The absurdity of Britain's nuclear regulation
That is the absurdity strangling Britain's nuclear ambitions. We have world-class engineers and a spotless safety record, but also a regulatory culture that prizes minimising non-existent risks over common sense.
Every government talks big on nuclear. Every time, nothing happens. Ed Miliband now promises a 'golden age' of nuclear. A few years ago, Boris Johnson pledged a new plant every year. Back in 2009, Miliband himself committed to 10 new plants. Built so far? Zero. Two are on the way.
The cost of those two plants reveals why. Hinkley Point C (HPC) is the most expensive nuclear plant in the world. Building more nuclear at £48 billion per plant is unlikely to bring bills down. Unless we fix this, Miliband's golden age is dead on arrival.
It wasn't always this way. In the 1990s, Britain built Sizewell B at just over £5 billion per GW of capacity adjusted for inflation. HPC is coming in at £14.7 billion per GW. Some blame HPC's high cost on a complicated reactor design. Yet, the same design is being built in Finland for less than half the cost. South Korea, using a different design, builds new reactors for even less. Small modular reactors could cut costs further still. But unless we fix our rules, none of it will matter.
Our safety regulations are not just tough, they are uniquely, self-defeatingly tough. Korea, Finland, and France all have safety records as good as our own. Britain is a world-leader in nuclear regulation in the same way we are a world leader in 'online safety'. We impose costly changes on companies that few other countries could even fathom.
This week though, the government-commissioned Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce finally said what has been obvious for a long time: our system is slow, duplicative, over-complex, and throttling ambition. Their interim report calls for streamlined planning, cutting duplication between agencies, modernising site rules, approving fleets of identical plants, aligning with trusted foreign regulators, and swapping box-ticking for proportionate, timely decision-making.
One big problem is an acronym from health and safety legislation: Alarp, or 'as low as reasonably practicable'. In theory, it means reducing risks so long as it is not excessively costly to do so, erring on the side of safety. In practice, it means requiring expensive reactor redesigns to prevent a banana's worth of radiation. It is quite literally a case of health and safety gone mad.
Some fixes can start now. The taskforce says ministers should issue a formal 'steer' on nuclear safety policy. That is Whitehall-speak for ministers making up their bloody minds and giving their civil servants a kick up the arse. To break the cycle, we need ministers who are clear on the goal and officials willing and able to deliver it.
Myths about the unique dangers of radiation abound. Few want to say we should accept a tiny bit more radiation to save money. Even when the extra radiation we are discussing is the same as spending a couple of hours in Cornwall, which naturally has slightly higher background radiation than the rest of Britain. Caring about safety is seen as virtuous. Caring about the cost of building infrastructure is seen as miserly. Yet when millions of Brits struggle to pay their energy bills, few things are more virtuous than caring about the things that make them so high and doing something about it.
We can have clean, cheap, secure energy not dependent on either foreign dictators or the weather. Or we can keep paying billions for bananas decisions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
3 days ago
- Telegraph
How to tell if it's worth getting a wind turbine in your garden
Domestic heat pump uptake surged in the past year, while solar panels – despite a slight slump – are still the runaway leader for renewable energy installations. Homeowner appetite for wind power, however, is down in the doldrums. This is despite Ed Miliband's mass expansion plan for Britain's onshore wind infrastructure, which could involve relaxing planning laws for home installations. The industry's accreditation body, the MCS Foundation, wants homeowners and farmers to be given the right to install 30m turbines without the need for planning permission. But with high installation costs and limited output, is wind power a financially sound investment for your home? Telegraph Money delves into the details. Types of domestic wind turbines Is there a demand for domestic wind turbines? Other costs and upkeep When will you break even? How to boost the money-making potential Do I need planning permission? How much wind power do you need? Could height restrictions change? Types of domestic wind turbines There are two types of turbines that can be installed at domestic properties, with costs varying considerably. They are nowhere near the size of commercial turbines you see out at sea or in clusters on land. Roof-mounted turbine Installed on top of the property's roof or on the gable end, this type of turbine has the advantage of height. However, the top of the turbine cannot be more than 15m off the ground. They are smaller than standalone turbines, so the power is limited. Expect to generate a maximum of two kilowatts (kW) of electricity a day, against the average UK home usage of 8kWh. You'll therefore need to top up your energy from your existing grid supplier. Costs range from around £1,500 to £3,000. Pole-mounted turbine Free-standing turbines work best in a large, open place that's exposed to the wind. They can generate around 6kW of electricity. Those installed via permitted development rights (more on this later) cannot exceed 11.1m in height, but others granted with planning permission can be larger. Costs vary widely depending on the size. For a 1.5kWh turbine, the typical cost is between £7,000 and £10,000. For a 5kW free-standing model, £25,000 is the ballpark figure, while a large 15kW machine will set you back around £70,000. Is there a demand for domestic wind turbines? Since a de facto ban on onshore wind was lifted by Labour a year ago, only a handful of applications for domestic turbines have been submitted. A revolution in small-scale onshore wind has failed to materialise, and experts doubt it will ever become reality. Oxford University's Prof Jan Rosenow, who has advised Ofgem, said: 'Small wind turbines in gardens rarely make sense because of poor wind conditions, low output, high costs, noise, maintenance needs, and better alternatives like solar. 'They're more of a novelty or a statement piece than a practical energy solution for most homeowners.' Ryse Energy, a manufacturer, said more than half of its new enquiries are from customers looking to combine wind with an existing solar panel system at their home to provide year-round energy security (solar predominantly in the summer, and wind in the winter). Other costs and upkeep Aside from the purchase, it also costs to have the turbine installed at your property. Figures from Checkatrade show the price tags can be hefty. The average installation cost for a roof-mounted wind turbine is £1,000, while installing a free-standing wind turbine – where foundations are required – can jump upwards of £5,000. You will need to undertake maintenance checks every few years, at a cost of around £200. The inverter may also need to be replaced during the turbine's lifespan. For a typical 5-6kW domestic turbine, this will cost around £1,000. Additionally, batteries for off-grid energy storage need to be replaced around every five to 10 years. This can also be a four-figure bill. When will you break even? With the purchase being a significant outlay, it will likely take more than a decade to recoup the initial investment. According to Greenmatch, a 1.5kW turbine costing £7,000 will take 14.5 years to break even. A medium-power 5kW turbine will take 18 years, while the large 15kW machine will break even in 15 years. Having recouped your money, you can then enjoy generating electricity essentially free of charge. However, this will most likely be a short-lived period as turbines typically have a lifespan of 20 years before they need replacing. Maximilian Schwerdtfeger, of adviser group The Eco Experts, said: 'For most consumers, a roof-mounted domestic wind turbine on its own will generate between 200kW and 1,000kW of energy a year, which is not enough to make a significant dent in their bills. 'For example, the average three-bed house uses about 2,700kWh of electricity a year. 'What it can do, however, is generate electricity that you can store in a battery to be either used later or exported back to the grid. 'The largest stand-alone wind turbines are only really suited for farms or properties with a lot of land, although these could potentially generate enough energy to cut your bills down to nothing.' How to boost the money-making potential To boost revenue, you can sell excess energy – if you have any – back to the grid. The Smart Export Guarantee (SEG) scheme is a power-selling scheme introduced in 2020 by the Government. This means you get paid for every unit of electricity you feed back to the grid. Your home will need an export meter and a Microgeneration Certification Scheme (MCS) certificate. It will also likely need to have a smart meter capable of providing half-hourly export readings. Providers have to buy everything you sell, but they can set the price themselves and it does vary, so you should look into which one is best for you. The provider you buy your grid power from may offer you a better export deal. For example, Octopus buys power for 15p/kWh for existing customers and 4.1p for new customers. As most small-scale domestic wind turbines will not generate enough power to leave you with excess electricity, the perks of this scheme are limited. SEG is better suited for homeowners with solar panels. Last year, only 19 new turbines were hooked up to the SEG scheme, compared to 283,597 solar installations. The average domestic turbine supplying power back to the grid had a capacity of 50.4kW, with a total of £37,851 paid to homeowners in return for the excess power. The two properties with turbines less than or equal to 4kW capacity received an average of just £17 from the SEG scheme last year. Meanwhile, the 12 properties with turbines between 10kW and 50kW in power received average payments of £2,029 for their excess electricity. How much wind power do you need? Typically, a wind speed of six meters per second is the minimum average speed for a domestic wind turbine to be considered viable. It is the equivalent of a 13mph wind, so with the average UK wind speed coming in at around 9mph last year, the feasibility for a residential turbine in most areas is low. That's without bringing nearby obstructions into the equation, such as trees and buildings, which further hamper turbine wind speeds. Across the UK, renewable wind generation fell by 13pc in the first three months of 2025 due to near record low wind speeds. Do I need planning permission? Rules vary across British nations, with Wales and Northern Ireland having the tightest planning permission laws for turbines. In England, permitted development rights allow a wind turbine to be mounted on to a detached house or an outbuilding without planning permission, if these criteria are met: You don't already have an air source heat pump at the property No part of the turbine, including the blades, protrudes more than 3m above the highest part of the roof, excluding the chimney, or be more than 15m off the ground Blades are at least 5m above ground level, and no part of the turbine is within 5m from the site boundary It is not on land designated as a Scheduled Monument or within the curtilage of a listed building, a National Park, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, an area designated under s41(3) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act, the Norfolk Broads or a World Heritage Site The turbine complies with MCS standards or equivalent. Similar rules apply for stand-alone wind turbines, but these can be installed via permitted development rights within the garden of any house or block of flats. The main difference is the highest part of the turbine must not exceed 11.1m in height. Could height restrictions change? The 11.1m rule is what MCS wants the Government to change by increasing the limit to 30m – which is the height of the Christ Redeemer statue and 1.5 times the height of the Angel of the North. MCS argued that permitted development rights already allow for mobile phone masts to reach 30m in height in non-protected areas and up to 25m in protected areas. Richard Tice, deputy leader of Reform UK, said his party would 'not tolerate' the introduction of 30m domestic turbines. He said: 'Allowing the tripling of wind turbine heights in residential areas is outrageous. This relentless net zero push will trash property values and turn our towns and villages into industrial eyesores.' The National Farmers Union has backed calls for tweaks to planning law. Tom Bradshaw, president of the NFU, said a change 'would cut unnecessary red tape' and allow farmers to 'make the most of clean energy opportunities'. 'Many farmers already generate renewable energy on-site, but access to a reliable power source remains a barrier,' he said. The Government has signalled that height restrictions could be altered in the future. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) said evolutions in onshore wind turbine technology and increased demand for small-scale onshore wind turbines 'may allow for an update' to planning laws last reviewed in 2011. A public consultation on loosening the rules will be launched by the end of the year.
Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Daily Mail
Ed Miliband embroiled in 'hypocrisy' row as Energy Secretary refuses to reveal how many domestic flights he has taken
Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has been dubbed a 'hypocrite' after refusing to reveal details concerning his domestic air travel. Ministers asserted the Doncaster North MP would not reveal information regarding flights he had taken within the UK since he joined the cabinet last June. Claire Coutinho, shadow energy secretary, said the refusal inferred there was 'one rule' for Miliband, and 'another for everyone else'. The Conservative MP previously urged Miliband to release details on his domestic UK flights since Labour's loveless landslide in the last general election. However, Michael Shanks said, on the Labour MPs behalf, that 'details of internal domestic flights are not published.' It comes as Labour significantly hiked air passenger duty, adding hundreds of pounds to British family holidays. Ms Coutinho told The Telegraph: 'As Ed Miliband sticks a holiday tax of up to £400 on a family of four, it does seem the height of hypocrisy that he won't reveal his own flights, which are funded by the taxpayer. 'People expect transparency and fairness from their politicians, but when it comes to the most stringent net zero costs, it's one rule for him and another for everyone else.' The Energy Secretary's position does align with others in Westminster departments, which do not publish 'granular' details concerning ministers travel. The Government told the publication it was 'the practice of successive administration' including Conservatives, not to release details of ministers movements. Mr Miliband, who heads the Government's net zero policies, has previously been vocal regarding his opposition to domestic flights, urging Brits to cut down on them. While he was Shadow Business Secretary, he called for the last Government to encourage Brits to travel by train and buses rather than taking to the skies. When queried on if domestic flights he should be banned, he said they shouldn't be banished 'completely, but as much as we possible can.' In 2021, he told the BBC: 'Fairness and giving people alternatives is an absolutely key part of making this transition happen.' Last April, it was revealed his department has spent £44,000 more than the Conservative ministers on domestic air travel between last July and December. In his first half-a-year in office, the Energy Secretary also spent £62,712 on international travel, the Taxpayers' Alliance reported. His Conservative predecessor, Ms Coutinho spent £6,155 in her first six-months in the role, according to The Telegraph. It comes after one of the government's climate advisers was accused of 'rank hypocrisy' after they reportedly racked up 40,000 air miles in a year by jetting to environmental conferences Nigel Topping is one of six members of the Climate Change Committee, which advises Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In February, the committee backed a 'frequent flier levy' to help reach Net Zero. This would see Britons who take the most flights, or fly the furthest distances, taxed more. According to The Telegraph, Mr Topping attended conferences in Barbados, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, the Netherlands and the US in the last 12 months. An analysis by the newspaper claimed he accrued 11 times more air miles in the last year than the average Briton. It also claimed that Mr Topping's carbon footprint from flights alone was about 40 per cent more than the average Briton produces in total in a year. Mr Miliband himself was also criticised after it was revealed he had notched up at least 44,600 air miles since he became Energy Secretary last July. It meant he was responsible for at least 54.2 tons of carbon emissions in nine months – more than 12 times the annual emissions of the average Briton. The Daily Mail has approached Ed Miliband, the Labour Party
Telegraph
3 days ago
- Telegraph
‘Eco-hypocrite' Miliband refuses to reveal his number of domestic flights
Ed Miliband has been branded an eco 'hypocrite' after refusing to reveal how many domestic flights he has taken. Ministers insisted the Energy Secretary would not disclose any details about his air travel within the UK since he entered office last July. Claire Coutinho, shadow energy secretary, said the refusal represented 'one rule for him and another for everyone else' given that the Left-wing frontbencher has been a vociferous opponent of domestic air travel. Labour has also forced through significant increases to air passenger duty that have added hundreds of pounds to some family holidays. The accusation came after a Conservative MP challenged the Energy Secretary to publish details of the internal UK flights he has taken since the last election. Answering on Mr Miliband's behalf, Michael Shanks, the energy minister, replied: 'Details of internal domestic flights are not published.' Claire Coutinho, the Tory shadow energy secretary, said: 'As Ed Miliband sticks a holiday tax of up to £400 on a family of four, it does seem the height of hypocrisy that he won't reveal his own flights, which are funded by the taxpayer. 'People expect transparency and fairness from their politicians, but when it comes to the most stringent net zero costs, it's one rule for him and another for everyone else.' Mr Miliband's stance is in line with other Whitehall departments, which also do not release details of ministers' domestic flights. The Government said it was 'the practice of successive administrations', including Tory ones, not to 'publish granular information' about their movements. Mr Miliband, who is in charge of net zero policies, has previously said Britons should cut down on such flights 'as much as we possibly can'. But he was embarrassed earlier this year when it emerged his department is spending more on internal flights under his watch than the Tories. Figures released in April revealed it spent £44,000 on domestic flights for ministers and officials between July and December last year. That was more than the £40,000 spent in the first half of 2024 by the Tories, when Ms Coutinho was in charge of the net zero ministry. Mr Miliband has previously suggested that the Government should encourage ordinary voters to take trains and buses rather than flying. Asked when he was shadow business secretary whether domestic flights should be banned, he said: 'Not completely, but as much as we possibly can.' Speaking to the BBC in 2021, he added: 'Fairness and giving people alternatives is an absolutely key part of making this transition happen.' Labour repeatedly criticised the Conservatives for taking flights and pledged before the election to clamp down on ministers' use of jets. But since taking office, Mr Miliband has been heavily criticised for jet-setting, which has seen him spend 10 times more on foreign trips than Ms Coutinho. The Energy Secretary spent £62,712 on overseas travel in his first six months in office, according to Taxpayers' Alliance analysis, In contrast, his Tory predecessor spent just £6,155 during her first half-year in the role.
