Unlock Editor’s Digest Lock for Free
FT editor Roula Khalaf will select your favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Techniques for generating green power follow one of two trajectories. Some people are cheaper, such as small solar panels, small, modular, and factory-produced. Others, like nuclear power plants, tend to suffer from overruns and delays instead. Nevertheless, the decision to drive a new UK nuclear project, Sizewell C, still makes sense.
Much has been made due to the potential costs of the project. Its precursor, Hinckley Point C, has a disastrous record. This will be ready at the end of the decade and cost around £460 billion to build.
According to ICIS, a data and analytics company, contractors only need around £400 billion for mistakes or Sizewell C. It looks like a lot. Last September, the UK bid on developers seeking to build offshore wind power by offering £89/MWh in 2025.
However, the cost of nuclear power does not necessarily reflect its value. It can be built relatively close to where electricity is consumed, and is almost always produced when it is up and running. This saves money with grids, batteries, and other power storage devices needed to change the offshore.
Consultant company Aurora Energy models a “high nuclear” UK zero energy system that includes many additional projects in addition to Sizewell C. If the UK can reduce the cost of nuclear power achieved in Finland, it concludes that having a lot of nuclear power is cheaper than relying primarily on renewables.
Quantifying the benefits of having a nucleus in a mix is other real, but difficult. Optimized energy models spit out the lowest cost combination of power generation technology, but generally putting too many eggs in one basket is a bad idea.
This suggests that the UK should not be negligent due to its decision to press the Sizewell C button, if any, should be closer to the scale and timing of its overall nuclear ambition. The cookie cutter plant construction program is the best way to reduce costs.
As things stand, Sizewell C remains one of the most expensive nuclear projects in the world. And to get it done, the UK government had to step in directly and provide investors with a guaranteed profit for the money they spent. It shunts some of the cost risk to consumers in the form of higher electricity bills. This is not ideal. But it’s still better than further disrupting British nuclear ambitions.
camilla.palladino@ft.com
