Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Energy investment hamstrung by second nuclear power review

Government uncertainty about the future of nuclear power is hampering investment in new generation facilities experts warned this week.
Energy giants will hold off investing in new power stations until all the investment options are clear. The expected launch of a new nuclear generation within last week's Energy White Paper was delayed after government was ordered to conduct a new consultation before giving the green light to nuclear power. This was launched alongside the White Paper.'The nuclear agenda will stall investment across the board. The industry is still waiting for clarity on the options available for investment and so will be put off sinking money into clean coal or gas plants,' said former ICE energy board chairman David Anderson. 'Utility companies want to make a healthy return for their shareholders and so want to make the right judgements. But at the moment this is distracted by the fact that eight nuclear power stations might be on the cards.'Worse than that is if nuclear fails as an investment option and if the utility companies haven't moved forward then we could be left with the energy gap unplugged,' he added. This warning came as BP announced it was abandoning its carbon capture and storage (CCS) project at Peterhead because the government had postponed the CCS competition until November. It said the government had postponed a competition to develop technology to capture carbon from fossil fuels until NovemberThe £500M scheme would have created hydrogen from natural gas and used that to generate electricity. The carbon captured during this process would have been sent back into the Miller field in the North Sea. BP said mothballing the scheme to fit in with the new time table would have proved too costly.

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.