Why not write to your MP?
Dear [MP’s Name],
Re: Urgent Concerns Regarding Ed Miliband’s £30 Billion Carbon Capture Plan
I am writing to express my serious concern about the actions of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Ed Miliband, and to urge you to challenge what I believe may amount to misfeasance or malfeasance in public office.
Mr Miliband’s proposal to spend £30 billion of taxpayers' money on carbon capture and storage (CCS) is deeply misguided. CCS is an unproven and unreliable technology, with a track record of failure and underperformance. A comprehensive 2022 report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis found that “the majority of CCS projects have underperformed, failed outright, or simply never materialised.”
In contrast, a similar investment—£30 billion—could fund the construction of approximately six modern nuclear power stations. South Korea’s APR-1400 reactor model, successfully deployed in the United Arab Emirates, offers a compelling example of cost-effective nuclear development. The four Barakah reactors, with a total capacity of 5.6 GW, are expected to supply around 25% of the UAE’s electricity at a cost of approximately £18–20 billion—and crucially, were delivered close to schedule and budget.
France’s historical nuclear program also proves that a consistent, standardised rollout of nuclear infrastructure can deliver low-carbon energy at scale, affordably. By the 1990s, France was producing over 70% of its electricity from nuclear, thanks to efficient planning and strong political will.
Unlike CCS, nuclear power requires no speculative technology to sequester emissions. It produces consistent, reliable base-load electricity, and during summer months could cover the vast majority of the UK’s energy needs. Furthermore, nuclear assets are ideal for long-term institutional investors—including pension funds—because of their predictable, inflation-linked returns. By contrast, CCS, wind, and solar remain volatile, intermittent, and risk-laden from an investment perspective.
Given the overwhelming evidence against CCS as a viable large-scale solution, Mr Miliband’s decision to prioritise it over proven, cost-effective alternatives like nuclear is deeply troubling. I believe this course of action represents a negligent misuse of public funds, driven more by ideology than sound science or economics.
I urge you to raise this matter in Parliament, question the rationale behind this spending commitment, and push for a reassessment of our national energy priorities. The UK deserves an energy strategy that is grounded in technological reality and fiscal responsibility.
Thank you for your continued service to our constituency. I look forward to hearing your views on this matter.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
