As Labour was on the cusp of power in 1997, an intensive lobbying campaign (in which I played a fresh-faced, junior role) was underway to get the Party to swing behind nuclear energy. With memories of the Cold War still fresh in the mind, this was a big ask of Britain’s centre-left, and it was the influential voice of skilled workers in the engineering unions which ultimately tipped the Party in favour of nuclear as an energy source. Some are saying Labour now needs to fall in love with nuclear all over again.

In her new Budget released last week, Rachel Reeves reaffirmed Labour’s goal for the UK to become a “clean energy superpower.” The shutdown of the UK’s last coal-fired power station marks an important step in this direction, and one that should be lauded. Despite this, the government still retains a tentative approach towards an indispensable component of clean power and Net Zero: nuclear energy.

Reeves’ Budget was certainly not hostile towards nuclear energy. For one, it laid out the commitment for the UK to be a “global leader in sustainable nuclear energy” through the provision of support for fusion energy research. Importantly, it also set out £2.7 billion in funding for the development of Sizewell C and will soon publish its Clean Power 2030 Action Plan.

However, the UK continues to lack the broader progress and clarity on regulatory frameworks, which at present continue to hold back the development of nuclear energy in the UK. With energy prices in the country rising at a far higher rate than other developed nations, nuclear plant development is going to be important in bringing prices under control, ushering in a new generation of jobs and continuing to reduce emissions.

Nuclear can play a vital role in our energy future by providing reliable baseload power generation. While the upfront construction costs are significant, nuclear plants’ long operational lifespans of 40-60 years and low fuel costs can make them cost-competitive for electricity generation in the long term. As data centres for artificial intelligence drive unprecedented energy demand, nuclear power offers a clean solution for these power-intensive facilities – as demonstrated by Microsoft’s recent deal to reopen the US’s Three Mile Island energy plant.

“While the upfront construction costs are significant, nuclear plants’ long operational lifespans of 40-60 years and low fuel costs can make them cost-competitive for electricity generation in the long term.”

There have been other interesting developments in the sector. One example being small modular reactors (SMRs), which offer a promising route toward low-cost and sustainable energy and heat generation at scale. Yet, the government risks losing the UK’s “first-mover advantage” in delaying the selection of SMR manufacturers receiving government support to Spring 2025. The Nuclear Industry Association’s Chief Executive, Tom Greatrex, has been clear that the government need to reach a decision “as soon as possible without any further delays”. Otherwise, they risk compromising supply chain confidence and the country’s wider nuclear ambition.

Since taking office in July, the Labour government has been busy to ensure it delivers on their manifesto commitment to establish the UK as a leading clean energy supplier. Successes have already materialised in both solar and wind energy, with significant investments set to double onshore wind capacity, following the removal of restrictions on its construction, and triple solar generation by 2030.

However, Labour must now turn to nuclear and go a step further to empower Great British Nuclear, and Great British Energy, once established, to provide tangible guarantees for stakeholders across the nuclear industry. Such support would go a long way in instilling confidence in the sector, and driving forward major projects in the pipeline.