nuclear-news

There’s a lot of hype around small modular reactors.

From Steve Thomas, Emeritus Professor of Energy Policy, University of Greenwich, London SE10, UK, 30 Jan 26 https://www.ft.com/content/085e92e6-2f7f-4381-9416-0aa59fa3a3

Richard Ollington (“Small nuclear reactors are worth the wait”, Opinion, January 16) makes three claims. First, that small modular reactors (SMRs) will get quicker and easier to build, citing the French programme as evidence. Second, Russia is building large numbers of SMRs and third, improving existing reactors and reviving retired ones could add 40GW of nuclear capacity. None of these claims stands up to scrutiny. Over the 15 years of the French programme, the real cost of reactors increased by some 60 per cent. Construction of the first eight reactors averaged 70 months while the last eight averaged 135 months.

Russia has completed only two SMRs and has one under construction. The two completed ones are barge-mounted reactors providing heat and power to an isolated Siberian community. They took 13 years to build and have a reliability of 40 per cent. Restarting two retired reactors (1.6GW), one owned by Meta, the other by Microsoft, is actively being considered, but awaits approval from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission before decisions can be taken to bring them back to life. The increasing concentration of carbon in the atmosphere will not wait a decade to see if the ambitious claims for SMRs are met. So even if we were to believe the hype surrounding SMRs, we cannot afford to wait to see if they prove viable.

February 2, 2026 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, spinbuster, UK