Six years late and £28bn over budget, this project signals disaster for Ed Miliband's nuclear plans
'Build and repeat.' That is the plan for Sizewell C, the nuclear plant on the Suffolk coast which Ed Miliband has announced plans to pump billions of pounds into. Writing in The Telegraph, he hailed a new 'golden age' for the British nuclear industry, pledging £14.2 billion for two reactors at Sizewell which will, eventually, provide six million homes with electricity.
Eventually being the operative word. News that the Government is throwing its weight behind nuclear in the midst of the Energy Secretary's pursuit of net zero was met with relief by some campaigners – and, indeed, by anyone who doesn't want to find themselves plunged into darkness if the grid is forced to grapple with unreliable renewables. But concerns have been raised about the modelling. Sizewell is to be a rinse and repeat of Hinkley Point C, the two-reactor power station in Somerset which has been beset with problems from the moment EDF first broke ground there in early 2017.
The Government says it's to be almost an exact replica. Meanwhile on its website, Sizewell C points to 'the benefits of replication'. 'Sizewell C will use the same design as Hinkley Point C,' it adds.
It says Hinkley has already 'created a huge workforce and supply chain' and that replication 'means Sizewell C will benefit from all the efficiencies and expertise learnt by our sister project'.
Efficiency and expertise. It's one way of summing up Hinkley, though it does rather overlook the £28 billion it has gone over budget to date, the endless delays and challenges from environmentalists, not to mention the international political tensions.
China's General Nuclear is a significant shareholder in the project, but in 2023 halted funding for it as relations between London and Beijing worsened; the same year the UK government took over the country's stake in Sizewell C.
Meanwhile, work at the site crawls on, its deadline shifting and bill expanding.
Still, EDF says Hinkley's second reactor is being built 25 per cent faster than the first unit, and suggests this should be taken as good news for Sizewell's envisaged two reactors, which are, effectively, planned to be the third and fourth in Britain's nuclear quartet.
Meanwhile, experts agree it makes sense in principle to transfer the lessons learnt and systems already established at the Somerset site to Suffolk. Iolo James, head of communications at the Nuclear Industry Association, stresses the importance of 'building in fleet rather than building one at a time'. 'The more you build, the cheaper and quicker that is,' he says.
That may be true, though there has been nothing cheap or quick about Britain's nuclear renaissance so far. Where we were once pioneers in the push for nuclear power (the world's first commercial-scale nuclear power station came online in Calder Hall, Cumbria, in 1956), decades of sparse investment have meant the UK has now fallen far behind other countries.
At Sizewell, many question how possible it will be in practice to shift operations from one side of England to the other. Alison Downes, of the campaign group Stop Sizewell C, suspects the idea that you can simply move teams and processes without a hitch is unrealistic. 'The company want people involved in Hinkley Point C to come over and do what they've done there again at Sizewell C, but unless there's a seamless transition and the roles that they're just finishing at Hinkley start at Sizewell, then the likelihood is those people will go off and find other jobs and then are lost to the supply chain,' she says.
'Hinkley has been delayed, yes, but Sizewell has also been delayed. It's very difficult to get two projects of this size to perfectly dovetail.'
Even if they do manage to bring some of that infrastructure across, it's hard to make the case that Hinkley has been a poster project for Britain's nuclear prowess.
Last February, EDF said it had taken a near £11 billion hit amid delays and overrunning costs on the project. The month before, it said the plant was expected to be completed by 2031 and cost up to £35 billion. Factoring in inflation, the real figure could be more like £46 billion.
It was, let's not forget, initially supposed to have started generating electricity in 2017 and cost £18 billion. When construction finally began the same year, it was expected that the plant would be completed by 2025.
It will now come online six years later than that and at more than double the cost of the initial estimate. So not, it would be fair to say, an unmitigated success as major infrastructure projects go.
Then again, some would argue successful infrastructure is an oxymoron in Britain today. The latest estimated spend for HS2 is £102 billion – almost double the projected cost. Crossrail cost £4 billion more than expected and weathered significant delays. And across the country, countless projects – bridges, tramlines and motorways – remain unfinished or unbuilt altogether.
'The public expectations on this sort of stuff is so low nowadays,' says Ed Shackle, a researcher at Public First. 'With all of these big promises – and that goes for things like HS2 as well – they are not expecting the Government to do anything. They're very sceptical that the Government could deliver anything big.'
The plan to launch us into a nuclear-powered future might sound promising, but can Labour get it done? While the public is supportive of the idea of projects like Sizewell in principle (Public First's polling shows there is a 41 per cent net support for the building of new nuclear power stations) and wants the Government to make big swings, time and again they have seen these things fail or fall by the wayside. 'They think the country is in a very bad way and we need major overhaul, but major projects have been poorly managed and delivered, and in their local areas, people see decline everywhere,' says Shackle.
'They want to see actual delivery behind these big promises.'
Downes points out the last update on Hinkley came in January last year, 'when there were still five or six years to go, so there was plenty of time for things to get even worse'. That same month, EDF said further delays were in the offing because of a row about fish. The energy company was struggling to agree protection measures for fish in the River Severn. Fears thousands could be killed in water cooling intakes had 'the potential to delay the operation of the power station'.
This was after months of tussling with environmentalists over the plant's seawater cooling system. At the time, Sir Keir Starmer, then in opposition, said delays to Hinkley were evidence of a system that was 'holding us back and stifling growth', citing 'countless examples of Nimbys and zealots gumming up the legal system often for their own ideological blind spots to stop the Government building the infrastructure the country needs'.
Now, dovetailing the construction of Sizewell with Hinkley is one of the main things bolstering confidence in the Suffolk project. Stuart Crooks, managing director of Hinkley Point C, said the 'innovation and experience' developed at Hinkley 'will benefit our twin project at Sizewell C from the start'.
'We have trained a new workforce and built the nuclear supply chain,' Crooks says. 'Now those skilled workers and businesses can give Britain the energy security and economic growth it needs at Sizewell C, together with small modular reactors and future large nuclear plants.'
Supporters also argue things will be different the second time around. The first nuclear build since the 1990s, Hinkley, they say, was always destined to take longer and cost more than initially predicted. 'It's been well documented that Hinkley has had issues in terms of going over budget, and the timescale,' says James. 'That's predominantly due to the fact that we haven't built a nuclear power station in a generation... We've had to relearn how to build them.
'The way Sizewell will benefit from that is all the learnings from Hinkley will be there for Sizewell and its team when it starts construction in earnest... If you view Sizewell C as unit three and four [after Hinkley's one and two], then you'll see the efficiencies become even greater for that project.'
Julia Pyke, joint managing director of Sizewell C, tells The Telegraph the site would be an 'exact copy, above ground, of Hinkley Point C'.
'When the design for Hinkley was brought into the UK, they had to make 7,000 design changes – because we're a copy, the equivalent for us is just 60,' she says.
'What that means in practical terms is that we know, in a way that Hinkley didn't know, how much concrete we need to pour, how much steel we need, how much cable we need to buy; we know how many hours it took to undertake a task for the first unit at Hinkley and the savings they were able to make for the second unit, and we can learn from that. We have a greater cost certainty because of that fixed design.'
It sounds promising, but campaigners are less optimistic, pointing out the significant geographical differences between the sites. 'I get the principals behind replication – but the thing you can't do is replicate the site,' says Downes, who understands Sizewell is set to be a more expensive site to develop than Hinkley.
'There are very specific complexities around the Sizewell C site... It's quite likely that any savings they might expect to make through replication will be absorbed in the more complex groundworks.'
While Hinkley is 'a dry site', Sizewell C is by the sea. 'It's going to need huge sea defences. They've got to build a crossing over a Site of Special Scientific Interest. They've got to build a deep cut-off wall. There's a lot of associated development that's needed because there's less infrastructure than there is down at Hinkley Point C. These are the sorts of things that concern us.'
The Energy Secretary, for his part, is still adamant this is to be the start of a 'golden age'. 'We will not accept the status quo of failing to invest in the future and energy insecurity for our country,' he said. 'We need new nuclear to deliver a golden age of clean energy abundance, because that is the only way to protect family finances, take back control of our energy, and tackle the climate crisis.'
He might like to pay a visit to voters on the Suffolk coast who will be looking at Hinkley as a test case and bracing for years spent living down the road from a construction site.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Liverpool Reportedly Submit New £113M Bid for Bayer's Florian Wirtz
Liverpool continue to work towards completing what is likely to go down as the biggest blockbuster transfer deal of the 2025 summer window, a deal almost certain to set a new record for a purchase by an English club. Any deal of that size, though, takes time. As such we find ourselves nearing the end of a second week of knowing Liverpool are pushing to sign Bayer Leverkusen and Germany 22-year-old attacker Florian Wirtz, waiting on news. Advertisement Significant news may have arrived, with The Times' Paul Joyce reporting that a new and improved bid—believed to be the third formally submitted—totalling £113M (€134M) with add-ons has been lodged today by the Reds. The offer would see a very significant £100M (€119M) paid as the guaranteed portion, with Wirtz having already agreed in principle to a five-year deal that will be signed when the two clubs reach a full agreement regarding the fee. While nothing is certain in transfers until everything is signed, the club allowing information of a third bid to be shared via one of the most reliable club-connected sources does suggest that full agreement may be close. Despite all that, it's worth noting the numbers remain short of the £126M (€150M) valuation Leverkusen have been widely reported as having placed on the player and it's not clear how willing they are to bargain on that point. Advertisement Until news of Liverpool's serious interest in Wirtz first broke two weeks ago, the assumption going back two years had been the player would end up at Bayern Munich—or if not there, perhaps Manchester City or Real Madrid. Assuming Liverpool get the deal across the line as everyone expects, Wirtz' signing will go down not just as a likely British record and Liverpool's club record but as an unexpected transfer coup and major statement of intent. More from


Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
The Shame of Trump's Parade
Today—250 years since the Continental Army officially formed to fight for the independence of the American colonies against the British monarchy—marks a milestone in President Donald Trump's effort to politicize the U.S. military. Though they are rare, military parades have happened before in Washington, D.C. For the most part, these have been celebrations of military achievements, such as the end of a war. But today is also Trump's birthday, and what he and his supporters have planned is a celebration of Trump himself. A mark of a free society is that its public institutions, especially its military, represent the body politic and the freedom-enabling equal rights that structure civic life. If service members and the public begin to believe that the military is not neutral but is in fact the servant of MAGA, this will threaten the military's legitimacy and increase the likelihood of violent conflict between the military and the public. Today's events bring us one step closer to this disaster. I have seen the politicization of the military firsthand. Last month, I resigned my tenured position as a philosophy professor at West Point in protest of the dramatic changes the Trump administration is making to academic programs at military-service academies. Following an executive order from January, the Department of Defense banned most discussions of race and gender in the classroom. West Point applied this standard to faculty scholarship as well. As a result, my research agenda—I study the relationship between masculinity and war, among other things—was effectively off limits. I consider what the Trump administration is doing to the military-service academies as a profound violation of the military's political neutrality. That destructive ethos is the same one apparent in the parade scheduled for today. Before Trump was reelected, the Army had planned significant celebrations across the country to mark this day, including the release of a commemorative postage stamp and a visit to the International Space Station by an Army astronaut. But according to The New York Times, arrangements for today's D.C. event, unlike the other plans, began only this year. The day is scheduled to begin with a variety of family-friendly concerts, a meet and greet with NFL players, and military-fitness competitions, all on the National Mall. If all goes to plan, the celebrations will culminate with what organizers are calling a 'grand military parade' that starts near the Pentagon, crosses the Potomac River, and ends near the White House. The parade is anticipated to involve 6,700 active-duty soldiers and a massive display of Army equipment: dozens of M1A1 Abrams tanks and Stryker armored personnel carriers, along with more than 100 other land vehicles, 50 helicopters, and a B-25 bomber. Trump is scheduled to give remarks after the parade and receive a flag delivered from the air by the U.S. Army Parachute Team known as the Golden Knights. A fireworks show is set to follow later tonight. The organizers have made it abundantly clear that today's purpose is to directly laud Trump and his politics. In promotional materials, they tell us, 'Under President Trump's leadership, the Army has been restored to strength and readiness.' They credit his 'America First agenda' for military pay increases, enlarged weapons stockpiles, new technologies, and improvements in recruitment, declaring that he has 'ensured our soldiers have the tools and support they need to win on any battlefield.' Monica Crowley, the State Department's chief of protocol and a former Fox News host, went on Steve Bannon's podcast WarRoom to say that the concurrence of the U.S. Army's anniversary and Trump's birthday is 'providential.' She called it 'meant to be. Hand of God, for sure.' She added, 'It is really a gift, and we want to be sure that we celebrate in a manner that is fitting, not just of this extraordinary president but of our extraordinary country.' She also expressed hope that the crowd would serenade the president with 'Happy Birthday.' Clearly, Trump isn't merely the guest of honor; he is the reason for the party. During his first administration, members of Trump's own Cabinet often thwarted his efforts to corrupt the Pentagon. This time, Trump has appointed a secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, who is willing to tear down the boundaries separating politics and the management of national defense. Trump and Hegseth claim to be purging the military of politicization instilled by previous administrations and resetting the DOD around the nonpartisan matter of readiness for war. But in reality, they have used this rationale as a cover to insert an unprecedented level of political partisanship into the military. Other events in recent months have pointed in this same direction. For instance, in February, the administration fired the top lawyers for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The only meaningful justification given for the move was Hegseth's claim that the fired lawyers might be roadblocks to the president's agenda—a frightening admission. In January, the administration banned transgender people from serving in the military, not because they allegedly pose a threat to unit cohesion or because their medical treatment is unusually expensive, but because they are supposedly bad people ('not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member'). At present, transgender soldiers who have met all performance standards are being discharged simply because of the administration's bigotry against them. The administration has also inserted its politics into all the military-service academies—the reason I left West Point last month. Trump and Hegseth have denied the validity of ideas that are taken seriously in a variety of disciplines and banned them from the classroom, including, as I noted above, matters pertaining to race and gender. Books and other works, most of which are by women and people of color, have been removed from the curriculum. The academic programs of the service academies are now structured around the Trump administration's ideological worldview. Faculty and cadets wonder if they are allowed to entertain perspectives inconsistent with the administration's politics. In May, Hegseth led an evangelical prayer service in the Pentagon's auditorium. Standing at a lectern with the Department of Defense seal, Hegseth led the audience in prayer to 'our Lord and savior, Jesus Christ.' The main speaker at this service was Hegseth's pastor, Brooks Potteiger, of the Pilgrim Hill Reformed Fellowship, in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. This church restricts all leadership positions to men, declares homosexuality immoral, and asserts that women should not serve in combat. Of course, there is nothing wrong with a secretary of defense acknowledging his religious faith. What's objectionable is the use of his authority to push his personal religious views on subordinates, especially as the director of a major institution of the secular state. The president now routinely speaks to uniformed service members in his red MAGA hat, using his trademark rhetoric centering himself and belittling, even demonizing, his critics. He openly suggests a special alliance between him and the military. At Fort Bragg on Tuesday, for instance, Trump encouraged uniformed soldiers to cheer his political agenda and boo his enemies. This is all extremely dangerous. Keeping the military a politically neutral servant of the constitutional order, not of the president or his political ideology, is vital to ensuring the security of civil society. Up until a week ago, the blurring of the boundaries between the administration's ideology and the military had not yet manifested as an attempt to employ the military directly on Trump's—or the Republican Party's—behalf. The steps taken until that point had been mostly symbolic. (The one possible exception was the deployment of the military at the southern border in what is essentially a law-enforcement matter.) But these symbolic expressions of military politicization have paved the way for that endgame—presidential orders that deploy the military for directly partisan ends. In just the past week, the Trump administration responded to protests against the enforcement of his immigration policies with military deployments. The likelihood that the administration will try to use the military against its political opponents is now very high. If that comes to pass, we will then learn just how successful Trump's efforts to politicize the military have been.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Why Trump's Birthday Parade Risks Being a Dark Turning Point
One of the fundamental differences between democracies and dictatorships is how the military is viewed. In democracies, the armed forces are an instrument of national defense, serving the people. But in authoritarian states, the military becomes a weapon the government wields against its own citizens. This week, for the first time in our history, Americans are asking whether we have crossed a dangerous line in that regard. It is the right question to ask. As deeply disturbing and offensive as has been the deployment of troops in response to relatively small, largely peaceful protests in Los Angeles, it is very likely only the beginning. For years, since he was first elected as President, Donald Trump has sought the ability to use the United States military as a blunt instrument against those he perceives to be his domestic opponents. While I was writing my book, 'American Resistance,' former senior officials in his administration reported to me his deep frustration and visible anger whenever he was presented with constraints on his power. He wanted the military and its civilian leaders to do what he said. And virtually all of them warned that, if Trump were to be re-elected, his goal would be to sweep away such constraints. Many expressed deep concern that the result would be him becoming the authoritarian he clearly longed to be. Today, many of those former officials see their warnings being realized. In fact, when I speak to them today, as I regularly do, they are among those who are most disturbed by what is happening. This week, on the 'Words Matter' podcast that I host with political expert Norm Ornstein, our guest was one of those former officials, Miles Taylor, who served as chief of staff at the Department of Homeland Security during Trump's first term. Taylor, perhaps best known as the author of the 'Anonymous' op-ed in the New York Times that first expressed concerns from within Trump's orbit, was blunt in his warning. He said he believes that too many in the media are understating the dangers of Trump's incipient authoritarianism. Taylor made reference to how those closest to Trump, like current Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, have carefully studied those instances when the law gives U.S. presidents emergency powers—and how they can be exploited. Through Project 2025 and their own planning, they have sought to construct an administration where as many of the personnel and institutional guardrails limiting what a president can do would be removed. Since the inauguration this past January, we have seen plenty of evidence of these efforts. The team around Trump was picked based not on qualifications or experience but rather on the basis of whether they would do exactly as Trump has said. You saw that manifested in the swiftness with which Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth deployed Marines to Los Angeles; to the degree to which Trump's immigration team—Miller, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and 'border czar' Tom Homan—have sought to use assertions of 'national emergency' or 'invasion' to justify sidestepping the rule of law in their efforts to round up 'illegal' immigrants. Indeed, in case after case, Trump and his team of enablers have sought to use the language of crisis (see the president's social media posts about 'insurrectionists' in LA and his wild lies about the extent of the damage they were doing) precisely because it provides a legal justification for him seizing additional powers and removing constraints on the use of that power. While Trump has avoided invoking 'the Insurrection Act' or declaring martial law thus far, with each week of this administration he has moved further in that direction. And this week, with the actions in Los Angeles, he took a particularly ominous stride down that path. Even if they over-reach and the courts serve as a check on their plans—which they still sometimes do despite the efforts of the Supreme Court to help transform Trump into our first monarch since George III—Trump and his team know that legal battles take a long time and often afford them the chance in the interim to bully, cancel, intimidate, arrest, deport and otherwise seek to strip away the fundamental rights and protections hitherto enjoyed by the residents of this country. They might not win every case, but the impact they have while the wheels of justice are grinding as slowly as they often do can boost the president's effective power and advance his agenda. Trump's role models are clear. His contempt for our laws is a matter of record. He and his team have been preparing for years to make his second term different from any presidency in U.S. history. He is unchallenged within his administration, by Congress or, much of the time, by the majority on our highest court. He has—through that court's immunity decision—power unlike any chief executive in our history. He also burns with the desire to impose his will both on behalf of his family and friends but also against those he perceives as his opponents. (Taylor, for example, has been accused of nothing less than 'treason' simply for expressing his views. He is not alone.) For these reasons, for those who know or who have studied Trump, the events of this week are so profoundly chilling. Whether it is boots on the ground in Los Angeles or the polished boots that will be marching a four-mile parade route through our nation's capital this weekend, we now have a president who sees the military as an extension of his own personal power—his most lavish and ostentatious acquisition yet. The unnecessary display of force in California and the D.C. parade alone are expected to cost in the neighborhood of $200 million. The juxtaposition of his turning the unparalleled resources of the world's most powerful armed forces against its own people and then presiding on his birthday over a Soviet-style show of might seems deeply intentional. As a consequence of the agenda Trump has been implementing since he re-took office, many big questions will loom over the parade in dark counterpoint to the celebratory fly-bys of military aircraft. Will we or our children ever look at a parade in the same way again? Will the salutes and fanfare be for the troops or for a would-be American dictator? And will we see the events of this past week, as do many of those who know Trump best, as a dark turning point in our history, a foreshadowing of the undoing of all that America's soldiers have fought and died for during the past 250 years?