£300m Funding Unveiled for Supply Chains for Domestic Offshore Wind
An initial £300 million of funding through Great British Energy is set to be invested in supply chains for domestic offshore wind.
The UK Government said it expected that the investment will directly and indirectly mobilise billions in additional private investment.
The funding will allow Great British Energy, the publicly-owned clean energy company, to invest in new supply chains for offshore wind manufacturing components such as floating offshore platforms and cables.
Dan McGrail, interim CEO of Great British Energy, said:
'Great British Energy will help the UK win the global race for clean energy jobs and growth by investing in homegrown supply chains and ensuring key infrastructure parts are made here in Britain.
'We will work closely with businesses across the clean energy sector to get funding out as fast as possible and get projects off the ground.'
The UK Government said the move builds on its investment in domestic supply chains through initiatives such as the Clean Industry Bonus and the National Wealth Fund.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer said:
'Delivering the Plan for Change means winning the race for the clean energy jobs of the future, which will drive growth and help us reach clean power by 2030.
'That is why I am bringing forward much-needed investment in our domestic offshore wind supply chains, strengthening our security and creating good jobs for our welders, electricians, and engineers.
'Let my message to the world go out: come and build the clean energy future in Britain.'
Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said:
'It is only by taking back control of our energy that we can protect families and businesses from the rollercoaster of global markets we don't control.
'That is why this Government is doubling down on our clean energy superpower mission – driving economic growth, good jobs and investment across our country.'
The Prime Minister, Ministers and business leaders gathered in London for a two-day Summit on the Future of Energy Security, hosted by the UK Government and International Energy Agency. Leaders from around the world, including the President of the EU Commission Ursula von der Leyen, came together to address the global challenges and opportunities of speeding up the clean energy transition.
The Energy Secretary Ed Miliband, Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds, the Minister for Investment Baroness Poppy Gustafsson, National Wealth Fund CEO John Flint and Great British Energy Chair Juergen Maier have also written to global clean energy developers and investors inviting them calling on them to invest in Britain.
Deputy CEO of RenewableUK, Jane Cooper, said:
'There's a huge opportunity for the UK to secure thousands of new jobs and supply chain investment in the sector, which will make our home-grown energy supply even more secure.
'The Prime Minister's funding will be critical to ensuring the UK grasps the industrial opportunities in the offshore wind supply chain, at a time of intense global competition for clean energy investment. By nurturing existing UK companies, and ensuring we're a competitive location for international investors, there's an opportunity to triple our manufacturing capacity over the next decade, adding £25 billion to the UK economy and creating an additional 10,000 jobs in the supply chain.
'This new government funding is a clear signal of intent to secure those priorities and is vital to unlocking further co-investment from industry.'
The funding for supply chains will be made available as part of the £8.3 billion for Great British Energy over this parliament, with individual companies able to apply for grants if they can show that they will produce long-term investments in UK supply chains.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
20 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Ed Miliband's nuclear golden era could soon become a new dark age
This Government is fond of making grandiose claims for things that are yet to happen. The latest is Ed Miliband's declaration that we are in 'a golden era of nuclear power.' He has made a series of announcements that may or may not come to fruition over the next two decades, including a new nuclear plant at Sizewell with £14 billion of public money behind it. But Mr Miliband is getting well ahead of himself. History shows that few public policies of modern times have been more mishandled. Britain once led the world in nuclear energy and it was very much a cross-party venture. The post-war Attlee government established the Atomic Energy Research Establishment and the first ever commercial nuclear reactor was built at Calder Hall under the Tories in 1956 just as the Suez crisis increased concerns over the supply of oil. British nuclear expertise was second to none and sought around the world. Under both Conservative and Labour administrations, the UK became a leader in nuclear power development, commencing operations on 26 Magnox reactors between 1956 and 1971. The technology chopped and changed, moving from advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGRs) in the 1970s to pressurised water reactors (PWRs) and even a fast-breeder reactor experiment at Dounreay in Scotland, opened amid great fanfare by Margaret Thatcher but which has now closed. Her government set in train a plan for eight new PWRs, only one of which – Sizewell B – was ever built. What happened? One answer is North Sea oil and gas. Fears about fuel scarcity and sky high prices abated as more came ashore. Cheap gas made the cost of nuclear look prohibitive to politicians fixated only on the short term. Meanwhile, across the Channel, the French, with no oil and depleted coal reserves, invested instead in nuclear power. By 1979 they had installed 56 reactors, satisfying their power needs and even exporting electricity to other European countries, including us. The French are even going to be building Sizewell C. They produce 70 per cent of their electricity by nuclear fission, which does not emit CO2, and are not dependent on energy from volatile regions like the Gulf or despotic regimes like Russia. This serendipity was as much a function of force majeure as foresight. As the French said 'no oil, no gas, no coal, no choice'. As a result they have found themselves in a better position than Britain in the switch to low carbon renewables. Because of the apparent bonanza provided by North Sea oil, we neglected the one source of power that would help create self-sufficiency and meet climate change objectives. Only when it was too late and much of the industry's expertise had been lost did the last Labour government try to reactivate the nuclear programme. Ironically, it was Mr Miliband as Environment Secretary who revived the programme 15 years ago in the teeth of objections from Labour 'greens'. Yet only one new reactor at Hinkley Point – using French technology and, to begin with, Chinese finance – has been given the go ahead. It is way behind schedule by at least six years and massively over budget. For all the trumpet-blowing is the new Sizewell announcement just another milestone along a road paved with good intentions and wretched decision-making? We know it will be hugely expensive and the idea of it coming on stream within 10 years is for the birds. Since it is a copy of Hinkley it should benefit by learning from the mistakes made there. But few can have confidence in the project meeting any of its financial targets or the timetable for construction because nothing in this country ever does. Around the world there is a boom in nuclear power building as countries see it as an essential complement to wind and solar, not least because it provides a baseload and is not dependent on the weather. Sixty reactors are being built globally – 30 of them in China, which has also opened a thorium plant, something we could have done years ago since we have plentiful supplies and the process reduces waste. Is there any area in which the UK can press ahead? Tucked away in his Telegraph article this week, Miliband says the Government is ramping up spending on nuclear fusion research, though this seems more a token mention than an enthusiastic embrace. Yet fusion is one area where the British do have a great deal of expertise, with start-up companies well ahead of any European competitors in raising investment. It is always said that fusion is the future that never arrives because it involves replicating the same processes seen on the Sun. About 35 years ago two chemists shocked the world by claiming they had come up with 'cold fusion' obviating the need to produce the excessive temperatures needed. But the science was flawed, even though some adherents still think cold fusion is possible. Fusion technology is advancing rapidly and is likely to accelerate with the help of AI, high temperature superconducting magnets and supercomputers. But those in the business fear the Government is making the same mistakes as its predecessors in failing to measure the long-term in decades, not parliamentary sessions. China, Japan and America are now in the vanguard of a technology in which the UK once led, as it did with nuclear fission. Arguably, the most important aspect of Miliband's plan is the green light for a fleet of small modular reactors (SMRs), though getting planning agreements past local communities will be hard. Even this has been fraught with bureaucracy and delay. A competition to find a developer for SMRs has taken two years before alighting on Rolls Royce. Why has it taken so long? The potential offered by SMRs was identified years ago; yet once again, government dithering has led to everything being done when it is too late to fill the energy gap that will threaten black-outs in a few years' time. This is because the switch to renewables, the ban on new North Sea extraction licences and the demise of coal will make the decommissioning of existing nuclear power stations even more problematic before new ones come on stream. How long before Mr Miliband's golden era turns into a dark age?
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
What's behind Keir Starmer's decision to back nuclear power?
Keir Starmer has committed the UK to its first significant stake in a new nuclear power plant since the 1980s. The decision to invest almost £18bn of taxpayer money into the Sizewell C nuclear power plant in Suffolk was welcomed by Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, as the beginning of a 'golden age' of nuclear investment that would be critical to the government's net zero goals. The government said on Tuesday it would commit £14.2bn to the project, including the £2.7bn it earmarked for Sizewell C in the autumn budget. It has already committed £3.6bn to Sizewell over the past two years. Britain's nuclear renaissance will also include spending about £2.5bn of taxpayer money building some of Europe's first small modular reactors (SMR), after the government gave the green light to plans for Rolls-Royce to build three in the UK by the early 2030s. For critics, the technology's high costs and lengthy construction time have always eclipsed the benefits of abundant low-carbon electricity, given Hinkley Point C's current price tag of up to £35bn and repeated delays. There are also persistent concerns over the safety of nuclear reactors, and the disposal of nuclear waste. But questions over whether countries can meet the growing demand for electricity without fossil fuels, and avoid blackouts, mean many governments now believe nuclear represents a price worth paying. Megawatt for megawatt, nuclear power is far more expensive than most renewable energy technologies. But, unlike wind and solar farms, nuclear reactors do not need investment in battery backup technologies to provide a steady, reliable source of low-carbon power. The guaranteed electricity price offered to Hinkley Point C was initially £92 per megawatt-hour but this will fall to £89.50/MWh with the go-ahead for Sizwell C, under the terms of the government's contract with French state-owned EDF. By contrast, the guaranteed price for offshore windfarms which were successful in last year's subsidy auction was just under £59 per megawatt-hour. 'The upfront cost [of nuclear] is undoubtedly high,' said Dr Iain Staffell, an associate professor at Imperial College London. '£14bn could fund around 10 gigawatts (GW) of offshore wind versus just 3.2 GW of nuclear. But, these reactors will run day and night, especially valuable when the wind is not blowing.' Prof Mark Wenman, also at Imperial College London, added that the costs needed to be balanced against the fact that these reactors 'will produce low carbon electricity for 80 or possibly 100 years, 24/7, providing around a 10th of the current UK electricity needs'. 'Once paid for, nuclear reactors produce the cheapest electricity of any kind, so this investment should be seen as future-proofing the UK electricity system,' Wenman said. Experts believe that powering a country on 100% renewable energy is technically possible. But there is clear evidence that grid systems running predominantly on wind and solar power can be more expensive in the long run, and could be at higher risk of blackouts. This is because renewable energy cannot help to keep the electrical frequency of the grid stable at around 50Hz in the same way that the spinning turbines of a power plants have done in the past by creating inertia. The answer, according to the government's National Energy System Operator (Neso), is to encourage renewables to become the backbone of the energy system while keeping alternatives such as nuclear, biomass and gas to provide backup for when renewable resources are low and grid stability is needed. The government's independent climate advisers agree. The Climate Change Committee recommends that the UK's nuclear capacity doubles by 2050 because while it is 'relatively expensive on a levelised cost basis' it can provide 'valuable zero-carbon generation at scale'. Britain risks losing the benefits offered by nuclear plants by shutting its ageing nuclear reactors faster than it can build new ones – leaving a gap in the UK's supplies of low-carbon electricity at a time when demand for clean energy is growing. The UK's five existing nuclear power reactors generated 14% of the country's electricity last year – down from the industry's late-1990s peak when 18 nuclear reactors provided more than a quarter of Britain's power. Four of these plants are due to close before the end of the decade, even with plans to extend their lifetimes, while only one nuclear power plant is under construction. The Hinkley Point C project in Somerset was originally due to begin generating electricity by 2017 but it has been delayed until the early 2030s. Driving Britain's nuclear renaissance is the tech industry's appetite for nuclear power. Starmer unveiled plans for a once-in-a-generation nuclear expansion earlier this year alongside an open invitation to tech companies such as Google, Meta and Amazon to invest in AI datacentres in Britain, which could be powered by small modular reactors. This is because world's biggest tech companies are investing in extending the life of nuclear plants and building small modular reactors to help meet the enormous power demands of their datacentres. This growing demand is expected to accelerate with the adoption of artificial intelligence. Earlier this month Meta struck a deal to keep one nuclear reactor of a US utility company in Illinois operating for an extra 20 years to help supply the company's datacentres with low-carbon power. It follows a similar deal from Google to supply its datacentres with nuclear power from half-dozen small reactors built by a California utility company. In addition, Microsoft has paid for the restart the Three Mile Island nuclear plant, the site of the most serious nuclear accident and radiation leak in US history. 'They are very keen to get the datacentres in and they're very alive to the fact that the power is a big issue,' Starmer said.
North Wales Chronicle
2 hours ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Civil Service workforce up 2,000 to almost 20-year high, figures suggest
A total of 550,000 people were employed in the Civil Service as of March 2025, according to new data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). This is up from 548,000 in December 2024 and a rise of 1% year-on-year from 544,000 in March 2024. Headcount fell to 416,000 in June 2016, the month of the EU referendum. Since that date, the total has risen steadily, driven chiefly by the impact of Brexit and the Covid-19 pandemic. The Government announced in April this year that it planned to cut around 2,100 staff from the Cabinet Office, as part of a plan to shrink the Civil Service and reduce the cost of bureaucracy. Some 1,200 roles will disappear through redundancies, while 900 will be transferred to other departments. The latest Civil Service headcount of 550,000 is nearly a third higher (32%) than it was in 2016, or an increase of 134,000. Of the 550,000, almost 443,000 are full-time roles and the remainder are part-time positions. The last time the quarterly headcount was higher than the current figure was in June 2006, when it stood at 553,000. The total was on a downwards path during the second half of the 2000s and this trend continued into the 2010s until the EU referendum in 2016, after which the headcount began to climb. It grew by 40,000 in the years between 2016 and the start of the pandemic, as thousands of people were recruited to manage the complex and lengthy Brexit process. There was then a further jump once the pandemic was under way, as the Government hired staff to oversee huge projects such as the furlough scheme, testing for Covid-19 and the rollout of the vaccination programme. Headcount increased by 56,000 between March 2020, when the first lockdown began, and March 2022. By June 2024, just ahead of the general election on July 4, the total had reached at 546,000, since when the figure has increased by a further 4,000. Responding to the data, a Government spokesperson said: 'This increase is driven by recruitment to operational roles, including tax collectors and probation officers. 'As part of our Plan for Change, we are creating a more agile and productive state – reducing back-office costs to deliver savings of over £2 billion by 2030 and targeting spending on front line services. 'We have already announced a new cross-government fund for exit schemes to reduce staffing numbers over the next two years, as well as introducing measures to make it quicker and easier to remove poor performers from post.' Chancellor Rachel Reeves said in March that Civil Service running costs would be reduced by 15% by the end of the decade. As well as abolishing quangos such as NHS England, ministers have committed to increasing the proportion of civil servants working in digital and data roles, creating a workforce 'fit for the future'. Two Government departments together account for more than a third of the full Civil Service headcount: the Department for Work & Pensions (17.6% of the total) and the Ministry of Justice (17.5%). The next largest are HM Revenue & Customs (12.9%), the Ministry of Defence (10.5%) and the Home Office (9.2%). These five departments together account for just over two-thirds of the total headcount.
