Archived version of AP article (archive.org)
“Britain to invest further 14.2 billion pounds in Sizewell C nuclear project” (Reuters)
Reuters article:
- Summary
- Takes total government investment to 17.8 billion pounds
- Project will supply 6 million homes with electricity
- Total expected cost of the project not revealed
LONDON, June 10 (Reuters) - Britain will invest a further 14.2 billion pounds ($19.25 billion) to build the Sizewell C nuclear plant in southeast England, the government said on Tuesday, as part of its wider spending review which will define its priorities over the next four years.
Britain is seeking to build new nuclear plants to replace its ageing fleet to boost its energy security, reach its climate targets and also create new jobs.
Make sense of the latest ESG trends affecting companies and governments with the Reuters Sustainable Switch newsletter. Sign up here.
The funding announced on Tuesday takes the total amount the government has committed to the project to 17.8 billion pounds, with 3.6 billion pounds invested prior to the spending review.
“This Labour Government is launching a new era of nuclear power here in Britain,” Chancellor Rachel Reeves told a trade union conference on Tuesday, calling the investment the biggest rollout of nuclear power in a generation.
The Sizewell C plant in Suffolk is expected to create around 10,000 jobs during the peak of construction, and produce enough electricity to power around 6 million homes when built.
Britain has been seeking to bring new investors into the project but Tuesday’s announcement did not mention any other parties.
The government has not said how much the project is expected to cost in total or given a date for when it is expected to be completed.
“With the continued secrecy about Sizewell C’s total cost, how can voters decide whether the 18 billion pounds pledged to Sizewell C is a good use of their money?” said Alison Downes of campaign group Stop Sizewell C.
It would be only the second new nuclear plant built in Britain in more than two decades, after French state-owned EDF’s Hinkley Point C which has had several delays and cost overruns and is currently expected to start operations in 2029, with an estimated cost of between 31 and 34 billion pounds at 2015 prices.
EDF initially said Sizewell C would be around 20% cheaper than Hinkley C.
Simone Rossi, CEO of EDF in the UK welcomed the British government’s decision to go ahead with Sizewell C and said: “It is also a vote of confidence in Hinkley Point C, which has re-started the UK nuclear industry and built the experience and skills that will benefit Sizewell C.”
Sizewell C was originally being developed by EDF and China’s General Nuclear Power Group but the government bought out the Chinese firms stake in 2022 amid security concerns.
The UK government’s stake was 83.8% and EDF’s stake was 16.2% at the end of December, EDF financial results showed in February with EDF’s stake expected to decrease following Tuesday’s announcement.
The project’s developer last December told Reuters there were five investors involved in a bidding process.
($1 = 0.7378 pounds)
At least the UK blocks China from investing in Sizewell C amid growing concerns over Chinese influence in British infrastructure, according to energy secretary Ed Miliband as per BBC Radio 4. Other foreign government investments are not ruled out but will undergo national security checks, Miliband said. (China held a stake in the Sizewell C nuclear power station, but the UK government forced Beijing out in 2022, spending £679m to buy out the China General Nuclear Corporation.)
That really expensive, will get more expensive and could totally buy a lot of solar & wind
Sure, we could buy lots of solar and wind but we need to diversify our energy supply. If we only had wind and solar and one day all of a sudden there happens to be not enough wind and solar that could cause huge energy instability. Or, what if the Russians cut a cable that brings energy from a large offshore wind/solar farm leading to power uncertainty in the country.
Obviously those scenarios are unlikely but that doesn’t mean they can’t happen. Having solid, reliable energy is one of the most important things a country needs to be prosperous. Is nuclear perfect? Fuck no, but it’s way better than coal, LNG, or any other fossil fuel energy source that we currently use. I believe having more nuclear power stations to provide a solid fallback option is always beneficial even if they are expensive and are imperfect
Where are they planning to source their fissile materials from?
What do they do with the radioactive waste?
First major plant since the 90s? Does Hinckley point C not count as a major nuclear plant?
Sizewell C too. I assume they mean finished plants.
Hinckley isn’t even mentioned in the article, the major plant they refer to is Sizewell B.
No new nuclear plant has been opened in the U.K. since Sizewell B in 1995.
Fuck yeah. Nice stable carbon-free power. Glad to see it!
Agreed, we need to replace any fossil fuel baseload we currently have with something and nuclear is a good (though not perfect) option
Offshore wind is a fraction of the cost, with none of the downsides of nuclear (getting fuel and getting rid of fuel). And the UK is literally surrounded by seas.
And don’t start giving me that “baseload” garbage. There’ll always be enough wind spread across the country to power everything two times over and stool come out cheaper.
Disregarding the idea of base load is crazy. Sure, wind and solar can provide enough energy but their supply is still not as consistent and a powerplant. We also don’t have battery technology good enough to store the exces and release it when needed. We saw in spain that if your power system is too reliant on wind/solar and there is a sudden change in the supply/demand that it can cause the system to fuck up. We need base load it fill in those gaps of low supply.
Of course there are alternatives. Pumped storage is the most reliable energy storage system. Could use geothermal too. But both require the geography. Nuclear just needs a big body of water which the UK has.
Another thing to consider is the security risks offshore wind/solar have. The Russians could decide to cut the power cables leading from a big wind farm and that could fuck up the power system until it’s fixed. If we had base load in the form of nuclear then the impact such an attach could have may be minimise.
Is nuclear perfect, fuck no. But the technology is well understood and until hydrogen or nuclear fusion are realised, we can be building something that can replace fossil fuel base load
First of all, it’s not for sure that there’ll “always” be enough wind, especially in a changing climate. That said, the UK is blessed with extremely plentiful wind resources, and it’s great that the UK is continuing to take advantage of that resource, but it also makes a lot of sense to keep the domestic nuclear industry alive.
The UK is building out more HVDC connections to neighbouring countries, including one to to Germany, and there there will continue to be strong demand in Germany for imported electricity. Having more domestic electricity production means cheaper electricity at home, and more opportunities to trade electricity with the continent.
Also, by keeping nuclear power expertise alive and developing it further in the UK, the UK will be better positioned to help build nuclear power plants in friendly countries who don’t have as stable wind resources as the UK.
This investment is not necessarily in conflict with the UK’s investments in wind power.
