The UK’s energy secretary has admitted for the first time that the lights would stay on if new nuclear reactors at Hinkley were cancelled or delayed.

Amber Rudd has previously said that “energy security has to be the number one priority” and that new gas and nuclear power would be “central to our energy-secure future”.

But in a letter released on Tuesday in reply to MPs on the energy and climate change select committee, which asked what contingency plans were in place if Hinkley is delayed or cancelled, she said: “While we have every confidence the deal will go ahead, we have arrangements in place to ensure that any potential delay or cancellation to the project does not pose a risk to security of supply for the UK. I am clear that keeping the lights on is non-negotiable.”

She also said that delays to the troubled plant could risk the UK missing its targets to cut carbon emissions, and that alternatives could cost more but would not represent a “significant increase” in cost in the short term.

The final decision by French-state owned company EDF to go ahead with Hinkley has been repeatedly delayed and the billion of pounds of state subsidies and the feasibility of the giant project have been widely criticised. Last week one of the UK’s major investors, Legal and General, called Hinkley “a total waste of money”.

EDF, their Chinese partners and the UK and French governments have insisted Hinkley will be built, with French economy minister Emmanuel Macron saying on Sunday the project would go ahead.

In Rudd’s letter, she says: “Macron has publicly provided assurances that ‘the decision must be agreed ahead of EDF’s shareholder meeting [12 May]’.” In March, EDF’s finance director resigned and its trade unions have warned the Hinkley project could severely damage the company.

Rudd said that without Hinkley, energy security would come from the capacity market, where the government offers subsidised contracts for guaranteed electricity supply. The Institute for Public Policy Research has called the capacity market “unfit for purpose”.

Rudd said there was also “detailed monitoring and governance arrangements to ensure we have sufficient intelligence and foresight on any issues that might delay construction further down the line, so that alternative capacity can be put in place.”

She said alternative sources of supply “would be unlikely to present a significant increase” in energy bills for delays known about before 2021. But she also warned: “There is also a risk though that any delay could put at risk our decarbonisation targets – one of the key reasons the government is supporting Hinkley Point C in the first place.”

A report from the government’s National Infrastructure Commission in March found that “smart power – principally built around three innovations, interconnection, storage, and demand flexibility – could save consumers up to £8bn a year by 2030, help the UK meet its 2050 carbon targets, and secure the UK’s energy supply for generations.”

Angus MacNeil, chair of the energy and climate change committee, said: “[Rudd’s] letter shows the government has had to finally concede the need for a Plan B on Hinkley, although the detail is sketchy. New capacity must be brought online in a way that is compatible with our decarbonisation targets. That means limiting the role of fossil fuels and maximising the use of smarter low carbon options to meet demand.”

The shadow energy and climate secretary, Lisa Nandy, said: “This letter is new evidence that ministers have lost control over the future of this project. We now need to see a detailed plan B that protects billpayers and ensures we achieve legally binding pollution goals.”

Rudd was also asked by the select committee what liabilities taxpayers would face if the project was cancelled at this stage. She said: “At this stage, as no contracts have yet been signed, there are no liabilities which would fall to the UK taxpayer or consumer.”

But she said, once the contracts are entered into, there were small risks of compensation payments if the project was cancelled, though these are “almost entirely within the control of the UK government”. In March, the Guardian reported that the Hinkley deal contains a “poison pill” which could leave taxpayers with a £22bn bill if a future UK government closed the plant before 2060.

John Sauven, Greenpeace’s UK director said: “There is absolutely no reason that the UK could not meet our decarbonisation targets if the government dropped Hinkley and gave renewable energy businesses a fraction of political and financial support that nuclear and fossil fuel companies enjoy.”

… The public revelation of the discovery comes amid renewed concerns over the possibility of members of the so-called “Islamic State” terrorist organization obtaining access to nuclear weapons. Earlier this month, US President Barack Obama spoke at the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, where he called on world leaders to ensure nuclear security in the face of a growing international terrorist threat. …”

No, came the answer. The new features are all manageable. The basic design is similar to the previous generation. We are very confident we can build it.

The problem is that, as the EDF Board prepares to make its final investment decision, there is not yet a single example that anyone can point to of the reactor actually working.

And its development has become something of a saga which not only involves huge questions about finance and politics but also about technology.
Simon Jack has highlighted the concerns about the forging of the reactor’s housing – what’s known the pressure vessel, a tower of steel that houses the actual process of nuclear fission.

This acts as the beating heart of the power station and, in the EPR’s case, would help generate more power than was ever possible with earlier designs.

But tests last autumn rang an alarm bell.

This could potentially undermine the vessel’s strength. The intense radiation generated within the reactor bombards the pressure vessel and, over the decades, makes the metal as brittle as glass.

Bizarrely, in a world of gleaming high technology, this area of excess carbon in the dome is referred to as a ‘carrot’ because of its shape.

This makes it sound rather innocent. In fact, it’s forced a major pause. The dome in Normandy is now undergoing detailed investigations.

And the domes that had already been built for the first of Hinkley’s reactors – one for the top of the vessel and one for the bottom – have been returned to their makers, the troubled French nuclear firm Areva.

Replacements have been ordered from a specialist Japanese steelmaker.
So will this add yet more delay to the project at Hinkley? No, we were told.

One line, above all, is being determinedly pushed: that lessons have been learned from Finland, Normandy and China.

Contractors are lined up. The 3D modelling has ironed out potential log-jams. The sequencing of concrete pouring and deliveries and electrical work and host of other jobs has been carefully choreographed.

And many of the engineers who lived through the challenges of the other EPR projects will be on hand at Hinkley. ‘Veterans’, as Simon Jack, calls them.
That could mean they have plenty of useful experience.

Or they really know just how uncertain a task they face.”

The study by the Intergenerational Foundation think tank states that once long-term subsidies for the project near Burnham-On-Sea are taken into account, solar and wind alternatives would offer significant savings.

It has added that these green energy sources do not come with the added burden of nuclear waste, and would allow the UK to live “within its economic and environmental means.”

The figures are based around the expected cost of building the new Hinkley Point C nuclear plant, which is currently £24bn, plus the Government subsidy of £92.50 per megawatt hour generated in its first 35 years.

Compared with the projected costs of renewable technologies over this period, the group claims that onshore windfarms would cost £31.2bn less than Hinkley, and solar photovoltaic power £39.9bn less, while generating the same amount of energy.”