A NUCLEAR RENAISSANCE? | COMMENTARY
The UK is poised to take advantage of these tailwinds, and the recently announced ‘Plan for Change’, sets out a clear aim to restore Britain’s place and allow for the construction of small modular reactors (SMRs) for the first time. While the announcement was of huge symbolic significance and makes clear that nuclear will have a major role in the energy transition, upon fully exploring the details, the plans to make the industry internationally competitive will require a major regulatory overhaul.
More haste, less speed Rather than supporting the industry, overbearing and overcomplicated regulation from the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) is restraining nuclear energy delivery. One needs only to look at the case of the European Pressurised Water Reactor (EPR), in the course of being built at Hinkley Point C (HPC). The EPR was already among the safest reactors ever designed when it was chosen for the HPC project, but it was apparently not safe enough for the ONR. More than 7,000 design changes later to meet ONR rules,
the project had seen its steel and concrete use increase by 35% and 25% respectively compared to the sister project at Flamanville in France, which was originally intended as a reference for the HPC design. With all the imposed changes to adapt the EPR design to UK requirements, Hinkley Point C is effectively a different design from the “standard” EPR. These adaptations cause delays and cost overruns, the latter inflating by almost twice as much. Moreover, the onerous regulatory overreach has pushed out the completion date from 2027 to between 2029 and 2031. For all the good work and commitment of the developer, the smooth running of the project was blown off course by the regulator. This isn’t an environment where the UK nuclear industry can be expected to thrive..
A historical parallel International energy crises have prompted greater investment in nuclear energy as an innovative solution before, and they must do so again. France in the 1970s responded to the 1973 oil crisis with a level of undertaking in the nuclear sector not seen before and not seen since. The current global energy landscape has eerie parallels to that period, and France’s response in that period provides particular guidance for how governments must proceed with nuclear energy investment. As a direct result of the 1970s oil blockade, the French government instituted the purported ‘Messmer plan’, outlining a comprehensive programme of nuclear reactor production and investment to ensure that the country was not overly reliant on geopolitical headwinds to its own detriment. Driving through a nuclear agenda, even amid planning objections and political concerns, as France did in that period, is fundamental for securing both energy security and sustainability targets. The plan detailed the planned construction of roughly
80 nuclear plants by 1985 and building up to a total of 170 plants by 2000. Construction on an initial 3 plants began within a year, and over the next 15 years, France implemented 15 reactors. The initial plan has far-reaching benefits for France’s industry, with 220,000 people now employed across around 2,600 nuclear companies, and a nuclear fleet of 56 reactors within 18 power plants. All this amounts to the second-highest output of nuclear power production, behind only the US globally.
The example of the Messmer plan makes clear that a
cohesive nuclear plan can have widespread advantages decades beyond its introduction. While several countries are gently testing the edges of nuclear, it may take one jurisdiction, emulating the historical French exemplar, to drive the nuclear renaissance further forward.
SMRs the way forward? With modern advances in nuclear energy, a comprehensive rollout should be even more accessible given the potential that small nuclear reactors (SMRs) offer the industry. SMRs can be built faster, come online quicker, and as smaller reactors, are far less demanding in terms of location and space required. Though still a developing industry, they offer an elegant solution to the previous build challenges that have plagued the industry and deterred further investment. The UK, for example, has demonstrated clear backing of the potential of SMRs. The ’Plan for Change’ detailed a continued support for SMRs alongside larger power stations, and if a ‘fleet’ approach is taken with the technology, producing a large number of identical reactors, then the risk profile of the venture is reduced significantly. Investment in SMRs is not limited to the UK either, with a recent IEA report suggesting that total SMR capacity is likely to reach 40 GW by 2050, but has the potential to provide 80 GW of electricity – or 10% of the overall global nuclear capacity – by 2040. While the potential is clear in SMRs, there are still
operational barriers that may need to be addressed. Managing the daily running of highly technical reactors requires a highly skilled workforce, and at present, many countries have not planned for this need. Recent reporting suggests the UK is set to unveil further details of its SMR plan in the near future, and identifying the skills gap and outlining a plan to plug it is foundational for the success of a fleet of SMRs. Many avenues may be explored, and the US, for example, largely recruits its nuclear industry operators from its nuclear Navy, but investment into education and training across the sector in undergraduate, postgraduate and apprenticeship studies will play an essential role in fulfilling the future of nuclear energy. Nevertheless, there is cause for optimism. In March of
last year, the ONR signed a Memorandum of Cooperation (MoC) with the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). This MoC aims to establish a framework for streamlined regulation of advanced reactor technologies while maintaining each country’s independent regulatory authority. This should help prevent a repeat of the ONR- driven redesign process that happened at HPC.
An outlook for UK nuclear A precise and comprehensive nuclear programme could very well be the key to providing energy security, as well as ensuring the de-carbonisation of infrastructure remains stable beyond 2030 deadlines. Any course of innovation in nuclear energy would be beneficial for the industry as a whole, but for now, the clear route to energy security and net zero may very well depend on the construction of a fleet of SMRs. The question on everyone’s mind is whether the ONR will be able to adapt quickly enough to allow the UK to regain its once-prominent position at the leading edge of nuclear development? I certainly hope so. ■
www.neimagazine.com | July 2025 | 39
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
