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: 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
UK electricity generation from fossil fuels has more than halved in a decade, falling to 91TWh in 2024 – the lowest level since 1955 and making up the lowest ever share of the total, just 29%
Meanwhile, renewable output has more than doubled, up 122% since 2014 to 143TWh 2/9
The UK has cut gas-fired electricity generation by 13% in a decade – even as it was phasing out coal power – thanks to rising renewable output (mainly wind), along with lower demand + higher imports
UK opened the world's first coal power plant in 1882 on London's Holborn Viaduct (pic)
⛰️ Since then, UK coal plants have burned 4.6bn tonnes of coal, emitting 10.4GtCO2
🌍 That's more CO2 than most countries have ever emitted, from all sources (!)
But the UK was the world's first "coal-fired economy" – and that started long before coal-fired power
🥤Coal fuelled pumps to drain mines to get more coal
📈And as steam engines got more efficient, it got cheaper to use and extract ever more of the fuel, inspiring "Jevons paradox"
Let's begin with the facts. Andrew doesn't say so, but I am going to assume he is (correctly) quoting data from Montel Analytics, showing that UK electricity imports were 18.9TWh in H1 2024, up 82% from H2 2023