Share this post:

Fresh off the back of the government’s confirmation that the cost of Sizewell C has soared to £38 billion, we now have the political packaging to go with it.

On July 22, Energy Secretary Ed Miliband signed off on the final investment deal to build the nuclear power station, hailing it as a cornerstone of a “golden age of nuclear” and “clean power for generations.”

To help fund it, the government is tapping into its National Wealth Fund—marking the first time this state-backed vehicle has been used to finance a nuclear project.

Ministers say this isn’t just about paying for infrastructure, but about owning it, positioning the UK taxpayer as a shareholder rather than a spectator.

So, has the narrative changed? Has the government made a bold move that deserves praise? Or is this just more political spin slapped on top of a wildly over-budget project?

Let’s dig in.

Public investment, private profit?

Under the deal, the UK government will take a 44.9 per cent equity stake in Sizewell C.

That makes it the largest shareholder, ahead of French energy giant EDF (12.5 per cent), Canadian pension fund La Caisse (20 per cent), Centrica (15 per cent), and Amber Infrastructure (7.6 per cent).

Crucially, the National Wealth Fund—which bills itself as the government’s “principal investor and policy bank”—will provide the lion’s share of the debt financing.

Government officials frame this as a smart, long-term bet: one that will yield returns to the public and limit bill increases to just £1/month per household during the construction period.

But the deeper you look, the more this starts to feel like an attempt to sugar-coat a deeply flawed delivery model.

While taxpayers may technically “own” a stake in Sizewell C, the real power lies elsewhere—in the hands of financiers, contractors, and overseas investors, not the voting public.

The government’s sales pitch: job creation and clean power

The official line is heavy on benefits:

• 10,000 jobs at peak construction

• £4.4 billion in local spending in the East of England

• 3,500 UK companies involved in the supply chain

• Cheaper energy for six million homes

• £2 billion/year in system savings once operational

It all sounds impressive—until you realise the same lines were trotted out for Hinkley Point C, which is now £28 billion over budget and at least a decade behind schedule.

The claim that Sizewell C will be “20 per cent cheaper” than Hinkley is also misleading.

Hinkley’s original cost was £18 billion—now it’s £46 billion.

 So building a “virtual replica” for £38 billion isn’t a win; it’s just less catastrophic.

State risk, private cushioning

What the announcement doesn’t dwell on is the scale of public financial exposure.

Not only is the state investing directly, but the project is consolidated onto the public balance sheet.

That means if things go wrong, taxpayers carry the can—not EDF, not Centrica, and not private shareholders.

The project includes a generous “government support package” to shield private investors from high-impact, low-probability risks, effectively creating a public backstop for private profit.

Alison Downes of Stop Sizewell C wasn’t fooled:

“This project has only crawled over the line thanks to guarantees that the public purse—not private investors—will carry the can for the inevitable cost overruns.”

The state might have a seat at the table, but the burden remains lopsided—and it’s on ordinary people’s energy bills.

National Wealth Fund: new era or familiar playbook?

There’s no denying the symbolic weight of using the National Wealth Fund to bankroll Sizewell C.

In theory, it suggests a more proactive, public-oriented industrial policy—something Britain sorely lacks.

But symbolism isn’t substance.

The key question is: will the public ever see the benefits?

Or is this just another iteration of the UK’s well-worn habit of socialising risk while privatising reward?

The government calls this “delivering for the British people.”

But unless there’s genuine transparency on how future profits flow back into public services—and not just into balance sheet accounting exercises—it’s hard to take that claim at face value.

A nuclear future built on old habits

For all the fanfare, the facts remain:

• Sizewell C will cost £38 billion.

• Households will still pay for it in advance.

• Project timelines stretch well into the 2040s.

• And the lion’s share of risk sits with the public, not the private partners set to profit.

The use of the National Wealth Fund may represent a change in tactics, but the strategy—announce optimistically, spend endlessly, deflect responsibility—remains eerily familiar.

If this is the start of a “golden age of nuclear,” it’s being built on the same tired foundations of every over-promised, over-budget British megaproject.

The only thing that’s truly renewable, it seems, is the cycle of political hype and public cost.

Share this post: