This article highlights some very important points. The cost of energy that Hinkley Point could produce is far higher than the cost of renewable technologies such as solar and wind energy. However a huge point to the argument over Hinkley is whether there is a need for this constant baseload power. My answer is a resounding NO. This traditional centralised power model has been superseded by renewable technologies combined with energy storage. Making the most of our natural assets and generating power where it can be used locally needs to be the focus of our future energy policy. Times have changed and we need to embrace this cheaper, cleaner, more effective way of delivering the energy we need.
But ministers are also aware that, in the last 18 months, many experts in the field have concluded that the biggest argument against the plant is not that it is too expensive, at £18.5bn, but that the kind of “on-all-the-time” power it delivers is no longer what is required. Even employers’ trade body the Institute of Directors said last week that it was right for the government to run the slide-rule over Hinkley again to see whether it really made sense. City investment house RBC Capital Markets says no current minister starting from scratch today would ever agree to the deal George Osborne oversaw with EDF: a 35-year index-linked contract paying £92.50 per megawatt hour in 2012 money – double the current wholesale price of electricity.