British pragmatism: why nuclear power is so popular in the UK

UK's new energy security strategy boosts return of nuclear power in key countries.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson puts nuclear power and offshore wind power at the center of his strategy.

The share of nuclear power is to increase from 16 percent today to 25 percent in the long term.

The goal, 24 gigawatts by mid-century, is equivalent to building eight large nuclear power plants, although London is also hoping for the new types of smaller, modular nuclear power plants developed by Rolls-Royce.

The UK is just one example of the global nuclear renaissance.

More than a hundred nuclear power plants are being planned or under construction in China.

US President Biden also continues to rely on nuclear power.

French President Macron has announced the construction of up to fourteen nuclear power plants, and in Belgium the governing coalition, including the Greens, recently decided to extend the term by ten years.

Germany's traffic light coalition seems like an energy-political wrong-way driver if it stubbornly sticks to the nuclear phase-out, despite the problems with imports from Russia and the foreseeable energy gap.

In London it is hard to understand that Berlin wants to shut down the last three nuclear power plants by the end of the year.

Nuclear power as the backbone of energy supply

In Britain there is no significant political opposition to nuclear power.

Labor is also in favour, there is no ideological green party.

The British are pragmatic about nuclear energy.

However, one has to argue about the cost risks of the new buildings.

Hinkley Point C is more expensive than expected, the guaranteed power purchase price is too high.

Sizewell B on the east coast also threatens to become expensive.

Whether the "Small Modular Reactors" from Rolls-Royce would really be that much cheaper has not been proven.

But at least nuclear power plants supply base load and low-CO2 electricity.

That's why London doesn't want to do without it after almost completely phasing out coal.

The second pillar of the energy strategy will be offshore wind farms, which are to be expanded to 50 gigawatts by 2030.

Wind farms such as Hornsea I, currently the largest in the world, are already supplying enough electricity for more than a million households.

The island has a great natural advantage, because in the North Sea and Irish Sea the wind blows more strongly than anywhere else in Europe.

On average, thousands of turbines far offshore provide a good fifth of the electricity supply.

Last year, however, there was a lull for several months, and the wind power fell significantly.

People were happy that nuclear power was available as the backbone of the electricity base load.

In London it's moving

Johnson's government is also awarding new oil and gas exploration licenses in the North Sea this year.

That upsets environmental groups, but it's reasonable.

The kingdom wants to remain at least partially independent of imports.

More than half of the gas consumption comes from our own production.

Unlike in Germany, gas imports from Russia are negligible with a share of only three percent and can easily be replaced.

Critics of Britain's new energy strategy rightly complain that it will bring little short-term relief to households suffering from soaring energy bills.

New nuclear power plants will not go online until the 1930s at the earliest.

Planning, approval and construction of large offshore wind farms takes a long time, up to thirteen years.

Johnson wants to halve the time with expedited procedures.

Labor would also like to build more wind turbines on land.

That would be possible in the short term and cheap.

Economics and Energy Minister Kwasi Kwarteng wanted to introduce expansion targets for onshore wind farms.

But Johnson blocked that.

There is local resistance and a defensiveness within the Tory faction.

Opponents fear landscapes will be cluttered with cathedral-high wind turbines, as is the case in parts of Germany

A major shortcoming of London's energy strategy is that it ignores an obvious savings measure: better insulation in houses.

Millions of old buildings, but also many new buildings, have external walls that are too thin and poorly insulated, draughty windows.

Better insulation could significantly reduce heating costs and emissions.

One does not have to approve of the methods used by the Insulate Britain roadblocks to recognize their goal of better isolation as reasonable.

Johnson should urgently add such relief measures to his energy strategy.