We are paying the price now for the bad decisions (and lack of decisions) of the 1990s and 2000s. The conservatives at that time were more interested in electricity market liberalization than in implementing any sort of joined up energy policy. Eventually it became clear to even the dimmest politician that a market system driven by an artificially created spot price, that changes every half an hour, is no basis for funding capital projects that could take 20 years to build and will then operate for a further 60 years.
Interestingly Sizewell B was intended to be a standardized design that would have been built across the UK in the late 1990s and 2000s. These plans however, were rejected by the Major govt with finality in 1994 and were not resurrected by the Blair govt upon being elected in 1997(I think it is fair to see the plans to build multiple versions of Sizewell B were dead long before 1994 but it was in 1994 it became official). In terms of the original premise of the article I would say it is yes fair to blame the Blair govt in it's first term for being against building new nuclear power plants but they were simply following the policy of the previous Conservative govt. Obviously every year that has passed since the completion of Sizewell B under both Labour and Conservatives simply has meant more and more of the people involved with it's construction have died off or retired but I want to also take a contrarian position which is there are plenty of people with Sizewell B construction experience out at Hinkley Point C right now it is just that the Hinkley Point C design(EPR) is just so much more mind-numbingly complex compared to Sizewell B. Nonetheless I think the UK needs to push forward with Sizewell C based in the Hinkley Point C EPR reference design.
As an aside below is an interesting documentary from the construction of Sizewell B in the early 1990s. I will note that for all of the talk of the EPR being a more "modern" design in the 1990s Sizewell B was considered one of the most modern if not the most modern PWR plants in the world.
I agree with your thoughts here. But you need a larger scope for consideration. I suggest the following.
Starting in the 1960s, the Soviet Union leadership became increasingly aware of their falling behind in their opposition to the NATO alliance. They were falling behind economically. They produced nothing wanted by the modern industrial world except oil and gas.
They were falling behind technologically and militarily as demonstrated by the repeated failures of Soviet-made weaponry against western weapons in a series of wars, particularly in the Middle East.
So they need to ensure a market for their one product the West wanted: oil and gas. This was the principal reason that then-KGB head Yuri Andropov launched his program in the late 1960s of supporting Western Green parties, Western environmental groups. There was a particular concentration on West Germany, believed correctly to be the weak link in the NATO alliance. The specific target was West Germany's nuclear power program, because that alone could avoid the need for some Russian gas imports.
Andropov's program succeeded, and Germany and the USSR built the first gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. There would be no new reactors built in Germany after Emsland. Andropov's reward, for securing the ONLY success the Soviet Union had in competing with the West, was to be named Leonid Brezhnev's successor when Leonid died in 1982. He in turn left it to his successor Mikhail Gorbachev to finish the work of "saving" the Soviet system after Brezhnev had ruined it.
Something else I want to point out is there are plenty of anti nuclear or nuclear sceptic Conservative MP's on the backbenches. Not as many as in the Cameron, May, or even Johnson years but they nonetheless do exist. Now how much is front-bench govt policy dictated by these back-benchers? Hard to say but pay attention to Zac Goldsmith's group the Conservative Environmental Network which on the surface looks like a right of centre internal pressure but receives millions of pounds in funding from mainstream environmental groups like the Rockefeller Foundation.
In particular just today you see a lot of handwringing coming out of these Zac Goldsmith circles over the fact the Tories after the byelection results might start a war on woke against renewables.
We are paying the price now for the bad decisions (and lack of decisions) of the 1990s and 2000s. The conservatives at that time were more interested in electricity market liberalization than in implementing any sort of joined up energy policy. Eventually it became clear to even the dimmest politician that a market system driven by an artificially created spot price, that changes every half an hour, is no basis for funding capital projects that could take 20 years to build and will then operate for a further 60 years.
So much wasted time. Let’s not do the same, so much could be done in 10 years just look at UAE like you say.
Interestingly Sizewell B was intended to be a standardized design that would have been built across the UK in the late 1990s and 2000s. These plans however, were rejected by the Major govt with finality in 1994 and were not resurrected by the Blair govt upon being elected in 1997(I think it is fair to see the plans to build multiple versions of Sizewell B were dead long before 1994 but it was in 1994 it became official). In terms of the original premise of the article I would say it is yes fair to blame the Blair govt in it's first term for being against building new nuclear power plants but they were simply following the policy of the previous Conservative govt. Obviously every year that has passed since the completion of Sizewell B under both Labour and Conservatives simply has meant more and more of the people involved with it's construction have died off or retired but I want to also take a contrarian position which is there are plenty of people with Sizewell B construction experience out at Hinkley Point C right now it is just that the Hinkley Point C design(EPR) is just so much more mind-numbingly complex compared to Sizewell B. Nonetheless I think the UK needs to push forward with Sizewell C based in the Hinkley Point C EPR reference design.
As an aside below is an interesting documentary from the construction of Sizewell B in the early 1990s. I will note that for all of the talk of the EPR being a more "modern" design in the 1990s Sizewell B was considered one of the most modern if not the most modern PWR plants in the world.
https://youtu.be/FyRRBP1WqpQ
https://youtu.be/FyRRBP1WqpQ
I agree with your thoughts here. But you need a larger scope for consideration. I suggest the following.
Starting in the 1960s, the Soviet Union leadership became increasingly aware of their falling behind in their opposition to the NATO alliance. They were falling behind economically. They produced nothing wanted by the modern industrial world except oil and gas.
They were falling behind technologically and militarily as demonstrated by the repeated failures of Soviet-made weaponry against western weapons in a series of wars, particularly in the Middle East.
So they need to ensure a market for their one product the West wanted: oil and gas. This was the principal reason that then-KGB head Yuri Andropov launched his program in the late 1960s of supporting Western Green parties, Western environmental groups. There was a particular concentration on West Germany, believed correctly to be the weak link in the NATO alliance. The specific target was West Germany's nuclear power program, because that alone could avoid the need for some Russian gas imports.
Andropov's program succeeded, and Germany and the USSR built the first gas pipeline from Russia to Germany. There would be no new reactors built in Germany after Emsland. Andropov's reward, for securing the ONLY success the Soviet Union had in competing with the West, was to be named Leonid Brezhnev's successor when Leonid died in 1982. He in turn left it to his successor Mikhail Gorbachev to finish the work of "saving" the Soviet system after Brezhnev had ruined it.
Something else I want to point out is there are plenty of anti nuclear or nuclear sceptic Conservative MP's on the backbenches. Not as many as in the Cameron, May, or even Johnson years but they nonetheless do exist. Now how much is front-bench govt policy dictated by these back-benchers? Hard to say but pay attention to Zac Goldsmith's group the Conservative Environmental Network which on the surface looks like a right of centre internal pressure but receives millions of pounds in funding from mainstream environmental groups like the Rockefeller Foundation.
In particular just today you see a lot of handwringing coming out of these Zac Goldsmith circles over the fact the Tories after the byelection results might start a war on woke against renewables.
Can you please do this for Australia too?