The UK’s small modular reactor (SMR) programme could make a key contribution to net zero and position the UK at the forefront of a huge global market writes Richard Deakin, Challenge Director of the Low Cost Nuclear challenge, UKRI
Born the son of a coal miner in South Yorkshire in the 60’s, I grew up in a region then dominated by deep mining and heavy industry. That coal industry with all its risks and damaging environmental consequences no longer exists, but the demand for energy and power continues to grow both here in the UK, and also globally, where innovation in the sector is key to lifting huge tracts of the world’s population out of poverty.
Nuclear power as a product can be delivered in a standardised, replicable form with certainty, in volume and at pace
The Committee on Climate Change recently forecast that by 2050, the need for energy in the UK will likely near double what it is today. Energy production has to switch towards low carbon sources, meaning an estimated 40-55 GW of extra low-carbon electricity will be needed to power the UK to achieve net zero.
To meet this demand, we need to utilise a mixed system containing significant proportions of renewables, such as wind, wave and solar, with firm, low-carbon power – of which nuclear will be key.
Can we affordably deliver low carbon power with nuclear at its core?
The UK nuclear industry and its capabilities has respect and recognition around the world. Today the nuclear industry supports 80,000 jobs in the UK across power generation, decommissioning and associated research (NIA Job Map).
The UK has led the world in many aspects of civil nuclear power since 1958 when Calder Hall in West Cumbria first provided power to the grid and on any given day is providing up to 40% of all low-carbon power across the UK at around 2.5% of the carbon intensity of gas production for example.
So why isn’t there more nuclear in the mix today?
The answer is at one level very simple – it’s perceived as expensive and difficult to deliver. This, however, assumes nuclear power is delivered through building gigawatt-scale reactors which are hugely-complex construction and engineering projects. These require large sums of investment across a long period of time before they begin to generate power. For example, Hinkley Point C will generate 3.2 GW and is expected to cost over £20bn across 10 years of construction.
There is however an alternative option.
Thinking differently about delivering nuclear power
Nuclear power as a product can be delivered in a standardised, replicable form with certainty, in volume and at pace. When Henry Ford first envisioned the production line concept in 1913, his thoughts were not on the engine design, but how to lower cost and offer a transport solution at scale. Less than twenty years later, 15 million affordable cars had been delivered.
The UK has the ability to create innovative ideas for delivering nuclear technology, at a low price that can make a real and lasting contribution to net zero goals – and then support other nations in their own missions to move to low-carbon power.
Leading industrial companies are working with the UK’s innovation centres, national labs and academic institutions to deliver a UK Small Modular Reactor (UK SMR), which will develop a lasting capability vital to net zero delivery.
With £235m from Government, more than matched funded by industry and other investors, the foundations of a UK SMR industry and all its supporting services and systems can be developed. This new concept can build a pathway for future progress in advanced nuclear in support of co-generating hydrogen, synthetic liquid fuels and other challenging areas of decarbonisation.
The plan and the pay off
To achieve a UK SMR there is a shared objective across construction, manufacturing and digital technologies: to design, develop and license a product that can be built and delivered repeatedly with confidence. The UK SMR includes many design innovations which drive out cost and schedule risk, with perhaps the most important one being a ‘seismic’ raft which sits below the power station and effectively isolates it from the ground. This means everything above the ground is designed and manufactured in modern factories to ‘plug’ into the foundation, supporting a key project principle to design once and deploy many times.
Analysts predict in the near term, the programme will directly support 1,200 jobs in high value manufacturing, engineering and construction through 2024, creating over £1bn GVA in the UK. The programme can position the UK as a leader in the market which could be conservatively considered to exceed £300 billion. Capturing just a fraction of this market can grow a UK SMR sector to support up to 40,000 jobs in the UK for decades, including many roles for newly-trained engineers, technicians and manufacturers in UK regions most in need of long-term economic growth.
My father never wanted to see me follow in his footsteps into coal mines, and he didn’t understand climate change, but he wanted a secure future for his son and, in times of great hardship, funded my education. I’m grateful for the opportunity he provided, and I hope he would be proud of my efforts. It’s time to deliver solutions for the UK.
READ MORE ABOUT SMALL MODULAR REACTORS
Government funding targets SMRs
UKRI commits £18 million to SMR programme
In depth: exploring the potential of small factory built nuclear reactors
Finally! I remember discussing this with work colleagues some 10 years ago; we were all aware of the reactors used in submarines. I could not understand why this had not been exploited for civilian power generation, possibly on a local basis, rather than mega-scale installations in a single location. I really hope this is recognized by the Govt as the sensible way forward. Regarding wind and wave power generation, is there any published research as to the effect of removing the energy from wind/waves and how it affects the environment?
Good news but we need these, like yesterday.
The article is not very clear on what’s actually being done. And, being a bit of a cynic £235Mn x 2 does seem a bit of a drop in the ocean as to what will be actually needed to develop and deliver the first SMRs. I expect I got it all wrong, but let’s see more actual progress and less talk.
The Russians have SMR based ice breakers and are building more, their nuclear reactors are apparently the lowest cost and most economic, but we have the USA’s reds-under-the-bed outlook still dominating: aka buy USA products or else! This does throw up the interesting concept of off-shore floating power stations that can deliver power on demand. The sea-water condenser cooling system will be simplified also compared with land-based units.
We really need to bite the bullet and get on with this opportunity to create new exportable business for the UK, including all design and manufacture. A lot of heavy engineering and nuclear engineering expertise has now been lost, but could be recreated.
I also wondered why we haven’t been able to produce small nuclear reactors for electricity generation, and what about thorium? Maybe due to the waste problem?
As far as the effect of removing the energy from wind/waves, yes it would be good to have that studied. At first sight it would appear minimal but if anything it would be positive since climate change leads to more extreme weather.
Ref the linked report, ‘UKRI commits £18 million to SMR Programme’, “According to Rolls-Royce, the target cost for each station is £1.8bn by the time five have been built”.
Let’s not get too excited by false representations vs the true cost of nuclear energy and its legacy.
Having a wide distribution of generating plants will reduce the effect of losses on the grid. Especially given the needed wide proliferation of high power vehicle charging outlets. Standardisarion is the key to economic production.
If the moderator (ha! pun intended!) will indulge me posting this link: http://fluke.org.uk/view/Mendeleev_Program
I have with interest followed the talk and write-ups regarding this subject, but like so many recent clever ideas many of these are now so far out of date and based on very limited knowledge of much more modern ways of energy generation.This is the case here in the UK and in the US as a result from the dumbing down of technical education, now showing at high level in government and other authorities having a say in these matters. This often result in backing the wrong horse, ending up in much wasted effort and development capital. Please don’t compare so called “small military reactors” as small and safe, yes, they are kind of safe in the environment they work in, where accidents like destruction during conflict are ideally contained in the sea. Please take note that so far most marine reactors are of the pressurised water type, which are totally unacceptable without the enormous required containment arrangements for land based reactors where containment at 200+Bar is required which is to a far lesser extent required for seaborne equipment. We should perhaps have a look at Thorium reactors which run at far lower pressures (like 2 Bar), are naturally self quenching when things go wrong, (no meltdown possible), produce very little radiation by-product and a whole range of other advantages, regarding reactor startup, availability of fuel, Strontium is 2 orders of magnitude easier available from seawater etc, cannot be used as military explosives, is very much saver to handle etc, etc…….
One of the justifications must be to use up the 112 tonnes of Pu stored at Sellafield which can’t be sold or given away and with a half life of some 25,000 years will be need permanent storage at £Bns cost. Using it instead in reactors – SMRs preferably ready fuelled – will burn up the Pu generally leading to much shorter half life fission products while providing a lot of electricity. There are also programmes to process high level waste by irradiation but that’s another matter. Eventually the reactors could be replaced by thorium fuelled reactors which do no have the proliferation issues, if we haven’t got reliable fusion power available by then.
Nuclear energy in the UK is finished. Hinckley point will be the last of this horrendously experiment in a 50s technology. The future is 20 Mw floating wind turbines with lithium ion battery storage.
Correction!!! Strontium is 2 orders………. Should be Thorium is 2 orders ………..
Not sure I understand the huge cost for the SMR programme. Am I correct in thinking that these reactors are basically like those fitted to the latest nuclear submarines. So proven technology . A power station would basically be say 6 reactors linked together. This gives the option for planned downtime. I also understand on newer smaller reactors refuelling is not necessary so units are just replaced at the end of life
Seismic raft was first designed in to “float” Tokai Mura by UKAEA in 1961 – but obviously not a plug in…. For bio-security SSRs might be a preferred future option ? http://www.moltexenergy.com or http://www.terrestrialenergy.com
John Smedley: right now France is generating 58 GW of (mostly low carbon) electricity, 43 GW of which is nuclear. UK is generating 34 GW from all sources. One reason for the 24 GW difference between two countries with similar populations is France never had significant natural gas reserves, so for domestic hot water, space heating and cooking they are already using electricity. Nuclear certainly has a future for the UK – even if it only France kindly agreeing for us to run additional long extension leads across the channel to plug into their grid …http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/ and http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Thanks for the link JB, I’m not a nuclear engineer but a traditional thermal-power engineer, so value good links, especially to molten salt technology. This Anglo-Canadian Collaborative project seems to tie-up with the Engineers “Collaborate to innovate” programme very well and I hope that we will learn more about it in the near future.
For comparison (approximations):
Hinkley Point – £23 Bn, producing 3200 MW, In Service by 2026?
Rolls Royce SMR – £1.8 Bn each, producing c320 MW, in Service by 2028 (5 years).
So, in theory, a rolling programme of SMR’s (say 10) would be more cost effective ?
And, there would be a potential market for more overseas.
Richard Deakin’s”analysis” is naive in the extreme. SMRs are still experimental. All experience with nuclear is costs escalate not decrease with experience – nuclear uniquely in industry has a consistent negative learning curve. There is little or no chance SMRs will get a site license to operate near centres of population or industrial parks, which is where they will have to be built to make use of the surplus heat, something even SMRs biggest supporters argue needs to happen to make their deployment anywhere near economically justifiable. Aside from Hartlepool, no existing large nuclear plant site is near population centres, for obvious safety reasons.
SMRs require same safety as big nuke and that is not cheap. That means SMR clusters with common security shoukd be used. You cant distribute SMRs everywhere because then you distribute nuclear terror risks everyhere.
@ sec “then you distribute nuclear terror risks everyhere.”
But that must be a good thing … it’s a good example of recycling.
People these days have short attention spans & are getting fed up with the current terror risks of Mutant Viruses & Catastrophic Global Warming so ‘nuclear terror ‘ seems to be a good place to start recycling the list of all the old terrors that worked before. ( in my lifetime )
Then we can follow that with a few years each of – ‘A New Ice Age’, ‘Political Terrorism’, ‘Food – Shortages or GM’, ‘Human Population/Migration’, & back to ‘Global Warming’, maybe throw a few ‘End of The World Possible Asteroid Collisions’ to spice things up; just like we’ve done for the last 6,000 + years.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H. L. Mencken.
I shall continue to wear my tinfoil hat …
see … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urglg3WimHA … enjoy !!
My understanding was that the AGRs, such as built near Hartlepool (4km, from wiki, and quite near Middlesbrough too) have quite a good safety record, possibly due to their lower power density and high thermal inertia and not using water based reactor coolant; this might have been factored into the safety case – for the safety reasons
If nuclear reactors are to be used for process heat (such as in the production of hydrogen) then there is no necessary need for them to be in centres of population; however if heat was there required then, perhaps, VIP (vacuum insulated piping – as used for LNG, liquefied natural gas) could transfer it.
I believe that the Koreans had a successful learning curve for building nuclear reactors; but given the performance of large railway projects, in the UK, I can appreciate why there is a desire to build smaller reactors in the UK. And some of the designs , for SMRs , include thermal energy stores – which be used to store energy and generate electricity at sooner than the reactor came on stream, thus offsetting the interest paid on the build investment.
Unfortunately it is not clear what the full range of likely small reactors are going to be and, if some are going to be producing high temperature heat for chemical reactions (such as hydrogen production , say 850 C ) then it seems likely that gas cooling will be required to surmount corrosion issues,