By stewartb
‘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?


The headline answer is no, or at least, not yet, hence your ” Why not buy SMR technology – choosing from the proven BEST – when (if) the technology and related market matures? ” is the only sensible approach to take.
The current record with a verified commercial SMR design from first concrete to operational switch on in 2026 will be China at 5 years – So even were the UK’s most urgent energy deficit in the south of England addressed, it would, theoretically at least, be resolved within a decade – So why the obsession over Scotland hosting one ? – I have a few theories about that, and they all relate to money flow and debt, a la zonal pricing and PFI…
Scotland is already energy self-sufficient and in surplus from renewables and will be in even greater surplus before the first UK designed SMR comes on line – Some form of switchable backup will always be required, but by then we will know if batteries or liquid-air or pumped-hydro or whatever else is developed fits the bill.
LikeLike
Nova EEngineering, a Scottish company based in Leith, has developed and deployed tidal turbines generating into the grid already, and is the future for energy resilience. Kate Forbes and the SNP should be concentrating on these home grown innovative industries and not FDI. Invest in Scotland’s indigenous innovators.
LikeLike