The Government should show how this offers value for money to taxpayers and should be open to other alternative partnerships between the public and private sectors as practised in other countries (including those set out in Table 2). The choice to proceed with gigawatt-scale nuclear power should not be made without robust estimates of its value for money, including the financial value of the construction risk being assumed by taxpayers or billpayers. A headline lower cost than Hinkley Point C...

The Government should show how this offers value for money to taxpayers and should be open to other alternative partnerships between the public and private sectors as practised in other countries (including those set out in Table 2). The choice to proceed with gigawatt-scale nuclear power should not be made without robust estimates of its value for money, including the financial value of the construction risk being assumed by taxpayers or billpayers. A headline lower cost than Hinkley Point C is not justified if the value of the risk is too great. This is true even if it forces a conclusion that—for all its other advantages—gigawatt scale new Type: recommendation | Number: 40 | Paragraph: 218 | Response status: under_consideration Government response: The illustrative costs of building and financing a new nuclear power plant using the RAB model as compared to a CFD are outlined in paragraphs 72 - 74 and tables 2 - 4 of the Impact Assessment (IA) for the Nuclear Energy (Financing) 202