Written By: Faith Jemosop
The UK government has reportedly decided to reject the Xlinks First Power Cable, a $33 billion ($24 billion) subsea project aimed at connecting Morocco’s solar and wind energy directly to British consumers. The project, which proposed a 4,000-kilometre undersea power cable (mostly beneath the Atlantic Ocean), has captured global attention for its ambition, technical complexity, and climate promise.
The rejection is not yet formally confirmed, but signs are strong that London has pulled back. The decision has raised eyebrows, especially given the UK’s outspoken commitment to net-zero goals. So, why did the UK say no?
Here are some of the possible reasons behind the decision, unpacking the technical, economic, and political considerations at play.
1. Unprecedented Technical Complexity and Risk
The proposed subsea cable would have been five times longer than the current longest operational power cable in the world (the North Sea Link between the UK and Norway). At nearly 4,000 km, laying and maintaining such an infrastructure would involve unknown engineering risks, especially beneath the deep Atlantic Ocean.
Although renewable energy transmission via interconnectors is not new, the scale and novelty of this project presented too many uncertainties. Cable faults, maintenance logistics, and undersea environmental factors could significantly increase costs and delays. For a government already facing infrastructure challenges at home, this might have looked like a high-risk gamble.
2. Financial Exposure and Lack of Long-Term Guarantees
The Xlinks consortium, including France’s TotalEnergies, UAE’s Taqa, and UK-based Octopus Energy, had requested a Contract for Difference (CfD) from the UK government. This would have locked in a fixed price for electricity supplied by the project over multiple decades, ensuring predictable returns for investors.
However, the UK government reportedly declined to enter such a long-term agreement, fearing future liability. Locking in energy prices for 20+ years in a rapidly changing energy market may have seemed fiscally risky, especially if local renewables or other global supply options become cheaper.
Also read: Global Energy Progress 2025 Signals Slow March Toward SDG 7A
This echoes concerns over other large-scale infrastructure projects, where governments are cautious about underwriting long-term price commitments that could become politically or economically unpopular later.
3. Domestic Political Pressure and Energy Security Priorities
Although the UK has ambitious climate goals, the political climate is evolving. With energy costs rising and the public demanding energy security over long-term vision, policymakers may have preferred to focus on domestic renewable projects, such as offshore wind or nuclear energy.
There’s also the political optics of relying on foreign energy, even if it’s green. The UK might have preferred to reduce its exposure to external geopolitical risks, especially in the wake of the Ukraine conflict, which reshaped perceptions of energy independence and intercontinental supply chains.
4. Grid Integration and Infrastructure Readiness
Even if the cable could deliver a steady stream of renewable power, questions remain about how seamlessly the UK grid could integrate this energy. The British grid would have required billions of pounds in upgrades just to accommodate the incoming load from the Xlinks cable.
Without clear timelines and certainty on the grid’s readiness, the government may have doubted whether the project could deliver benefits soon enough to justify the investment.
5. No Precedent to De-risk the Model
While the concept of importing renewable energy across continents is exciting, there’s still no successful precedent for a project of this size and structure. Earlier visions like the Desertec Initiative, which planned to power Europe with North African solar energy, collapsed due to political fragmentation, financial uncertainties, and logistical hurdles.
The lack of successful case studies may have made the UK government wary. Investors can take risks with new technologies, but governments tend to prefer tested models, especially when billions of taxpayer-backed pounds are involved.
6. Timing and Market Volatility
The decision may also be influenced by current economic conditions. With inflation pressures, rising public debt, and global supply chain disruptions, governments are becoming increasingly cautious about mega-projects that won’t show immediate payoffs.
The global energy market is also in flux. Prices, demand, and technologies are changing fast. Committing to a fixed-price deal for power deliveries that may start in the early 2030s could feel like locking in a future that’s too uncertain to predict today.