Nuclear options

It’s been a big couple of weeks for nuclear energy in the UK. The government announced the sites for the first Small Modular Reactors (SMR) at Wylfa. SEC Newgate released its latest research into public sentiment towards new nuclear power stations. And, finally, the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce released its review.

This paints a grim picture of the state of play for nuclear. It claims that the UK has become the most expensive country in the world to build a nuclear power station, pointing to fragmented oversight, disproportionate decisions, flawed legislation, government indecision and weak industry incentives as culprits.

In response, it makes 47 recommendations based around simplifying oversight, establishing standards for proportionate decision-making and driving a shift in attitudes towards risk across the industry. Key recommendations include the creation of a single, one-stop, decision-maker for major nuclear regulatory decisions, a Commission for Nuclear Regulation, and for government to define the national standard for tolerability of risk.

The report is a welcome call to action for government and industry, but some recommendations will need careful communication if implemented. This is particularly true for the recommendation to review the approach to risk tolerance and to revise the Semi-Urban Population Density Criteria (SUPDC).

Both have a sound and well-expressed rationale – but one that is complex and rooted in technical evidence. It is easy to see how a recommendation based in an application of the principle of what is ‘reasonably practical’ could be misinterpreted, wilfully or otherwise, as watering down safety regulations, or how revising the SUPDC as moving nuclear power stations closer to homes.

This is a risk where public sentiment is already at odds with the government’s enthusiasm for a new era of nuclear energy. Our research found that only about half of the UK public view nuclear positively – and just 26% would consider it acceptable to develop a nuclear reaction near them.

The driving concerns for this low acceptance identified by the research are related to perceived health and safety risks. Activist messaging or newspaper headlines about reducing the protections available to communities may therefore hit home – which may in turn erode political enthusiasm for nuclear if it translates to resistance to specific proposals on the ground.

Speaking at the panel event we held to launch the report last week, one attendee pointed to a reluctance across the industry to communicate about itself with wider society. This points to another culture shift needed to deliver a new era of nuclear energy. People will need persuading about new nuclear power stations – and that means communicating proactively and up front to address concerns.