Oil tycoon claims new nuclear power station will be 'too expensive'

Andover Advertiser: A computer generated image of the Hinkley C power station A computer generated image of the Hinkley C power station

IT will be too expensive.

That is the verdict of Hampshire-based oil tycoon Jim Ratcliffe after blasting forecasted energy prices set at one of Britain’s new generation of nuclear power stations.

The Government has ruled developers of the £16 billion Hinkley C generator in Somerset can charge a minimum of £92.50 per megawatt hour (Mwh) for 35 years.

The giant plant, set to open in 2023, is being built by French energy giant EDF Energy backed by Chinese investors as part of a major scheme to replace Britain’s aging nuclear power plants.

But Mr Ratcliffe, whose company own the Grangemouth oil refinery in Scotland, says most British companies will find the price guaranteed by the Government there too expensive.

The tycoon, who has offices in Lyndhurst, is reported as saying: “Forget it. Nobody in manufacturing is going to go near £95 per Mwh.”

He pointed out that Ineos has agreed a deal for nuclear power from a station in France costing 45 euros (£37.94) per Mwh – less than half of the Hinkley costs.

He continued: “The UK probably has the most expensive energy in the world.

“It is more expensive than Germany, it is more expensive than France, it is much, much, more expensive than America.

“It is not competitive at all, on the energy front.”

But EDF chief executive officer Vincent de Ricvaz stressed the station represents a “fair” and “balanced” deal for consumers and added: “It will kick start the UK nuclear programme and help rebuild the nation’s industrial stamina.”

A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change also stuck by the pricing and added: “We have always been clear that EDF will only be offered an Investment Contract for Hinkley Point C if it is fair, affordable, value for money and consistent with state aid rules.”

The Grangemouth refinery, which supplies 70 per cent of fuel used at Scotland’s filling stations, was dramatically saved from closure in October after a last-ditch deal with unions.

As previously reported, Mr Ratcliffe initially announced he was axing the site – with the loss of 800 jobs – but eventually kept it open after vital negotiations with the Unite union.

Earlier this month the firm announced it will be the first chemical plant in the country to receive shale gas from the United States.

The company has selected the location for a new ethane tank it plans to build at Grangemouth, with imports beginning as early as 2016 after a £150 million investment to an import terminal project.

Comments (6)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:14pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

"Oil tycoon claims"...
Coming from an oil tycoon shows that it's a load of bull and he's just interested in killing the planet for profit, as can be seen from them exploiting the American stupidity in destroying the environment by thinking shale gas is the answer when it's not, nuclear and renewables are the answer but it's people like Mr Ratcliffe that do what they can to slow down the development of such energy sources.
"Oil tycoon claims"... Coming from an oil tycoon shows that it's a load of bull and he's just interested in killing the planet for profit, as can be seen from them exploiting the American stupidity in destroying the environment by thinking shale gas is the answer when it's not, nuclear and renewables are the answer but it's people like Mr Ratcliffe that do what they can to slow down the development of such energy sources. Ginger_cyclist

1:34pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Torchie1 says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
"Oil tycoon claims"...
Coming from an oil tycoon shows that it's a load of bull and he's just interested in killing the planet for profit, as can be seen from them exploiting the American stupidity in destroying the environment by thinking shale gas is the answer when it's not, nuclear and renewables are the answer but it's people like Mr Ratcliffe that do what they can to slow down the development of such energy sources.
It doesn't matter where the energy comes from or how much it costs, you will pay the price or go back to living in the dark ages.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: "Oil tycoon claims"... Coming from an oil tycoon shows that it's a load of bull and he's just interested in killing the planet for profit, as can be seen from them exploiting the American stupidity in destroying the environment by thinking shale gas is the answer when it's not, nuclear and renewables are the answer but it's people like Mr Ratcliffe that do what they can to slow down the development of such energy sources.[/p][/quote]It doesn't matter where the energy comes from or how much it costs, you will pay the price or go back to living in the dark ages. Torchie1

2:40pm Tue 17 Dec 13

southy says...

Jim Radcliffe acting on self interest yet again
Jim Radcliffe acting on self interest yet again southy

3:38pm Tue 17 Dec 13

derek james says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
"Oil tycoon claims"...
Coming from an oil tycoon shows that it's a load of bull and he's just interested in killing the planet for profit, as can be seen from them exploiting the American stupidity in destroying the environment by thinking shale gas is the answer when it's not, nuclear and renewables are the answer but it's people like Mr Ratcliffe that do what they can to slow down the development of such energy sources.
It doesn't matter where the energy comes from or how much it costs, you will pay the price or go back to living in the dark ages.
unfortunately it matters a great deal how much it costs especially if your job is one of the 800000 in the uk that is in a high energy use industry such as
steelmaking.Tata have already shut down a load of steelmaking in the uk, it wouldn't take much more for them to transfer their all their business to somewhere with lower enegy costs such as India
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: "Oil tycoon claims"... Coming from an oil tycoon shows that it's a load of bull and he's just interested in killing the planet for profit, as can be seen from them exploiting the American stupidity in destroying the environment by thinking shale gas is the answer when it's not, nuclear and renewables are the answer but it's people like Mr Ratcliffe that do what they can to slow down the development of such energy sources.[/p][/quote]It doesn't matter where the energy comes from or how much it costs, you will pay the price or go back to living in the dark ages.[/p][/quote]unfortunately it matters a great deal how much it costs especially if your job is one of the 800000 in the uk that is in a high energy use industry such as steelmaking.Tata have already shut down a load of steelmaking in the uk, it wouldn't take much more for them to transfer their all their business to somewhere with lower enegy costs such as India derek james

5:01pm Tue 17 Dec 13

Torchie1 says...

derek james wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
"Oil tycoon claims"...
Coming from an oil tycoon shows that it's a load of bull and he's just interested in killing the planet for profit, as can be seen from them exploiting the American stupidity in destroying the environment by thinking shale gas is the answer when it's not, nuclear and renewables are the answer but it's people like Mr Ratcliffe that do what they can to slow down the development of such energy sources.
It doesn't matter where the energy comes from or how much it costs, you will pay the price or go back to living in the dark ages.
unfortunately it matters a great deal how much it costs especially if your job is one of the 800000 in the uk that is in a high energy use industry such as
steelmaking.Tata have already shut down a load of steelmaking in the uk, it wouldn't take much more for them to transfer their all their business to somewhere with lower enegy costs such as India
It doesn't seem to matter enough for people to take a philosophical approach to the provision of energy instead of taking the NIMBY approach to each and every suggestion of a new type of supply. The UK is now on a knife edge with virtually no back-up to keep the lights on if one of the major power stations fails. The need for energy will only ever grow and somebody will end up with a new nuclear power station/wind-farm/so
lar-farm/fracking rig near them whether they like it or not but it will take some pain before the objections stop. An interesting item on the lunchtime news explained that the NIMBYs ran up costs in excess of £40 million while they delayed the new Stonehenge Centre for years, the centre eventually was built at a cost of just over £20 million and the public purse underwrote the cost of the objectors. A similar road will be travelled before the energy objectors accept that they will have to change their views, and all of the costs will be heaped on to the shoulders of the taxpayers.
[quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: "Oil tycoon claims"... Coming from an oil tycoon shows that it's a load of bull and he's just interested in killing the planet for profit, as can be seen from them exploiting the American stupidity in destroying the environment by thinking shale gas is the answer when it's not, nuclear and renewables are the answer but it's people like Mr Ratcliffe that do what they can to slow down the development of such energy sources.[/p][/quote]It doesn't matter where the energy comes from or how much it costs, you will pay the price or go back to living in the dark ages.[/p][/quote]unfortunately it matters a great deal how much it costs especially if your job is one of the 800000 in the uk that is in a high energy use industry such as steelmaking.Tata have already shut down a load of steelmaking in the uk, it wouldn't take much more for them to transfer their all their business to somewhere with lower enegy costs such as India[/p][/quote]It doesn't seem to matter enough for people to take a philosophical approach to the provision of energy instead of taking the NIMBY approach to each and every suggestion of a new type of supply. The UK is now on a knife edge with virtually no back-up to keep the lights on if one of the major power stations fails. The need for energy will only ever grow and somebody will end up with a new nuclear power station/wind-farm/so lar-farm/fracking rig near them whether they like it or not but it will take some pain before the objections stop. An interesting item on the lunchtime news explained that the NIMBYs ran up costs in excess of £40 million while they delayed the new Stonehenge Centre for years, the centre eventually was built at a cost of just over £20 million and the public purse underwrote the cost of the objectors. A similar road will be travelled before the energy objectors accept that they will have to change their views, and all of the costs will be heaped on to the shoulders of the taxpayers. Torchie1

2:38pm Wed 18 Dec 13

Ginger_cyclist says...

Torchie1 wrote:
derek james wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
"Oil tycoon claims"...
Coming from an oil tycoon shows that it's a load of bull and he's just interested in killing the planet for profit, as can be seen from them exploiting the American stupidity in destroying the environment by thinking shale gas is the answer when it's not, nuclear and renewables are the answer but it's people like Mr Ratcliffe that do what they can to slow down the development of such energy sources.
It doesn't matter where the energy comes from or how much it costs, you will pay the price or go back to living in the dark ages.
unfortunately it matters a great deal how much it costs especially if your job is one of the 800000 in the uk that is in a high energy use industry such as
steelmaking.Tata have already shut down a load of steelmaking in the uk, it wouldn't take much more for them to transfer their all their business to somewhere with lower enegy costs such as India
It doesn't seem to matter enough for people to take a philosophical approach to the provision of energy instead of taking the NIMBY approach to each and every suggestion of a new type of supply. The UK is now on a knife edge with virtually no back-up to keep the lights on if one of the major power stations fails. The need for energy will only ever grow and somebody will end up with a new nuclear power station/wind-farm/so

lar-farm/fracking rig near them whether they like it or not but it will take some pain before the objections stop. An interesting item on the lunchtime news explained that the NIMBYs ran up costs in excess of £40 million while they delayed the new Stonehenge Centre for years, the centre eventually was built at a cost of just over £20 million and the public purse underwrote the cost of the objectors. A similar road will be travelled before the energy objectors accept that they will have to change their views, and all of the costs will be heaped on to the shoulders of the taxpayers.
I'll admittedly protest against fracking, because that's not the answer, it's still burning a fossil fuel and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, also, the wells often leak because they're not sealed properly, even the ones that are sealed properly will leak after a year or 2, the rigs also vent a lot of Methane too and Methane is a LOT worse as a greenhouse gas than CO2.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]derek james[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: "Oil tycoon claims"... Coming from an oil tycoon shows that it's a load of bull and he's just interested in killing the planet for profit, as can be seen from them exploiting the American stupidity in destroying the environment by thinking shale gas is the answer when it's not, nuclear and renewables are the answer but it's people like Mr Ratcliffe that do what they can to slow down the development of such energy sources.[/p][/quote]It doesn't matter where the energy comes from or how much it costs, you will pay the price or go back to living in the dark ages.[/p][/quote]unfortunately it matters a great deal how much it costs especially if your job is one of the 800000 in the uk that is in a high energy use industry such as steelmaking.Tata have already shut down a load of steelmaking in the uk, it wouldn't take much more for them to transfer their all their business to somewhere with lower enegy costs such as India[/p][/quote]It doesn't seem to matter enough for people to take a philosophical approach to the provision of energy instead of taking the NIMBY approach to each and every suggestion of a new type of supply. The UK is now on a knife edge with virtually no back-up to keep the lights on if one of the major power stations fails. The need for energy will only ever grow and somebody will end up with a new nuclear power station/wind-farm/so lar-farm/fracking rig near them whether they like it or not but it will take some pain before the objections stop. An interesting item on the lunchtime news explained that the NIMBYs ran up costs in excess of £40 million while they delayed the new Stonehenge Centre for years, the centre eventually was built at a cost of just over £20 million and the public purse underwrote the cost of the objectors. A similar road will be travelled before the energy objectors accept that they will have to change their views, and all of the costs will be heaped on to the shoulders of the taxpayers.[/p][/quote]I'll admittedly protest against fracking, because that's not the answer, it's still burning a fossil fuel and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, also, the wells often leak because they're not sealed properly, even the ones that are sealed properly will leak after a year or 2, the rigs also vent a lot of Methane too and Methane is a LOT worse as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Ginger_cyclist

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree