Soon, however, all but one of the UK's existing nuclear plants are due to reach the end of their lives – by 2030 – cutting capacity from 8GW to just 1GW
Another argument for new nuclear is UK climate goals.
There's certainly a growing gap between the amount of low-carbon electricity that is in the pipeline vs what will be needed to meet UK targets (red wedge in chart):
This week's big news was official confirmation from Hitachi that it was cancelling Wylfa.
It had shelved the plans last year, despite what then-secretary of state Greg Clark called a "significant & generous" package of support inc a 1/3 equity stake.
So now No 10 is briefing journalists about a "nuclear summit" between the PM, chancellor and energy secretary, where they will discuss "new subsidies" for new nuclear:
If govt does want to give financial support to new nuclear, one of the key questions for the chancellor would be how to justify spending taxpayer cash on new nuclear, relative to alternative uses of the money:
I didn't talk about apparent controversy over Chinese involvement in UK nuclear…
Others will know better than me – but there's something a bit odd about the way that debate is being carried out, via newspaper op-eds from a certain clique of Tories
Clearly plenty more that could be said about all this. But it's nursery pickup time so that's it from me for now…
ends/
OK, a couple of extra things… @6point626 noted govt "seemed to recognise" this @EnergySysCat report on nuclear for net-zero, which says another 10GW of new nuclear would be "no or low regret"
@6point626@EnergySysCat I'd also flag this line, saying net-zero without new nuclear is "technically possible".
(It's interesting how blatant the report is, regarding what the authors think of this idea – "vast", "betting the farm" etc. is not exactly neutral language)
NEW: UK climate advisers now "more optimistic" net-zero goals can be met
🎯Net-zero "possible" + "good for economy"
📉CO2 halved vs 1990
📈More "credible" policies
🚘🏡EV/heat pumps soaring
But…
⚡"Critical" to cut power prices
✈️Flight CO2 "risk"
1/9
For the first time I can remember, the CCC says its progress report is "optimistic" about UK climate goals being hit. Interim chair Prof Piers Forster says he is "more optimistic" than last yr due to last govt's policies starting to deliver + changes since Labour took office
2/9
Another notable change is that the CCC seems to be getting less prescriptive…
CCC has faced (inaccurate) charges that it has, in effect, set govt policy. But it's now being clearer than ever that it only offers advice – and policy is up to govt.
IEA: Oil still on track to peak by 2030; oil for fuel to peak in 2027
"annual growth slows…to just a trickle over the next several years, with a small decline expected in 2030, based on today’s policy settings and market trends"
Here are some of the most striking charts 🧵 1/8
In recent years, global oil demand has been almost entirely driven by growth in China…
…and that party is now over
Equally, US "dominance" of rising oil supply is also a thing of the past 2/8
Since last year, the IEA has raised its oil demand outlook for the US, due to EV rollbacks etc, but it has simultaneously cut its outlook for China by the same amount
So global demand in 2030 is right where the IEA thought it would be last year 3/8
In Q1 of 2025, the clean-energy driven drop in power sector CO2 outweighed small increases in other sectors of China's economy, driving a 1.6% fall year-on-year overall
FACTCHECK: Almost all the headlines on Tony Blair / net-zero are *wildly* inaccurate
REALITY:
1️⃣Net-zero is *only way* to stop warming
2️⃣Blair calls for tech to "turbocharge our path to net-zero"
3️⃣He categorically *does not* say "net-zero is doomed to fail"
🧵 1/6
Blair says a "strategy based on either 'phasing out' fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail"
This is logically & categorically not the same as saying "net-zero is doomed to fail"
(If you can't see why, I can't help you) 2/6
Nor does Blair say "current net-zero policies are doomed"
Because literally no govt in the world has a current net-zero policy to "phase out fossil fuels in the short term or limit consumption"
Instead, world's govts agreed at COP28 to "transition away from fossil fuels" 3/6
NEW: Official advisers CCC say UK shld cut emissions 87% by 2040
⚖️Net cost of net-zero 73% less than thought
💷Total cost to 2050 = £108bn (~£4bn/yr, 0.2% GDP)
🏡🚗H’hold energy/fuel bills to fall £1,400
🔌Electrification is key
THREAD: New UK govt contract with Drax biomass power plant
* 4-yr contract 2027-2031
* £113/MWh (2012 prices – £155 in today's money)
* Output cap of 6TWh (<2% of UK supplies, cf recent yrs 12-15TWh)
* CfD cost ~£500m/yr
* 100% of fuel must be "sustainable", up from 70% 1/5
UK govt says the contract helps security of electricity supplies, but gives Drax a "much more limited role than today" ie it's limited to run at roughly 25% of its max output
This means it's mainly going to be running when it isn't windy
Drax has had issues with existing 70% sustainable sourcing rule, but as it'll need less than half the fuel it has been buying to date, the new 100% rule looks more achievable
Notably, new contract terms allow govt to reclaim subsidy if rule not met