Sizewell C: Investors sign deal for Suffolk nuclear plant as £38billion cost confirmed
The Department for Energy Security & Net Zero said Energy Secretary Ed Miliband had signed the final investment decision for the development.
The government will become the biggest equity shareholder in the project with a 44.9% stake.
New Sizewell C investors include La Caisse with 20%, Centrica with 15%, and Amber Infrastructure with an initial 7.6%, while it was announced earlier this month French energy giant EDF was taking a 12.5% stake.
The final deal clinches the investment needed to deliver the long-awaited nuclear plant since it was first earmarked for development in 2010.
Sizewell C will power the equivalent of six million homes and create some 10,000 jobs once it is operational, which is expected to be in the 2030s.
The plans have faced strong opposition for decades by campaign groups concerned about the impact on the local environment and public spending costs.
The plant's construction was forecast to be about £20 billion by developer EDF five years ago - a figure which has now almost doubled.
Reacting to the investment announcement, Alison Downes, Stop Sizewell C, said: 'This much-delayed Final Investment Decision has only crawled over the line thanks to guarantees that the public purse, not private investors, will carry the can for the inevitable cost overruns.
"Even so, UK households will soon be hit with a new Sizewell C construction tax on their energy bills.
"It is astounding that it is only now, as contracts are being signed, that the government has confessed that Sizewell C's cost has almost doubled to an eye watering £38 billion - a figure that will only go up."
Mr Miliband said: 'It is time to do big things and build big projects in this country again – and today we announce an investment that will provide clean, homegrown power to millions of homes for generations to come.
'This government is making the investment needed to deliver a new golden age of nuclear, so we can end delays and free us from the ravages of the global fossil fuel markets to bring bills down for good."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
25 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on global inequality: the rising tide that leaves most boats behind
This year's global wealth report by the City bank UBS confirms what is self-evident but rarely confronted: while riches are accumulating, their distribution remains starkly unbalanced. In the 56 countries and economic areas surveyed, the report says global personal wealth grew 4.6% in 2024. However, not all boats have been lifted by this tide. The gap is growing between those who hold assets and those who don't. The figures are shocking: just 60m of the world's adults – 1.6% of the population – have net personal wealth of $226tn, or 48.1% of all the world's riches. At the other extreme, four in 10 adults – 1.57bn people – have only $2.7tn, or just 0.6% of all the world's personal wealth. Economists now argue that inequality is no longer a by-product of growth but a condition of it. In the US, soaring bond markets and tech stocks have benefited the ultra-rich and deepened inequality. Nine households, it was reported, control 15% of wealth in Silicon Valley. By contrast, UBS says British median wealth rose while average wealth fell. This is a rare divergence, probably caused by prosperous households in London taking a hit from interest rate hikes as house prices dropped and debt costs rose. This wasn't a sign of shared prosperity but of paper losses at the top, while ordinary workers held steady. Unlike wages, wealth reflects not just income but also access to assets, favourable institutional conditions – such as low interest rates – and public policies like low taxes and housing shortages. In other words, wealth depends on political choices in ways that income currently does not. It's not just the inequality itself that is the issue but the erosion of mechanisms that once constrained it. As the report notes, wealth and income inequality are linked. But where wages have stagnated and collective bargaining has weakened, capital income – derived from profits, rents and interest – has been boosted by design. Productivity gains, once expected to feed through to broader living standards, now primarily serve to enhance returns to wealth. Taxes on wealth are necessary to make societies more equal. Unfairness is aiding far-right autocrats whose rise brings the risk of democratic collapse. In July seven Nobel laureates issued a powerful call for a minimum tax on the ultra-rich. Brazil, Spain and South Africa have demanded a global tax on the super-rich, placing the issue on the G20 agenda. Pioneering work by economists such as Gabriel Zucman and Emmanuel Saez led to the French national assembly passing a law this year for a 2% minimum tax on wealth over €100m. The legislation, regrettably, has not proceeded past the senate. Progressive taxation is necessary, but it doesn't address a core problem in many economies: when capital income outpaces labour income, redistribution may ease the symptoms of neoliberalism, but it leaves the underlying condition untreated. High inequality suppresses consumption, deters investment and slows growth. The gap between rich and poor is not just unfair – it's economically unsustainable. Without strong domestic demand, economies increasingly rely on debt, speculation and asset bubbles to fuel growth. Changing this would take more than fiscal transfers. It would require policies that boost wages: full employment, stronger labour unions and public investment. Private ownership itself may need to be reconceived – less perhaps in the sense of expropriation, and more in terms of widening access to productive assets and social wealth.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
The origin of the Thailand-Cambodia conflict
A border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia which goes back more than a century has once again erupted in fatal clashes, leading to diplomatic alarm and appeals for international help. There has long been a schism between the two countries over an arbitrarily-drawn, 817-kilometre border conceived by the French in 1907. The present confrontation began in May, when a Cambodian soldier was killed during an exchange of fire between Thai and Cambodian troops in a border region known as the Emerald Triangle because it also shares a frontier with Laos. Despite attempts to prevent escalation, tensions continued to rise. Troop deployments on both sides were reinforced, border crossings were restricted and Thailand threatened to cut electricity and internet links to border towns in Cambodia. There were further deaths and injuries caused by legacy landmine explosions. The mines had been left buried along the border with Thailand after years of conflict from the 1970s to 1990s, including the Vietnam war and the Cambodian-Vietnamese war which involved the brutal, communist Khmer Rouge rulers of the renamed Kampuchea. A Thai soldier lost a leg from a mine detonation on 16 July and then five more soldiers were injured from blasts. The deaths and injuries led to a huge escalation between the two countries. Thailand launched six F-16 fighter jets to the border, one of which bombed a 'military' target in Cambodia; and in a second raid, four F-16s were sent to bomb more military sites. Cambodian troops fired rockets and artillery shells, striking homes and public buildings. At least one Thai civilian was killed in Surin province, and three others, including a five-year-old boy, were injured, according to Rear Admiral Surasant Kongsiri, a Thai government spokesman. According to the health ministry in Bangkok, at least 11 civilians and one soldier have been killed in Thailand from artillery fire in the recent clashes. Twenty-four civilians and seven military personnel have been injured, the ministry said. Casualties in Cambodia are unknown. In one incident, the Thai army claims, six people were killed at a petrol station in Thailand from Cambodian rocket fire. Hundreds of people have fled their homes near the border. Thailand eventually closed its entire border with Cambodia. Each country condemned the other's aggression and refused to take responsibility for starting the new round of border clashes. In the midst of the border confrontations, Thailand's prime minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra, was caught making a highly controversial telephone call to Hun Sen, the powerful former leader of Cambodia in which she denigrated the Thai army's actions on the border. She addressed Hun Sen as 'uncle'. The conversation was leaked, and the Thai prime minister was suspended. She now faces dismissal. In terms of firepower and military capability, Thailand is streets ahead of Cambodia. With more than 360,000 active military personnel, Thailand has triple the manpower. Thailand's air force is 'one of the best-equipped and trained in Southeast Asia,' according to Military Balance 2025, published by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. At the heart of the current border dispute is the Ta Muen Thom temple in Cambodia. The Cambodian defence ministry accused Thai soldiers of installing barbed wire around the base of the temple and flew drones across the border. Bangkok said Cambodia made the first aggressive move.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Women more opposed to Miliband's net zero pylon push than men
Women are more opposed to Ed Miliband's net zero push for more electricity pylons than men, a new government focus group has found. A focus group commissioned by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) found that while 86pc of men were in favour of new pylons in Britain, just 69pc of women said the same. The study of 3,673 people was designed to test out new government messaging to persuade the public they should accept pylons in their area. Ministers are expecting demand for electricity in Britain to increase by more than 70pc in 2050, as the country moves away from gas boilers and fossil fuel-powered cars. Mr Miliband, the Energy Secretary, has said that ' persuasion is very important ' and that he will attempt to convince the public to support new development. However, pylons are unpopular among many voters, who argue they spoil views of the countryside and can be disruptive to local nature. The Conservatives and Reform are campaigning against them. The previous Conservative government commissioned research on which arguments in favour of them are more persuasive to voters. The focus group, carried out by the research firm Kantar, found that resistance to building pylons is more common among women. The company tested out various arguments, including that they help the battle against climate change, they can bring jobs to the local area and they will improve Britain's energy security. Respondents said the most persuasive argument was that pylons would improve job prospects, after they were told that building them could support between 50,000 and 130,000 full time jobs by 2050. When members of the focus group were told about potential job opportunities, the combined score of men and women who approved of pylons was 11 percentage points higher at 72pc. When they were told about the impact of new pylons on climate change, women were much more likely to support them, by 11 percentage points, while men were less likely to support them, by two percentage points. The data was collected to inform a new PR campaign by energy network companies, including the National Grid, to persuade the public of the benefit of new pylons. Mr Miliband is facing severe backlash to his plans from voters, including people living in rural areas that are at risk of falling to Reform. 'Overhauling the energy system' Both Reform and the Conservatives have called for electricity lines to be buried underground, not carried in the air. Rosie Pearson, who runs a campaign group against pylons in East Anglia, told The Telegraph that stronger opposition to them among women may be because they have 'more affinity to nature and the countryside and British heritage'. She said that people who are affected by pylon plans also had concerns about house prices, the heritage of local areas and 'businesses that could go out of business'. 'It's not just the views that trouble people,' she said. 'The views are spoiled, but directly-affected people have far more serious concerns.' A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesman said: 'The report found the majority of people support new electricity network infrastructure, particularly in light of the economic and environmental benefits. 'We need new infrastructure to protect family and national finances with energy security, through clean homegrown power we control. 'We are already overhauling the energy system, building the grid we need and connecting new power projects to reach our clean power by 2030 target. 'We have set out plans to ensure that people benefit from living close to new transmission infrastructure, including energy bill discounts and guidance on funding for community projects.'
