The global shift towards a clean-energy system is much more than just a technological switch – it is a profound transformation of markets, industries and societal behaviours.
This complex undertaking is often characterised by “non-linearity” and “feedback loops”, where small changes can go on to have disproportionately large impacts and where seemingly straightforward paths encounter unexpected roadblocks.
Interventions can be self-amplifying – leading to runaway change, or they can be self-defeating – when progress seems impossible to attain.
Our new policy brief sheds light on these intricate dynamics, which can be overlooked when governments use analytical frameworks based on standard economic thinking.
The brief sets out the most common archetypes of system change and behaviour, as well as the underlying feedback loops that drive them, with the aim of helping policymakers to understand the recurring patterns that can either accelerate or impede progress.
Governments that can recognise these patterns – as well as the ways they can be harnessed or sidestepped – are likely to be better equipped to manage structural change.
This article delves into three key examples from the policy brief, exploring how they are influencing the energy transition and what lessons can be drawn for effective policymaking.
Reinforcing feedback loops
At the heart of the energy transition lies a powerful engine: the reinforcing feedback loops inherent in the development and diffusion of many clean-energy technologies.
This virtuous cycle operates through several mechanisms.
First, “learning by doing”, which means that as more units of a technology, such as solar panels or wind turbines, are produced and deployed, manufacturers and developers become more efficient, processes are refined and costs fall.
Second, economies of scale kick in: as production volumes increase, unit costs decrease due to efficiencies in manufacturing and more developed supply chains.
Finally, wider deployment can trigger network effects and the emergence of complementary innovations. This means that as the adoption of a given technology grows, it can foster an ecosystem of supporting infrastructure, skilled labour and supporting technologies, which can further boost its attractiveness and viability.
Together, these three elements create a powerful reinforcing loop: initial investment drives innovation and cost reduction, which spurs increased demand, attracting further investment.
Solar photovoltaics (PV) and wind turbines are prime examples of this dynamic.
The astonishing growth of solar offers a particularly vivid illustration of the way in which reinforcing feedback loops can blindside experts and policymakers alike.
Solar growth has far exceeded projections made in the early 2000s. Indeed, the world’s actual installed capacity in 2020 was over 700 gigawatts (GW), more than ten times the level expected in outlooks published in 2006, as shown in the figure below.
Global solar deployment has exceeded expectations due to disparate trends and drivers in individual markets that, together, all point in the same direction. China, for instance, met its 2030 target for wind and solar capacity six years ahead of schedule in 2024.
Batteries are also riding this wave, with costs plummeting by around 85% over the past decade as deployment, particularly in road transport, scales up.
However, not all clean-energy technologies benefit from this self-amplifying pattern.
Nuclear power and hydropower, for example, have historically not shown the same rapid cost declines, due to their large, complex and site-specific nature. This contrasts with the smaller, modular and replicable characteristics of technologies, such as solar PV.
This does not negate the potential role of such technologies, but it does mean that they are less likely to see disruptive, exponential and self-reinforcing growth.
There are a number of potential conclusions for policymakers.
Early in the transition, interventions such as feed-in tariffs and public procurement were crucial in kick-starting these reinforcing feedbacks for solar and wind.
As these technologies mature and become cost-competitive, the focus shifts to removing other barriers, such as streamlining permitting processes, investing in grid expansion and reforming markets so they are better able to integrate variable renewable output.
These same principles could now be applied to newly emergent clean-energy technologies. Policies that directly nurture these reinforcing loops, such as deployment subsidies and clean technology mandates, can be expected to be most effective in the initial stages.
Turning again to the example of solar energy, while such initial efforts appeared to be expensive, they paid off over time by unlocking future cost reductions and, thus, kick-starting the self-amplifying feedback loops that are now driving further progress.
This contrasts with the idea that carbon pricing is necessarily the most efficient policy for decarbonisation. It may well be helpful, but as it will not drive rapid early technology adoption, it is less likely to have a self-amplifying effect in the initial stages of the transition.
Renewable ‘cannibalisation’
While the growth of renewable energy is the driving force of the energy transition, another system dynamic, termed “renewable cannibalisation“, can act as a dampening feedback loop. This can potentially slow progress long before full decarbonisation is achieved
This cannibalisation process results in variable renewable energy (VRE) sources, such as solar and wind, receiving decreasing prices for the electricity they generate.
Essentially, the more solar and wind capacity that is connected to the grid, the more they undermine their own revenue. This happens through three main channels.
First, the merit order effect, whereby solar and wind, which have very low operating costs, push more expensive fossil-fuel generators out of the market when supply is abundant.
In markets with marginal pricing, this leads to lower wholesale electricity prices during periods of high renewable output. While this cuts prices for consumers – at least in the short term – these lower prices also reduce revenues for renewable generators, potentially undermining the economic case for further investment.
For example, in California, solar power unit revenues fell by $1.30 per megawatt hour (MWh) for each percentage point increase in solar penetration between 2013 and 2017.
Second, price volatility, where uncertainty over future trends in the generation mix and the balance between supply and demand can make long-term revenues difficult to predict.
This increased uncertainty can raise the cost of capital for new renewable projects, again acting as a brake on investment
The UK, for example, experienced this before the introduction of “contracts for difference” (CfDs), which helped stabilise revenue expectations for renewable developers.
Third, volume risk, where rising VRE capacity increases the likelihood of more frequent curtailment – periods when renewable generation exceeds demand or grid capacity, forcing generators to scale back output and lose potential revenue.
Curtailment in itself is nothing new, but the scale and frequency is changing. Recent analysis by University College London suggests that without significant flexibility or storage, UK renewable generation could exceed demand for more than 50% of the time by 2030.
The analysis found that installed wind and solar capacity is set to surge beyond current levels of electricity demand, as illustrated in the figure below, finding that this could “deter investment” in new projects if no action is taken to address the problem.
These dampening feedback loops illustrate a classic “limits to success” scenario. The very success of renewables, if unmanaged, can create conditions that hinder their continued expansion.
The policy implications here are nuanced. One solution is CfDs, which offer renewable generators a fixed price and have been effective in many countries at mitigating the merit order effect and price volatility, thus maintaining investment.
However, as VRE penetration becomes very high and surplus generation becomes a regular occurrence, other solutions are likely to be needed. This is because existing CfD designs often include clauses that stop payments when market prices drop below zero.
As a result, alternative CfD designs, guaranteeing revenues based on installed capacity or potential – rather than actual – electricity generation might be considered, for example, even though these have other drawbacks.
More fundamentally, our research suggests the solution to this challenge lies in fostering the co-evolution of renewables with technologies such as energy storage and green hydrogen production. These can absorb surplus generation and turn a problem into an opportunity.
Whereas, traditionally, it might be assumed that the market on its own can optimally allocate risk, research suggests that a redesign of market structures may be needed to enable investment and fully realise the cost-saving opportunities of the new technologies.
This is one of several sets of feedbacks discussed in a separate new report published today, looking at the power sector transition in China.
The power of connection
The energy transition is not a series of isolated changes in different sectors. Instead, it is an interconnected system, where progress in one area can catalyse shifts elsewhere. Shared technologies can create reinforcing feedbacks that accelerate decarbonisation across multiple fronts, generating cross-sector synergies.
The relationship between clean power and transport electrification is a powerful example of this. As batteries are deployed at scale in electric vehicles (EVs), their costs fall, enabling ever-wider deployment and further cost declines, as shown in the chart below.
This is due to the learning-by-doing and economies-of-scale feedbacks discussed above.
This cost reduction then makes batteries more viable for grid-scale energy storage, which, in tur, helps integrate more low-cost VRE into the power system.
Cheaper, cleaner electricity then further incentivises the electrification of transport, as well as heating and light industry. This increased electrification boosts demand for renewable power, driving further deployment and cost reductions in solar and wind. It also expands the potential for demand-side response, where consumers adjust their electricity use to help balance the grid.
A similar dynamic is anticipated for “green” hydrogen. As deployment in one anchor sector – perhaps fertilisers or refining – drives down the cost of electrolysers, it makes green hydrogen more competitive for other applications, such as shipping or even long-duration energy storage in the power sector.
Each sector’s adoption of green hydrogen contributes to the shared learning and cost reduction, benefiting all.
The policy implications of these cross-sector synergies could be significant. Their existence suggests, for example, that there is no need to wait for decarbonisation of the power sector to advance further, before beginning the electrification of transport, heating or industry.
This is in contrast to the argument that transport should only be electrified after cutting power sector emissions, since increased EV charging will drive up demand for gas- or coal-fired generation.
While there will be a marginal increase in emissions from plugging a new EV into the power grid, the insights described in our brief imply that it is still likely to be more effective to pursue the transition away from fossil fuels in multiple sectors in parallel, because it can activate beneficial cross-sector feedback loops that are greater than the sum of their parts.
As such, our research suggests that policymakers hoping to take advantage of cross-sector synergies could aim to deliberately strengthen technological linkages between different parts of the energy system. Examples include electricity tariffs and market structures that reward “smart” EV charging and vehicle-to-grid (V2G) services, encouraging industrial participation in demand-side response and promoting integrated home energy systems. These interactions can amplify the benefits of early investment in the transition.
Policy insights from system dynamics
Archetypes such as the self-reinforcing growth of clean technologies, the potential for renewable cannibalisation, the accelerating power of cross-sector synergies and seven others described in our new report paint a picture of a transition that is far from linear. Instead, we find that it is governed by complex interdependencies and feedback loops.
Consequently, our research suggests that policymakers will be much better equipped to manage and steer the transition, if they adopt a systems thinking approach.
Recognising these recurring patterns allows for the design of more robust and effective policies that anticipate challenges and leverage opportunities.
For instance, understanding the power of reinforcing feedback loops in technology diffusion underscores the value of early-stage support for nascent clean-energy technologies.
Conversely, anticipating the dampening effects of renewable cannibalisation highlights the likely benefits of combining renewable buildout with evolving market designs and strategic investments in flexibility solutions, such as storage and demand-side response.
Policymakers that understand and work with these dynamics are likely to be in a better position to spark self-amplifying changes – achieving maximum value for minimum effort – and to avoid self-defeating interventions that go nowhere.
The post Guest post: How ‘feedback loops’ and ‘non-linear thinking’ can inform climate policy appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Guest post: How ‘feedback loops’ and ‘non-linear thinking’ can inform climate policy
Mariana Paoli, from Brazil, is the Global Advocacy Lead at Christian Aid and Iskander Erzini Vernoit, from Morocco, is the Executive Director at the IMAL Initiative for Climate and Development.
Government negotiators in Bonn will discuss in the coming two weeks how to put into practice an idea that emerged from the corridors of the COP29 climate talks: “the Baku to Belém Roadmap to $1.3 Trillion”.
This exercise, that aims to propose approaches for scaling climate finance flows for developing countries to over a trillion dollars per year by 2035, is due to be presented at COP30 in Brazil this November. The origins of its mandate offer insights into its perils – as well as its promise.
Brazil seeks early deals on two stalled issues at Bonn climate talks
Initially, negotiators from the G77+China countries united behind Africa’s call for $1.3 trillion as the replacement for the $100-billion goal for annual mobilisation of climate finance by developed countries for developing nations, set 15 years ago. Faithful to this, some G77 countries originally called for a roadmap to indicate actions that developed countries might take to raise public finance resources for this provision and mobilisation for the Global South.
There were, however, those in the Global North who pushed for a broader, less well-defined $1.3 trillion target that would include other sources and types of finance. These forces ultimately won the day, resulting in a final decision on $1.3 trillion that calls for “all finance” from “all … sources”, establishing a “roadmap” process toward this.
Exceedingly disappointing for the Global South, this new formulation obfuscates the responsibility of wealthy historical emitters to pay their fair share of public finance to tackle a proble they have caused and risks shifting the burden to developing countries.
Loss and damage threat
In this context, the Roadmap to 1.3T has the potential to be a milestone in the global governance of climate finance. Yet it faces risks and opportunities, being essentially at the discretion of Azerbaijan and Brazil as the COP29 and COP 30 presidencies.
There is a very real risk that the Roadmap will fall short of sending a strong signal of what level of ambition is required, in terms of public finance from contributor countries. If that happens, the Roadmap could entrench injustice, increase debt burdens, and delay urgent action on climate change.
In terms of injustice, poorer countries, while largely not responsible for climate change, could face loss and damage of $450 billion-$900 billion per year before 2030, not including the costs of reducing emissions and adapting to global warming.
Loss and damage fund to hand out $250 million in initial phase
Within this, Africa’s nomadic pastoral communities are one real-life example of those whose livelihoods and way of life are being destroyed by the choices of others. The COP29 decision on the new climate finance goal disregarded their needs by not including a target for loss and damage funding, but the Roadmap need not.
Heavy debt burden
The Roadmap must not ignore that external debts are at record highs, with repayment costs now higher than capacities for repayment in two-thirds of developing countries, according to UNCTAD.
In 2023, African governments paid around 17% of their revenues on servicing debts, the highest levels in decades, equalling 15% of African export earnings. By comparison, after the Second World War, inspired by the work of Keynes and others, it was decided to cap Germany’s debt repayments at 3% of its exports earnings, to allow recovery.
In this context, Global South countries may lack the fiscal space to invest in essential climate action – or may prioritise other areas, such as healthcare or education.
COP30 President-designate Andrea Corrêa do Lago is correct in his assertion that there is too often a denial of the economic benefits of climate action – yet Global South countries are not always able to pursue economically beneficial investments. Markets are not always efficient, economic benefits do not always equal revenues for investors , and the cost of capital is higher in Global South countries, heightening the need for support, especially with upfront costs.
Framework to scale up finance
Of course, in addition to underscoring the necessity of rich countries increasing their provision of grant-equivalent public funds for poorer countries, for the reasons cited above, the Roadmap can point to opportunities to build the architecture for scaling finance.
Reforming the international financial architecture is important, but, to achieve this, wealthy countries must relinquish their current hegemony and drop their resistance to reform in the negotiations for a UN tax convention and in those around the potential UN sovereign debt workout mechanism that could be agreed at the upcoming Financing for Development (FFD) Conference in Seville.
Climate shocks and volatile currencies hike debt burden for poor countries
Further additions to the financial architecture could include country platforms, aimed at unlocking finance, particularly private investment – but these require resourcing to administer and will only reaffirm the need for catalytic public resources, whether for technical assistance, project preparation, or making finance more affordable.
Of course, current politics are not conducive to increasing international provision of grant-equivalent finance, with recent short-sighted decisions taking overseas aid even further away from the global target for countries to provide assistance equal to 0.7% of their gross national income, established over fifty years ago, despite public support.
Naturally, Global South countries should not hold their breath waiting for others to come to their senses, but should do what they can, including South-South cooperation.
Bold signal needed
And yet, if global temperature goals are not to slip out of reach, if climate action is to be enhanced and injustice and indebtedness curtailed, richer countries must step up on finance. Will the Roadmap affirm this? The COP presidencies have yet to give a firm indication, though have called for inputs from finance ministers and other key groupings through ongoing consultations.
To be successful, there must be a willingness to depart from the status quo — just as was demonstrated with the Paris Agreement and the UAE Consensus, which set ambitious goals to limit global temperature rise and accelerate energy transition, respectively. Even amid uncertainty, these agreements raised the standard for ambition instead of passively allowing low expectations to go unchallenged.
A comparable approach is now needed for international public finance – the Baku-to-Belem Roadmap must send a bold signal of what is required, lest a key opportunity be lost.
The post A COP30 roadmap to inaction or ambition on climate finance? appeared first on Climate Home News.
Climate Change
DeBriefed 13 June 2025: Trump’s ‘biggest’ climate rollback; UK goes nuclear; How Carbon Brief visualises research
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Trump’s latest climate rollback
RULES REPEALED: The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has begun dismantling Biden-era regulations limiting pollution from power plants, including carbon dioxide emissions, reported the Financial Times. Announcing the repeal, climate-sceptic EPA administrator Lee Zeldin labelled efforts to fight climate change a “cult”, according to the New York Times. Politico said that these actions are the “most important EPA regulatory actions of Donald Trump’s second term to date”.
WEBSITE SHUTDOWN: The Guardian reported that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s Climate.gov website “will imminently no longer publish new content” after all production staff were fired. Former employees of the agency interviewed by the Guardian believe the cuts were “specifically aimed at restricting public-facing climate information”.
EVS TARGETED: The Los Angeles Times reported that Trump signed legislation on Thursday “seeking to rescind California’s ambitious auto emission standards, including a landmark rule that eventually would have barred sales of new gas-only cars in California by 2035”.
UK goes nuclear
NEW NUCLEAR: In her first spending review, UK chancellor Rachel Reeves announced £14.2bn for the Sizewell C new nuclear power plant in Suffolk, England – the first new state-backed nuclear power station for decades and the first ever under a Labour government, BBC News reported. The government also announced funding for three small nuclear reactors to be built by Rolls-Royce, said the Times. Carbon Brief has just published a chart showing the “rise, fall and rise” of UK nuclear.
MILIBAND REWARDED: The Times described energy secretary Ed Miliband as one of the “biggest winners” from the review. In spite of relentless negative reporting around him from right-leaning publications, his Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) received the largest relative increase in capital spending. Carbon Brief’s summary has more on all the key climate and energy takeaways from the spending review.
Around the world
- UN OCEAN SUMMIT: In France, a “surge in support” brought the number of countries ratifying the High Seas Treaty to just 10 short of the 60 needed for the agreement to become international law, according to Sky News.
- CALLING TRUMP: Brazil’s president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva said he would “call” Trump to “persuade him” to attend COP30, according to Agence France-Presse. Meanwhile, the Associated Press reported that the country’s environmental agency has fast tracked oil and highway projects that threaten the Amazon.
- GERMAN FOSSIL SURGE: Due to “low” wind levels, electricity generation from renewables in Germany fell by 17% in the first quarter of this year, while generation from fossil-fuel sources increased significantly, according to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.
- BATTERY BOOST: The power ministry in India announced 54bn rupees ($631m) in funding to build 30 gigawatt-hours of new battery energy storage systems to “ensure round-the-clock renewable energy capacities”, reported Money Control.
-19.3C
The temperature that one-in-10 London winters could reach in a scenario where a key Atlantic ocean current system “collapses” and global warming continues under “intermediate” emissions, according to new research covered by Carbon Brief.
Latest climate research
- A study in Science Advances found that damage to coral reefs due to climate change will “outpace” reef expansion. It said “severe declines” will take place within 40-80 years, while “large-scale coral reef expansion requires centuries”.
- Climatic Change published research which identified “displacement and violence, caregiving burdens, early marriages of girls, human trafficking and food insecurity” as the main “mental health” stressors exacerbated by climate change for women in lower and middle-income countries.
- The weakening of a major ocean current system has partially offset the drying of the southern Amazon rainforest, research published in Environmental Research has found, demonstrating that climate tipping elements have the potential to moderate each other.
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
Aerosols – tiny light‑scattering particles produced mainly by burning fossil fuels – absorb or reflect incoming sunlight and influence the formation and brightness of clouds. In this way they have historically “acted as an invisible brake on global warming”. New Carbon Brief analysis by Dr Zeke Hausfather illustrated the extent to which a reduction in aerosol emissions in recent decades, while bringing widespread public health benefits through avoided deaths, has “unmasked” the warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. The chart above shows the estimated cooling effect of aerosols from the start of the industrial era until 2020.
Spotlight
How Carbon Brief turns complex research into visuals
This week, Carbon Brief’s interactive developer Tom Pearson explains how and why his team creates visuals from research papers.
Carbon Brief’s journalists will often write stories based on new scientific research or policy reports.
These documents will usually contain charts or graphics highlighting something interesting about the story. Sometimes, Carbon Brief’s visuals team will choose to recreate these graphics.
There are many reasons why we choose to spend time and effort doing this, but most often it can be boiled down to some combination of the following things.
Maintaining editorial and visual consistency
We want to, where possible, maintain editorial and visual consistency while matching our graphical and editorial style guides.
In doing this, we are trying to ease our audience’s reading experience. We hope that, by presenting a chart in a way that is consistent with Carbon Brief’s house style, readers will be able to concentrate on the story or the explanation we are trying to communicate and not the way that a chart might have been put together.
Highlighting relevant information
We want to highlight the part of a chart that is most relevant to the story.
Graphics in research papers, especially if they have been designed for a print context, often strive to illustrate many different points with a single figure.
We tend to use charts to answer a single question or provide evidence for a single point.
Paring charts back to their core “message”, removing extraneous elements and framing the chart with a clear editorial title helps with this, as the example below shows.
Ensuring audience understanding
We want to ensure our audience understands the “message” of the chart.
Graphics published in specialist publications, such as scientific journals, might have different expectations regarding a reader’s familiarity with the subject matter and the time they might be expected to spend reading an article.
If we can redraw a chart so that it meets the expectations of a more general audience, we will.
Supporting multiple contexts
We want our graphics to make sense in different contexts.
While we publish our graphics primarily in articles on our website, the nature of the internet means that we cannot guarantee that this is how people will encounter them.
Charts are often shared on social media or copy-pasted into presentations. We want to support these practices by including as much context relevant to understanding within the chart image as possible.
Below illustrates how adding a title and key information can make a chart easier to understand without supporting information.
When we do not recreate charts
When will we not redraw a chart? Most of the time! We are a small team and recreating data graphics requires time, effort, accessible data and often specialist software.
But, despite these constraints, when the conditions are right, the process of redrawing maps and charts allows us to communicate more clearly with our readers, transforming complex research into accessible visual stories.
Watch, read, listen
SPENDING $1BN ON CLIMATE: New Scientist interviewed Greg de Temmerman, former nuclear physicist turned chief science officer at Quadrature Climate Foundation, about the practicalities and ethics of philanthropic climate-science funding.
GENDER HURDLES: Research director Tracy Kajumba has written for Climate Home News about the barriers that women still face in attending and participating in COPs.
OCEAN HEATWAVES: The New York Times presented a richly illustrated look at how marine heatwaves are spreading across the globe and how they affect life in the oceans.
Coming up
- 16-26 June: Bonn climate talks, Bonn, Germany
- 16 June: 79th meeting of the World Meteorological Organization executive council, Geneva, Switzerland
- 17 June: International Energy Agency (IEA) Oil 2025 report launch
Pick of the jobs
- Inside Climate News, California environmental reporter | Salary: Unknown. Location: Southern California
- Natural Resources Wales, lead marine and energy policy advisor | Salary: £45,367-£50,877. Location: Wales
- Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, senior manager, climate | Salary: £82,000. Location: London/hybrid
- Green Party,social media and digital content officer | Salary: £33,211. Location: London/remote
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post DeBriefed 13 June 2025: Trump’s ‘biggest’ climate rollback; UK goes nuclear; How Carbon Brief visualises research appeared first on Carbon Brief.
The UK’s chancellor Rachel Reeves gave the green light this week to the Sizewell C new nuclear plant in Suffolk, along with funding for “small modular reactors” (SMRs) and nuclear fusion.
In her spending review of government funding across the rest of this parliament, Reeves pledged £14.2bn for Sizewell C, £2.5bn for Rolls-Royce SMRs and £2.5bn for fusion research.
The UK was a pioneer in civilian nuclear power – opening the world’s first commercial reactor at Calder Hall in Cumbria in 1956 – which, ultimately, helped to squeeze out coal generation.
Over the decades that followed, the UK’s nuclear capacity climbed to a peak of 12.2 gigawatts (GW) in 1995, while electricity output from the fleet of reactors peaked in 1998.
The chart below shows the contribution of each of the UK’s nuclear plants to the country’s overall capacity, according to when they started and stopped operating.
The reactors are dotted around the UK’s coastline, where they can take advantage of cooling seawater, and many sites include multiple units coded with numbers or letters.
Since Sizewell B was completed in 1995, however, no new nuclear plants have been built – and, as the chart above shows, capacity has ebbed away as older reactors have gone out of service.
After a lengthy hiatus, the Hinkley C new nuclear plant in Somerset was signed off in 2016. It is now under construction and expected to start operating by 2030 at the earliest.
(Efforts to secure further new nuclear schemes at Moorside in Cumbria failed in 2017, while projects led by Hitachi at Wylfa on Anglesey and Oldbury in Gloucestershire collapsed in 2019.)
The additional schemes just given the go-ahead in Reeves’s spending review would – if successful – somewhat revive the UK’s nuclear capacity, after decades of decline.
However, with the closure of all but one of the UK’s existing reactors due by 2030, nuclear-power capacity would remain below its 1995 peak, unless further projects are built.
Moreover, with the UK’s electricity demand set to double over the next few decades, as transport, heat and industry are increasingly electrified, nuclear power is unlikely to match the 29% share of generation that it reached during the late 1990s.
There is an aspirational goal – set under former Conservative prime minister Boris Johnson – for nuclear to supply “up to” a quarter of the UK’s electricity in 2050, with “up to” 24GW of capacity.
Assuming Sizewell B continues to operate until 2055 and that Hinkley C, Sizewell C and at least three Rolls-Royce SMRs are all built, this would take UK capacity back up to 9.0GW.
Methodology
The chart is based on data from the World Nuclear Association, with known start dates for operating and retired reactors, as well as planned closure dates announced by operator EDF.
The timeline for new reactors to start operating – and assumed 60-year lifetime – is illustrative, based on published information from EDF, Rolls-Royce, the UK government and media reports.
The post Chart: The rise, fall and rise of UK nuclear power over eight decades appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Chart: The rise, fall and rise of UK nuclear power over eight decades
Hanwha Qcells Launches EcoRecycle for Solar Panel Recycling
DeBriefed 13 June 2025: Trump’s ‘biggest’ climate rollback; UK goes nuclear; How Carbon Brief visualises research
North Carolina needs more certainty before committing to an expensive new gas plant
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Carbon Footprint1 year agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action
-
Climate Change Videos1 year ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Some firms unaware of England’s new single-use plastic ban