Regulation & Industry

Fission Impossible: Building Better Nuclear for the Future

According to the 2020 Energy White Paper, electricity demand could double by 2050. In order to meet these new requirements, and the government’s own ambition to have nuclear make up 25% of Britain’s energy mix, it is imperative that we build more nuclear in this country.

But nuclear power is still playing second fiddle to other sources of energy. Most existing sites are currently scheduled to close by 2030. And even tacit support from the government for new nuclear power development is difficult to gain. Approval for the construction of nuclear power is sclerotic and too often inhibited by government bureaucracy and inaction. 

According to a new report from the Adam Smith Institute (ASI), the government’s current approach, namely its Great British Nuclear competition, ‘picks winners’ by co-funding favoured technologies and granting site approval. Whilst a competitive tendering process can be beneficial, the combination of this scheme and a sclerotic planning system limits the ability of privately-funded nuclear developers to proceed at pace.

In order to accelerate the nuclear development we need in this country, this report includes the following recommendations:

  1.  Establish a ‘Contracts for Difference’ (CfD) approach, under which more potential producers are able to sell power for a certain price. This method would be far more ‘technology neutral,’ allowing developers to enter the UK market without the need for taxpayer-funded subsidies;

  2.  Encourage developers to create plans to deliver a full fleet of reactors, rather than forcing them to undergo a piecemeal approval process. This would increase investment in nuclear facilities, as economies of scale reduce costs for developers and energy bills for consumers;

  3. Introduce a mutual recognition of standards for Advanced Modular Reactors by looking to international best practice, such as in France;

  4. Remove existing sites from the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority ownership;

  5. Make better use of the UK's nuclear waste stockpile. We should reprocess the waste into nuclear fuels to be used in domestic energy production, as other countries such as France and Japan do, instead of storing it for thousands of years underground.

Smoke Free Rooms: Reviewing the Recommendations of the FCTC's COP10

This year, the World Health Organisation (WHO)’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) will be meeting in Panama for its 10th Conference of Parties. It will be recommending that the regulation and taxation of tobacco harm reduction technologies- such as heated tobacco and vapes- should be equalised with that of cigarettes.

As this new paper by Maxwell Marlow highlights, this could seriously set back the government’s smoke free by 2030 target, impacting public services, health and tax revenue in the process.

This paper recommends the following:

  • The UK’s delegates should vote against the primary recommended policies, and instead seek to uphold the current, evidence-based health policy of the British government;

  • Delegates should seek to outline and implement a Swedish-style solution to tobacco harms globally;

  • The UK government should open a wider consultation on the legalisation of snus, and on the future of disposal vapes. This should include the implementation of a Deposit Return Scheme for disposable vapes;

  • The Department of Health and Social Care should roll-out nicotine pouches and heated tobacco as part of its Stop to Swap scheme, and include any smoker, regardless of intensity of consumption, on it.

Tipping Point: On The Edge of Superintelligence

In this groundbreaking discussion paper, authors Connor Axiotes and Eddie Bolland, make the case for thinking ahead when it comes to artificial superintelligence, recommending we spur innovation, research, and investment into AI companies, whilst also proactively adapting policies to the effects of such a monumental shift in technology.

The paper recommends:

1. Invest in British Computing Resources

a. Allow our existing British public computing power and new exascale capacity to be used by our world leading universities for AI safety work - because universities are being crowded out by private labs with much more access to ‘cloud compute.’

b. The introduction of a new ‘British Compute Reserve.’

2. Setting the UK up for Success

a. Planning reform - build on the green belt, and implement street votes to make the UK a country high skilled AI safety researchers want to live in.

b. Lower corporation tax to an internationally competitive level so that more AI companies want to set up here in the UK.

3. Create a Public Comprehensive AI Monitoring System

a. Begin to monitor the largest AI models. A multilateral and unobtrusive monitoring of lab training runs would systematically track their capabilities and the extent of their alignment, to make sure innovative AI systems are safe and have few harmful emergent properties.

b. Making third-party external audits mandatory for largest/riskiest lab training runs.

4. UK to Lead the World in International Agreements on the Safe Deployment of Advanced AI Systems

a. The UK should take the lead on creating an International Agency for AI (IAAI).

b. A P5 statement on air-gapping nuclear weapons facilities from AI to reduce the chance of accidental nuclear strikes.

c. Lay out the structure and objectives of Bletchley Park’s 2023 AI Safety Summit.

5. Expand Educational Grants and High-Skilled Visa Scheme

a. Increase youth engagement in STEM through tax-credits to private companies to address long term skills shortages.

b. Eliminate obstacles to obtaining the High Potential Individual visa.

c. Align High-skilled Visa schemes with the priorities of prospective applicants to maintain the UK’s position as a global leader in attracting AI talent.

d. Expand university courses alongside changing patterns of demand for priority areas to prevent future skills shortages.

e. Integrate the Adam Smith Institute’s model for visa auction markets.

6. Regulatory Markets for AI

a. The UK should utilise ‘Regulatory Markets’ - private regulatory experts to bring their experience in helping with safety-based, innovation-inducing AI legislation. This would help to solve the knowledge gap between the government and the relevant regulatory body.

7. Government Investment in AI Safety

a. The Great British AI Prizes: cash prizes for open research questions in AI safety, such as ‘how do we stop larger models from hallucinating?’

b. If sovereign capabilities such as a public LLM are sought after, then AI alignment researchers and academics should be able to access them for safety work.

8. Facilitate the Safe Use of APIs for Innovative SMEs and Researchers

a. Enable SMEs and researchers to develop products and carry out safe research through APIs accessed on the research resource.

b. Implement risk based requirements for API access to reduce the risk of misuse and encourage private participation.

9. Effective Procurement to Increase Efficiency and Innovation

a. Introduce Challenge Based Procurement to improve the efficiency and reduce the barriers for smaller 5 firms.

b. The Office for AI should identify opportunities for procurement to support proof of concept work too risky for nationwide deployment.

c. Procurement for AI assurance within the public sector to support private sector firms and ensure safe deployment.

10. Saving Lives with AI-Powered Medicine while Reducing Engineered Pandemic Risk

a. The NHS should invest in Generalist Medical AI capabilities through the NHS AI Lab.

b. Introduction of Three Lines of Defence Structure to ensure the UK is proactively prepared for biosecurity risks.

c. Invest in pathogen monitoring systems and introduction of bio-engineering licences.

11. Implement a Review on the Possible Labour Effects of Future AGI

a. Commission a White Paper on what the introduction of a universal basic income (UBI) or a negative income tax (NIT) would look like in a worst-case scenario;

b. Introduce NIT and UBI trials to prepare for the possibility of AI caused unemployment.

Safeguarding Progress: The risks of internet regulation

A new paper by Matthew Lesh, the ASI’s Head of Research, and Sam Dumitriu and Philip Salter of the The Entrepreneurs Network, makes the case for a free, open internet:

  • Technology is improving our lives, connecting people, creating communities and contributing to Britain’s economy to the tune of £170bn a year.

  • The policy environment is becoming increasingly hostile to technology, undermining the free exploration of ideas and innovation that is essential to economic progress.

  • If policymakers want to encourage entrepreneurship they should embrace a culture of ‘permissionless innovation’.

    • Permissionless innovation means allowing entrepreneurs to experiment with new business models and technologies, and only intervening when there are clear, demonstrable harms to the public. 

    • Growing calls to regulate the internet risk undermining progress and threaten the future of the internet and the digital economy.

  • Platform liability exemptions are essential to the fabric of the internet, and promote free speech and enterprise.

    • The exemption of platforms, such as Google and Facebook, from liability for the activity of their users was essential for the development of the internet, and digital innovation, and has delivered massive benefits for consumers.

    • Laws forcing platforms to be liable for user content to restrict hate speech have prompted social media companies to engage in excessively risk-averse moderation, threatening freedom of expression. Further measures such as the EU’s new Copyright Directive threaten the capacity of ‘creators’ to remix copyrighted content and share memes, while the Online Harms White Paper is a serious threat to free expression.

  • Internet red tape undermines small business, competition, and entrepreneurial activity

    • There is intense competition within the technology sector, including between large online platforms and from startups and small businesses. Platforms help stimulate entrepreneurial activity by providing Corporate Venture Capital and opportunities for exit.

    • Controls such as excessive data regulations, by creating barriers to entry and excessive costs, are particularly harmful to startups and small-to-medium sized enterprises (SMEs) that have lesser financial capacity for compliance.

The report also explains that if the Government wants to achieve an open, competitive and entrepreneurial online space they would do well to follow these Five Principles for Permissionless Innovation:

  1. Identify and remove barriers to entry and innovation;

  2. Protect freedom of speech and entrepreneurship by retaining immunities for intermediaries from liability;

  3. Rely on existing legal solutions, the common law, and competitive pressures to solve problems. 

  4. Push for industry self-regulation and best practices.

  5. Adopt targeted, limited legal measures for truly hard problems based on evidence.

Reforming the Regulators

This briefing paper, by ASI fellows Tim Ambler and Keith Boyfield, notes the extraordinary growth of the UK's regulatory agencies since 1997 and the deleterious consequences for the UK economy. They argue that the UK's regulators should first be restricted to their original, purely economic role, and subsequently merged into a single, competition-focused Office of Fair Trading.

Read this report.

Re-energizing Britain

In Re-energizing Britain Nigel Hawkins warns the UK faces blackouts unless the six major energy companies invest. New nuclear plant should be encouraged by replacing the existing Renewables Obligation with a new Low Carbon Obligation, which would include nuclear power. The three key aims of energy policy – security of supply, reduced carbon emissions, and lower prices – would all benefit from this change, since nuclear energy is both low-carbon and less expensive than many other ways of generating electricity, and does not depend on risky supplies of gas from Russia. The government also needs to work with the energy companies to make sure that they have both planning approval and access to finance to increase Britain's gas storage facilities substantially. The UK has only one-tenth of the gas storage of Germany, and is dangerously exposed to interruptions in supply.

Read it here.

Stemming the growth of UK regulatory agencies

The ASI's regulation supremos, Keith Boyfield and Tim Ambler, have published a new briefing paper as part of our Regulatory Monitor project, entitled Stemming the growth of UK regulatory agencies.

The ultimate objective is to merge all the existing regulatory agencies into a single Fair Trade Authority, which would be formally responsible to parliament and which would intervene only to ensure free, competitive markets. A great deal of the regulation aimed at protecting the consumer could be left to the courts, while the greater use of market mechanisms, such as mandatory insurance, would serve to improve standards.

Read it here.