1. I know this will cause me trouble, but it dismays me to see fellow environmentalists dismissing Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) out of hand, in some cases clearly before they have understood the technologies involved or their potential uses. 🧵
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Aye - not many folk are aware that seven subs have been rotting away in Rosyth, Scotland - still radioactive after 33 years and still not fully decommissioned. Will take another ten years and hundreds of £millions to make them safe.
It's just commercially available small modular reactors for domestic energy generation that don't exist. Can't just put a sub reactor up on land and have it generating electricity. Many safety and technical hurdles still to be gotten over b4 that could even happen.
For instance, it seems not to be obvious to political parties such as Reform UK who are basing their entire energy strategy on it, which is tantamount to betting the farm on 'magic beans'.
Show me an example of an SMR which is in use for supply to a national grid and which I can ask the company to build for us in the UK. I don’t believe any exist. They’re still in development just like nuclear fusion is.
They've got a lot bigger than the early promise they'd fit on a couple of forty foot trailers. Even Rolls Royce are now saying 'the size of two football pitches'.
It's because nuclear is set to save capitalism, the overextraction overconsumption and disregard for our biosphere, and work us all to death doing so
Trading emission reduction for resource depletion
We are headed straight for that cliff .Changing to nuclear aims us not quite straight off that cliff
Perhaps the SMRs can be located where most power is consumed - in the middle of large cities and towns (noting the water cooling requirements). They can take some of the inconvenience, disruption and risk, and give the coast and countryside a break.
As an anti nuclear supporter I know how... unreliable, information sources can be so in this age of too much (jaundiced) information can you direct me to other, more positive sources, I would be grateful
So I've done some looking and found many articles saying they create more radioactive waste than conventional reactors. Nor can I find much supporting the recycling of nuclear waste as fuel.
I would love to believe that smr's are a positive. I am one of those knee jerk nuclear is both expensive (waste) and bad. But I want a better solution and if these can recycle old waste that's got to be good? No? But....
I think they’re a really promising design for markets that include nuclear. The Australian Opposition promising then as a quick solution to stop investment in renewables on the other hand, isn’t great.
Sounds like the chorus of fossil-fuel billionaires & far-right vandals that are using SMR bullshit to push continued large scale fossil-fuel use in Australia.
Rose-glass salesmanship not required, thank you.
The time scale involved for developing viable commercial models and bringing them online in sufficient numbers to make a difference rules them out as part of the solution in keeping temps down to a +2.0C increase. Big Oil will just use them as a smokescreen for doing nothing in the meantime.
They are very expensive.
They leave crap behind.
If we put in billions that are essentially GIVEN to these companies then we're just being played.
We do NOT need it.
And who's paying for clean up of existing stuff - We are.
What's a realistic time frame for getting one up and running in a country with no previous nuclear power industry,regulations or government support or backing?
I know I have to learn more to make an educated decision but you need to understand why we’re skeptical. A minor accident happened at Davis-Besse n 2 experts went to their respective bosses n told them operators need to be retrained. They were ignored. The same event happened at TMI not long after..
…costing millions of dollars. It could have been prevented. The problem was both the technology AND the oversight system. Can you guarantee me that the oversight system is better now? Hope so!
My concern is the UKs habit of massively overspending on infrastructure projects, which quite often run way past the supposed delivery point and thus render them obsolete by the time they’re actually delivered.
There’s also storage, which, unlike nuclear, is going down in cost.
Also, networks are very effective at shifting power generation around. It’s not just one big windmill.
1. They don't exist
2. They'll be very expensive
3. We can't wait for them or afford them.
4. We have off-the-shelf technology that will store excess output from renewables, which we can use to generate electricity at peak times.
5. We can build and use that now.
But are there any actual viable ones? How long before there is one?
Until it's an actual viable thing it's just a distraction used to protect fossil fuel investments.
Neither is anything like what the west is talking about, neither is a basis for what the right wing parties want to push in the west, and that's before you get to the basic problem with all of them ...
The fact that you, of all people, need to preface what you’re about to say with a “just hear me out without ripping my head off first” says everything that is worth saying about the left/environmentalist movement at the moment.
My problem is that the same people pitching this brand new and ?untested technology are the same ones confidently pushing Sustainable Aviation Fuel and CCS and Capitalism-ing our way out of Capitalism.
My only confidence in SMR is that you're not shouting it down!
Remember James Lovelock making a clear case for nuclear, and, as time goes by, I only find it more compelling. I.e., given the demand (e.g. if we're wanting to be at cutting edge of AI), security of infrastructure, and consistency of supply.
I have no problem with the technology. My concern is with the siting of these SMR's. Nuclear power stations must have absolutely secure cooling water supply. River water is not secure in a drought. They should only be sited in coastal locations or near a very large lake.
I know. And they're supposed to churn out tens of thousands of them to meet climate goals.
I have an alternative. Take all the money that's going to be spent on AI that needs SMRs and put it into renewables. Cuts future consumption while increasing output.
My dad started work on a nuclear fusion project in 1977. It’s now 2025 and that project hasn’t achieved anything yet. Small reactors have existed since the 60s - in submarines etc. Where’s there’s tech that’s been in development for 50+ and hasn’t progressed to a more widely used form 1/2
You have to ask why? When this tech exists and is being demonstrated to offer value, let’s talk. Until then, as others have said, it’s no different to CCS.
George, I'm dismayed at why you'd still support nuclear power considering its many issues: cost, build time, environmental justice concerns (uranium mining, waste storage, siting,...), risks (proliferation, terrorism, meltdown,...),... when it's clear we DON'T need nuclear! https://bsky.app/profile/suzwarto.bsky.social/post/3lhourgjerk2z
A good time to share this link on safety of different energy sources. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
"All energy sources have negative effects... fossil fuels are the dirtiest and most dangerous, while nuclear and modern renewable energy sources are vastly safer and cleaner."
3/ 2. we are sensitized to the risks of nuclear power and afford it considerable scrutiny and regulatory oversight which is unlikely to be maintained were it to become more ubiquitous.
2/ we oughtn't to ignore that deaths owing to oil and gas production aren't generally disruptive of society, whereas the defining accidents in the nuclear industry caused massive upheaval, destruction of infrastructure and other costs and degradations, and
That's fine, you're suggesting there could be additional criteria to consider. But it seems unlikely that these would overturn the 3 orders of magnitude difference in death rate, i.e. fossil fuels would still come out bottom. And that's without considering the enormous impacts wrt climate change.
1/ While this is a reasonably factual and cogent article, it's just a tiny bit disingenuous in its comparison of energy sources based on deaths per TWh: 1. Nuclear power may have caused a relatively small number of actual deaths, but
The HTR-PM pebble bed in China is nice, walk-away safe. They've been working on it for a while and a revision. None of the Brit proposals are like it, so expect all the version 1 faff the salesteams pretend is sorted.
Don't submarine reactors use highly-enriched fuel to be so small? Massive proliferation risk, security drama... none of the SMR folks are talking about boat reactor though.
Absolutely fascinating article, thank you!
I remember discussions amongst Greens many years ago about the consideration of nuclear V fossil fuels on the grounds of climate change.
Very interesting and worth getting the facts out there for due consideration…
And it dismays me to seen environmentalists buy in to the techbro nonsense of 'future technologies will save us'!
We have the technologies we need already and this type of focus on what doesn't even exist is just yet another fossil fuel funded distraction from the needs of RIGHT FUCKING NOW.
Britain has massive potential renewable energy that is going to be faster to develop, and most important distributed so not relying on the unreliable grid.
Nuclear was maybe the answer 15+ years ago, but renewable development has changed things.
Already today Britain turns off power generation on the windiest days because we can't store the excess energy.
Storage is the solution needed.
40+% of our power generation is renewables today, its proven technology that won't run into years of overspend and overrun like a nuclear project will.
I'm not convinced but I agree that we should not dismiss SMRs if they can be affordable in the near future. Though in Sweden new nuclear seems to be a fatamorgana used by the government to evade action now.
Perhaps they have a place in countries who have some nuclear expertise and history and the benefit of development time.
It seems a backward way for countries who have no nuclear history or expertise but have rich and almost immediate access to renewables.
Spain WILL be like that… it will shut down its nuclear power plants starting 2027 and wants 100% renewables by 2050. They are better positioned than most countries to achieve this.
Yes nothing should be ruled out (or in) based on preconceived impressions. It’s similar but in reverse to the idea of generating electricity via tidal flow. Sounds great until you realise it’s construction could mean trashing a wetland habitat/ carbon sink
Perhaps (I’m no expert on the subject), but I’ve certainly seen proposals where tidal based projects would have a massive impact on their location’s ability to support nature.
True, but we need to produce massive amounts of power.
A Severn tidal barrier is the only workable system, lots of little turbines plonked into the few suitable tidal races are not enough.
While the benefits seem great on paper, the nuclear industry has zero public trust because of its own and government behavior. The very worst and stupidest people got involved with corner cutting and safety negligence. Also startup is an even dirtier, literally words
I'm perfectly happy with nuclear power. I'd have no objections if you wanted to put one near me, I can even give you suggestions for a suitable site. But, these mod nukes have been 10 years away for at least 15 years. By all means carry on developing them as we need to rebuild our expertise. But we
have other stuff that we need to get on with now such as insulating our frankly awful housing stock, sorting out the national grid and putting in place training programs to ensure we have people with the right skills. Meanwhile , the promoters of SMT should be more realistic in their promises.
There will be a need for a reliable baseload for a long time yet. Energy storage has a long way to go. Nuclear is better than gas and even biomass for that base load.
I suggest you read up on SMRs - because they are *absolutely* nothing to do with sub and carrier nuclear reactors, bear no similarities, and do not exist other than in research form
The date estimations are given current levels of progress with current levels of investment. If a major country decided to commit to it, entirely plausible that timeline gets sped up. The angle of that report is very clearly explained as "sit back and let everyone else take the lead".
"Are nuclear submarines powered by Small Modular Reactors?
Yes, nuclear submarines are powered by a form of Small Modular Reactor. However, it is unclear if they adhere to all the SMR definitions set out in page 5 of the ATSE report."
so i’m broadly pro nuclear (id do what S Korea have done) as part of the mix but i cannot see the economics of SMR and always remember Admiral Rickover's 1953 'Paper Reactor' memo….
Mork on nuclear waste - “On Ork whenever we have a nuclear accident we just use Nuke Away…” Mindy - “We don’t have Nuke Away on Earth” Mork “Then how do you get rid of tell-tale nuclear waste?” Mindy “We don’t” Mork “You’ll be telling you put it in cans next” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yfBWxw07h-Er
I’ve changed my opinion on this subject and have become quite sceptical. With the unexpectedly rapid development of renewables and associated technologies, I believe at least electricity-producing SMRs have now simply too late. (Heat may be different.)
Except some of the latest technologies don’t need to be located next to water. This is a classic case of judging technology based upon old versions of the technology.
There's lots of optimism -- prolly ~20 companies trying to develop SMRs, which is promising. However, I hae me doots. We need to halve emissions ASAP, and none of the designs currently under development will be in commercial prodn before 2040. We can buy wind and solar off the shelf, right now.
The French are at the forefront of fusion research. The ITER project in Caderache is a scaled-up version of the old Culham JET facility here in the UK.
ITER couldn't happen in the UK now because the Press would spit out their collective dummies over immigrant scientists and their 'dependents'.
The latest French conventional reactor is 4x over budget and 12 years over schedule. Also all of the reactors they built in the 1970's are aging out at the same time - and have had problems with cooling water from rivers drying up in Summer. This is only going to get worst with climate change.
& look how those very nuclear power plants put energy security at risk, in France, when human-induced climate change dried up the rivers providing the water essential for their safe operation. In Australia, how many of the LNP proposed sites will be under water due to (locked in) sea level rises??
Yep, and we need all the energy we can find, if we ever want to reverse the climate damage and start actively removing CO2 from the atmosphere. That's never going to happen with just wind and solar energy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBN9JeX3iDs
If we are to continue using energy at the current rate I think new nuclear is the only option. Nothing else will scale. Imagine storing a few winter day’s worth of wind or solar power.
Why would you. The electricity storage problem can be salved with environmental friendly stone battery’s, there is abundant electricity in summer. Like famine, its kore of a distribution problem than a production problem.
A shame they weren’t available to slot in to the old coal power plant sites. Many were sited near water (to receive coal shipments) and have grid connections in place.
I wasn't aware that some designs could use existing fuel waste rather than produce waste. Thought all nuclear processing created waste.
I will read the article and take it into account in future posts.
It would help if Labour gave more details on the SMRs they are proposing.
There are zero currently available commercial small modular nuclear reactors, and - by developers'
admission - are unlikely to be anytime before 2030. This puts them in the same bucket, development spend-wise, as nuclear fusion and should not be used as justification for continued fossil fuel use.
Commercial SMRs are also decades away. As for nuclear subs, they are ‘very small’ not ‘small’, which creates its own scaling problems.
It’s like it’s easy to build a small mobile home but very difficult to build a mobile mansion.
And, were it so simple, we’d have them.
But still only on the drawing board with respect to domestic use, and PWRs still produce high-level nuclear waste. My objection is to advocates of PWR (and large-scale carbon capture) professing that the technology is good-to-go for 'greening' domestic electricity generation, when it isn't (yet).
But still way way ahead of Fusion. The technology works. Fusion they celebrate when they can hold the temperatures required for a couple of thousand seconds. Decades away. Your 2030 sounds pretty decent by comparison.
Rising sea levels are a major concern with placing sites on the coast. And rivers are unreliable as France found out a few years go.
And the 'huge amount of work' is another reason why there will be delays. Delays in which fossil fuels will be burned and faster alternatives see reduced investment.
You’d have thought that they’d know how long it takes to build nuclear power plants by now and there shouldn’t be huge delays if properly planned. Or is this peculiarly a British thing. EDF have built enough plants in France to know how long it takes to build them.
I've been following SMRs for a little bit now. Along with this video by Sabina Hossenfelder and another nuclear physicist Elina Charatsidou. I think the public is overreacting when it comes to safety.
I agree. I have seen the researcgh labs at Rolls Royce. But what I object to is the investment in them as a future panacea at the expense of more proven, renewable technologies now.
In Ontario quite a bit of our electrify comes from this source. It’s clean & a better alternative than coal or other sources. But people are still afraid of nuclear; they keep thinking Chernobyl
No offence to your friend, but the people pushing carbon capture are often the same people pushing SMRs and the purpose is to buy time and reduce impositions on fossil fuel companies.
Agreed but she works with heavy and medium sized industry and is against the use of extractive industries for energy. She also lobbies the UK government and speaks at conferences globally. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. All options should be on the table
Absolutely not, and hence my caveat, but these things also happen in context and we should be cautious.
I’m in Australia and it is absolutely the case, but good faith, effective solutions will be many and varied.
Exactly! A multi channel strategy typically harder to achieve but nearly always benefits the greater good in the end. Especially with dependence on the elements as unpredictable as they are.
What makes a carbon capture engineer a pseudo scientist? For starters, explain how engineering isn’t an applied science? And if working in pioneering industries to resolve the greatest global problem we face today isn’t part of the solution… please explain?!
And if we want Direct Carbon Capture to be viable, to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and undo some of the climate damage, we need an abundance of cheap energy. Solar and wind will never ever suffice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBN9JeX3iDs
The multi channel approach to solving the globes greatest problem will alway be the best option. Solar, wind, geo thermal, hydro electric, tidal etc… there is an abundance of solutions to suit most conditions.
It dismays me, a fan, to see you supporting this untested, expensive, imaginary, and dangerous technology. We have so many lower tech, proven, and affordable solutions ready to implement now. That’s where the money and effort should go.
Bear in mind that the US has always been favorable to nuclear and innovations, but there is no SMR operating in America, and recent projects fell through because no financing and/or too costly (nuscale for example).
So it is entirely rational not to count on SMR at this time.
envirohnmentalist concerns are associated with spent nuclear fuel. The trouble is nuclear is required within the energy mix because even rolled out at huge scale, renewables won't be able to deliver the high energy required for example new Data Centres and general population consumption.
Well Australia seems to have managed pretty well without them till now and is only just scratching the surface of it's renewable potential.
As for data centres, why is it a given we need to bow down to the demands of the techbros for them?
Design them so they crunch numbers when the Sun shines.
As to my last point - would be less convenient for sure but if you built them in Arizona, Australia, North Africa - and they shared the load & data between them then might that be an alternative approach to satisfying their energy needs 24/7?
Although they also eat up lots of water.
Don't care if I'm being biased. In Australia I do not know why we'd opt for an expensive nuclear reactor that'll be out of date by the time it's operational when we have much cheaper solar and wind generation available right now.
SMRs may not be a problem but no government has ever safely utilised this tech and they can't be trusted to do it now. Additionally in many cases governments lied about the safety and potential of nuclear power. Let's focus on the safe sustainable methods.
Multiple smaller power stations pose multiple security hazards, both terrorism and reckless staff.
The problem is if one goes seriously wrong then large areas become uninhabitable for long periods of time
We also need to try and stop this increasing need for electricity and become more energy efficient, but the oligarch companies want you to buy more and more electric devices, and now with added WiFi capability that I putting increasing demands on electricity generation to power their servers.
and AI is going to blow that need for power off the planet!! Another reason to restrict AI. Something the LNP have failed to consider in their energy projections for the future!!
2. They are very different technologies to previous generations of nuclear plants. Far from creating nuclear waste, some designs have the potential to use existing waste as fuel, generating electricity while solving a knotty problem. There are none of the safety issues involved in earlier nukes.
The basic physics of nuclear generation creates quantities of fission products which remain in used fuel and contaminate other materials used in production. That is what nuclear waste consists of.
Any form of nuclear energy creates waste.
To burn “waste” fissile material must be extracted then…
added to new fuel, processes which contaminate more materials from equipment to fluids, filters and clothing.
The stuff not extracted from used fuel remains highly radioactive waste and the processes create more waste of different levels of hazard.
This “using waste as fuel” is pure marketing hype.
These claims of waste reduction and "no safety issues" are mainly touted by the prospective manufacturers. They ignore many of the issues highlighted by Krall et al, and the obvious safety risk of scattering thousands of nuclear sites across the planet.
On this point, did you see the UK government recently decided it will immobilise its spent plutonium stockpile? - to the disappointment of AMR developers
How do you know that? For one, having lots of SMRs fitted everywhere puts the risk in more people's backyards and not just from the plant itself Let's increase the number of targets for potential enemies! No thanks. Look at how the nuclear plant was targeted by Russia in Ukraine!
I suggest you read this, by a trio of scientists who work on nuclear waste (Macfarland is a former head of the US NRC). They don’t cover all SMR designs, but their analysis remains compelling and I’m sorry to say that it doesn’t support your position
3. Other designs could produce hydrogen through thermal cracking, bypassing both the very damaging fossil fuel route and the very inefficient electrolysis route. Some can produce reliable power for industries with a very high and concentrated energy demand, with almost no emissions.
If all this is true, I'd be interested in hearing just how they don't violate any laws of thermodynamics, how they eliminate any chance of meltdown, and have no chance of having any radioactive product left at the end of their lifetime.
That makes no sense. Why continue wasting money on something that has been a dead end for years? If you have the money, go for it and when you have something that works, show it to the world.
It isn't wasting money if they have funding - surely. If you're funding research you're aware that results are not guaranteed and risk is involved and therefore accepted. You calling it a dead end means nothing if all you've got is vibes.
4. There is a wide range of potential designs, that can solve several problems which are otherwise hard to address. By all means critique them, but please do so on the basis of what they are, rather than what you think they are. Prejudice has no place in science or environmentalism.
Would it be a fairly safe assumption that Starmer is seeking a solution for the lack of transmission capacity here? He wants a big computer right? And AI and all that tech stuff but has found out that the grid can't take it? Solution: let the data centres generate their own power?
I am not sure the British tax payer is going to be ok with paying for these reactors, partly in order to help grow an AI industry, which will decimate jobs and further enrich technocrats who pay no tax here. I am not.
5. I'm not claiming they're a panacea: there's no such thing. But there's great potential here, which keeps being stifled by ill-informed politics, such as the Democrats in Congress shutting down the research programme at Argonne National Laboratories that had been running successfully for 30 years.
Potential, potential, could, potential.
I'm not an expert in nuclear generation, but, I am pretty much up to speed on corporate press releases, it will remain on my list of unproven uncosted, future technologies that are of no use now, like CCS & fusion (solving our problems in 20 years since 1950)
(except as a means of trying to persuade people not to panic).
On waste, my understanding was that more waste would be produced as a result of containment (surface area to volume ratio), if the fuel can be recycled then that would be a plus, but, we have heard that one before as well...
Exactly. No fuel generation is perfect - each one has faults and/or limitations. It really is a case of "choose your poison" (or stop using electricity).
We struggle to have sensible informed debates about too many scientific issues.
There will always be a balance between cost, benefit and risk. However, this debate is often impossible due to the inability to access information that has not been skewed by politics and vested interest.
Yo George,
Combined in the grid with renewables, it kind of is a panacea though right?
Zero CO2 Electricity & hydrogen generation, nuclear waste recycling, industrial heat source…
What does a tech need to do to be considered a panacea these days? 🤷🏼♂️
I'm mostly just annoyed by SMRs by people using the idea of them as an excuse to not build other clean energy. If we figure out how to make functioning and semi-affordable SMRs at some point? Great! If politicians say we shouldn't build windfarms because there might be SMRs in the future? That's bad
I don't want to block you, but you have a made a series of empty and fatuous comments on this thread. If you have something serious to say, the floor is yours.
When you can show me how to deal with the waste that doesn't leave it as a problem for a future generation of whatever life has evolved into by the time it is safe I will get interested.
Fascinating article🙏🏻
Have to say after reading it(twice);
2011🧐..,I mean to say that’s a long time ago & then again it isn’t🤔And then again(again🤦🏻♂️)& in this context, it feels as though it really is🧐🤷🏻♂️
Semirelated I did a quick ‘google’* on nuclear fission & fussion - if only* 25 yrs’ ago at uni’🤓 🌱🕊️
why spend so much money on something that's still empty promise or wishfull thinking, with problems still not solved? Aren´t there better solutions in renewables?
Let google buy its own reactor. It's a capitalist solution which burdens earth and human lives. https://www.dukeupress.edu/radiation-and-revolution
The principal objection might be that, because some sort of societal collapse/prolonged civil and military strife is now very possible, SMRs could become a dangerous liability?
But if AMOC collapse happens, they would have been a risk worth taking?
Agree 👋 "environmentalists have a choice.We can’t wish the waste away.Either it is stored & then buried.Or it is turned into mox fuels.Or it is used to power IFRs."... "we should determine where we stand. I suggest we take the radical step of using science, not superstition, as our guide"
The issue is technosolutionism rather than trying to solve our real issue which is the quantity of energy we waste. The 1st thing is to stop energy consumption growth, it is physics that's what drives the world.
In Australia's case, comments like "have the potential", "could produce", "potential designs" are exactly why it's a bad idea here, because it means halting renewable energy & extending coal & gas generation.
That's the plan of the guy who wants to be our next PM. It just doesn't stack up.
Come back and discuss when any actual working system has been designed and built
Until then, SMRs have one property only, they are being used to promise a miracle future where renewables won't be needed to maintain the use of fossil fuels
There are NO merits! Only smoke & mirrors! We’ve been promised SMR for 20+ years now and they are nowhere near marked or even financially proven. It’s a distraction! That’s it. Let private companies tinkle with it. But let’s not waste a minute on them!
True SMRs (not Rolls-Royce's adapted military reactor) sound promising, and I can't see any convincing argument against developing the technology to pilot stage / beyond.
A real shame governments didn't go for this 20 years ago; by now, we could be switching out coal stations for these mini nukes.
Totally agree.
But lets also agree, that we should be going hell for leather to get to Net Zero using Renewables before SMRs are commercially available.
Not slowing down because SMR's might help further down the line.
Which is what Right Wing Parties and Coal & Gas lobby want.
A year or so after this was published, my wife and I submitted an article to the Guardian on the potential of safe, clean, abundant (and nuclear-waste-using) thorium energy. It was rejected. Can we blame you, George @georgemonbiot.bsky.social, you know, for beating us to it and doing it better?
#5. These next generation reactors are clean, much cheaper, and fundamentally safer in how the physics works. Yes, I prefer renewable energy too, but these technologies are an essential part of the energy mix required to meet growing global demand. Put simply, the numbers don't add up otherwise.
I 100% agree we should look at this technology but right now it's being used in Australia to stop decarbonisation.
We can decarbonise now with ACTUAL designs, no need to wait for "potential designs. https://youtu.be/JBqVVBUdW84?feature=shared
#4. Was invited to attend a Parliamentary cross-bench/cross House committee on thorium energy a decade or so ago. Professor @jimalkhalili.bsky.social presented at one of the meetings. Many of us were certain that next gen reactors would have to be an essential part of the energy mix for the planet.
Nuclear to Hydrogen makes no economic sense. You are correct that electrolysis is inefficient but the relative cheapness of Solar power, and it's only getting cheaper, makes it far cheaper than thermal cracking.
Open to concept, but I'm unclear a) how many will be needed?, & b) if that n is high, how can security be provided cost-effectively (eg to protect from dirty bomb threats)? Also, will SNR suck r&d from long under-funded fusion research (in part due to legacy oil/gas lobby)?
"some designs have the potential to use existing waste as fuel"
This is also true for conventional Nuclear reactors but they don't do it because it's expensive and difficult to do. It's cheaper to mine new uranium.
SMR's will run into similar issues and the waste will pile up.
#2 We're a few years on now, but Nobel prize winner for physics, Professor Carlo Rubbia is a superb authority on these technologies. New designs have such astonishing benefits that I can understand how some think it's too good to be true. And existing problems they overcome are incredible positives.
Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel for reuse generates additional volumes waste, through direct contamination and activation. We have a lot of experience of this in the UK with Magnox and THORP at Sellafield
Further to this, SMRs require a higher enriched fuel than conventional reactors - due to the need to sustain fission in smaller cores - which leads to hotter wastes. These wastes then need longer to cool at surface before disposal, with associated societal risks
So while its correct that some wastes from our existing stockpiles can be processed for use in new reactors, this does not solve our complex and substantial legacy waste problem. Ultimately we need to press ahead with our geological disposal facility
Thank you for this comment. I have been explaining for several years that light water reactors are not the future but that there are other technologies which have been neglected or suppressed for various reasons. We should be open to discussing technologies before dismissing them.
There seems to be a great deal of hypocrisy from objectors. ‘It’s years away!’ So how many years away was viable green energy in the early days? ‘It’s not safe, look at Chernobyl’! How many other aspects of your life do you judge on 1960’s technology?
I have seen reports online and they are mixed.
In summary lots of promise but that's yet to be practically realised / implemented
Links to reputable reports world be nice
Especially interested where they have been implemented and are working
There was a big announcement last year re Korea but that's in early stages. Another big promise no delivery.. As yet
As for others, I know of a few that are promised late this decade 5 years off 😢
The problem with SMRs is not the technology, it is the suitability. On average they are in the order of 500MW which is too large for most applications and too small to replace existing power stations. MMRs, conversely, are far more appropriate. Either, though, is 10 years away!
Definitely great in principle, though many systems so far are neither really small nor modular (Volts has good
Podcast on this). But the best thing is they could be politically stable- rare clean tech the right actually like (though obviously should not be an excuse to slow wind and solar).
As long as the tech actually lives up to the promise, and it really IS MUCH SAFER then this is something we are going to need to get behind - we have to stop burning fossil fuel full stop.
Thank you for sending a wake up call. I think too many of us are prone to being lazy and not using our critical thinking, simply following the environmental “establishment”.
I’ll support more nuclear when the first new nuclear power plant in central London is approved (near consumers, lots of cooling water, several old fossil fuel power station sites available). Until then, the “it’s too unsafe to put near rich people so why should I have it near me” argument applies.
I feel the same way about their stance on GM and gene edited crops. They lump everything into one bucket without assessment of the different aspects and applications.
Their current biggest problem is they don’t exist in the way they are promised. They could be the transitor radio of power but they could also be the Concorde.
What gets me is why do Green politicians so often object to these cheaper options, including solar, wind and the infrastructure for it
We have a climate emergency, time for lengthy enquiries is over, get on and build them
Agree completely. The term Green is a very large umbrella. There are people who will be concerned about nature but completely unconcerned by global warming and effects. They talk about whales and turbines but ignore this.
You're not wrong. They will be too late to stop the change (we are already too late to stop the change)
But we will still need elec if the weeks is going to carry on. Wind and solar first. But then another zero carbon for constant supply will still be required ?
The last 10-20% of a fully renewable grid will also be very expensive. The cost of renewables go up with saturation.
It’s an optimisation problem where you probably want a significant majority of your grid being wind/solar and then a nuclear baseline to minimise the delta between supply and demand.
Only operational SMRs are in Russia & China - no data on costs. Think the argument goes that cost comes down with the volume of production, though cost of constructing a manufacturing plant would be high. Also find that which costs are included in comparisons are preferential, not objective.
Not really. Already having existing nuclear reactors is a cheaper way of making low carbon energy. But new ones are competing with renewables and storage whose costs are going down.
The anti-nuclear power movement started before people knew about climate change. If younger people don’t protest FOR nuclear, they’ll cook from climate change.
Remember also that Russia promoted the anti-nuke movement in places like Germany which then got hooked on energy from Russia.
In Germany we are at 60% renewable energy, aiming at 80%. Nuclear power no longer makes sense in this setup, as we no longer can make good use of any energy source that you cannot quickly start and stop to make up for changes in wind/sun activity. At this point it’s all about only storage.
Your fellow environmentalists are correct. Why would a country with such vast renewable resources - clean, safe, never ending - even consider building costly nuclear power stations?
If you build nuclear power stations you're effectively supporting the electricity supply industry oligarchs.
Quick question - would you want one within a mile of your house? Quick follow up question - why does the UK government want to dump them in Scotland considering we're producing more energy than we use?
Great, so you're not worried that our world leaders seem to have chosen war and it would make it a lovely target? Also, I know it's easy to forget about Scotland, everyone in England seems to but anything about the follow up question?
Why do you do this? You’re otherwise such an erudite commentator, but on this issue you’re inexplicably naive. We’ve barely scratched the surface of sources of renewable energy. SMRs or any form of nuclear just diverts resources from actual clean energy.
I think a few years ago you said something along the lines of ‘nuclear poses a risk of causing an environmental catastrophe, as against fossil fuel power stations that are certain to do so’.
Of course we want newer, safer, cheaper nuclear technology, but it’s always been better than fossil fuels
Interesting and I’ll read into it. My concern is that most things that seem too good to be true, usually are. E.g. carbon capture, clean aviation fuel etc.
You say this is not a panacea, but it is. Any of us in the enviro movement for a time come to recognize the “Oh, don’t worry about it, there’s this new tech -just over the horizon- that will render all such concerns moot.”
I’ve been around for a while, and haven’t seen a one come to fruition.
"Not a single site operating in the world" could I please introduce to you nuclear-powered ships and submarines? That's essentially what SMRs are currently used for, so they're a tried and tested technology currently in use.
“Essentially” is not same land based commercial SMRs. Vessels at sea have an abundance of cooling water. This is precisely the kind of reason why nuclear projects always overrun on time and cost. There are NO commercially operating SMRs, anywhere.
Without being too scientific my gut feeling leans towards geothermal power and tidal generation without the inherent risks of nuclear which in an unstable world are bound to increase?
If I'm understanding this correctly, George isn't saying SMRs should be plonked down everywhere. Rather take time to understand that the technology is different from LWR reactors.
The use cases for SMRs are always going to be niche but they have huge potential for these niche applications.
they’re nothing more than paper designs with no funding. they would solve lots of problems if they actually existed and you could build them in a reasonable time.
#1. In the 2010s there was a bonkers £20Bn UK plan to bury the world's worst radioactive waste in a deep hole in Cumbria. I wrote a letter to then Energy Secretary, Ed Davey, pointing out the waste could actually be used to generate clean, safe, energy, becoming much less hazardous in the process.
the sole purpose of SMRs is to grab government funding and prop up share prices of theoretical SMR suppliers.
Solar and Wind, with BESS, is much quicker and cheaper to install.
It's time to move on.
From an energy engineering perspectivr: The tech is impressive but honestly every prototype thus far has crashed & burned on their promises - ending up being MUCH more expensive ehile deliveribg less energy/being less efficient. Seems more like a hype bubble tbh
Examples: AP1000 Reactors (Vogtle Project, V.C. Summer Project), HTGR (China), CAREM (argentina), NuScale (Idaho), mPower ... In each case they went overbudget and/or under power generation targets.
Throwing money at RE and Storage is a better and safer bet than nuclear. IEEE called it yrs ago
George - "just have a think did a fair review here". Possibly some niche applications - but essentially a distraction from the main task YT - search "just have a think SMR's" https://youtu.be/Zr1ecjYFYTo?si=Vgq_CHJ73u6QgmU7
This reminds me of the familiar mantra - 'Reduce, Re-use, Recycle'. Ppl leapt on recycling, cos they don't need to stop consuming. Some re-use things, so consume a bit less. No gov or company ever promotes reducing. SMRs, I think, are yet another avoidance of that one meaningful measure.
The issues with SMRs are time and money. Will large amounts of money be sunk into the technology which we won’t see any results from for many years? The same money could be used for technology that exists now to decarbonise the grid and provide a return on investment faster.
I would prefer to have no nuclear but needs must if we’re to keep the lights on. Living 50 miles away from Sellafield the idea of reusing nuclear waste sounds promising.
Something possible, thats not been done yet on any scale, anywhere, no case studies for us to compare, no examples we can learn from, who will build them, with what, where, when, how much, will they work, who will own them, I mean George. You were right. It will get you into trouble. Unicorns.
Honestly, my reaction isn't about nuclear energy itself, so much as it is about imagining a wave of nuclear reactors built and maintained by the same class of people currently dumping shit into our rivers because repairing pipes is too expensive for shareholders.
I am so exasperated when this happens when trying to have an informed discussion about nuclear as part of the net zero agenda with a ‘green warrior’
It’s pathetic.
In China, solar share of the power mix has gone from nothing to twice nuclear in 10 years. In Spain, fossil fuel share is down to 20% due to dramatic increases in wind and solar.
SMR in 2025 has the feel of an experimental, fully automated horseshoe factory solution in 1925 - just too damn late.
New mines to supply batteries.
The concept of SMR is quite different from the older large scale power plants. There is plenty of literature on this if you care to look.
And if you’re into ad hominem then perhaps Twitter/X is actually your preferred space.
I don't think you can call it "ad hominem" when the person in question is hiding behind a nom-de-plume that, in the other place, is a very clear signifier of a bad faith actor. 🙂
If you want to be treated seriously, present yourself seriously. 🤷🏻♂️
If they are technologies that do as you say and for arguement s sack - no waste, eat waste , totally safe etc, why make small ones rather than big ones?
Lots of little ones will be a planning and safety/security nightmare. Hence the pre-amble about scrapping 'red tape'. Euphemism for scrapping safety regs
Whenever anyone talks about scrapping red tape or disruptor ...
The problem with nuclear is time. We need clean energy now, not in decades. Better renewable coverage is cheaper, faster and doesn't come with a built in terrorism risk.
Comments
Trading emission reduction for resource depletion
We are headed straight for that cliff .Changing to nuclear aims us not quite straight off that cliff
Rose-glass salesmanship not required, thank you.
They leave crap behind.
If we put in billions that are essentially GIVEN to these companies then we're just being played.
We do NOT need it.
And who's paying for clean up of existing stuff - We are.
Asking for a friendly nation.
Really useful to know more and the public should be informed about them if it is to become uk policy
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ydeMrFcwA1o
Also, networks are very effective at shifting power generation around. It’s not just one big windmill.
2. They'll be very expensive
3. We can't wait for them or afford them.
4. We have off-the-shelf technology that will store excess output from renewables, which we can use to generate electricity at peak times.
5. We can build and use that now.
That's it.
Until it's an actual viable thing it's just a distraction used to protect fossil fuel investments.
And we are 10-35 years away from even finding out if they may be viable
One reactor in China, and two reactors (in one facility) in Russia.
Both are state built, and not for sale.
Not exactly confidence inspiring.
https://www.powermag.com/a-closer-look-at-two-operational-small-modular-reactor-designs/
https://bsky.app/profile/ketanjoshi.co/post/3lhldrjqbu22d
Entirely magic beans
It's faster and cheaper to build renewables now than to even consider SMRs
Australia is aiming for 82% renewable by 2030
That's before a commercial SMR could even be designed, let alone planned, built and brought online
Same elsewhere
We deserve to fail.
My only confidence in SMR is that you're not shouting it down!
They're taking a hell of a long time for something fast, safe and cheap.
While we're waiting for the demonstration projects how about we spend money on the current measures that work.
I mean, it's been nearly a decade, come on. 👇
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/02/mini-nuclear-power-stations-in-uk-towns-move-one-step-closer/
I have an alternative. Take all the money that's going to be spent on AI that needs SMRs and put it into renewables. Cuts future consumption while increasing output.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1738573324005643
https://knowledge.energyinst.org/new-energy-world/article?id=139322
Here's a solution for you: follow @mzjacobson.bsky.social and read pages 159 & 160 of his book, No Miracles Needed.
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/
https://bsky.app/profile/suzwarto.bsky.social/post/3lhourgjerk2z
"All energy sources have negative effects... fossil fuels are the dirtiest and most dangerous, while nuclear and modern renewable energy sources are vastly safer and cleaner."
Ratings vary but the versions fitted to UK submarines are about 200MW and last about 30 years before being replaced.
I wouldn't actually expect using a naval pwr directly.
Just used to illustrate that small nuclear reactors are not uncommon or expensive (taken against the £22bn for "carbon capture")
Virginia class subs clock in at about USD2bn each, but that's an entire submarine.
So the reactor is probably less than £1bn each (for 200MW)
Hinckley C will cost over £26bn for 3,200MW. Which could get you 26 SMRs giving 5,200MW
https://xkcd.com/1162/
I remember discussions amongst Greens many years ago about the consideration of nuclear V fossil fuels on the grounds of climate change.
Very interesting and worth getting the facts out there for due consideration…
We have the technologies we need already and this type of focus on what doesn't even exist is just yet another fossil fuel funded distraction from the needs of RIGHT FUCKING NOW.
Britain has massive potential renewable energy that is going to be faster to develop, and most important distributed so not relying on the unreliable grid.
Nuclear was maybe the answer 15+ years ago, but renewable development has changed things.
Storage is the solution needed.
40+% of our power generation is renewables today, its proven technology that won't run into years of overspend and overrun like a nuclear project will.
It seems a backward way for countries who have no nuclear history or expertise but have rich and almost immediate access to renewables.
A Severn tidal barrier is the only workable system, lots of little turbines plonked into the few suitable tidal races are not enough.
Also note the dates that commercial MRs *may* be viable - in 10-25 years time - each then with a build time of decades
https://www.atse.org.au/news/small-modular-reactors-frequently-asked-questions/
And countries *are* working on them at full speed
It's decades away at best
And there's reasonable doubt they are viable at all
Also I notice you didn't comment on how wrong you are about nuclear subs :)
Yes, nuclear submarines are powered by a form of Small Modular Reactor. However, it is unclear if they adhere to all the SMR definitions set out in page 5 of the ATSE report."
Uh huh
Read on, do your homework
You could actually learn something today
Do you know of any environmentalists taking action against companies or universities about SMRs?
https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/csiro-confirms-nuclear-fantasy-would-cost-twice-as-much-as-renewables/
More in this thread:
https://bsky.app/profile/jmkorhonen.fi/post/3lhlldkjhxk2y
At this late stage in the game, we need more compassionate pragmatism and less ideological purity.
Fukushima.
Renewable energy technologies such as wind and solar are obviously safer.
Nuclear directly led the French developing the TGV while we were still building dirty diesel locomotives.
ITER couldn't happen in the UK now because the Press would spit out their collective dummies over immigrant scientists and their 'dependents'.
There is so much more:
Molecules and heat for industry mostly.
Plus district heating.
There's never any excuse for rejecting zero carbon energy.
I will read the article and take it into account in future posts.
It would help if Labour gave more details on the SMRs they are proposing.
admission - are unlikely to be anytime before 2030. This puts them in the same bucket, development spend-wise, as nuclear fusion and should not be used as justification for continued fossil fuel use.
It’s like it’s easy to build a small mobile home but very difficult to build a mobile mansion.
And, were it so simple, we’d have them.
2022 article says 2030.
Really not on the same timescale as fusion.
And the 'huge amount of work' is another reason why there will be delays. Delays in which fossil fuels will be burned and faster alternatives see reduced investment.
I've been following SMRs for a little bit now. Along with this video by Sabina Hossenfelder and another nuclear physicist Elina Charatsidou. I think the public is overreacting when it comes to safety.
Here's some more stuff about SMRs by Elina Charatsidou. Gates is working on a thorium reactor. I think there are SMRs utilizing thorium.
https://ieefa.org/resources/gorgon-ccs-underperformance-hits-new-low-2023-24
I’m in Australia and it is absolutely the case, but good faith, effective solutions will be many and varied.
Not a good basis to start from
https://www.thejuicemedia.com/honest-government-ad-nuclear/
So it is entirely rational not to count on SMR at this time.
As for data centres, why is it a given we need to bow down to the demands of the techbros for them?
Design them so they crunch numbers when the Sun shines.
Although they also eat up lots of water.
The problem is if one goes seriously wrong then large areas become uninhabitable for long periods of time
and they ain't all that anyway. https://blog.ucsusa.org/edwin-lyman/five-things-the-nuclear-bros-dont-want-you-to-know-about-small-modular-reactors/
Any form of nuclear energy creates waste.
To burn “waste” fissile material must be extracted then…
The stuff not extracted from used fuel remains highly radioactive waste and the processes create more waste of different levels of hazard.
This “using waste as fuel” is pure marketing hype.
https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2022/05/small-modular-reactors-produce-high-levels-nuclear-waste
It's not as bad as the terrific fusion scam companies, but it's still more sales puff than substance.
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/amr-developer-disappointed-by-governments-decision-to-immobilise-plutonium-stockpile-30-01-2025/
Well, the sulfur-iodine cycle, strictly speaking, but I'm sure you're already well aware of that 😊
What does that actually look like?
https://sppga.ubc.ca/profile/m-v-ramana/
Small Modular and Advanced Nuclear Reactors: A Reality Check
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9374057
But people need to understand disciplined R&D processes, because most advanced projects fail:
https://archive.nytimes.com/dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/r2-d2-and-other-lessons-from-bell-labs/
I'm not an expert in nuclear generation, but, I am pretty much up to speed on corporate press releases, it will remain on my list of unproven uncosted, future technologies that are of no use now, like CCS & fusion (solving our problems in 20 years since 1950)
On waste, my understanding was that more waste would be produced as a result of containment (surface area to volume ratio), if the fuel can be recycled then that would be a plus, but, we have heard that one before as well...
There will always be a balance between cost, benefit and risk. However, this debate is often impossible due to the inability to access information that has not been skewed by politics and vested interest.
Combined in the grid with renewables, it kind of is a panacea though right?
Zero CO2 Electricity & hydrogen generation, nuclear waste recycling, industrial heat source…
What does a tech need to do to be considered a panacea these days? 🤷🏼♂️
Have to say after reading it(twice);
2011🧐..,I mean to say that’s a long time ago & then again it isn’t🤔And then again(again🤦🏻♂️)& in this context, it feels as though it really is🧐🤷🏻♂️
Semirelated I did a quick ‘google’* on nuclear fission & fussion - if only* 25 yrs’ ago at uni’🤓 🌱🕊️
Let google buy its own reactor. It's a capitalist solution which burdens earth and human lives.
https://www.dukeupress.edu/radiation-and-revolution
But if AMOC collapse happens, they would have been a risk worth taking?
https://knowledge.energyinst.org/new-energy-world/article?id=139322
That's the plan of the guy who wants to be our next PM. It just doesn't stack up.
Come back and discuss when any actual working system has been designed and built
Until then, SMRs have one property only, they are being used to promise a miracle future where renewables won't be needed to maintain the use of fossil fuels
There are NO merits! Only smoke & mirrors! We’ve been promised SMR for 20+ years now and they are nowhere near marked or even financially proven. It’s a distraction! That’s it. Let private companies tinkle with it. But let’s not waste a minute on them!
A real shame governments didn't go for this 20 years ago; by now, we could be switching out coal stations for these mini nukes.
The company had some significant nuclear expertise
We were bought by the Americans and the project was shelved...
but that showed promise for safely burning nuclear waste.
But lets also agree, that we should be going hell for leather to get to Net Zero using Renewables before SMRs are commercially available.
Not slowing down because SMR's might help further down the line.
Which is what Right Wing Parties and Coal & Gas lobby want.
We can decarbonise now with ACTUAL designs, no need to wait for "potential designs.
https://youtu.be/JBqVVBUdW84?feature=shared
Also nuclear will have a much higher volume.
With high temperature steam.
This is also true for conventional Nuclear reactors but they don't do it because it's expensive and difficult to do. It's cheaper to mine new uranium.
SMR's will run into similar issues and the waste will pile up.
In summary lots of promise but that's yet to be practically realised / implemented
Links to reputable reports world be nice
Especially interested where they have been implemented and are working
As for others, I know of a few that are promised late this decade 5 years off 😢
Podcast on this). But the best thing is they could be politically stable- rare clean tech the right actually like (though obviously should not be an excuse to slow wind and solar).
Being holier than thou distracts from the job in hand. Save the planet from Killer Oil
First world hand wringing that damages third world survival !
Except now it is pushing the whole planet to the edge !
Also could keep the storage topped up ??
We have too much daytime solar in Australia.
We have a climate emergency, time for lengthy enquiries is over, get on and build them
But we will still need elec if the weeks is going to carry on. Wind and solar first. But then another zero carbon for constant supply will still be required ?
It’s an optimisation problem where you probably want a significant majority of your grid being wind/solar and then a nuclear baseline to minimise the delta between supply and demand.
But not one whiff of co2
Remember also that Russia promoted the anti-nuke movement in places like Germany which then got hooked on energy from Russia.
But not sure why that carried over into this generation that has not had a whiff of nuclear armegeddon?
If you build nuclear power stations you're effectively supporting the electricity supply industry oligarchs.
Of course we want newer, safer, cheaper nuclear technology, but it’s always been better than fossil fuels
I’ve been around for a while, and haven’t seen a one come to fruition.
The dismissal isn't out of hand, it's based upon genuine concerns.
1. Cooling water supplies
2. Spent fuel
3. Sources of fuel
4. Not a single site operating anywhere in the world
5. History of overspend/overtime and (see 4)
6. The cash could be spent on renewables
7. In the time wasted experimenting, many alternatives could be implemented and fossil fuels continue to be used.
We don't have time to waste on nuclear experiments, the climate crisis is NOW!
The use cases for SMRs are always going to be niche but they have huge potential for these niche applications.
Solar and Wind, with BESS, is much quicker and cheaper to install.
It's time to move on.
Throwing money at RE and Storage is a better and safer bet than nuclear. IEEE called it yrs ago
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/feb/07/planners-recommended-against-nuclear-plant-in-2019-over-welsh-language-and-cultural-concerns-hitachi
https://youtu.be/Zr1ecjYFYTo?si=Vgq_CHJ73u6QgmU7
It’s pathetic.
SMR in 2025 has the feel of an experimental, fully automated horseshoe factory solution in 1925 - just too damn late.
And how is this different in concept from needing 30 years of fossil fuels for the alternative, with both environmental and climate harms resulting?
BTW if you want to call yourself "Professor Sensible" when you're neither the one nor t'other, you'll be happier on Twitter. 👍🏻
The concept of SMR is quite different from the older large scale power plants. There is plenty of literature on this if you care to look.
And if you’re into ad hominem then perhaps Twitter/X is actually your preferred space.
If you want to be treated seriously, present yourself seriously. 🤷🏻♂️
Whenever anyone talks about scrapping red tape or disruptor ...
"Let's ignore safety bought with blood by previous generations because we can't be arsed to remember why the regs were created in in the first place"
Why not have a big one at an existing site if they are so good, clean, and shiny?