Britain Prepares To Go All-In On Nuclear Power - After Years of Dither (politico.eu) 55
Britain is moving toward major nuclear power commitments after years of delays, as government officials acknowledge they can no longer postpone critical energy infrastructure decisions. The U.K. Treasury has exhausted options for delaying nuclear power choices, Politico reported this week, citing sources within Whitehall and the nuclear industry.
The urgency stems from Britain's aging nuclear infrastructure, where five power plants currently supply 15% of the country's total energy needs but face shutdown by 2030. This timeline has created significant pressure on policymakers to secure replacement capacity or risk substantial gaps in the nation's electricity supply.
The urgency stems from Britain's aging nuclear infrastructure, where five power plants currently supply 15% of the country's total energy needs but face shutdown by 2030. This timeline has created significant pressure on policymakers to secure replacement capacity or risk substantial gaps in the nation's electricity supply.
Or... (Score:1)
They could keep those plants running.
Re:Or... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it's not like they can just rename a horribly unsafe plant that's spread iodine-131 and strontium-90 across Europe and suddenly have it safe again under a new name.
Oh, wait....
Re: (Score:3)
What case do you think you're taking about? It surely cannot be the Windscale fire, where they shut down the sibling reactor and built no more of the design -- describing that as "just rename a horribly unsafe plant" would be rank dishonesty.
Re:Or... (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. When you live in a fantasy world where you believe end of life is not a real concept that exists then you could keep those plants running.
By 2030 4 of the 5 plants will be close to retirement age. I mean real retirement age, there will be people born after these plants started construction going into retirement with these plants.
Sizewell B on the other hand will be relatively young but that one isn't scheduled for decommissioning until 2055 at which point it will be close to 70 years since it started construction.
Re: (Score:3)
The oldest equipment in the London Underground line has rolling stock from 2001 and a safety and control system from 2014. And that line is being upgraded now meaning by the end of this year the oldest London Underground will have equipment from 2006 (different line). And rails are repairable on an as needs basis, unlike a nuclear reactor.
No the London underground doesn't keep going until gods know when. They also suffer from the concept of end of life, and it only has about half the life of a nuclear power
So I have an alternative (Score:2)
For me there are two major takeaways from the Fukushima disaster.
The first is that an entire city had to be evacuated
Re: (Score:2)
You can't run safe nuclear power plants in a society that does dumb shit like that. No matter how good the tech is.
Indeed. Not that the tech is good, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because there's absolutely no issues with running these things beyond their designed lifetime.
Hint: engineers declared a "lifetime" based on actual things like math, physics, and materials science experience; not because they were checking a box on a form.
Will Net Zero Strategy in Limbo? (Score:4, Insightful)
Took them long enough. Honestly, at this rate, they’ll probably end up delaying—or possibly quietly scrapping—the whole net zero push. They need to sort out their own economic mess first before chasing big ideological targets. Fix the balance sheet, then talk ambition.
Re: (Score:1)
The more things heat up with Russia and Ukraine, China and Taiwan, Israel and the rest aronud about the Red Sea, and the Panama Canal and other issues in Central and South America, there's going to be threats to international trade that brings in vital energy to the British Isles. They are going to have to "fix the balance sheet" in parallel with their efforts on nuclear fission.
Maybe they can "scrap the whole net zero push" but I don't see that as impacting their decision to build more nuclear power plant
Re: (Score:2)
and synthesis of hydrocarbon fuels
Because this has no precursors or inputs that come from outside the UK all of a sudden? For example, the industrial-scale catalyst beds that they would need to run carbon and hydrogen through, in order to make hydrocarbon chains? And where's the carbon coming from, when your own argument talks about how vulnerable their oil and gas production and importation is? Do you know of some industrial-scale carbon capture and sequestration facility that has completely escaped mention in the news which would suppl
Re:Will Net Zero Strategy in Limbo? (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately the legacy of the anti-nuclear anything ideology from the CND clowns, green hippies and their ilk has taken FAR too long to purge from the establishment. This should have been done 20 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
I share some of your skepticism, but...
Took them long enough.
No argument there. The UK’s nuclear program has moved at a glacial pace, and it’s fair to call out both parties for years of dithering. But delay doesn’t equal failure—it magnifies the cost of inaction. That’s why urgency now isn’t ideological posturing—it’s belated damage control.
Honestly, at this rate, they’ll probably end up delaying—or possibly quietly scrapping—the whole net zero push.
Possible, yes. But increasingly unlikely. Net zero is now hardwired into multiple levels of UK law, finance, and international credibility. Bac
Re: (Score:2)
Here’s where I push back. Net zero isn’t a vanity project—it’s an industrial strategy. Countries that delay now will be importing energy tech from those that didn’t. The “mess” isn’t just fiscal—it’s structural. And part of sorting it out means building resilient energy systems that don’t collapse when gas prices spike or geopolitical tensions flare.
This is a completely underrated take that a lot of people never consider. Saudi Arabia is a rich nation because they are sitting on an ocean of the energy source that powered the last 50+ years of progress.
A country that figures out energy sustainability at scale will be selling that technology to the world and become the Saudi Arabia of the 21st century.
All in on what? (Score:3)
France won't start up EPR2 till 2038 and they unlikely have the capacity to do the same in Britain. SMRs are toys.
UK will dedicate some paltry funds to SMRs for show and wait some more till EPR2 can start construction. There is nothing good to go all in on at the moment ...
Re:All in on what? (Score:4, Interesting)
The far more likely scenario is just building more gas turbines, with more renewables to keep the yearly natural gas consumption steady or declining.
It's not cheap, but unlike EPR2 it's available.
Re:All in on what? (Score:4, Informative)
Today the UK is about 40% renewables, averaged over the year. It varies depending on the weather, and the percentage is increasing. There are still some huge opportunities, like a tidal system for the Severn, and massive off-shore wind farms, as well as big storage projects. All low hanging fruit, all much cheaper than the alternatives.
Gas will use the excuse that it is a placeholder for nuclear. Nuclear is already the most expensive source of electricity, and takes in excess of 20 years for us to build. By the time the first of the new generation, Hinkley Point C, comes online, it will already be obsolete and unnecessary due to the expansion of renewables and storage. Unfortunately, despite it being complete unviable, we will still have to pay for it because to get anyone to build it they had to promise a guaranteed high price for ever watt produced, no matter if anyone actually wants to buy it.
Re: (Score:1)
The recent Spanish blackouts have demonstrated that without proper storage or grid inertia renewables alone are not going to be a full solution.
While I'm all for renewables myself long term its going to take time to adapt to all the problems and costs that will impact the implementation.
There's cost factor to the end user will be the biggest one, not everyone can afford expensive power just because it's saving the planet, in which case it needs to be cheap in order to be practical.
Re: (Score:2)
The blackout in Spain was not caused by lack of inertia. Besides, there are better and cheaper ways to add inertia, if that is what is needed. For example, in Ireland they have converted old coal power stations to large spinning mass generators that provide that inertia.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear is already the most expensive source of electricity, and takes in excess of 20 years for us to build
In the U.S., the levelized cost of nuclear per megawatt hour over 20 years is 3/4 that of gas. Nuclear has a higher up-front cost, not a higher total cost. And the longer you run the nuclear plant, the better that number gets. France's EPR2 reactors looks like they will be operational in about 11 years from the start of construction.
Re: (Score:2)
We are talking about the UK, not the US.
The only people who will build nuclear in the UK are EDF, who are French. They are currently quoting a minimum of 20 years, but their current 20 year projects here are delayed. No legal issues, they are just crap at building nuclear plants.
Re: (Score:3)
SMRs are toys.
I'm confused as to why you are dismissing SMRs as mere toys. There are a diverse number of SMRs designs that generate between 20 MW and 300 MW. Depending on how you want to deploy, you can have many sites (greater redundancy and fewer substations) or you can put several in a central location and be generate power on par with a normal large-scale reactor. They are also designed to be far simpler to manage.
Re: (Score:2)
It’s fair to be skeptical. But for most Britons, it’s not just about the electrons showing up when they put the kettle on—it’s about whether they can trust the system delivering them to make sense in ten years, not just tomorrow’s news cycle.
France won't start up EPR2 till 2038 and they unlikely have the capacity to do the same in Britain.
Fair. The EPR2 schedule is long, conservative, and shaped by France's need to rebuild public trust after Flamanville. But the UK's problem isn't whether EDF can replicate EPR2 builds in France—it's that Miliband and Starmer are still
Re: (Score:2)
SMRs are toys.
I'm good with grown up toys for grown ups.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada... [www.cbc.ca]
There are lots of questions (Score:3, Interesting)
First of all, where will they get the money from to do so? Nuclear energy is extremely expensive, both in upfront investment costs and in running the plants.
Second, where will they get the nuclear fuel from? Yes, Belarus and Russia are big exporters, but what if the political situation worsens and it's no longer a good idea to import fuel from there?
Third there's the reliability. Nuclear power plants are complex machines which rely on things like a steady source of cooling as well as regular maintenance. However Nuclear power plants are also rather large and a country typically just has a few of them. How does one deal with things like heat-waves where, for example in France, regularly large portions of the power plants need to be turned off.
Re: (Score:3)
You are talking like these aren't solved problems. If they really were showstoppers, well... the show would stop.
Number 2 and 4 for uranium production are Canada and Australia. Kazakhstan is the big dog, of course.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The only solutions are incredibly expensive. You can solve almost anything by throwing unlimited amounts of money at it, but that's probably not a good idea.
We don't really have a decent solution for waste storage either.
Speaking of solved problems, we have incredibly cheap renewable options. Big old fusion reactor with billions of years of life left on it. Super reliable tides that can provide base load.
Re: (Score:2)
The gap in cost is not as large as talking points suggest. There has been tons of analysis on this, and the answer is... complicated. Including the question of waste management. If you think anybody is building nuclear plants without a decent cost benefit analysis you're mistaken.
Too many people work backwards from the conclusion that nuclear plants don't make sense, and build their case to suit. And yet there is still activity in that industry. Must be some reason, right?
Re: (Score:2)
I am curious why you think the tides are readily plundered. Do you not think they are doing things? Things that are environmentally important, and that will collapse when energy is removed at scale? Think like the footprint of dams, but with even greater reach.
Re: (Score:2)
The tides will be minimally affected by what is being proposed for the Severn. For example, Friends of the Earth proposed tidal lagoons, which have the additional advantage of being able to be sub-divided to make the power output constant and consistent. The lagoons would themselves be beneficial to local wildlife.
The bottom line is that anything we do to generate energy is going to cause some disruption to nature, but there are also clearly some options that are much better than others. Using tidal power i
Re: (Score:2)
You are talking like these aren't solved problems.
No, you're talking out of ignorance. There's nothing "solved" about this issue. Canada and Australia can't supply much of the world (the latter doesn't even want to as opening more uranium mining is politically toxic in Australia). For countries who see Russia and the -stans as a threat, the security of nuclear fuel is a big topic on their risk management agenda.
If they really were showstoppers, well... the show would stop.
No, this is politics. Showstoppers doesn't stop anything. It merely fuels a marketing campaign leading to spectacularly stupid ideas being taken to
One answer (Re:There are lots of questions) (Score:1)
You believe cooling nuclear power plants in the UK is a problem? I checked a map and they sit in the middle of the North Atlantic. Even in the worst heat wave the sea around the islands are likely to be near freezing. A quick search of the web tells me that the water is unlikely to get above 60F in the peak summer heat. Just how cool does the cooling water need to be?
Even in France they reduce power at nuclear power plants in summer heat not for lack of cooling, it is to avoid raising the temperature of
Re: One answer (Re:There are lots of questions) (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As to cost, simple: They will continue to impoverish their population. Apparently voters in the UK like that.
As to nuclear being really bad technologically? Also simple: Just do mindless cheerleading and simply lie and claim that the other options are worse.
WWII policies ending (Score:2)
Question:
Are these large shifts in public policy, politics, and beyond just happening because the WWII generation and their boomer children have exited the public sphere?
Those two generations had a vested interest in preserving the status quo for as long as possible, especially in their 60s and later years.
The youngest boomer is 60 and likely want stability for a couple years until they exit the labor force.
UK finally listening to Dr. David JC MacKay (Score:1)
Dr. David JC MacKay was the Chief Scientific Advisor of the Department of Energy and Climate Change from 2009 to 2014, a position he was appointed to after his book/paper/website called "Without Hot Air" that went over the math and physics of varied options for energy: http://withouthotair.com/ [withouthotair.com]
For much of his career as an educator on math, physics, and energy policy he avoided making any recommendations on what should be done to meet the energy needs in the UK and around the world. He preferred to give peo
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong McKay
They should talk to Dr. Rodney McKay
A couple of Zed Pee Emms should be enough.
Re: (Score:1)
Too bad Dr. Rodney McKay is fictional. And Canadian.
Dr. Rodney McKay: [talking about the ZPM] Zed-P.M.
Brigadier General Jack O'Neill: What?
Dr. Daniel Jackson: Zee-P.M. He's Canadian.
Brigadier General Jack O'Neill: I'm sorry.
Re: (Score:1)
There are four arguments against investment in nuclear power: Olkiluoto 3, Flamanville 3, Hinkley Point C, and Vogtle.
You picked four outliers from 400+ operating nuclear power reactors on this planet to make your point? How about you look at some kind of average than cherry picking the worst to make your case? I could pick a handful of failed wind and solar project to prove those are bad options. If you don't like nuclear power then what is the alternative?
Too expensive to build run and decommision, too slow to build, unsolved waste problem.Thats why nobody wants nukes.
Right, nobody wants nuclear power, which is why you are posting that comment in a thread about the UK Treasury stating they've run out of options and will have to bu
It's just AI (Score:3)
So we're going to have even worse water shortages and we're going to have a fuck ton of poorly maintained nuclear power plants all over our cities also that we can have a shitload of white collar workers replaced by chatbots.
I am pretty sure this is why the Fermi paradox happens. A species this dumb can't possibly survive long enough to make it to the stars. Carl Sagan is rolling in his grave...
Re: (Score:2)
This wasn’t an argument. It was a vibe dump. And the vibe is “I skim headlines and call it insight.” Threads like this deserve better.
Everybody's going to be building nuclear power plants everywhere to power AI.
No, they're not. But thank you for opening with a reheated Black Mirror premise masquerading as energy policy analysis. Nuclear buildout is being driven by retiring plants, climate commitments, and energy security, not because Sam Altman has a GPU fetish. The UK isn't deploying fission reactors like WiFi routers—it’s racing to avoid a 2030 capaci
The planet is going nuclear. (Score:2)
What a stupid decision (Score:2)
Just look at the extreme prices they have to guaranee for Hinkley Point in order to make it somewhat ecconomically viable. Nuclear power is the choice of the stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean it is if you do it the way Hinkley Point was done.
Anyhoo, I think you could re title the article "After years of dither, Britain changes its mind".
Re: (Score:2)
I mean it is if you do it the way Hinkley Point was done.
And are there any indications they will do things fundamentally different? Because all civilian nuclear installations have eiother been done this way, or too cheap to be safe (see Tchernobil, Fukyshima, TMI), or both.
Nuclearis Quondam,et Futurus si non fuisset Brexit (Score:2)
The UK’s nuclear energy program is in trouble—badly behind schedule, wildly over budget, and staring down a 2030 cliff when most of its existing reactors go offline. These are known problems: nuclear is slow, expensive, and politically fraught everywhere. But Britain’s real failure wasn’t in struggling with those challenges. It was in choosing to face them alone.
Brexit didn’t invent the flaws in Hinkley Point C or the delays around Sizewell C. But it amplified them, then multip
Squandered an early lead (Score:2)
I recently read An Atomic Empire, by C.N. Hill. This is a history of the British nuclear power program.
Britain was the first country to exploit atomic energy on a large scale, and at its peak in the mid-1960s, it had generated more electricity from nuclear power than the rest of the world combined.
They invested massive amounts of money in both initial R&D and in a series of commercial reactors. The path they chose was a bit unusual (the Magnox reactors were gas-cooled), but they ended up with standardized designs that were built in decent numbers and provided up to 26% of the nation's power needs.
That changed in the 1980s, when the power generation industry was privatized. This scuttled investme