Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ENV-5002B
Environmental Politics and Policy Making
A political overview of Nuclear Energy at Hinkley Point C with regards
to Lukes’ Theories of Power
Student Number: 100088877
Word Count: 4183
100088877 2 13/04/2016
Contents 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Background Information ................................................................................................................. 4
2a. Timeline of Events .................................................................................................................... 4
3. Who are the key players and their views? ....................................................................................... 5
3a. EDF Energy ............................................................................................................................... 5
3b. Stop Hinkley ............................................................................................................................. 5
3c. Sedgemoor District Council ...................................................................................................... 5
3d. UK Government and MP’s ....................................................................................................... 6
3e. Media......................................................................................................................................... 6
4. Lukes’ Theories of Power ............................................................................................................... 7
4a. First Dimension of Power ......................................................................................................... 7
4b. Second Dimension of Power ..................................................................................................... 8
4c. Third Dimension of Power ........................................................................................................ 8
5. Application of Theory ..................................................................................................................... 9
5a. The First Dimensional View and HPC ...................................................................................... 9
5b. The Second Dimensional View and HPC ................................................................................. 9
5c. The Third Dimensional View and HPC .................................................................................. 10
6. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 11
7. References ..................................................................................................................................... 12
100088877 3 13/04/2016
1. Introduction Hinkley Point, located in the south-west of England in Somerset, is the subject of another nuclear
power plant construction, labelled as ‘Hinkley Point C’. The UK Government, under Gordon Brown,
stated that “it is in the public interest that new nuclear power stations should have a role to play in this
country’s future energy mix alongside other low-carbon sources” (HM Government and BERR,
2008:10). The Coalition Government in 2013 also stated how nuclear power can make “ a significant
contribution to secure, low carbon generation, now and through a successful Generation III
programme built over the next two decades” (DECC, 2013:4). It is clear therefore that nuclear energy
is at the forefront of future UK energy supply, with Hinkley Point C being the beginning of the
Generation III programme. However, there is still huge opposition to this source of energy and to
Hinkley Point C due to cost, safety, health, waste and renewable energy, which many stakeholders are
highlighting. This case study will therefore examine the distribution of power, with regards to Lukes’
dimensions of power, in the development of Hinkley Point C, and how each different stakeholder has
influenced the process and ultimately led to construction beginning.
100088877 4 13/04/2016
2. Background Information Nuclear energy at Hinkley Point C is a current matter, but the process has been going on for nearly a
decade. Section 2 and 3 will provide the viewer with the key information regarding the development
of a nuclear power station at HPC, and what stakeholders are involved in this process, along with how
they are influencing the situation. Figure 1 helps to illustrate the key moments in the development of a
nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C so far.
2a. Timeline of Events
Figure 1 – Timeline of key events with regards to the development of a nuclear power station
at Hinkley Point C (EDF, 2016; Brown, 2016; Zabell, 2015).
May 2016 - A decision by EDF is expected to be made in May regarding the situation with Hinkley Point C , whether to press ahead with construction or abandon the project
March 2016 - EDF's finance director, Thomas Piquemal, resigned as he feared the project could jeopardise EDF's financial position, due to escalating costs of the HPC project
January 2016 - EDF delays its final investment decision again and is looking for new investment partners, as it is unable to raise the funds for its 66.5% stake in the project
October 2015 - China agrees to take a 1/3 stake in the £18 billion project
September 2015 - The UK Government pledges £2 billion to support the project
October 2014 - The European Commission approves the Hinkley Point Project and gives the go ahead to state subsidy scheme
May 2014 - The second phase of construction work begins at the site
October 2013 - Strike Price deal is made between British Government and EDF of £92.50 p/MWh agreed for Hinkley Point C for 2023, nearly three times the current price
March 2013 - Planning permission granted for two reactors to be built at Hinkley Point C
March 2012 - Anti-nuclear protestors complete a 24-hour blockade of the entrance to Hinkley Point nuclear power station to mark the first anniversary of the disaster at the Fukushima power station in Japan
February 2012 - Initial prepartory work begins at the Somerset site
March 2009 - Hinkley Point C nominated as potential site for new nuclear power station
2008 - UK Government White Paper published emphasising the importance nuclear energy has to play in future UK energy supply
100088877 5 13/04/2016
3. Who are the key players and their views?
3a. EDF Energy EDF Energy have a 66.5% majority stake in the Hinkley Point C project, and are the company which
are in charge of constructing the nuclear power station. The twin UK EPR’s which are being built will
be able to produce 3.2 GW of energy for 60 years, generating 6% of the UK’s electricity on a low
carbon basis. During construction, up to 5,600 jobs will be created at peak whilst 900 permanent jobs
will be created once completed. EDF have also stated that £100 million per annum will trickle down
into the local economy during construction, with £40 million per annum trickling down into the local
economic during operation. From EDF Energy’s perspective, Hinkley Point C will have huge benefits
for the local area along with the whole country by supplying a huge amount of energy (George, 2013;
EDF Energy, 2015).
3b. Stop Hinkley Stop Hinkley formed in the mid-eighties to stop a pressurised water reactor being built, known as
Hinkley C. Since then, they have remained committed to campaigning against nuclear power. Stop
Hinkley argue that nuclear power is neither safe nor low-carbon, whilst also being a security risk with
nuclear power also being used for nuclear weapons. They also state how currently, there is no viable
or appropriate storage method for waste fuel. Jonathon Porritt, an environmental campaigner working
with Stop Hinkley, stated how “it’s completely immoral to pass on to future generations a problem
like nuclear waste that we don’t know how to deal with” (Stop Hinkley, 2016; BBC, 2010).
3c. Sedgemoor District Council The main viewpoint shared by this stakeholder is that nuclear waste storage is a huge risk, and that
EDF should be doing all they can to create new and safe storage facilities for waste fuel. “A decline in
tourism, a loss in quality of life and house price increases due to extra demand from newly created
Different stakeholders views on Hinkley Point C
EDF Energy
•Pro-nuclear
•Main company in charge of investing and organising the construction of the two EPR's.
•Has a 66.5% stake in the project.
Sedgemoor District Council
•Pro-nuclear
•Despite highlighting the risks which HPC will create, the council believes that the economic growth and job creation to the local economy outweighs the risks.
UK Government and MP's
•Pro/anti-nuclear
•Several MP's, high up in the Government, including George Osborne and David Cameron are both backing the project and supporting it with public declarations and £2 billion.
•Many other MP's, including Caroline Lucas, Molly Scott Cato and other political figures like Boris Johnson have all declared their outrage at the ridiculous project.
Stop Hinkley
•Anti-nuclear
•Campaign movement against nuclear generation in the UK since the 1980's, and since has publicly opposed nuclear power due to the safety risks, cost and seeing renewable energy as a better alternative.
Media
•Anti-nuclear
•Since 2015, the large majority of media outlets have portrayed the project as a waste of money and stated how they believe the deal should be scrapped and that we should look for better alternatives.
•The Financial Times, the Guardian, the Daily Express, Sunday Times and several other media outlets have expressed their disapproval.
Figure 2 – An overview of the key stakeholders and their views regarding Hinkley Point C
(Stop Hinkley; Cato, 2016; EDF Energy; HM Treasury; Clark; Carrington; Fortson; Fairlie,
2015; SDC, 2014; George; Harris, 2013; BBC, 2010)
100088877 6 13/04/2016
jobs” are all concerns which the council raised in a report to the Infrastructure Planning Commission
in 2012 (BBC, 2012; 2010).
The Sedgemoor district council were also part of the ‘Hinkley Deal’ for the local area. As a result of
their work and perspective regarding nuclear energy, £130.3 million will be distributed across
business support, skills, employability, inward investment, housing and transport for the local area
from the Government. This is also occurring as the council feel that they should build upon the
opportunities opened up by Hinkley C, therefore indicating that they are in support of the decision to
have a nuclear power station in their region, whilst being aware of the risks it poses. (SDC, 2014).
3d. UK Government and MP’s The UK government’s stance on the matter is clear. In a DECC news article (2016), the government
states five reasons for backing the Hinkley Point C project. Safety, carbon emission reductions, the
only low carbon technology available, economic growth and the cost of electricity are all reasons used
by the government to justify the project. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, has been
very supportive of the project and in September 2015, pledged £2 billion to support the project during
its construction phase (HM Treasury, 2015).
Caroline Lucas MP and Molly Scott Cato MEP are just two politicians in the UK who have made
their dissatisfaction regarding Hinkley Point C very well known. The former has stated that “the only
two nuclear power stations under construction in Europe today are billions of pounds over budget and
facing increasing delays”, whilst the latter has been urging the deal to be pulled and instead, look to a
plan B focusing on renewables (Cato, 2016; Harris, 2013).
3e. Media The media plays a key role in influencing people’s opinions and decisions on certain matters due to
the way issues are presented in the news. With regards to Hinkley Point C, the media has been very
accurate when reporting the key details from developments in the project to keep the public informed,
but many articles and news stories have in large-part, been against the nuclear power station being
constructed at Hinkley Point C. For example, the Sunday Times stated how “perhaps unsurprisingly, a
growing chorus of critics are calling for the unthinkable: to bin Hinkley Point altogether” (Fortson,
2015).
The Daily Express also expressed their concerns over Hinkley Point C, stating that “far better
would be to drop the act and have a more reasoned energy policy like other countries do”, whilst
the Guardian has stated that the project is “a colossal waste of time and money, risking security,
affordability and the climate, ministers should swallow their pride and ditch it” (Clark, 2015;
Carrington, 2015). Other news outlets such as The Economist, The Telegraph and The Times
also share the view that this delayed project is too costly and that the Government should give
up on the deal now (Fairlie, 2015).
It is clear therefore that the large majority of UK media outlets oppose the development of a
nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C, and this view shared by these outlets could influence
public perceptions on the project, which could in turn lead to protests and larger campaigns
against the development of a nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C.
100088877 7 13/04/2016
4. Lukes’ Theories of Power ‘A Radical View’ written by Lukes’ (1974) is a book which has provided a clear yet mind-opening
view into the different dimensions of power which are used within every day society, but especially
within politics and government. This section will look at providing a clear overview of the different
dimensions, what they are and how they work and table 1 helps to illustrate this.
4a. First Dimension of Power The first dimension of power is possibly the easiest to understand. Dahl and fellow political scientists
during the 1960’s helped to influence the view of pluralism, but their views produced elitist
conclusions, whereas with Lukes’ one dimensional power, his theory is independent of pluralist
conclusions (Lukes, 2005). Dahl (1957: 204) states how pluralism “involves a successful attempt by
A to get α to do something he would not otherwise do.” Therefore, with the first dimension of power,
we can assume that this theory of power involves someone having power over someone else due to
the resources they bolster. Lukes’ (2005: 19) sums up the first dimension of power as follows:
Thus I conclude that this first, one-dimensional, view of power involves a focus on behaviour in
the making of decisions on issues over which there is an observable conflict of (subjective)
interests, seen as express policy preferences, revealed by political participation.
However, it should be noted that there are problems with this dimension of power. For example,
Barach and Baratz (1970: 948) discuss how this view neglects the non-decisions which are made:
To the extent that A succeeds in doing
this, B is prevented, for all practical
purposes, from bringing to the fore any
issues that might in their resolution be
seriously detrimental to A’s set of
preferences?
1st Dimension of Power 2nd Dimension of
Power
3rd Dimension of Power
Mechanism Decision-making Agenda setting Thought control
Titles Pluralism Neo-pluralism Structuralism
Focus Real decisions Non decision of
potential issues
Real vs perceived
interests
View of
Power
Widely spread Unequally spread Very unequally spread
View of the
Political
Narrow Broad Very broad
Outcomes Unpredictable Predictable Pre-ordained
Evaluation Assumes participation in policies
is the defining feature of power
and excludes non-decision
making.
No ability to
account for a non-
decision.
Hard to actually see this
dimension of power due
to its nature.
Table 1 – An overview of the dimensions of power (adapted from Lukes, 2005; 1974)
Figure 3 – A model of agenda control and the first dimension of
power (Parsons, 1995: 138)
100088877 8 13/04/2016
4b. Second Dimension of Power
Following on from the critique of the first dimension of power, the second dimension of power is
related to the non-decisions which are made within politics, to control and aid the agenda being
pursued. Lukes (1974: 21) states how the second dimension of power is to do with “the control over
the agenda of politics and the ways in which potential issues are kept out of the political process.”
Issues are kept out of the agenda due to different agendas from those high up within politics and
possibly influenced by the elitist population, whilst this form of conflict can be overt or covert,
depending on the nature of the issue in question (Barach and Baratz, 1970). Issues which are filtered
in and out of the agenda is known as the ‘mobilization of bias’.
However, despite its improvements from the first dimension of power, the second dimension of power
has its critiques. For example, this dimension of power also focuses too much on actual behaviour and
avoids how status quo defenders may use their power to affect other actors within the system. Another
problem with this dimension is that it also allows for no accountability when non-decisions are made
(Lukes, 2005).
4c. Third Dimension of Power The third dimension looks at decision making and control over the political agenda whether through
concrete or non-decisions. It also focuses on observable and latent conflicts, with latent conflicts
being those where there is a contradiction between the interests of A whilst the real interests of B are
excluded (Lorenzi, 2006). The media is perceived as a tool which can be used to influence the
interests of the public, through the way information is presented. Lukes’ (2005: 27) discusses how A
exercises power over B in this dimension and how this power is the most effective:
To put the matter sharply, A may exercise power over B by getting him to do what he does not
want to do, but he also exercises power over him by influencing, shaping or determining his very
wants.
Despite the improvements over the second dimension, there are still problems with the third
dimension. Issues with this view of power is that you can’t see or study the third dimension in action,
whether that be by the alleged exercising power or through the way B may have thought or acted
differently. As a result, power is viewed depending upon how we conceive it but if we are to truly
understand power, accountability for the flow of action or inaction of different actors must be changed
(Lorenzi, 2006).
100088877 9 13/04/2016
5. Application of Theory By using Lukes’ theories of power, it helps to provide a tool of analysis for the key actors and how
certain issues and agreements have occurred with regards to the Hinkley Point C project and the roles
which they have played in shaping the development of this environmental issue.
5a. The First Dimensional View and HPC Observable conflicts of interests, which is one of the basic premises of the first dimension, can be
seen throughout the development of the nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C. This form of power
can be first viewed right at the very start of the process, when the UK Government was undergoing
the consultation process for HPC. Greenpeace won a High Court ruling regarding biased publication
and presentation of information in the first public consultation and made complaints regarding the
second public consultation as information was heavily unbalanced and people felt they were being
manipulated (Greenpeace, 2008). As a result, the polls which took place asking people questions
around the country made it look like the public was more in favour of the government moving
towards the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations, with Hinkley Point C being
the flagship for the fleet to follow. However, the Department for Business, Entrepreneurship and
Regulatory Reform have denied several requests on behalf of Greenpeace to release information on
government correspondents and how they may have influenced the consultation process. If they were
too release the documents, it could have made the case for nuclear power at Hinkley Point C being
written off due to the biased nature of the consultation process coming to light. Therefore, DBERR
refused to hand over the documents as doing so would go against their own interests and is therefore
the first case of the first dimensional view of power being used within the development process of
HPC (ibid).
5b. The Second Dimensional View and HPC With regards to the second dimensional view of power, agenda setting and non-decision making are
the primary characteristics of this face of power. In comparison to the first dimension, there are more
examples of the second dimension and non-decisions being made than concrete decisions due to the
sensitive nature of the matter as having public backing for the project is vital to the development of
HPC and making controversial concrete decisions may change public perceptions. The first example
of the second dimension of power being used starts with the Sedgemoor District Council. They sent a
report to the Infrastructure Planning Commission in 2012 outlining the issues and problems which
could arise due to the HPC project which included house prices declining, increased air pollution and
congestion problems, reduced quality of life and environmental issues such as nuclear waste storage
and water contamination (BBC, 2012). Despite this report highlighting significant issues, the council
never received any response from the IPC or the Government to quash any concerns. This is clearly
an example of the second power being used as the IPC and Government have decided not to respond
and bring the issues back into the media, in order to avoid further public scrutiny regarding the issues
and problems which this project is creating.
Another significant example of the second dimensional view being used with this issue is with
reference to the Office for Nuclear Regulation. They are responsible for carrying out safety reviews
and other tasks relating to nuclear energy in the UK. However, with Hinkley Point C, a thorough
safety review wasn’t carried out. “The ONR bypassed a number of safety issues with the rationale of
although it is not solved we think it will be solved by the time we need,” highlighting new issues with
the project (McQue and Macalister, 2014). Further information regarding the experts who carried out
the lacklustre safety review found that they were receiving EDF pensions, instigating possible
corruption allegations. However, despite these issues coming to light, the UK government chose to
ignore them and made no decision regarding the matter, as all the Government was interested in was
having the safety check completed so that further construction could occur.
100088877 10 13/04/2016
EDF has a 66.5% stake in the project and is playing a key part in the construction, development and
investment of Hinkley Point C. With the project now being over-budget, concerns are being raised
which EDF is avoiding answering. In January 2016, the firm’s board was expected to meet to finalise
a decision, as to whether the project would go ahead with EDF backing the project with significant
investment or whether it would be scrapped due to it being over-budget and over-due. However, the
board didn’t meet and no decision has been made. Another meeting is expected in May but could be
put on hold again (BBC, 2016; Brown, 2016; Zabell, 2015). The second dimension of power can be
applied to this example as EDF has made a non-decision, as to make a decision regarding the matter
could lead to the project being scrapped but if no decision is made, they give themselves more time to
acquire investments and complete the project. It should be noted that the Strike Price deal for
electricity paid to EDF by the UK Government stands at £92.50 per megawatt hour of electricity
which is double the current cost. This therefore shows that EDF will make a significant amount of
money from generating electricity at HPC, should the project be completed.
5c. The Third Dimensional View and HPC This dimension of power relates to controlling your thoughts and interests through different means
such as the media, culture and other social influences. The media is a useful tool for shaping the
publics interests and has been doing so with HPC. Since 2015, the large majority of media outlets
have portrayed Hinkley Point C as being a waste of money and that the project should be scrapped.
What was said? Who said it? Media
outlet?
Date
“Hinkley: a truly major national scandal … as
absurd a project as any government has ever
fallen for.”
Christopher
Booker
Telegraph 26th
September
2015
“It is the costliest white elephant in history.” Simon Jenkins Guardian 23rd
September
2015
“Hinkley is not just poor value for money – it’s
an outrage.”
Editorial Daily
Express
21st September
2015
“A growing chorus of critics are calling for the
unthinkable: to bin Hinkley Point altogether.”
Editorial Sunday
Times
21st June 2015
“Politically painful it may be, but the case for
halting Hinkley Point C is becoming hard to
refute.”
Editorial Financial
Times
18th February
2016
Table 2 helps to illustrate this point and shows that this portrayal of HPC can lead to different
opinions and greater public backlash forming as a result. With more public scrutiny, hard political
decisions follow.
Another example of the third dimension of power being used is with regards to the Secretary of State.
Edward Davey in 2013 authorised the construction of HPC, publicly supporting the project in an
attempt to show the general public that as he is supporting HPC, the projects benefits must outweigh
the negatives. This public decision may have helped to influence people’s perceptions regarding the
project at the time, and therefore create greater public backing for the scheme (DECC, 2013).
Table 2 – Headlines and quotes taken from several media outlets, raising their concerns with the
Hinkley Point C project (Financial Times, 2016; Fortson; Clark; Jenkins; Fairlie; Booker, 2015)
100088877 11 13/04/2016
6. Conclusion Hinkley Point C is arguably the most controversial infrastructure projects in history due to its extreme
cost and time delay, and the decision as to whether it will go ahead is still pending. This case study
has tried to use Lukes’ dimensions of power to try and understand what has happened along the
process and why. The different dimensions of power refer to the processes of decision making, agenda
setting and thought control and examples of all are apparent throughout the development of Hinkley
Point C.
It is clear that throughout the process, the second dimension of power has been the most apparent and
influential in the matter. Many issues regarding the project have been raised, including issues related
to nuclear waste storage, water contamination, quality of life locally and more. Safety reviews were
also not properly carried out, in order to achieve deadlines, whilst the final decision regarding the
continued development of HPC by EDF is still being decided. All these matters have been ignored
and filtered out from political debate, in order to try and keep the development of HPC going.
Therefore, I believe the second dimension of power is the most influential dimension but all three help
to show the formation of different power structures, with regards to the biased consultation process
and the media’s negative portrayal of the project.
My opinion regarding the matter is that for the amount of money that is being spent, why wasn’t a
cleaner source of energy such as wind or solar invested into to generate future energy supply? Nuclear
energy may be the short term solution to our energy problems, but renewable energy is the future. The
Hinkley Point C project should be scrapped.
100088877 12 13/04/2016
7. References BBC (2010) Differing views on Hinkley point C. Available at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/somerset/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8352000/8352537.stm (Accessed:
11 March 2016).
BBC (2012) Sedgemoor district council’s Hinkley point concerns. Available at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-somerset-16393006 (Accessed: 14 March 2016).
BBC (2016) Decision on new nuclear power plant ‘delayed’. Available at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35415187 (Accessed: 11 April 2016).
Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M.S. (1962) ‘Two faces of power’, The Americun Political Science Review,
56(4), pp. 947–952.
Booker, C. (2015) Hinkley: A truly major national scandal. Available at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11893698/Hinkley-a-truly-major-national-scandal.html
(Accessed: 11 April 2016).
Brown, R. (2016) Timeline: How the Hinkley Point C development has played out so far. Available
at: https://www.energyvoice.com/other-news/103466/timeline-how-the-hinkley-point-c-development-
has-played-out-so-far/ (Accessed: 25 March 2016).
Carrington, D. (2015) The quality of Hinkley point’s enemies suggests it's an idiotic venture.
Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2015/sep/21/hinkley-
point-nuclear-station-enemies (Accessed: 7 April 2016).
Cato, M.S. (2016) Comment: Silence on Hinkley speaks volumes. Available at:
http://leftfootforward.org/2016/03/comment-silence-on-hinkley-speaks-volumes/ (Accessed: 7 April
2016).
Clark, R. (2015) This green energy madness will end up costing us all. Available at:
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/607008/Ross-Clark-energy-climate-change
(Accessed: 7 April 2016).
Dahl, R. (1957) The concept of power. Available at:
http://datateca.unad.edu.co/contenidos/332573/12._The_Concept_of_Power_Robert_Dahl_.pdf
(Accessed: 8 April 2016).
Department for Energy and Climate Change (2013) Long-term nuclear energy strategy. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/168047/bis-13-630-
long-term-nuclear-energy-strategy.pdf (Accessed: 24 March 2016).
Department of Energy & Climate Change (2013) Edward Davey statement on Hinkley point C
nuclear power station. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/edward-davey-
statement-on-hinkley-point-c-nuclear-power-station (Accessed: 11 April 2016).
Department of Energy & Climate Change (2016) 5 reasons why we are backing Hinkley point C.
Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/5-reasons-why-we-are-backing-hinkley-point-c
(Accessed: 14 March 2016).
EDF (2015) Building Britain’s low-carbon future Hinkley point C. Available at:
https://www.edfenergy.com/sites/default/files/edfe_nnb_hpc_-_low_res.pdf (Accessed: 14 March
2016).
100088877 13 13/04/2016
EDF Energy (2016) Hinkley point C: Timeline. Available at:
https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuclear-new-build-projects/hinkley-point-c (Accessed: 25 March
2016).
Fairlie, I. (2015) 40 Media Comments Opposing Hinkley C. Available at:
http://www.ianfairlie.org/news/21-media-comments-opposing-hinkley-c/ (Accessed: 7 April 2016).
Financial Times (2010) UK should think again about Hinkley Point nuclear power station. Available
at: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b07291aa-56ef-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2.html (Accessed: 7 April
2016).
Financial Times (2016) Britain’s nuclear strategy exposed at Hinkley point. Available at:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9d484f08-d63c-11e5-829b-
8564e7528e54,Authorised=false.html?siteedition=uk&_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2
Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F9d484f08-d63c-11e5-829b-
8564e7528e54.html%3Fsiteedition%3Duk&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ianfairlie.org%2F87a
8255287c77e4bc4f403057e13462e&classification=conditional_standard&iab=barrier-
app#axzz45WXkiHWs (Accessed: 11 April 2016).
Fortson, D. (2015) One station would cost the same as eight carriers, or two Crossrails, or forty new
hospitals. So is new nuclear power really worth it?. Available at:
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/Industry/article1571248.ece (Accessed: 7 April 2016).
George, C.S. (2013) Proposed new nuclear power station at Hinkley point. Available at:
http://www.nuclearinst.com/write/MediaUploads/Presentations/HPC_Nuclear_Institute,_Western_Bra
nch_30413.pdf (Accessed: 29 March 2016).
Greenpeace (2008) Breaking news - another nuclear consultation was fixed. Available at:
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/nuclear/breaking-news-another-nuclear-consultation-was-fixed-
20081016 (Accessed: 10 April 2016).
HM Government and Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (2008) Meeting the
Energy Challenge. Available at:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.berr.gov.uk/files/file43006.pdf (Accessed: 24
March 2016).
HM Treasury (2015) £2 billion support for Hinkley point. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/2-billion-support-for-hinkley-point-c (Accessed: 7 April 2016).
Harris, S. (2013) Nuclear: ‘green light for Hinkley is bad news for the taxpayer and bad news for our
energy future’. Available at: http://www.carolinelucas.com/latest/nuclear-green-light-for-hinkley-is-
bad-news-for-the-taxpayer-and-bad-news-for-our-energy (Accessed: 7 April 2016).
Jenkins, S. (2015) With Hinkley point, squandermania has reached dangerous new heights. Available
at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/23/hinkley-point-squandermania-george-
osborne-china (Accessed: 11 April 2016).
Lorenzi, M. (2006) ‘Power: A Radical View’, Crossroads, Vol. 6, no.2(1825-7208), pp. 87–95.
Lukes, S. (1974) Power: A radical view. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lukes, S. (2005) Power: A radical view. Available at:
http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/bmxlYmtfXzE5NzQ0N19fQU41?sid=e35393b
7-fe18-4826-83c5-fb0d2dfc8277@sessionmgr102&vid=0&format=EB&rid=1 (Accessed: 8 April
2016).
100088877 14 13/04/2016
McQue, K. and Macalister, T. (2014) Conflict of interest concerns over EDF’s Hinkley nuclear
project approval. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/01/hinkley-
nuclear-project-edf (Accessed: 10 April 2016).
Parsons, W. (1995) Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Policy. Edward
Elgar, London. P.138.
Sedgemoor District Council (2014) Hinkley deal. Available at: http://www.sedgemoor.gov.uk/9850
(Accessed: 29 March 2016).
Stop Hinkley (2016) About stop Hinkley. Available at: http://stophinkley.org/aboutSH.htm
(Accessed: 14 March 2016).
Zabell, M. (2015) Hinkley point C timeline. Available at: http://joanpyeproject.org/hinkley-point-c-
timeline/ (Accessed: 11 March 2016).
