🔗 Share this article

Presidential visits and financial gatherings often generate a barrage of announcements about firms planning to invest vast sums in the UK. A number of pledges are simply projections of existing trends. Some fall into the realm of "believe it when you see it". Many include merging multiple factors to produce an unrealistically precise number for projected economic value. Truly new investments are rare, and scepticism is frequently warranted.

How should one regard the latest "major pledges" by UK and US companies to construct new nuclear energy facilities in the UK? In this instance, it may actually be one of those rare situations where scepticism is less warranted.

This development merits notice because it addresses one of the major obstacles to a "new golden age" of atomic power: the considerable duration required to bring new projects underway.

Streamlining Regulatory Procedures

Under the bilateral arrangement, each country would recognise the other's regulatory and safety framework, which could reduce overlap during the assessment phase. The goal is to reduce the approval timeline to approximately two years, compared to the present three- or four-year period.

Next-Generation Prefabricated Reactors

Another intriguing deal, though still in its initial phase, concerns a major UK energy firm and a US-based company partnering to develop up to 12 advanced modular reactors (AMRs) in Hartlepool. The objective is to have these operational by the 2030s, which would be considered as rapid by nuclear sector standards.

Moreover marks the initial instance the UK is actively considering constructing AMRs. These are more compact (at 80-megawatts per reactor) than conventional small modular reactors (SMRs), several of which have been ordered from a British firm at 470MW apiece.

Size and Diversity in Nuclear Expansion

For comparison, large-scale ventures like Sizewell C and Hinkley Point C feature two reactors per site, totaling 3,200 megawatts. If the UK is to significantly grow its atomic energy capability, it will likely need to include a variety of scales, not just massive installations. Along these lines, the authorities also revealed plans for a commercially backed independent "micro" nuclear plant" to serve London Gateway port.

Financial Challenges and Unproven Models

The major caveat, naturally, is that the economics of smaller-scale reactors are unproven. Nobody has actually constructed an SMR anywhere, and sweeping assertions about the benefits of factory production are yet to be confirmed, despite firms such as certain developers express confidence. So far, what is clear is that mega plants are exceptionally costly.

Sizewell C, although it is a copy of Hinkley Point C and therefore has a finalised design, is still estimated to cost billions. Moreover, since consumers will start contributing before construction is complete, the project is expected to add more than £200,000 annually to the bills of large corporate energy users—including water companies, transport operators, and retail chains—that do not qualify for exclusions.

The Imperative for Lower Expenses

Therefore, costs must decrease universally if atomic power is to make substantial progress. Some analysts suggest that nations like France and Finland are delivering the identical nuclear model for about half the price, while another country builds at around one-sixth of the outlay.

Experts have numerous proposals on how to reduce costs, some of which may be implemented if recent official reports are any indication. These documents have criticised outdated rules, inefficient planning frameworks, and "risk-averse cultures that favour bureaucracy over proportionate safety measures".

Policy and Community Challenges

There is still difficult to believe that talk will be supported by tangible action, particularly given expected resistance from community groups and inevitable disputes over where new nuclear sites should be placed once existing sites are fully allocated. However, at the same time, it is hard to overlook that the backdrop for new nuclear has improved.

Several factors are supporting this change: initially, a growing recognition that a low-carbon energy grid cannot rely solely on variable wind, solar, and storage; second, the reality that renewable energy prices have increased regardless; and finally, the understanding that if gas-fired generation is to be reduced, nuclear remains the only feasible option for always-on, low-carbon electricity. The issue of expense still looms large, but it is just about possible that this period will be remembered as a key moment.