The UK is one step closer to a new nuclear power plant after the government announced a further £14.2bn in funding.
Sizewell C, near the town of Leiston on the Suffolk coast, is due to be up and running by the mid-2030s.
While the government claims the new facility represents a “golden age of clean energy” and says it will create thousands of jobs – those against it warn of the catastrophic consequences of a nuclear accident and damage to the local environment.
Here we look at what is due to be built at the Sizewell site – and why the project is so controversial.
What is Sizewell C?
The new site will house two nuclear reactors – generating up to 3.2 gigawatts of electricity, which is enough to power six million homes.
The government says it could meet 7% of the country’s total energy needs for up to 60 years.
It was initially proposed by the French energy company EDF and China’s General Nuclear Power Group, but the previous government bought the Chinese company out of its 20% stake in 2022.
Together, the UK government and EDF now own 83.5% of the site.
It is located near Sizewell beach – next to Sizewell A, a decommissioned nuclear site that opened in 1967, and Sizewell B, which is still running – and was the last nuclear site to open in the UK in 1995.
Image: The proposed new plant heads up a raft of new clean energy measures. Pic: EDF
Previous funding announcements mean the state has now invested a total of £17.8bn, with a final funding model due to be released this summer after private investors are secured to bridge the gap to the total £20bn cost.
Taxpayer money is expected to contribute £700m.
Image: Sizewell in Suffolk in the east of England
How long has it been in the making?
The project dates back to 2008, when then Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown declared the UK needed to boost its nuclear capacity.
There are four nuclear sites running in the UK – at Heysham, Hartlepool, Torness, and Sizewell B.
In 2010, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition earmarked Sizewell as a potential new site.
EDF began consulting with locals in the area in 2012, finally submitting its development consent order in May 2020.
Image: The Sizewell A and B power stations in Suffolk. Pic: Reuters
It was granted in July 2022 despite the Planning Inspectorate’s recommendations it should be blocked over environmental concerns.
It also fought off a judicial review at the Court of Appeal brought by protest group Together Against Sizewell C.
Construction by EDF is due to start in the next year – and is set to take between nine and 12 years.
Image: The Suffolk Coast with Sizewell B in the background. Pic: Reuters
Why are people against it?
Two campaign groups – Together Against Sizewell C and Stop Sizewell C – have spearheaded efforts to block the site.
Locally, they say construction will damage 150 hectares of land nearby, which is home to two different nature reserves and thousands of birds, animals, and plant species. The appeal also cited concerns it would compromise local water supplies and may run over budget or fail to even get off the ground like the now-scrapped HS2 trainline.
More generally, nuclear power is very controversial.
While it does not produce carbon emissions like traditional fossil fuels, any nuclear activity is exceedingly high-risk.
Nuclear fission is the process by which uranium atoms are broken down into smaller particles to produce heat, which is then boiled to create steam that powers turbines to create electricity.
The International Atomic Energy Agency says all its regulated sites are the “safest and most secure facilities in the world” and subject to strict independent safety measures.
But high-profile nuclear accidents, although incredibly rare, have leaked deadly radiation into the atmosphere, killing people and likely poisoning others for generations to come.
These include the explosion at the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine in 1986 and the partial meltdown of one of the reactors at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan following a tsunami in 2011.
Nuclear fission also produces huge amounts of radioactive waste, which has to be safely stored for hundreds of years and anti-nuclear campaigners worry about the safety of these storage sites.
Image: Together Against Sizewell C campaigners outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London in 2023. Pic: PA
What are the arguments for it?
The government wants to use nuclear energy to help meet its target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
Chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association Tom Greatrex has described Sizewell C as a “huge step forward” both for net zero – and energy security.
The Ukraine war compromised global gas and oil supplies, much of which came from Russia, sending prices rocketing.
Since then, Ukraine’s Western allies have made efforts to become more autonomous with energy production.
Spreaker
This content is provided by Spreaker, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Spreaker cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Spreaker cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Spreaker cookies for this session only.
Britain’s nuclear sector grew by a quarter to £20bn in the three years to 2024, with another site at Hinkley Point in Somerset currently under construction.
Some countries, like France, where EDF is based, already rely heavily on nuclear power.
Sizewell C will also create 10,000 new jobs and 1,500 apprenticeships, boosting the local and UK economy.
Around £330m has been tendered to local companies in contracts, with 70% of all those commissioned going to 3,500 British suppliers.
Mr Greatex said: “Sizewell C will provide reliable low-carbon power for more than 80 years, cutting gas use, creating thousands of high-quality skilled jobs, and long-term investment and opportunity up and down the country.”
Rachel Reeves has not offered her resignation and is “going nowhere”, Downing Street has said, following her tearful appearance in the House of Commons.
A Number 10 spokesperson said the chancellor had the “full backing” of Sir Keir Starmer, despite Ms Reeves looking visibly upset during Prime Minister’s Questions.
A spokesperson for the chancellor later clarified that Ms Reeves had been affected by a “personal matter” and would be working out of Downing Street this afternoon.
UK government bond prices fell by the most since October 2022, and the pound tumbled after Ms Reeves’s Commons appearance, while the yield on the 10-year government bond, or gilt, rose as much as 22 basis points at one point to around 4.68%.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch branded the chancellor the “human shield” for the prime minister’s “incompetence” just hours after he was forced to perform a humiliating U-turn over his controversial welfare bill.
Emotional Reeves a painful watch – and reminder of tough decisions ahead
It is hard to think of a PMQs like it – it was a painful watch.
The prime minister battled on, his tone assured, even if his actual words were not always convincing.
But it was the chancellor next to him that attracted the most attention.
Rachel Reeves looked visibly upset.
It is hard to know for sure right now what was going on behind the scenes, the reasons – predictable or otherwise – why she appeared to be emotional, but it was noticeable and it was difficult to watch.
Speaking at Prime Minister’s Questions, Ms Badenoch said: “This man has forgotten that his welfare bill was there to plug a black hole created by the chancellor. Instead they’re creating new ones.”
Turning to the chancellor, the Tory leader added: “[She] is pointing at me – she looks absolutely miserable.
“Labour MPs are going on the record saying that the chancellor is toast, and the reality is that she is a human shield for his incompetence. In January, he said that she would be in post until the next election. Will she really?”
Not fully answering the question, the prime minister replied: “[Ms Badenoch] certainly won’t.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:58
Welfare vote ‘a blow to the prime minister’
“I have to say, I’m always cheered up when she asks me questions or responds to a statement because she always makes a complete mess of it and shows just how unserious and irrelevant they are.”
Mrs Badenoch interjected: “How awful for the chancellor that he couldn’t confirm that she would stay in place.”
A total of 49 Labour MPs voted against the bill – the largest rebellion in a prime minister’s first year in office since 47 MPs voted against Tony Blair’s Lone Parent benefit in 1997, according to Professor Phil Cowley from Queen Mary University.
After multiple concessions made due to threats of a Labour rebellion, many MPs questioned what they were voting for as the bill had been severely stripped down.
They ended up voting for only one part of the plan: a cut to Universal Credit (UC) sickness benefits for new claimants from £97 a week to £50 from 2026/7.
Ms Badenoch said the climbdown was proof that Sir Keir was “too weak to get anything done”.
Ms Reeves has also borne a lot of the criticism over the handling of the vote, with some MPs believing that her strict approach to fiscal rules has meant she has approached the ballooning welfare bill from the standpoint of trying to make savings, rather than getting people into work.
Experts have now warned that the welfare U-turn, on top of reversing the cut to winter fuel, means that tax rises in the autumn are more likely – with Ms Reeves now needing to find £5bn to make up for the policy U-turns.
Asked by Ms Badenoch whether he could rule out further tax rises – something Labour promised it would not do on working people in its manifesto – Sir Keir said: “She knows that no prime minister or chancellor ever stands at the despatch box and writes budgets in the future.
“But she talks about growth, for 14 years we had stagnation, and that is what caused the problem.”
Prosecutors are considering whether to bring further criminal charges against Lucy Letby over the deaths of babies at two hospitals where she worked
The Crown Prosecution Service said it had received “a full file of evidence from Cheshire Constabulary asking us to consider further allegations in relation to deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital”.
“We will now carefully consider the evidence to determine whether any further criminal charges should be brought,” it added.
“As always, we will make that decision independently, based on the evidence and in line with our legal test.”
Letby, 35, was found guilty of murdering seven children and attempting to murder seven more between June 2015 and June 2016 while working in the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital and is currently serving 15 whole-life orders.
Image: Letby worked at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital
She is understood to have carried out two work placements at Liverpool Women’s Hospital, where she trained as a student, between October and December 2012, and January and February 2015.
Police said in December that Letby was interviewed in prison as part of an investigation into more baby deaths and non-fatal collapses.
A Cheshire Constabulary spokesperson said: “We can confirm that Cheshire Constabulary has submitted a full file of evidence to the CPS for charging advice regarding the ongoing investigation into deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the neo-natal units of both the Countess of Chester Hospital and the Liverpool Women’s Hospital as part of Operation Hummingbird.”
Detectives previously said the investigation was looking into the full period of time that Letby worked as a nurse, covering the period from 2012 to 2016 and including a review of 4,000 admissions of babies.
Letby’s lawyer Mark McDonald said: “The evidence of the innocence of Lucy Letby is overwhelming,” adding: “We will cross every bridge when we get to it but if Lucy is charged I know we have a whole army of internationally renowned medical experts who will totally undermine the prosecution’s unfounded allegations.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:09
Three managers at the hospital where Lucy Letby worked have been arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter.
Earlier this year, Letby’s lawyers called for the suspension of the inquiry, claiming there was “overwhelming and compelling evidence” that her convictions were unsafe.
Their evidence has been passed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, and Letby’s legal team hopes her case will be referred back to the Court of Appeal.
The Crown Prosecution Service has said it is considering whether to bring further criminal charges over the deaths of babies at hospitals where Lucy Letby worked.
The CPS said it had received “a full file of evidence from Cheshire Constabulary asking us to consider further allegations in relation to deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital”.
“We will now carefully consider the evidence to determine whether any further criminal charges should be brought,” it added.
“As always, we will make that decision independently, based on the evidence and in line with our legal test.”
Letby, 35, was found guilty of murdering seven children and attempting to murder seven more between June 2015 and June 2016 while working in the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester Hospital and is currently serving 15 whole-life orders.
She is understood to have carried out two work placements at Liverpool Women’s Hospital, where she trained as a student, between October and December 2012, and January and February 2015.
Earlier this year, Letby’s lawyers called for the suspension of the inquiry, claiming there was “overwhelming and compelling evidence” that her convictions were unsafe.
Their evidence has been passed to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which investigates potential miscarriages of justice, and Letby’s legal team hopes her case will be referred back to the Court of Appeal.