As usual, in matters nuclear, the Anglophone news is awash with articles extolling the future virtues of Small Nuclear Reactors. Especially in the UK, where Trumpian antics don’t dominate the news the whole time, nuclear news gets a lot of coverage. As I’ve mentioned before, the UK corporate press is ecstatic about SMRs. SMR critics (of which there are plenty), usually focus their ire on the subject of costs. Other objections centre on health, climate needs, the environment, and the connection between civil and military nuclear technology.
The nuclear lobby has very successfully touted safety as the big plus for the new (though still non-existent) Small Nuclear Reactors (SMRs). Everyone seemed to buy this idea, because, after all, SMRs can’t melt down in the same dramatic way that big ones can. So, there’s been relatively little fuss made by the anti-nuclear movement on the grounds of safety, regarding SMRs.
Imagine my surprise when I opened up my eyes today – to see a corporate media news outlet, New Civil Engineer, usually pro-nuclear, coming out with a damning criticism of SMRs on the grounds of safety. It’s not as if New Civil Engineer actually condemned SMRs. Oh no! – they did indeed point out that the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero (DESNZ) is confident that SMR developments are subject to “robust controls”. And the Office of Nuclear Security (ONR) “ensures that the highest levels of safety, security and safeguards are met.”
It’s just that New Civil Engineer brought up a few points that have escaped notice, following the publication of the draft National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation (EN-7) They note that; “Despite EN-7 being 64 pages, just two lines are dedicated to specifically addressing the security of SMRs.”
The new regulations for SMRs would allow for many new nuclear sites near communities.
For large nuclear power sites, security is funded by the developers themselves. For SMRs, the security needs would be provided by the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) and also by local police. But these bodies are not under the direction of the ONR or the DESNZ. The writer quotes a policing expert, John McNeill:
“Not even [the government] can direct them.
Policing of airports and football grounds, even schools and educational campuses, shows how hard this will be to fund fairly.”
The expansion of AI and data centres add another complexity to the question of the amount of security needed, and of who pays for it. The proliferation of nuclear sites, closer to populated areas also means the increase in transport of radioactive materials – again bringing the risks of accidents, theft, and terrorism. And again, bringing the need for more security measures.
There’s some community concern in the UK about the safety of prolonging the life of aging nuclear reactors, and of the safety of coastal reactors and the marine environment. There’s also concern about the safety of the SMRs themselves, as governments relax regulations.
The highly enriched uranium needed for most SMRs poses another risk – as it is useful for nuclear weapons, and therefore attractive to terrorists, and to countries seeking to get nuclear weapons.
So there has been some awareness of safety and security problems amongst critics, especially in the environmental movement. However, this is the first time that I’ve seen the corporate media speak up about this. As the author quotes questions raised in the House of Lords, it looks as though this issue is at last coming to the fore.
I guess that I should not be surprised that the issue of security of Small Nuclear Reactors is at last going to be taken seriously by The Establishment. After all, the examination of the huge and complicated difficulties raised in trying to organise security of SMRs eventually boils down to costs again… “Finally, who pays the piper?”
See also: Taxpayers should not foot the bill for nuclear risk
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Safe or not, its the security state apparatus that would be necessary to operate nuclear power plants that always had me worried. Thank you for raising this issue.
Safety is maybe not the point, but nuclear is a strategy to try delay transition to renewables, in support of maintaining fossil fuel income streams and future value of legacy investments (Finance 101 & Porter’s 5 Forces).
All roads lead back to Atlas-Koch, who else, and fellow travellers including Russian oligarchs, hence antipathy and aggression towards Ukraine and the EU. Directed at minimum standards, environmental regulation, constraints on fossil fuels, ‘dark money’ transfers and liberal democracy.
See the UK for influence of both over the past 15 years, Farage & UKIP allegedly wooed and adopted by both Bannon and the FSB, first Russian invasion, Brexit, Trump, second Russian invasion.
Now capitulation by fellow travellers in Trump, GOP, Koch and the US ‘throwing Ukraine under a bus’ for Putin vs EU and the west. Includes support of too many Oz faux anti-imperialist tankies of the left, sharing talking points with US RW Koch & related grifters…..moral, ethical and empathy bypasses, too easy for most in faraway and arrogant Anglosphere?