🔗 Share this article

Presidential visits and investment conferences often produce a flurry of announcements about firms planning to invest enormous amounts in the UK. A number of pledges are simply projections of current trends. Others fall into the category of "trust it when you see it". Several include merging various elements to generate an overly exact number for expected financial impact. Genuinely fresh ventures are few, and scepticism is frequently warranted.

How should one view the latest "major pledges" by UK and US firms to build advanced atomic energy facilities in the UK? This, it may actually be one of those rare occasions where cynicism is less warranted.

This development deserves notice because it addresses one of the major obstacles to a "revived era" of nuclear energy: the considerable amount of time needed to bring new projects underway.

Simplifying Regulatory Procedures

As part of the US-UK agreement, each country would accept the other's regulatory and safety regime, which should reduce duplication during the assessment phase. The aim is to reduce the licensing timeline to approximately two years, down from the present three- or four-year wait.

Next-Generation Prefabricated Reactors

An additional notable deal, though still in its initial phase, concerns Centrica and X-Energy collaborating to build up to 12 next-gen prefabricated units (AMRs) in a UK town. The target is to have these operational by the mid-2030s, which would be viewed as swift by atomic sector standards.

This also represents the first time the UK is actively considering building AMRs. These are more compact (at 80-megawatts per reactor) than conventional small modular reactors (SMRs), three of which have been commissioned from Rolls-Royce at 470 megawatts apiece.

Size and Variety in Nuclear Growth

By way of contrast, giant projects like Sizewell C and Hinkley Point C consist of two units per location, totaling 3,200 megawatts. If the UK is to substantially grow its atomic energy capacity, it will likely need to include a range of scales, not just enormous facilities. In this context, the authorities also revealed proposals for a commercially backed off-grid "compact atomic unit" to serve a Thames estuary hub.

Financial Hurdles and Unproven Models

The major qualification, of course, is that the financial viability of smaller-scale reactors are unproven. No one has actually constructed an SMR in the world, and sweeping claims about the advantages of factory production are still confirmed, even if companies like Rolls-Royce express confidence. So far, what is known is that large-scale plants are extremely expensive.

One major project, even though it is a replica of an existing plant and therefore has a finalised design, is still projected to cost £38bn. Additionally, since customers will start paying before construction is complete, the project is expected to add more than £200,000 per year to the bills of large corporate energy users—including water utilities, transport operators, and retail groups—that do not qualify for exclusions.

The Need for Lower Costs

Thus, costs must fall across the board if nuclear power is to make significant progress. Research groups suggest that countries like certain European states are building the same nuclear model for about half the price, while another country builds at nearly one-sixth of the expense.

Experts have numerous proposals on how to reduce expenditure, some of which may be adopted if recent official findings are any guide. These documents have highlighted outdated rules, slow planning frameworks, and "risk-averse cultures that favour bureaucracy over proportionate safety measures".

Political and Public Challenges

It remains difficult to be convinced that talk will be supported by concrete action, especially given likely resistance from local residents and certain disputes over locations for new nuclear plants should be placed once existing locations are used up. However, at the same time, it is hard to ignore that the context for atomic expansion has become more favourable.

Several elements are driving this change: first, a growing awareness that a clean energy grid cannot rely exclusively on variable wind, solar, and batteries; additionally, the fact that green energy prices have risen regardless; and finally, the realisation that if fossil-fuel generation is to be minimised, nuclear remains the only viable option for continuous, low-carbon power. The question of expense still looms large, but it is almost possible that this period will be looked back on as a turning point.