AT A GLANCE:

 

1. Nuclear is back' says business secretary
2. The debacle that is Hinkley C
3. Relative costs of nuclear vs renewables
4. Investing in new nuclear will require deep pockets and cost the UK tax and bill payer
5. SO WHY ON EARTH...?

IN DETAIL:

 

in 2022 Boris Johnson announced that Nuclear Power - something that most people thought had died a quiet death - was going to be an important element in achieving a secure electricity supply, meeting the country's energy needs in the future and acheiving climate change agreement CO2 levels.

 

While we believe that his stated target of 25% electricty generated by nuclear power was probably disingenous, just a quick and unaccountable way of apparently magicing carbon reduction targets out of thin air (Nuclear is NOT CO2 free by the way - see later), we nevertheless feel it important that the British public are made aware of why such a policy is dangerous and unacheivable and will hold back the development of truly renewable energy sources and storage.

 

That is one of the reasons why the STAND website has been revived and brought up to date, to make sure the British public are fully aware of the real facts behind nuclear power. Read on to see why none of the economic arguments add up.

 

 

1. The following article was from the BBC website in 2022

 

'Nuclear is back' says business secretary

 

Mr Kwarteng said he thought investing in nuclear was "part of the solution" to the UK's energy needs. He said "nuclear is back on the table" because it provides more decarbonised power and a sustainable energy source.

 

But building new nuclear power plants can be vastly more expensive than renewables and can take decades to build. 

 

A new law means new nuclear reactors can be funded by adding a small levy to people's bills during their construction.

 

Companies have previously pulled out of plans to build new nuclear reactors - including the one at Wylfa on Anglesey. These reactors take a lot of time and money to build, so the concern has often been around the financial risk. The government feel the way around this is to raise funds through levies on people's bills, so that risk is shared with the consumer.

 

It argues it would only add a few pounds a year to energy bills during the construction phase. But the concern is many nuclear projects - such as Hinkley - have run well over their initial budget and timescale.

BBC 

Note that this proposed levy is on top of the large taxpayer subsidies that are needed to persuade foreign companies to build proposed new nuclear power stations in the UK

 

 

AND HERE IS THE VERDICY OF THE FORMER BOSS OF EDF AS PRINTED IN THE FINANCIAL TIMES AUGUST 2025

The design of the UK’s latest nuclear power station is “terrifying”, “phenomenally complex” and “almost unbuildable”, according to Henri Proglio, a former head of EDF, the French state-owned utility behind the project. One month after the final green light for Sizewell C, 1,700 workers are on site in Suffolk, on the UK’s east coast, preparing the sandy marshland for two enormous reactors that will eventually generate enough electricity for 6mn homes. The plant will be a replica of the European Pressurised Reactor (EPR) design that is running four to six years late and 2.5 times over budget at Hinkley Point C in Somerset, which has had problems wherever it has been built, in France, Finland and China.

 

But unlike at Hinkley, where EDF was responsible for spiralling costs and took a hit of nearly €13bn after running late and over budget, the uk government and bill payers are on the hook for sizewell. The state will provide £36.5bn of debt to fund the estimated £38bn price tag and be responsible if costs go beyond £47bn. “Being able to build an EPR in the timeframe, with the planned costs? I don’t think so,” Proglio, a critic of the design, told the Financial Times. “The EPR is a machine that is phenomenally complex to build, with more rebar than concrete, it is terrifying . . . it’s almost unbuildable. As long as the design has not changed, the difficulty of building will not have changed either.”

 

Financial Times, 27th Aug 2025

 

3. RELATIVE COSTS OF NUCLEAR VS RENEWABLES

A 2018  study by the financial investment house Lazard showed the following relative costs of energy production:

 

Capital Costs	per Kw
Nuclear	$6,500 to $12,250
Wind	$1,500 to $1,550

 

Levelised costs	per MWh
Nuclear	$150
Onshore Wind	$43
Utility Solar PV	$41

 

It should be noted however, that since 2018, the cost of wind and solar energy production has fallen, while the cost of nuclear energy has risen, making the gap even wider. It should also be noted that the figures do not include the cost of decommissioning (decommissioning all our own nuclear power stations has been calculated to cost £132bn over 100 year, The Guardian, and House of Commons Public Accounts Committee 2022)

 

Neither do they show the cost of disposing of nuclear waste, a figure which is virtually unquantifiable but - if a way is ever found of disposing of nuclear waste - will almost certainly be considerable.

 

4. INVESTING IN NEW NUCLEAR WILL REQUIRE DEEP POCKETS.

Energy Voice, in a 30th July 2025 article says:

"The total tally for the UK’s latest bet on nuclear power, Sizewell C, is highly likely to rise above the cost of Hinkley Point C. The question is, will the potential savings for low-carbon power next decade justify the cost?

"Taken together, the impact of project overruns and inflation could push up the estimated £38 billion price tag of the nuclear power project, in 2024 prices, by between almost £10bn and £20bn or more. That is because the £47.7bn upper cost threshold set for the project by government – which Energy Voice reported on the day a final investment decision was made, would be funded by £36.6bn of new debt finance from the UK National Wealth Fund (NWF) – is a moving target.

 

"Priced in ‘real’ terms today, that cost ceiling will rise further with inflation, making the true cost of Sizewell C likely to be far greater than the incomplete nuclear power station in Somerset, despite the fact that as a replica it was meant to be cheaper due to economies of scale. Independent analysis from the House of Commons Library shows energy bills would need to rise to cover the extra spend."

 

Independent analysis from the House of Commons Library shows energy bills would need to rise to cover the extra spend. This is because the agreement struck between the UK Government and French state-owned EDF means that the bulk of any cost over-runs would be borne by the UK bill payer (ie, all of us).

 

STAND believes that given the enormous over-run costs of existing reactor designs using a well-proven technology, to allow Rolls Royce to build reactors in this country with a new, completely unknown and unapproved design is sheer madness.

 

 

PERCEIVED AS CARBON NEUTRAL

Even if nuclear power generation were indeed carbon neutral (but see here why this is a myth), the long timescale for new nuclear plants to come on stream, especially given the huge cost and time overruns that all nuclear projects run by by the French company EDF in this country and elsewhere have experienced, means that It would not help to prevent climate change (see press article here). By the time that new nuclear power stations in this country could realistically come on stream, climate scientists tell us it would be too late to avoid global warming. On the other hand renewable energy sources can be implemented very, very quickly and are much more effectively carbon neutral.

 

SECURITY OF ENERGY SUPPLY

The government is fond of telling us that nuclear energy is essential to keep the lights on in the near future. It is true our reliance on oil and gas and coal is not sustainable and that something has to be done to secure the UK Energy supply. However a reliance on nuclear energy would not help at all, in fact would hinder, as it takes a long time to come on stream and soaks up subsidies that are better spent on renewables.

 

It is also extremely expensive. The burden of all this extra expense would be born by the billpayer, putting an unfair burden on poorer and middle income families at a time when fuel bills are already going through the roof and will be getting worse. The £billions that will need to be given away in subsidies to persuade France and China (the only two countries prepared to to build nuclear power stations in the UK), would be much more effectively spent on renewable energy such as wind, solar, tide and wave power and research into energy storage.

 

It is instructive to note that multinational companies are no longer prepared to build nuclear power stations unless subsidised to a degree unacceptable to governments. For example, Hitachi were at one time due to build nuclear power stations at Oldbury and Wylfa but pulled out because the economics just did not add up. No other non-state company could be found. Now, globally, only nation states are prepared to subsidise new nuclear power. In the case of the UK this is mainly France, who had an 84% stake in the energy company EDF but had to nationalise the ailing company completely. EDF, who are building the new Hinkley reactors and planning to build the new Sizewell reactors have had their shares suspended while the French government bails them out. The other state actor involved with nuclear power construction in the UK is China, which raises security issues of a different kind.

 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Elsewhere we have noted that nuclear power stations are essential to the production of nuclear weapons (see here). That is why state actors with a nuclear weapons programme (or countries that want nuclear weapons like Iran) are now promoting nuclear power as a method of generating electricity. in 2025 the US Government decided to start building nuclear power plants again, but significantly have ensured that they will be the type of reactor that easily provides plenty of weapons grade fissionable material (see this article in Scientific American)

 

If you believe that nuclear weapons are a good or essential thing, and are prepared for bill payers to pay the huge extra premium that goes with nuclear power, then you are entitled to that point of view. But please do not believe governments who hypocritically try to pretend that nuclear power is affordable, safe and good for the planet, just to fuel their desire for weapons of mass destruction.