Here’s a bold statement: the UK’s energy landscape is on the brink of a transformative shift, and Sizewell C is at the heart of it. But here’s where it gets controversial—while some celebrate this as a leap toward clean energy, others question its cost and long-term viability. Let’s dive in.
The Sizewell C project, a £38 billion initiative to build two EPR reactors on England’s east coast, has just hit a major milestone: Financial Close. This means the funding taps are officially open, paving the way for full-scale construction of the Suffolk-based plant. The project secured £5 billion in export credit financing from BpifranceAE and additional debt financing from the UK’s National Wealth Fund, alongside investments from EDF, the UK government, La Caisse, Centrica, and Amber Infrastructure.
And this is the part most people miss—EDF, the French energy giant, won’t be injecting new cash at this stage. Instead, they’re leveraging reimbursements for development costs incurred since 2015 and payments tied to expertise shared from the Hinkley Point C project. This strategic move highlights the project’s reliance on lessons learned from previous ventures.
The plant’s two reactors will generate 3.2 GW of electricity, enough to power six million homes for at least 60 years. Designed similarly to Hinkley Point C, Sizewell C aims to build faster and cheaper, thanks to the experience gained from the UK’s first new nuclear project in three decades. But here’s the kicker—is this enough to justify the massive investment, especially when renewable energy costs are plummeting?
Sizewell C’s financing model, the Regulated Asset Base (RAB), is a game-changer. Unlike the previous Contracts for Difference system, RAB allows consumers to contribute to construction costs upfront, attracting private investment that might otherwise be out of reach. The UK government estimates this could save consumers £30 billion by lowering financing costs. But is this fair to taxpayers and energy bill payers?
UK Energy Secretary Ed Miliband hailed the project as a job creator and a step toward energy independence. Tom Greatrex, CEO of the Nuclear Industry Association, called it a ‘landmark moment’ for clean energy and net zero goals. Yet, critics argue nuclear power’s long construction times and high costs make it less attractive than renewables like wind and solar. What do you think—is nuclear the right path for the UK’s energy future?
Beyond the UK, Sizewell C benefits the French nuclear industry, with EDF and 40 French suppliers contributing expertise and technology. This collaboration aims to preserve skills and drive economies of scale for France’s EPR2 program. But does this international partnership come at the expense of UK-focused innovation?
As construction ramps up, Sizewell C’s success will hinge on its ability to deliver on time and within budget. With Clifford Chance, Rothschild & Co, BNP Paribas, and HSBC playing key advisory roles, the project is in capable hands. But only time will tell if it lives up to its promise.
Here’s the big question: Is Sizewell C a bold step toward a sustainable future, or a costly gamble in an era of cheaper renewables? Let us know your thoughts in the comments—we’d love to hear your take on this polarizing topic.
