Nuclear Energy: Small Modular Reactor Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate

Nuclear Energy: Small Modular Reactor

Lord Teverson Excerpts
Thursday 12th October 2017

(7 years, 1 month ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Viscount Younger of Leckie Portrait Viscount Younger of Leckie
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

We are aware of the interest in Wales as regards that particular siting. However, as I said earlier, a decision has not been made on where the sites might be. Perhaps I can reassure the noble Lord that as much as possible is being done to look at the early rolling-out of the SMRs, but it is a complex matter.

Lord Teverson Portrait Lord Teverson (LD)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I welcome Rolls-Royce’s great expertise in this area, but as the term “modular” suggests, the only way in which these reactors can become commercially economic is if they roll off a production line, which it is estimated requires some 50 to 60 reactors to be produced over a lifetime. Is that not wildly optimistic? Surely it will never happen, certainly given changes and developments in other technologies in the energy field.

Viscount Younger of Leckie Portrait Viscount Younger of Leckie
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The noble Lord alludes to the different types of reactor. We are not necessarily looking at one small modular reactor; it is much more complicated than that. Some micro-reactors might be helpful, for example, in introducing the SMRs into districts to help with heating for multiple schools and so on. The claimed advantages for SMRs include easier-to-finance projects with lower up-front capital costs. They are smaller projects which are quicker to build. There is a lower construction risk and a greater deal of efficiency in their manufacture. So there are advantages, but there is more work to be done.