Government plans to transition the UK to net zero by 2050 have been laid out in a white paper aiming to cut emissions from industry, transport, and buildings by 230 million metric tonnes.
Aimed at supporting hundreds of thousands of new jobs through a decarbonised economy, the white paper details how the move to cleaner energy sources will put the UK ‘at the forefront of the global green industrial revolution’.
Offshore wind to provide electricity to all UK homes by 2030
PM announces new climate target ahead of COP26
Johnson maps out Britain’s Green Industrial Revolution
“Today’s plan establishes a decisive and permanent shift away from our dependence on fossil fuels,” business and energy secretary Alok Sharma said in a statement. “Through a major programme of investment and reform, we are determined to both decarbonise our economy in the most cost-effective way, while creating new sunrise industries and revitalising our industrial heartlands that will support new green jobs for generations to come.”
Key tenets in the white paper include £1bn invested into CCS (carbon capture and storage) in four industrial clusters by 2030, and setting a 5GW target for hydrogen production, including a new £240m net zero Hydrogen Fund for low carbon hydrogen production.
A further £1.3bn will be invested into charge points for electric vehicles in homes, streets and on motorways as well as up to £1bn to support the electrification of cars, including the mass-production of batteries for electric vehicles.
“Business stands ready to deliver the investment and innovation needed to turn ambition into reality, and the proposals outlined in the Energy White Paper will give business further confidence to deliver new infrastructure, including electric vehicle charging, renewable power generation and low-carbon upgrades to people’s homes,” commented Rain Newton-Smith, chief economist at the Confederation of British Industry.
Publication of the Energy White Paper coincides with talks with EDF over investment options into Sizewell C, a twin reactor design proposed for the Suffolk coast.
Government discussions with EDF are subject to ‘reaching a value for money deal’ that will see government providing finance during the construction phase ‘provided there is clear value for money for… taxpayers’.
Government said it is exploring future funding options for new nuclear, including the Regulated Asset Base (RAB) funding model designed to attract private investment and lessen the tax-payer burden.
“The support for the development of the next generation of nuclear technologies including SMRs and the decision to enter into negotiations on Sizewell C are very positive steps forwards,” said Clive White, senior vice president for Critical Mission Solutions – International (CMS-I) at Jacobs. “Nuclear power provides the UK with a resilient baseload capacity, while also creating high paying jobs throughout the UK that make a significant contribution to the country’s net zero commitments to help tackle the climate emergency.”
“Our zero-carbon generating capacity is set to fall over the next 10 years, so the government’s commitment to an appropriate financing model for new nuclear capacity to cut the cost of capital, increase the pool of investors and reduce the price of electricity is key to unlocking the potential for thousands of clean energy jobs across the country,” added Tom Greatrex, chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association.
Good news that we are moving forward with more Nuclear power stations, though I’d suggest the time for talking is over and we need to see actions and funding – now ! Personally, I’d like to see more emphasis on development of viable SMR reactors, rather than these big, expensive, foreign built behemoths. I fail to see why the UK cannot develop and manufacture it’s own Nuclear Power Stations, why do we need to pay overseas companies to provide our infrastructure ?
On another issue from this white paper. I cannot see how petrol/diesel vehicles can be closed down and replaced by EVs – in ten years. It ain’t going to happen. A more realistic plan and more realistic timescales would stand a better chance of success. This is a failure in the making.
There’s just that tiny little problem with nuclear waste…
I would recommend reading the story about Wackersdorf in Germany in the 80s. Less developed parts of the country with few residents are left alone with nuclear leftover. Shiny clean on the outside, but don’t lift the curtain.
The real reason for nuclear energy was and is always atomic weapons.
TS. The nuclear waste issue is overstated, the major problem is that it hasn’t been managed properly. Also, we need to look at it in context with all the other toxic waste were polluting the planet with – Plastics and CO2, for example – we are disgusting polluters when you come down to it. No excuses for nuclear but the new technologies should create less waste. And if you think reusables are clean you are misguided.
New reactors can be separated from bomb technology but that will be a government policy decision not a technology limitation. In supporting the war machine we don’t always end up with the best technologies for society !
Hello Steve, the problem is, nuclear (and to a certain part also conventional energy) is a game which is not played with open cards. Trust has been lost through stories like the one I mentioned above and not regained. South Korea is another interesting case to investigate.
Good technical solutions are difficult to achieve when groups and people are not working together in an open way. People are people and they make mistakes, which is a special problem for nuclear technology because of the extremly high damage risk in case of a failure. Simple question, how many top level politicans or energy managers have their homes benath a nuclear plant?
Not read the energy white paper through and there are 220 references cited – so I stand to be corrected – but somewhat disappointed by the lack of any mention of legislative support for Passivhaus levels of efficiency ( passivhaus not even mentioned other than EPC ratings) . Rather worrying red herring on pg 31 on fair charging with people who have invested in off grid energy saving and supply potentially not paying their share of the fixed cost of infrastructure supply – am i being too naïve in suggesting they separate out the bills ? or would that be too transparent? and also highlight the levels of profit vs investments? Otherwise agnostic on nuclear – Agree with Another Steve on the preference of home grown SMR that can be placed away from rapidly eroding coastlines but also note TS’s concerns . The issue of nuclear waste and decommissioning not quite resolved and when things go wrong (Fukishima et al) the consequences can be spectacular and long lived. Pity Fusion seems always to be 30 years in the future. I read somewhere that the the level of technological civilisation can be inferred by the amount of energy generated and consumed – but I have a fundamental unease with that -If we are to have global parity and fairness in energy use, as well as protecting ourselves by protecting our home planet, we need to be mindful not only of using generated energy more efficiently, but to consider how to use less.
The white paper is much needed and is good in parts. However, it is when looking at the detail that the issues start to arise. This document is predicated on the belief the UK must go to net-zero by 2050, which ought to be questioned in terms of both value for money and effectiveness. The effectiveness is more or less zero as the rest of the world continues to burn carbonaceous fuels at an increasing rate: they are far less concerned about theoretical global warming than the UK: wonder why?
In terms of value for money, there is none: we are paying a fortune to reduce the UK’s emissions to no avail. Then, after most UK industry has off-shored, we will import cheap foreign products made by using fossil fuels and feel smug.
Technically, the sections on heat pumps are in the land of fantasy as most of the existing housing stock is totally unsuited to these. The expectation that fusion generation will be available by 2040 is beyond any science fiction, given the present scale and the massive long-term development programme at ITER.
Wot?! No mention of tidal power or marine energies as an integrated RE resource. As before, as ever, this is economic maladministration – the blind leading the blind, yet again.
£1bn invested into CCS is £1bn down an unproductive drain. £1bn invested into Marine Energies Storage (BGES within wind/wave AND tidal) would be repaid tenfold, by 2030, enabling net zero to be brought forward to 2040. (A huge volume of cheaper green hydrogen.)
Importing batteries under China’s ‘Belt and Road Initiative’ to install grid-scale electricity storage, or build BEVs, is another example of the UK’s traditional economic suicide. (inward investment!)
Subsidising EDF and/or China to build more nuclear plant is a fool’s errand. It’s far too expensive AND inflexible. You end up with a messy concrete mausoleum after only sixty years. Tidal power, with energy storage, is reliable and flexible generation with a service life measured in centuries.