Starmer wants to turn the UK into a nuclear powerhouse. His climate goals make that impossible

12 February 2025, 07:29 | Updated: 14 February 2025, 17:31

Keir Starmer should be cheered for his plans to build nuclear power plants, but his rapid timeline for reaching climate goals makes this impossible.

• Thomas Munson will join Martin Stanford on LBC News this morning at 10.30 and you can listen live on Global Player.

Donald Trump says drill, baby, drill. Sir Keir Starmer says build, baby, build.

Last week, the Prime Minister pledged to erect nuclear power plants up and down the country. His ambition: to turn Britain into a nuclear powerhouse.

“This country hasn’t built a nuclear power station in decades,” Starmer said. “We’ve been let down, and left behind.”

To make up for lost time, the Prime Minister wants the Government to “rip up” the planning rules. He’s right. Nuclear projects in the UK have long been stalled by red tape. Just look at the Hinkley Point C project, which has been delayed again and again.

It was time for radical change, and Starmer must be cheered for going all in on nuclear.

As we argue in “Harnessing the Power of the Atom,” a report published today by the Henry Jackson Society, nuclear power has three huge advantages.

First, despite what many people think, it’s extremely safe. Second, it doesn’t emit carbon emissions. This means that it’s good for the environment. If we want to ditch fossil fuels and reach net zero, we’re going to need nuclear power in our energy mix. Third, it benefits consumers. Nuclear power leads to lower electricity costs.

Take our French neighbours. They currently have 57 operable nuclear reactors. By contrast, we barely have 9. And guess what? Their average electricity bills are half the cost of ours.

Fear not, Britain can still catch up. Starmer is bullish on Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). This is the right call. SMRs can be up and running in just a few years.

And we’re going to need that energy.

The Government estimates that UK electricity demand will at least double by 2050. AI data centres and new technologies will push consumption higher than ever before. As Viscount Camrose, the former AI Minister, told us, unless we suddenly develop “less power-hungry AI models”, then we must “find new sources of energy”.

Nuclear power is chief among them. Unlike renewables, it can provide energy 24/7. It keeps the lights on no matter the weather.

And that matters. AI and large-scale computing need a stable power supply. A single data centre can demand up to 150 megawatts of electricity at any moment. That puts enormous pressure on renewables, which fluctuate with the seasons.

This is where SMRs come in. Unlike traditional nuclear plants, they can be built closer to where energy is consumed. This would reduce transmission losses and improve efficiency. For that reason, Starmer wants to roll SMRs out quickly.

The challenge? Big ambitions need realistic timelines.

The Prime Minister has pledged to eliminate fossil fuels from the UK’s electricity mix by 2030. This is commendable. The fight against climate change is existential.

But, by setting the deadline so soon, Starmer is shooting himself in the foot. It’s virtually impossible to decarbonise our economy by 2030. Even SMRs take years to build. There simply isn’t enough time to scale up nuclear properly.

Under the current plan, the UK would face an energy crunch by 2030. The Government would be forced to import fossil fuels – or break its own pledge. Neither is a real solution.

To build a serious energy future, Starmer must rethink his timeline. Pushing the clean energy target back ten years – to 2040 – would give us the time to scale up nuclear.

The Prime Minister has set out his vision. It’s the right one. Now he just needs to make sure that he can actually make it real.

________________

Thomas Munson and Theo Zenou are the authors of “Harnessing the Power of the Atom,” a report published today by the Henry Jackson Society.

LBC Views provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email views@lbc.co.uk