The Sizewell C nuclear plant represents a fork in the road to net zero in the UK; division is rife on whether the project is the right step towards climate targets to 2030 and beyond

From former bank of England governors to policy leads for respected industry bodies, many claim that without nuclear development, net zero is under threat, but does this ultimatum muzzle criticism of the length and cost of nuclear projects?

Published

November 15, 2022

The case for the Sizewell C nuclear plant

Nuclear energy is suggested to be ideally suited to assist in decarbonising the electrical supply because it is a well-established, large-scale, low-emissions energy source. According to the IEA's Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario (NZE), emissions from the energy sector will decrease by around 40% from 2020 to 2030 and reach net zero by 2050. Nuclear energy is an important facet of this transition, even if renewable sources predominate and account for around 90% of the electrical supply in the NZE.[i]

But it isn’t just clean credentials that are making a case for new nuclear power in the UK; the Russian invasion of Ukraine has heightened ambitions to improve the self-sufficiency of the UK’s energy system. A large increase in nuclear energy is anticipated under the UK's Energy Security strategy, with a goal of up to 24 GW by 2050. This could account for up to 25% of the anticipated British demand for electricity. Great British Nuclear, a new government organisation, will be established to support the new projects. The UK has committed to constructing Hinkley Point C in Somerset, the first brand-new nuclear power plant in a generation, which would deliver 3.2 GW of safe, low-carbon electricity for about 60 years to power almost 6 million homes and create 25,000 jobs.[ii]

Source: Sizewell C

The plan for Sizewell C has not come without criticism. Some cite that a strategy aiming to ensure energy independence relying on French company EDF (which would have a 20% stake in the project under current plans) is inappropriate.[iii] Campaign group “Stop Sizewell C” raised a litany of their own concerns, including the amount of time the project will take, the carbon cost of the project and the prospect of the RAB (Regulated Asset Base) funding model that would see the plant financed by a “nuclear tax” on energy bills.[iv] Furthermore, the resilience of nuclear projects to climate crisis-related extreme weather is also being raised as a potential issue for nuclear projects on a wider scale.[v] It would appear that the project is at a crossroads, although seemingly not due to pressures from critics but rather due to the economic pressures facing the UK, with a government official telling the BBC that all major projects were under review.[vi] Downing Street has since denied these claims.[vii]

A divisive decision that could shape the UK’s path to net zero

Support for Sizewell C is vociferous in its defence of the project, with many proponents categorically claiming that abandoning the project would be a death sentence for net zero in the UK. According to former Bank of England governor Mark Carney, Sizewell's cancellation would jeopardise the government's legally binding goal of achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. Mr Carney told BBC radio 4:

“If they’re not going to finance a new nuclear power plant, they have to answer what else they’re going to do for zero-emission so-called baseload energy, to meet the needs of the UK economy in the future.”[viii]

The Institute for Civil Engineers’ policy director Chris Richards echoed this sentiment:

"Public infrastructure projects are critical for economic growth and to meet our levelling up and net zero objectives. Rather than thinking about these projects as a cost, we need to think about them as an investment in our future,"[ix]

These are very compelling arguments, largely as they build upon the already compelling argument for net zero. Seeing the two as intrinsically linked means that the former benefits from the overwhelming support for the latter whilst not needing to properly address the concerns of critics.

Firstly, the development of nuclear power is excruciatingly slow in the face of a more catastrophic climate crisis that demands answers immediately, such as meeting the EU's 2030 targets of lowering carbon dioxide emissions by 55% below 1990 levels. Since 2000, only Finland's Olkiluoto-3 reactors have been conceived, launched, commissioned, funded, built, and placed online in Europe. European Pressurized Reactors, one of Europe's most important nuclear projects, have had delays from the beginning. The Finnish Olkiluoto-3 reactors, which were supposed to start operating in 2009, are still not heating houses. The average construction project takes ten years to complete worldwide, including the planning, licencing, site preparation, and financial arrangements.[x] If the Sizewell C plant were to take this average of 10 years to complete, it would be online before 2035, when the UK hopes to achieve a 78% reduction in carbon emissions; however, Stop Sizewell claim that EDF’s estimates mean that it would take an additional four years after coming online to offset the carbon cost of its construction, this would mean that the project would not be able to contribute to meeting the aforementioned 2035 target.[xi] It is also conceivable that by the time the Sizewell C plant is ready to run, the environmental impacts that the world is experiencing due to climate change will be a factor in the safe and effective running of the plant. The recent record-breakingly hot summer in Europe saw between 1/3 and 1/2 of France’s nuclear power stations having to cease operations due to corrosion or rivers used for cooling being too warm to use.[xii]

The answer is not simple. The world needs to decarbonise its energy system, and nuclear energy is a path to doing so. But how can genuine concerns around the length of time it takes as well as how future climate change could impact its operations be addressed beyond just the claims that nuclear is a net zero necessity?