IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v96y2016icp421-431.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Hinkley Point decision: An analysis of the policy process

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas, Stephen

Abstract

In 2006, the British government launched a policy to build nuclear power reactors based on a claim that the power produced would be competitive with fossil fuel and would require no public subsidy. A decade later, it is not clear how many, if any, orders will be placed and the claims on costs and subsidies have proved false. Despite this failure to deliver, the policy is still being pursued with undiminished determination. The finance model that is now proposed is seen as a model other European countries can follow so the success or otherwise of the British nuclear programme will have implications outside the UK. This paper contends that the checks and balances that should weed out misguided policies, have failed. It argues that the most serious failure is with the civil service and its inability to provide politicians with high quality advice – truth to power. It concludes that the failure is likely to be due to the unwillingness of politicians to listen to opinions that conflict with their beliefs. Other weaknesses include the lack of energy expertise in the media, the unwillingness of the public to engage in the policy process and the impotence of Parliamentary Committees.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas, Stephen, 2016. "The Hinkley Point decision: An analysis of the policy process," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 421-431.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:96:y:2016:i:c:p:421-431
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.06.021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516303044
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.06.021?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bent Flyvbjerg, 2014. "What You Should Know About Megaprojects, and Why: An Overview," Papers 1409.0003, arXiv.org.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thomas, Steve, 2018. "Russia's Nuclear Export Programme," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 236-247.
    2. Mahalik, Mantu Kumar & Patel, Gupteswar & Sahoo, Bimal Kishore & Rahman, Mohammad Mafizur, 2023. "Impact of income inequality on renewable energy demand in south Asian economies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    3. Wealer, B. & Bauer, S. & Hirschhausen, C.v. & Kemfert, C. & Göke, L., 2021. "Investing into third generation nuclear power plants - Review of recent trends and analysis of future investments using Monte Carlo Simulation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    4. Jenkins, Kirsten & McCauley, Darren & Warren, Charles R., 2017. "Attributing responsibility for energy justice: A case study of the Hinkley Point Nuclear Complex," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 836-843.
    5. Turcsanyi, Richard Q., 2017. "Central European attitudes towards Chinese energy investments: The cases of Poland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 711-722.
    6. Thomas, Steve, 2017. "China's nuclear export drive: Trojan Horse or Marshall Plan?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 683-691.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Diane Coyle & Marianne Sensier, 2020. "The imperial treasury: appraisal methodology and regional economic performance in the UK," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(3), pages 283-295, March.
    2. Schreiner, Lena & Madlener, Reinhard, 2022. "Investing in power grid infrastructure as a flexibility option: A DSGE assessment for Germany," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    3. Alexander Budzier & Bent Flyvbjerg & Andi Garavaglia & Andreas Leed, 2019. "Quantitative Cost and Schedule Risk Analysis of Nuclear Waste Storage," Papers 1901.11123, arXiv.org.
    4. Francesco Di Maddaloni & Roya Derakhshan, 2019. "A Leap from Negative to Positive Bond. A Step towards Project Sustainability," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-19, June.
    5. Bent Flyvbjerg & Alexander Budzier & M. D. Christodoulou & M. Zottoli, 2024. "Uniqueness Bias: Why It Matters, How to Curb It," Papers 2408.07710, arXiv.org.
    6. Love, Peter E.D. & Ika, Lavagnon A. & Ahiaga-Dagbui, Dominic D., 2019. "On de-bunking ‘fake news’ in a post truth era: Why does the Planning Fallacy explanation for cost overruns fall short?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 397-408.
    7. Finocchiaro Castro, Massimo & Guccio, Calogero & Rizzo, Ilde, 2023. "“One-size-fits-all” public works contract does it better? An assessment of infrastructure provision in Italy," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 45(5), pages 994-1014.
    8. Love, Peter E.D. & Ahiaga-Dagbui, Dominic & Welde, Morten & Odeck, James, 2017. "Light rail transit cost performance: Opportunities for future-proofing," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 27-39.
    9. Bent Flyvbjerg & Alexander Budzier, 2018. "Report for the Edinburgh Tram Inquiry," Papers 1805.12106, arXiv.org.
    10. Karen Lucas & Ian Philips & Ersilia Verlinghieri, 2022. "A mixed methods approach to the social assessment of transport infrastructure projects," Transportation, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 271-291, February.
    11. Shutian Zhou & Guofang Zhai & Yijun Shi, 2018. "What Drives the Rise of Metro Developments in China? Evidence from Nantong," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-20, August.
    12. Jin, Zhizhou & Zeng, Saixing & Chen, Hongquan & Shi, Jonathan Jingsheng, 2022. "Explaining the expansion performance in technological capability of participants in megaprojects: A configurational approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    13. Ginés de Rus, 2015. "La política de infraestructuras en España. Una reforma pendiente," Policy Papers 2015-08, FEDEA.
    14. Ginés de Rus & Javier Campos & Daniel Graham & M. Pilar Socorro & Jorge Valido, 2020. "Evaluación Económica de Proyectos y Políticas de Transporte: Metodología y Aplicaciones. Parte 1: Metodología para el análisis coste-beneficio de proyectos y políticas de transporte," Working Papers 2020-11, FEDEA.
    15. Muhammad Zeeshan Fareed & Qin Su, 2022. "Project Governance and Project Performance: The Moderating Role of Top Management Support," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-13, February.
    16. Peter Adekunle & Clinton Aigbavboa & Opeoluwa Akinradewo & Ayodeji Oke & Douglas Aghimien, 2022. "Construction Information Management: Benefits to the Construction Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-17, September.
    17. Chen, Xiaoyan & Locatelli, Giorgio & Zhang, Xinyue & Gong, Yunhao & He, Qinghua, 2022. "Firm and project innovation outcome measures in infrastructure megaprojects: An interpretive structural modelling approach," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    18. Antonio Estache & Stéphane Saussier, 2014. "Public-Private Partnerships and Efficiency: A Short Assessment," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 12(3), pages 08-13, October.
    19. Avri Eitan, 2021. "Promoting Renewable Energy to Cope with Climate Change—Policy Discourse in Israel," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-17, March.
    20. Aigner, Rafael & Weber, Katharina, 2017. "The Fehmarn Belt duopoly – Can the ferry compete with a tunnel?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 1-15.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:96:y:2016:i:c:p:421-431. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.