🔗 Share this article

High-level summits and investment conferences often generate a flurry of declarations about firms planning to spend enormous amounts in the UK. A number of commitments are simply extensions of current patterns. Others fall into the realm of "believe it when you witness it". Several involve combining various elements to generate an overly exact figure for expected economic value. Truly new investments are few, and scepticism is often warranted.

In what way can we regard the latest "major pledges" by UK and US companies to build advanced atomic power plants in the UK? In this instance, it may in fact be one of those uncommon situations where scepticism is not warranted.

This development deserves notice because it addresses one of the biggest hurdles to a "revived era" of atomic power: the sheer amount of time needed to bring fresh ventures off the ground.

Simplifying Regulatory Processes

Under the US-UK agreement, each country would accept the other's approval and security regime, which could reduce overlap during the evaluation phase. The goal is to reduce the licensing timeline to around two years, compared to the current multi-year wait.

Advanced Prefabricated Units

Another intriguing deal, though still in its initial phase, involves Centrica and X-Energy collaborating to build up to 12 advanced modular reactors (AMRs) in Hartlepool. The target is to have these functioning by the 2030s, which would be considered as rapid by nuclear industry norms.

This also represents the first time the UK is actively considering constructing AMRs. These are more compact (at 80-megawatts per reactor) than standard small modular reactors (SMRs), three of which have been commissioned from a British firm at 470 megawatts each.

Size and Variety in Nuclear 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 atomic energy capability, it will probably need to include a variety of sizes, not just massive installations. In this context, the government also announced plans for a privately funded independent "compact atomic unit" to serve a Thames estuary hub.

Financial Hurdles and Unproven Concepts

A significant qualification, naturally, is that the financial viability of smaller-scale reactors are not yet demonstrated. No one has yet built an SMR anywhere, and grand assertions about the advantages of assembly-line manufacturing are still confirmed, despite companies like Rolls-Royce express optimism. So far, what is known is that mega plants are exceptionally expensive.

Sizewell C, although it is a copy of an existing plant and thus has a finalised design, is still projected to cost £38bn. Additionally, since customers will start paying before construction is finished, the project is set to add more than £200,000 annually to the bills of major business energy users—such as water companies, transport firms, and retail groups—that do not qualify for exclusions.

The Need for Lower Costs

Therefore, expenses must fall universally if atomic power is to make substantial headway. Research groups indicate that countries like certain European states are building the identical nuclear model for about half the price, while South Korea constructs at around one-sixth of the outlay.

There are numerous suggestions on how to cut expenditure, a few of which may be implemented if recent government findings are any indication. These publications have criticised outdated rules, slow planning frameworks, and "risk-averse cultures that prioritise bureaucracy over proportionate safety measures".

Political and Community Hurdles

It remains challenging to be convinced that talk will be matched by concrete action, especially given expected resistance from community groups and certain disagreements over where new nuclear plants should be built once current sites are fully allocated. However, at the same time, it is difficult to overlook that the backdrop for new nuclear has improved.

A number of elements are driving this shift: initially, a growing recognition that a clean energy grid cannot rely solely on variable wind, solar, and storage; additionally, the fact that renewable energy costs have increased regardless; and third, the understanding that if fossil-fuel generation is to be reduced, nuclear remains the only viable alternative for always-on, low-carbon electricity. The question of expense still looms significantly, but it is almost conceivable that this period will be looked back on as a turning point.