Controversial: Britain's plans to go nuclear
The British government under Keir Starmer has committed to investing 14.2 billion pounds (around 16.8 billion euros) in the construction of the Sizewell C nuclear plant on England's east coast. According to estimates the project will take around ten years to complete. There have been major delays in the construction of a similar reactor, Hinkley Point C in Somerset, and the plant is not expected to start operating until 2030, more than a decade later and costing billions more than originally planned.
The only reliable energy option
Nuclear power is the way to go, argues The Independent:
“These nukes take so long to build, are so costly, so prone to overruns and vulnerable to unpredictable trends in global energy prices - it's impossible to say whether Sizewell C is a good idea or not. But the pressure of current assumptions means we will have to go ahead anyway. The private sector can't and won't bear the risk, so it's down to the taxpayers. As things stand, and given that fossil fuels are undesirable on climate grounds, atomic power is the only way we can guarantee a reliable baseload of energy for when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.”
Nuclear power alone won't deliver net zero
The Guardian says more explanations are needed:
“Labour's bet reflects a broader shift across Europe. ... In a climate emergency, there is a case for nuclear energy as part of a decarbonised energy system. But nuclear alone won't deliver net zero; it must be part of a wider, coherent strategy that includes energy efficiency and renewables. Ministers must, for example, have stricter green building rules to get to net zero. ... What is clear is that ministers need to explain this week's decisions in more detail than they have so far.”