Rolls-Royce lines up funding for mini nuclear reactor revolution
Britain has taken a crucial step towards creating a fleet of mini reactors that would reduce reliance on Chinese money and nuclear technology after Rolls-Royce secured investment to build the world’s first production line.
A consortium led by the FTSE 100 engineer has secured at least £210m needed to unlock a matching amount of taxpayer funding, which will make it the first “small modular reactors” (SMR) developer to submit its designs to regulators.
It is understood heavyweight financial investors specialising in energy are now thrashing out the final details of their backing to drive work on the so-called “mini nuke” power plants.
State support for SMRs – which each generate about 450 megawatts, about a seventh of the output of conventional nuclear power stations such as Hinkley Point – was revealed in the Prime Minister’s ten-point plan for a green industrial revolution released in the autumn.
New nuclear has been described as vital in ensuring the Government achieves its net-zero emissions target by 2050, and as a good way to help Boris Johnson achieve his levelling-up agenda.
It comes as the Government prepares curbs on Chinese involvement in critical national infrastructure as relations between London and Beijing deteriorate.
China General Nuclear is a minority investor in Hinkley and is lined up as a backer for other future UK nuclear plants.
This combined with the cost of Hinkley which has spiralled from £16bn to £23bn has prompted the Government to reassess the viability of SMRs.
Rolls believes the project could create 40,000 new jobs in regions including Midlands and the North of England by 2050, with plans to install at least 16 plants at existing and former nuclear sites.
Tom Greatrex, chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, said: “This is very positive news for the UK nuclear industry. SMRs must play a critical role in our clean energy transition and can open new export markets worth billions of pounds. To realise this potential, however, the Government needs to establish a siting and policy framework by next year to enable the deployment of a fleet of SMRs and capture the promise of a net zero future.”
Although officials are engaging with other businesses on SMRs, one Whitehall source described the Rolls-led consortium as “by far the most advanced”. The UK SMR consortium also includes the National Nuclear Laboratory and Laing O’Rourke, the construction firm.
Ministers are expected to push for the Office for Nuclear Regulation to prioritise assessment of the consortium’s SMR design, while simultaneously driving the planning process to get potential sites.
Sites being targeted for SMRs, which each take up the space equal to about two football pitches, a fraction of the size of a conventional plant, are understood to include disused nuclear sites around the country currently in the care of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.
Tom Samson, chief executive of UK SMR, said the consortium offered a “transformational clean energy solution. We are in the process of securing the funding that will enable the next phase of the SMR development.”
The consortium estimates it will cost £2bn to get to the stage where it can start constructing the first SMR.
Getting the first five operating is expected to cost £2.2bn apiece, with the first hoped to be up and running in the early 2030s, but prices will then fall to £1.8bn per plant.
A government spokesman said: “While the Government is committed to supporting the advancement of large, small and advanced nuclear reactors, we can’t comment on specific commercial discussions at this stage.”
Proving SMRs as practical sources of emissions free energy will not only be key to the UK’s net zero target, but could also be a huge money spinner for the country if Britain can perfect the technology first. The global market for SMRs has been estimated as being a potential £450bn.
Rolls has been hammered by the pandemic as demand for its jet engines for airliners collapsed in the face of travel restrictions.
In March the FTSE 100 company posted a £4bn annual loss and revenues almost £4bn lower at £11.7bn.
All 10,000 staff in Rolls’s UK civil aerospace business are on two weeks’ unpaid leave as a cost-saving measure with the business in a temporary shutdown.
Analysts expect the interim results on Thursday to show that Rolls’ forecasts for a recovery of the jet engine market were overly optimistic.
In March, the company said it expected demand for its engines this year to be at 55 percent of pre-coronavirus levels but warned in May that it was at just 40 percent.
See more here: msn.com
Header image: Bloomberg
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Alan
| #
It is good the see this proposal, but I doubt that these will be seen as mini reactors. They might be small compared with Hinkley, but the output is about the same as the coal units we have depended on for years and even larger than the early commercial nuclear reactors. They are hardly small.
Reply
sir_isO
| #
LOL.
I love it when people fail at nuclear stuff. Rolls royce can’t even build a normal, functional aircraft engine. They’ll be bankrupted soon enough.
Reply
Doug Harrison
| #
Do you ever have anything positive to say about anything? You are one sick puppy Sir Iso
Reply
LLOYD
| #
Reply
LLOYD
| #
The Web allows people who have no audience to insert themselves into any conversation. Thus, depressive/angry people can rant.
Reply
val
| #
They need to use readily available THORIUM for fuel. Unlike Uranium, it is innocuous and can’t be used in weapons, which is why they haven’t gone in that direction.
Reply
sir_isO
| #
Actually, thorium can be used for weapons.
When thorium is bombarded with neutrons, it is transmuted into U-233. The U-233 is what’s used as the “fuel”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233
“As a potential weapon material, pure uranium-233 is more similar to plutonium-239 than uranium-235 in terms of source (bred vs natural), half-life and critical mass (both 4–5 kg in beryllium-reflected sphere).[7]”
Reply
sir_isO
| #
Here’s an article about that…
http://wmdjunction.com/121031_thorium_reactors.htm
Reply
sir_isO
| #
The first time I read about that was in January 2020…just about the same time I was commenting on phys.org that covid is fraud (yes, even then).
This article…
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-01-rolls-royce-factory-nuclear-reactors-mini.html
How mini is that? Roger Harrabin and Katie Prescott reporting in the BBC: “They are about 1.5 acres in size – sitting in a 10-acre space. That is a 16th of the size of a majorpower station such as Hinkley Point.”
The company has stated that this is a low-cost alternative for a global market. “With a modular design that’s built in a factory, it can improve certainty of delivery, reduce complexity, optimize safety.”
Woohoo! Because, we’ve never had major failures in factory built products, especially not if they’re low cost and intended for the global market!
Reply
sir_isO
| #
And that, from a company somewhat struggling…I’m sure there won’t be any skimping, judging by all the bullcrap associated with the entire nuclear industry.
Reply
aido
| #
Meanwhile, THORIUM is free. Go Figure.
Reply