Nuclear Energy: Small Modular Reactor Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate

Nuclear Energy: Small Modular Reactor

Lord Teverson Excerpts
Thursday 12th October 2017

(6 years, 10 months 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.