Sam Dumitriu
@samdumitriu.bsky.social
Head of Policy at Britain Remade.
Hinkley Point C is set to be the most expensive nuclear plant ever built.
The numbers below reveal they spent £700m on fish protection.
Based on the latest estimates that’s £280,000 per fish.
The numbers below reveal they spent £700m on fish protection.
Based on the latest estimates that’s £280,000 per fish.
November 24, 2025 at 12:23 PM
Hinkley Point C is set to be the most expensive nuclear plant ever built.
The numbers below reveal they spent £700m on fish protection.
Based on the latest estimates that’s £280,000 per fish.
The numbers below reveal they spent £700m on fish protection.
Based on the latest estimates that’s £280,000 per fish.
If you're unconviced devolution equals speed, compare Birmingham and Dijon.
May 9, 2025 at 10:01 AM
If you're unconviced devolution equals speed, compare Birmingham and Dijon.
Here's the thing.
Britain is one of the most expensive places in the world to build new trams, but the things that make Coventry's tram cheap are done around the world.
The rest of the world moves fewer utilities and devolves planning powers to a local level.
Britain is one of the most expensive places in the world to build new trams, but the things that make Coventry's tram cheap are done around the world.
The rest of the world moves fewer utilities and devolves planning powers to a local level.
May 9, 2025 at 10:01 AM
Here's the thing.
Britain is one of the most expensive places in the world to build new trams, but the things that make Coventry's tram cheap are done around the world.
The rest of the world moves fewer utilities and devolves planning powers to a local level.
Britain is one of the most expensive places in the world to build new trams, but the things that make Coventry's tram cheap are done around the world.
The rest of the world moves fewer utilities and devolves planning powers to a local level.
Lesson Two: Don't move the utilities underneath. One of the biggest cost-drivers for tram projects is the need to move pipes and wires underneath.
May 9, 2025 at 10:01 AM
Lesson Two: Don't move the utilities underneath. One of the biggest cost-drivers for tram projects is the need to move pipes and wires underneath.
Lesson One: Avoid the bureaucratic, expensive, and slow Transport and Works Act Order process.
May 9, 2025 at 10:01 AM
Lesson One: Avoid the bureaucratic, expensive, and slow Transport and Works Act Order process.
Coventry is doing something that many thought impossible: building a tram line in Britain quickly and cheaply.
Read David Milner of @createstreets.bsky.social on how they've done it and what we can learn from it.
capx.co/coventrys-tr...
Read David Milner of @createstreets.bsky.social on how they've done it and what we can learn from it.
capx.co/coventrys-tr...
May 9, 2025 at 10:01 AM
Coventry is doing something that many thought impossible: building a tram line in Britain quickly and cheaply.
Read David Milner of @createstreets.bsky.social on how they've done it and what we can learn from it.
capx.co/coventrys-tr...
Read David Milner of @createstreets.bsky.social on how they've done it and what we can learn from it.
capx.co/coventrys-tr...
NEW: The Planning and Infrastructure bill will abolish the legal requirement to consult before submitting a planning application for major infrastructure projects.
Consultation is good in theory, but it has become a box-ticking exercise.
This reform will slash years off planning tables.
Consultation is good in theory, but it has become a box-ticking exercise.
This reform will slash years off planning tables.
April 23, 2025 at 11:37 AM
NEW: The Planning and Infrastructure bill will abolish the legal requirement to consult before submitting a planning application for major infrastructure projects.
Consultation is good in theory, but it has become a box-ticking exercise.
This reform will slash years off planning tables.
Consultation is good in theory, but it has become a box-ticking exercise.
This reform will slash years off planning tables.
They can’t keep getting away with this.
April 7, 2025 at 9:12 AM
They can’t keep getting away with this.
Nobody wants nuclear to be unsafe, but the constant growth in regulatory burden has only made the safest form of power generation more expensive than dirty and dangerous alternatives like gas.
February 26, 2025 at 12:03 PM
Nobody wants nuclear to be unsafe, but the constant growth in regulatory burden has only made the safest form of power generation more expensive than dirty and dangerous alternatives like gas.
Planning delays, lawsuits around mud dumping, and an ongoing battle over whether or not to install a 'fish disco' haven't helped either.
February 26, 2025 at 12:03 PM
Planning delays, lawsuits around mud dumping, and an ongoing battle over whether or not to install a 'fish disco' haven't helped either.
Why was Hinkley Point C so expensive then?
7,000 design changes from the reactor being built in Finland and France.
Hinkley Point C uses 25% more concrete and 35% more steel than the French and Finnish equivalents.
7,000 design changes from the reactor being built in Finland and France.
Hinkley Point C uses 25% more concrete and 35% more steel than the French and Finnish equivalents.
February 26, 2025 at 12:03 PM
Why was Hinkley Point C so expensive then?
7,000 design changes from the reactor being built in Finland and France.
Hinkley Point C uses 25% more concrete and 35% more steel than the French and Finnish equivalents.
7,000 design changes from the reactor being built in Finland and France.
Hinkley Point C uses 25% more concrete and 35% more steel than the French and Finnish equivalents.
The CCC, in effect, assumes Britain will never get as good as South Korea, France or Finland at building new nuclear power plants.
In fact, they don't even think we will get as cheap as America's last project Vogtle - a project that literally bankrupted the company building it.
In fact, they don't even think we will get as cheap as America's last project Vogtle - a project that literally bankrupted the company building it.
February 26, 2025 at 12:03 PM
The CCC, in effect, assumes Britain will never get as good as South Korea, France or Finland at building new nuclear power plants.
In fact, they don't even think we will get as cheap as America's last project Vogtle - a project that literally bankrupted the company building it.
In fact, they don't even think we will get as cheap as America's last project Vogtle - a project that literally bankrupted the company building it.
Britain is the most expensive place in the world to build a nuclear power station.
When it's completed Hinkley Point C will be the most expensive nuclear power station ever built.
When it's completed Hinkley Point C will be the most expensive nuclear power station ever built.
February 26, 2025 at 12:03 PM
Britain is the most expensive place in the world to build a nuclear power station.
When it's completed Hinkley Point C will be the most expensive nuclear power station ever built.
When it's completed Hinkley Point C will be the most expensive nuclear power station ever built.
We are in the midst of a global nuclear renaissance, but the Climate Change Committee haven't heard.
In their new Carbon Budget 7 advice, nuclear will only make up 13% of our grid by 2050.
Why does nuclear play such a small role? In short, they assume it doesn't get cheaper.
In their new Carbon Budget 7 advice, nuclear will only make up 13% of our grid by 2050.
Why does nuclear play such a small role? In short, they assume it doesn't get cheaper.
February 26, 2025 at 12:03 PM
We are in the midst of a global nuclear renaissance, but the Climate Change Committee haven't heard.
In their new Carbon Budget 7 advice, nuclear will only make up 13% of our grid by 2050.
Why does nuclear play such a small role? In short, they assume it doesn't get cheaper.
In their new Carbon Budget 7 advice, nuclear will only make up 13% of our grid by 2050.
Why does nuclear play such a small role? In short, they assume it doesn't get cheaper.
2. We are undervaluing innovation.
When we develop better green solutions, there’s a double dividend. Not only do we reduce our own domestic emissions by adopting greener tech, but we also make it easier for everyone else to cut their emissions.
The CCA ignores the latter.
When we develop better green solutions, there’s a double dividend. Not only do we reduce our own domestic emissions by adopting greener tech, but we also make it easier for everyone else to cut their emissions.
The CCA ignores the latter.
February 25, 2025 at 12:58 PM
2. We are undervaluing innovation.
When we develop better green solutions, there’s a double dividend. Not only do we reduce our own domestic emissions by adopting greener tech, but we also make it easier for everyone else to cut their emissions.
The CCA ignores the latter.
When we develop better green solutions, there’s a double dividend. Not only do we reduce our own domestic emissions by adopting greener tech, but we also make it easier for everyone else to cut their emissions.
The CCA ignores the latter.
This isn't an argument to ignore domestic emissions cuts.
If we dropped our Net Zero target, other countries would surely follow.
But, it should prompt us to modify our approach in three key ways.
If we dropped our Net Zero target, other countries would surely follow.
But, it should prompt us to modify our approach in three key ways.
February 25, 2025 at 12:58 PM
This isn't an argument to ignore domestic emissions cuts.
If we dropped our Net Zero target, other countries would surely follow.
But, it should prompt us to modify our approach in three key ways.
If we dropped our Net Zero target, other countries would surely follow.
But, it should prompt us to modify our approach in three key ways.
I agreed with the article up until this paragraph.
Which asserts the reason Bokkerink was removed was because he was 'too committed to competition'?
Yet, overzealous enforcement of merger control can undermine competition and harm consumers too.
Which asserts the reason Bokkerink was removed was because he was 'too committed to competition'?
Yet, overzealous enforcement of merger control can undermine competition and harm consumers too.
February 25, 2025 at 12:42 PM
I agreed with the article up until this paragraph.
Which asserts the reason Bokkerink was removed was because he was 'too committed to competition'?
Yet, overzealous enforcement of merger control can undermine competition and harm consumers too.
Which asserts the reason Bokkerink was removed was because he was 'too committed to competition'?
Yet, overzealous enforcement of merger control can undermine competition and harm consumers too.
The largest subsector of the '120bn a year' creative industries is software and computer services.
It is dishonest to use this statistic to argue against the text-and-data mining exemption proposed by the Government.
It is dishonest to use this statistic to argue against the text-and-data mining exemption proposed by the Government.
February 25, 2025 at 10:54 AM
The largest subsector of the '120bn a year' creative industries is software and computer services.
It is dishonest to use this statistic to argue against the text-and-data mining exemption proposed by the Government.
It is dishonest to use this statistic to argue against the text-and-data mining exemption proposed by the Government.
One big question for the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce is whether the rules and requirements we’ve developed for large scale reactors are appropriate for SMRs where the risks of a major accident are greatly reduced.
There’s a major lawsuit in the US asking this very question.
There’s a major lawsuit in the US asking this very question.
February 6, 2025 at 10:07 AM
One big question for the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce is whether the rules and requirements we’ve developed for large scale reactors are appropriate for SMRs where the risks of a major accident are greatly reduced.
There’s a major lawsuit in the US asking this very question.
There’s a major lawsuit in the US asking this very question.
In theory, nuclear plants can challenge ALARP decisions if they’re “grossly disproportionate”.
Here’s the issue. The ONR define grossly as disproportionate as when costs outweigh benefits by a factor of 10.
Here’s the issue. The ONR define grossly as disproportionate as when costs outweigh benefits by a factor of 10.
February 6, 2025 at 10:07 AM
In theory, nuclear plants can challenge ALARP decisions if they’re “grossly disproportionate”.
Here’s the issue. The ONR define grossly as disproportionate as when costs outweigh benefits by a factor of 10.
Here’s the issue. The ONR define grossly as disproportionate as when costs outweigh benefits by a factor of 10.
Or take the issue of regulatory justification.
We require every new reactor designs to prove the costs of radiation exposure are outweighed by the benefits.
This is completely unnecessary. Safety is covered in a number of other regulatory processes.
We require every new reactor designs to prove the costs of radiation exposure are outweighed by the benefits.
This is completely unnecessary. Safety is covered in a number of other regulatory processes.
February 6, 2025 at 10:07 AM
Or take the issue of regulatory justification.
We require every new reactor designs to prove the costs of radiation exposure are outweighed by the benefits.
This is completely unnecessary. Safety is covered in a number of other regulatory processes.
We require every new reactor designs to prove the costs of radiation exposure are outweighed by the benefits.
This is completely unnecessary. Safety is covered in a number of other regulatory processes.
And environmental rules hinder the greenest (low carbon and low land use) form of energy.
To get planning permission for Hinkley Point C, EDF produced a 30,000 page environmental impact assessment.
And for Sizewell C, they went even bigger.
To get planning permission for Hinkley Point C, EDF produced a 30,000 page environmental impact assessment.
And for Sizewell C, they went even bigger.
February 6, 2025 at 10:07 AM
And environmental rules hinder the greenest (low carbon and low land use) form of energy.
To get planning permission for Hinkley Point C, EDF produced a 30,000 page environmental impact assessment.
And for Sizewell C, they went even bigger.
To get planning permission for Hinkley Point C, EDF produced a 30,000 page environmental impact assessment.
And for Sizewell C, they went even bigger.
EDF fought for years to get out of the absurd requirement to install speakers around the intake pipe playing jumbo jet level sounds to deter fish from swimming in.
February 6, 2025 at 10:07 AM
EDF fought for years to get out of the absurd requirement to install speakers around the intake pipe playing jumbo jet level sounds to deter fish from swimming in.
New: The British government is creating a Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce to make it easier to build new nuclear power stations. ☢️
February 6, 2025 at 10:07 AM
New: The British government is creating a Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce to make it easier to build new nuclear power stations. ☢️
Part of the problem is the ability of litigants to renew their claims multiple times.
Even when it's clear they don't have a chance, uber-greens have no incentive to halt their lawfare.
After all, they get months of media coverage and make infrastructure more costly to build.
Even when it's clear they don't have a chance, uber-greens have no incentive to halt their lawfare.
After all, they get months of media coverage and make infrastructure more costly to build.
January 26, 2025 at 11:44 AM
Part of the problem is the ability of litigants to renew their claims multiple times.
Even when it's clear they don't have a chance, uber-greens have no incentive to halt their lawfare.
After all, they get months of media coverage and make infrastructure more costly to build.
Even when it's clear they don't have a chance, uber-greens have no incentive to halt their lawfare.
After all, they get months of media coverage and make infrastructure more costly to build.