Last year in opposition, Keir Starmer accused the then Conservative government of a ‘shambolic’ failure to open any new nuclear power plants during their time in office – calling nuclear a ‘critical part’ of Britain’s energy mix.
Labour’s election manifesto was similarly committed to the technology, saying that ‘The Government’s dither and delay has denied us clean, reliable power’.
In my view, this analysis is entirely correct. But what worries me is that two months after Labour has entered office, there are signs that the urgency is not quite there.
On the positive side, the new Government has committed to supporting the two nuclear projects currently in development: Hinkley Point C in Somerset, which is deep in the construction phase, and Sizewell C in Suffolk, which is currently at the tail end of an interminable planning process.
Similarly, the Government has made encouraging noises about supporting Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) – a new type of nuclear technology that could mean in the future we supplement our large existing nuclear sites with multiple smaller, cheaper plants. The current plan is to have ‘final investment decisions’ for two new SMRs made by 2029.
But on the other hand, Labour have yet to recommit to the same target as the last government, of securing investment decisions that will deliver an additional 3-7 gigawatts of nuclear energy every five years from 2030 to 2044 – roughly equivalent to three or four additional nuclear power stations.
In fact – Ed Miliband as the new Energy Secretary is reportedly considering scrapping the plan, and ending government support for plans to build a new nuclear plant at Wylfa in North Wales.
And though SMRs are an exciting new technology that could cover some of that reduced capacity, they are commercially unproven – and by definition deliver less energy than their traditional predecessors. A typical SMR, may deliver anywhere between 50 and 300 megawatts of energy – a fraction of the multiple gigawatts a traditional nuclear plant can.
So am I alone in thinking that the Government should be more ambitious?
The promise of energy abundance
Fundamentally, the big problem with nuclear power is that it takes ages to build. This is a problem that was famously identified by Nick Clegg back in 2010, who argued that new nuclear plants could take up to a decade before they begin generating energy. He wasn’t wrong. Hinkley Point C, on which construction began in 2016, will only start generating electricity in 2031. The ribbon on Sizewell C will probably be cut by a King William who will be approaching retirement age.
And this probably partially explains the lack of focus so far. Because nuclear takes so long to build, there’s no way the technology can realistically contribute to Labour’s ‘mission’ to fully have the national grid be 100% renewable energy by 2030, beyond what nuclear capacity already exists.
But even if this is the case, and even if the Government does somehow manage to complete the mission using solar, wind and battery storage alone, this doesn’t mean that nuclear power won’t be important afterwards – because the world will continue to exist, and energy demand will continue to rise.
And it is this latter point that I think makes the strongest case for being more ambitious on nuclear.
Currently, energy plans are premised on replacing existing fossil-fuelled sources of electricity, and meeting some rather conservative demand estimates. For example, inexplicably current modelling seems to think that data centres, which currently account for 2.5% of UK energy consumption, won’t continue to grow and will almost plateau as we approach 2050.
But aside from this being a mad assumption to make, I think it fails to recognise the potential for what nuclear can do. If we deploy nuclear power at a much greater scale, we have an opportunity to not just replace the electricity generation we already have, but also make much more electricity.
If we do this, this unlocks potentially huge opportunities for both economic growth and climate mitigation.
For example, if abundant nuclear energy can make domestic energy bills even cheaper, that’s more money households can spend on other, more productivity-enhancing things. If we can make it cheaper to run data centres, we can ensure that Britain becomes a major player in the AI revolution, with the capacity to train power-hungry AI models.
There are huge industrial opportunities for abundant clean power too. Useful industrial processes, like the production of green hydrogen or the desalination of water are currently constrained by the cost of the huge amounts of energy they require – but if energy was cheaper, suddenly they become more viable. The same goes for other materials like synthetic fuels that could be used in aviation, or green ammonia, which can be used as fertiliser.
And most exciting of all, abundant green energy would mean that maybe we can finally make the direct air capture of carbon commercially viable – meaning that we can mitigate climate change not just through greater efficiency and eco-austerity, but by sucking carbon emissions out of the air directly. This would be good for the planet – and it would position Britain as a green tech superpower.
So with the right ambitions, nuclear power could be more than just a means of generating electricity – it could be an engine for economic growth. Let’s not ‘dither and delay’, and make it happen.
On October 15, James O’Malley will be talking nuclear with science communicator and climate activist Zion Lights in London. Find out more and get your tickets here.
Click here to subscribe to our daily briefing – the best pieces from CapX and across the web.
CapX depends on the generosity of its readers. If you value what we do, please consider making a donation.
