Tag Archives: UK politics

Can nuclear put its BESS foot forward?

The Brexit British Energy Security Strategy is launched today, and it puts new nuclear power front and centre. 24GW of new nuclear by 2050, substantial new funding (despite none being available for energy efficiency) and an ambition to build one reactor a year instead of one a decade.

There are huge feasibility issues here – nuclear power stations suck in huge numbers of numbers of construction workers amidst an ‘ever growing skills gap’ in the industry. Small modular reactors (SMRs) are to form a ‘key part’ of the pipeline. But up until late last year there was no legal definition of an SMR and the UK regulatory approach had not even been decided. In November, Rolls Royce submitted an SMR for assessment but the process takes around four years.

But setting these and other issues (like the fact that nuclear power stations are potentially disastrous in conflicts as the invasion of Ukraine is showing) aside, what about the cost of new nuclear?

The contract for difference deal for Hinkley Point C sets a price of £89.50/MWh, roughly double the government’s own estimates of the generation costs of onshore wind and large scale solar PV, and well above that of offshore wind. Both government and industry argue that this is a ‘first-of-a-kind’ cost and that with a larger fleet using an established design, costs will come down to become competitive.

However, a more important development on costs is the government’s move to fund new nuclear using a regulated asset base (RAB) approach. The RAB approach has long been used to fund electricity and gas networks – companies borrow to build infrastructure and consumers have to pay a certain amount every year to cover these capital costs, with the amount they pay being regulated by Ofgem.

The big idea with the RAB approach is that it reduces risks for companies by sharing these with consumers. This includes construction risks, and this matters as there have been big construction cost overruns on recent European nuclear projects.  In theory the RAB approach should reduce how much companies pay to borrow – the ‘cost of capital’. Since nuclear is very, very capital intensive with relatively small running costs, the cost of electricity from nuclear is highly sensitive to the cost of capital.

There are questions about why a RAB approach should be taken with one kind of generation while not with others; as a 2019 National Infrastructure Commission report pointed out, this is an implicit subsidy for nuclear compared with other technologies, above and beyond any CfD FiT.

There are also dangers that consumers start paying upfront for the construction of planned plants that in the end are never built because demand is lower than expected or because other kinds of capacity grow more than expected. This has been the US experience where a RAB approach for nuclear has led to consumers paying billions of dollars for plants that were never completed.

Beyond this, there is a risk that institutional investors, to whom developers will turn for financing new nuclear plants, will not want to get involved. Institutional investors are under increasing pressure on environmental and social governance (ESG) and some are not convinced that nuclear makes the cut.

But there are also questions of how far a RAB approach will actually reduce costs. The government expects that compared with the CfD FiT approach for Hinkley C the RAB approach will reduce costs by £10/MWh. The best guide to this is how this approach has worked in the area where it has already been applied for years – i.e. energy networks. The short answer is that regulators have struggled to get value for money because of ‘asymmetric information’ – i.e. companies know more about real costs, including the costs of capital, than regulators do, and despite lots of efforts to stop them, often game the system to earn higher profits than they should. Networks are a low risk business, and companies in the industry should be earning relatively low, single-figure returns on equity. But the experience of the 2010s was that network companies were earning up to 12%, and an average 19% profit margin.

So even a RAB approach may not offer real value for money on nuclear. Ultimately, the big, rapid falls in the costs of renewables have come about because of competition. Nuclear power plants are too big and risky (even ‘small’ modular reactors are actually pretty big) to be built in any other way than through a negotiated process between states and a very limited number of large companies. By giving nuclear such a central role, the BESS may provide a long-term vision to help get off gas in electricity generation, but it is a risky and potentially costly one.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Populism and the rise of climate scepticism

 Last year I blogged on Walter Russel Mead’s analysis that linked climate denial to a tradition of American populism. At one level it is obvious that there is an association between climate scepticism and populists (such as the lovely Jeremy Clarkson). But in this post I explore those links more deeply, inspired by Paul Taggart’s excellent book on populism. Continue reading


Filed under Climate deniers, Environmentalists, Populism, UK politics, US

The power of lobbying

Great piece in the Grauniad by Catherine Mitchell today on how renewables are squeezed between the nuclear lobby on the one hand and the Treasury’s bet on cheap gas on the other.

Leave a comment

Filed under Nuclear power, UK politics

The renewable energy backlash – part 1

In early 2008, I interviewed the generation portfolio manager (the guy who decided whether to invest in new power stations, and what kind) for one of the Big 6 UK energy companies. In the course of the interview he said something that really struck me – namely that the dilemma the company faced was that they simply didn’t know whether, and how much, the UK public would be willing to pay, 5 to 10 years hence, for renewable energy. It wasn’t necessarily that he thought that they wouldn’t be willing to pay, simply that the company just didn’t know, and that this fundamental uncertainty was a factor weakening the policy arrangements in place to support investment in renewable energy. A company will be highly reluctant to spend hundreds of millions of pounds on investments that could end up stranded and worthless because a support policy collapses in the face of public hostility. For me it was the moment I really understood the meaning of policy credibility. I have since told that story countless times, often to those in the environmental movement, many of whom who believed that the mere existence of a policy is a guarantee of its effectiveness (and its future), but often felt they didn’t get the point, or ignored it.

But the underlying politics is now coming back to bite them in the bum. Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under Energy prices, Public opinion, Renewable energy, UK politics

The politics of climate change – where are we?

Bryan Walsh’s piece on Al Gore’s reality versus everyone else’s in Time magazine is an excellent precis of the current politics of climate change. He even gets the UK picture about right; the default position for US environmental writers is to assume European climate policy is a done deal. That said, Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under Climate deniers, Public opinion, UK politics

The Battle of the 4th Budget

So, the epic battle in the UK over the Fourth Carbon Budget (2023-2027) is now over and the dust is settling. The issue was whether to approve the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation that carbon emissions be effectively reduced to 50% of 1990 levels by the end of the period, with big implications for long-term investments, especially in the power sector.

And this was a real battle, Continue reading


Filed under Climate policies, UK politics

Borrow to invest?

Last month we argued that, despite the Coalition Government’s obsession with cutting the deficit, we should be using public borrowing to pay for the additional costs of a low carbon infrastructure. Seems like someone agrees with us – over at Left Foot Forward, Gerry Holtham has been arguing something very similar. As he puts it: Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under Infrastructure, Public borrowing

The 12 commandments of climate strategy

Earlier this year, Stephen Hale – head of the UK’s Green Alliance network of companies and NGOs – left for a new life in Geneva working for Oxfam International. His parting shot was a pamphlet called The New Commandments of Climate Change Strategy: How to cut emissions and win elections too. We think that it’s very good, and didn’t get enough attention at the time, so we’re urging people to go back  and have another look.

This slightly Biblical-sounding pamphlet (is Stephen casting himself as the Moses of climate policy?) looking at what governments should do is a follow-up to his 2008 New Politics of Climate Change, which looks at what civil society should do.

Both start with an excellent Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under Climate policies, Infrastructure, UK politics

CCC: Cuts to low-carbon RD&D “detrimental”

An update on our most recent post – on Monday the UK’s independent statutory climate advisory group, the Climate Change Committee chaired by Adair Turner, brought out a new report on low carbon innovation. One of its main findings is Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under Climate policies, Innovation, UK politics