Should the UK build more nuclear power?
What role should new nuclear plants play in a cleaner, secure electricity system?
The question
behind the question.
New nuclear plants can produce large amounts of low-carbon electricity for many decades. They also require long construction periods, large up-front capital and arrangements for waste, decommissioning and public risk. The question is how much additional nuclear capacity the UK should commit to, and on what terms, while electricity demand and the generation mix change.
This is not a choice between nuclear and renewables alone. The National Energy System Operator’s 2030 pathways involve wind, solar, storage, flexible demand and stronger networks alongside existing nuclear. Efficiency can also reduce the amount of power the system must supply. Any new reactor should be compared with a whole-system alternative that provides reliable electricity in the same years, not with a single wind turbine or battery.
The National Audit Office says Sizewell C could reduce portfolio risk but still carries major delivery risk. Its expected first electricity is in 2038. Those timings matter: projects that help in the 2040s cannot replace measures needed this decade.
Read this as an editorial map of the trade-offs. Sources establish the facts; the arguments also involve judgements about what matters.
The strongest case. Both ways.
Equal space. Evidence first.The case for
04 arguments- 01
Add firm low-carbon output
Nuclear plants can generate through dark, low-wind periods when wind and solar output falls. That steady output may reduce reliance on gas or the quantity of storage and other flexibility needed to keep power secure. NESO’s pathways use a mix of technologies, while the National Audit Office recognises a plausible portfolio-risk argument for Sizewell C. [2][1]
The qualificationThe size of the benefit depends on future demand, storage, interconnection and plant cost.
- 02
Diversify a long-lived system
A system built mainly around weather-dependent power still needs other dependable resources. Nuclear offers a different source of low-carbon output and may hedge against slow delivery of storage, networks or other firm technologies. A balanced programme could avoid betting the UK’s long-term electricity security on any single technology or fuel supply. [2][1]
The qualificationNuclear also brings correlated construction, financing, fuel and regulatory risks.
- 03
Plan beyond the 2030 target
Electricity demand may rise as transport, heating and industry electrify. A reactor operating for decades can help meet later demand even though it cannot arrive quickly enough for the 2030 clean-power target. The NAO says Sizewell C is expected to start generating in 2038 and operate for at least 60 years; decisions now shape that later system. [1][2]
The qualificationLong lifetimes are useful only if delivered electricity remains good value against future alternatives.
- 04
Learn from repeat construction
Building follow-on projects using a known design could allow suppliers and skilled teams to repeat work and avoid some first-project mistakes. That is part of the government’s case for Sizewell C following Hinkley Point C. If learning materialises, subsequent reactors could become easier to finance and build than one-off projects. [1]
The qualificationThe NAO says no predecessor reactor of Sizewell C’s type has yet avoided delays or cost increases.
The case against
04 arguments- 01
Prioritise power that arrives sooner
A new large reactor will not solve this decade’s clean-power challenge if it starts generating after 2030. Wind, solar, storage, grid upgrades, flexible demand and efficiency can be expanded in parallel now. Directing scarce planning, finance and engineering capacity towards them may reduce emissions sooner while leaving future nuclear choices open. [1][2][4]
The qualificationFast build-out also faces grid, supply-chain, planning and balancing constraints.
- 02
Limit public exposure to overruns
Nuclear’s capital intensity means delays and financing terms can weigh heavily on consumers and taxpayers. The NAO says Sizewell C’s financing structure shifts more risk to both groups and that every predecessor reactor of its type has had delays and cost increases. Stronger guarantees or staged commitments may be preferable to an open-ended programme. [1]
The qualificationThe NAO also says the government reasonably argues that Sizewell C diversifies portfolio risk.
- 03
Compare whole-system value
A reactor’s dependable output has value, but its price should be weighed against combinations of renewable generation, storage, flexible demand, interconnection and energy savings that deliver equivalent reliability. DESNZ warns that levelised generation costs are not directly comparable across technologies with different system roles. A project should pass a transparent whole-system test, including financing and decommissioning. [3][2]
The qualificationNo single cost forecast can settle this comparison decades ahead.
- 04
Preserve flexibility as technology changes
Large nuclear commitments lock in sites, financing and delivery choices for decades. If storage, grids or demand response improve faster than expected, a fixed reactor programme could leave less room to adopt cheaper solutions. A more modular portfolio can be adjusted in stages as costs and demand become clearer. [1][4][3]
The qualificationRenewable infrastructure and networks also involve long-lived assets and imperfect forecasts.
What we can
establish.
Dates and definitions matter. A forecast is not an observed outcome.
- The National Audit Office says Sizewell C is expected to start generating in 2038 and operate for at least 60 years. [1]
- The NAO found that every predecessor reactor of Sizewell C’s type had experienced delays and cost increases, while accepting a reasonable government case for portfolio-risk reduction. [1]
- NESO’s 2024 clean-power advice models pathways for Great Britain that combine multiple generation types, storage, flexible demand and network expansion. [2]
- DESNZ says levelised generation costs should not be directly compared where technologies play different roles in the electricity system. [3]
What would
change my mind?
Before voting, try finishing this sentence: “I would reconsider my view if…”
- What whole-system cost and reliability evidence would justify another large reactor to you?
- How much construction risk should taxpayers and bill payers accept for firm low-carbon power?
- Would your answer change if storage and grid upgrades arrived faster, or slower, than forecast?
These are prompts for your own reflection. Nothing you think or write here is collected.
The source notes.
Primary research and official publications. A citation is not an endorsement of an argument.
- Sizewell C National Audit Office · 2026-05-20Checked 28 September 2026
- Clean Power 2030 National Energy System Operator · 2024-11-05Checked 28 September 2026
- Electricity generation costs 2025 Department for Energy Security and Net Zero · 2026-01-14Checked 28 September 2026
- Clean flexibility roadmap Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, Ofgem and NESO · 2025-07-23Checked 28 September 2026
Where do you stand?
There’s room for uncertainty. Choose a view to see how other readers voted.
Not a scientific poll. These are self-selected reader responses, not a measure of UK public opinion.
The readers’ view
One recorded response per browser while its storage is kept. Clearing storage or changing browser can bypass this. Privacy & limitations ↗
Spotted something missing or misleading?
Suggest a correction ↗