nuclear-news

A Contract for Difference for nuclear lifetime extension for Sizewell B – a nice save for the nuclear industry?

Jérôme à Paris, Jul 22, 2026

A few days ago, the British government announced the extension of the production life of the 1.2 GW Sizewell B nuclear power plant for 20 years, from 2035, and that included the fact that the electricity produced will be sold under a CfD at a price of 70.50 GBP/MWh (in 2025 prices, to be indexed). ……….

it is proper that the power also be sold to ratepayers at a fixed price. The existence of the CfD will also allow the owners to achieve a lower cost of capital (possibly through limited-recourse financing, but in any case through more favorable corporate funding as such a revenue line underpins their balance sheet), ensuring that the price achieved could be more competitive….

Secondly, this puts the production cost risk on the operator (EDF in this case, with Centrica having a 20% stake), as they will have to deliver power at a fixed price, irrespective of what they need to spend to keep the plant running (I have not checked if they can wiggle out of the contract by stopping production earlier in case it becomes too costly to run, but I see that this would have other likely consequences, including reputational, for the operator in any case). 

The third point is that this puts a very visible price tag to nuclear plant lifetime extension. There’s often the blithe assumption that existing plants can continue to run at a very low cost. This reminds everybody that it is not the case, and existing plants definitely have ongoing operating costs – and older plants have significant heavy maintenance, refurbishment and safety costs to manage. The price level proposed here can be seen as attractive for baseload decarbonated power, but it’s certainly not low or the most competitive available these days.

The big question is whether the price is actually the right one. There can only be rather limited competition for nuclear lifetime extension CfDs, so one must consider the temptation for the operator to pad its costs and ask for a price that ensures as profitable an operation as possible (I presume that the price level was negotiated on the basis of detailed cost assumptions provided by the operator and checked by the regulator and experts). There is also the risk that the operator could ask later on for relaxation of safety or other standards in order to lower its ongoing costs (including possibly via the direct or indirect threat to stop operations.

Against that is the fact that the nuclear industry cannot afford to show that it is materially less competitive than alternatives, in particular than offshore wind, the renewable sector with the most similar characteristic as nuclear (large capacity plants, higher capacity factor). If the ask price for extension is barely competitive against new-build offshore wind, what would that say about new-build nuclear? Hinckley Point negotiated a CfD a decade ago, which EDF is not very happy with, even though it is already quite a bit higher (it was 89.5 GBP/MWh for 35 years (rather than 20), indexed from 2012, which means its current level is 131 GBP/MWh, and we’re still some years before operations), given all the cost overruns experienced in the meantime……………………………….. https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/a-cfd-for-nuclear-lifetime-extension

July 24, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear power costs billions. Here are seven better ways to use that money – Martin Roche

Given Scotland’s renewables capacity and reserves of oil and gas, opting for expensive nuclear is daft, argues Martin Roche

There’s an energy project in Britain that will take twice as long to build as originally planned. It will at least double its forecast construction costs and require a UK bill-payer subsidy of £1 billion a year.

. Given Scotland’s renewables capacity and reserves of
Toil and gas, opting for expensive nuclear is daft, argues Martin Roche.
There’s an energy project in Britain that will take twice as long to build
as originally planned. It will at least double its forecast construction
costs and require a UK bill-payer subsidy of £1 billion a year

. It’s the nuclear power station being built by the French state-owned company EDF at
Hinkley Point in Somerset. Begun in 2017, its opening date has been pushed
back to 2030. The plant’s cost, unadjusted for inflation, stands today at
£35bn but the final total may reach £50bn.

The argument of the nuclear
power lobby is that we must have wholly reliable ‘baseload’ energy for
when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. I saw one
nonsensical argument that nuclear would be there when renewable energy went
into decline. This is desperate nonsense. The wind will continue to blow
off Scotland’s coast and high places on most days of the year, for as
long as there is a Scotland.

That’s not to say we should rely entirely on
renewables. We must have wholly dependable sources of power. Scotland has
options for both reducing its energy demand and building an energy economy
that can have much more impact over decades than nuclear. We should be
working to reduce energy costs for households and create a far bigger
energy employment sector than anything nuclear can offer.

And we can start
now. No need to wait decades for new nuclear stations. Nuclear generation
may enrich some giant companies and provide jobs in operation and
construction, but the numbers are modest when compared with smarter
thinking.

Labour’s policy may be good for US tech giants that want to
gobble up Scotland’s abundant energy to drive data centres, but it’s
not yet clear what’s in these facilities for the Scottish economy, jobs
or the public purse. Nuclear is a naïve 20th-century solution to complex
21st-century problems.

Nuclear power stations are also big targets and at
the mercy of drones, as we know from Ukraine. So much for energy security.
There is a far better way to spend our money than shovelling public cash
into the board rooms of energy giants or the pockets of California tech
bros billionaires.

It’s called the broader public good. Here are some
thoughts: One, a ten-year programme to bring Scottish homes up to the
highest possible thermal performance standards, so they are more efficient
and cheaper to run in deep winter and high summer. Better homes at less
cost and using less energy. Two, all new buildings – homes, schools,
offices, factories – to be built to the world’s most exacting energy
performance standards.

Three, grid connection costs to be slashed so that
small generation projects in rural areas, like mini-hydro and biogas,
become economically viable.

Four, every tenement building in Scotland to be
made suitable for solar panels, with owners benefiting from their share of
the income to help maintain properties. Our tenement homes can become our
own energy production factories.

Five, localised generation such as
tenement solar means that a network of small battery storage facilities can
be created across Scotland. Connected to the National Grid, they can be the
first line of defence on the odd days when wind can’t do the job.

Six,
some 12 per cent of Scotland’s energy comes from hydro power. We can
double that. Seven, all this will cost money. There are opportunities here
to create new long-term projects and consumer finance products, perhaps
with state guarantees (rather than being a cash cow for nuclear). Better
ways can be found of encouraging community energy firms. A new Scottish
private sector capital markets organisation can be established to provide
start-up and growth capital for new energy sector businesses.

 Scotsman 9th July 2026, https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/nuclear-power-costs-billions-here-are-seven-better-ways-to-use-that-money-8786542

July 14, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, UK | Leave a comment