Squeezed in the grip of stagflation, implausible environmental targets and a faltering energy security, London is once again pressing the accelerator on nuclear power, in a fit of newfound common sense and in contrast to the positions recently taken by many European powers, such as Germany, Belgium and Spain.

On 6 February, in fact, the Labour government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced an ambitious plan to revive nuclear energy in the UK: a move deemed necessary to counter the volatility of fossil markets and ‘protect consumers’, given the rising cost of energy bills, as well as to reduce dependence on the supply chain of foreign countries – above all Russia, in light of the unstable geopolitical context.

At present, the country has nine nuclear power plants, providing around 15 per cent of the national energy supply, but many of these plants are due to be decommissioned by the end of the decade. In order to fill the gap, Labour’s plan proposes the installation of 24 GW of new nuclear capacity, aiming to cover 25 per cent of electricity needs by 2050, a large part of which would come from the development of so-called mini-reactors, i.e. small modular reactors (SMRs), also intended for energy-intensive industries such as manufacturing and technology.

Nuclear: the only way to achieve environmental goals

In a broader context of rethinking and a paradigm shift on energy and environmental policies that is affecting a large part of the continent, starting with the EU’s Green Deal reform proposals, the British Prime Minister’s pragmatism reaffirms the role of nuclear power as the only source of energy that is sustainable both economically and environmentally and can guarantee energy security and independence. Only last November, in fact, in a report commissioned by the government, the NESO – National Energy System Operator of the UK – warned of delays in meeting the ambitious climate targets set by 2030. Similarly, according to the report published last summer by the UK’s Committee on Climate Change, the current plans actually in place would only achieve a third of the emission reductions needed to meet the target of 68% below 1990 levels. In both cases, the solution advocated is the same as the one that caused the delays: further massive and ineffective investment in PV and wind farms – especially offshore, with the NESO recommending that the Executive contract for more offshore wind capacity in the next two annual renewables auctions than in the previous six, in order to deliver between 28 and 35 additional gigawatts of power by 2030.

On a different note, Starmer openly pointed the finger at those who, by preventing the construction of new power stations for decades, have ‘ been holdingus back and stifling the possibility of cheaper energy, growth and jobs for too long‘, claiming the intention to ‘change the rules to support the builders of this nation’: specifically, the environmental associations, the ‘not in my backyard’ movements and, in a grotesque ideological paradox, the previous conservative governments that, for electoral reasons, succumbed to the blackmail of green activism and relegated the country to a state of stalemate. The new package of measures, in fact, introduces significant administrative simplifications aimed at streamlining bureaucratic processes. The intervention has two main objectives: to allow companies a more effective long-term planning and to expand the areas available for the installation of new plants, thus overcoming the current limitations that restrict construction to only eight sites in the country, in the hope of removing as soon as possible the local vetoes blocking the construction of the new plant in Suffolk.

Unbureaucratise, build, convert

Lastly, crowning Starmer’s vision is the pioneering £410 million project to convert an old and polluting coal-fired power station in Nottinghamshire into a nuclear fusion power plant by 2040, one of the most promising frontiers in clean energy, with virtually unlimited capacity, minimal environmental impact and, crucially, no long-term radioactive waste. This is a complex undertaking, especially in terms of the estimated timescale, but one that is all the more worthwhile in terms of the financial effort involved, especially when compared to the cost of building even small offshore wind farms, such as Rampion in West Sussex, which cost around £1.3 billion for a plant with only 116 turbines and generating just 400 Mwh of power.

Audacity and farsightedness that have been missing across the Channel and that often, in the European left, do not find a home. Amidst so much nonsense and post-Brexit marasmus, from London comes a case study to which Brussels should look.