Professor John Robertson OBA
From The Hill two days ago:
President Trump on Friday signed executive orders that seek to quadruple the nation’s nuclear power, including by cutbacks to health and environmental considerations.
In one such executive order, Trump laments that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) radiation safety standards are too stringent.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5316211-trump-executive-orders-nuclear-power/
From From PM Starmer via GOV.UK on 6 February 2025:
More nuclear power plants will be approved across England and Wales as the Prime Minister slashes red tape to get Britain building – as part of his Plan for Change.
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. This will create thousands of new highly skilled jobs while delivering clean, secure and more affordable energy for working people.
This is the latest refusal to accept the status quo, with the government ripping up archaic rules and saying no to the NIMBYs, to prioritise growth. It comes after recent changes to planning laws, the scrapping of the 3-strike rule for judicial reviews on infrastructure projects, and application of common-sense to environmental rules.
For too long the country has been mired by delay and obstruction, with a system too happy to label decisions as too difficult, or too long term. The UK was the first country in the world to develop a nuclear reactor, but the last time a nuclear power station was built was back in 1995. None have been built since, leaving the UK lagging behind in a global race to harness cleaner, more affordable energy.
The industry pioneered in Britain has been suffocated by regulations and this saw investment collapse, leaving only one nuclear power plant – Hinkley Point C – under construction. And this was after years of delay caused by unnecessary rules – meaning companies produced a 30,000-page environmental assessment to get planning permission.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-rips-up-rules-to-fire-up-nuclear-power
What are the risks? Just these:
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
‘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!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Starmer and Labour to build more SMRs as this is what his backers want ! If they wanted more Circus Clowns in No 10 then that would be his priority .
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dejavu 1950s, ” while delivering clean, secure and more affordable energy ” – Are we supposed to be grateful that this time around the ” so cheap to produce it’s not worth billing for ” bullshit has been dropped ?
Despite Starmer’s feeble attempt to blame a ” 30,000-page environmental assessment” on Hinkley ‘C’ being delayed, ‘red tape’ would be a mere blip on the construction timeline.
Whereas the world first commercial SMR ( China, Linglong One, an ACP100 SMR ) is still expected to be on-line in 2026 beating Hinkley, it had nothing to do with planning either, but China’s approach to funding major construction for the benefit of the people – China has heavily invested in constructing thousand of miles of high speed rail in a few short years, compare to HS2 – China hammered on with solar/wind generators at staggering pace along with the grid infrastructure, compare with the grid bottlenecks which still plague Scotland’s energy exports south (the only route) to this day.
It’s not ‘red-tape’ which is the problem in the UK, but short-sighted politics and neo-liberal economics….
LikeLiked by 2 people