Opinion: How Hinkley could ruin the political consensus on nuclear

In China this week, George Osborne and Amber Rudd were preparing the ground for the long-awaited final decision on Hinkley ‘C’, expected when the Chinese premier visits the UK in October. An infrastructure guarantee to underpin the contract for difference agreed last year, and a significant role in a further possible new nuclear power station at Bradwell, seem to have both been required to secure the deal.

While the news provoked the usual round of reaction and response – with some of the arguments of the sceptics more valid than others – an intriguing aspect of Hinkley happening is whether it will lead to a fracturing of the wider recent consensus on new nuclear in the UK.

The pressing need to decarbonise, the current lack of scalable low carbon baseload generation or storage alternatives, and concerns over domestic energy security contributed to a change of attitude about nuclear power in some quarters. Notable environmentalists, who were previously opponents, changed their minds and public support increased.

Political parties shifted, with the last Labour government establishing the process for new nuclear to be approved. David Cameron has moved from declaring nuclear as a last resort before 2010 to being first in line to support now. A Liberal Democrat energy secretary presided over CfD negotiations (even though his personal website had to have anti-nuclear campaign statements removed). All three, by 2010, broadly accepted that new nuclear was a valid part of a low carbon generation mix for the future.

However, supporting new nuclear is not the same as supporting Hinkley – many advocates of nuclear power are troubled by the choice of reactor design, the financial model being deployed and the negotiated strike price. Without care and attention, the political choices of the government may squander the current broad acceptance of the part new nuclear can play, years before any power is generated.

While large trade unions, including the GMB and Unite, have supported their members working in nuclear power for decades, the new leader of the Labour Party is personally sceptical. The enhanced ranks of Scottish Nationalists in Parliament retain an historic ideological opposition to nuclear, despite it generating a greater proportion of power in Scotland than in England.

The apparent contradiction of a government cutting incentives for renewables while increasing support for nuclear sets advocates of different low carbon technologies against each other. Continuing to include existing nuclear in the capacity auction makes little sense, other than to those who operate those power stations. Lack of transparency about the basis of the strike price agreed by the government only heightens suspicions that the deal is not as good as it could be for the consumer.

The type of consensus that large infrastructure developers seek, to reduce the political risk and cost of capital, is not easily secured. It can’t be comfortable or cosy, but must be rooted in scrutiny and challenge, if it is to endure the doubts which inevitably arise ahead of construction.

If George Osborne sees himself as the prime minister by the time Hinkley is generating, then he needs to think about his approach to nuclear power in the wider energy context. Many, on an objective analysis, see nuclear as a necessary part of our generation mix as the UK seeks to decarbonise. Yet through intentional antagonism and short term political posturing on other technologies, the chancellor risks creating a new totemic energy issue for his opponents to rally around.

That could prove to be a very expensive political error on his part.