UK's first small nuclear power station to be built in north Wales

2025-11-1610:38172245www.bbc.com

Three small modular reactors are confirmed for the site, with the potential for up to eight.

Gareth Lewis,Wales political editor and

Steffan Messenger,Wales environment correspondent

Getty Images The Wylfa site, taken from a road with part of the tarmac visible as well as hedges and grass.Getty Images

Work will begin next year at the Wylfa site (pictured above), with the aim of generating power by the mid 2030s

A first-of-its-kind nuclear power station is to be built on Anglesey, bringing up to 3,000 jobs and billions of pounds of investment.

The plant at Wylfa, on the Welsh island's northern coast, will have the UK's first three small modular reactors (SMR), although the site could potentially hold up to eight.

Work is due to start next year with the aim of generating power by the mid 2030s.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said Britain was once a world leader in nuclear power but "years of neglect and inertia has meant places like Anglesey have been let down and left behind. Today, that changes."

The project, which could power about three million homes, will be built by publicly owned Great British Energy-Nuclear and is backed by a £2.5bn investment from the UK government.

Visiting a further education college in north Wales on Thursday, Sir Keir said the development would bring jobs for "decades to come" and that work would begin "virtually straight away".

Wales' First Minister Eluned Morgan, who said she had been "pressing the case at every opportunity for Wylfa's incredible benefits".

SMRs work similarly to large reactors, using a nuclear reaction to generate heat that produces electricity - but are a fraction of the size, with about a third of the generating output.

Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, called the announcement "exciting" and said Britain is in the race for new reactors.

Speaking on BBC Radio Wales Breakfast, Miliband added they hope to "work with local colleges to make sure that there are local skills providers, skills training opportunities, so local people get these jobs".

Rolls-Royce An computer generated artists impression of the what the site will look like. A silver building surrounded by green area, trees and a car park which sits in front of it. Rolls-Royce

Simon Bowen, chair of Great British Energy-Nuclear, hailed an "historic moment for the UK".

Llinos Medi, the MP for Ynys Môn, the Welsh name for Anglesey, said it was a "game-changer" for the area "but only if local people see real and lasting benefits".

Mims Davies MP, the Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, said it will bring much-needed jobs and investment but "the current plan will only generate a fraction of the power that a Gigawatt-powered plant would".

Anthony Slaughter, leader of Wales Green Party, said the project was "an expensive distraction from the clean, fast and cheap renewables already available to us".

He added "a fast, ambitious roll-out of solar, wind and wave energy that will create jobs and cut energy bills" was needed.

The Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) Wales said the plant would bring a "once in a generation" boost for jobs, supply chains and regional infrastructure.

Great British Energy-Nuclear has also been tasked with identifying potential sites across the UK for another large-scale nuclear power plant, similar to those being built at Hinkley Point in Somerset and Sizewell in Suffolk, which can power the equivalent of six million homes.

The company will report back by autumn 2026, officials said.

It is not clear whether the SMR plans, which are smaller and more straightforward to build, rule Wylfa out after it was designated the preferred location in 2024 by the previous UK Conservative government.

Map showing the location of nuclear power stations in the UK. The operational reactors are: Torness on the east coast of Scotland, Hartlepool, Sizewell and the Heysham 1 and 2 reactors. Three reactors are being defuelled: Hunterston on the west coast of Scotland, Hinkley Point and Dungeness. The map shows the location of the newly-announced reactor at Wylfa on the north coast of Wales.

'Nuclear equivalent of an Ikea chair'

Prof Simon Middleburgh, director of the Nuclear Futures Institute at Bangor University, said the SMRs would be "built in a modular manner in factories and shipped to the site to be put together a bit like an Ikea chair".

There were "a few more hurdles to go through", he cautioned - from securing regulatory approval, building the factories required to construct the SMRs and training the workforce that will run them.

Opponents of the project point to the fact that a long-term storage facility for the UK's nuclear waste is yet to be agreed upon and say investment in renewable energy schemes - wind, wave and tidal - is what Anglesey needs.

Dylan Morgan, of the People Against Wylfa-B campaign group, said the proposed SMRs were "an unnecessarily big development of an unproven technology".

The government sees them as a secure, reliable, affordable and low carbon energy system and is convinced that, with investment, SMRs will create thousands of jobs and boost manufacturing.

Wylfa beat competition from a site at Oldbury in Gloucestershire, with the reactors designed by Rolls-Royce, subject to final contracts, which are expected later this year.

PA Media Energy Secretary Ed Milliband, Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves, Simon Bowen, Interim Chair for Great British Energy - Nuclear (GBE-N), Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, First Minister of Wales Eluned Morgan and Science and Technology Secretary Liz Kendall look at maps of the Wylfa plant during a visit to an engineering workshop at Coleg Menai in Anglesey. The UK's first small modular reactor (SMR) nuclear power station will be built at Wylfa in North Wales by publicly owned Great British Energy-Nuclear and is backed by £2.5 billion investment from the Government. PA Media

Ministers saw maps of the Wylfa plant during a visit to Coleg Menai on Anglesey

The UK government said the plant would help provide energy independence.

The decision to opt for small modular reactors at Wylfa was criticised by the US ambassador Warren Stephens, who said he was "extremely disappointed".

He had urged ministers to commit to a large-scale plant, with US firm Westinghouse having reportedly presented plans for a new gigawatt station at the site.

Downing Street said the decision to build the power station in Wales "doesn't close the door" to a US manufacturer working on a future project.

Graphic showing the difference between SMRs and large nuclear reactors

The old nuclear power plant at Wylfa was switched off in 2015 and previous plans for a large-scale replacement fell through in 2021.

The company behind the scheme – the Japanese industrial giant Hitachi - cited spiralling costs and a failure to reach agreement with the UK government over funding.

There is a huge political component to the announcement, with Labour's leadership in Westminster keen to show it means business on big investment in infrastructure projects.

In Wales, the first minister has been pushing hard for Wylfa - and the announcement comes six months before the Senedd election.

Eluned Morgan has been trying to strike a balance: differentiating the Welsh party from UK Labour, while pushing for extra funding, further devolution of powers and big investment announcements from her UK colleagues.

She has certainly got the latter, although plenty of other issues such as reform to how Wales is funded and devolution of the Crown Estate – which owns much of the Welsh coastline and is vital to future wind power – remain unresolved.

Thin, green banner promoting the Future Earth newsletter with text saying, “The world’s biggest climate news in your inbox every week”. There is also a graphic of an iceberg overlaid with a green circular pattern.

Read the original article

Comments

  • By mikaeluman 2025-11-1611:204 reply

    Great news. Lets hope this is just the start.

    The whole of Europe needs to get on with energy security and Britain can and should be a leader here, next to Netherlands, Sweden and France.

    • By hdgvhicv 2025-11-1611:2711 reply

      The question is what’s better value for money, wind and solar (potentially with storage when required), or nuclear.

      • By rwmj 2025-11-1611:394 reply

        Wind & nuclear together. Britain already has large wind installations, since the sea to the east is quite shallow (it used to be a land bridge to Europe only 7,000-10,000 years ago). Back that up with nuclear providing the base load and you have reasonable energy security.

        • By Lio 2025-11-1613:392 reply

          > it used to be a land bridge to Europe only 7,000-10,000 years ago)

          Doggerland. I've always found its geography and the idea that people lived there fascinating.

          1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland

        • By graemep 2025-11-1614:474 reply

          AFAIK the cost of nuclear is building it, but not running it. If you have enough nuclear to provide enough energy when there is no wind, then why do you need to build wind energy at all?

          • By rwmj 2025-11-1615:172 reply

            One immediate reason is its going to take another decade (conservatively) to even build one of these modular reactors. Another is the vast cost of nuclear compared to wind. We're deploying wind farms in large numbers right now (and even sometimes connecting them to the grid).

            • By laurencerowe 2025-11-1621:17

              This slow buildout will logically limit nuclear power to a minor role in the UK. By the time we could possibly build out large amounts of nuclear it seems likely we will already have built out large amounts of cheap wind power. With some battery storage and solar this can cover us for 90-95% of the year. For the remainder we will need dispatchable backup power. That will be gas and maybe at some point green hydrogen or its derivatives.

              I suspect we will always keep around a little nuclear to maintain expertise for strategic national security reasons but it is hard to see nuclear power making sense in an energy market dominated by intermittent renewables like the UK.

            • By chickenbig 2025-11-1615:38

              > its going to take another decade (conservatively) to even build one of these modular reactors.

              So nuclear reactors can be built to supply the energy and power as the offshore wind farms get decommissioned. The rise and fall.

              > Another is the vast cost of nuclear compared to wind.

              What do you mean by cost? Capital expenditure per kW of nominal capacity, or by total energy generated? Plus should we consider other costs (backup, transmission, curtailment)?

          • By RobotToaster 2025-11-1614:562 reply

            A big part of the cost is design. China has built a lot of nuclear capacity at a low cost by essentially copying and pasting the same design, something that should be even easier with SMRs.

            • By matthewdgreen 2025-11-1619:52

              Relatively low cost. The cost of PV has dropped much faster and they’re building much more of it, even compared to their plans from a decade ago. SMRs are supposed to be the design that solves this, essentially moving nuclear into the same “build it at mass scale in a factory” footing that solar PV is on. But solar is deep down the production curve and SMRs are just beginning it.

            • By fred_is_fred 2025-11-174:20

              I believe France does (or did) this also. The US seems to be the one country to custom design each one.

          • By DennisP 2025-11-1615:222 reply

            One option is to build enough nuclear to cover your minimum demand, and enough wind/solar/storage to cover the rest.

            • By ViewTrick1002 2025-11-1619:06

              Take California. The minimum demand is 15 GW and peak demand 52 GW.

              What you’re saying is they they should use extremely expensive nuclear power to cover the easy portion and then have renewables when they are the most strained supply 37 GW.

              Why not just cheap renewables for everything?

              New built power literally does not make sense when real constraints are added.

            • By hdgvhicv 2025-11-1616:482 reply

              Why not just build the wind/solar/storage to cover it all.

              If that’s too expensive why not just build enough nuclear to cover it all.

              • By AnthonyMouse 2025-11-1619:40

                Because they do different things.

                Suppose you need 10GW of power for an absolute baseline. Enough to heat homes to a temperature that people don't freeze to death on a cold day, to keep power to hospitals and other critical services, etc. Then you need another 10GW on top of that to run aluminum smelters and heat homes to 80°F instead of 60°F and things like that.

                If you have 20GW (average) of wind but you get an extended period of low generation and the batteries run down, people die. If you have 10GW (average) of wind and 10GW of nuclear and you get an extended period of low wind generation, the price of electricity goes up that week and people turn off their aluminum smelters and things but nobody dies. If you have 20GW of nuclear you can run the aluminum smelter 52 weeks a year instead of 51 but then people are paying more for electricity than they would with renewables in the mix, which isn't worth it.

                So which one should we do?

              • By DennisP 2025-11-172:50

                Because it's not that simple. If you want 100% availability year-round then you need about 2X overproduction and quite a lot of storage, not just the four hours normally paired with solar today. That could end up being more expensive than nuclear.

                But that doesn't change the fact that solar on the margins, without the availability requirement, is quite a bit cheaper than nuclear. So going 100% nuclear probably isn't the cheapest option either. The optimum is a mix in the middle somewhere.

          • By DrBazza 2025-11-1616:022 reply

            The cost of nuclear is two fold - government bureaucracy, and the lack of commercialization due to decades of misinformation from the eco-groups.

            The plans just to build a tunnel under the Thames in the UK in 2025 is over 2 million pages at the moment, imagine what it is for the Sizewell C reactor - the environmental assessment on its own was 44,000 pages.

            SMRs are a good middle ground because they can be commercialized and cost can be driven down once the government gets out of the way.

            • By fundatus 2025-11-1622:37

              > the lack of commercialization due to decades of misinformation from the eco-groups

              The lack of commercialization has exactly a single reason: The lack of commercial viability.

            • By lostlogin 2025-11-1617:06

              > The cost of nuclear is two fold - government bureaucracy, and the lack of commercialization due to decades of misinformation from the eco-groups.

              The misinformation hasn’t occurred in a vacuum. The nuclear industry has been far from transparent in how it operates.

        • By ViewTrick1002 2025-11-1611:512 reply

          > Back that up with nuclear providing the base load and you have reasonable energy security.

          So you’re saying that we should turn off the nuclear plant?

          What do we calculate? A generous 50% capacity factor?

          The new built nuclear power now costs ~40 cents/kWh.

          It just becomes ridiculously expensive when real world constraints are added.

          • By trebligdivad 2025-11-1612:513 reply

            Yeh it probably is expensive - but we currently have no other way (other than gas) to cover the low-wind/sun periods; while there are times when the UK can almost run purely off wind, there are other periods where we get ~5% of that wind energy for a week or so; the battery storage is nowhere near useful for that.

            • By rcxdude 2025-11-1613:56

              They're right, though. Doing both is dumb. The alternative to renewables + storage is nuclear + storage, with the nuclear + storage having the advantage of the storage capacity needed being more predictable and a bit smaller, but with the massive disadvantage of the nuclear being extremely expensive and slow to build. But building enough nuclear plants to do what you're proposing, and then turning them off most of the time to get energy from the renewable plants you're also building, and only drawing from them unpredictably, is objectively the worst option.

            • By pfdietz 2025-11-1613:132 reply

              Hydrogen or low capex thermal.

              The UK has adequate salt formations for large scale storage of hydrogen.

              • By trebligdivad 2025-11-1619:01

                Looks like someone is trying to push for it: https://ukenergystorage.co.uk/

                Good if they can get it to work; there's also a hydrogen/ammonia storage scheme being planned; https://www.statkraft.co.uk/newsroom/2025/statkraft-shares-p...

                I think it's going to take a while, but certainly worth trying.

              • By MagicMoonlight 2025-11-1613:242 reply

                Hydrogen is the worst possible fuel. It's the least dense material in existence so you need a ton of it. It has to be made from either cracking polluting materials, or using a huge amount of electricity. It is really difficult to store and really flammable.

                Nuclear is endless clean energy. Why do people like you keep ruining everything? If it wasn't for you, we'd have had full nuclear by 1980. No oil problems, no terrorist states, no dubai.

                • By pfdietz 2025-11-1613:30

                  This would be green hydrogen. Sure, it has low density, but underground storage is pretty cheap at scale. Yes, it's flammable, but that can be handled, and is handled routinely -- the world currently produces and consumes 700 cubic kilometers (at STP) of hydrogen per year.

                  The huge advantage of hydrogen here is that a gas turbine power plant might cost $600/kW, a tiny fraction of the cost of a nuclear power plant. So if you have a need for a backup plant whose cost will be dominated by amortization of its fixed cost, hydrogen beats nuclear.

                • By lostlogin 2025-11-1617:09

                  > Nuclear is endless clean energy.

                  The UK hasn’t had any nuclear waste problems?

                  It might be the solution but pretending it’s perfect is how we got here.

            • By matt-p 2025-11-1613:472 reply

              It's so funny every time we build a nuclear plant we say 'ooooh expensive' then by the time it's built it turns out it's ~ at the cost of gas.

              • By mikeyouse 2025-11-1613:55

                Running existing plants is about the cost of gas - building new ones is extraordinarily expensive and is something like 3x or 4x the cost of other options, even after adjusting for nuclear’s much better capacity factor.

              • By croes 2025-11-1614:161 reply

                Yeah, let‘s ignore that construction costs

                https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cev03wer0p2o

                And the subsidies needed to keep the price "low".

                That’s why France had to raise the price because even with subsidies they couldn’t cover the costs

                • By chickenbig 2025-11-1615:581 reply

                  Please no more of Stop Sizewell C's Alison Downes a.k.a. (Moira) Alison Reynolds [0] & [1], who also happens to be one of the directors of the Greenpeace Environmental Trust [2].

                  > That’s why France had to raise the price because even with subsidies they couldn’t cover the costs

                  I'm not quite sure what you meant by this. By France did you mean EDF? And which power station are you referring to?

                  [0] https://stopsizewellc.org/core/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/TE... page 5

                  [1] https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/o...

                  [2] https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/o...

                  • By ViewTrick1002 2025-11-1617:19

                    > I'm not quite sure what you meant by this. By France did you mean EDF? And which power station are you referring to?

                    I am not sure either. But they keep increasing the proposed subsidies for the EPR2 program, and they still haven't been able to pass them.

                    The French government just fell due to being underwater while being completely unable to handle it. A massive handout of tax money to the nuclear industry sounds like the perfect solution!

          • By happymellon 2025-11-1611:592 reply

            The current "real world constraint" is purchasing gas from Russia.

            Yeah, nuclear is better than that.

            • By bauble12 2025-11-1614:531 reply

              The thing Ive never quite understood is that the UK has no domestic supply of uranium.

              • By cjrp 2025-11-1710:05

                Canada, Australia and Germany are all big exporters; without tempting fate, I don't think the UK will have issues importing from those countries.

            • By ViewTrick1002 2025-11-1612:051 reply

              Almost all of Europe has stopped buying Russian gas? The exception being nuclear powered France. [1]

              You also do know that we despite 19 sanctions packages still haven’t been able to sanction the Russian nuclear industry? We’re just too dependent on it.

              [1]: https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/eu-talks-tough-russian-lng-...

              • By realusername 2025-11-1613:56

                The French gas plants have been built to support renewables, France didn't have almost any gas plants prior 2010.

                There's no sanctions on the Russian nuclear industry because it's a rounding error financially compared to gas or petrol.

        • By matt-p 2025-11-1613:46

          We could probably do with a small amount of storage as we do have days where we pay for turbines to /not/ generate.

      • By cinntaile 2025-11-1611:321 reply

        As usual the answer is likely to be a combination of energy sources. It's not wind and solar (+storage) OR nuclear, it's wind and solar (+storage) AND nuclear (and of course other energy sources when appropriate).

        • By ViewTrick1002 2025-11-1611:493 reply

          The problem is that nuclear powers profile with fixed output and extremely high CAPEX costs is the opposite to what a modern grid needs.

          How would you add an extremely expensive new built nuclear plant to this grid? Would you shut it down for days on end or try to run it as a peaker?

          https://explore.openelectricity.org.au/energy/sa1/?range=7d&...

          • By kitd 2025-11-1612:442 reply

            But SMRs address the capex costs by reducing time and resources needed to provision them. The "M" stands for "modular" after all, ie components can be built offsite and imported, and capacity can be added incrementally.

            Think 'agile', not 'waterfall'.

            • By _aavaa_ 2025-11-173:42

              That’s the theory, it has yet to be proven in practice.

              Even by their own claims, the caped may be smaller but the $/MWh is substantially higher than large plants, and will stay so even after multiple doubling a of production.

            • By pfdietz 2025-11-1613:161 reply

              If SMRs are cheap enough to act as backup to wind and solar, they are cheap enough to displace wind and solar entirely. And the contrapositive as well: if SMRs are not cheap enough to displace solar and wind, they aren't cheap enough to act as backup. The scenario where it's just a backup never arises in cost minimized solutions.

              • By kitd 2025-11-1614:121 reply

                > If SMRs are cheap enough to act as backup to wind and solar, they are cheap enough to displace wind and solar entirely.

                That doesn't follow necessarily. Wind & solar being the most cost effective doesn't mean you remove all backups just because they aren't as cost effective.

                • By graemep 2025-11-1614:49

                  Its the other way around. If you have sufficient nuclear to act as a backup, then you have sufficient that you do not need the wind and solar in addition.

          • By cinntaile 2025-11-1612:02

            That's South Australia, not the UK.

            My point still stands though given that I specifically did not exclude any scenario. It makes more sense to optimize when you include all energy sources. It's still possible some sources won't end up in the final solution and that's fine.

          • By justincormack 2025-11-1611:521 reply

            Or add a load of batteries to the capex and redistribute the constant load?

            • By ViewTrick1002 2025-11-1611:551 reply

              If taking that step, why charge the batteries with extremely expensive nuclear powered electricity rather than cheap renewables?

              It is done when moving electricity around when the grid is strained. Buy expensive electricity and sell it at even higher prices. But that is a vanishly tiny portion of the demand.

              • By evandijk70 2025-11-1613:061 reply

                Because there is little solar in the 3 winter months, so you would need a lot more storage for solar then for nuclear.

      • By chickenbig 2025-11-1613:55

        Given UK wind capacity factors are not going to be as high as predicted [0], a lot more storage is required for the wind system so reducing its value.

        [0] https://chrisbond.substack.com/p/desnz-to-include-some-reali...

      • By dan-robertson 2025-11-1615:251 reply

        One advantage nuclear may have in the UK is in the per-Megawatt planning applications required, purely by the energy generation being more concentrated. Of course, while people hate wind turbines and solar panels, they _really_ hate nuclear, but this can mean nuclear has some chance of getting special permits from central government.

        Another potential advantage is building energy generation closer to where it is needed as Britain is unable to build good interconnection infrastructure. I think this doesn’t actually happen so much – the main places you need power are where there are people, which is bad in the ‘people _really_ hate nuclear’ front, and regulators are very conservative and more wary the more people live nearby.

        Wind+batteries is a bit viable (and helps with interconnect too in that if you can max out interconnect utilization by transferring energy from generation to storage near usage even when there is no immediate demand, you can move more energy with a given interconnect per day than if you only used it to directly move energy from generators to users) but estimates of battery storage required still seem potentially prohibitively high.

        • By DrBazza 2025-11-1615:572 reply

          > they _really_ hate nuclear

          The general public don't understand nuclear. And we can thank CND, Greenpeace, and the mainstream press of the 60s onwards for regurgitating their misinformation and poor science as fact.

          Modern designs are effectively melt-down proof. Nuclear waste storage is also hilariously funny. People understand not to tread on a railway line or get electrocuted and die, but somehow have a problem with burying waste at the bottom of a sealed mine in a geologically safe area many miles from the nearest village or town (never a city) in containers that have been tested to literal destruction is somehow a problem.

          The sad irony is these eco-people's opposition to nuclear for decades has resulted in gigatons of CO2 from coal/oil/gas power stations.

          • By TheOtherHobbes 2025-11-1616:03

            People have a problem with spent fuels sitting in pools for decades, as happens in Sellafield.

            "Originally constructed in the 1940s, 50s and 60s these facilities - two ponds and two concrete silos - no longer meet the safety requirements that are required today and present some of the most difficult decommissioning challenges - not just in the UK - but in the world."

            The industry does not have a good reputation, and it only has itself to blame for that.

            https://www.onr.org.uk/our-work/what-we-regulate/sellafield-...

          • By Earw0rm 2025-11-178:06

            The opposition to nuclear waste hazards isn't so much about "now" as about the far future. Hot alpha emitters which stay that way for 2K, 10K, 100K years.

            Granted, there's other stuff in deep mines and mountains whose chemical toxicity and carcinogenicity is perhaps the equal of plutonium's radioactivity (lead, asbestos, mercury) and whose harms are similarly subtle and hard for unsophisticated people to detect, but as an environmental pollutant it's worse if it gets out due to sheer persistency.

            And also granted, where long-term views are a concern, CO2 is going to continue to screw things up for at least 200 years, maybe not 2000.

            But most of the eco-folk have argued for energy efficiency, for not treating the planet like something we can just do whatever we want to. Unfortunately the trend is in the other direction, with capitalism demanding endless growth even when the gains are negligible. So people buy trucks even when the marginal utility over a compact car with 25% of the energy consumption is wafer-thin, and fly long-haul for almost no advantage over a short-haul trip.

      • By belorn 2025-11-1620:081 reply

        How much fossil fuel are acceptable to burn, should subsidizes count to the total cost, should grid connections and transport count to the total cost, and what is the time frame? Is the market allowed to freely spike based on supply and demand with no price roof?

        The service that the money is paying for is to have a grid that is always producing enough energy for any demand at any given time. Having 10gw/h today but 0 tomorrow is worth close to zero. If people are asked how much they are willing to pay in order to not get disconnected, the current record in spot price are 580.55 per MWh (that is market price before taxes, connection fees, and so on). How long voters would accept a elevated price is a question that many countries in EU saw answered following the energy crisis.

        So the best value for the money is the cheapest one that provide the service that people demand when all the costs are accounted for, and that does not cause voters to elect a new governments in order to have it solved.

        • By Earw0rm 2025-11-177:48

          A lot of this depends on the scale - and cost (two way relationship) of domestic battery rollout.

          An individual uses (broad rule of thumb average) somewhere in the 300-500W range to participate in society at a modern level. A warm and well-lit home, cooking a couple of meals, hot water, an EV with enough charge to get to work, TV, laptop and so on. This is before we consider industry and infrastructure.

          It's possible to bring those numbers down a bit, but not a lot. Even with fairly aggressive optimisations (Passivhaus, ebike, low-energy cooking), below 100W it gets tough.

          But on the flip side, this means a 50kWh home battery can keep a family home running for a day, and 100-200kWh longer than that. 100kWh is affordable today as a home upgrade, and if people adopted a little more of a flexibility ethic with respect to availability, 200kWh will comfortably run a four-person home for a week.

          Granted 200kWh domestic instals aren't affordable yet, but by the time these NPPs are online - five years? - they likely will be.

      • By skeletal88 2025-11-1614:471 reply

        What do you do when there is no wind and it is cloudy. Dont turn on your tea kettle?

        • By Earw0rm 2025-11-178:131 reply

          Fall back on your domestic battery, which stores a thousand kettles' worth of energy.

          If it's going to stay still and cloudy for a full week, from Jersey all the way up to Orkney, consider running things leaner than usual for a bit. Microwave instead of oven, showers every two days instead of every day, e-moped instead of eSUV to work.

          (The outrage some will be feeling at this demonstrates exactly how spoilt we are in the West.)

          • By samarthr1 2025-11-1711:341 reply

            The definition of prosperity, atleast to me is that even if something as natural as there being a bit less wind, or a few more clouds, or a small riot in the next town, my life can go on unchanged.

            Just knowing that you don't need to plan and budget for scarcity is something that takes an incredible load off my mind.

            I come from a place which has seen wide spread blackouts during hot summers, and know that I do not want my children to face that.

            Maybe I am being naive here, but to me, the whole point of doing more with less is so that we can bring up the billions of people less fortunate than us, to have the same or better standards of living as usual, not making our standards worse!

            The aim should be to grow the pie, not shrink our shares.

            • By Earw0rm 2025-11-1714:011 reply

              Two related but often confused concepts. Standards of living, quality of life.

              We definitely need more of the latter, and for it to be distributed more evenly across the globe. The former, however, hits an asymptote. The upper middle classes are, in general, a lot happier than the desperately poor, having perhaps 10x their wealth. Billionaires, who have 1000x more again, aren't much happier.

              So the question becomes, if we want to avoid scarcity, how much do we overbuild - such that scarcity is a physical and mathematical impossibility - and how much do we make society a bit more adaptive? A simple example - do we build enough electricity that people are guaranteed to always have enough to charge their heavy EVs, or do we overbuild a bit less, and encourage some percent of the population to work remotely or use light transport at times when energy availability is a little compromised.

              I'm here for a prosperity that gives everyone on the planet four weeks' paid vacation each year, hell, why not eight weeks if we can. I'm not so much here for all those vacations being long-haul aviation - it's enormously more impact on the planet for a tiny gain in quality of life.

              • By samarthr1 2025-11-1714:201 reply

                > Two related but often confused concepts. Standards of living, quality of life. > > We definitely need more of the latter, and for it to be distributed more evenly across the globe. The former, however, hits an asymptote. The upper middle classes are, in general, a lot happier than the desperately poor, having perhaps 10x their wealth. Billionaires, who have 1000x more again, aren't much happier. > > So the question becomes, if we want to avoid scarcity, how much do we overbuild - such that scarcity is a physical and mathematical impossibility - and how much do we make society a bit more adaptive? A simple example - do we build enough electricity that people are guaranteed to always have enough to charge their heavy EVs, or do we overbuild a bit less, and encourage some percent of the population to work remotely or use light transport at times when energy availability is a little compromised. > > I'm here for a prosperity that gives everyone on the planet four weeks' paid vacation each year, hell, why not eight weeks if we can. I'm not so much here for all those vacations being long-haul aviation - it's enormously more impact on the planet for a tiny gain in quality of life.

                Growing up, I have always wanted to go and spend time in Italy. I am sure that there are countless other folks, from places emerging from the shadows of war, pestilence and suffering with similar dreams.

                Who are we to say that no, you should instead go tour only places nearby?

                Whenever there is scarcity of anything, the rich rarely suffer, but the farmer in rural rayalseema will go without. I fear that if we bake in this "encouragement" into costs of electricity (say), it is not a software engineer who will go drive in a moped, but a day labourer.

                The issue with mopeds is not just that you consume less electricity, but that you put your life at risk!

                At the risk of digressing, I am all for getting rid of two wheelers for non recreational use. They are bloody death traps (A person dying on a moped or bike does not even make local news in india). In my family alone, we have lost 3 cousins from my father's side to two wheele accidents) So no, not overbuilding only means that poor suffer more, for no good reason.

                • By Earw0rm 2025-11-1718:06

                  Would you like to go visit Italy? Of course, who wouldn't. But understand that the CO2 burden of a return flight from India to Rome is somewhere around 2-3x what the planet can sustain, per person, per year, and that for all the hype, carbon-neutral aviation fuel is so far nothing more than a dream. And you're telling me that you've seen all the wonders of the world within a short-haul flight from home?

                  So once in a lifetime? Sure. But if people do this routinely, the planet pays, which means someone somewhere pays. Our environmental debt is like a maxed-out bank loan at this point. And those people will paying the price will almost all be poor. Tell me what's more likely: a future where the poor get to fly to Italy every year, or a future where the rich and not-quite-rich do that until we really do run out of room on climate.

                  In my city we're using electric two-wheelers increasingly. It requires good road design, low speed limits (20mph or even 25kph), high standard of driver training, and well-designed vehicles with good brakes etc. With those things in place, it's possible to operate them safely, and on 1/20th the energy budget of full-sized EVs. 20mph doesn't sound like much, but in a big city it's fast enough to cover a lot of ground, and do so in relative safety.

      • By newsclues 2025-11-1612:122 reply

        Depends on the load, but nuclear isn’t dependent upon batteries or the wind.

        • By fundatus 2025-11-1613:121 reply

          True, but for most places you'll now be dependent on some other country selling you uranium. Which is something many countries are now factoring in into these kind of decisions.

          • By newsclues 2025-11-1719:59

            I always hoped reactor designs like CANDU would result in turn warheads into clean power!

        • By hdgvhicv 2025-11-1617:05

          Depends on over provision then. If lowest demand in the grid is 20GW, average 30GW highest demand is 50GW then you need to be able to generate 50GW, despite nuclear costs only being specced assuming they can always find 20GW of customers.

          It’s the same problem as wind has where demand and supply are variable.

          Nuclear cant scale up in an affordable cost as the first GW is amortised over 8,760 hours a year, but the top 10GW is only needed 50 hours a year. If it’s £8760 to generate 10GW for a year, that means you have to spend £43,800 to be able to cope with a peak of 50GW, but the average demand of 30GW means the average cost is £14,600 - 65% more than the average “base load”

      • By razighter777 2025-11-1618:57

        No good answer to which is better for the money. I say bring it all.

        Diversity in renewable energy sources is important for grid resilience. Some areas are gonna be terrible for solar and good for wind. Some areas might not have proper water access for nuclear.

      • By alecco 2025-11-1616:062 reply

        Wind and solar are extremely unstable. Spain had a country-wide blackout earlier this year because of reactors being off. Days with peak solar and wind (heavily subsidized) made nuclear not viable. But you need a stable source to keep the grid from collapsing (and not fry appliances), like nuclear or hydro. It's like both a pace-maker and a goakeeper.

        So you need a mix. Small reactors fix the problem of NIMBY caused by decades of fearmongering (now slowly reversing).

        • By osn9363739 2025-11-175:42

          Why not just firm the renewables with batteries to even it out. seems easier and cheaper than building nuclear.

        • By crote 2025-11-1713:50

          Nonsense. For a stable grid you need inertia. Traditionally this has been provided by the spinning mass of turbines, but there's no technical reason why those have to be used.

          For example, the UK has been building a bunch of "synchronous condensers" for this reason - essentially a giant flywheel. Battery storage can easily provide a massive amount of inertia as well - provided it is configured to operate that way.

          The Spain blackout was mostly caused by misconfiguration. It is not in any way representative of any inherent characteristic of a renewable grid.

      • By helltone 2025-11-1611:281 reply

        In the UK, probably nuclear.

        • By rcxdude 2025-11-1611:344 reply

          Nuclear is surprisingly expensive and solar/wind/storage is surprisingly cheap. Even solar in the UK has better economics than nuclear, and it has no shortage of wind.

          • By cenamus 2025-11-1611:401 reply

            Yeah, the UK is probably one of the best places for offshore wind, and they're building gigantic fields.

            And compared to what Hinkley Point C is gonna cost... solar and wind is basically for free

            • By dukeyukey 2025-11-1613:191 reply

              With the big * of solar being fairly predictable, and wind not. You can be bereft of wind for weeks.

          • By Mawr 2025-11-172:59

            Unless there is a shortage of wind on a given day/week/month. Then the cheapness is no longer surprising ― you are literally paying only what it costs to provide the electricity now, not at any point in the future.

            Maybe the guarantee of 24/7 supply is actually worth something?

          • By krona 2025-11-1612:071 reply

            The outcome of Contracts for Difference (CfD) Allocation Round 6 suggests wind isn't cheap compared to wholesale electricity prices in the UK, which are already one of the highest in the world. The maths is quite simple.

            And that doesn't include curtailment costs, which are not insignificant.

            • By Reason077 2025-11-1613:011 reply

              The average strike price for offshore wind in AR6 came in at £59.90/MWh. That's pretty cheap, and much cheaper than any new nuclear. Hinkley Point C's strike price is £92.50/MWh. (note: strike prices are always quoted based on 2012 currency, and get adjusted for inflation)

              You can't really compare strike prices to spot prices on the wholesale market precisely because there's so much supply under CfD contracts, which distorts the wholesale market. When supply is abundant, the wholesale price plummets and even goes negative, yet suppliers still want to generate because they get the CfD price. When supply is constrained (eg: cold snaps in winter with little wind), the spot price can surge to £1000/MWh.

              • By krona 2025-11-1613:231 reply

                That £59.90 figure is 2012 prices.

                In 2024 money offshore was £102 offshore, onshore £89. AR7 estimates are >10% higher. Those prices were not high enough for Hornsea 4, who cancelled the contract (with a big write down for the entire project) after being awarded it.

                Hinkley C is, as everyone knows, a disaster.

                • By Reason077 2025-11-1613:24

                  Yes, like I said, UK CfD strike prices (both nuclear and wind) are always quoted in 2012 prices.

                  But even adjusting for inflation, offshore wind's £59.90 is a fraction of the retail price that UK consumers and most businesses pay for electricity. There's plenty of margin left for the middlemen (regulator, grid operator, distribution network operator, electricity retailer, etc).

                  ... and Hinkley Point C's £92.50 is £133.79 today, and could be £160+ by the time it actually starts generating in (maybe?) 2031.

          • By neilwilson 2025-11-1611:46

            Not when you take the circular economy into account. We’ve always been very good at making boilers. Less so semiconductors.

    • By 7bit 2025-11-1611:31

      Truly great news. Less competition in the renewable energy sector for us.

    • By croes 2025-11-1614:13

      Nuclear and security, that’s a good one especially nowadays when companies tend to connect everything to the internet and drone wars are a thing since the war in Ukraine.

      https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/09/ukraine-war-br...

      Didn’t here similar about wind and photovoltaics

    • By zwnow 2025-11-1611:296 reply

      [flagged]

      • By theowaway 2025-11-1612:51

        You're right perhaps we should just emit all the waste directly into the atmosphere like gas or coal plants do

      • By Tabular-Iceberg 2025-11-1612:12

        Why don't the anti-underground disposal crowd advocate more for long term dry cask storage where monitoring and maintenance is both cheap and easy?

      • By Angostura 2025-11-1611:412 reply

        What ‘cult-like’ love would this be? If you are in a climate emergency it’s worth exploring all energy options and nuclear is one option for helping with baseload. It would be dumb to ignore it.

        • By ViewTrick1002 2025-11-1611:53

          If it is an emergency why waste money on multiples more expensive nuclear power rather than renewables and storage?

          We still need to decarbonize tons of other industries so why waste money on the one we have solved?

          Good enough beats imaginary engineer perfect solutions.

        • By zwnow 2025-11-1611:462 reply

          Just cut off the general public from power for like 1/6th of the day instead of going for unsafe solutions. Considering the amount of bullshit we power nowadays we can surely live without power for some hours of the day until we find better solutions.

          • By NitpickLawyer 2025-11-1611:561 reply

            There's nothing inherently unsafe about small nuclear reactors. We've been using them safely since the 50s. You can look it up, you have the entire history of the world at your fingertips. Here's a fun fact: the bloke that was the first commander of a nuclear powered submarine (1954!) went on to be the first commander of a nuclear powered boat. And he got to live till 90+ yo. The tech is safe. The fear-mongering people are boring. It's literally the reason we can't have cool shit.

            • By zwnow 2025-11-1612:032 reply

              Whats ur solution to nuclear waste?

              • By gazpacho 2025-11-1612:411 reply

                What’s your problem with nuclear waste? And what’s your solution to the waste produced by solar/wind?

                • By pfdietz 2025-11-1616:58

                  The waste produced by solar/wind is no different that waste produced by general economic activity. The US produces about 600 million tons of construction and demolition waste each year; solar/wind waste will be small fraction of this.

                  So, the solar/wind waste bugbear is a red herring, since dealing with it involves solving a problem that would have to be solved in a nuclear-powered economy also.

                  The opposite is not true of nuclear waste: there is no high activity radioactive waste stream in a non-nuclear economy.

              • By realusername 2025-11-1613:57

                You just store it?

          • By roenxi 2025-11-1611:53

            That sounds like a pretty unsafe solution, it'll injure people. What if a member of the general public trips while stumbling around in the dark? Or gets food poisoning from improperly refrigerated food?

      • By cpursley 2025-11-1612:35

        As if wind, solar arrays, hydro, transfer stations aren’t?

      • By exe34 2025-11-1611:44

        this pearl clutching is basically why we don't have breeder reactors making use of all this "waste".

      • By happymellon 2025-11-1612:022 reply

        > the Ukraine

        Careful, your mask is slipping.

        It is Ukraine, not The Ukraine. It is a country, not an area.

        • By comrade1234 2025-11-1612:211 reply

          It's The Ukraine in German and many other gendered languages. In German it's the feminine gender (die) and cannot be avoided when constructing sentences because the article used can completely change the meaning of the sentence.

          • By happymellon 2025-11-177:341 reply

            > It's The Ukraine in German

            They did not write in German.

            > the article used can completely change the meaning of the sentence.

            As it does in English, hence why I'm calling them out for using 1991 Soviet phrasing.

            https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18233844

            • By zwnow 2025-11-178:061 reply

              I wasn't even alive in 1991, why would I think about 34 year old phrasing?

              • By happymellon 2025-11-1714:06

                Thats a good question, that only you can answer.

        • By zwnow 2025-11-1612:031 reply

          Didn't know I was being followed by the grammar police.

          • By forinti 2025-11-1613:26

            They show a keen interest in your articles.

  • By londons_explore 2025-11-1611:294 reply

    Nuclear is an industry that strangled itself with red tape and harmful PR, making every project fiendishly expensive and take so many decades that cost-of-capital costs are insane.

    I don't think it will ever again beat solar+wind+battery for grid scale carbon-free power pricing.

    • By eucyclos 2025-11-1612:252 reply

      Even if it had never had those issues, nuclear power would still be the textbook example of a fragile system - capital-intensive, centralized projects that can be shut down by disruption to fuel shipments halfway round the world, droughts in the cooling system's water sources, or any of a dozen unions of specialized workers going on strike. Add to that iteration cycles measured in decades instead of years and it's hard to imagine how Nuclear could ever even close the gap, let alone pull ahead.

      I have a theory that smart financiers avoid nuclear because getting a new version done on time and under budget is so damn hard, and smart physicists gravitate to nuclear for the same reason. I wish the nuclear-curious factions would pivot to a project Orion style endeavor instead of powering a UK hamlet sometime in the 2030s. Now there's something insanely difficult and likely to fail that I wouldn't mind my tax dollars being spent on.

      • By wafflemaker 2025-11-1615:122 reply

        But the wind &solar is highly dependant on rare earth minerals that China can limit at any time.

        And their condition is for us to accept their highly subsidized products (cars, solar), which make our manufacturers go bankrupt.

        It also makes us lose manufacturing capacity for dual use products like drones etc.

        • By triceratops 2025-11-172:21

          China's happily selling panels so cheaply that you can use them for fencing material and still save money long-term. Batteries too. These things last decades. If they decide to cut you off you have at least 20 years to find alternatives.

        • By pjc50 2025-11-1616:591 reply

          Not once it's installed! And no such conditionality exists.

          • By zajio1am 2025-11-1714:52

            Batteries are more or less consumables, need occasional replacement. OTOH, fresh nuclear fuel can be stockpiled for decades.

      • By blitzar 2025-11-1613:111 reply

        Capitalism is extremely poor at "fragile systems", and for whatever reason (water under the bride now) the nuclear industry never made the move to smaller modular systems - even for large installations (think a reactor hall with 20 small cores rather than a single large core).

        Even this project sounds like a custom on-site build, although at the moment it is still vapourware.

    • By michaelt 2025-11-1611:551 reply

      > I don't think it will ever again beat solar+wind+battery for grid scale carbon-free power pricing.

      The problem the UK has is their climate: Northerly enough that solar makes 5x as much power in the summer as it does in the winter, and much more demand for heating in the winter than cooling in the summer.

      Batteries are fine for storing solar in the day and using it at night - but much less good for summer-to-winter storage. And the UK isn't exactly eager to start flooding desolate valleys for pumped storage reservoirs either.

      Oh, and they don't just need to decarbonise their existing electricity output - they also need to greatly increase their electricity output to hit their goals on EV and heat pump adoption; and they need to lower electricity prices too.

      I can see why they'd hedge their bets.

      • By stephen_g 2025-11-1612:02

        The UK has massive wind resources up north. Absolutely no need for summer-to-winter storage, that would be madness!

    • By Tabular-Iceberg 2025-11-1611:47

      This was my impression as well, both watching Smarter Every Day and visiting a nuclear power plant myself and taking the tour.

      Yes, safety is important, but I think they're far into diminishing returns territory, and we have to take the penalty in both energy cost and security.

    • By longor1996 2025-11-1611:334 reply

      Wasn't all that bad PR mostly caused by the coal/oil industry, doing some serious astroturfing for a decade or so?

      • By fundatus 2025-11-1613:231 reply

        Well, at least for Germany it was the actual nuclear fallout over large areas of the country after Chernobyl. Which is btw still measurable today. [1] That's a pretty scary thing to happen to you and one just has to accept that these are the actual lived experiences of people that form their opinions.

        [1] https://www.bfs.de/EN/topics/ion/environment/foodstuffs/mush...

        • By jabl 2025-11-1614:481 reply

          Radiation detectors can detect very low levels of radiation (far below any measurable health effects, for instance), so claiming we can still detect fallout from Chernobyl doesn't really say anything.

          • By fundatus 2025-11-1615:211 reply

            To quote from the article I linked to:

            > In the last years values of up to several thousand becquerel per kilogram were measured in wild game and certain edible mushrooms. In Germany it is not permitted to market food with more than 600 becquerel caesium-137 per kilogram.

            • By chickenbig 2025-11-171:441 reply

              Another quote from the article is

              > If wild game or wild growing mushrooms are consumed in usual amounts, the additional radiation exposure is comparatively low.

              > The consumption of 200 grams of mushrooms with 1,000 becquerel caesium-137 per kilogram results in an exposure of 0.0025 millisievert.

              • By fundatus 2025-11-1723:26

                The numbers and actual risks don't matter to change regular people's feelings about a technology. All they know is that there was actual nuclear fallout and now the mushrooms in their forests are radioactive.

      • By eucyclos 2025-11-1612:34

        I think it was mostly caused by fear about nuclear Armageddon during the cold war - it's hard to feel like the world could end at any second due to nuclear bombs while also feeling grateful for nuclear electricity generation. Would be even if there was no overlap between military and civilian nuclear industries, which of course there is.

      • By toyg 2025-11-1611:412 reply

        If by "the coal industry" you mean people in charge of Chernobyl and Fukushima...

        • By Angostura 2025-11-1611:42

          And Windscale (now Sellafield) and Three Mile Island

        • By longor1996 2025-11-1611:59

          Oh, sorry! Shouldn't have said "all" there... :'D

      • By lysace 2025-11-1611:49

        See also: Gazprom, Gerhard Schröder (”Putin’s man in Germany” according to NYT) and the German nuclear power shutdown.

        https://atomicinsights.com/gazprom-profiting-mightily-from-g...

        https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/23/world/europe/schroder-ger...

  • By Philip-J-Fry 2025-11-1611:297 reply

    Producing power by the mid 2030s? Isn't the entire point of SMRs that they are effectively a complete package and it takes very little effort to ship them out and getting them to produce power. Or is this just a pipe-dream we were sold?

    Like, I imagined these things being compact enough to be shipped to the outskirts of towns and producing power. Afterall, they are from the same technology that was powering nuclear subs, right?

    • By topspin 2025-11-1611:522 reply

      This Rolls Royce design isn't all that "small." A RR SMR design is a 470MWe PWR. About half the size of a typical PWR reactor. Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 was 460MWe. Calling this an "SMR" is a stretch, likely for PR purposes.

      It's a rather conventional design, low enriched fuel, no exotic coolants. There is a paper on it at NRC[1]. And they've never built one, so if they get it running by the 2030's they'll be doing pretty well for a Western company.

      [1] https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2521/ML25212A115.pdf

      • By masklinn 2025-11-176:37

        > About half the size of a typical PWR reactor.

        Closer to a third for recent models (the French P4 reactors from the 80s were 1300, the later N4 1450~1500, the EPR is 1650). 500-ish is a relatively typical density for reactors from the mid to late 60s.

        Agree that it’s hardly small or modular tho.

      • By testing22321 2025-11-171:191 reply

        “Doing pretty well”

        I think you mean it will be record construction time for a western company in the last few decades.

        • By topspin 2025-11-1710:16

          I downplayed there, because occasionally I try to moderate my extreme cynicism.

          It would be miraculous, in the biblical sense of the word. Not only because it would be a technical and regulatory triumph for RR and the UK, but because it would mean this is something other than what it appears to be to me.

          None of this will get built. It's all fake, and after the benefits are taken, and the subsidy budgets are drained, and the various political and academic and regulatory folks have populated the requisite non-profit no-show jobs, and the professional opposition leaders have collected all the anti-nook bucks, and RR et al. have wiggled out of whatever obligations they're pretending to pursue via the holes they've already carefully arranged for themselves, these papers and headlines will be forgotten.

    • By thyristan 2025-11-1611:331 reply

      The reactor is still to be developed by Rolls Royce, which is hidden in mid article. The don't have plans, not even a working prototype yet, so expect delays to at least the mid 2040s.

      • By magicalhippo 2025-11-1613:131 reply

        The underpant gnome version of nuclear power?

        Step 1: Find and reserve site of nuclear plant

        Step 2: ???

        Step 3: Power!

        • By pfdietz 2025-11-1613:361 reply

          One has to expect any promise of future nuclear to have the optimism turned up to 11, right to the limit of plausibility. The reality will inevitably disappoint.

          • By thyristan 2025-11-1811:06

            It might not be as bad as it sounds. A few comments over someone had a preliminary permit application which described the technical details.

            The gist of it is, the reactor is a 500MW pressurized water reactor, Gen3/3+. Not any fancy new Gen4 thing that you usually hear about when talking about small modular reactors. No molten salt, no high temperature gas cooling, no weird moderators, no heap of crumbling carbon/uranium spheres, no liquid lead/bismuth/natrium, no thorium.

            So I guess it could actually be possible to keep that timetable, because it is actually old, boring and proven technology, just a little smaller and maybe more prefabricated than the usual 1GW to 1.5GW PWRs that were built in the last 4 decades.

    • By masklinn 2025-11-1611:44

      > Isn't the entire point of SMRs that they are effectively a complete package and it takes very little effort to ship them out and getting them to produce power.

      That's the point if / when we have actually working SMRs, with production lines set up. But the limited development of small civilian reactors before the 80s and the 3 decades freeze on most things nuclear means SMRs are only just getting out of research status (e.g. in the US only NuScale's VOYGR are currently certified).

    • By rsynnott 2025-11-1613:421 reply

      This has kind of been the problem with SMRs; they sound great, but as you develop them, they get less and less small and modular. These are 470MWe. Coincidentally, the (very old) 'normal' MAGNOX reactors which used to operate at this site were 490MWe; in their day they were considered quite large.

      > Afterall, they are from the same technology that was powering nuclear subs, right?

      Not usually, no; that wouldn't be cost-effective.

      • By magicalhippo 2025-11-1615:57

        > Not usually, no; that wouldn't be cost-effective.

        The reason being that the nuclear sub reactors run on very enriched uranium which is very expensive and not fun if some got away.

    • By isodev 2025-11-1613:59

      That was just for the news headlines, nuclear isn't and never has been, "practical". Look on the bright side, so much taxpayer money will go into this, it's probably going to make someone richer.

    • By Earw0rm 2025-11-178:21

      Nuclear subs are a "money no object" technology, as our supposed insurance policy against Soviet invasion and/or armageddon, it's whatever it takes.

      That technology is so expensive, so far from economically viable, that only two countries (US & France) are even using it for aircraft carriers, despite its potential huge advantages over oil (stay at sea for years at a time without refuelling, no need for vulnerable supply ships etc.)

    • By mr_toad 2025-11-1614:37

      I doubt you could ship one. The cores need specialised port facilities to even get them into the subs.

HackerNews