.svg)
Image - Markus Distelrath
On July 5th 2024 Labour were elected following a landslide victory. One of their most popular policies among voters was their 2030 clean energy grid plan: removing £1,400 off annual household bills and £53 billion off energy bills for businesses by 2030 by delivering a cheaper, zero-carbon electricity system.
On the 6th of February 2025 Starmer made a striking claim for fast-track small modular reactor (SMR) construction to boost the UK economy and energy sector. Within the nuclear industry, SMRs have been ground breaking for generating low carbon energy due to their small, compact design and amount of energy generated: up to 300MWe each, making them more efficient, scalable, and safer than the large reactors of old.
However, despite the public's vocal support for sustainable energy, nuclear power remains politically unpopular. Why is that?
Starmer sees nuclear energy, now 15% of the UK's power generation, as having far greater potential. Historically, the UK has a fluctuating relationship with nuclear energy.
The UK pioneered nuclear power production in 1946 and marked one its greatest achievements on October 17th 1956: Magnox reactors. Queen Elizabeth II opened the world’s first commercial nuclear power station at Calder Hall. It produced 50Mw, small compared to modern reactors, but this was a major achievement for nuclear power & national energy production. Subsequent reactors were progressively expanded, optimized and sold abroad for continuous electricity production. Between 1956-1971, 26 Magnox reactors were built. Nuclear energy progressed from less than 1% to 5% of domestic power generation in this time . Design life was 20 years, but most ran for at least double that. This should’ve been the beginning of the nuclear era, but it dwindled.
Surprisingly, nuclear power generation continuously increased and peaked in 1996 at 26%, but its downfall started under Margaret Thatcher’s government.
Thatcher was paradoxical. She was one of the first major politicians to address climate change as a real problem but did not enact specific policies to tackle it, despite being a supporter of nuclear energy. Besides shutting down coal mines, the real killer to nuclear energy was the privatization of the energy sector. This exposed the nuclear industry, and other sources, to the expensive cost control of the private sector.
This created competition from energy suppliers to find the cheapest, most profitable source at the environment’s expense. Oil and natural gas firms benefitted the most from this. North Sea oil reserves allowed for easier access to oil and the cheap cost and ease of fracking skyrocketed fossil fuels to become the main energy source.
Meanwhile, the cost of decommissioning power plants, concerns over storing nuclear waste, and the inherent safety of nuclear energy made it unpopular politically. Accidents like Chernobyl only exemplified fears. Despite an increase to 10% total power generation, nuclear plants were seldom built.
Nuclear’s unpopularity stretched across party lines and continued under the next Labour government. They did not build any new power plants, instead closing 6. Despite initially opposing nuclear energy on economic grounds, Tony Blair seemingly changed mid tenure. In 2001 his government launched the biggest energy review in 20 years. Several journals, including The Financial Times, noted it as "a move that could lead to a long-term revival for nuclear power”. In the end they did little to revitalize nuclear energy. There was yet another surge under Gordon Brown in 2009 with his approval of new nuclear sites: Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, but no new reactors were started or completed during their time in office. Nuclear power generation fell to 18%.
When the conservatives returned to power between 2010-2024, the trend continued. Further accidents like Fukushima 2011 and lobbying from businesses did not help. All of this explains why the last new power plant was built in 1995. In 2024, nuclear energy’s electrical generation declined to 14%.
Despite supporting tackling climate change, these parties have had a glaring oversight against nuclear energy. I believe the benefits are even more apparent today.
Consider the current issues with the energy grid: outdated infrastructure, high emissions, insecurity, and reliance on imports. Although renewables power 50% of UK electricity generation today, it cannot cope with energy demands. They require natural gas backups on standby, leaving the nation prone to price shocks and continued emissions.
If Labour wants to deliver on their 2030 clean energy grid promise, nuclear energy can fix the problems with the national grid. Nuclear power is the most reliable renewable source. It provides a constant baseload power regardless of weather, unlike other renewables. Combined with it evidentially having a highest capacity factor of 92% in the U.S, more than double the capacity of other renewables in both the U.S and U.K - offshore wind farms had the highest capacity factor of 57% in the UK, but average approximately 47%. Overall, nuclear energy can operate at maximum power 92% of the time and can virtually run 24/7. This alone increases energy security and production tenfold, reducing the need for natural gas backups and strenghtening Russia’s grip on British energy – as Starmer said, “British prices skyrocket at his (Vladimir Putin’s) whims.”
Additionally, nuclear generators are very space efficient. Nuclear power provides the greatest electrical energy per square meter compared against wind, solar and biomass in the UK.
Nuclear power’s superior power density is its key advantage. At 1000W/m2, it surpasses wind (2.5W/m2) and solar (100W/m2). Generating the same energy requires solar and wind farms to use 50 and 500 times more land. Hinkley Point C for comparison, will power 6 million homes from just 0.67 square miles, demonstrating nuclear’s amazing spatial efficiency and its potential for a long-term clean energy grid. SMRs are great to focus on.
Most importantly, despite consequences of accidents being fatal, the actual risks are low. Occupational accidents in the nuclear industry remain lower than other energy industries. Worries over waste disposal are also exaggerated; 97% of nuclear waste can be recycled – allowing for near total efficiency of nuclear energy. What is disposed of is small, like a tin can, and is heavily secured.
Overall, these factors make nuclear energy low cost and low maintenance. The biggest problem being that SMRs take at least 5 years to build, longer than a single minister’s term, but to truly achieve a clean energy grid requires long-term investment Labour must accept.
We can see the practical benefits of nuclear energy in France. Nuclear energy powers 70% of France’s electricity. Their energy grid is reliable and secure, one of the lowest emitters and the lowest household energy bills across Europe. In contrast the UK is among the highest. France’s energy security stems from nuclear power and explains why they’re a net exporter of electricity, whereas the UK’s rejection of its nuclear potential keeps them reliant as net importers of electricity.
Overall, Starmer’s SMR strategy is not a liability but a reclamation of the UK’s lost nuclear heritage. It’s the overlooked renewable and the missing piece for achieving a truly clean 2030 energy grid. Although historical fears and political hesitancy have stifled progress, nuclear energy’s benefits are undeniable: reliability, power density, and proven economic and environmental success, as demonstrated by France. To meet their climate and economic goals, the government must look beyond short-term success and political cycles and commit to a nuclear future. This will fix the current instability of the energy grid and ensure national energy sovereignty for decades to come.
.svg)
Access all articles, events, career resources, and our regularly updated News Matrix. It's free!
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
