The same signal was achieved in live memory after the launch of Sizewell B in 1995. If the climate crisis was not enough reason, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has crystallized the case for any energy technology that allows us to avoid fossil fuels supplied by foreign despots. This week, the prime minister is expected to outline his plan to make the UK more energy self-sufficient, with nuclear power likely to be a key component. However, fully charging for a nuclear future is by no means simple, if history wants to pass. Even when the UK generated a quarter of its electricity from nuclear, the journey there was long and uneven. The Sizewell B was connected to the national grid in 1995, but was first announced in 1969, with the sticks only breaking out in 1986. More recently, the industry has been in steady decline. Since that peak in the mid-1990s, capacity has dropped from almost 13 GW to 6.8 GW, about 16-18% of the electricity mix. Hunterson B retired this year, Hinckley Point B is leaving this summer and by the time Hartpool I and Haysham I leave the grid in 2024, nuclear capacity will have dropped to a whopping 3.6 GW, just 5-6% of what you would do is needed at 6 p.m. a cold everyday in winter. Hinkley Point C is going to recover 3.2 GW of lost ground, but only until 2027, provided there are no new delays. It’s almost not enough to get close to Johnson’s goal. This will require the successful completion of almost every nuclear project that has been discussed in recent years, including some that have been difficult to proceed with so far. It would probably mean extending the life of Sizewell B and giving the green light to Sizewell C, which stopped when the government had cooled down over Chinese involvement. Wylfa on Anglesey, which stopped after the departure of the Japanese company Hitachi in 2020 due to lack of public investment, should be included in the mix. Also consider Rolls-Royce “mini-nuclear” small reactors, which are state-backed but carry the risk of innovation. Some of the small GE Hitachi partnership reactors may also need to be included. All this brings you to about 15 GW, which is likely to fall below 25% of demand in 2050, after considering that moving to zero will involve significant electricity, heating for homes and vehicles, in order to release carbon. Some in the nuclear industry dare to breathe the names of semi-mythical sites such as Oldbury and Moorside, where large-scale nuclear projects were abandoned but could rise from their slumber. The government, which used to be cordial but nuclear-minded, seems to be holding back such ideas, with minds focusing on high fossil fuel prices. As Tom Greatrex, CEO of the Nuclear Industry Association, puts it: [oil and gas] is not a good place to be. ” There are fences for jumping. Funding problems have paid off in major projects in the past. The Treasury Department has not yet sealed proposals for a regulated asset-based financing model (RAB) that could boost private investment by transferring part of the multi-billion pound project risk to taxpayers. The UK must also address the issue of “taxation”, which has already been settled in the EU, which determines whether nuclear power is suitable for investment funds using environmental and social criteria. There is also a question mark over the number of skilled engineers available, especially if nuclear boost is repeated across Europe. But George Borovas, head of nuclear practice at the global law firm Hunton Andrew’s Kurth, believes the United Kingdom is among the countries in the world with the best nuclear power. “The UK has done the preliminary work, it has done the site assessment, it has a sophisticated regulator, good heavy industry and an existing fleet. “I always thought the United Kingdom was a great place for new nuclear weapons.”
