Home / Sources / Select Committees / Energy and Climate Change Com… / Small nuclear power
Select committee inquiry

Small nuclear power

Closed

Energy and Climate Change Committee · Opened 26 February 2014 · Closed 30 March 2015

5 recommendations · 7 conclusions
Inquiry on parliament.uk ↗

What the inquiry looked at

“Nuclear power stations have been growing in size, from a typical size in the 1950s of 60 MWe to modern plants up to 1.6 GWe. At the same time many smaller nuclear power reactors have been built for naval use and there is increasing interest in potential wider applications of small nuclear reactors. The International Atomic Energy Agency defines ‘small’ as under 300 MWe, and up to about 700 MWe as ‘medium’ yet this includes radically different technologies. In 2011 there were 125 small and medium units in operation and 17 under construction, in 28 countries, totalling 57 GWe capacity. This inquiry will look at the potential role of small nuclear power in the UK, including the barriers to deployment as well as potential risks and opportunities.”

The committee's words, from the inquiry page on parliament.uk ↗.

What it found

In the committee's words, from the summary of 4th Report - Small nuclear power ↗

Small nuclear reactors—those that produce the equivalent electric power of less than 300 MWe—potentially have many useful applications. These reactors include a variety of designs and technologies that can be categorised in numerous ways. One grouping of particular interest is ‘small modular reactors’ (SMRs), which are designed in a way that allows them to be manufactured at a plant, brought to site fully constructed, and installed module by module, thereby potentially improving manufacturing efficiency and cost while reducing construction time and financing costs.

While we recognise that the nuclear industry’s immediate priority is rightly the successful delivery of the UK’s current conventional new build programme, we also recognise that SMRs—particularly those based on known nuclear technologies—are a viable proposition for future deployment in the UK in the next decade. They could potentially have a key role to play in delivering low carbon energy at lower upfront capital cost compared to large conventional nuclear reactors. That said, the commercial viability of SMRs remains unclear. Government should work with industry to better understand the economics of SMRs and set out a clear explanation of the conditions under which they are likely to be cost competitive in the UK.

We recommend the Government takes a proactive role in driving forward the development and deployment of these reactors in the UK. In the first instance, Government should help to establish the right conditions for investment in SMRs, for example through supporting the regulator to bring forward approvals in the UK, and by setting out a clear view of siting options. We would also like to see the Government steering industry towards deploying a demonstrator SMR in the UK. Existing nuclear sites could potentially host a demonstrator module with minimal additional infrastructure requirements and with the support of a skilled local workforce.

In the short term, deployment of SMRs is likely to be achieved through sharing the costs between the public and private sector. In the longer term, Government should identify and help to establish future sources of commercial finance for the further development and industrialisation of SMRs. Collaboration with international partners is important and the Government must ensure that UK companies are in a position to compete for opportunities to develop SMRs. The Government must also work with industry on a programme of proactive public engagement on SMRs.

In the future, new technologies may bring with them the possibility of improved technical features in nuclear reactors, for example through enhanced safety or through reuse of waste materials. We heard that there are a number of advantages to switching to a thorium fuel cycle. The UK must remain an active participant in thorium research and development. We recommend that the Government commission a study to confirm the potential benefits of thorium in the longer-term and how any potential barriers to its use might be overcome.

What the government said

The government responded on 5 March 2015.

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response.

The government welcomes the Committee's report and says it recognises the long-term potential of small modular reactors (SMRs), while giving priority to conventional new build and a second phase of evidence-gathering before any policy decision on SMRs.

  • On cost and investment risk, it says a second phase of work, "likely to contain a number of work packages", is now underway and is intended to provide the evidence base "required to support a Government policy decision on SMRs".
  • On thorium, it notes that the Department is "aware of the potential of thorium", that thorium fuel cycles fall within its analysis of future nuclear scenarios, and that "further analysis and fuel cycle modelling will be necessary". It does not say it will commission the separate study recommended.
  • On regulation, it says SMRs would not "necessarily be easier or faster to assess because of their size". The agreed schedule "provisionally provides" for one SMR design, "subject to Government policy decisions", to potentially begin Generic Design Assessment in 2017.
  • On siting, it says the priority remains the eight sites on the Nuclear National Policy Statement. It agrees that an exercise to identify sites "is likely to be necessary" and is "considering what form this might take", but does not intend to name other sites in advance.

Read the government's response ↗ Read the report ↗ Report an error

How the inquiry ran

Each dot is a dated item listed on this page, from the inquiry's opening on 26 February 2014 to its close on 30 March 2015.

  1. Oral evidence 4 sessions
  2. Report 17 Dec 2014
  3. Government response 5 Mar 2015

What it recommended 5 recommendations · 7 conclusions

1Small modular reactors are an attractive proposition and we welcome the Government’s work looking into...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Small modular reactors are an attractive proposition and we welcome the Government’s work looking into the feasibility of these reactors in the UK. However, we recognise that the nuclear industry’s immediate priority is rightly the successful delivery of the UK’s current conventional new build programme.
2There are a number of advantages to switching to a thorium fuel cycle; however, the...
Recommended (the committee's words)
There are a number of advantages to switching to a thorium fuel cycle; however, the evidence we have heard suggests that this will not be a viable option unless the price of uranium changes drastically. The UK must for now remain an active participant in thorium research and development. We recommend that the Government commission a study to confirm the potential benefits of thorium in the longer-term and how any potential barriers to its use might be overcome.
3The commercial viability of small modular reactors (SMRs) remains unclear.
Concluded (the committee's words)
The commercial viability of small modular reactors (SMRs) remains unclear. It is important to understand the cost comparison with large-scale nuclear reactors as well as the comparison with other small-scale energy generation. Government should work with industry to better understand the economics of SMRs and set out a clear explanation of the conditions under which they are likely to be cost competitive in the UK. The National Nuclear Laboratory’s SMR feasibility study provides a useful preliminary financial analysis but itself acknowledges that a more detailed analysis is required.
4It is clear to us that Government support will be needed if small modular reactors...
Concluded (the committee's words)
It is clear to us that Government support will be needed if small modular reactors are to be successfully deployed in the UK. The options for Government are discussed in more detail in Chapter four.
5We were surprised to hear it might take six years to give regulatory approval (including...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We were surprised to hear it might take six years to give regulatory approval (including a site-specific licence) for a small modular reactor. However, we recognise the importance of ensuring that a rigorous safety assessment is made of the design. The Minister explained that the Government will take an active role in trying to improve that Generic Design Assessment process–Government should provide an update on these improvements in its response to us. We also call on DECC to ensure that the Office for Nuclear Regulation is adequately resourced to support SMR developers in the early stages of preparing their designs for approval.
6There is scope for further international collaboration on regulatory approval of new reactor designs.
Concluded (the committee's words)
There is scope for further international collaboration on regulatory approval of new reactor designs. We welcome the Office for Nuclear Regulation’s involvement in the Multi-national Design Evaluation Programme, and encourage ONR to think innovatively about new ways to streamline its regulatory processes to ensure they remains robust and swift.
7The Government should support the use of existing nuclear sites for the deployment of small...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government should support the use of existing nuclear sites for the deployment of small modular reactors. These sites could potentially host a demonstrator module with minimal additional infrastructure requirements and with the support of a skilled local workforce.
8We recognise that small nuclear reactors will generally raise similar questions of safety and security...
Concluded (the committee's words)
We recognise that small nuclear reactors will generally raise similar questions of safety and security to those raised by large nuclear reactors. The UK already has robust processes in place to ensure the safe and secure operation and maintenance of the plant as well as transportation and management of fuel and spent fuel.
9The Government must work with industry on a programme of proactive public engagement on small...
Recommended (the committee's words)
The Government must work with industry on a programme of proactive public engagement on small nuclear reactors–especially if such reactors might in the future be deployed in areas that are not currently considered suitable for nuclear power e.g. away from the coast, closer to centres of population etc.
10Small modular reactors (SMRs), particularly those based on known nuclear technologies, are a viable proposition...
Concluded (the committee's words)
Small modular reactors (SMRs), particularly those based on known nuclear technologies, are a viable proposition for future deployment in the UK in the next decade. They could potentially have a key role to play in delivering low carbon energy at lower upfront capital cost compared to large conventional nuclear reactors.
11We recommend the Government takes a proactive role in driving forward the development and deployment...
Recommended (the committee's words)
We recommend the Government takes a proactive role in driving forward the development and deployment of these reactors in the UK. In the first instance, Government should help to establish the right conditions for investment in SMRs, for example through supporting the regulator to bring forward approvals in the UK, and by setting out a clear view of siting options. We would also like to see the Government steering industry towards deploying a demonstrator SMR in the UK. It is likely that this will only be achieved through sharing the costs between the public and private sector. In the longer term, Government should identify and help to establish future sources of commercial finance for the further development and industrialisation of SMRs.
12While current SMR designs have been predominantly developed outside the UK, there is scope for...
Recommended (the committee's words)
While current SMR designs have been predominantly developed outside the UK, there is scope for British industry to develop intellectual property and play a role in the deployment of the first SMRs. The challenges faced in making SMRs commercially viable represent an opportunity for our world-class manufacturing industry. Collaboration with international partners is important and the Government must ensure that UK companies are in a position to compete for these opportunities.

Evidence

Oral evidence sessions 4