COVER STORY
Hinkley Point C is the first reactor to be built in the UK in more than 30 years. Source: EDF Energy
around the transport of nuclear materials, around the links between civil and defence nuclear, around the treatment and management of waste, around the plans for the eventual disposal of that waste, and around the cost and time it takes to get new reactors built. But on the other side of the argument, the role nuclear
plays in reducing the emissions which contribute to climate change wasn’t even a consideration in the 1950s, yet that is a major factor in the way nuclear is perceived and accepted today. Similarly, the importance of energy security and the impact which volatile energy prices have on our overall economy are both much more important in the public mindset today, and both of those issues are now cited more by politicians as reasons to support nuclear than was the case previously.
Reactor size The size of reactors has been on almost as much of a roller-coaster ride as public opinion. As we developed the early Magnox reactors, it was a case of “bigger is better” and plants became successively larger. Then the move to enriched uranium dioxide fuel for the AGRs meant that cores became smaller and more efficient – generating more power from less material. And that trend continued with the development of LWR technology. But the advent of more commercial thinking around deployment of nuclear meant that the overall economics of a plant became more important. Economy of scale once again led to the design of bigger and bigger reactors. The original Westinghouse AP600 design was reviewed and stretched to become the AP1000. Its French counterpart – the EPR – is the biggest single generator of nuclear power of any plant ever seen. These reactors were the true giants of the industry in every sense. Yet they had almost become unaffordable. Only really open to investment from the major global economies with state-run energy industries – or highly contorted market mechanisms which could reduce the financial risks for commercial entities. So in recent years, the pendulum has been swinging back the other way again. SMRs and AMRs are the current technologies seen as holding the key to a widespread rollout of nuclear in both the traditional nuclear nations and – increasingly – a host of potential newcomer countries, which have not had the
46 | April 2026 |
www.neimagazine.com
infrastructure or the finance mechanisms to realistically consider development of traditional GW scale plants. That AP1000 technology is now available in an SMR version – the AP300. Interestingly, the reactor cores of the Magnox plants at Wylfa – now the focal point for a new fleet of smaller reactors – were among the biggest anywhere in the world. The largest variant of a relatively inefficient, natural uranium-fuelled design.
Workforce
One of the most striking – and certainly one of the most welcome – changes in the sector’s 70-year history is the transformation of the workforce. That first issue of NEi is a stark illustration of an industry exclusively dominated by men in every way. But today’s nuclear sector is – thankfully – much more diverse. When I joined the industry in 1983, the only female colleagues I came across were in the typing pool, delivering the post or pushing the tea trolley. Nowadays, we see women in roles all across every nuclear organisation and – whilst there is still much more progress to be made – our workforce today is much more representative of the nation we live in. That gender balance is matched by progress in all other
characteristics too – especially in the younger entrants to our sector. Gender, race, sexuality and disability are no longer barriers to working or progressing in our industry, and long may that continue.
Chaging and staying the same Alongside all of this change however, some things have remained ever-present over the past 70 years. Our nuclear professionalism and our attention to detail. Our relentless focus on safety and security – coupled with the recognition that these are fundamental to our “social licence to operate”. Our drive for innovation and our creative talents for
problem-solving. And perhaps most important of all, the pride we all have for the industry we work in and for the impact which that work has on the vital missions of the nation. If we can continue to keep these aspects of our industry
as strong as ever, and embrace change where it can help us, I’m sure the nuclear industry can go from strength to strength over the next 70 years and beyond. ■
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112
