Nuclear power and net zero: too little, too late, too expensive

The author argues that the UK's 24 GW nuclear target by 2050 is unrealistic. Key barriers include the long lead times for nuclear projects (typically 15-20 years), the lack of mature, commercially available reactor technologies, and the difficulty of securing private investment for high-cost projects. The document highlights the failure of the EPR-1 design and the financial risks shifted to consumers under the Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model. It concludes that nuclear power is too slow and expensive to contribute meaningfully to the UK's electricity decarbonisation goals of 2030 or 2035.

• The UK government's target of 24 GW of nuclear capacity by 2050 requires the completion of eight new projects, but the timeline is unrealistic because nuclear stations typically take 15-20 years from inception to first power.
• Current large reactor technologies are deemed unsuitable or unavailable for the UK's timeline. The EPR-1 design is described as "almost unbuildable", and its replacement, the EPR-2, will not be available for export until after 2035. Other options like the AP1000 have poor economic records, and the South Korean APR1400 has safety and quality control issues.
• Siting for eight new projects is problematic. While eight sites were identified in 2010, some face environmental objections (Wylfa) or concerns regarding sea-level rises. To meet the target, the government would likely need to ignore planning advice or find new sites.
• The Regulated Asset Base (RAB) financial model shifts the risk of cost overruns from the plant owner to the consumers, who pay a surcharge on their bills from the Final Investment Decision (FID) to completion.
• Hinkley Point C demonstrates the extreme cost and time overruns typical of the industry. Its estimated completion cost rose from £25-26bn to £31-35bn (in 2015 money), and the completion date for the first reactor was delayed to 2029-31.
• Nuclear power is considered irrelevant to the UK's net-zero goals because it cannot be deployed quickly enough to meet electricity decarbonisation targets of 2030 (Keir Starmer) or 2035 (Boris Johnson).

APA

Thomas, S. (2024). Nuclear power and net zero: too little, too late, too expensive. Scientists for Global Responsibility. https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/nuclear-power-and-net-zero-too-little-too-late-too-expensive

Chicago

Thomas, Steve. Nuclear power and net zero: too little, too late, too expensive. Scientists for Global Responsibility, 2024. https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/nuclear-power-and-net-zero-too-little-too-late-too-expensive.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Thomas |first1=Steve |title=Nuclear power and net zero: too little, too late, too expensive |publisher=Scientists for Global Responsibility |date=9 February 2024 |url=https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/nuclear-power-and-net-zero-too-little-too-late-too-expensive |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{thomas2024nuclear, author = {Thomas, Steve}, title = {{Nuclear power and net zero: too little, too late, too expensive}}, institution = {Scientists for Global Responsibility}, year = {2024}, month = feb, url = {https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/nuclear-power-and-net-zero-too-little-too-late-too-expensive}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }