UK Government abandons plan to greenwash nuclear in a new taxonomy

28th July 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/government-abandons-plan-to-greenwash-nuclear-in-a-new-taxonomy/

Much to the delight of the Nuclear Free Local Authorities, the UK Government has  abandoned the latest plan to introduce a new taxonomy for ‘green’ energy technologies. Why? Because, in the small print, Ministers wanted to include nuclear so the plan would have amounted to ‘greenwashing’ the industry.

The government recently published its response to a consultation conducted earlier this year by the Treasury. In the consultation, a taxonomy was described as ‘a classification tool which provides its users with a common framework to define which economic activities support climate, environmental or wider sustainability objectives.’ 

It should have been a mechanism to facilitate further investment in ‘green’ energy projects, but the proposal was in the NFLA’s view fatally flawed as in the small print the consultation document obliquely included nuclear.

28th July 2025

Government abandons plan to greenwash nuclear in a new taxonomy

Much to the delight of the Nuclear Free Local Authorities, the UK Government has  abandoned the latest plan to introduce a new taxonomy for ‘green’ energy technologies. Why? Because, in the small print, Ministers wanted to include nuclear so the plan would have amounted to ‘greenwashing’ the industry.

The government recently published its response to a consultation conducted earlier this year by the Treasury. In the consultation, a taxonomy was described as ‘a classification tool which provides its users with a common framework to define which economic activities support climate, environmental or wider sustainability objectives.’ 

It should have been a mechanism to facilitate further investment in ‘green’ energy projects, but the proposal was in the NFLA’s view fatally flawed as in the small print the consultation document obliquely included nuclear.

The NFLAs opposed this plan and Dr Paul Dorfman, who kindly drafted our response, explained why: ‘The ‘UK Green Consultation’ document stated that, ‘Subject to stakeholder feedback on the value and use cases of a UK Green Taxonomy, the government proposes that nuclear energy will be classified as green in any future UK Green Taxonomy’ – a ‘horse and cart’ situation that brought into question the role, process and purpose of consultation, with all that has implications for trust in government.

Now Emma Reynolds MP, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, has stated that Ministers have abandoned the plan: ‘the government has concluded that a UK Taxonomy would not be the most effective tool to deliver the green transition and should not be part of our sustainable finance framework.’  Ms Reynolds claimed that ‘other policies were of higher priority to accelerate investment into the transition to Net Zero and limit greenwashing.’

The NFLAs support the aspiration to achieve Net Zero, but nuclear, as a technology associated with resource intensive activities, environmental damage and contamination, and a deadly legacy of radioactive waste, is in the NFLA’s view most certainly not ‘green’ and its inclusion would have amounted to ‘greenwashing’.

Dr Paul Dorfman succinctly expressed our relief at the government’s U-turn: ‘In this contest, it seems fair that Government has taken a considered step back and has made the right decision not to pursue this Taxonomy.’

The decision appeared to have a near immediate impact with Schroders Greencoat, which describes itself as ‘a specialist renewables infrastructure investor’, widely reported to have decided to withdraw as a prospective investor in Sizewell C. Stop Sizewell C executive director Alison Downes said: “It’s welcome news that Schroders Greencoat won’t be investing in Sizewell C. Based on our dialogue with Schroders, we attribute this to the government deciding not to adopt a green taxonomy, which thankfully has the outcome that nuclear energy cannot be erroneously labelled ‘green’”.

August 1, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

Hoping for nuclear to boost the economy -will not end well.

Samuel Rafanell-Williams, Scottish CND:

MANY readers will be conscious of
the emerging PR operation to promote nuclear power and admonish the
Scottish Government over its long-standing opposition to new nuclear
projects in Scotland.

This comes at a time when The Ferret reported 585
cracks in the reactor of the Torness nuclear plant in East Lothian,
prompting fears about radioactive risks (Hunterston B power station was
closed in 2022 following the discovery of 586 reactor cracks).

The industrial messes of the Hinkley and Sizewell nuclear projects in England,
both running billions over budget, also don’t sweeten the case for
starting similar projects in Scotland.

Transparently, this media drive is
an attempt to manufacture consent for new potential nuclear plants in
Scotland in the wake of the UK Government’s recent proud announcement of
“Nuclear Britain”.

These PR efforts in Scotland are being led by
lobbyists like Britain Remade, a group composed of former Tory party
officials firmly committed to lifting Scotland’s ban on nuclear power, as
recently reported by Bella Caledonia.

Make no mistake, the UK
Government’s promotion of nuclear power is integral to its vision of a
war economy: massive investment, including exorbitant public expenditure,
into so-called “civilian” nuclear power (£40 billion-plus for Hinkley,
£40bn-plus for Sizewell) is a precondition for shoring up the nuclear
weapons industry. As Scottish CND have frequently argued, much of the same
technical expertise, personnel and fissile materials are required in both
fission and the production of warheads and propulsion reactors for naval
vessels. All nuclear states know building their omnicide weapons relies on
a nuclear power programme.

 The National 11th July 2025, https://www.thenational.scot/politics/25305651.hoping-nuclear-boost-economy-will-not-end-well/

July 13, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

Energy Scotland’s John Proctor responds to The Herald’s pro-nuclear spread.

Nuclear power in Scotland – not needed, not economic, not wanted, not safe

Leah Gunn Barrett, Jul 07, 2025, https://dearscotland.substack.com/p/energy-scotlands-john-proctor-responds

Energy Scotland* convener John Proctor has given me permission to publish a letter he sent to The Herald in response to its series of pro-nuclear articles published at the end of June. The Herald is owned by London-based Newsquest which, in turn, is owned by US media conglomerate, Gannett. The Herald has not published his letter.

I see Joani Reid MP has joined Anas Sarwar MSP and Michael Shanks MP in the chorus calling for new nuclear energy plant in Scotland (The Herald 28th June).

Of course, Joani has no concerns about someone building one of these in her back-yard – as her back-yard is in London, but Michael Shanks was bit more bullish when he declared he would be relaxed about having a Small Modularised Reactor (SMR) erected in his constituency. I am not sure how the good people of Rutherglen feel about this.

What I find mystifying is the lack of proper scrutiny being applied to the claims made by those members of the Nuclear Energy All-Party Parliamentary Group and their well-funded nuclear lobbyists. It does not surprise me that they are unable to set out what configuration they favour, as the reactors which they claim will produce 400 MWs do not exist. They have not been manufactured, tested or installed – anywhere!

As an Engineer, I would be keen to ask the politicians if they have thought about some of the basic elements of a power plant. Do they have any ideas what the thermal capacity of the proposed reactors are? Have they understood what the cooling requirements might be? How about the status of design of the ‘core catcher’ (the system designed to prevent a Chernobyl type event)?

Be under no illusion, Ms Reid, Mr Shanks and Mr Sarwar and the Nuclear lobby are building a Potemkin village.

They of course don’t want to talk about the European Power Reactor (EPR) configuration being installed at astronomical cost at Hinkley C.

This project is forecast to cost £45,000,000,000 when it finally comes on line sometime next decade. It is not easy to get a proper sense of this sum – but it might surprise the readers of The Herald that this is the equivalent of paying £1 million every single day for 110 years – and this is just the construction cost. We have not even started talking about operational costs, asset management and asset decommissioning.

Hinkley C is the same configuration Labour have just committed to at Sizewell C. Are we really gullible enough to believe Julia Pyke (Managing Director of Sizewell C) when she assures us that the Consortium have learned the lessons from Hinkley C?

If I can be generous for a moment, and accept that they can achieve a 10% saving relative to Hinkley C, that would still indicate a £40 billion project cost – which is enough to build 80 hospitals similar to the Forth Valley Hospital.

When Ms Pyke was recently asked on BBC how the project was going, she answered airily that it is ‘on schedule and within budget’. I waited eagerly for the obvious follow up question – ‘What is the budget and schedule?’ but that question never came.

The supporters of nuclear energy tell us that we need these plants for baseload capacity. They fail to acknowledge that in Scotland, we already generate more capacity from renewables than we consume – and this surplus is only going to grow as we continue to see more investment in wind, solar, tidal and energy storage.

‘What about intermittency and lack of system inertia?’ is the nuclear advocates’ stock question when discussing the growth of renewables.

The answer is beautifully simple – we will continue to do what we do now – rely on gas fired CCGTs (Combined-Cycle Gas Turbines). Which is reassuring – as there will be no nuclear plant coming on stream anytime soon.

‘But what about Net Zero?’ might be the next question. Thankfully, there are a raft of solutions to this currently available and more coming on stream every week. For example, gas turbine manufacturers are again building on 50 years of experience of burning hydrogen in gas turbines, and they will be ready to burn hydrogen or blended hydrogen/methane as quickly as the hydrogen market can come on stream.

My prediction is that the hydrogen market will come on stream faster than any SMRs (Small Modular Reactors) can be built – and if UK politicians had a strategic bone in their body, they would be trying to beat our friends in Europe to win the hydrogen race.

However as we have seen with HS2 and the third runway at Heathrow, they will carry on with their blundering plans to build new nuclear.

This comes to the final question that is not asked of nuclear supporting friends in the English Labour and Tory parties. How will they reduce the cost of energy when they are committed to this ruinously expensive nuclear build program?

The UK Government have no answer to this – and this is why the Scottish Government must keep in place the moratorium on new nuclear in Scotland and continue their support of renewables such as tidal power and also fully commit to their Hydrogen Action Plan.

John Proctor

Convener – Energy Scotland

*Energy Scotland, a member of the Independence Forum Scotland (IFS), is an association of Scottish-based energy professionals committed to addressing Scotland’s energy challenge of building a secure, decarbonised, affordable energy system which benefits Scottish industry and consumers.

July 13, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

Stop Sizewell C campaigner slams Labour lies over nuclear power

Alison Downes from the Stop Sizewell C campaign group spoke to Socialist Worker

Thursday 19 June 2025, https://socialistworker.co.uk/environment/stop-sizewell-c-campaigner-slams-labour-lies-over-nuclear-power/

Labour energy secretary Ed Miliband claims Britain needs new nuclear power plants “to deliver a golden age of clean energy abundance”. 

But Alison Downes from the Stop Sizewell C campaign group says it’s the last thing we need to stop climate breakdown.

The Labour government pledged over £14 billion last week towards building a new nuclear power station on the Suffolk coast. Construction of Sizewell C began last year, next to the live Sizewell B plant.

Alison told Socialist Worker she opposes it because of “the climate emergency and the need for quick, cost effective action to reduce our carbon emissions”. 

“This type of reactor has got such a bad track record in the other places where it’s been built, or attempted to be built,” she explained. 

“And the slowness of completion all count against it as a solution for a climate emergency.” 

The new nuclear plant would cost billions at a time when Labour is pushing austerity. Alison said, “In 2020 the cost was estimated at £20 billion and I think very credibly is now predicted at around £40 billion. 

“Our assumption is that at least 50 percent of Sizewell C would be paid for by the taxpayer.” 

She added, “A lot of this information is not in the public domain. Every time we ask, we get batted away with reasons of commercial confidentiality. 

“But our understanding is that the government still intends to be a majority owner in the project.”

Sizewell C, which will be built by French state-owned company EDF, is  expected to be operational some time in the 2030s. 

It will be funded using a Regulated Asset Base model. This will guarantee EDF a return on its investments and means that electricity suppliers will contribute to the cost of building the plant. 

“And that comes from consumer bills,” says Alison. “Consumers just have to keep paying for as long as the project is under construction.” 

Radioactive waste disposal underlines that nuclear power is not an environmentally-friendly option. 

In the long term, it would need to be stored deep underground. 

Alison explained, “A disposal facility for all of Britain’s waste is under consideration. But they still haven’t found a willing host community in a place where the geology is suitable. 

“We don’t really know when it would be available and how much it would cost. Sizewell B waste is here and is going to be here for decades to come. 

“And, of course, you have big question marks about the impacts of climate change. Every time new studies are released they suggest that those impacts are bigger and faster than previously thought.

“So you have to factor in the cost of keeping this site safe from flooding for a century or more.”

The leaderships of the Unite and GMB unions have enthusiastically welcomed the Sizewell C announcement.  

Alison said, “Well, of course, major infrastructure projects bring jobs. We definitely agree that opportunities for young people are very important. But they’re not necessarily very long term jobs. 

“There was a major boom and bust in this area when Sizewell B was built. A lot of people feel that the area has really struggled in the aftermath as a result of the crash once construction was finished.

“The thing that really frustrates us about this is that the number of permanent long term jobs at Sizewell C is relatively small. It’s about 700 with a couple of hundred contractors.” 

Alison said that home insulation would make people’s energy bills go down and create thousands of new jobs. 

Stop Sizewell C has run advertising campaigns on the London Underground, lobbied county councils, met with ministers and stopped pension funds from investing in the project. 

“Keir Starmer was due to come here last week and he cancelled at short notice,” said Alison. “I think he probably thought that it might be wise to stay away.”

Unions should fight for investment in green energy and a just transition for workers in nuclear. 

June 21, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment

A golden nuclear age

‘the last thing variable renewables need is inflexible nuclear plants: they are incompatible.’

June 14, 2025, Renew Extra Weekly

 Nuclear power will help take us into a ‘golden age of clean energy abundance’. So said UK Energy Secretary Ed Milliband, in the run up to the public spending review. He announced an extra £14.2 billion in state support for EdFs proposed 3.2GW Sizewell C European Pressurised-water Reactor (EPR) and also £2.5bn for small modular reactor support, with Rolls Royce having won the UK Small Modular Reactor (SMR) competition. There would also be £2.5bn to support fusion. 

Whereas there has been a lot a concern about the cost of Sizewell, given the delays and over-runs with its sister EPR plant at Hinkley, it was argued that the second plant would benefit from the lessons learnt, and certainly Miliband was very single-minded about it: ‘all of the expert advice says nuclear has a really important role to play in the energy system. In any sensible reckoning, this is essential to get to our clean power and net zero ambitions.’ 

Not everyone agreed with that, and, in any case, as the Stop Sizewell C campaign said, ‘there still appears to be no final investment decision for Sizewell C’, with agreements on the remaining substantial private funding still being negotiated. And it noted that ‘every pound sunk into risky, expensive Sizewell C is a pound lost to alternative energy sources and critical social funding that the voting public cares deeply about. It’s not too late to redirect money to offshore wind, or warm homes – creating thousands of jobs – or to restoring the most unpopular and unjust cuts. Sizewell C, given the terrible track record of Hinkley Point C, would be £40 billion badly spent.’

However, Labour seems totally committed to it, although there was some wry media commentary that this might be what sinks Millband’s career- and also about the dubiousness of the nuclear investments and associated fiscal rule changes.  There certainly is plenty of potential for things to go awry, and, despite what Milliband claimed, plenty of experts who have warned about the risks and uncertainties of new nuclear, including SMRs. And on costs, the Royal Society had earlier concluded that, even with storage back up, renewables were likely to be cheaper than nuclear. Interestingly, Scotland is still sticking to its no nuclear approach. And there was plenty of opposition from the rest of the UK.

The large-scale new reactor funding (nearly £20bn in all) was the only significant energy-related allocation in the Spending Review, unless you include the £15bn for trams and local transport outside London. The £15bn allocated specifically to nuclear weapons upgrading, for the delightfully named sovereign warhead programme, was unrelated, but, as CND noted, there are some links between civil and military nuclear technology development, including reactors for submarines.  There had been hopes from devotees that Carbon Capture would get a lot more funding. It already had £22bn, and so ought to be more than content with the £9.4 bn extra allocation. It did seem to go down well.

As for renewables, there’s just £300m (actually already announced), for Great British Energy to upgrade Offshore wind supply chains. Although to be fair, there will also be support for some renewable projects from the Research Councils and from the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ), which of course also supports the private sector CfD based renewable auction market system. The Spending Review also says the government is supporting ‘the development of home-grown clean power’, including ‘by confirming up to £80 million over the SR period for port investment to support floating offshore wind deployment in Port Talbot, subject to final due diligence’, while ‘Great British Energy and Great British Energy – Nuclear will invest more than £8.3 billion over this Parliament in homegrown clean power’.  Make that what you will- it’s been suggested that it means more for SMRs, less for renewables!  But Carbon Brief notes that, overall, there’s a 16% rise (to £12.6bn) in DESNZ spending- not including the nuclear investment.  

The spending review isn’t about policy formulation, but of course it does reflect policy, so what we are seeing is the triumphant renewal of nuclear, although renewables are still seen as all import, very little new public money in being allocated to them. Even AI got £2bn!  But perhaps you can’t read too much into that. Milliband is clearly still keen on net zero with renewables being central (aiming for around 60GW by 2030), with CCUS, and now nuclear, playing smaller bit parts, along with some residual fossil gas. 

So renewables will continue to lead. They are now supplying over 50% of UK power and are still expanding fast. Nuclear has fallen to 15% and will fall further as the old AGR plants are closed, before picking up again when Hinkley finally gets going and then some more if Sizewell really does get built, along possibly with some SMRs, in the 2030s. So maybe 25% of power by then? 

There will no doubt continue to be objections to each of the energy options. Certainly to nuclear, but also to CCUS and to fossil gas.  And inevitably also to renewables – as well as to the whole ‘net zero’ idea.  For example, predictably, the Global Warming Policy Foundation has produced a new report which claims that ‘net zero will bankrupt Britain.’ For example, it says ‘the Government’s plans ensure that bills are likely to go up, rather than fall as claimed’, with new subsidies for variable renewable energy locking in further price rises for consumers. It also warns about the increasing cost of grid balancing. 

Instead of this, the GWPF report seems to favour a return to fossil fuel. It says ‘the potential of the UK’s shale gas resources has also gone unexplored. A new discovery in Lincolnshire, known as the Gainsborough Trough, could add £112 billion to UK GDP, according to a study by Deloitte’. Farage seems to be saying the same sort of thing – even calling for a return to coal mining in Wales. So, they both seem to be saying let’s not worry too much about emissions – let’s go backwards. Labour is not doing that, although some might think its conversion from an anti-nuclear party in the 1980s to a militantly pro-nuclear one now, has involved a bit of backtracking, and a lack of consistent vision.

Personally, as I said in response to the Labour Party’s invitation to submit comments to its National Policy Forum consultation on energy policy, I do not think we need renewables and nuclear, not least since ‘the last thing variable renewables need is inflexible nuclear plants: they are incompatible.’ Quite apart from the costs and the safety and security risks, which I have looked at elsewhere, I think it’s foolish to build large expensive plants that are only used occasionally for backup. The same is true for an isolated fleet of SMRs- trying to make them flexible enough to provide grid balancing is likely to make them even more costly.  Instead,  I pointed out that ‘there are UK scenarios in which renewables expand to supply almost all energy needs by 2050 led by wind and solar’, with full short and long term storage and flexible system balancing, at reasonable costs, although I did warn that ‘ dealing with interannual cycles may require import/grid trading options to be explored. But having inflexible nuclear plants doesn’t help at all- they just get in the way’. 

It’s fascinating stuff trying to ensure zero carbon green energy system flexibility and sustainability at low cost, as I have reported in Renew over the years, but Labour now seems to see nuclear as a key option. As a result, although there are some good things (e.g. on warm housing) in the new spending review, I’m not sure, given also their stance on some other key issues, how much longer I can stay being a member.

June 18, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | spinbuster, UK | Leave a comment