By Anonymous
When I questioned Small Modular Reactors, DeepSeek said
You’re absolutely right to question the readiness of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)—while they are often touted as a potential solution for clean energy, they remain largely unproven at scale, with significant uncertainties around cost, deployment timelines, and real-world performance. Key Issues with SMRs Today1. Limited Real-World Deployment
- No Operational SMRs in the West: While Russia’s Akademik Lomonosov (a floating SMR) is operational and China’s HTR-PM (pebble-bed reactor) is connected to the grid, Western SMR projects are still in development.
- First US/UK SMRs Years Away:
- NuScale (US) had its first project canceled (2023) due to soaring costs.
- Rolls-Royce SMR (UK) aims for deployment by the early 2030s, but no concrete orders yet.
2. Unclear Cost Competitiveness
- Promised vs. Reality: SMRs were supposed to be cheaper due to factory production, but NuScale’s costs rose to ~$9.3B for 462MW (~$20,000/kW—similar to large nuclear).
- Will Economies of Scale Materialize? Without mass orders, per-unit costs may stay high.
3. Regulatory & Supply Chain Hurdles
- New designs require lengthy approvals (e.g., UK’s Generic Design Assessment can take 5+ years).
- Limited supply chains for specialized components (e.g., reactor vessels).
4. Still Produce Nuclear Waste
- While some SMR designs (e.g., molten salt reactors) claim reduced waste, most still generate long-lived radioactive waste—just in smaller volumes.
Should Scotland Wait for SMRs?
- High Risk: Betting on SMRs now means waiting 10-15 years for potential deployment—time Scotland could use to expand tidal, wind, and storage.
- Better Alternatives: Scotland’s pumped hydro (e.g., Coire Glas) + grid-scale batteries + tidal can provide reliability without nuclear’s unknowns.
Conclusion
SMRs are not yet a proven solution—Scotland would be wiser to invest in tidal expansion, storage, and grid flexibility while monitoring SMR developments. If SMRs eventually prove cost-effective and scalable, they could play a role, but right now, they’re a speculative bet, not a near-term solution.
Would you like a deeper dive into any specific SMR project’s challenges?
Talking-up Scotland 
Sadly, this will go straight in the Colonial media Editors bin. No FACTs wanted to interfere with Brit Nat imperial propaganda.
Every newspaper, tv and radio studio has someone dedicated to rubbishing Scotland and promoting ideas deliterious to our national interests. It would be easy to name them, but you would need to hire mafia lawyers to stay this side of the pokey.
Similarly our “bought and paid for” (look, look a flying Peerage!) politicians will get the No10 circular—vote for Nukes or………….
gavinochiltree
LikeLiked by 4 people
Brian Wilson and Labour’s fetish for nuclear Pie-in-the-Sky SMRs will be pushed by the MSM while more realistic renewable options will be derided as Scottish Nationalist fantasy .
Nuclear lobby money well spent !
LikeLiked by 3 people
Labour indulging in more smoke and mirrors.
LikeLiked by 3 people
So far as I’m aware, the only commercial SMR nearing the generation stage is the Longlin (?) in China – IIRC, it took the Chinese 6 years to complete, so you’re likely looking at 20 years for the UK, by which time it will be the former, or FUK…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wish I could remember which US state this happened in, but it would have been well over 20 years ago, so likely when coal was king….
A power company realised that due rising power demand would necessitate building another power station before the term contract was up, all at enormous cost to the company – It turned out to be WAY cheaper to insulate and double glaze private homes for free, and that’s exactly what they did…. That’s impartial intelligence….
LikeLiked by 1 person
How much use and how much credence should be accorded to the output from these readily accessible AI tools? I don’t know enough about what lies behind them but the answers they offer to quite complex questions are – at least – intriguing. As another example, this from Chat GPT (with apologies for length):
My question: Why do all UK electricity interconnectors with mainland Europe have landfalls in England? Does this disadvantage the valorisation of Scotland’s indigenous energy resources and disadvantage Scotland’s economy?
ChatGPT said: ‘This is a sharp and important question. The fact that all of the UK’s current electricity interconnectors with mainland Europe have landfalls in England is not incidental—it’s the result of historical, geographic, economic, and policy-driven factors. But yes, this configuration does create structural disadvantages for the valorisation of Scotland’s indigenous energy resources, and in turn, can limit Scotland’s economic potential in the current UK energy system.
‘Let’s unpack it in detail:
🔌 Why Are All UK–EU Interconnectors in England?
1. Geographical Proximity and Infrastructure Logic
The shortest and most cost-effective routes to mainland Europe are from the south and east coasts of England (e.g. Kent to France, Suffolk to the Netherlands).
Subsea HVDC cables are extremely expensive. Routing from England means shorter distances and lower losses compared to longer cable routes from Scotland.
2. Historical Energy Demand and Grid Configuration
England has always been the UK’s primary demand centre. Interconnectors were designed to supply this demand, not just export excess energy.
The National Grid’s backbone and control infrastructure is largely England-centric, especially in the South East, which is where interconnectors naturally converge.
3. Policy and Investment Priorities
UK interconnectors are largely privately financed and profit-driven, relying on market demand signals.
Projects that connect to where wholesale power prices are highest or most volatile (i.e. southern England and continental Europe) have been more financially attractive.
The UK government has historically underprioritised grid upgrades in Scotland, limiting export flexibility.
⚡ Does This Disadvantage Scotland’s Energy Valorisation?
Yes, in several key ways:
A. Limited Direct Access to EU Markets
Scotland’s abundant renewables (especially offshore wind and tidal) are bottlenecked by reliance on transmission through England.
Without direct interconnection to EU demand centres, Scottish projects are exposed to UK grid congestion and pricing volatility.
B. Curtailment and Lost Revenue
On windy days, Scottish wind farms are routinely curtailed because the grid can’t handle the volume moving south.
Curtailment compensation is paid by consumers (via Balancing Mechanism), but this is wasted clean energy and lost export opportunity.
C. Weaker Bargaining Power and Policy Influence
With no direct link to EU markets, Scotland cannot independently price or market its energy, even though it’s producing a significant share of the UK’s renewable supply.
This limits economic sovereignty and reduces export branding opportunities (e.g. “Scottish Green Hydrogen”).
🧭 Could Direct Interconnectors from Scotland Be Viable?
Yes, and several have been proposed or studied, including:
NorthConnect (Scotland–Norway) – Suspended, partially due to Norwegian regulatory concerns and lack of UK government support.
Hansa PowerBridge and Scotland–Denmark links – Conceptual stages.
Interest in future hydrogen export routes to Germany or the Netherlands.
But challenges include:
Long subsea distances (thus high capital cost).
Regulatory and planning complexity.
Need for stable market access (e.g. post-Brexit EU trade frameworks).
📉 Overall Economic Impact on Scotland
Aspect Impact on Scotland
Export potential 🔻 Limited by transmission bottlenecks
Revenue realisation 🔻 Curtailment = lost sales
Grid investment attraction 🔻 Underweighted historically
Strategic autonomy 🔻 Can’t negotiate energy trade directly
Regional development (rural/coastal) 🔻 Slower industrial spillover
🧩 Summary
The absence of EU-facing interconnectors in Scotland:
Reflects legacy infrastructure, demand centres, and economic rationales.
Inhibits full valorisation of Scotland’s world-class renewable resources.
Constrains Scotland’s economic autonomy in shaping a clean energy future.
Becomes a more acute issue in scenarios like Scottish independence, where direct market access becomes vital.
✅ Strategic Solutions (Whether Independent or Not)
UK-wide investment in north–south grid capacity and distributed transmission.
UK and Scottish governments jointly supporting direct interconnector projects from Scotland.
A tailored Scottish energy export strategy, especially for green hydrogen and marine energy.‘
As I said above – ‘at least intriguing’: and delivered in seconds after the question was formulated. Anyone more informed about these AI tools than me able to advise on what use – if any – to make of this facility to supplement case making and talking up Scotland?
By the way, I do think that the limited extent to which Scotland can valorise its indigenous energy resources – can enhance or try to enhance the price, value and status of these resources by organized and/or government action – whilst within the UK compared to what could be done with the agency of an independent nation-state is marked and crucial to Scotland’s future prosperity. One only has to compare and contrast Scotland and Norway in the context of exploiting offshore oil & gas resources to see the difference having agency can make !
LikeLiked by 2 people
All very realistic apart from the ‘solutions’ because while Scotland is shackled to the country next door, there is no way in a million years that the English administration will partake in any of the suggested ‘solutions’, quite the opposite in fact.
Tragic, for Scotland, a massive bounty and colonial bonus, for England.
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘All very realistic apart from …’ Indeed!
I asked ChatGPT this question: What difference does it make to the valorisation of Scotland’s indigenous energy resources that Scotland is part of the UK and not an independent nation-state?
ChatGPT said:
‘Scotland’s status as part of the United Kingdom has a profound impact on how its indigenous energy resources can be valorised (i.e., translated into economic, social, and strategic value). This influence spans regulatory control, fiscal autonomy, international positioning, investment capability, and resource governance.’ (my emphasis)
After a lengthy response, it concluded: ‘Being part of the UK gives Scotland scale, financial stability, and investment access, but it comes at the cost of control over key levers needed to fully capture the long-term economic and strategic value of its indigenous energy resources. Independence would grant Scotland full sovereignty over its energy economy, enabling it to:
‘Establish a national energy brand and export strategy. However, it would also bring greater fiscal risk, capital access uncertainty, and the challenge of building new regulatory institutions.
‘Set tailored energy and industrial strategies,
‘Capture and invest resource revenues domestically,
‘Reform pricing and grid rules to suit geography.’
I then tried to tease out the remark about ‘fiscal risk’ with this question: ‘Would an independent Scotland face any more ‘fiscal risk’ than other European independent nation-states of comparable size and national wealth, especially given Scotland’s indigenous assets such as energy and other exportable goods and services?‘
ChatGPT concluded, again at the end of a lengthy response: ‘An independent Scotland would not face inherent fiscal disadvantages compared to peer European states — but transitional uncertainty could create short-term risk that must be carefully managed.
‘Scotland’s indigenous resources give it a strong foundation. The key lies in credible governance, smart investment of energy wealth, and international engagement.’
Each of the issues raised in the above responses can be further interrogated e.g. a question about ‘credibility’ internationally received this response: ‘Scotland’s international credibility, particularly with money markets, investors, and sovereign credit rating agencies, would hinge on several key factors. Given the assets you’ve listed, Scotland would start with a strong foundation, and its credibility could be significantly enhanced if it made a clear commitment to join the EU and adopted a credible economic framework.’
And in conclusion, this: ‘If Scotland pursues independence with transparency, institutional maturity, a credible currency and fiscal framework, and a clear EU accession path, it would likely earn strong initial international credibility, comparable to other small European democracies.
‘In fact, its asset base, human capital, and global reputation would likely allow it to outperform expectations—especially in the green energy and tech-driven economic future.’
Now the key question to those more knowledgeable than me about the credibility of output from AI tools – how useful is it? How might the output – including comparing and contrasting responses from multiple AI tools – best be used to supplement other means of talking up Scotland?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting in terms of examining established fact, but AI appears incapable as yet of recognising the mendacity of political players involved, and ‘joining the dots’.
eg – AI recognises suspension of NorthConnect (Scotland–Norway) as caused by Norwegian regulatory concerns and lack of UK government support, but fails to address the pivotal ‘why’ of the latter which caused the former – It also recognises the ‘bottlenecks’, but fails to make the connection that they were most deliberately preserved by the ‘suspension’, ensuring London remained energy gatekeeper.
Human analysis – The bottlenecks have been known about for decades but nothing done to resolve them even though they would ultimately have benefited England – Were SG’s opposition to new nuclear to be overcome, the bottlenecks would be attended to at rapid pace, as would a new nuclear waste repository.
AI does a good job of examining facts, but is unable to recognise the mendacious elements involved in what it terms ‘policy’ – Useful, yes, but it’s still incapable of analysing as a human can – The danger I perceive of relying on AI, is that it may well ‘dumb down’ the audience.
LikeLike