Korea-upon-Tees
How giving bits of land away could solve Britain’s energy crisis.
Britain's nuclear energy costs are among the highest globally, primarily due to stringent regulations and underdeveloped supply chains. The government is keen to address these issues, with the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) increasing collaboration with international counterparts to expedite the approval of foreign reactor designs. Additionally, the newly established Nuclear Taskforce aims to accelerate nuclear reform, and if speculations about its composition are accurate, there is reason for optimism.
However, these initiatives will take time to yield results. While medium-term prospects for regulatory reform appear promising, the development of robust supply chains to reduce nuclear costs will take longer. We need to start building more nuclear today. So, how can we achieve this?
Bringing Korea to the UK
Instead of slowly aligning UK policies with those of South Korea, we could consider a more direct approach: leasing parts of the UK to Korea.
The UK has ample land, and nuclear power plants occupy relatively small footprints. By leasing parcels of land to Korea, governed by Korean nuclear regulations, the UK could immediately benefit from Korea's streamlined regulatory framework and significantly lower nuclear energy costs. For instance, Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) has achieved incredible cost efficiencies in the United Arab Emirates, delivering electricity at less than half the cost per megawatt-hour compared to the UK's Hinkley Point C project.
Under such an arrangement, the UK could agree to purchase electricity from these Korean-administered zones at rates comparable to those achieved by KEPCO internationally. Treaties would delineate responsibilities, ensuring that Korea handles cleanup and compensation in the unlikely event of an incident. While this might introduce some insurance costs for KEPCO, the overall savings would far offset these expenses. British nuclear inspectors could have access to these sites, not as decision-makers but to raise alerts if any significant issues arise.
To foster competition, similar territorial concessions could be offered to France and the US, challenging them to match or undercut Korean efficiency. Ideal locations for these ventures would be near existing nuclear infrastructure slated for decommissioning, where public support for nuclear energy remains strong.
A Korean nuclear engineer enjoying a well-deserved Parmo after her shift at the Korea-upon-Tees nuclear plant.
Sovereignty
A predictable objection is that this approach compromises UK sovereignty. While it's true that a forgotten corner of Teesside would temporarily become Korean territory, it's worth noting that many British MPs advocate for closer trade relationships with entities like the EU or the US, which would have far bigger impacts on everyone’s lives than the requirement to show a passport to enter a nuclear facility almost no one in the UK will ever visit.
Moreover, while the land would be under foreign jurisdiction, the majority of jobs, both at the plant and within its supply chain, would be filled by British workers. This arrangement ensures that when the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) establishes more favourable nuclear regulations, a ready supply chain will be in place to support future domestic projects.
International precedents exist for such arrangements. South Korea hosts thousands of American soldiers on bases that are effectively small slices of American territory in East Asia. Access to these areas by Koreans is restricted, requiring thorough vetting procedures. Yet, Korean leaders have deemed these minor concessions of sovereignty worthwhile for national security. Why shouldn't Britain consider a similar strategy for energy security?
A Hedge Against Policy Missteps
If ambitious goals like achieving net-zero power by 2030 falter or prove more costly than anticipated, and if political shifts lead to less favourable energy policies, the risk of increased prices and blackouts grows. In such scenarios, the UK might find itself scrambling to establish interconnectors to countries like France, Morocco, and Norway to secure power.
Leasing territory to Korea could serve as a safeguard against potential policy errors. Historically, when Britain leased the New Territories from China, it was initially seen as a loss of face for China. However, during subsequent periods of turmoil and policy missteps in China, Hong Kong, under British administration, thrived economically. When China returned to more sensible leadership Hong Kong stood as an inspiration. When Hong Kong returned to China it made up 18% of China's economy, demonstrating how such arrangements can provide stability amid broader instability. Similarly, a Korea-on-Tees could offer the UK a stable energy source insulated from domestic policy fluctuations.
Cheaper energy, enhanced energy security, the development of a robust nuclear supply chain, and perhaps even a newfound appreciation for bibimbap—what's not to like?