Kirsty Alexander

This article is part of the Nuclear Spin project of Spinwatch.

Kirsty Alexander is head of communications at the civil trade Nuclear Industry Association.

Views

In October 2013 shortly after the UK Government announced it had finally reached a strike price with EDF Energy Kirsty Alexander blogged on why the planned nuclear plant at Hinkley Point was so vital to Britain's low carbon future. Her spin on what this 'radical new form of investment' could offer countered a range of public criticisms of the deal, and also employed the oft-used argument of how even those who had opposed nuclear power had now seen the light:

As Mark Lynas details in his recent e-book Nuclear 2.0 Why Nuclear a Green Future Needs Nuclear Power, environmentalists are increasingly realising nuclear is essential. Only weeks ago, the Liberal Democrats voted to support new nuclear power. This was an historic shift, and Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Davey led the charge. He changed his mind because of climate change. Nuclear is already Britain’s largest source of low carbon electricity. We cannot afford to take this option off the table.

Fact that strike price is double current prices is 'not relevant' and should be a 'welcome surprise'!

The strike price for Hinkley announced today (£89.50/MWH if Sizewell C is built, or £92.50/MWH without) certainly should be a welcome surprise to commentators who were confidently predicting a price as high as £140/MWH less than a year ago. Nonetheless it is important to note that this will not impact consumer bills for another ten years. Much like a fixed price mortgage, the consumer will benefit from an element of long term price stability while Hinkley will also make an important contribution to UK energy security. This is a price for electricity in the 2020s and beyond. It offers stable prices and attracts the investment the country needs to replace its ageing power plants.

According to UKERC, all of the UK’s main electricity generation technologies have been subject to cost increases in the last five to eight years. The cheap coal being burned in plants nearing the end of their life that provides the UK with around 40% of its electricity won’t be around for much longer so talking about today’s wholesale prices is not relevant. Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future, as the saying goes. The truth is that no-one knows which way prices will go. Nonetheless it’s a fair assumption that without nuclear, dependence on imported gas will increase, with all the price volatility that entails. So DECC have reasonably concluded that a new nuclear programme could end up saving households £77 a year in today’s prices by 2026-30.

On the question of waste:

The total nuclear waste to be generated by this new build programme will be less than 10% of the existing waste from Britain’s civil and military nuclear legacy, and our capability to deal with this is far more secure if our world-leading supply base is maintained not diminished. It is not well understood that operators of new build plants will be legally required to put aside funds, from the outset to pay to clean up and manage the waste.

Resources

• Kirsty Alexander, Only with nuclear in the mix can we quit fossil dependence, 22 October 2013

Notes

]]]