Rolls Royce SMR

[Moxi]

Hi Ken,

If it were a nationalised industry I would agree with you, however where the price of the generator dictates the price of the power sold then cost has everything to do with it. If you produce power too expensive to use then theres no demand, no demand means no income means no power plant and the grid stays wobbly.

Moxi

[Mart]

People keep focusing on the costs of this or that when NESO, NAT GRID, Gov are SOLELY interested in reliability at national level.
When you think like that then many SMRs strategically positioned around the country produced by a British Co. providing lots of jobs and tax it all makes perfect sense - whats cost got to do with it.

IF RE and storage can do it cheaper, then it's all about cost. If RE and storage can do it much faster (spoiler alert, yes they can), then it's also about AGW.

If SMR's fail to deliver, as they are still the great hyped hope, then it's money wasted that could have helped, and potentially more distraction from adressing AGW faster, just like all the other pro-FF 'solutions' like FF CCS, HFCV.

Could they work, yes I think so.
Can they be cost competitive, and therefore a viable technology that will move forward, I'm highly doubtful, and that's today. Tomorrow, the hill that SMR's have to climb will be a bit steeper as RE and storage costs continue to fall.

Are they worth a punt in order to attack the problem from all sides (the kitchen sink approach to decarbonisation)? I'm no longer convinced, I don't think they bring anything special to the game now, that other solutions can't - tidal, interconnectors, storage on all timetables. And whilst RE and storage work well together improving the sum of the parts, nuclear will simply be competing against existing RE (or RE + (RE+storage)) 90%+ of the time even as things stand looking forward to 2030-35 already.

Edit - I suspect the most important role for SZC and SMR investment, is to keep a sizeable proportion of the voting public on side. And that's not entirely wrong to do, especially if solidifies opinions on tackling AGW, decrabonising leccy, and shifting to an all electric future.

[Ken]

I personally agree with you both but then i would not bet my career and pension on it.

People only think about cost when they think they have reliable supply ask them after a blackout. Security and reliability trumps cost.
£X B is peanuts compared to disruption and no productivity. By 2030 we may not have any nuclear production.

Anyway bottom line is we need every form of clean energy to get to 2050 and more eggs in more baskets the better.

[Ken]

In the early hours of this morning 13/06/2025 we were curtailing more leccy 5GW than transmitting 4.7GW. I have never seen that before.

(importing 5GW and gas 6GW)

[Mart]

I personally agree with you both but then i would not bet my career and pension on it.

People only think about cost when they think they have reliable supply ask them after a blackout. Security and reliability trumps cost.
£X B is peanuts compared to disruption and no productivity. By 2030 we may not have any nuclear production.

Anyway bottom line is we need every form of clean energy to get to 2050 and more eggs in more baskets the better.

But Ken, I think you are assuming that nuclear is more reliable, but as I said in my first sentence:

IF RE and storage can do it cheaper, then it's all about cost.

So I'm talking about the same reliability, only delivered cheaper and sooner. Can that be done, I'm not 100% certain, but pretty sure. I certainly think that the nuclear option has many weaknesses, crucially cost and the time it will take to deliver. So whilst we are wired to believe that nuclear is reliable, I don't think we should anymore, or at least be open to the possibility that other solutions can deliver that reliability, possibly more, and crucially cheaper and sooner. If I'm right (and I appreciate it's still a big IF) then adding nuclear to the mix actually makes things less reliable, as you will be adding it instead of something better.

I really disagree with the baskets, sinks, eggs and kitchen approach to policy and reliability rollout. I think they are just sayings and miss the point. In my opinion (and I could be entirely wrong), adding nuclear doesn't make the package stronger, than what could be added for the same amount of money or less - such as tidal, interconnectors, storage etc.

In fact I feel, and that's why I've been saying it in response to the 'sayings approach' to energy policy, each time, that omitting nuclear and spending the money on more RE and storage solutions, is the broader/safer path to energy security and reliability.


Apologies to all if it seems like I'm obssessed with money, I'm not. I'm just aware that the money pot is limited, and I want the best results for what we spend, so money/cost is always the deciding factor. I suspect the Gov believes that nuclear expenditure is the better way to buy us the reliability we need, I believe it's not. But I am (in my mind) comparing apples to apples, the delivered energy and reliability.

[Mart]

In the early hours of this morning 13/06/2025 we were curtailing more leccy 5GW than transmitting 4.7GW. I have never seen that before.

(importing 5GW and gas 6GW)

Wowza.

Hopefully that fits to some degree with my position. Since nuclear can't be ramped down, at least not economically, and RE is intermittent, then large scale long duration energy storage (LDES) not only provides the reliability of nuclear power, but also the energy storage needed to improve the economics of RE.

But ......... that does depend on us developing LDES at a lower cost than nuclear generation, and within the nuclear buildout timetable. I'm confident, but wouldn't bet other people's pensions and careers on it quite yet ...... but maybe in just a few years?

[dan_b]

Our nuclear seems to have ramped itself down, it's gone from 4.5 to 3.1GW as both units at Sizewell and one at Hartlepool have tripped!

In the early hours of this morning 13/06/2025 we were curtailing more leccy 5GW than transmitting 4.7GW. I have never seen that before.

(importing 5GW and gas 6GW)

Wowza.

Hopefully that fits to some degree with my position. Since nuclear can't be ramped down, at least not economically, and RE is intermittent, then large scale long duration energy storage (LDES) not only provides the reliability of nuclear power, but also the energy storage needed to improve the economics of RE.

But ......... that does depend on us developing LDES at a lower cost than nuclear generation, and within the nuclear buildout timetable. I'm confident, but wouldn't bet other people's pensions and careers on it quite yet ...... but maybe in just a few years?

[Mart]

Our nuclear seems to have ramped itself down, it's gone from 4.5 to 3.1GW as both units at Sizewell and one at Hartlepool have tripped!

In the early hours of this morning 13/06/2025 we were curtailing more leccy 5GW than transmitting 4.7GW. I have never seen that before.

(importing 5GW and gas 6GW)

Wowza.

Hopefully that fits to some degree with my position. Since nuclear can't be ramped down, at least not economically, and RE is intermittent, then large scale long duration energy storage (LDES) not only provides the reliability of nuclear power, but also the energy storage needed to improve the economics of RE.

But ......... that does depend on us developing LDES at a lower cost than nuclear generation, and within the nuclear buildout timetable. I'm confident, but wouldn't bet other people's pensions and careers on it quite yet ...... but maybe in just a few years?

Love it!

I wonder if the tripping was reliably predictable?

[Ken]

Mart,

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467- ... /figures/4

I have read a number of academic studies using actual data over the years of our discussion on the issue of amount of storage needed and all seem to show that it is impossible to cater for 365days/yr. That ref is the latest one i have read and despite overbuilding and large amounts of storage it still does not cover the last x hundred hrs. This is why NESO get to their 5% gas scenario by 2030.
This does not affect our discussion

We do not need to fret as there is still a huge build out required to replace the present gas, replace end of life plants incl nuclear, and cater for the huge explosion in demand from AI,data centres, EVs, HPs etc.

PS Mart , you clearly do not think like a politician and neither do i but i have come to understand their modus operandi.

[Mart]

Yep Ken, we definitely don't think like politicians. In fairness to them, they need to have policies that everyone believes will work, even if over built and over cost. That's not their fault, and they'll be blamed for spending too much if the 'bad' doesn't happen, or spending too little when it does.

I too doubt we can get to 24/365 coverage*, but I absolutely believe that we can get close enough to mean that any expenditure on new nuclear will be wasteful. The nuclear role will be so niche, that even say gas generation with CCS will be cheaper (just as an example). Ideally, the gas won't be FF, but perhaps from anerobic digestion and stored when RE is in excess. Or methane as a form of storage, using excess leccy, H2 and CO2. Just the huge energy/CO2 emissions from the long term storage of nuclear waste, may exceed the FF gas emissions from filling in during extreme circumstances.

*For me, the real gamechanger will be the development of LDES, such as CAES. If it's economically competitive, and can scale to TWH levels, then that might allow for both increased RE rollout sooner (less curtailment, more storage instead), and remove the need for nuclear.

I also picture in my mind, vast storage tanks for flow batts, something on the scale of the old gas tanks that provided storage all over the UK, or perhaps like the huge ranks of tanks at oil refineries.

But storage on this scale (like nuclear), will require national funding, as the small(er) number of annual cycles will make them unable to operate profitably?

It's a shame the UK simply isn't suitable for a vast amount of hydro. The countries that already have it are ideally positioned for the RE future. Even if the hydro doesn't have pumped storage, it can still be dialled down when wind/sun are high, and vice versa ..... so long as they maintain flow levels within appropriate limits.

PS - The vast number of countries around the World don't have nuclear, and have no intention of adding nuclear, but are aiming to reduce emissions just like us. [Slight snag though in that 'argument' is nuclear may exist in countries that represent the majority of the World population ..... I'm not sure?]