stewartb
‘Reforms to planning rules will clear a path for smaller, and easier to build nuclear reactors – known as Small Modular Reactors –to be built for the first time ever in the UK.’
Just how many SMRs will be built in the UK…. and why? What will determine the number?
From Nuclear Engineering International magazine (NEI, May 15, 2025): ‘Is the UK ready to give the SMR go-ahead?’ (https://www.neimagazine.com/analysis/is-the-uk-ready-to-give-the-go-ahead/ )
‘The UK government wants to open the door to fleets of small modular reactors across the country. To achieve that, it has to sweep away some longstanding barriers created by electricity network rules and the framework that governs the building of new infrastructure. (my emphasis)
‘….. the government has now pinned its hopes on small modular reactors (SMRs), which it intends will be built out in numbers on industrial and commercial sites close to major power users, as well as existing nuclear sites.’
How many SMRs? “Fleets’ and ‘in numbers’!
From NEI magazine (April 30, 2025) ‘Westinghouse drops out of UK SMR competition.’
‘Earlier in April, three of the four competition finalists in Great British Nuclear’s (GBN’s) small modular reactor (SMR) competition submitted their final tenders. The four finalists received an Invitation to Submit Final Tender (ISFT) in February – GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy International, Holtec Britain, Rolls-Royce SMR, and Westinghouse Electric Company.’
‘GBN was expected to announce two winners this summer with bidders told to prepare to build three to four mini reactors each. …. The contracts are expected to total £20bn ($26.7bn) – £10bn each if two companies are selected.’
‘However, The Telegraph reported in February that the Government was considering awarding only one contract as Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor “is struggling to balance the books as weak economic growth makes it harder to meet her self-imposed ‘fiscal rules’ for borrowing.
And then: ‘There is growing concern that the economics of SMRs could prove even hard to justify at the high costs for the initial four units. None of the bidders has built their designs which are still in development. All SMRs in the GBN competition will be first-of-a-kind units (FOAK), which will push up costs.
‘Commenting on the issue, Neutron Bytes noted: “Most estimates are that economies of scale based on factory production of SMRs, promised by all four vendors, only kick in when order books come in “fleet mode,” e.g. by the dozen or more. It follows that even £10bn could be insufficient to cover the costs of four units any of the three 300 MWe offerings based on their status as FOAK projects.”
‘It added: “Splitting the difference for the GBN competition, e.g. awarding one winner £10bn, keeps the SMR initiative alive, but does nothing to promote long-term “fleet mode” production of SMRs which the UK nuclear industry points out is the only way to achieve economies of scale with factory production of SMRs.”
The whole venture – based on the above analysis – seems to be on shaky commercial ground. Will the number of SMRs built in the UK be determined by the commercial requirements of the corporates delivering the SMRs?
£20bn is a lot of money: what could an investment of Scotland’s share of such UK government finance (say 10%) achieve if invested in tidal energy technology as an example?
And in any event, given Scotland’s energy needs and (non-nuclear) renewable energy generation capacity (existing and in development), what is the strategic investmentcase specifically for Scotland to be investing – via this UK government initiative – in FOAK SMR technology? Even if SMRs were deemed relevant to Scotland’s energy needs – a big IF – why be a first /very early adopter rather than a purchaser on the world market when (if) SMR technology is tried and tested?
Scotland in Union doesn’t get the opportunity to optimise its energy (and economic) future – yet again!
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
https://dearscotland.substack.com/p/nuclear-power-in-scotland-not-economic
LikeLiked by 2 people
Scotland needs more Nuclear Power Stations like Custer needed another Indian !
LikeLiked by 1 person
So that’s how they have found more money for the WFP and ending the two-child cap! There’s also more than enough money left over to pay for Project Willow at Grangemouth and the Acorn CSS Scheme for Peterhead.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hickley Point years late and over budget. A total waste of monies.
Labour scrapped two tidal projects. One at the Humber. £10Billion each.
Trident dumped in Scotland. Wasting £Billion over time.
Decommissioning nuclear £13Billion a year. Nowhere to put the waste.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That heading picture is what the ‘small’ in SMR looks like in reality by the time all the support structure is added, the Linglong One, the world’s first commercial SMR, an ACP100 expected on-line next year…. Imagine how a ‘fleet’ of them will go down with the Nimbys already kicking up hell about pylons….
As commented on the previous article – It’s not ‘red-tape’ which is the problem in the UK, but short-sighted politics and neo-liberal economics….
Whereas China heavily invests in construction and infrastructure for the benefit of the populace, the UK quite simply does not.
The UK’s energy problems are all in the south and south east of England, and that’s before they finally begin building high energy consuming RO plants to deal with water scarcity…
Scotland doesn’t need SMRs let alone FOAK, it needs grid reinforcement and a programme of energy conservation to reduce household demand…
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Scotland doesn’t need SMRs let alone FOAK, it needs grid reinforcement and a programme of energy conservation to reduce household demand…”
Unfortunately what Scotland needs is never what it gets from any UK government as they , as a UK government, are not there for the benefit of us the people who live in Scotland, they are there to impose what they decide they want to do.
They, as the various UK governments, are apparently the only ones who get to decide what we, Scotland, need and want , which invariably is the opposite of what we actually need and want.
Ultimately that ends up with us , as a nation, paying the price for their mistakes and poor decisions long after they are , as a UK party, no longer those in power as the UK government, as at some point they will be replaced by yet another new UK government , who then do the exact same things to Scotland as all of the previous UK governments have done……and worse.
A very British vicious circle for Scotland to be a part of hence many of us wishing to break that British vicious circle and so finally get Scottish independence, which is a very much deserved , justified and legitimate cause, more so when one considers what we, Scotland, have had to suffer for so so long as a part of their absolute sh*t UK/Great Britain.
Liz S
LikeLiked by 1 person
” Unfortunately what Scotland needs is never what it gets from any UK government ” is true, even if it hurts England in the process….
Never mind that they gazumped the Peterhead-Norway interconnect (the Norwegians came to regret that decision recently) to keep England as the energy gateway, they stalled on upgrading the grid bottlenecks between Scotland and England despite power availability rapidly increasing. Orkney has been screaming for their connector to be upgraded for yonks, maybe next year….
Only now has the political mendacity reduced, but consider the SMR question for Scots as “how many other wind turbines have to be turned off ? ” –
If Starmer truly wanted ” clean, secure and more affordable energy for working people “, he’d let policy decisions be dictated by power engineers and energy conservation experts, not lobby groups and Ministers who don’t have a scooby…
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a good read.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/may/23/scottish-labour-accused-of-trying-to-hide-candidates-link-to-scandal-hit-firm
LikeLike
‘Imagine how a ‘fleet’ of them will go down with the Nimbys already kicking up hell about pylons…‘ (Bob Lamont) Indeed – and let’s add to their concerns.
The website https://small-modular-reactors.org is a rich source of information on Small Modular (Nuclear) Reactors (SMRs). It has a noteworthy section on Waste Storage Solutions. ‘Challenges’ for SMR Spent Fuel Disposal include but are not limited to:
‘Higher burn-up and radioactivity: The high burn-up and radioactivity of SMR spent fuel make it more difficult to handle, transport, and store, requiring enhanced safety measures and additional resources.’
Regarding ‘higher burn-up’ – ‘By achieving higher burnup, SMRs can extract more energy from their fuel, leading to lower fuel consumption and waste production’ and ‘Although high burnup can reduce the volume of nuclear waste generated, it can also result in higher levels of radioactivity in spent fuel. This may require new strategies for spent fuel management, such as advanced reprocessing and disposal techniques.’
Another ‘challenge’ – ‘Geographical distribution: SMRs are typically deployed in remote or distributed locations, making it more difficult to centralize spent fuel management and disposal. This can lead to higher transportation costs and additional logistical challenges.’’
‘Public perception: The public perception of nuclear power and its associated waste management remains a significant challenge. Addressing the unique characteristics of SMR spent fuel and ensuring public acceptance of disposal solutions is vital for the successful deployment of these reactors.’
As far as I can see there are no efforts by the UK government to inform far less consult on the implications of locating ‘fleets’ of SMRs. We do know there are reforms to planning regulations in England being legislated for by the Westminster government. Most of the attention has focused on what the reforms will mean for house building: implications for siting SMRs coupled with on-site nuclear waste disposal anyone?
And on the characteristics of the waste from SMRs: ‘Similar to their large-scale counterparts, SMRs generate two primary types of nuclear waste: low-level waste (LLW) and high-level waste (HLW). LLW typically consists of materials used in reactor operations, such as protective clothing, filters, and tools, which have been contaminated by radioactive isotopes. In contrast, HLW is predominantly spent nuclear fuel (SNF), which contains highly radioactive isotopes that can remain dangerous for thousands of years.
‘Although SMRs produce a smaller volume of nuclear waste compared to traditional reactors, the higher power density of SMRs can result in higher radioactivity levels in the generated waste.’
The source acknowledges the lack of permanent disposal options for nuclear waste at present – ‘still being researched and developed’: ‘still’ being the key word here. There will be reliance on ‘interim storage solutions’, using both on-site and off-site facilities.
So NIMBYs take note once again: ‘On-site storage facilities are located within the boundaries of the SMR plant and typically consist of pools, casks, or silos designed to store spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste. These facilities often employ a combination of wet and dry storage methods to safely contain the waste. Wet storage involves placing spent fuel rods in deep, water-filled pools, while dry storage involves transferring the spent fuel to robust, sealed containers that can be stored on-site or transported off-site. SMRs can benefit from on-site storage solutions, as they often have smaller land requirements and may be built closer to populated areas.‘
‘Off-site storage facilities are designed to accommodate nuclear waste from multiple reactors, including SMRs. These facilities can take the form of centralized storage sites, which consolidate waste from several plants, or regional storage facilities, which serve a specific geographic area. Off-site storage can be an attractive option for SMR operators, as it allows for economies of scale and the potential for cost savings by sharing infrastructure and resources. Additionally, off-site storage can alleviate concerns related to on-site storage capacity, especially for SMR plants with limited available land.’
The website also discusses ‘deep geological repositories’ (DGRs) for permanent storage of waste and advanced reprocessing technologies. On DGRs, it notes: ‘For SMRs, the small modular design may allow for the development of smaller-scale DGRs tailored to the unique requirements of these reactors, potentially reducing the time and cost associated with constructing large-scale facilities.’ Fleet of mini Sellafields?
These options for fleets of SMRs – and in the context of more permissive planning legislation in England – should be yet another alert for future ‘NIMBYs’!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Apologies for the convoluted comment Stewart, but I have a hunch on why Labour have been promoting SMRs since taking office, most notably by the State of a Secretary for Greggs totally bombing despite being platformed by MSM promoting rejection of this ‘salvation’ as a purely political choice by SNP, and much of it is related to water – Watch for power blackouts this coming summer coupled with severe and widespread water shortages across southern England, which will inevitably cause public unrest given such as Thames Water’s ‘difficulties’.
Starmer et al don’t ultimately care about the dangers or costs of SMRs when they’re looking for an excuse for imminent disaster – Successive HMGs have ignored England warnings for the 45th year including that led by Bliar – Starmer needed a squirrel, covered in red-tape carrying a 30,000 page environmental impact assessment as excuse for why it’s all going to go so horribly wrong.
The fastest construction for ANY reactor worldwide is ca 6 years, so even were construction of an SMR to begin tomorrow, SE England would still have to endure an annual ritual of power outages and no water for 6 years, assuming Starmer’s attention was not accidentally to be drawn by Moron McSweeney that this was warned 45 years ago – HMG were strenuously advised to build and power RO plants, otherwise deaths and outages were unavoidable.
Quite why such moronic behaviour is promoted to governance in the UK forever eludes me….
LikeLike
I came across this “This is equivalent to the output of two full-scale nuclear reactors, but without the use of uranium, natural gas, or carbon emissions” in a piece on pumped storage jasondeegan.com/a-new-energy-giant-in-the-uk-could-soon-power-14-million-homes-non-stop/ though the UK part is misleading.
This was also a good read http://www.thenational.scot/business/25186916.visited-battery-plant-transforming-energy-storage—verdict/?fbclid=IwY2xjawKf9_pleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFkaGF0UjFsZTVTdXRaZUh6AR5RPLIMJkUD5nmWj-PDJgNT9PKntTfiqTdrv1zKcKw_7-lAjh2dxFIyp5E_PA_aem_NyJeh18_P-ex5jgJlwqpQw
Totally off topic, did anyone see the BBC Scotland programme on Gruniard Island about the anthrax experiments and the Scottish activists fightback? I remembered bits but not all the detail, well worth a watch.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for these Brenda
I did watch Gruinard Island piece – fascinating and very disturbing.
John
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did they specify who was responsible for that disgraceful environmental vandalism on Scottish land?
LikeLike
Gruniard Island , when during the second World War scientists were carrying out germ warfare experiments , that then meant that for decades it was too dangerous for public access there.
Then we also see Scotland being host to major bi-annual military exercises which is a “UK-led, multinational exercise, which involves warships, aircraft, marines, and troops from the UK, NATO, and allied forces, that takes place twice a year in spring and autumn”.
Why Scotland for this military exercise ?
Well “Scotland’s seas, lochs and coasts are apparently integral to the ‘British’ Royal Navy’s operations, training and trials”.
“Where a freedom to manoeuvre in both deep and shallow water, a limited civilian population and low air and sea traffic provides ideal training conditions
Also not forgetting that we also have their UK Trident Nuclear submarines berthed in Scotland. (The UK government owns the warheads for Trident missiles, but the missiles themselves are leased from the United States).
That’s what Scotland is to their UK State, we are just the British guinea pig for those things that they deem to be either too dangerous for elsewhere in their UK State , not suitable to either do or have elsewhere in their UK State or as a ‘trial’ to see what transpires and so all of these are then considered acceptable to do within Scotland by various UK governments new and old (and as a constant).
Of course we, Scotland , were also the British Guinea Pigs for the Poll Tax in 1989, where it was decided via Thatcher’s Tory UK government to first implement it here in Scotland as a ‘trial’ , there was a mass opposition and rejection to it within Scotland , however that meant for nothing as far the Tory UK government were concerned.
(As our voices and our dissent in Scotland just did not matter to a Thatcher led Tory UK government, and our voices and our dissent still have not mattered to any other subsequent UK governments since then).
However it , the Poll tax, was then rolled out in England (and Wales) in 1990, after the ‘trial’ in Scotland, and they, the English people, then also revolted against it, and so lo an behold only then , after a revolt and opposition by English people for this Tory policy , was it then dropped as a Tory policy in 1991.
(Yet again the WM King Makers , that is the UK’s largest population within England must be listened to, or the UK political party who does not listen to them will then suffer, as they , as UK political parties , will not then be those whom the larger population of England vote for in all various UK State subsequent elections).
So looking at all of the above examples you then see other reasons why the various UK governments want to keep Scotland a part of their UK State.
Where as well as our existing valuable Scottish resources that they have stolen for their UK State , we now also see that our capacity within Scotland for other future potential valuable resources will then also be plundered by their UK government’s for their supposed ‘whole’ UK State’s benefit. (maybe less for Scotland’s benefit compared to the benefit for elsewhere in their UK State #England).
Then also our quality Scottish Food and Drink that is so popular elsewhere in the world , so then , as Scottish produce , they are able to be exported elsewhere in the world by the , checks bloody notes, UK government.
Then there is also our Scottish taxes that are paid into their UK Treasury coffers.
(Sure above is not an exhaustive list of all that they ‘take’ from us and also all that they ‘need’ from us for their (supposed ‘whole’) UK State’s benefit – past-present-future benefits).
So the reality is that Scotland, as a nation within their UK State , is then very much considered by various (past-present-future) UK governments to be far far far too valuable as a nation within their UK State, for them as a future UK government to ever “allow” us another vote in the future on Scottish independence, as potentially we , as the people of a rich Scottish nation , then may perhaps vote YES to leave their UK State.
You know when you do just a wee bit of research from various reliable sources you then see just exactly how rich and valuable Scotland truly is , and then all of the British Nationalist propaganda nonsense of us, Scotland, being so very very reliant on their UK State subsidising us, as Scots, far far more than any others within their UK State, then becomes laughable, as in a hollow kind of laugh and not a funny one .
Vote SNP via a majority in 2026 to show this current UK government and their various client media , that we , Scotland, choose others (the SNP) to govern us as we consider the SNP to be far better than they are as various (UK) governments, in the past, now and also in the future (which we hope that the SNP will -at least initially and perhaps for longer- govern us in the future as a independent nation free from being seen as and treated as their British Guinea Pigs).
Liz S
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘Why Scotland … Well “Scotland’s seas, lochs and coasts are apparently integral to the ‘British’ Royal Navy’s operations, training and trials”.’ – and the rest!
From The Independent (May 31, 2018) Cape Wrath: What it’s like to go hiking on the largest bombing range in Western Europe.
Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/uk/cape-wrath-trail-walking-holidays-route-durness-bombing-range-uk-travel-a8376936.html
‘Cape Wrath sprawls over 50,000 acres and is home to the largest bombing range in Western Europe. UK and other European forces plus Nato jets and navy ships fire live shells (including, allegedly, uranium-tipped missiles) into the barren landscape as a way of fine-tuning their latest toys and gadgets. When they come out to play, they close down the road and access to Cape Wrath.’
And on the walk in and out of the area: ‘The views are consistently, enduringly breathtaking. At the first crest in the road Sandwood Bay, arguably the most hauntingly gorgeous beach in the UK, guarded by its attendant sea stack, emerges. Then the route flicks inland and for the next four miles the only sign of human presence is the sight of large shipping containers dropped in the moors which are used for target practice by the air force. Red deer amble between them.’
For current ‘firing times’ at the following MOD ranges in Scotland – Barry Buddon, Kirkcudbright, Garelochhead, Tain, Cape Wrath, Fort George, Blackdog, Castlelaw Ranges and Dreghorn – see: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scotland-firing-times .
LikeLike
And let’s not forget the ‘value’ of Scotland to the MoD for storage purposes! Let’s not forget the toxic hulks of nuclear-powered submarines lying in Rosyth waiting ….
According to Forces News (January 16, 2025) on ‘Disposal of nuclear powered Royal Navy submarines’ we learn that:
‘… the work on HMS Swiftsure, which will be the first UK nuclear-powered submarine to be fully dismantled, is on track to finish by the end of 2026.’ – The hunter-killer submarine Swiftsure was withdrawn from service in 1992! So a wait of over 30 years!
Nuclear Engineering International (October 29, 2024) ‘UK nuclear submarine disposal concerns rise – The UK Parliament has raised concerns over delays in dismantling decommissioned nuclear submarines, as efforts to refine disposal processes continue.’
‘The 2019 Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report referred to in the parliamentary answers noted that the UK retired its 20 legacy submarines in 1980 and MOD’s progress in disposing of these submarines “has been a serious disappointment”. The project has moved at a “glacial pace” and “the 15-year delay has led to extortionate storage and maintenance costs”. MOD “is also looking increasingly likely to find itself without any further storage space by the mid-2020s” and “is rapidly approaching crisis point and simply cannot afford any further delays”.
‘While it has taken MOD 16 years to devise a workable dismantling strategy “progress is now being made and there is finally some momentum behind the project”. However, while there is now an agreed policy, “we remain sceptical that the ambitious timetable will be met, particularly given how many times this project has been delayed or deprioritised over the years”.
‘It is clear that the commitment to dismantle Swiftsure by 2023 “will not be met and will likely be completed three years after the target date”.’ Even then, that’s just one down, six or is it seven others at Rosyth to go!
LikeLiked by 1 person