing incentives to photovoltaics, which London is reducing considering them too expensive.
Against Hinkley Point C it is also intervened House of Lords, which put the emphasis sull’esorbitante project cost: between 24.5 and £ 26 billion, which is “the highest sum ever spent in the world for a central”.