David Cameron and Vincent de Rivas (boss of EDF) have both claimed recently that 25,000 jobs will be created at Hinkley, and the same figures have been bandied about for Sizewell C. Talk of This number of jobs is highly misleading as the figures are calculated on jobs of 1 year duration only, so if everyone works for 2 years, the number becomes 12,500 jobs and so on. A recent edition of nuclear issues, a news sheet sent out by SONE (Supporters Of Nuclear Energy) highlighted concerns that jobs would not be taken by UK businesses. An extract is copied below:

Even more depressing

According to EDF it seems that the UK, has now lost its opportunity to contribute to the nuclear expansion which is now on course, not only in the UK, but in many other countries. In an article in the Guardian (15 Oct) the Commercial Director for nuclear new build at EDF Energy asserts that “most of the available contracts could be beyond UK suppliers, which are struggling to meet the complex safety and quality standards of the nuclear industry.” For EDF all we seem capable for is the civil works – “muck shifting”.

Reports from the Royal Academy of Engineering have established that, with the experience gained follow-on replica stations are cheaper than first of a kind, and also, (and this is the point emphasised by EDF), that “Subcontractors should be of high quality and experienced in nuclear construction, or taught the necessary special skills and requirements for quality, traceability and documentation.” Obviously if British subcontractors are excluded from Hinkley C contracts they will never have the opportunity to acquire these capabilities. The Government should surely insist, as part of the generous strike price subsidy, that British companies be given a share in Hinkley C to enable them to build up these skills so that they can then bid for further nuclear contracts in this country and also overseas. Otherwise the only nuclear expertise British industry can claim will be in the shutting down and decommissioning of nuclear stations.”

link to original article: www.sone.org.uk/2013-nuclear-issues-vol-36-10/