In a move described as the “biggest expansion of the [nuclear] sector in 70 years,” the UK government has unveiled plans to bolster its commitment to nuclear power. This announcement comes amid rising scrutiny over the efficacy of nuclear energy in achieving climate goals, with critics pointing to its high costs and delayed projects.
Official assessments have acknowledged that nuclear power lags behind alternatives such as renewables and storage in terms of cost-effectiveness. Despite the construction of the sole new power station facing significant delays and budget overruns, the government’s support for nuclear energy remains steadfast.
One striking observation is the lack of detailed justification for this support in recent energy policy documents. The last rigorous energy white paper dates back to 2003, and the 2020 white paper failed to provide comparative costs between nuclear and renewable sources. Critics argue that, especially with the decreasing costs of wind and solar power, there is a lack of transparency in why nuclear energy continues to receive substantial funding.
The recent document titled “Civil Nuclear: Roadmap to 2050” appears more focused on affirming official support than substantively justifying it. Notably, the strategy mentions aligning “civil and military nuclear ambitions” to “identify opportunities to align the two across government.”
This link between civil and military nuclear activities is not a new revelation, though it has not been widely acknowledged. The document implies that maintaining civil nuclear capabilities is integral to supporting military nuclear programs, a sentiment acknowledged by other nuclear-armed states. The UK, however, has historically been discreet about these connections.
In 2006, then-Prime Minister Tony Blair faced criticism for reversing his stance on nuclear power, deviating from a previous white paper that deemed it “unattractive.” The shift followed a comprehensive study by the RAND Corporation for the Ministry of Defence, warning that the industrial base for nuclear submarines would become unaffordable without civil nuclear power.
Military interests have consistently advocated for civil nuclear power, with reports suggesting efforts to “mask” military costs behind civilian programs. A 2014 MoD report, released through Freedom of information, underscored how the decline of nuclear power jeopardizes military nuclear skills.
The government’s stance, seemingly driven by military considerations, has sparked concern about a lack of transparency. While energy policy documents avoid detailed justifications, military pressures have influenced substantial funding, with Rolls Royce advocating for costly “small modular reactors” to support the Ministry of Defence.
Despite these military connections, the UK has remained reticent about openly acknowledging the influence of military interests in its nuclear energy policies. The imperative to “keep the nuclear option open” has been consistently emphasised, raising questions about the true motivations behind substantial financial commitments.
This nexus between civil and military nuclear activities has not received widespread recognition in the UK. Even when brought to public attention, official denial has been the norm. The lack of acknowledgement raises concerns about concealed subsidies benefiting a joint civil-military nuclear industrial base, indirectly funding military needs while presenting nuclear power as a viable energy option.
The global context reveals that other nuclear-armed states, such as the US, France, Russia, and China, also grapple with maintaining costly military infrastructures tied to nuclear power. While some countries openly acknowledge this interdependence, the UK’s denial has heightened concerns about the transparency and democracy of its energy policies.
In conclusion, the UK’s recent push for nuclear energy expansion, despite its poor performance and high costs, appears to be intricately tied to military considerations. The obscured link between civil and military nuclear activities raises questions about the democratic foundation of energy policies. As the government embarks on this ambitious nuclear journey, transparency and open dialogue with the public will be crucial in addressing concerns and ensuring accountability for taxpayers and environmental stakeholders alike.