The UK is embarking on its most ambitious nuclear expansion in decades. It has committed billions of pounds to new projects, including a large-scale reactor in the southeast, a proposed small modular reactor led by Rolls-Royce Holdings, and some of the world’s most advanced fusion research. After decades of drift, this marks a welcome shift. However, it is also a test — not just of energy policy, but also of Britain’s ability to take on big projects of all kinds.
Nuclear is one of the few low-carbon technologies capable of delivering reliable, round-the-clock baseload power at scale. With all but one of the UK’s existing reactors set to retire, new capacity is urgently needed. Industrial electricity prices are about four times higher than in the US and 46 percent above the median for advanced economies, squeezing consumers and companies alike.
However, ambition alone would not power new factories. Although Britain built the world’s first commercial nuclear plant in 1956, its edge was lost long ago. Hinkley Point C, intended as a new flagship, is years delayed and far over budget, with cost estimates rising from ￡18 billion (US$24.4 billion) in 2016 to ￡46 billion. The application for planning approval ran well over 30,000 pages. About 7,000 design changes were reportedly required to meet regulatory demands. Despite the British government’s claims to support nuclear, it still took nine years to reach a final investment decision — announced last month — for a similar plant, Sizewell C.
These failures are not primarily technical. Nuclear fission is a mature science. Other countries, such as South Korea, have delivered projects on time and at reasonable cost. The UK’s real obstacles lie in fragmented governance, overzealous regulation and flawed project management. As the British government tries to navigate a new nuclear era, it should bear a few key principles in mind.
One is the value of replication. Repeating proven designs speeds delivery and helps reduce expenses. The European Pressurized Reactor used at Hinkley was far from a flawless blueprint, but using an approved design still beats the risks of reinventing midstream. Britain’s best chance of staying on schedule and controlling costs is to avoid disruptive changes once construction begins.
Another critical lesson is the need to cut red tape. The British Office for Nuclear Regulation plays a vital safety role, but the process must be proportionate, predictable and responsive when things go wrong. Excessive meddling adds cost without necessarily improving outcomes. Safety regulators should work in parallel with those overseeing affordability, energy security and emissions targets. The British Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, and the National Audit Office can play an early-warning role.
Even with prudent governance, plenty of risks remain. A new public body, Great British Energy – Nuclear (GBE-N) would oversee the UK’s first small modular reactor (SMR) program. SMRs could offer a safer, cheaper, more flexible alternative to traditional plants. However, details of the new project are scarce. Unless GBE-N has the authority to enforce timelines and replace underperforming contractors, delays could mount again.
Finally, public confidence hinges on getting value for money. The Hinkley plant has been criticized as uncompetitive with other low-carbon options. The Sizewell project, which would use a regulated asset base model, plans to spread costs by allowing investors to earn returns during construction, funded partly by a small surcharge on energy bills. However, if delays resurface or oversight fails, households and taxpayers would bear the burden. The British government must act like a real shareholder, demanding capable leadership, transparency and early intervention when needed.
New reactors alone would not fix the UK’s outdated grid or eliminate the need for energy efficiency, but this is possibly the country’s last real shot at restoring a robust domestic nuclear program. Success would mean cleaner energy, high-quality jobs and greater energy independence. It would also provide a much-needed vote of confidence in Britain’s ability to build.
The Bloomberg Editorial Board publishes the views of the editors across a range of national and global affairs.
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
Despite calls to the contrary from their respective powerful neighbors, Taiwan and Somaliland continue to expand their relationship, endowing it with important new prospects. Fitting into this bigger picture is the historic Coast Guard Cooperation Agreement signed last month. The common goal is to move the already strong bilateral relationship toward operational cooperation, with significant and tangible mutual benefits to be observed. Essentially, the new agreement commits the parties to a course of conduct that is expressed in three fundamental activities: cooperation, intelligence sharing and technology transfer. This reflects the desire — shared by both nations — to achieve strategic results within
RSS