UK announces $19 billion investment in first major nuclear plant since 1990s
Officials said the investment will go into building the new
Sizewell C nuclear power plant
in Suffolk, on England's eastern coast, saying it will generate enough low-carbon electricity to power 6 million homes when it becomes operational in the 2030s.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer said previous governments had dithered and delayed over nuclear power. No new nuclear plant has been opened in the UK since Sizewell B in 1995.
"Having our own energy in this country that we control, gives us security, gives us independence, so (Russian President Vladimir) Putin can't put his boot on our throat," Starmer said.
"And it means that we can control the prices in a way that we haven't been able to in recent years, which has meant very high prices for businesses, for households and for families."
The government also announced that Rolls-Royce is the preferred bidder to develop a number of small modular reactors, which it said can power around 3 million homes and help fuel power-hungry industries like AI data centres.
The Treasury said building Sizewell C will create 10,000 jobs. The investment announced Tuesday is in addition to 3.7 billion pounds the UK government already committed to the project.
Nuclear power is seen as an increasingly important electricity source as the government seeks to decarbonize Britain's electricity grid by 2030, replacing fossil fuels with low-carbon power.
The UK also wants to reduce its dependence on imported oil and gas, especially in light of soaring energy prices following Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
But critics have said nuclear plants are far more expensive and slow to build compared with renewable energy options such as solar and wind power. Environmental groups have also argued Sizewell C will damage local nature reserves that host wildlife like otters and marsh birds.
About 300 people joined a protest against the development at the Suffolk site over the weekend.
"Net zero is supposed to happen by 2030 - there is no way this is going to be completed by then," said Jenny Kirtley, a local resident who chairs the campaign group Together Against Sizewell C. (AP)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
26 minutes ago
- Time of India
New EU sanctions threaten Indian refiners' $14 billion export market: ICRA
Exports by Indian oil refiners are likely to face major disruption following the implementation of the EU's 18th sanctions package against Russia, according to a report by ICRA. The report highlights the potential impact on Indian refiners, who collectively exported approximately $14.3 billion worth of petroleum products to the EU in fiscal year 2024-2025. The new EU sanctions, enacted on July 18, include a crucial import ban on all refined products made from Russian crude oil originating from third countries. Notable exceptions to this ban are Canada, Norway, the US, the UK, and Switzerland. This measure directly targets nations like India, Turkey, and the UAE, which have become major processors of discounted Russian crude and significant suppliers of refined products to Europe in recent years, ICRA further said. Price caps introduced India has emerged as a key refiner of Russian crude, capitalising on previously steep discounts that ranged from $10-16 per barrel. While these discounts have recently narrowed to $2.5-4 per barrel, ICRA suggests that the newly introduced price cap and other measures could potentially widen them once more. Over the past three years, India's exports of petroleum products to the EU have surged, reaching an annual average of $14-15 billion. This increase was largely driven by reduced Russian supplies to European markets, creating a substantial opportunity for Indian refiners. Beyond the import ban, the EU has also lowered the crude oil price cap from $60 per barrel to $47.6 per barrel, aligning it with current global oil prices. A dynamic mechanism for future price cap reviews has also been introduced. These price caps are designed to prevent EU operators from providing transport or insurance services for Russian oil traded above the stipulated limit. Furthermore, the sanctions have expanded the list of sanctioned vessels by 105, bringing the total to 444. These vessels are now subject to port access and maritime transport service refiners have already taken steps to cease business dealings with sanctioned entities and traders. Despite these significant measures, crude oil prices have remained largely stable, indicating that the market anticipates minimal disruption to global supplies, even though Russian oil exports account for roughly 7 per cent of global liquid consumption, the report stated.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
26 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Microsoft restores services to Nayara Energy after abrupt EU-linked block
Global software giant Microsoft on Wednesday said it had restored services to the Russia-backed oil exploration and marketing company Nayara Energy, roughly two days after Nayara alleged that Microsoft had abruptly stopped access to its own data and services, which were stored with the company. 'Microsoft is committed to supporting all its customers in India and worldwide, and has restored services for Nayara Energy. We are engaged in ongoing discussions with the European Union towards service continuity for the organisation,' a spokesperson for the company said in a statement. Nayara Energy, which operates fuel retailing outlets in India, is largely owned by Russia's Rosneft, which holds nearly 49 per cent stake in the company. Earlier this week, Nayara Energy had moved the Delhi High Court, alleging that the US-based tech firm had abruptly and unilaterally suspended essential services without any prior warning. In its plea, Nayara sought an interim injunction and immediate restoration of services to protect its rights and ensure continued access to important digital systems. According to Nayara, Microsoft did not discuss or notify the company before cutting off services. In its plea, Nayara had also stated that Microsoft's decision to block access to the data and services for the OMC was based only on the 18 July sanctions announced by the EU against Russian companies, in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. On 18 July, the EU said that it had adopted a 'package of economic and individual restrictive measures hitting hard on Russia's energy, banking and military sectors, as well as trade with the EU, and ensuring accountability for Russia's continued war of aggression against Ukraine'. For OMCs such as Nayara Energy, the EU has imposed an import ban on refined petroleum products made from Russian crude oil and originating from any third country, except for Canada, Norway, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The move, the EU had then said, was aimed at 'preventing Russia's crude oil from reaching the EU market through the back door.'
Mint
35 minutes ago
- Mint
When big tech pulls the plug: What Nayara's service disruption reveals
In a world increasingly powered by digital infrastructure, geopolitics can cajole tech giants to bring a business to a halt with the flip of a switch. Nayara Energy learnt this the hard way even though Microsoft restored its services two days later. Mint explains: What happened with Nayara Energy? Nayara Energy, an Indian refinery company, is part-owned – less than 50% – by Russia's Rosneft Oil Company. Tech giant Microsoft abruptly suspended its core communication and productivity tools that Nayara uses to comply with European Union (EU) sanctions. In response, Nayara filed a case in the Delhi High Court on Monday, alleging that its fully paid-up licences for services such as Outlook and Teams were suddenly revoked and access to its own business data was blocked without due process—effectively crippling its daily operations. Nayara (formerly Essar Oil) said it contributes about 8% of India's refining capacity, about 7% of its retail petrol pump network and an estimated 8% of polypropylene capacity. Microsoft has not commented on the court matter. On Wednesday, though, Nayara Energy informed the court that Microsoft restored its services, following which it was withdrawing the case. What is the legal position? On 18 July, the EU imposed sanctions on Nayara Energy, a buyer of Russian oil, as part of a package targeting Russian interests over the war in Ukraine. However, unlike many major economies, India lacks the legal framework to block the extraterritorial application of foreign sanctions. Nayara has argued that it is not subject to EU sanctions and that Microsoft is under no legal obligation—under either US or Indian laws—to enforce the EU's restrictions. What questions does the incident raise? While the case stands withdrawn, the episode raises two critical questions: How protected are businesses from geopolitical overreach when they depend on a single technology provider based in a different jurisdiction? And what steps can they take to safeguard themselves against such disruption? Isn't big tech supposed to be neutral? Big tech companies can no longer claim to be neutral platforms. Their global operations are inevitably shaped by the geopolitical priorities of the jurisdictions they operate from, often at the expense of customers elsewhere. Even if not legally compelled, they may choose to err on the side of compliance to avoid reputational or regulatory fallout in major markets like the US, EU or even the Middle East. Are there any precedents? In 2022, Elon Musk instructed SpaceX engineers to disable Starlink satellite internet services over Ukraine, abruptly disrupting military and civilian communication and raising issues about private tech firms exerting unilateral control in geopolitical hotspots. Canadian company Sandvine was placed on the US export entity list in 2024 because its digital tools were used by the regimes in Egypt and Belarus to censor internet traffic. The US government banned US companies from working with Sandvine, effectively cutting services through regulatory action. Many governments have also banned the purchase/use of Kaspersky antivirus software from Russia on grounds of national security. Chinese company Huawei, too, has been banned or restricted in the US, the UK, Australia, Japan, India and parts of the EU from participating in 5G and critical digital infrastructure over national security concerns. The merits and demerits of such geopolitical decisions notwithstanding, companies such as Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP and Amazon reduced or even severed business ties—blocking sales, cloud services, and developer tools—in response to sanctions on Russia. Many companies did so proactively, even when not legally required in certain jurisdictions. As on 29 July, over 1,000 companies have publicly announced they are voluntarily curtailing operations in Russia to some degree beyond the bare minimum legally required by international sanctions, as per a survey done by the Chief Executive Leadership Institute at the Yale School of Management. Likewise, geopolitical tensions between the US and China have also led to companies reassessing their presence in China. Is this digital colonialism? 'What this situation really exposes," asserted Jayanth N Kolla, founder and partner at deep tech consultancy Convergence Catalyst Kolla, 'is a textbook case of digital colonialism—where big tech companies wield enormous control over the day-to-day operations and futures of other businesses." The irony, he added, is hard to miss. 'Microsoft's action was based on its interpretation of EU sanctions, but it's the same EU that is leading the global call to curb big tech's overreach. Yet here we have a real-world demonstration of that very power—one where a single decision can halt the operations of an entire energy company. This is digital colonialism in action." What must enterprises do while picking tech vendors? Companies must assess the geopolitical exposure of global technology vendors. Is a cloud provider based in a country that actively imposes sanctions or faces diplomatic tensions? Has it previously suspended services in other countries due to regulatory pressure? Nayara may have used service for internal communication in the absence of Microsoft's service, as per a Reuters article. Yet, its reliance on Microsoft illustrates the broader risk of single-vendor lock-in. If core communication and productivity tools are suddenly cut off, companies will be forced to scramble for local alternatives. The risk is amplified in sectors like energy, telecom and finance, which are tied closely to national infrastructure and economic stability. Hence, it's critical to diversify service providers by using multi-cloud or hybrid-cloud strategies. What are the alternatives to MNC tech providers? Indian companies can now turn to domestic or geopolitically neutral alternatives. Zoho (office tools), CtrlS (data centres) and HCL Technologies (cloud services) are beginning to fill this gap. While they may not yet offer the same scale or feature-richness as global players, they may offer stability and reliance. But such transitions take time, cause productivity losses, and often involve compromises in functionality or integration. What else do companies need to keep in mind? Companies must plan regular data backups, alternative access points, and migration workflows to switch providers in days, not months. Kolla pointed out that most companies maintain redundancy for core cloud infrastructure and data hosting by working with multiple vendors. "But when it comes to applications like email, Teams, and other executable services, redundancy is less common," he explained. 'Strategically, redundancy makes sense. Economically, however, maintaining a backup provider that might never be used is hard to justify." Kolla added that this incident reveals a potential market for on-demand or pay-per-use backup services for cloud-based productivity tools. How could this incident change vendor contracts? Experts said companies must include protective clauses in vendor contracts. They must ensure that provisions exist for data portability, redundancy, and advance notice in case of service suspension. Legal teams must review not only the technical service-level agreement but also the jurisdiction, force majeure, and termination clauses from a geopolitical risk perspective.
