camelot-forum.co.uk

Rolls has been chosen to be the preferred bidder in the programme to build "Small" modular reactors.
Amusing to think that under this definition of "Small" - every single one of the UK's original fleet of Magnox reactors would be classified as small. But probably not "Modular".

Certainly "Big Nuclear" is very expensive, but I'm not convinced the way to make nuclear generation cheaper is to build smaller power stations either.


https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... sizewell-c

I'm a big believer that loads of small projects get done much quicker, easier, and more efficiently than one big one.

Been trying to find the old info on RR's SMR's. I seem to recall some documentation suggesting they would need to produce/sell 2GW to 5GW of them to get costs down to HPC levels. I don't think they were considered cost effective, especially as they were a lot more than Nu-Scale's SMR's. But maybe they compare better now, after the Nu-scale build out in the US was cancelled due to ballooning costs making them un-economic.

Managed to track down the brochure I read nearly a decade ago, and maybe it's just me, but at the end they suggest a global SMR market of 65 to 85GW in 2035 (brochure /claim made in 2017), which seems very small, and I'd suggest would have gone down significantly by now, due to the tumbling cost of PV and batts since then.

So if this proposal is that SMRs should initially be able to contribute 1.5GW, that's basically 3x "SMRS" constructed with the Rolls Royce design generating 470MW - which as mentioned is bigger than any of our 1st Gen Magnox reactors and I don't think any of them as industrial developments could be considered "Small".

I really don't see how building 3x completely separate nuclear power stations comes in cheaper than 1x single EPR rector. I know we've made things more complicated for ourselves with Hinkley C (and now Sizewell C) as we're building 2x EPRs at each site simultaneously. We're just going to be in the same learning curve of "doing it for the first time and then only for a very small production run" snafu as before?

I think the original expected module output was to be around 10MW. 500MW is an entirely different scale.

Modular is good - one module down is better than the complete power station tripping, and factory series production should reduce costs. Different aggregated sizes for different sites is, IMO, better than one single size, determined before even starting the build

I don’t particularly like nuclear - an accident can have dire consequences - but as a stable, base-load generator they have to be better than burning fossils.

Being able to (relatively) easy to transport or export is another definite advantage, too.

Hopefully a Thorium reactor might be developed in the near term - that would be preferable to using only uranium/plutonium as the fissile material - less security needed and the different waste storage requirements may be preferable to the present situation in the UK.

Oliver90owner wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 3:36 pm Hopefully a Thorium reactor might be developed in the near term - that would be preferable to using only uranium/plutonium as the fissile material - less security needed and the different waste storage requirements may be preferable to the present situation in the UK.

Speak of the devil!

I've just watched a vid on thorium progress from the Undecided channel. Sounds promising.

Bit naughty - the £2.5bn support for SMR's is coming out of the 'Great British Energy' £8.3bn pot.

GB Energy’s promised £8.3bn budget raided to pay for small nuclear reactors

So that £2.5bn may, eventually, possibly, hopefully, deliver some low carbon energy. Fingers crossed by 2035(ish)?

Or, and I'm just spitballing here, pay for 500,000 £5k / 5kWp domestic PV installs, and help reduce bills for those that need support, and deliver clean low carbon leccy within a few years, perhaps 100k installs pa for 5yrs.

Or £2k support for 1.25m installs.

I know this is all complex, but I can't get an idea out of my head that someone posted on here a few years back. Apologies for forgetting who said it, but it was a great way to place the 'problem' in context.

They suggested (perhaps a little tongue-in-cheek) that we should simply roll out loads and loads of pn shore wind, all over the UK, till we were 100% RE equivalent. And then in 15yrs time (or was it over 15yrs) we could revise in light of learnt lessons. Perhaps re-power the WT's, or remove them and turf over, when we know the best course of action and balance of tech.

As a great thought exercise, this has really stuck with me, and in 15yrs time, if SMR's have developed and proven themselves economically in competition with RE and RE + storage, then so be it.

It seems to be that the UK government thinks that UK PLC is still a civil nuclear technology leader and building new nuclear will somehow translate into sales abroad ?

I must be missing something if that really is the case.

Moxi

Moxi wrote: ↑Thu Jun 12, 2025 9:02 am It seems to be that the UK government thinks that UK PLC is still a civil nuclear technology leader and building new nuclear will somehow translate into sales abroad ?

I must be missing something if that really is the case.

Moxi

They are probably trying to ride the wave of AUKUS to develop in the civil nuclear space.

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.