1.0 Introduction
The construction of Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station is one of a kind in the modern world, and this project is unique for both engineering and nuclear power industries. Baker (2023) acknowledges that the project is part of the recent developments at the Hinkley Point site in the UK and indicates Britain’s persistence in producing nuclear-based sustainable energy. The increasing demand for electric power makes nuclear power important in alleviating environmental stress (Smyth, Lecoeuvre, and Vaesken, 2018). Hinkley Point C is technology’s beacon of good intentions for strategic energy planning. This report aims to provide a comprehensive review of the Hinkley Point C project, considering the successes and failures of project management principles. Therefore, a critical evaluation of the project will help to identify successful project management in the nuclear industry and be useful for discussions on the future of nuclear power and its place in the world’s sustainable fuel sector.
2.0 Background
One of the most significant efforts the UK has attempted in sustainable power is building Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station on the shores of Somerset in the UK (Glasson et al., 2021). Daniel & Daniel (2019) cited that, initiated in 2018 by EDF Energy in partnership with CGN, this played a vital role in providing cleaner energy production in the UK’s energy portfolio. The Hinkley Point C uses a third-generation nuclear technology known as the European pressurised reactor (EPR) because of its enhanced safety and efficiency, as Ogunmakin, Koe, and Jean-Philippe (2021) assert. This facility’s European pressurised reactor (EPR) technology produces about 3.2 GW, enough to power 6 M in household needs without emissions (Butcher et al., 2021). According to Saunders and Townsend (2019), the project covered several stages with projected completion in the mid-2020s, including intensive preparations based on safe and green technologies
The UK’s imperative drove the decision to develop Hinkley Point C to reduce its overreliance on fossil fuels and diversify its energy mix, especially when nuclear energy was considered a crucial component in the transition towards a sustainable future (Harvey, 2020). The economic implications of Hinkley Point C were significant, generating job opportunities, fueling local economic growth, and allowing the UK to collaborate with China as a world leader concerning nuclear power (Parkinson, Kukla, and Clear, 2021). However, the project faced its share of challenges. Firstly, Carpenter and Energy (2019) consider the project to have a high construction cost that could impact consumers’ energy bills, raising questions about the long-term financial implications for both consumers and the government’s energy policies. Concerns were expressed about the projected electricity price from Hinkley Point C, the “strike price,” which is higher than the current market price for electricity (Osicka et al., 2021). The involvement of foreign entities in such a critical national infrastructure project raised concerns driven by geopolitical considerations and security risks associated with engaging a foreign entity, particularly CGN, as Gungor and Sari (2022) say.
The historical importance of the project comes from its location, the site that played a vital role in shaping the UK’s nuclear power industry. Hinkley point C, a part of national technical advancement and careful energy production, succeeds in Hinkley points A and B (Tromans, 2019). In making this decision, the delicate balance between energy security and environmental integrity was considered as the Office for Nuclear Regulation and Environment Agency approved regulatory procedures to guarantee the project’s safety (Pemberton, 2017). Besides, involving the China General Nuclear Power Group demonstrates that the UK is working with China to find nuclear energy solutions globally, as Roh, Choi, and Chang (2019) assert. Indeed, the project symbolizes international cooperation.
3. Negative Aspects
3.1 Project Delays and Budget Overruns
In its initial stages of construction, the commencement of Hinkley Point C experienced significant challenges. Conferring with Terlikowski et al. (2019), the concerns included technological complexity, unexpected geological issues, and logistical complications. The construction phase was delayed as it was complex and required specialized material, plus the workforce had been coordinated (Fouquet, 2018). Haas, Thomas, and Ajanovic (2019) state that strict regulatory approval processes necessary to ensure safe and compliant practices added another hurdle of prolonged scrutiny.
The delay in the initial construction process was about 18 months, which caused a cascading effect concerning the whole project schedule, according to Sainati, Locatelli, and Smith (2019). Subsequent stages of construction were hurried up to restore lost time. However, given the delicate interdependencies within various milestone construction activities, it was only possible to partially overcome the impact of delays (Stasakova and Vlcek, 2022). Aggressive scheduling tactics, such as overlap construction and other related practices, were implemented by the project management so that it would not affect the completion day of the projects (Osborne, 2022). The early setbacks revealed the challenge of running a large project like that and the need for adaptable project management in the face of unexpected obstacles.
3.2 Budget Escalation
Also, there was a significant challenge in the finances at Hinkley Point C during the initial stages. Turner and Xue (2018) concur that the constraint caused the escalation and divergence of the costs from what was anticipated earlier. There was a significant difference between the initial budget estimations and the final budget. Matsuo and Nei (2019) note that the budget was prepared with utmost consideration, especially while planning the project, but several expenditures were incurred at the time of construction. The complexities of building modern-nuclear, stringent security, and the wide-reaching scope contributed to significant cost increases. Tromans et al. (2019) note that unexpected issues during the preliminary building days, which involved delayed approval processes by regulatory bodies and unanticipated geology complications, put more financial strain on the company. The financial and non-financial aspects had added up to warrant a complete budget review to maintain the project’s viability.
Hinkley Point C’s budget went up for several reasons. Van Ness (2017) understands that nuclear technology is complex, whereas nuclear safety requirements come with new costs for specialized substances used in nuclear power and enhanced security measures. Besides, the expenses have substantially increased since the project duration increased due to delays in the construction schedule. According to Thomas and Ramana (2022), the budget issues were aggravated by the fact that there were price swings in the market for construction supplies. Also, they needed more workers for the project amid a labor shortage. Strict cost-control actions coupled with supplier negotiations reduced these contingencies’ effect on the project management team, as Saunders and Townsend (2019) note. The budget escalation presents the complexity of large-scale projects and the necessity of an adaptable financing strategy while undertaking nuclear infrastructure construction.
3.3 Regulatory Approval Challenges
In addition, Hinckley Point’s timeline C was hampered by the protracted delay of licenses and environmental regulations, which affected the timely execution of this project, as Tromans (2019) says. The stringency of regulation for nuclear projects requires thorough examination, which contributes to delayed approvals (Barkatullah and Ahmad, 2017). The situation led to the magnification of complexities associated with ensuring compliance with safety, environmental, and operational standards, resulting in an unusual lag in the project’s progress (Merk et al., 2019). Although it is necessary toto ensure best practices regarding safety and environmental stewardship, such a thorough evaluation by regulatory agencies, such as the Office for Nuclear Regulation and Environment Agency, complicated the project’s schedule and affected the operation rhythm (Sikora, 2020).
Additionally, the regulatory approvals greatly affected this project’s schedule and cost. There was a chain reaction of events that caused delays in permit acquisition, which, in turn, increased the project’s overall duration and impacted subsequent stages of construction (Webbe-Wood and Nuttall, 2023). Each construction activity was well coordinated; hence, a delay in one phase significantly influenced the start of succeeding stages, as Roh, Choi, and Chang (2019) understand. Thus, the extended project timeline led to additional expenses such as labor, materials, and other related expenses. Relatively, Baker (2022) articulates that the project involved additional investments to comply with stringent regulatory requirements, which exacerbated the expense element. Regarding regulatory dynamics, the fact that the project management team was able to simplify the regulatory approval and coordinate their operations with regulatory bodies is worth mentioning.
3.4 Public Opposition and Stakeholder Management
3.4.1 Local Community Concerns
Local communities and environmental groupings had their concerns and protested against the project’s development. According to Buongiorno et al. (2019), there were concerns regarding safety, environmental impact, and the long-term effect on the health status of nuclear power stations close to a residential area. Environmental agencies and local communities, sometimes fuelled by environmental groups, raised concerns such as ecological disturbance, water supply, and general safety for the community (Stanescu, 2018). Wang, Gu, and Wu (2020) say that there were fears of potential unexpected and undesirable events involving the release of radioactive materials from nuclear facilities and the perception of the long-term environmental implications that further complicated an already complex relationship between the community residing near the site and the project developers.
Hinkley Point C’s community engagement saw them effectively tackle public fears and combat misinformation. The project developers opened up transparent communications, talking to the local people frequently to deal with any worries they might have had and gave correct details (Nuttall, 2022). According to Nicolaides (2018), fact sheets on nuclear safety, environmental impact, and regional economic benefits were spread in open forums, town hall meetings, and information sessions. The educational campaign focused on clarifying the erroneous notions concerning nuclear power greatly impacted people surrounding the plant (Kuhling and Ruechardt, 2017). The community issues depended crucially on a forthright process with the public and partnerships with local communities during large-scale infrastructure project development.
3.4.2 Stakeholder Communication Challenges
There were also significant difficulties in ensuring open communications with many stakeholders involved in Hinkley Point C. The complex process of informing on a complicated project is due to the diversity of stakeholders’ interests, such as local communities, environmental organizations, and the UK government (Salakhetdinov and Sidorov, 2018). Transparency concerning complex nuclear technology regulatory demands requires special attention. Wrigley et al. (2021) note that it took much work to manage expectations appropriately and deal promptly with stakeholders’ concerns about unexpected actions in the project or external issues affecting them. According to Flyvbjerg (2021), forming stakeholder advisory groups allows for talking directly with representatives of different interest groups. Also, incorporating digital platforms and virtual message boards helped in the instantaneous sharing of data and engaging stakeholders (Bodel et al., 2022). The project was forced to initiate strategies for making the processes transparent and inclusive, fostering collaboration among stakeholders, creating good relationships, and showing them that the process is transparent.
4.0 Positive Aspects
4.1 Energy Infrastructure Advancements
4.1.1 Increased Energy Capacity
Hinkley Point C is one of the main additions to the national power system capacity, positively impacting the national energy grid. Vital energy-generating abilities, such as 3.2 gigawatts, enhance the grid’s stability for the facility (Butcher et al., 2021). Nuclear power injection is used for a constant and steady supply of electric power when using the alternation mode of operation typical for most renewable energy sources (Pienkowski, 2021). The enhanced grid capacity facilitates adequate power provision during peak demand hours, thus guaranteeing constant home, business enterprise, and industrial electricity supply. Hinkley Point C is an essential pillar of the UK energy structure that contributes significantly to the country’s overall energy strength.
Besides, the project contributes significantly to the energy supply, aligning with national targets to diversify and sustainably utilize the endowment. Hinkley Point C’s nuclear energy output lowers dependence on other energy sources like carbon-based energy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and creating a greener environment (Sainati, Locatelli, and Smith, 2019). With the electrification of several industries, growing energy demand, especially from Hinkley, becomes a crucial part of addressing the country’s changing energy demands. Significantly, bestowing on Li (2020), the project goes beyond short-term relevance as it contributes towards developing a sustainable and green national energy outlook for the United Kingdom.
4.1.2 Technology and Safety Innovations
Hinkley Point C represents an attempt to invest in modern technologies and novel safety developments regarding nuclear power. Parkinson, Kukla, and Clear (2021) illustrate that the project prompted the integration of advanced safety measures, where current technologies are applied for the highest level of operational safety. The project utilized modern safety practices involving new reactor types, current event data management schemes, and redundancy backup mechanisms (Thomas et al., 2019). These innovations meet the regulations and show that management cares about the safety of its employees, the people around them, and their environment. Hinkley Point C provided the changes in safety requirements for the nuclear industry and served as an outline for the next steps in the world-scale project development.
Furthermore, the project marked an advancement in utilizing the latest nuclear technologies. Hinkley Point C employed the European EPR technology, known for efficiency and additional safety measures (Pomponi and Hart, 2021). According to Merk et al. (2019), EPR is a newer nuclear design which breaks the trend with improved energy output, reduced radioactive waste, and decreased emissions. It also has digital control systems that make the reactor operations more precise, allowing immediate amendments. Using contemporary nuclear techniques improves the supply and environment-friendly energy production at Hinkley Point C, exemplifying the way ahead for secure, hi-tech nuclear power solutions worldwide (Aldama-Bustos et al., 2019).
4.2 Economic and Employment Benefits
4.2.1 Job Creation
Hinkley Point C presented employment opportunities during the construction stage. Many jobs were made available within local and regional communities due to the large scale, complexity, and diversity of the need for human resources (Osborne, 2022). There were skilled and unskilled jobs, including constructing and building engineers and auxiliary functions. The workforce advanced with specialized jobs that focused on nuclear engineering and technology. The creation of jobs across several industries boosted the local economy.
Once it became fully functional, the power generation station depended on the workforce available in routine operations, safety, and maintenance (Jones, 2023). The facility will offer stable employment for skilled professionals such as nuclear engineers, technicians, and support staff who remain operational. Sustained economic environment for career development and expertise based on longevity and reliability of nuclear job operations within the local community, as Castor, Bacha, and Nerini (2020) underscore. Therefore, Hinkley Point C is not only a spark for short-term job creation but also lays down the basis for permanent jobs and, thus, socio-economic sustainability in the given area.
4.2.2 Economic Contributions
The economic benefit of Hinkley Point C goes beyond job creation, which has a broader implication for the region and nation at large. The project has generated local revenue and created a demand for goods and services in a broader area around it, as Baker (2023) acknowledges. The project attracted workers and visitors and consequently led to increased activity for restaurants, accommodation providers, and varying service firms (Claici and Maier, 2019). Similarly, it resulted in tremendous investments in the local infrastructure, including transport and housing, that boosted the economy (Salakhetdinov and Sidorov, 2019). Hinkley Point C also plays a vital role in ensuring that less fossil fuels are used in the country, which will go a long way in promoting the use of renewable energy in the nation. Bingham (2021) notes that the enormous amount of money pumped into the project found its way into suppliers’ pockets, manufacturers’ pockets, and even the country’s.
Higher economic activity in local supply chains and services for neighboring towns created a positive ripple effect, contributing to the indirect economic benefits of Hinkley Point C (Lehtonen, 2023). As a result, the demand for business entities providing material, equipment, and supportive services towards the project was also high, prompting more economic growth within the region (Thomas & Ramana, 2022). Buongiorno et al. (2019) stated that emphasis was placed on developing and creating skill training programs, generating a legacy through which the employment levels of locally available workforce improved, helping nearby companies seeking skilled staff. Indirect economic benefits emphasize the project’s induced effect on the territorial economy, developing the chain of extra-regional economic chances out of the execution area.
5.0 Lessons Learned
The Hinkley Point C project shows that the intricacy of nuclear power initiatives necessitates detailed planning, especially for dealing with strict regulations and engaging a wide range of stakeholders. Hinkley Point C’s adaptive project management proved indispensable for dealing with unexpected difficulties that arose at the beginning stage in connection with initial construction delays and regulatory obstacles (Parkinson, Kukla, and Clear, 2021). The insights are educative on unique details specific to a nuclear power undertaking, including security, technology integration, stakeholder involvement, and community interactions. Besides, examining the successes and failures of Hinkley Point C is another knowledge base to support good project management practices in large power projects. Pre-emptive stakeholder engagement, adequate safety precautions, and modern technology applications for improved operational efficiency are exemplified in the project. Understanding the problems associated with large-scale energy development projects that emerged due to Hinkley Point C assists planners in dealing with those issues at the planning stage.
6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
In summary, Hinkley Point C depicts the complexity of large-scale nuclear power projects as a story of success and failure. The project development process instills crucial lessons for future undertakings, such as the involvement of the stakeholders, transparency, and appropriate risk management procedures. The project offers insights into the complexity that characterizes the nuclear energy sector. These insights help shape the path to success for future projects. In future projects, the stakeholders should always be involved as they have a say in making decisions, which should also start at that point. Efficient and safe regulation can be achieved by streamlining regulatory approvals at the lowest costs. The risk management framework is critical to successfully executing these projects as it anticipates the risks and prescribes the remedial measures. Additionally, openness in communication will be critical to ensure that communities support the project process and, therefore, ensure the full participation of stakeholders. In addition, moving forward, the focus should be on developing continuous learnings and adaptations through integrating past project experiences into the planning and operations processes. For effective project management, safety also ought to partner with operational excellence. Hinkley Point C is one perfect case that presents the need to handle the complexities of dealing with stakeholders, compliance with laws, and risk-taking in subsequent endeavors.
7.0 References
Aldama-Bustos, G., Tromans, I.J., Strasser, F., Garrard, G., Green, G., Rivers, L., Douglas, J., Musson, R.M., Hunt, S., Lessi-Cheimariou, A. and Daví, M., 2019. A streamlined approach for the seismic hazard assessment of a new nuclear power plant in the UK. Bulletin of earthquake engineering, 17, pp.37-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0442-5
Baker, K., 2022. Governance, depoliticization, and nuclear power in Britain and the United States. Policy Studies, 43(2), pp.296-311. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2019.1665643
Baker, K., 2023. Nuclear Power in Britain: A series of successful failures. International Review of Public Policy. https://doi.org/10.4000/irpp.3206
Barkatullah, N. and Ahmad, A., 2017. Current status and emerging trends in financing nuclear power projects. Energy Strategy Reviews, 18, pp.127-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2017.09.015
Bingham, M., 2021. Lessons Learned From the European Union Referendum to Better Promote Nuclear Energy. Journal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Science, 7(4), p.040302. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4050223
Bodel, W., Bull, A., Butler, G., Matthews, J. and Livens, F., 2022. Delivering advanced nuclear energy: the role of Government. https://nwna.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022.08.03-Dalton-Delivering-Advanced-Nuclear-Energy-The-Role-of-Government.pdf
Buongiorno, J., Corradini, M., Parsons, J. and Petti, D., 2019. Nuclear energy in a carbon-constrained world: Big challenges and big opportunities. IEEE Power and Energy Magazine, 17(2), pp.69-77. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPE.2018.2885250
Butcher, A., Stork, A.L., Verdon, J.P., Kendall, J.M., Plenkers, K., Booth, F., Boneham, M. and Koe, A., 2021. Evaluating rock mass disturbance within open-pit excavations using seismic methods: A case study from the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 13(3), pp.500-512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2020.12.001
Carpenter, A. and Energy, M.N., 2019. Investigating surface deformation surrounding Hinkley Point C using InSAR. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Anthony-Carpenter-5/publication/339460054_Investigating_surface_deformation_surrounding_Hinkley_Point_C_using_InSAR/links/5e54045f4585158f40eb4c02/Investigating-surface-deformation-surrounding-Hinkley-Point-C-using-InSAR.pdf
Castor, J., Bacha, K. and Nerini, F.F., 2020. SDGs in action: A novel framework for assessing energy projects against the sustainable development goals. Energy research & social science, 68, p.101556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101556
Claici, A. and Maier, N., 2019. PAKS II: State aid for Electricity in Hungary· State aid Case SA. 38454 Hungary Paks II nuclear power station· Annotation by Adina Claici and Norbert Maier. European State Aid Law Quarterly: EStAL, 18(1), pp.76-83. https://doi.org/10.21552/estal/2019/1/9
Daniel, E. and Daniel, P.A., 2019. Megaprojects as complex adaptive systems: The Hinkley point C case. International Journal of Project Management, 37(8), pp.1017-1033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2019.05.001
Flyvbjerg, B., 2021. Four ways to scale up: smart, dumb, forced, and fumbled. arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.11104.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2101.11104
Fouquet, D., 2018. The Hinkley Point C Judgment of the General Court in view of a changing internal electricity market. Renewable Energy Law and Policy Review, 9(1), pp.35-43. https://doi.org/10.4337/relp.2018.01.04
Glasson, J., Durning, B., Broderick, M. and Welch, K., 2021. Monitoring and auditing the local socio-economic and environmental impacts of the early stage construction of Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station, UK. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 39(2), pp.84-95. https://doi.org/10.1080/14615517.2020.1838237
Gungor, G. and Sari, R., 2022. Nuclear power and climate policy integration in developed and developing countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 169, p.112839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112839
Haas, R., Thomas, S. and Ajanovic, A., 2019. The historical development of the costs of nuclear power. The technological and economic future of nuclear power, pp.97-115. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-25987-7_5
Harvey, P., 2020. Radiation as social relation. Anthropology Today, 36(6), pp.13-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8322.12618
Jones, W.D., 2023. England’s Fission Quest. IEEE Spectrum, 60(9), pp.16-17. 10.1109/MSPEC.2023.10234177
Kühling, J. and Ruechardt, C., 2017. Nuclear Energy Reloaded–New State Aid for an Old Industry. Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 8(9), pp.561-572. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeclap/lpx056
Lehtonen, M., 2023. Brand new or more of the same nuclear?(De) constructing the economic promise of the European Pressurised Reactor in France and the UK. Science as Culture, 32(1), pp.29-57. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2022.2087505
Li, J., 2020, December. Power Peaking, Critical Boron, and Shutdown Margin Benchmark of the UK Hinkley Point C EPR using WIMS-PANTHER Deterministic Codes. In 2020 International Conference on Computing, Networking, Telecommunications & Engineering Sciences Applications (CoNTESA) (pp. 1-4). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/CoNTESA50436.2020.9302867
Matsuo, Y. and Nei, H., 2019. An analysis of the historical trends in nuclear power plant construction costs: the Japanese experience. Energy policy, 124, pp.180-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.08.067
Merk, B., Litskevich, D., Peakman, A. and Bankhead, M., 2019. IMAGINE-A disruptive change to nuclear or how can we make more out of the existing spent nuclear fuel and what has to be done to make it possible in the UK?. Atw-International Journal For Nuclear Power, 64(6-7), pp.353-359. https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/3054017/1/atw_2019-07_MERK-fin.pdf
Nicolaides, P., 2018. The compatibility of State Aid with the internal market. European State Aid Law Quarterly, 17(4), pp.534-545. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26694279
Nuttall, W.J., 2022. Nuclear renaissance: technologies and policies for the future of nuclear power. CRC Press. https://books.google.co.ke/books?hl=en&lr=&id=eIZvEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false
Ogunmakin, B.A., Koe, A. and Jean-Philippe, M., 2021, August. Rock joint scale effects in numerical modelling-Hinkley Point C, a case study. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 833, No. 1, p. 012115). IOP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/833/1/012115
Osborne, C., 2022. 2021-22 OMEGA Centre Seminar Programme, University College London, London, UK: Report on OMEGA Seminar presented on 27th October 2021 entitled: The Sizewell nuclear plant: challenges and prospects of public private-partnership in the UK, presented by Amar Qureshi and Chris Wright, Agilia Infrastructure Partners, London. Journal of Mega Infrastructure & Sustainable Development, 2(3), pp.323-325. https://doi.org/10.1080/24724718.2022.2069392
Osička, J., Černoch, F., Zapletalová, V. and Lehotský, L., 2021. Too good to be true: Sugarcoating nuclear energy in the Czech national energy strategy. Energy Research & Social Science, 72, p.101865. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101865
Parkinson, D., Kukla, K. and Clear, S., 2021. Designing Resilience: Seismic Analysis and Civil Design of Hinkley Point C Offshore Heat Sink. Journal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Science, 7(4), p.045001. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4052125
Pemberton, B., 2017. Control, historic pitfalls, and the UK nuclear renaissance. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(6), pp.481-489. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1139590
Pieńkowski, L., 2021. Nuclear Power: Myths vs. Realities. ACADEMIA-The magazine of the Polish Academy of Sciences, pp.79-83. https://journals.pan.pl/Content/120870/079-083_Pienkowski_ang.pdf
Pomponi, F. and Hart, J., 2021. The greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy–Life cycle assessment of a European pressurised reactor. Applied Energy, 290, p.116743. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116743
Roh, S., Choi, J.Y. and Chang, S.H., 2019. Modeling of nuclear power plant export competitiveness and its implications: The case of Korea. Energy, 166, pp.157-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.10.041
Sainati, T., Locatelli, G. and Smith, N., 2019. Project financing in nuclear new build, why not? The legal and regulatory barriers. Energy policy, 129, pp.111-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.01.068
Salakhetdinov, E.R. and Sidorov, V.A., 2018. Russian projects and energy cooperation in South Africa. Studies on Russian Economic Development, 29, pp.336-342. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1075700718030139
Saunders, F.C. and Townsend, E.A., 2019. Delivering new nuclear projects: a megaprojects perspective. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 12(1), pp.144-160. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-03-2018-0039
Sikora, A., 2020. Applicability of the EU State Aid and Environmental Rules in the Nuclear Energy Sector. European State Aid Law Quarterly, 19(4), pp.515-520. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48685872
Smyth, H., Lecoeuvre, L. and Vaesken, P., 2018. Co-creation of value and the project context: Towards application on the case of Hinkley Point C Nuclear Power Station. International journal of project management, 36(1), pp.170-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.04.013
Stanescu, C.G., 2018. Stabilization Mechanisms for Nuclear Investments vs. Electricity Market Liberalization: The Case of Contract forDifference. Lessons from theUnited Kingdom and Romania. European Energy and Environmental Law Review, 27(6). https://doi.org/10.54648/eelr2018028
Stašáková, T. and Vlček, T., 2022. The multiple‐criteria decision analysis of the financial and business models for the construction of new nuclear unit in the Czech Republic. Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 29(3-4), pp.230-243. https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1770
Terlikowski, P., Paska, J., Pawlak, K., Kaliński, J. and Urbanek, D., 2019. Modern financial models of nuclear power plants. Progress in Nuclear Energy, 110, pp.30-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2018.09.010
Thomas, S. and Ramana, M.V., 2022. A hopeless pursuit? National efforts to promote small modular nuclear reactors and revive nuclear power. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, 11(4), p.e429. https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.429
Thomas, S.T.E.V.E., DORFMAN, P., MORRIS, S. and Ramana, M.V., 2019. Prospects for small modular reactors in the UK & worldwide. Nuclear Free Local Authorities, Nuclear Consulting Group, p.p24. https://sppga.cms.arts.ubc.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/09/sub277-Attachment-2.pdf
Tromans, I.J., Aldama-Bustos, G., Douglas, J., Lessi-Cheimariou, A., Hunt, S., Daví, M., Musson, R.M., Garrard, G., Strasser, F.O. and Robertson, C., 2019. Probabilistic seismic hazard assessment for a new-build nuclear power plant site in the UK. Bulletin of earthquake engineering, 17, pp.1-36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0441-6
Tromans, S., 2019. State support for nuclear new build. The Journal of World Energy Law & Business, 12(1), pp.36-51. https://doi.org/10.1093/jwelb/jwy035
Turner, J.R. and Xue, Y., 2018. On the success of megaprojects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11(3), pp.783-805. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-06-2017-0062
Van Ness, P., 2017. Lessons of Fukushima: Nine reasons why. LEARNING FROM, p.349. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/31083/1/639354.pdf#page=375
Wang, Y., Gu, J. and Wu, J., 2020. Explaining local residents’ acceptance of rebuilding nuclear power plants: The roles of perceived general benefit and perceived local benefit. Energy Policy, 140, p.111410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111410
Webbe-Wood, D. and Nuttall, W.J., 2023. Calculations of net present value for a small modular fusion power plant. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Energy, pp.1-10. https://doi.org/10.1680/jener.21.00103
Wrigley, P.A., Wood, P., O’Neill, S., Hall, R. and Robertson, D., 2021. Off-site modular construction and design in nuclear power: A systematic literature review. Progress in nuclear energy, 134, p.103664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2021.103664
write