🔗 Share this article

High-level summits and investment conferences often produce a flurry of declarations about companies planning to spend enormous amounts in the UK. A number of commitments are simply projections of current patterns. Some fall into the category of "trust it when you witness it". Many involve merging various elements to produce an unrealistically precise figure for expected financial impact. Truly new ventures are rare, and scepticism is frequently warranted.

In what way can we regard the recent "major pledges" by UK and US firms to build new nuclear power plants in the UK? This, it may actually be one of those rare situations where cynicism is less appropriate.

The announcement deserves notice because it tackles one of the major hurdles to a "revived era" of atomic power: the sheer duration required to get new projects off the ground.

Simplifying Regulatory Procedures

Under the bilateral arrangement, each country would recognise the other's regulatory and safety framework, which could minimise overlap during the evaluation stage. The aim is to reduce the approval timeline to approximately two years, down from the present multi-year wait.

Advanced Modular Reactors

Another notable agreement, though currently in its initial phase, involves a major UK energy firm and a US-based company collaborating to build up to 12 next-gen prefabricated units (AMRs) in a UK town. The objective is to have these functioning by the mid-2030s, which would be considered as rapid by nuclear sector standards.

Moreover represents the initial instance the UK is actively exploring constructing AMRs. These are more compact (at 80MW per reactor) than standard compact prefab units (SMRs), several of which have been commissioned from a British firm at 470 megawatts apiece.

Size and Variety in Atomic Growth

For comparison, giant projects like Sizewell C and Hinkley Point C feature two reactors per site, adding up to 3.2GW. If the UK is to significantly expand its nuclear power capacity, it will probably need to incorporate a variety of sizes, not just enormous installations. In this context, the government also announced plans for a privately funded off-grid "micro" nuclear plant" to serve a Thames estuary hub.

Financial Challenges and Unproven Models

The major qualification, of course, is that the financial viability of compact reactors remain unproven. Nobody has yet constructed an SMR anywhere, and grand claims about the advantages of factory production are yet to be confirmed, even if companies like certain developers express confidence. So far, what is known is that mega plants are extremely expensive.

Sizewell C, even though it is a replica of Hinkley Point C and thus has a finalised design, is still projected to cost billions. Additionally, since customers will start contributing before construction is finished, Sizewell C is expected to add over £200,000 annually to the costs of large corporate energy users—such as water companies, transport operators, and retail groups—that do not qualify for exclusions.

The Imperative for Lower Expenses

Therefore, costs must fall across the board if atomic power is to make significant progress. Research groups indicate that nations like certain European states are delivering the identical reactor design for about half the cost, while South Korea builds at around one-sixth of the outlay.

There are numerous suggestions on how to cut costs, some of which may be adopted if latest government reports are any guide. These publications have highlighted obsolete rules, inefficient planning systems, and "cautious cultures that favour bureaucracy over proportionate safety protocols".

Political and Public Hurdles

It remains difficult to believe that talk will be supported by concrete action, especially given expected resistance from local residents and certain disagreements over where new nuclear plants should be built once current sites are used up. However, at the same time, it is hard to overlook that the backdrop for atomic expansion has improved.

A number of elements are supporting this shift: first, a growing recognition that a clean energy grid cannot rely exclusively on intermittent wind, solar, and batteries; second, the reality that green energy costs have risen anyway; and finally, the understanding that if gas-fired generation is to be minimised, nuclear remains the only viable alternative for continuous, low-carbon electricity. The question of cost still looms large, but it is just about conceivable that this period will be looked back on as a key moment.