Key questions answered on Sizewell C after Reeves confirms nuclear investment
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has signed off on a £16 billion investment in nuclear power, including funding to build the Sizewell C nuclear power station.
It comes ahead of the spending review on Wednesday, where Ms Reeves will outline departmental budgets for the next three years.
Here we answer key questions about Sizewell C and the Government's wider nuclear power plans.
– What is the Sizewell C nuclear plant?
Sizewell C was first proposed 15 years ago on a site by the hamlet Sizewell, which sits on the Suffolk coast between Aldeburgh and Southwold.
The area is already home to two separate power stations, the decommissioned Sizewell A nuclear plant and pressurised water reactor Sizewell B.
Nuclear power plants use a process called nuclear fission, where atoms split, releasing heat which is then used to generate electricity.
– How much funding has the Government announced?
The Chancellor said £14.2 billion will be invested to build the Sizewell C plant, marking the end of a long journey to secure funding for the project since it was first earmarked in 2010.
At the peak of construction, Sizewell C is expected to provide 10,000 jobs.
The company behind the project has already signed £330 million worth of contracts with local businesses.
Elsewhere, the Government confirmed one of Europe's first small modular reactor (SMR) programmes, backed by £2.5 billion in taxpayers' money over five years.
Ministers announced Rolls-Royce as the winners of a long-running competition on Tuesday for the bid to build the SMR programme.
– How could Sizewell C contribute to the UK's future energy system?
Sizewell C will power the equivalent of six million homes and is planned to be operation in the 2030s, the Government said.
It is also understood that the plant will generate electricity for 60 years.
The Treasury said that, combined with the ambition to build SMRs, it would deliver more new nuclear energy to the grid than over the previous half century by the 2030s.
It comes as nuclear plants are seen as increasingly important electricity sources as the Government tries to decarbonise Britain's grid by 2030, replacing fossil fuels with green power.
The last time Britain completed one was in 1987, which was the Sizewell B plant.
Hinkley Point C, in Somerset, is under construction and is expected to produce enough power for about six million homes when it opens, but that may not be until 2031.
Sizewell C is part of the Government's wider ambitions to support clean power, such as wind and solar, and decarbonise the country's power grid to tackle the climate crisis and ensure future energy security.
– What are small modular reactors?
SMRs are a nuclear fission reactor that are a fraction of the size of a traditional nuclear plant.
This means they can be built on smaller sites across the country, closer to where the electricity is needed.
Still an emerging technology, only China and Russia have successfully built operational SMRs.
The Government says the newly-announced UK project could support up to 3,000 new skilled jobs and power the equivalent of around three million homes, with a first site expected to be allocated later this year by state-owned Great British Energy – Nuclear.
The hope is eventually attract private investment, especially from tech companies, which might build SMRs to power data centres.– Who has welcomed the Government funding?
Trade unions welcomed the move, which the Treasury said would go towards creating 10,000 jobs, including 1,500 apprenticeships.
The GMB union said giving Sizewell C the go-ahead was 'momentous'.
Regional secretary Warren Kenny said: 'Nuclear power is essential for clean, affordable, and reliable energy – without new nuclear, there can be no net zero.
'Sizewell C will provide thousands of good, skilled, unionised jobs and we look forward to working closely with the Government and Sizewell C to help secure a greener future for this country's energy sector.'
Mike Clancy, general secretary of Prospect, said: 'Delivering this funding for Sizewell C is a vital step forward, this project is critical to securing the future of the nuclear industry in the UK.
'New nuclear is essential to achieving net zero, providing a baseload of clean and secure energy, as well as supporting good, unionised jobs.
'Further investment in SMRs and fusion research shows we are finally serious about developing a 21st-century nuclear industry.
'All funding must be backed up by a whole-industry plan to ensure we have the workforce and skills we need for these plans to succeed.'
– Who has criticised the plans?
Various campaigners oppose the plant and have criticised the decision to commit the funding, saying it is still not clear what the total cost will be.
Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C said ministers had not 'come clean' about the full cost of the project, which the group has previously estimated could be some £40 billion.
'There still appears to be no final investment decision for Sizewell C, but £14.2 billion in taxpayers' funding, a decision we condemn and firmly believe the Government will come to regret.
'Where is the benefit for voters in ploughing more money into Sizewell C that could be spent on other priorities, and when the project will add to consumer bills and is guaranteed to be late and overspent just like Hinkley C?
'Ministers have still not come clean about Sizewell C's cost and, given negotiations with private investors are incomplete, they have signed away all leverage and will be forced to offer generous deals that undermine value for money. Starmer and Reeves have just signed up to HS2 mark 2.'
Environmental campaigners have also warned of the impact the plant could have on local wildlife, given Sizewell is surrounded by protected areas.
The whole coast is an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB), the shingle beach is a site of special scientific interest (SSSI) while the nearby Sizewell Marshes and Leiston Sandlings are special protected areas (SPAs) for birds.
Many argue that ministers should focus on investing in renewable energy, such as wind farms, instead.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Rachel Reeves 'a gnat's whisker' from having to raise taxes, says IFS
Rachel Reeves is a "gnat's whisker" away from having to raise taxes in the autumn budget, a leading economist has warned - despite the chancellor insisting her plans are "fully funded". Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said "any move in the wrong direction" for the economy before the next fiscal event would "almost certainly spark more tax rises". 'Sting in the tail' in chancellor's plans - politics latest Speaking the morning after she delivered her spending review, which sets government budgets until 2029, Ms Reeves told hiking taxes wasn't inevitable. "Everything I set out yesterday was fully costed and fully funded," she told Sky News Breakfast. Her plans - which include £29bn for day-to-day NHS spending, £39bn for affordable and social housing, and boosts for defence and transport - are based on what she set out in October's budget. That budget, her first as chancellor, included controversial tax hikes on employers and increased borrowing to help public services. Chancellor won't rule out tax rises The Labour government has long vowed not to raise taxes on "working people" - specifically income tax, national insurance for employees, and VAT. Ms Reeves refused to completely rule out tax rises in her next budget, saying the world is "very uncertain". The Conservatives have claimed she will almost certainly have to put taxes up, with shadow chancellor Mel Stride accusing her of mismanaging the economy. Taxes on businesses had "destroyed growth" and increased spending had been "inflationary", he told Sky News. New official figures showed the economy contracted in April by 0.3% - more than expected. It coincided with Donald Trump imposing tariffs across the world. Ms Reeves admitted the figures were "disappointing" but pointed to more positive figures from previous months. Read more: 'Sting in the tail' She is hoping Labour's plans will provide more jobs and boost growth, with major infrastructure projects "spread" across the country - from the Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk, to a rail line connecting Liverpool and Manchester. But the IFS said further contractions in the economy, and poor forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility, would likely require the chancellor to increase the national tax take once again. It said her spending review already accounted for a 5% rise in council tax to help local authorities, labelling it a "sting in the tail" after she told Sky's Beth Rigby that it wouldn't have to go up.


Bloomberg
an hour ago
- Bloomberg
Bessent, Senator Warren in Heated Exchange Over Deficit
CC-Transcript 00:00Will this bill increase or decrease the deficit? Are varying scoring on that. So will the secretary of the Treasury. So I'm asking you, what is your view? Will this bill increase or decrease the deficit? It is my view that over the ten year window, it will decrease. You know, do you have anybody who agrees with you on this? Yes. Yes. Let me let me ask my question. Okay. Every credible independent expert agrees that Trump and the Republicans big, beautiful bill would add trillions of dollars to the national debt and would not even come close to paying for itself. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Penn Wharton budget model, and the Yale Budget Lab all agree on this, and they're looking at ten year windows. Thank you. So do the Conservative Tax Foundation and Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Conservative groups, even Elon Musk and The Wall Street Journal are criticizing the bill for ballooning the national debt. The only people who are saying publicly that it's not going to add to the national debt, are you Donald Trump? The Republicans in Congress. Do you have an independent group that has put forward numbers that disagrees with all of these conservative groups and disagrees with The Wall Street Journal on this? Well, Senator, interesting to see you aligned with Elon Musk. But if I you're no more shocked than I am the. If we want to take the full congressional congressional budget scoring, they predict and I don't agree with their methodology, they predict a 2.4 trillion deficit, but they show the gap. No, no, no. But may I finish? They include that. But they've also scored 2.8 trillion in tariff income. So even even in Washington, D.C., math in Washington, D.C., math, that is a 400 billion surplus. Okay. So let me make sure I understand. This bill, you admit, will increase the deficit by $2.4 trillion, but you think there will be another bill and another set of agreements that somehow materialize haven't materialized so far, don't have any statutory authority, but that will make up the difference. So the answer to the original question will this bill increase or decrease the deficit? I think you just said it will increase this bill, increases the. I want to use all the all the CBO scoring and you can't take one without the other. I don't agree with the CBO. The law that we are scoring the bill that is in front of us. We don't have a tariff bill in front of us to score. Mr. Secretary, let me go on to the second question. You've said that government spending is, quote, out of control. You have also called government spending, quote, unsustainable. In fact, in the name of fiscal responsibility, you're working with the Republicans on this big, beautiful bill to pass the biggest cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act in American history. So, Mr. Secretary, help me understand here. Why is the national debt so very important that you're trying to kick 16 million people off their health insurance? But increasing the national debt doesn't seem to matter if you're cutting taxes for billionaires and billionaire corporations. Well, first of all, a huge portion of this goes to family owned businesses that are passed through entities that are below that level. Senator. And I am sure you share my goals of Main Street prosperity. You know, I'm glad to do tax cuts for people of modest means. The question I'm asking is why does the deficit not matter to you? We're talking about knocking 16 million people off their health care. But it matters not. It does matter to you if we're knocking people off their health care, but not. Well, first of all, that figure is overstated by 5.1 million. That is amount not attributable to provisions. And do you think it's okay? It is. It is simply health care. First of all, let's set that straight. Work requirements account for 8 million of CBO's claim number. Again, we're creating the economy. So for most Americans, Terry. So you don't want to answer that? No, No, Senator, I am answering. No, you're not. And what I want is for Medicaid to be used there for mothers and children as it was meant not for 1.4 million illegal aliens, not for able bodied people, and not it's not used for people who are not documented. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say here, the part that troubles me the most is that the secretary is deeply worried about the about the deficit and is willing to knock 60 million or, as he says, nearly 11 million people off their health care matter so much. But it doesn't matter so much if you're cutting taxes for billionaires, then it's okay to run up a big deficit. I think that's wrong. For YouLive TV


San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
How major US stock indexes fared Thursday, 6/12/2025
U.S. stocks drifted higher following another encouraging update on inflation. The S&P 500 added 0.4% Thursday and is sitting less than 2% below its record. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 0.2%, and the Nasdaq composite rose 0.2%. Treasury yields fell again in the bond market after an update on inflation at the wholesale level came in better than expected, while a report on joblessness was slightly worse than forecast. That raised expectations for the Federal Reserve to begin cutting interest rates later this year. Oracle helped lift the stock market following its better-than-expected profit report and forecast for upcoming growth. On Thursday: The S&P 500 rose 23.02 points, or 0.4%, to 6,045.26. The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 101.85 points, or 0.2%, to 42,967.62. For the week: The S&P 500 is up 44.90 points, or 0.7%. The Dow is up 204.75 points, or 0.5%. The Nasdaq is up 132.53 points, or 0.7%. The Russell 2000 is up 7.85 points, or 0.4%. The S&P 500 is up 163.63 points, or 2.8%. The Dow is up 423.40 points, or 1%. The Nasdaq is up 351.69 points, or 1.8%. The Russell 2000 is down 90.06 points, or 4%.