Judge orders Duke power plant shutdowns

Germany Nuclear Phase-Out reflects a decisive energy policy shift, retiring reactors as firms shun new builds amid high costs, radioactive waste challenges, climate goals, insurance gaps, and debate over small modular reactors and subsidies.

Key Points

Germany's policy to end nuclear plants and block new builds, emphasizing safety, waste, climate goals, and viability.

✅ Driven by safety risks, waste storage limits, and insurance gaps

✅ High capital costs and subsidies make new reactors uneconomic

✅ Political debate persists; SMRs raise cost and proliferation concerns

A year has passed since Germany deactivated its last three nuclear power plants, marking a significant shift in its energy policy.

Nuclear fission once heralded as the future of energy in Germany during the 1960s, was initially embraced with minimal concern for the potential risks of nuclear accidents. As Heinz Smital from Greenpeace recalls, the early optimism was partly driven by national interest in nuclear weapon technology rather than energy companies' initiatives.

Jochen Flasbarth, State Secretary in the Ministry of Development, reflects on that era, noting Germany's strong, almost naive, belief in technology. Germany, particularly the Ruhr region, grappled with smog-filled skies at that time due to heavy industrialization and coal-fired power plants. Nuclear energy presented a "clean" alternative at the time.

This sentiment was also prevalent in East Germany, where the first commercial nuclear power plant came online in 1961. In total, 37 nuclear reactors were activated across Germany, reflecting a widespread confidence in nuclear technology.

However, the 1970s saw a shift in attitudes. Environmental activists protested the construction of new power plants, symbolizing a generational rift. The 1979 Three Mile Island incident in the US, followed by the catastrophic Chornobyl disaster in 1986, further eroded public trust in nuclear energy.

The Chornobyl accident, in particular, significantly dampened Germany's nuclear ambitions, according to Smital. Post-Chernobyl, plans for additional nuclear power plants in Germany, once numbering 60, drastically declined.

The emergence of the Green Party in 1980, rooted in anti-nuclear sentiment, and its subsequent rise to political prominence further influenced Germany's energy policy. The Greens, joining forces with the Social Democrats in 1998, initiated a move away from nuclear energy, facing opposition from the Christian Democrats (CDU) and Christian Social Union (CSU).

However, the Fukushima disaster in 2011 prompted a policy reversal from CDU and CSU under Chancellor Angela Merkel, leading to Germany's eventual nuclear phase-out in March 2023, after briefly extending nuclear power amid the energy crisis.

Recently, the CDU and CSU have revised their stance once more, signaling a potential U-turn on the nuclear phaseout, advocating for new nuclear reactors and the reactivation of the last shut-down plants, citing climate protection and rising fossil fuel costs. CDU leader Friedrich Merz has lamented the shutdown as a "black day for Germany." However, these suggestions have garnered little enthusiasm from German energy companies.

Steffi Lemke, the Federal Environment Minister, isn't surprised by the companies' reluctance, noting their longstanding opposition to nuclear power, which she argues would do little to solve the gas issue in Germany, due to its high-risk nature and the long-term challenge of radioactive waste management.

Globally, 412 reactors are operational across 32 countries, even as Europe is losing nuclear power during an energy crunch, with the total number remaining relatively stable over the years. While countries like China, France, and the UK plan new constructions, there's a growing interest in small, modern reactors, which Smital of Greenpeace views with skepticism, noting their potential military applications.

In Germany, the unresolved issue of nuclear waste storage looms large. With temporary storage facilities near power plants proving inadequate for long-term needs, the search for permanent sites faces resistance from local communities and poses financial and logistical challenges.

Environment Minister Lemke underscores the economic impracticality of nuclear energy in Germany, citing prohibitive costs and the necessity of substantial subsidies and insurance exemptions.

As things stand, the resurgence of nuclear power in Germany appears unlikely, with economic factors playing a decisive role in its future.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

Jersey Electricity Standby Charge proposes a grid-backup fee for commercial self-generators of renewable energy, with a review delaying implementation; potential tariff impacts include 10-15 percent price rises, cost recovery, and network reliability.

Key Points

A grid-backup fee for Jersey self-generating businesses to share network costs fairly and curb electricity price rises.

✅ Applies to commercial self-generation using renewables or not

✅ Excludes full exporters and pre-charge installations

✅ Aims to recover grid costs and avoid 10-15% price rises

Electricity prices could rise by ten to 15 per cent if a standby charge for some commercial customers is not implemented, the chief executive of Jersey Electricity has warned.

Jersey Electricity has proposed extending a monthly fee to commercial customers who generate their own power through renewable means but still wish to be connected to Jersey’s grid as a back-up, echoing Ontario energy storage efforts to shore up reliability.

The States recently unanimously backed a proposal lodged by Deputy Carolyn Labey to delay administering the levy until a review could be carried out, as seen in the UK grid's net-zero transformation debates influencing policy. The charge, was due to be implemented next month but will now not be introduced until May, or later if the review has not concluded.

But Chris Ambler, JE chief executive, warned that failing to implement the standby charge could lead to additional costs for customers.

Some of JE’s commercial customers have already been charged a standby fee after generating their own power through non-renewable means.

The charge does not apply to businesses which export all of their electricity back into the system as part of a buy-back scheme or those which install self-generation facilities before the charge is implemented.

Deputy Labey argued that the Island had done ‘absolutely nothing’ to support the use of renewable energies and instead were discouraging locally generated power by allowing JE to set a standby charge.

She added that she was pleased that the Council of Ministers had already starting reviewing the charges but the debate needed to go ahead to ensure the work continued after the May election.

During a States debate last month, she said: ‘It is increasingly concerning that we, as an island in the 21st century, are happy for our electricity to be provided to us by an unregulated, publicly listed for-profit company with a monopoly on energy.

‘I also think that introducing a charge on renewables at a time when the world is experiencing a revolution in renewable energies, including offshore vessel charging solutions, which are becoming increasingly economic, is something that needs to be investigated.

‘Jersey should be looking to diversify our electricity production and supply, to help protect us from price and currency fluctuations and to ensure that we, as an island, receive the best deal possible for Islanders.’

Mr Ambler said that any price increase would be dependent on the future take-up and use of renewable-energy technology in Jersey.

He said: ‘The cost impact would not be significant in the short term but in the long term it could be significant. I think that we are obliged to let our customers know that.

‘It is very difficult to assess but if we are not able to levy a fair charge, then, as electricity shortages in Canada have shown, we could see prices rise by ten to 15 per cent over time.’

Mr Ambler added that his company was in favour of the use of renewable energy, with a third of the company’s electricity being generated by hydroelectric sources, but that the costs of implementing it needed to be fairly distributed, given how big battery rule changes can affect project viability elsewhere in the market.

And he said that, while it was difficult to quantify how much could be lost if the standby charge was not implemented, it could cost the company over £10 million.

‘In 2014, we only increased our prices by one per cent,’ he said. ‘We are reviewing our prices at the moment but if we did put an increase in place it would be modest and it would not be linked to the standby charge.’

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• EV Infrastructure News

Germany Energy Transition faces offshore wind expansion, grid bottlenecks, and North-South transmission delays, while Nord Stream 2 boosts Russian gas reliance and lignite coal persists amid a nuclear phaseout and rising re-dispatch costs.

Key Points

Germanys shift to renewables faces grid delays, boosting gas via Nord Stream 2 and extending lignite coal use.

✅ Offshore wind grows, but grid congestion curtails turbines.

✅ Nord Stream 2 expands Russian gas supply to German industry.

✅ Lignite coal persists, raising emissions amid nuclear exit.

On a blazing hot August day on Germany’s Baltic Sea coast, a few hundred tourists skip the beach to visit the “Fascination Offshore Wind” exhibition, held in the port of Mukran at the Arkona wind park. They stand facing the sea, gawking at white fiberglass blades, which at 250 feet are longer than the wingspan of a 747 aircraft. Those blades, they’re told, will soon be spinning atop 60 wind-turbine towers bolted to concrete pilings driven deep into the seabed 20 miles offshore. By early 2019, Arkona is expected to generate 385 megawatts, enough electricity to power 400,000 homes.

“We really would like to give the public an idea of what we are going to do here,” says Silke Steen, a manager at Arkona. “To let them say, ‘Wow, impressive!’”

Had the tourists turned their backs to the sea and faced inland, they would have taken in an equally monumental sight, though this one isn’t on the day’s agenda: giant steel pipes coated in gray concrete, stacked five high and laid out in long rows on a stretch of dirt. The port manager tells me that the rows of 40-foot-long, 4-foot-thick pipes are so big that they can be seen from outer space. They are destined for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a colossus that, when completed next year, will extend nearly 800 miles from Russia to Germany, bringing twice the amount of gas that a current pipeline carries.

The two projects, whose cargo yards are within a few hundred feet of each other, provide a contrast between Germany’s dream of renewable energy and the political realities of cheap Russian gas. In 2010, Germany announced an ambitious goal of generating 80 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2050. In 2011, it doubled down on the commitment by deciding to shut down every last nuclear power plant in the country by 2022, as part of a broader coal and nuclear phaseout strategy embraced by policymakers. The German government has paid more than $600 billion to citizens and companies that generate solar and wind power. As a result, the generating capacity from renewable sources has soared: In 2017, a third of the nation’s electricity came from wind, solar, hydropower and biogas, up from 3.6 percent in 1990.

But Germany’s lofty vision has run into a gritty reality: Replacing fossil fuels and nuclear power in one of the largest industrial nations in the world is politically more difficult and expensive than planners thought. It has forced Germany to put the brakes on its ambitious renewables program, ramp up its investments in fossil fuels, amid a renewed nuclear option debate over climate strategy, and, to some extent, put its leadership role in the fight against climate change on hold.

The trouble lies with Germany’s electricity grid. Solar and wind power call for more complex and expensive distribution networks than conventional large power plants do. “What the Germans were good at was getting new technology into the market, like wind and solar power,” said Arne Jungjohann, author of Energy Democracy: Germany’s ENERGIEWENDE to Renewables. To achieve its goals, “Germany needs to overhaul its whole grid.”

The North-South Conundrum

The boom in wind power has created an unanticipated mismatch between supply and demand. Big wind turbines, especially offshore plants such as Arkona, produce powerful, concentrated gusts of energy. That’s good when the factory that needs that energy is nearby and the wind kicks up during working hours. It’s another matter when factories are hundreds of miles away. In Germany, wind farms tend to be located in the blustery north. Many of the nation’s big factories lie in the south, which also happens to be where most of the country’s nuclear plants are being mothballed.

Getting that power from north to south is problematic. On windy days, northern wind farms generate too much energy for the grid to handle. Power lines get overloaded. To cope, grid operators ask wind farms to disconnect their turbines from the grid—those elegant blades that tourists so admired sit idle. To ensure a supply of power, operators employ backup generators at great expense. These so-called re-dispatching costs ran to 1.4 billion euros ($1.6 billion) last year.

The solution is to build more power transmission lines to take the excess wind from northern wind farms to southern factories. A grid expansion project is underway to do exactly that. Nearly 5,000 miles of new transmission lines, at a cost of billions of euros, will be paid for by utility customers. So far, less than a fifth of the lines have been built.

The grid expansion is “catastrophically behind schedule,” Energy Minister Peter Altmaier told the Handelsblatt business newspaper in August. Among the setbacks: citizens living along the route of four high-voltage power lines have demanded the cables be buried underground, which has added to the time and expense. The lines won’t be finished before 2025—three years after Germany’s nuclear shutdown is due to be completed.

With this backlog, the government has put the brakes on wind power, reducing the number of new contracts for farms and curtailing the amount it pays for renewable energy. “In the past, we have focused too much on the mere expansion of renewable energy capacity,” Joachim Pfeiffer, a spokesman for the Christian Democratic Union, wrote to Newsweek. “We failed to synchronize this expansion of generation with grid expansion.”

Advocates of renewables are up in arms, accusing the government of suffocating their industry and making planning impossible. Thousands of people lost their jobs in the wind industry, according to Wolfram Axthelm, CEO of the German Wind Energy Association. “For 2019 and 2020, we see a highly problematic situation for the industry,” he wrote in an email.

Fueling the Gap

Nord Stream 2, by contrast, is proceeding according to schedule. A beige and black barge, Castoro 10, hauls dozens of lengths of giant pipe off Germany’s Baltic Sea coast, where a welding machine connects them for lowering onto the seabed. The $11 billion project is funded by Russian state gas monopoly Gazprom and five European investors, at no direct cost to the German taxpayer. It is slated to cross the territorial waters of five countries—Germany, Russia, Finland, Sweden and Denmark. All but Denmark have approved the route. “We have good reason to believe that after four governments said yes, that Denmark will also approve the pipeline,” says Nord Stream 2 spokesman Jens Mueller.

Construction of the pipeline off Finland began in September, and the gas is expected to start flowing in late 2019, giving Russia leverage to increase its share of the European gas market. It already provides a third of the gas used in the EU and will likely provide more after the Netherlands stops its gas production in 2030. President Donald Trump has called the pipeline “a very bad thing for NATO” and said that “Germany is totally controlled by Russia.” U.S. senators have threatened sanctions against companies involved in the project. Ukraine and Poland are concerned the new pipeline will make older pipelines in their territories irrelevant.

German leaders are also wary of dependence on Russia but are under considerable pressure to deliver energy to industry. Indeed, among the pipeline’s investors are German companies that want to run their factories, like BASF’s Wintershall subsidiary and Uniper, the German utility. “It’s not that Germany is naive,” says Kirsten Westphal, an energy expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. It’s just pragmatic. “Economically, the judgment is that yes, this gas will be needed, we have an import gap to fill.”

The electricity transmission problem has also opened an opportunity for lignite coal, as coal generation in Germany remains significant, the most carbon-intensive fuel available and the source for nearly a quarter of Germany’s power. Mining companies are expanding their operations in coal-rich regions to strip out the fuel while it is still relevant. In the village of Pödelwitz, 155 miles south of Berlin, most houses feature a white sign with the logo of Mibrag, the German mining giant, which has paid nearly all the 130 residents to relocate. The company plans to level the village and scrape lignite that lies below the soil.

A resurgence in coal helped raise carbon emissions in 2015 and 2016 (2017 saw a slight decline), maintaining Germany’s place as Europe’s largest carbon emitter. Chancellor Angela Merkel has scrapped her pledge to slash carbon emissions to 40 percent of 1990 levels by the year 2020. Several members have threatened to resign from her policy commission on coal if the government allows utility company RWE to mine for lignite in Hambach Forest.

Only a few years ago, during the Paris climate talks, Germany led the EU in pushing for ambitious plans to curb emissions. Now, it seems to be having second thoughts. Recently, the European Union’s climate chief, Miguel Arias Cañete, suggested EU nations step up their commitment to reduce carbon emissions by 45 percent of 1990 levels instead of 40 percent by 2030. “I think we should first stick to the goals we have already set ourselves,” Merkel replied, even as a possible nuclear phaseout U-turn is debated, “I don’t think permanently setting ourselves new goals makes any sense.”

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News

New Zealand Renewable Energy Strategy examines decarbonisation, GHG emissions, and net energy as electrification accelerates, expanding hydro, geothermal, wind, and solar PV while weighing intermittency, storage, materials, and energy security for a resilient power system.

Key Points

A plan to expand electricity generation, balancing decarbonisation, net energy limits, and energy security.

✅ Distinguishes decarbonisation targets from renewable capacity growth

✅ Highlights net energy limits, intermittency, and storage needs

✅ Addresses materials, GHG build-out costs, and energy security

The Electricity Authority has released a document outlining a plan to achieve the Government’s goal of more than doubling the amount of electricity generated in New Zealand over the next few decades.

This goal is seen as a way of both reducing our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions overall, as everything becomes electrified, and ensuring we have a 100 percent renewable energy system at our disposal. Often these two goals are seen as being the same – to decarbonise we must transition to more renewable energy to power our society.

But they are quite different goals and should be clearly differentiated. GHG emissions could be controlled very effectively by rationing the use of a fossil fuel lockdown approach, with declining rations being available over a few years. Such a direct method of controlling emissions would ensure we do our bit to remain within a safe carbon budget.

If we took this dramatic step we could stop fretting about how to reduce emissions (that would be guaranteed by the rationing), and instead focus on how to adapt our lives to the absence of fossil fuels.

Again, these may seem like the same task, but they are not. Decarbonising is generally thought of in terms of replacing fossil fuels with some other energy source, signalling that a green recovery must address more than just wind capacity. Adapting our lives to the absence of fossil fuels pushes us to ask more fundamental questions about how much energy we actually need, what we need energy for, and the impact of that energy on our environment.

MBIE data indicate that between 1990 and 2020, New Zealand almost doubled the total amount of energy it produced from renewable energy sources - hydro, geothermal and some solar PV and wind turbines.

Over this same time period our GHG emissions increased by about 25 percent. The increase in renewables didn’t result in less GHG emissions because we increased our total energy use by almost 50 percent, mostly by using fossil fuels. The largest fossil fuel increases were used in transport, agriculture, forestry and fisheries (approximately 60 percent increases for each).

These data clearly demonstrate that increasing renewable energy sources do not necessarily result in reduced GHG emissions.

The same MBIE data indicate that over this same time period, the amount of Losses and Own Use category for energy use more than doubled. As of 2020 almost 30 percent of all energy consumed in New Zealand fell into this category.

These data indicate that more renewable energy sources are historically associated with less energy actually being available to do work in society.

While the category Losses and Own Use is not a net energy analysis, the large increase in this category makes the call for a system-wide net energy analysis all the more urgent.

Net energy is the amount of energy available after the energy inputs to produce and deliver the energy is subtracted. There is considerable data available indicating that solar PV and wind turbines have a much lower net energy surplus than fossil fuels.

And there is further evidence that when the intermittency and storage requirements are engineered into a total renewable energy system, the net energy of the entire system declines sharply. Could the Losses and Other Uses increase over this 30-year period be an indication of things to come?

Despite the importance of net energy analysis in designing a national energy system which is intended to provide energy security and resilience, there is not a single mention of net energy surplus in the EA reference document.

So over the last 30 years, New Zealand has doubled its renewable energy capacity, and at the same time increased its GHG emissions and reduced the overall efficiency of the national energy system.

And we are now planning to more than double our renewable energy system yet again over the next 30 years, even as zero-emissions electricity by 2035 is being debated elsewhere. We need to ask if this is a good idea.

How can we expand New Zealand’s solar PV and wind turbines without using fossil fuels? We can’t.

How could we expand our solar PV and wind turbines without mining rare minerals and the hidden costs of clean energy they entail, further contributing to ecological destruction and often increasing social injustices? We can't.

Even if we could construct, deliver, install and maintain solar PV and wind turbines without generating more GHG emissions and destroying ecosystems and poor communities, this “renewable” infrastructure would have to be replaced in a few decades. But there are at least two major problems with this assumed scenario.

The rare earth minerals required for this replacement will already be exhausted by the initial build out. Recycling will only provide a limited amount of replacements.

The other challenge is that a mostly “renewable” energy system will likely have a considerably lower net energy surplus. So where, in 2060, will the energy come from to either mine or recycle the raw materials, and to rebuild, reinstall and maintain the next iteration of a renewable energy system?

There is currently no plan for this replacement. It is a serious misnomer to call these energy technologies “renewable”. They are not as they rely on considerable raw material inputs and fossil energy for their production and never ending replacement.

New Zealand is, of course, blessed with an unusually high level of hydro electric and geothermal power. New Zealand currently uses over 170 GJ of total energy per capita, 40 percent of which is “renewable”. This provides approximately 70 GJ of “renewable” energy per capita with our current population.

This is the average global per capita energy level from all sources across all nations, as calls for 100% renewable energy globally emphasize. Several nations operate with roughly this amount of total energy per capita that New Zealand can generate just from “renewables”.

It is worth reflecting on the 170 GJ of total energy use we currently consume. Different studies give very different results regarding what levels are necessary for a good life.

For a complex industrial society such as ours, 100 GJ pc is said to be necessary for a high levels of wellbeing, determined both subjectively (life satisfaction/ happiness measures), and objectively (e.g. infant mortality levels, female morbidity as an index of population health, access to nutritious food and educational and health resources, etc). These studies do not take into account the large amount of energy that is wasted either through inefficient technologies, or frivolous use, which effective decarbonization strategies seek to reduce.

Other studies that consider the minimal energy needed for wellbeing suggest a much lower level of per capita energy consumption is required. These studies take a different approach and focus on ensuring basic wellbeing is maintained, but not necessarily with all the trappings of a complex industrial society. Their results indicate a level of approximately 20 GJ per capita is adequate.

In either case, we in New Zealand are wasting a lot of energy, both in terms of the efficiency of our technologies (see the Losses and Own Use info above), and also in our uses which do not contribute to wellbeing (think of the private vehicle travel that could be done by active or public transport – if we had good infrastructure in place).

We in New Zealand need a national dialogue about our future. And energy availability is only one aspect. We need to discuss what our carrying capacity is, what level of consumption is sustainable for our population, and whether we wish to make adjustments in either our per capita consumption or our population. Both together determine whether we are on the sustainable side of carrying capacity. Currently we are on the unsustainable side, meaning our way of life cannot endure. Not a good look for being a good ancestor.

The current trajectory of the Government and Electricity Authority appears to be grossly unsustainable. At the very least they should be able to answer the questions posed here about the GHG emissions from implementing a totally renewable energy system, the net energy of such a system, and the related environmental and social consequences.

Public dialogue is critical to collectively working out our future. Allowing the current profit-driven trajectory to unfold is a recipe for disasters for our children and grandchildren.

Being silent on these issues amounts to complicity in allowing short-term financial interests and an addiction to convenience jeopardise a genuinely secure and resilient future. Let’s get some answers from the Government and Electricity Authority to critical questions about energy security.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Renewable Energy News

BC Hydro COVID-19 Relief Fund enables small businesses to waive electricity bills for commercial properties during the pandemic, offering credits, rate support, and applications for eligible customers forced to temporarily close.

Key Points

A program that lets eligible small businesses waive up to three months of BC Hydro bills during COVID-19 closures.

✅ Eligible small general service BC Hydro accounts

✅ Up to 3 months of waived electricity charges

✅ Must be temporarily closed due to the pandemic

Businesses are taking advantage of a BC Hydro relief fund that allows electricity bills for commercial properties to be waived during the COVID-19 pandemic.

More than 3,000 applications have already been filed since the program launched on Wednesday, allowing commercial properties forced to shutter during the crisis to waive the expense for up to three months, while Ontario rate reductions are taking effect for businesses under separate measures. 

“To be eligible for the COVID-19 Relief Fund, business customers must be on BC Hydro’s small general service rate and have temporarily closed or ceased operation due to the COVID-19 pandemic,” BC Hydro said in a statement. “BC Hydro estimates that around 40,000 small businesses in the province will be eligible for the program.”

The program builds off a similar initiative BC Hydro launched last week for residential customers who have lost employment or income because of COVID-19, and parallels Ontario's subsidized hydro plan introduced to support ratepayers. So far, 57,000 B.C. residents have applied for the relief fund, which amounts to an estimated $16 million in credits, amid scrutiny over deferred BC Hydro operating costs reported by the auditor general.

Electricity use across B.C. has plummeted since the outbreak began. 

According to BC Hydro, daily consumption has fallen 13% in the first two weeks of April, aligning with electricity demand down 10% reports, compared to the three-year average for the same time period.

Electricity use has fallen 30% for recreation facilities, 29% in the restaurant sector and 27% in hotels, while industry groups such as Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters have supported steps to reduce prices. 

For more information about the COVID-19 Relief Fund and advice on avoiding BC Hydro scam attempts, go to bchydro.com/covid19relief.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• T&D Business News

Hinkley Point C dome lift marks a nuclear reactor milestone in Somerset, as EDF used Big Carl crane to place a 245-tonne steel roof, enabling 2027 startup amid costs, delays, and precision indoor welding.

Key Points

A 245-tonne dome lifted onto Hinkley Point C's first reactor, finishing the roof and enabling fit-out for a 2027 startup.

✅ 245-tonne steel dome lifted by Big Carl onto 44m-high reactor

✅ Indoor welding avoided weather defects seen at Flamanville

✅ Cost now £33bn; first power targeted by end of 2027

Engineers have lifted a steel roof onto a building which will house the first of two nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point in Somerset.

Hundreds of people helped with the delicate operation to get the 245-tonne steel dome into position.

It means the first reactor can be installed next year, ready to be switched on in June 2027.

Engineers at EDF said the "challenging job" was completed in just over an hour.

They first broke the ground on the new nuclear station in March 2017. Now, some 10,000 people work on what is Europe's largest building site.

Yet many analysts note that Europe is losing nuclear power even as demand for reliable energy grows.

They have faced delays from Covid restrictions and other recent setbacks, and the budget has doubled to £33bn, so getting the roof on the first of the two reactor buildings is a big deal.

EDF's nuclear island director Simon Parsons said it was a "fantastic night".

"Lifting the dome into place is a celebration of all the work done by a fantastic team. The smiles on people's faces this morning were something else.

"Now we can get on with the fitting of equipment, pipes and cables, including the first reactor which is on site and ready to be installed next year."

Nuclear minister Andrew Bowie hailed the "major milestone" in the building project, citing its role in the UK's green industrial revolution ambitions.

He said: "This is a key part of the UK Government's plans to revitalise nuclear."

But many still question whether Hinkley Point C will be worth all the money, especially after Hitachi's project freeze in Britain, with Roy Pumfrey of the Stop Hinkley campaign describing the project as "shockingly bad value".

Why lift the roof on?

The steel dome is bigger than the one on St Paul's Cathedral in London.

To lift it onto the 44-metre-high reactor building, they needed the world's largest land-based crane, dubbed Big Carl by engineers.

So why not just build the roof on top of the building?

The answer lies in a remote corner of Normandy in France, near a village called Flamanville.

EDF has been building a nuclear reactor there since 2007, ten years before they started in west Somerset.

The project is now a decade behind schedule and has still not been approved by French regulators.

Why? Because of cracks found in the precision welding on the roof of the reactor building.

In nuclear-powered France, they built the roof in situ, out in the open. 

Engineers have decided welding outside, exposed to wind and rain, compromised the high standards needed for a nuclear reactor.

So in Somerset they built a temporary workshop, which looks like a fair sized building itself. All the welding has been done inside, and then the completed roof was lifted into place.

Is it on time or on budget?

No, neither. When Hinkley C was first approved a decade ago, EDF said it would cost £14bn.

Four years later, in 2017, they finally started construction. By now the cost had risen to £19.5bn, and EDF said the plant would be finished by the end of 2025.

Today, the cost has risen to £33bn, and it is now hoped Hinkley C will produce electricity by the end of 2027.

"Nobody believes it will be done by 2027," said campaigner Roy Pumfrey.

"The costs keep rising, and the price of Hinkley's electricity will only get dearer," they added.

On the other hand, the increase in costs is not a problem for British energy bill payers, or the UK government.

EDF agreed to pay the full cost of construction, including any increases.

When I met Grant Shapps, then the UK Energy Secretary, at the site in April, he shrugged off the cost increases.

He said: "I think we should all be rather pleased it is not the British tax payer - it is France and EDF who are paying."

In return, the UK government agreed a set rate for Hinkley's power, called the Strike Price, back in 2013. The idea was this would guarantee the income from Hinkley Point for 35 years, allowing investors to get their money back.

Will it be worth the money?

Back in 2013, the Strike Price was set at £92.50 for each megawatt hour of power. At the time, the wholesale price of electricity was around £50/MWh, so Hinkley C looked expensive.

But since then, global shocks like the war in Ukraine have increased the cost of power substantially, and advocates argue next-gen nuclear could deliver smaller, cheaper, safer designs.

Related News

• Electricity Forum News

• Power Generation News