The government has given the go-ahead to a third nuclear power station in Suffolk, although it's not without controversy. From an energy security perspective, Sizewell C has the capacity to provide non-intermittent power for around 6 million homes, but there are concerns both about the cost and the risks associated with nuclear power. It's remarkable how, in my life time, nuclear power has become seen as a 'green' option. Is the disposable of spent nuclear fuel no longer seen as an environmental threat?

Economic Arguments For Nuclear Power:

• Energy Security & Reliability: Nuclear power provides a stable, non-intermittent supply of electricity, unlike renewables such as wind and solar. Sizewell C, for example, could supply around 6 million homes, reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels.
• Long-Term Cost Efficiency: While upfront costs are high, nuclear plants have long operational lives and low running costs, which can offer stable electricity prices over decades.
• Low Carbon Emissions: As climate targets become more urgent, nuclear’s near-zero emissions during operation make it economically attractive as a "green" energy source, potentially reducing the cost of carbon mitigation.

Economic Arguments Against Nuclear Power:

• High Initial Investment: Nuclear plants are extremely expensive to build, with long lead times and frequent cost overruns—Sizewell C is expected to cost tens of billions.
• Waste Management and Decommissioning Costs: Though technological advances have improved safety and fuel efficiency, the long-term storage and disposal of radioactive waste remain costly and unresolved over the very long term.
• Risk and Liability: Accidents, though rare, can have catastrophic economic consequences. Insuring against these risks is difficult, and governments often end up as the financial backstop.