UK terminates $34B subsea cable energy agreement in North Africa
The UK government has officially withdrawn its support for the £25 billion ($34.4 billion) Morocco-UK Power Project, a pioneering plan to harness solar and wind energy from the Sahara Desert and transmit it to Britain via the world's longest subsea power cable.
The UK government has withdrawn support for the £25 billion Morocco-UK Power Project due to national interest concerns.
This project aimed to transmit renewable energy from Morocco to the UK via a 3,800 km subsea power cable.
The lack of government-backed contracts reduced investment attractiveness, leading to project termination.
The ambitious project, led by British clean energy company, Xlinks, involved laying over 3,800 kilometers of high-voltage subsea cables from Morocco's Guelmim-Oued Noun region to Devon in southwest England, to generate enough electricity to power over 7 million UK homes, accounting for up to 8% of the country's energy needs.
Prior to its termination, the inter-continental energy project, which would have harnessed over 10.5 gigawatts of solar and wind power to deliver a steady 3.6 gigawatts of baseload energy, had reportedly cleared environmental permits and was scheduled for construction as early as 2027.
Reuters report that over £100 million ($137 million) has already been spent on development and feasibility studies, with significant interest from lenders to fund the construction phase.
However, the lack of a government-backed contract for difference and a guaranteed minimum price for electricity made the project riskier and less attractive to investors.
Michael Shanks, UK Energy Minister highlighted the reasons for the decision; he said the government had concluded that,
'it is not in the UK national interest at this time to continue further consideration of support for the Morocco-UK Power Project. '
He also cited concerns over economic alignment and a shift toward ' homegrown power ' as part of a broader energy security strategy, adding that the government had concluded that it preferred domestic renewable investments with greater economic and energy security benefits.
Reacting to the news of cancellation, Xlinks, Chairman, Dave Lewis said,
'We are hugely surprised and bitterly disappointed that the UK government would choose to walk away from an opportunity to unlock the substantial value that a large-scale renewable energy project like this would bring,'
'We are now working to unlock the potential of the project and maximize its value for all parties in a different way.' He added.
The Morocco-UK Power Project
At its core, the Morocco-UK Power Project was envisioned as a transcontinental clean energy solution; designed to tap into North Africa 's abundant sunshine and wind to help the UK meet its 2030 net-zero grid ambitions while easing reliance on natural gas.
It would have featured 11.5 gigawatts of solar and wind capacity with battery storage to deliver 3.6 gigawatts of steady baseload power.
Despite backing from major investors like TAQA, TotalEnergies, Octopus Energy, and GE Vernova, concerns over the project's complexity, transmission length, geopolitical risks, and dependency on a non-European partner ultimately led to the UK's decision to pull back.
As global clean energy investment is projected to reach $3.3 trillion in 2025, with two-thirds going towards renewables and storage, the UK's move signals a shift towards resilient, domestic systems over cross-border mega-deals.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
How Europe got tough on migration
Advertisement Procaccini's party, Brothers of Italy, is now very popular in Italy. Its leader, Giorgia Meloni, is the country's prime minister. And Procaccini is a chair of the European Conservatives and Reformists group, a big force in the European Parliament. Across the political spectrum in Europe, leaders, right and left, are pushing a tougher line on migrants lacking permanent legal status. The shift has not set off the same turmoil that President Trump's immigration crackdown has stirred in the United States, but it is already being seen as entrenched and profound. In nations across the European Union, centrists are joining staunch conservatives to roll back protections in an effort to make it easier to deport migrants lacking permanent legal status. Denmark's 'zero' refugee policy has become a model other leaders want to replicate. European Union officials are working on new rules that would help to send asylum-seekers to third countries. The bloc struck a recent deal to deploy agents in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is not an EU member, to better police borders. Advertisement Some of those ideas have previously met with criticism from European Union officials. 'There is now this really broad consensus among almost all political camps ," said Martin Hofmann, an adviser at the International Center for Migration Policy Development. 'We will be tougher, we will be stricter. " The shift has steadily built with the voter backlash that helped fuel nationalist, far-right, and populist parties after Europe took in more than 1 million Syrians, Iraqis, Afghans, and others seeking asylum a decade ago. Migration picked up again, though less drastically, just after the peak of the coronavirus pandemic. But since then, the number of migrants arriving has fallen. They declined about 20 percent in the first five months of 2025, after a sharp decline last year, according to preliminary data collected by Frontex, the European Union's border agency. At the same time, expulsions have slowly increased. But migration along some routes remains significant. Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the bloc's executive arm, emphasized in a recent letter to political leaders that arrivals from Libya into Greece are surging, and said that Europe must 'insist on strengthening border management.' Hofmann said that because anti-immigrant sentiments are often a proxy for wider frustration with a perceived lack of opportunities, high costs of living, and a loss of social status, a drop in migrant arrivals alone was unlikely to blunt the issue's potency. In his view, policies that seem to be working to stem immigration are likely to retain their appeal and continue to gain momentum. That includes offshoring asylum requests, which the European Commission is exploring. Advertisement Not long ago, when the British government proposed sending asylum-seekers to Rwanda, the Council of Europe's commissioner for human rights said the plan was another representation 'of an ongoing trend towards externalization of asylum and migration policy in Europe,' which he said was 'a matter of concern for the global system of protection of the rights of refugees.' Now, the policy of offshoring asylum requests has become a signature of Meloni, who has tried to hold asylum-seekers in Albania while their cases are processed. Though Italian judges have blocked her effort for now, von der Leyen called it 'an example of out-of-the-box thinking.' Now the European Union is seeking to redirect applicants to third countries while it works to streamline the deportation process for asylum-seekers whose applications have been rejected. The depth of the change was on full display last month when Mette Frederiksen, the Social Democratic, left-leaning Danish prime minister, stood alongside the staunchly conservative Meloni in Rome to support tougher migration rules. Frederiksen, whose country has relatively few asylum requests, has for several years overseen one of Europe's most restrictive policies. Others are now seeking to adopt a similar approach. Chancellor Friedrich Merz of Germany, the center-right leader of Europe's largest economy, this month called Denmark a 'role model' on migration policy. Meloni and Frederiksen presented an open letter in which they argued that the European Convention on Human Rights, the 75-year-old cornerstone for the protection of human rights in Europe, 'posed too many limitations on the states' ability to decide whom to expel from their territories.' Advertisement It was also signed by leaders from Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Germany has now instituted checks on its land borders, a step that opponents, including some of its neighbors, have criticized as undermining the commitment of EU members to free movement within the bloc. The Polish government suspended asylum rights as migrants have massed at the border with Belarus, which is outside the European Union. Poland argued that Russian and Belarusian officials were deliberately encouraging migration in a bid to destabilize Europe. Some worry that the shift in tone around migration could harm newcomers who remain in Europe. In recent Polish presidential elections, the nationalist candidate won by running in part on a 'Poland first, Poles first' tagline. The shift in tone is striking even to those who have long been proponents of tougher measures. A decade ago, when Australia barred migrants trying to enter the country by sea from resettlement and sent asylum-seekers to Papua New Guinea, rights groups said the policy provoked human rights violations. The European Union was also critical, said Alexander Downer, an Australian former foreign minister. 'They used to give me lectures all the time about how naughty we were,' Downer said. 'Von der Leyen has embraced it now.' This article originally appeared in
Atlantic
4 hours ago
- Atlantic
How to Assess the Damage of the Iran Strikes
In August 1941, the British government received a very unwelcome piece of analysis from an economist named David Miles Bensusan-Butt. A careful analysis of photographs suggested that the Royal Air Force's Bomber Command was having trouble hitting targets in Germany and France; in fact, only one in three pilots that claimed to have attacked the targets seemed to have dropped its bombs within five miles of them. The Butt report is a landmark in the history of 'bomb damage assessment,' or, as we now call it, 'battle damage assessment.' This recondite term has come back into public usage because of the dispute over the effectiveness of the June 22 American bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities. President Donald Trump said that American bombs had 'obliterated' the Iranian nuclear program. A leaked preliminary assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency on June 24 said that the damage was minimal. Whom to believe? Have the advocates of bombing again overpromised and underdelivered? Some history is in order here, informed by a bit of personal experience. From 1991 to 1993 I ran the U.S. Air Force's study of the first Gulf War. In doing so I learned that BDA rests on three considerations: the munition used, including its accuracy; the aircraft delivering it; and the type of damage or effect created. Of these, precision is the most important. World War II saw the first use of guided bombs in combat. In September 1943, the Germans used radio-controlled glide bombs to sink the Italian battleship Roma as it sailed off to surrender to the Allies. Americans developed similar systems with some successes, though none so dramatic. In the years after the war, precision-guided weapons slowly came to predominate in modern arsenals. The United States used no fewer than 24,000 laser-guided bombs during the Vietnam War, and some 17,000 of them during the 1991 Gulf War. These weapons have improved considerably, and in the 35 years since, 'routine precision,' as some have called it, has enormously improved the ability of airplanes to hit hard, buried targets. Specially designed ordnance has also seen tremendous advances. In World War II, the British developed the six-ton Tallboy bomb to use against special targets, including the concrete submarine pens of occupied France in which German U-boats hid. The Tallboys cracked some of the concrete but did not destroy any, in part because these were 'dumb bombs' lacking precision guidance, and in part because the art of hardening warheads was in its infancy. In the first Gulf War, the United States hastily developed a deep-penetrating, bunker-busting bomb, the GBU-28, which weighed 5,000 pounds, but only two were used, to uncertain effect. In the years since, however, the U.S. and Israeli air forces, among others, have acquired hardened warheads for 2,000-pound bombs such as the BLU-109 that can hit deeply buried targets—which is why, for example, the Israelis were able to kill a lot of Hezbollah's leadership in its supposedly secure bunkers. The aircraft that deliver bombs can affect the explosives' accuracy. Bombs that home in on the reflection of a laser, for example, could become 'stupid' if a cloud passes between plane and the target, or if the laser otherwise loses its lock on the target. Bombs relying on GPS coordinates can in theory be jammed. Airplanes being shot at are usually less effective bomb droppers than those that are not, because evasive maneuvers can prevent accurate delivery. The really complicated question is that of effects. Vietnam-era guided bombs, for example, could and did drop bridges in North Vietnam. In many cases, however, Vietnamese engineers countered by building 'underwater bridges' that allowed trucks to drive across a river while axle-deep in water. The effect was inconvenience, not interdiction. Conversely, in the first Gulf War, the U.S. and its allies spent a month pounding Iraqi forces dug in along the Kuwait border, chiefly with dumb bombs delivered by 'smart aircraft' such as the F-16. In theory, the accuracy of the bombing computer on the airplane would allow it to deliver unguided ordnance with accuracy comparable to that of a laser-guided bomb. In practice, ground fire and delivery from high altitudes often caused pilots to miss. When teams began looking at Iraqi tanks in the area overrun by U.S. forces, they found that many of the tanks were, in fact, undamaged. But that was only half of the story. Iraqi tank crews were so sufficiently terrified of American air power that they stayed some distance away from their tanks, and tanks immobilized and unmaintained for a month, or bounced around by near-misses, do not work terribly well. The functional and indirect effects of the bombing, in other words, were much greater than the disappointing physical effects. Many of the critiques of bombing neglect the importance of this phenomenon. The pounding of German cities and industry during World War II, for example, did not bring war production to a halt until the last months, but the indirect and functional effects were enormous. The diversion of German resources into air-defense and revenge weapons, and the destruction of the Luftwaffe's fighter force over the Third Reich, played a very great role in paving the way to Allied victory. At a microlevel, BDA can be perplexing. In 1991, for example, a bomb hole in an Iraqi hardened-aircraft shelter told analysts only so much. Did the bomb go through the multiple layers of concrete and rock fill, or did it 'J-hook'back upward and possibly fail to explode? Was there something in the shelter when it hit, and what damage did it do? Did the Iraqis perhaps move airplanes into penetrated shelters on the theory that lightning would not strike twice? All hard (though not entirely impossible) to judge without being on the ground. To the present moment: BDA takes a long time, so the leaked DIA memo of June 24 was based on preliminary and incomplete data. The study I headed was still working on BDA a year after the war ended. Results may be quicker now, but all kinds of information need to be integrated—imagery analysis, intercepted communications, measurement and signature intelligence (e.g., subsidence of earth above a collapsed structure), and of course human intelligence, among others. Any expert (and any journalist who bothered to consult one) would know that two days was a radically inadequate time frame in which to form a considered judgment. The DIA report was, from a practical point of view, worthless. An educated guess, however, would suggest that in fact the U.S. military's judgment that the Iranian nuclear problem had suffered severe damage was correct. The American bombing was the culmination of a 12-day campaign launched by the Israelis, which hit many nuclear facilities and assassinated at least 14 nuclear scientists. The real issue is not the single American strike so much as the cumulative effect against the entire nuclear ecosystem, including machining, testing, and design facilities. The platforms delivering the munitions in the American attack had ideal conditions in which to operate—there was no Iranian air force to come up and attack the B-2s that they may not even have detected, nor was there ground fire to speak of. The planes were the most sophisticated platforms of the most sophisticated air force in the world. The bombs themselves, particularly the 14 GBU-57s, were gigantic—at 15 tons more than double the size of Tallboys—with exquisite guidance and hardened penetrating warheads. The targets were all fully understood from more than a decade of close scrutiny by Israeli and American intelligence, and probably that of other Western countries as well. In the absence of full information, cumulative expert judgment also deserves some consideration—and external experts such as David Albright, the founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, have concluded that the damage was indeed massive and lasting. Israeli analysts, in and out of government, appear to agree. They are more likely to know, and more likely to be cautious in declaring success about what is, after all, an existential threat to their country. For that matter, the Iranian foreign minister concedes that 'serious damage' was done. One has to set aside the sycophantic braggadocio of Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who seems to believe that one unopposed bombing raid is a military achievement on par with D-Day, or the exuberant use of the word obliteration by the president. A cooler, admittedly provisional judgment is that with all their faults, however, the president and his secretary of defense are likely a lot closer to the mark about what happened when the bombs fell than many of their hasty, and not always well-informed, critics. *Photo-illustration by Jonelle Afurong / The Atlantic. Source: Alberto Pizzoli / Sygma / Getty; MIKE NELSON / AFP / Getty; Greg Mathieson / Mai / Getty; Space Frontiers / Archive Photos / Hulton Archive / Getty; U.S. Department of Defense
New York Post
5 hours ago
- New York Post
Not OK, Karen! Court loses it when lawyer calls someone ‘Karen' in legal papers: ‘Borderline racist, sexist, and ageist'
You Karen't say that! A British court tore into an attorney who called someone a 'Karen' in papers for a discrimination case — calling the term 'borderline racist, sexist, and ageist,' according to a report. A British employment tribunal judge ruled that Karen is a 'borderline racist, sexist, and ageist,' slang term. Witoon – Sylvia Constance, a 74-year-old black woman, was suing for discrimination after she was axed from a charity company called Harpenden Mencap — but an employment tribunal took issue when the ousted worker's rep used the phrase in court papers, the Independent reported. Attorney Christine Yates argued leadership at the charity — supports adults with learning disabilities — leadership 'acted like stereotypical Karens' — claiming they weaponized their privilege to suspend and fire Constance over 'fictitious claims, the report said. Constance accused the organization of unfair dismissal, racial and age discrimination and of launching a campaign to oust her based on prejudice, the outlet said. Yates alleged that a white, female management team had colluded with white male residents under their care to create a racist and misogynistic smear campaign, the outlet reported. Tribunal judge George Alliot took issue with the use of the term 'Karen' in legal filings. – Tribunal judge George Alliot took issue with Yates's use of the term 'Karen' in legal filings. 'We note Christine Yates uses the slang term 'Karen', which is a pejorative and borderline racist, sexist, and ageist term,' Alliot said. The tribunal ultimately dismissed Constance's claims, siding with the charity for firing her in June 2023 over an 'irretrievable breakdown' of workplace relationships, the outlet reported. Alliot also ruled that the complaints against Constance were 'legitimate,' the outlet said.
