Must every project justify itself in pounds, shillings and pence? Sizewell C critics are missing the point, writes Charlotte Nichols In the depths of the Second World War, John Maynard Keynes took to the airwaves to talk about the importance of rebuilding when peace was achieved. It was 1942 and – despite the crippling impact on public finances – he railed against the “vile doctrine” that every project must justify itself in “pounds, shillings and pence”. Fast forward to today and – in the realm of energy policy – his point remains. This week parts of Westminster have been scrutinising our nuclear ambitions, and they have failed to see the bigger picture. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) produced a report on the finances that underpin Sizewell C . However, the report – published on the morning of the Budget – misses a key point: reality. It is comparing Sizewell C to a counterfactual deal which was never on the table. And one which would have scared away investors and resulted in yet more delays. The real choice was never about this deal or a perfect alternative. It was between this deal or no power station at all. After years of dither and delay, it took a Labour government to get things moving again. Making decisions that will live beyond the next election cycle and improve the lives of our children, and their children. Three daily briefings with the key market moves and top business and political stories. And it’s about time too. Because the country has been exposed to global gas prices, which have skyrocketed. Families across the country have seen their monthly bill rise by 58 per cent since the war in Ukraine, and the Iran conflict is pushing them up further still. We are at the whim of events miles away, with no ability to control them. That is a bad deal for the British people. Sizewell is a generational chance to change that for good. Once it’s up and running it will provide homegrown power for 6m homes for at least 60 years. The forecasters reckon it will save the energy system about £2bn a year in the process. Obviously, it comes with a cost, and during construction it will put around £1 a month on your bill. But this type of funding model – known as the regulated asset base (RAB) model – actually reduces the cost of financing and, therefore, the cost of electricity. When you consider the choice between volatile gas prices and cheaper abundant nuclear power that we control – I think we know which is the better deal. And Sizewell is already paying back to society and the economy. Over 1,000 UK suppliers have won £5bn worth of contracts, 77 per cent of the steel is British (and proud), and 1,500 apprenticeships will help tackle the NEETs crisis. Even the PAC’s own report highlights the £4bn worth of regional economic value. And, unlike so many big infrastructure projects, Sizewell C has a head start. It has the luxury of looking at Hinkley Point C’s homework, improving it and making it quicker to deliver. To put that into context, 85 per cent of the design is an exact copy-and-paste replica, which means it can learn the lessons of the past to deliver energy security for the future. Last week, the Chancellor set “a new course on energy to get UK energy costs down in line with Europe”. The £100 Household Energy Payment, the extended VAT cut on electricity and the end of gas standing charges will give families welcome relief this winter. But short-term relief needs a long-term partner, and that is what Sizewell C provides: clean, homegrown power that keeps bills down for decades, not months. With Sizewell C, small modular reactors, and a further large-scale site, backed by the Fingleton reforms, we could build more new nuclear than in the last 50 years combined. We cannot afford to throw away this opportunity to
Ver más en News Today