The Final Word on Labour’s Flawed and Dangerous Nuclear Energy Plans

Professor John Robertson OBA

Readers will have seen the dominant mainstream media messaging on behalf of Labour such as the Daily Mail’s ‘Sarwar calls on Swinney to drop ‘ideological’ opposition to nuclear power’or the Daily Record’s ‘Anas Sarwar challenges SNP to support nuclear power to ‘end reliance on dictators like Putin.’

The dark irony of the Putin reference will be revealed below.

I plan here to bring together the devastating body of evidence that seriously questions the Labour Party’s plan to introduce a large number of small modular reactors, SMRs, across the UK and, if they can, to place some in Scotland too.

At the time of writing there are only two SMRs actually operating – one in Russia and one in China. For this reason alone, we must question reliance on a technology not yet fully tested, as the basis for a national programme of work.

However, there is already a large body of research, in reliable sources, which points to very serious concerns and which, pulled together, as I will do here, makes Labour’s strategy deeply flawed and extremely irresponsible.

First, there are the health concerns.

From the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [USA] in May 2022, we see that, yes, SMRs are less likely to meltdown but, critically, they are more likely to leak neutrons in greater volumes per unit of energy generated, produce 9 times more radioactive waste per unit of energy generated and thus pose greater risk of cancers in surrounding areas.

In addition, from the research centre https://small-modular-reactors.org/, SMRs have a ‘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 and higher levels of radioactivity in spent fuel.’

Then there are security concerns.

From Foreign Policy on 20th January 2025, it emerges that SMRs require a richer blend of uranium fuel and Putin’s Russia has a complete monopoly on the commercial production of that.

The above is not the major security threat, however. In the I newspaper, in April 2025, we hear from an armed officer with the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC), who saw every aspect of how the UK’s nuclear power stations and their radioactive fuel are protected from terrorists. He spent years escorting the transport of uranium fuel to and from plants, which would be planned for months in advance. “Nuclear material is at its most vulnerable when it’s in transit. You’ve got to move it as secretly as possible.”

His main point was that this would be impossible with the very large number (126 has been estimated even by a supportive expert) of these small sites planned, compared to the current 9 large stations.

Finally, there’s the cost.

In May 2025, the Daily Telegraph reported on the economics of the project and concluded ‘There is growing concern that the economics of SMRs could prove even harder 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.’

This follows US research from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial analysis in January 2023, based on a US energy company’s updated projection, suggesting ‘eye-popping’ costs for what are, in the end, very small energy providers.

Any way you look at Labour’s plans, they worry – Increased radioactive pollution with inevitable storage problems and cancer spikes in surrounding areas, security problems from terrorist access and, even if you feel you can accept those, they cost far, far, more than renewables.

8 thoughts on “The Final Word on Labour’s Flawed and Dangerous Nuclear Energy Plans”

  1. Percapita Scotland already has more than double the provision of nuclear energy than England, Englandshire need to build another six Hinkley Points to keep parity, they would rather build them on their neighbours land and leave them with all the headaches for centuries to come, unfortunately for the English NIMBYS, Scotland are wise to their tricks, they wont shame us into hosting their dirty power plants.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  4. ‘At the time of writing there are only two SMRs actually operating – one in Russia and one in China. For this reason alone, we must question reliance on a technology not yet fully tested, as the basis for a national programme of work.’

    So it’s a novel technology. The OECD in 2024 recognised three SMRs as operational, with over 50 SMR technologies currently still under development. (https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/small-modular-reactors-an-overview)

    If a company or nation state has relevant indigenous technological capability, an energy need AND national ambition to develop and then sell as exports SMRs, one might see the sense of being an early adopter of the technology and accept the high costs and high risks of technology development, demonstration and initial operational implementation.

    But does Scotland really need SMRs for a resilient energy system?

    Are there alternative way of meeting Scotland’s need for a resilient energy system that are less expensive and/or less uncertain and/or associated with less of a legacy in terms of toxic waste and/or with less of a security risk?

    Is Scotland going to be able to compete internationally in the market to supply Scottish SMR technology so benefiting its economy? Hardly – nuclear technology development is not an indigenous strength. But tidal energy technology? Compare and contrast Scotland’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats relating to prospective SMRs and prospective tidal energy generation. Where does Scotland’s greatest domestic economic and export potential lie?

    If it comes to pass that Scotland in future needs SMRs then why adopt third party technology early in advance of need? Why not buy SMR technology – choosing from the proven BEST – when (if) the technology and related market matures?

    Whatever one may think of the above attempt at logic, whatever answers one may have to the questions posed, for Scotland in Union it is all academic. The critical AGENCY lies with Westminster!

    The significance of this AGENCY for the well-being of the present and future generations of those who choose to live out their lives in Scotland was successfully hidden from too many voters in Scotland by Unionist politicians and their media allies during the era of offshore oil & gas. (Compare Scotland with Norway.) The same ‘trick’ is being played out on Scotland in Union once again as we embark on the era of renewable energy!

    Is there a nation anywhere – has there ever been in modern times – so well endowed with indigenous, valuable and various assets – natural and others – but so lacking in AGENCY to utilise them: (i) in the best interests of its own population; and also, yes (ii) in the interests of people in other countries in ways of its OWN choosing?

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  5. Get Independence quick.

    Westminster wasting £13Billion a year on decommissioning nuclear. They want to build more. Totally unaffordable. Trident dumped in Scotland secretly and illegally.

    Hickley Point years late and over budget. Another total waste of monies.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  6. It is Westminster which has an ” ideological ” issue over new nuclear not SG – I vaguely recall calculating 6 wind turbines were equivalent to one SMR, and they don’t take 5 or 20 years to put into operation.

    ” The dark irony of the Putin reference ” is indeed correct, and the immediate response to any mention of it should be ” Russia is the only source for the fuel ” – I also vaguely recall mention of more regular refuelling of SMRs being required, every 6 months to a year having been projected – Now what was that about ‘energy security’ ?

    China will be the first to have a commercial SMR in service, the Linglong 1 will be operational next year after 5 years construction ( You can quadruple the construction time for England’s south coast, which is where they actually ARE needed…) – And for further China comparison, every year it installs more renewables than the UK has in total, complete with the grid…

    Scotland is already energy secure – All it needs now is the the longstanding issues of the grid being resolved, and who controls that ? Not SG….

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  7. We don’t need SMRs and we don’t want SMRs. What we need is AGENCY as stewartb points out.

    BTW I don’t want Trident either even if Ian Murray is promising loadsa money. Not buying it.

    Like

    Reply
  8. Pingback: Who is funding the Herald to back new nuclear that risks the lives of women and children, will contaminate our land for centuries and cost far more than renewables? – Talking-up Scotland [Collective]

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.