Blog: The case for Hinkley Point C

Across all the recent coverage on Hinkley Point C (HPC) there has been no dispute about the need to replace 21.4GW of generation capacity which has gone offline (or about to) since 2010 with secure and reliable power.

The question is, as ever, how best to do so, using the optimum mix of available and developing technologies. While some noisily assert a commitment to intermittent only generation combined with energy efficiency will be enough, detailed projections from National Grid, amongst others, suggest otherwise.

Utility Week’s striking photograph of the Queen Elizabeth II reservoir project last week showed that 23,000 floating PV panels covering the equivalent of eight Wembley pitches will produce a peak of 6.3MW of electricity. A positive innovation to reduce Thames Water’s power requirements from the grid while the sun shines, it also illustrates the difference in concentration of low carbon power sources, with Hinkley set to generate 3,200MW. There is a continuing need for a balanced generation mix and, as the only viable high density but low carbon baseload provider, for nuclear to be part of that mix.

Comparisons to the current wholesale power price, which have been a frequent feature of recent commentary, are hardly a reputable guide in assessing the value of the prospective prices paid for power from 2025. New infrastructure costs money – and with only one CCGT power station being built, as developers await incentives while the gas price is low, and when a large offshore wind project is granted an index-linked strike price of £140MW/h, the comparison points on cost alone are less simplistic than recent headlines.

If anybody could be certain what the price of gas will be for the next 50 years, they would not be reading (or writing) this column. What is certain are the targets we have to reduce our emissions, and the scale of that challenge in power generation, let alone heat and transport. And we can be sure importing power from whatever source, and whatever carbon intensity, does nothing to improve energy security.

Storage technology and demand side measures, as they develop, will help make baseload power, as well as intermittent sources of generation, more reliable. It is an obvious, but nevertheless important, point that to store power, first we need to be able to generate it.

Of course, circular and endless technology vs technology debates are a comfortable place for staunch advocates to bury their heads. But they do precious little to either recognise or communicate the scale and urgency of the UK’s energy challenge. The energy industry needs to help set the lead in developing the optimum lower carbon mix of how we generate, use, store and save energy for the future.