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.
What began on Feb. 28 as a military campaign against Iran quickly became the largest energy-supply disruption in modern times. Unlike the oil crises of the 1970s, which stemmed from producer-led embargoes, US President Donald Trump is the first leader in modern history to trigger a cascading global energy crisis through direct military action. In the process, Trump has also laid bare Taiwan’s strategic and economic fragilities, offering Beijing a real-time tutorial in how to exploit them. Repairing the damage to Persian Gulf oil and gas infrastructure could take years, suggesting that elevated energy prices are likely to persist. But the most
In late January, Taiwan’s first indigenous submarine, the Hai Kun (海鯤, or Narwhal), completed its first submerged dive, reaching a depth of roughly 50m during trials in the waters off Kaohsiung. By March, it had managed a fifth dive, still well short of the deep-water and endurance tests required before the navy could accept the vessel. The original delivery deadline of November last year passed months ago. CSBC Corp, Taiwan, the lead contractor, now targets June and the Ministry of National Defense is levying daily penalties for every day the submarine remains unfinished. The Hai Kun was supposed to be
Most schoolchildren learn that the circumference of the Earth is about 40,000km. They do not learn that the global economy depends on just 160 of those kilometers. Blocking two narrow waterways — the Strait of Hormuz and the Taiwan Strait — could send the economy back in time, if not to the Stone Age that US President Donald Trump has been threatening to bomb Iran back to, then at least to the mid-20th century, before the Rolling Stones first hit the airwaves. Over the past month and a half, Iran has turned the Strait of Hormuz, which is about 39km wide at
There is a peculiar kind of political theater unfolding in East Asia — one that would be laughable if its consequences were not so dangerous. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) on April 12 returned from Beijing, where she met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and spoke earnestly about preserving “peace” and maintaining the “status quo.” It is a position that sounds responsible, even prudent. It is also a fiction. Taiwan is, by any honest definition, an independent country. It governs itself, defends itself, elects its leaders, and functions as a free and sovereign democracy. Independence is not a
RSS