The government’s decision to invest £14.2bn in nuclear energy, on top of existing funds, marks a return to significant state funding of nuclear power after Hinkley Point C, financed by the private sector, was dogged by delays and cost overruns. It is also a decisive shift in energy policy. Ministers have high hopes of a nuclear energy renaissance. Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, described the prospect of a new reactor in Suffolk, Sizewell C, combined with new money for modular reactor development and fusion research, as a “golden age”. This was a striking choice of words from the greenest voice in the cabinet.
The Climate Change Committee’s latest advice to the government took a more restrained view of nuclear, which drew industry ire. Mr Miliband’s commitment to renewable energy is not in doubt. The government has made good progress on wind and solar – although the cancellation of an offshore wind project was a step backwards. Nuclear is meant to complement support for renewables and speed up the transition away from gas. That, at least, is the theory, and Labour’s bet reflects a broader shift across Europe. The other part of the calculation made by ministers including Rachel Reeves – whose department made the announcement – is jobs. Sizewell C is expected to employ 10,000 people, including 1,500 apprentices.
Rolls-Royce SMR has beaten off competition to become the first business in the UK to try to build reactors out of factory-made modules. While this technology remains unproven, the UK has a stronger track record of this kind of manufacture than it does on big, site-specific infrastructure. With this vote of confidence in British business, Labour hopes to gain its own boost from voters, and take on climate sceptics at the same time. But one need not be anti-nuclear to see that big questions remain unresolved. Cost is the most obvious one, with nuclear energy far more expensive than wind – although the price of the latter is rising. Somerset’s Hinkley Point C could cost double the original projected price. Ministers seem convinced that things will be better in future, but it is hard to see why.
Waste and safety are the other two perennial problems with nuclear that are often downplayed. Currently, much of the UK’s existing nuclear waste is stored at Sellafield in Cumbria. But safety risks have been raised about this site, which is not a permanent solution. Another issue is the relationship with defence and the way that investment in civil nuclear schemes can provide a hidden subsidy to the military. A further question is the role of tech companies. The initial decision to invest in small modular reactors (SMRs) appeared to coincide with efforts to court AI businesses. Datacentres’ seemingly unlimited appetite for power has also spurred Donald Trump to throw his weight behind new nuclear.
In a climate emergency, there is a case for nuclear energy as part of a decarbonised energy system. But nuclear alone won’t deliver net zero; it must be part of a wider, coherent strategy that includes energy efficiency and renewables. Ministers must, for example, have stricter green building rules to get to net zero. The Tories’ lax approach to regulation, despite their commitment to a legally binding climate target, was shameful. What is clear is that ministers need to explain this week’s decisions in more detail than they have so far.
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.