I wonder if Hinkley C2 will be abandoned. In the absence of the political drive for nuclear, it would make more sense to devote the limited funds to finishing C1, where they've already (I think) installed the reactor. But even that would probably be a mistake in economic terms.
Hi John, I think the UK government is determined to push ahead with both reactors. It is a Duttonesque government (as you know) and is also anti-renewables and anti-energy efficiency. That said, there must be a possibility of either or both of the Hinkley reactors being abandoned. Not sure how they get Sizewell C to construction. Amazing how strongly the government is linking nuclear power and weapons, here's an important article on that: https://theconversation.com/military-interests-are-pushing-new-nuclear-power-and-the-uk-government-has-finally-admitted-it-216118
This government only has a few months left to run. Starmer's not much better, but he will inherit a very difficult fiscal situation. He might decide to pull the plug and blame it on the last lot.
As regards nuclear weapons, it's hard to see why the UK needs a continuing supply of nuclear material, given that their missiles are made in the US.
But, I'm pretty sure that the UK deep state doesn't think that way.
There's a complex web of interdependencies (see the link if interested). Fissile material production is well down the list. That said, it's entirely possible that the quasi-civil nuclear industry is overstating its importance to the weapons industry for obvious, self-serving reasons.. For example, it seems like a try-on when Rolls-Royce said that “a civil nuclear UK SMR programme would relieve the Ministry of Defence of the burden of developing and retaining skills and capability.” I guess it's true that the weapons program is cheaper if it can lean on the nuclear power program, and vice versa, but that economic logic is circular. https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/868/global-picture-industrial-interdependencies-between-civil-and-military-nuclear
I wonder if Hinkley C2 will be abandoned. In the absence of the political drive for nuclear, it would make more sense to devote the limited funds to finishing C1, where they've already (I think) installed the reactor. But even that would probably be a mistake in economic terms.
Hi John, I think the UK government is determined to push ahead with both reactors. It is a Duttonesque government (as you know) and is also anti-renewables and anti-energy efficiency. That said, there must be a possibility of either or both of the Hinkley reactors being abandoned. Not sure how they get Sizewell C to construction. Amazing how strongly the government is linking nuclear power and weapons, here's an important article on that: https://theconversation.com/military-interests-are-pushing-new-nuclear-power-and-the-uk-government-has-finally-admitted-it-216118
This government only has a few months left to run. Starmer's not much better, but he will inherit a very difficult fiscal situation. He might decide to pull the plug and blame it on the last lot.
As regards nuclear weapons, it's hard to see why the UK needs a continuing supply of nuclear material, given that their missiles are made in the US.
But, I'm pretty sure that the UK deep state doesn't think that way.
There's a complex web of interdependencies (see the link if interested). Fissile material production is well down the list. That said, it's entirely possible that the quasi-civil nuclear industry is overstating its importance to the weapons industry for obvious, self-serving reasons.. For example, it seems like a try-on when Rolls-Royce said that “a civil nuclear UK SMR programme would relieve the Ministry of Defence of the burden of developing and retaining skills and capability.” I guess it's true that the weapons program is cheaper if it can lean on the nuclear power program, and vice versa, but that economic logic is circular. https://www.wiseinternational.org/nuclear-monitor/868/global-picture-industrial-interdependencies-between-civil-and-military-nuclear