SNP slam ‘toxic’ Sizewell-C costs for Scottish energy bills.
THE SNP have demanded Scots are not forced to pay for “toxic” overspending
on the Sizewell-C budget. Prior to the summer recess, Energy Secretary Ed
Miliband quietly revealed that energy bills in Scotland will rise as a
result of a significant budget increase on the project – doubling in cost
to £38 billion with further revelations a loan facility of up to £36.6bn
will be provided, pushing the upper limit to £47.7bn.
Sizewell-C now becomes more costly than Hinkley Point C, the most expensive nuclear power
plant in the world.
Independent analysis from the House of Commons Library
confirmed that Scots will pay at least £300 million extra on energy bills
now to cover the overspend, with Miliband admitting there will be a
decade-long “nuclear tax” on bills north of the border.
SNP Energy spokesperson, Graham Leadbitter MP, said: “This toxic overspend now totals
£48bn and Anas Sarwar has serious questions to answer as to whether he
thinks it’s acceptable for Scots to foot the bill through higher energy
bills. “It is an absolute disgrace that energy rich Scotland will see
Scots face higher energy bills because of a nuclear plant running over
budget in Labour-run England.” With 2.5m households in Scotland, Miliband
forecasted that bill payers will pay an extra £12 per year to cover the
power plant, though experts have warned that figure is likely a minimum
with costs expected to rise further.
The National 27th July 2025 – https://www.thenational.scot/news/25342880.snp-slam-toxic-sizewell-c-costs-scottish-energy-bills/
Ed Miliband put up your energy bills (for Sizewell nuclear)– and hoped you wouldn’t notice
Miliband took the last day of term before MPs knocked off for a
six-week-long holiday – sorry, I mean “working in the constituency”
– to let slip that he was putting up your energy bills. This is to pay
for the ballooning cost of the Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk.
Incidentally, another thing that the Energy Secretary let out the bag on
Tuesday was that the cost of this had almost doubled to £38 billion.
That is regrettable but Miliband did not want us to get too down about it. The
UK Government expects that it will be “limited to an average of around
£1 a month on a typical household bill”. Given the way that energy bills
have gone in recent years, I doubt that anyone feels anything less than
seething resentment at paying even another penny.
The National 25th July 2025, https://www.thenational.scot/politics/25342653.ed-miliband-put-energy-bills—hoped-wouldnt-notice/
Tory peer apologises for helping set up ministerial meeting for a nuclear firm he advises
Deputy speaker Ian Duncan found to have breached rules by providing parliamentary service for Terrestrial Energy
The former junior climate minister has been an adviser to Terrestrial Energy since 2020. When he joined he was given share options, which allowed him to buy shares in the company at a preferential rate if they became profitable.
The Guardian revealed that, in 2023, Duncan forwarded a letter to Andrew Bowie, the nuclear minister at the time, from Simon Irish, the firm’s chief executive who wanted a meeting with the minister at short notice. The peer signed off his email “Lord D of S”.
The chief executive of the company, which is developing a new type of nuclear reactor, secured the meeting with Bowie at which he lobbied for Terrestrial Energy to be given easier access to government funding.
In his response to the watchdog, Duncan said Bowie was a “friend of long standing” who had helped him get elected as a member of the European parliament in 2014 and had then worked in his Brussels office.
Margaret Obi, the Lords commissioner, decided that the rule prohibiting peers from providing “parliamentary services in return for payment or other incentive or reward” was absolute.
She added: “It did not provide an exemption in cases where there was an existing personal relationship.”
She ruled: “Although Lord Duncan stated he was not paid specifically for facilitating this introduction, he received an allocation of share options as consideration for his work for Terrestrial Energy.
“I consider that this can reasonably be understood to have been an incentive or reward for the various tasks he undertook for the company.”
Guardian 25th July 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/25/tory-peer-ian-duncan-apologises-for-helping-set-up-ministerial-meeting-for-firm-he-advises
Sizewell C loans could see project cost rise above Hinkley to £47.7bn
The National Wealth Fund said it will provide a loan facility for the nuclear power station of up to £36.6bn, pushing the upper limit to £47.7bn.
July 22nd 2025, https://www.energyvoice.com/renewables-energy-transition/576872/sizewell-c-loans-could-see-project-cost-rise-above-hinkley-to-47-7bn/
Project costs for the Sizewell C nuclear power station could rise to an upper threshold of £47.7 billion as a result of a new government loan extension.
The National Wealth Fund (NWF) has increased the size of its loan facilities to provide a debt buffer in case project costs rise, the government has confirmed.
The government’s new sovereign fund said in a statement that Treasury has recapitalised the fund from a prior capitalisation of £27.8bn so it can provide a loan facility for nuclear power station Sizewell C of £36.6bn.
The NFW, which started operating in October, will act as a lender of record for the project and continue to have the capacity to invest across its mandated sectors, a spokesperson said.
According to the statement, an additional £5bn of debt will be guaranteed by France’s export credit agency Bpifrance Assurance Export.
An energy department spokesperson told Energy Voice that “in order to finance a project of this size, the project partners have made available finance to fund costs up to £47.7bn (real) to safeguard taxpayers in the event of cost overruns”.
“This is based on a remote scenario for the project and is not what the company is managing the project to,” the government spokesperson said.
“The central target in terms of costs is around £38bn real, but as is standard for big and complex projects, we have secured a financing which contains contingency in case of overruns.”
According to people close to the matter, one of whom cited project documents, while Sizewell C is estimated to cost £38bn, the lower threshold for financing is £40bn, with a higher upper threshold of £47.7bn.
The newly secured loan capital would raise the projected upper limit of financing for the power station by nearly £10bn if it was fully drawn down over the course of the project’s lifecycle, they indicated, although a spokesperson for the fund said that would be unlikely. He said the facility provided for the effect of inflation.
“It is likely that NWF would not be exposed to the full amount of its debt provision, meaning its total debt exposure is likely to be less than the nominal maximum it has provided for,” the fund’s spokesperson said.
This increase would provide for a maximum project cost of £47.7bn, which would make the nuclear project more expensive than stalled Somerset nuclear power station Hinkley Point C, which is estimated to cost in the region of £46bn.
The UK Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) confirmed this morning that it had secured investors to commit a total of £38bn to Sizewell C. That included investment commitments from EDF, Centrica, Amber Infrastructure Group and Canadian fund La Caisse.
Together Against Sizewell C chair Jenny Kirtley said: “The scale of potential exposure of public funds to the Sizewell C project is revealed as a staggering £54.589bn in the government’s FID subsidy scheme.
“So much for claims made by EDF and government that there would be huge cost savings from ‘lessons learned’ from the Hinkley Point C build.”
She added that “future generations will have the responsibility to protect the Sizewell C site until the late 2100s and are depending on us to get it right”.
Sizewell C, which reached a final investment decision in the early hours of Tuesday, is expected to be a more efficient replica than its delayed and long-awaited Somerset counterpart, with efficiencies estimated to be between 20% and 25% greater than the first two reactors at Hinkley.
Supply chain ‘incentivised to keep costs down’
Investors insist that they are confident that costs will not overrun, yet Somerset nuclear power station Hinkley Point C is years overdue and over budget.
“The project supply chain is strongly incentivised to keep costs down and investors will see lower returns if there are overruns, reducing risk for taxpayers,” DESNZ told Energy Voice by email.
The new Suffolk nuclear power station at Sizewell is expected to be delivered by the mid-2030s.
Yet Hinkley Point C, which secured a contract-for-difference to operate in 2015, is still not fully built.
Project owner EDF received a dressing down from the French auditor earlier this year, which insisted that it should refinance Hinkley before investing in another nuclear power station in the UK, Sizewell C.
EDF has subsequently reduced its stake to 12.5%, representing an equity commitment of £1.1bn. Centrica has agreed to invest £1.3bn in a 15% stake, while Amber Infrastructure Group and Canadian fund Le Caisse have committed to take an initial 7.6% and 20% stake respectively.
The UK government said it will initially take a stake of 44.9% in Sizewell C, which is expected to reduce if Amber and La Caisse’s combined stake rises to 30%, according to a person familiar with the matter.
Anas Sarwar urged to break silence on Labour’s ‘nuclear tax’ for Scots
ANAS Sarwar has been urged to clarify whether he backs a plan to apply a
“nuclear tax” to Scots with bills set to go up due to the rising cost of an
English nuclear plant. Energy Security Secretary Ed Miliband has confirmed
the Sizewell-C plant will cost £38 billion, nearly double the previous
estimate of £20bn.
Miliband snuck out a statement hours before Parliament
was due to go into a six-week summer recess, admitting energy bill payers
would face a decade-long levy as a result of the price hike. This is
despite Labour promising ahead of the General Election that their flagship
GB Energy policy would save people £300 a year on their energy bills. In
actual fact, bills are on average 10% higher than they were this time last
year.
The National 23rd July 2025, https://www.thenational.scot/news/25335813.anas-sarwar-urged-break-silence-labours-nuclear-tax-scots/
UK Government drops plans to include smaller nuclear fusion energy plants in NSIP regime
The government has announced it will incorporate all nuclear fusion energy facilities generating at least 50 megawatts (MW) in England into the streamlined nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) planning regime, but will drop its proposal to include such developments that fall under this threshold.
by Natasha Norris, Planning 24th July 2025,
https://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1926726/government-drops-plans-include-smaller-nuclear-fusion-energy-plants-nsip-regime
2
Why Nuclear Power in Scotland is not Needed, Economic, Wanted or Safe
John Drummond in conversation with Energy Scotland’s John Proctor and Leah Gunn Barrett
Leah Gunn Barrett, Dear Scotland, Jul 24, 2025
Last evening, John Proctor of Energy Scotland and I were guests on The Nation Talks podcast with John Drummond. We discussed why more nuclear power in Scotland should be a non-starter. It’s notNeeded, Economic, Wanted or Safe. And yet English Labour – from Kid Starver to Viceroy Murray to Anus Sarwar – are rabidly pro-nuclear, pushing this costly and dangerous energy source onto Scotland without our consent.
The video link to the programme is below. I’ve also provided notes below that I used to prepare, many taken from my previous posts.
Why Nuclear power is being pushed onto Scotland
The Corporate Nuclear Lobby has conducted one of the most aggressive lobbying and public relations campaigns of all energy sources. It pushes politicians and the public to support nuclear based on sketchy information and outright lies which aren’t challenged in the Scottish media.
The nuclear industry is funding lobby group Britain Remade, which launched a campaign to lift the ban on new Scottish nuclear power at a May 1 meeting in Dunbar, near the Torness power plant. English Labour’s Scotland manager Anus Sarwar accused the SNP of depriving Scotland of billions in investment and thousands of jobs, which is a lie. This is the same dude who wouldn’t save Grangemouth and its 500 jobs, after vowing he would.
And Viceroy Murray is pushing nuclear, even removing his name from the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) pledge.
English Labour is bankrolled by the nuclear lobby. Tony Blair is one of its biggest beneficiaries and cheerleaders. The Nuclear Energy Association loved his Institute’s 2024 pro-nuclear power report.
Nuclear power subsidises nuclear weapons production
Here’s the dirty little secret – the UK Government needs nuclear power. Without it, there’d be no nuclear weapons programme, the flaccid UK’s national virility symbol.
All the processes of the nuclear fuel cycle – uranium mining, refining and U-235 enrichment – are used for both civilian and military purposes; the UK Capenhurst facility makes nuclear fuel for both reactors and Trident submarines; and nuclear reactors create tritium (the radioactive isotope of hydrogen), which is necessary for nuclear weapons.
A 2017 University of Sussex study found that the costs of the Trident programme would be “unsupportable” without “an effective subsidy, from electricity consumers to military nuclear infrastructure”. Consumers, bearing the costs of uneconomic nuclear power, are also subsidising nuclear weapons that don’t even work! The Trident delivery system has failed two tests in a row, in 2016, and 2024. Despite these fiascos, the UK government insists that Trident “remains the most reliable weapons system in the world.”
Westminster won’t allow the southeast of England to be polluted by these nuclear rustbuckets so has confined them to “north Britain.” Nor will it tell its northern colony how badly they’re polluting the land and water. In 2017, the MoD stopped publishing annual reports from its internal watchdog, after the reports for 2005-2015 flagged “regulatory risks” 86 times. It has also blocked Scotland’s environment agency from releasing information about radioactive pollution from the Clyde nuclear bases at Faslane and Coulport for the last ten years.
Scots are getting the mushroom treatment – kept in the dark and fed a load of shite.
I. Nuclear is Not Needed – Renewables are far cheaper and safer………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
So, English Labour is trying to force onto Scotland plants that aren’t even commercially viable. It’s regurgitating the marketing hot air from a desperate industry that’s frantically funding pathetic careerists like Sarwar, Starmer and the Viceroy who are pushing this crap.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. • With no solution to nuclear waste, the UK is starting a new nuclear building program which will worsen the waste problem and result in vastly increased radioactivity from spent fuel and other highly radioactive wastes which will have to be stored indefinitely at vulnerable sites scattered around the UK coast.
The UK won’t give up on its never-ending quest to screw Scotland. It has stolen our oil and gas and now our renewables, and now is trying to force us to accept not needed, not economic, not wanted and not safe nuclear power.
Please sign the petition calling on the Scottish Administration to implement the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to give Scots the tools to exercise their sovereignty and the ability to say NO to nuclear. https://dearscotland.substack.com/p/why-nuclear-power-in-scotland-is
Time to Step Up – Campaigner calls on MP to challenge decision to give fusion indemnity over accident liabilities
Renowned nuclear campaigner, and friend to the Nuclear Free Local
Authorities, Dr David Lowry has just written to his local Member of
Parliament calling on her to challenge ministers over their pledge to
provide an absolute indemnity over costs incurred by a nuclear fusion pilot
plant being built in the Midlands should there be ‘incidents involving
nuclear matter or emissions of ionising radiation arising from fusion
activities relating to the STEP programme.’
In a written statement issued
to Parliament just prior to MPs leaving for the summer recess, Minister for
Climate – and seemingly defacto Nuclear Minister – Kerry McCarthy –
announced that this latest financial ‘get out of jail free’ card for the
nuclear industry would be ‘remote and uncapped’. The assumption by the
Treasury – and therefore by taxpayers – of any liability is Ms McCarthy
insists necessary to ‘address the gap in the insurance market’ which
rather suggests that no-one in the commercial insurance market is prepared
to take on the risks associated with this nascent technology.
NFLA 22nd July 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/time-to-step-up-campaigner-calls-on-mp-to-challenge-decision-to-give-fusion-indemnity-over-accident-liabilities/
The inside story of how America sent nuclear weapons to Britain
Nukewatch UK explains how it tracked the bombs being flown across the Atlantic.
American nuclear weapons with three times the power of the Hiroshima bomb
were transported to England last week, new evidence suggests. The arsenal
is under the control of president Donald Trump and could be used without
British approval.
Our team at Nukewatch UK observed a special flight
carrying the bombs as it landed at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk on 17 July,
having tracked its journey and monitored radio messages. The transport
plane, a giant C-17 Globemaster (flight number RCH4574 or Reach 4574) had
taken off from Lewis–McChord base in Washington state two days earlier.
Declassified UK 22nd July 2025, https://www.declassifieduk.org/the-inside-story-of-how-america-sent-nuclear-weapons-to-britain/
EDF not repeating its costly Hinkley nuclear blunder – for Sizewell C, the UK tax-payers will cop the costs.
In response to the Government’s announced funding plan to build new EPR
reactors at Sizewell, Dr Douglas Parr, Policy Director for Greenpeace UK,
said: “The UK’s unswerving loyalty to the one energy source that
consistently increases in price remains undimmed by our cost of living
crisis.
At a time when much cheaper renewables and storage, grid
improvements and a decoupling from gas would do so much more to reduce
energy costs, this announcement is testament to both the lobbying skills of
the nuclear industry, and a blind optimism from the government when it
comes to building atomic infrastructure that actual experience seems
incapable of shifting.
The only significant difference between the slowly
unfolding economic blunder of Hinkley C and the forthcoming economic
disaster of Sizewell C is that Hinkley’s predictable construction
problems, delays and cost overruns were borne by EDF. EDF know they can’t
afford to make that mistake again, and so this time those costs will be
borne by you, the British public.”
Greenpeace 22nd July 2025, https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/press-centre/
East Suffolk Council Statement following Sizewell C Final Investment Decision announcement
East Suffolk Council 22nd July 2025, https://www.eastsuffolk.gov.uk/news/sizewell-c-final-investment-east-suffolk-council-statement/
A statement from Cllr Tom Daly, East Suffolk Council’s Cabinet Member for Energy Projects, following confirmation by the government of Final Investment Decision for the construction of the Sizewell C Nuclear Power Station:
“East Suffolk Council acknowledges today’s decision by government on the Final Investment Decision for the Sizewell C new nuclear power station promoted by Sizewell C Co at Sizewell, Suffolk. Final Investment Decision is a key financial milestone for the project and follows on from the announcement of a further £14.2bn funding announced as part of the government’s Spending Review in June. The project will now proceed with certainty.
“The project was granted development consent by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy in 2022 and formally commenced in January 2024. Construction is expected to take approximately nine to 12 years. At this time, the technological development of renewables and the market situation will be such that the case for a massive inflexible nuclear provision will be, at best, unclear.
“East Suffolk Council recognises the continued challenges this will bring to East Suffolk’s communities as a result of the scale of construction works associated with the development, alongside other planned energy infrastructure development in East Suffolk. The Council will continue to work with the project promoter and all key stakeholders, seeking a coordinated and strategic approach to the delivery of energy infrastructure projects in East Suffolk.
“East Suffolk Council believes that renewable energy, like offshore wind and solar, provides a better long-term answer to the energy security and carbon reduction future of the UK. ESC requests that alongside this significant investment in large scale nuclear, similar investment will come forward for community energy initiatives and domestic insulation, to help meet our climate commitments in the climate crisis, and to support our communities with unaffordable energy prices.”
Sizewell C’s Final Investment Decision has only crawled over the line (- with the public purse)
“This much-delayed Final Investment Decision has only crawled over the
line thanks to guarantees that the public purse, not private investors,
will carry the can for the inevitable cost overruns. Even so, UK households
will soon be hit with a new Sizewell C construction tax on their energy
bills. It is astounding that it is only now, as contracts are being signed,
that the government has confessed that Sizewell C’s cost has almost
doubled to an eye watering £38 billion – a figure that will only go up.
Given that Ministers claimed not to recognise the cost was close to £40
billion is there any wonder there is so little trust in this project?”
Stop Sizewell C 22nd July 2025,
https://mailchi.mp/stopsizewellc/finalinvestmentdecision?e=326ee81c22
Why Starmer’s nuclear power push raises cancer fears
The UK is investing £14.2bn in a new Sizewell plant and £2.5bn in small nuclear reactors. In 1942, the Mallinckrodt Chemical Works in Missouri, US, was
processing uranium for the first atomic bomb. It ran out of space for its
radioactive waste and moved it to an open air storage site near Coldwater
Creek, north of St Louis.
More than 80 years later, Harvard University has
found that communities living near the creek, a tributary of the Missouri
River, have an elevated risk of cancer. The findings, released this week,
showed a dose-response effect, with those nearest the water having a far
higher chance of developing most cancers than those living farther away.
Researchers say it highlights the dangers of exposure to even small amounts
of radiation over time. They say governments must be cautious when building
new nuclear sites near towns and villages. The public was first alerted to
the possibility that nuclear plants could be causing cancer when an ITV
documentary in 1983 revealed a high number of childhood leukaemia cases
between 1955 and 1983 in the village of Seascale, near Sellafield. While
less than one case should have been expected in such a small community,
researchers found seven youngsters suffering from the condition. Residents
feared that radioactive discharges may be to blame and the Committee on
Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment (Comare) was set up to
investigate.
Investigations by Comare did show that rates of two types of
childhood leukaemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, were significantly higher
than expected, and researchers found a similar cluster at Thurso near
Dounreay. However, researchers did not find raised rates in other villages
near Sellafield and Dounreay, leading them to think that something else was
causing the rise, potentially local infections which are known to trigger
cancer in some cases. The investigators theorised that an influx of workers
moving to Seascale and Thurso to work in the nuclear industry might have
exposed local residents to new infections, sparking a rise in childhood
cancer rates. Viruses such as Epstein-Barr are thought to be linked to
cancers such as non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
Telegraph 19th July 2025, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/19/why-starmers-nuclear-power-push-raises-cancer-fears/
Ed Miliband admits Sizewell C cost has almost doubled to £38bn
New power station approved despite costs almost doubling from an estimate made five
years ago. Ed Miliband has admitted Sizewell C will cost at least £38bn to
build as he gave final approval for the construction of the nuclear power
station. The Energy Secretary took the final investment decision on the
controversial power station on Tuesday.
The site will take at least a decade to build. The Government confirmed the project will cost £38bn in 2024 prices, or £39.3bn once inflation since then is factored in. The
total is almost double the £20bn estimate given by the government and
developers EDF in 2020.
Sizewell C will be part-funded by a new levy on
household electricity bills called the Regulated Asset Base. The aim is to
pay the construction costs as they are incurred rather than borrow and then
pay decades of interest. Mr Miliband has claimed this levy will add only
£12 a year to the average household bill, but his claim is being treated
with scepticism by critics who point out that almost all major nuclear
projects suffer massive delays and cost overruns.
Telegraph 22nd July 2025 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/07/22/miliband-gives-sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-the-green-light/
On the hook! Taxpayers to foot much of £38 billion bill for Sizewell C farce.
“It is astounding that it is only now, as contracts are being signed, that the government has confessed that Sizewell C’s cost has almost doubled to an eye watering £38bn – a figure that will only go up”.
NFLA 22nd July 2025, https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/on-the-hook-taxpayers-to-foot-much-of-38-billion-bill-for-sizewell-c-farce/
As Energy Secretary Ed Miliband signals the go ahead to the Sizewell C nuclear power plant with today’s approval of the Financial Investment Decision,[i] it is notable that the estimated cost of building the UK’s latest nuclear white elephant has already almost doubled to £38 billion.
Taxpayers will be on the hook for billions, as Ministers have failed to secure the full private sector funding that they desperately wanted and as France has reined in its own commitment.
The UK government’s stake is now 44.9%, whilst Amber Infrastructure (7.6%), Centrica (15%), EDF Energy (12.5%), and La Caisse (20%) will also take stakes. The National Wealth Fund – the government’s principal investor and policy bank – is also making its first investment in nuclear energy.
Interestingly, although much was made of continued French Government involvement through its sole ownership of EDF, President Macron cannot have been very impressed with the hospitality he received on his recent visit to the UK as the French subsequently reduced their stake to 12.5%. Originally both the UK and French Government had each committed to taking a near 20% stake.
The previously published official cost for the project was £20 billion, with the plant expected to be generating in the mid to late 2030s. But sceptics never believed the claimed £20 billion figure and they placed little faith that the delivery date will be met given that Sizewell C is largely a remake of her older sister, Hinkley Point C, which is massively over budget and behind schedule.
This plant under construction in Somerset is now expected to cost £46 billion to complete, and it will be delivered up to six years late; but at least in the case of Hinkley Point C it is French-state owned EDF Energy that must stump up the extra cash.
Clearly some prospective investors baulked at the cost unknowns and project risks of the Suffolk white elephant, and Alison Downes, Director of Stop Sizewell C, said that consequently the latest project had “only crawled over the line thanks to guarantees that the public purse, not private investors, will carry the can for the inevitable cost overruns”.
Whitehall and industry insiders have previously revealed to the press that the £20 billion only represented half the true cost and Julia Pyke, Sizewell C’s Managing Director had conceded that the earlier £20 billion cost estimate failed to account for inflation or risk.
In Sizewell C’s media release today, Ms Pyke revealed the price hike:
“Our plan is to deliver Sizewell C at a capital cost of around £38bn. Our estimate is the result of very detailed scrutiny of costs at Hinkley Point C and long negotiations with our suppliers. It has been subject to third-party peer review and has been scrutinised by investors and lenders and has been subject to extensive due diligence as part of the financing process. A capital cost of £38bn represents around 20% saving compared with Hinkley Point C and demonstrates the value of the UK’s fleet approach.”[ii]
In response, Ms Downes added: “It is astounding that it is only now, as contracts are being signed, that the government has confessed that Sizewell C’s cost has almost doubled to an eye watering £38bn – a figure that will only go up”.
Also commenting, the Chair of a second local campaign group, Together Against Sizewell C (TASC), Jenny Kirtley, said,
“This decision is a financial and environmental disaster for the UK and a betrayal of future generations.
“We are in a climate crisis that needs immediate action, yet this government has chosen to squander billions of public funds on a project that will not be operational until the late 2030s and has already seen a staggering 90% uplift in cost over the last 5 years.
“At nearly double the original £20bn price tag, a figure still being touted by joint managing director Julia Pyke until recently, how can anyone believe that £38bn Sizewell C will provide ‘value for money’ for consumers and taxpayers. The scale of potential exposure of public funds to the Sizewell C project is revealed as a staggering £54.589 billion in the government’s Financial Investment Decision subsidy scheme[iii].
“So much for claims made by EDF and government that there would be huge cost savings from ‘lessons learned’ from the Hinkley Point C build.
“In TASC’s view, the cost of this risky project can only increase as there are still many unresolved issues, including the recently revealed hidden sea defences which were not included by EDF in the 2020 DCO planning application even though EDF knew they would be needed in 2017.[iv] Future generations will have the responsibility to protect the Sizewell C site until the late 2100s and are depending on us to get it right.”
Although disappointing, the news was not unexpected by campaigners. The Nuclear Free Local Authorities are therefore confident that they shall soon pick themselves up and continue the fight, and we shall stand alongside them as the battle continues.
1 This Month
Protect Sazan Island from the Trump family! https://secure.avaaz.org/campaign/en/protect_sazan_island_from_the_trump_family_loc/?bqFCVab&v=174511&cl=22707147157&_checksum=5e9dde668860e8231c33699735e16a1fbf22ab2cb01da50c999fe8732b9775ef&utm_source=email&utm_medium=blast_email&utm_campaign=174511
25 June- THE PUKE ON NUKES
Thursday, June 25, 2026
7pm Central Time (8pm ET, 6pm MT, 5pm PT) UTC – 5
From NRC & DOE Deregulation to Techno-Fascist Billionaires Going Nuclear, Plus a Few Songs from Atomic Cabaret REGISTER
26 June – Radiation Trainwreck at the NRC / Join the Protect Better Campaign – https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/4ZlZ5_qLSHGiLSCg8FF6Bg#/registration
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (152)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 