All the benefits of Sizewell C after 5, 10 and 40 years

A nuclear power station in Suffolk has been given the full backing of the Government, which has announced plans to invest £14.2bn of taxpayers money on the project.

Sizewell C nuclear plant is part of Labour’s investment in nuclear, which it argues will bring jobs to the UK and will “get Britain off the fossil fuel rollercoaster”.

But some environmental groups have criticised the decision, arguing that ministers should focus on investing in renewable energy, such as wind farms, instead. 

Concerns have also been raised about the impact on the local environment and wildlife. 

Here are the proposed benefits of Sizewell C after five, ten and 40 years, as well as the arguments against the project.

Five years

The most immediate benefit from Sizewell C will be the jobs it brings to the surrounding area. 

The project already has planning permission and some preliminary work at the site has started, but the funding announced today by the Government means the developers EDF can push ahead with construction. 

Ministers say the project will employ up to 10,000 people during construction, including 1,500 apprentices. 

It is estimated contracts will be signed with 3,500 British suppliers as part of the project, which the Government says will support new jobs in construction, welding and hospitality. 

Ten years

The Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has said it will take “about a decade” for Sizewell C to become operational, at which point it should create enough electricity to power the equivalent of around six million homes. 

This will replace some of the nuclear capacity Britain is expected to lose over the next decade as eight of the UK’s nine existing nuclear reactors are due to reach the end of their lifespan. 

For its proponents, nuclear will play a crucial role in helping wean the UK off of its reliance on imported fossil fuels. 

“We’ve known for decades that reliance on imported gas could ruin the environment – but recent years showed us that it can ruin the economy too.  Nuclear gives much-needed resilience against global fossil fuel prices, without emitting the gases that cause climate change,” said Professor Adiran Bull, Chair of Nuclear Energy and Society, Dalton Nuclear Institute, University of Manchester.

While not a renewable energy source, such as wind or solar, nuclear power is often referred to as “clean” as it does not release carbon dioxide emissions, unlike gas or coal fired plants. 

However, there are concerns about the environmental impact of nuclear plants due to the creation of radioactive waste, as well as the potential impact of accidents. 

40 years

In 40 years time the UK should have phased out fossil fuels and be reliant on a net zero energy system.

The lifespan of Sizewell C is expected to be 60 years, meaning it would play a role in our future energy supply, alongside renewable sources such as wind and solar. 

Investing in nuclear means the UK will have a diversified energy supply. Unlike renewables, nuclear energy offers a continuous baseload supply and is therefore considered reliable. 

The Committee on Climate Change, which advises the Government on achieving net zero, argues that renewable electricity will provide the UK’s main supply of energy by 2050, but this should be “supplemented” by other forms of low-carbon generation such as nuclear.

The cost of nuclear

But not everyone agrees that it is a good idea to build new nuclear reactions in the UK, and Sizewell C has faced significant opposition.

The group Together Against Sizewell C has launched multiple legal challenges against the plans, raising concerns over the impact on the local environment. In a case launched last week, the group argue plans for coastal flood defences at the site could negatively impact protected wildlife sites. 

The Green Party also opposes the development, arguing that nuclear is “hugely expensive and far too slow to come on line”. They point to EDF’s other nuclear project, Hinkley Point in Somerset, which originally promised to deliver power by 2017 for a budget of £22bn, however the project has spent £40bn to date and is still not online. 

“The money being spent on this nuclear gamble would be far better spent on insulating and retrofitting millions of homes, bringing down energy bills and keeping people warmer and more comfortable,” Green Party leader Adrian Ramsay argued.