Recent global developments have highlighted that renewables and fossil fuels, set up as they currently are, will continue to present problems economically and practically. That realisation has prompted a widespread rethink of nuclear power. For instance, Denmark, a country that has been until recently a nuclear sceptic, has announced a rethink of a 40-year nuclear power ban, given the growing demand for low-carbon electricity.
The recent power outage and large blackout in Spain & Portugal, while its cause has yet to be definitively ascertained, has frequently been attributed to an overreliance on renewable energy that at this point in the energy transition is not robust enough to survive grid transients. The response has been immediate. Spain, having tentatively initiated plans to close nuclear reactors over the next decade, has now put those plans on hold as it seeks to bolster its energy security.
Equally, geopolitical headwinds have underlined the need for alternative routes to energy reliability and sustainability targets. Russian oil & gas imports had formed a large part of the European pipeline, but since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with repeated rounds of sanctions and curtailment of fuel imports, alternative measures have had to be explored. Germany, for example, had its reliance on gas power plants especially put into focus in the wake of Russian import bans, and is now judiciously exploring nuclear reactor development, which had previously been rejected as an option.
The nuclear renaissance 2.0
Global attitudes are just now tilting back towards nuclear energy, and there will be a definitive advantage in being first past the post in nuclear energy investment and implementation. Such a focus could speed up wider decarbonisation across all industries. While there is now no doubt that efforts are starting to be devoted back towards nuclear energy to accelerate its green energy expansion, all eyes must turn to nuclear.
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.
* An Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) spokesperson said: “Our analysis shows that 82 high-level design changes were agreed with ONR when the UK EPR reactor was approved in 2012.
“These high-level changes led to further downstream modifications, but no arguments of disproportionality were made in relation to any of the modifications.
“Some changes were outside of the nuclear regulator’s influence, but all ONR-led modifications were proportionate, and the approach was broadly consistent with that of other international regulators, who in some instances required similar reactor design improvements.
“A review in 2024 of the regulatory influence on the EPR design in the UK concluded that all the Generic Design Assessment changes led to improvements to nuclear safety. We judge that these were required to satisfy our nuclear safety assessment principles, which are derived from international standards and good practice.
“We have not been able to identify evidence to support the figures quoted for 35% more steel and 25% more concrete. We estimate that the increase in concrete and steel due to our regulation is less than 5%.
“We exercise a proportionate approach to our regulation and will continue to enable the UK’s energy ambitions while ensuring the fundamental standards of nuclear safety and security.”
