🔗 Share this article

Presidential visits and financial gatherings often produce a flurry of announcements about companies intending to invest vast sums in the UK. A number of commitments are simply projections of current trends. Others fall into the category of "believe it when you witness it". Many include combining multiple factors to generate an unrealistically precise figure for projected financial impact. Truly new investments are few, and scepticism is frequently justified.

How should one view the latest "major pledges" by British and American firms to build advanced atomic power plants in the UK? This, it may actually be one of those uncommon occasions where scepticism is not warranted.

The announcement deserves attention because it addresses one of the biggest hurdles to a "new golden age" of nuclear energy: the sheer duration needed to bring new projects off the ground.

Streamlining Regulatory Procedures

Under the bilateral arrangement, each country would recognise the other's approval and security framework, which could reduce overlap during the evaluation phase. The goal is to reduce the licensing process to around two years, compared to the current three- or four-year wait.

Next-Generation Prefabricated Units

Another intriguing agreement, though currently in its early stages, concerns Centrica and X-Energy collaborating to develop up to 12 next-gen prefabricated units (AMRs) in Hartlepool. The objective is to have these functioning by the 2030s, which would be viewed as swift by nuclear sector norms.

Moreover marks the first time the UK is actively exploring building 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 each.

Size and Diversity in Atomic Growth

By way of contrast, giant projects like major nuclear plants feature two reactors per site, adding up to 3.2GW. If the UK is to substantially grow its atomic energy capacity, it will likely need to include a variety of scales, not just enormous facilities. In this context, the government also announced proposals for a commercially backed off-grid "micro" nuclear plant" to serve a Thames estuary hub.

Financial Challenges and Unproven Models

A significant caveat, of course, is that the financial viability of compact reactors are unproven. Nobody has yet built an SMR in the world, and grand assertions about the benefits of assembly-line manufacturing are yet to be confirmed, even if firms such as Rolls-Royce express confidence. To date, what is clear is that large-scale plants are extremely costly.

One major project, although it is a copy of Hinkley Point C and therefore has a finalised design, is still projected to cost £38bn. Moreover, since consumers will start contributing before construction is finished, the project is expected to add over £200,000 per year to the bills of large corporate energy users—such as water utilities, transport operators, and retail groups—that do not meet criteria for exclusions.

The Imperative for Lower Costs

Therefore, costs must decrease universally if atomic power is to make substantial headway. Some analysts indicate that nations like certain European states are delivering the same nuclear model for about half the cost, while another country builds at around one-sixth of the outlay.

Experts have numerous proposals on how to cut costs, a few of which may be adopted if recent official reports are any guide. These documents have highlighted obsolete rules, slow planning frameworks, and "risk-averse cultures that favour bureaucracy over reasonable safety measures".

Political and Public Hurdles

It remains difficult to believe that talk will be matched by concrete action, particularly given expected opposition from local residents and certain disagreements over where new nuclear sites should be built once current sites are used up. But, simultaneously, it is hard to ignore that the backdrop for atomic expansion has become more favourable.

Several factors are supporting this change: first, a growing awareness that a clean energy grid cannot depend exclusively on variable wind, solar, and batteries; additionally, the fact that renewable energy costs have increased anyway; and third, the understanding that if gas-fired generation is to be reduced, nuclear is the only feasible option for continuous, low-carbon electricity. The issue of cost still dominates large, but it is just about possible that 2025 will be looked back on as a turning point.