Great Britain’s electricity strategy through 2035
What electricity-generation strategy should Great Britain pursue through 2035?
Compare renewables-led clean power, Reform UK’s cost-and-security-first reset, and a nuclear-centred low-carbon route.
Leading proposals
Build renewables-led clean power backed by firm and flexible capacity
Expand wind and solar rapidly, supported by nuclear, storage, interconnectors, networks, demand flexibility and dispatchable backup.
Reconstruction: deliver renewables-led Clean Power with nuclear, batteries, long-duration storage, interconnectors, networks, demand flexibility and dispatchable backup. Published 2030 ranges are 43–50 GW offshore wind, 27–29 GW onshore wind, 45–47 GW solar, 23–27 GW batteries, 4–6 GW long-duration storage and 12–14 GW interconnection, with unabated gas generation toward 5%. Continue transition through 2035.
Caveat: ranges are not guaranteed outcomes or a complete fixed 2035 mix.
Source: DESNZ — Clean Power 2030 Action Plan · Open reference
Make firm nuclear power more central to clean electricity
Continue decarbonisation but give nuclear greater weight and reform planning and regulation.
Reconstruction: maintain low-carbon objectives while making firm nuclear more central alongside renewables and flexibility. Reform planning, regulation and delivery, extend viable stations and accelerate large and modular nuclear.
Caveat: this synthesis does not invent precise 2035 generation shares.
Source: Policy Exchange — Expediting Civil Nuclear Power · Open reference
Put cost and security first and roll back the renewables-led Net Zero strategy
Remove green levies and subsidies, reassess Net Zero and expand reliable domestic energy including oil and gas.
Reconstruction: prioritise affordability and security over the current Net Zero timetable. Remove or reduce green levies and subsidies, reassess renewable commitments and network costs, and permit greater domestic energy including oil and gas.
Caveat: no sufficiently detailed comparable 2035 generation mix is supplied; none is invented here.
Source: Reform UK — Our Contract with You · Open reference
Compare proposals
| Shared metric | Build renewables-led clean power backed by firm and flexible capacity | Make firm nuclear power more central to clean electricity | Put cost and security first and roll back the renewables-led Net Zero strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Curtailment and balancing | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied |
| Capital investment | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied |
| Gas generation | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied |
| Carbon intensity | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied |
| Fuel import exposure | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied |
| Consumer electricity price | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied |
| Reliability and security | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied |
| Whole-system electricity cost | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied | No forecast supplied |
arguments
Arguments
Reduces traded-gas dependence
Domestic low-carbon generation reduces exposure to fuel-price shocks.
Supports: Build renewables-led clean power backed by firm and flexible capacity
System costs extend beyond generators
Networks, balancing, curtailment and backup add costs.
Opposes: Build renewables-led clean power backed by firm and flexible capacity
Delivery pace is demanding
Planning, grids, skills and supply chains must expand together.
Opposes: Build renewables-led clean power backed by firm and flexible capacity
Combines variable and firm resources
The strategy includes resources for low-renewable periods.
Supports: Build renewables-led clean power backed by firm and flexible capacity
Tests whole-system costs
A review can expose networks, backup, curtailment and subsidy commitments.
Supports: Put cost and security first and roll back the renewables-led Net Zero strategy
Fossil prices are international
Domestic extraction does not guarantee low electricity prices.
Opposes: Put cost and security first and roll back the renewables-led Net Zero strategy
Retains dispatchable supply
Thermal capacity supports reliability during low renewables.
Supports: Put cost and security first and roll back the renewables-led Net Zero strategy
Reversal may deter investment
Changing commitments increases uncertainty.
Opposes: Put cost and security first and roll back the renewables-led Net Zero strategy
Adds firm low-carbon output
Nuclear produces during long low-wind periods.
Supports: Make firm nuclear power more central to clean electricity
New nuclear is slow and capital intensive
Long projects carry construction and financing risks.
Opposes: Make firm nuclear power more central to clean electricity
May reduce balancing dependence
A firm core can reduce some storage and backup needs.
Supports: Make firm nuclear power more central to clean electricity
Firm output does not remove flexibility needs
Maintenance and changing demand still require responsive resources.
Opposes: Make firm nuclear power more central to clean electricity
Storage costs rapidly decreasing
Battery storage costs are rapidly decreasing and this will accelerate with Sodium ion batteries.
Also other technologies being developed for longer term storage.
This has a disproportionate impact on the effectiveness of renewables because you can store greater quantities of energy when the renewables are ineffective.
Supports: Whole-system electricity cost
Source: Sodium-ion battery cost projections and their impact on the global energy system transition until 2050 · Open reference