The challenges of keeping the lights on while achieving a steady reduction in carbon emissions has lead to worrying reports that the government is considering increasing nuclear power generation through the use of local mini-reactors. Each plant would be about the height of a three-storey building and could create enough power to light a small town. DECC claims that the small reactors would be six times cheaper to build than the new full size power stations which are also being planned.

The government is keen for Britain to become a world leader in constructing such plants, although the UK lacks the necessary expertise. Consequently finance ministers are encouraging scientists at the National Nuclear Laboratory, based at Sellafield, Cumbria, to collaborate on international projects into small modular reactors (SMRs). Along with mPower from Virginia, Britain’s Rolls-Royce has experience in building small nuclear reactors for submarines.

Ministers favour the small reactors, pointing out that they can be built in areas where large nuclear plants, which require considerable water resources for cooling, cannot be constructed. Additionally their output can be increased, decreased, or they can be turned off altogether. The department also proposes to export mini-reactors to underdeveloped countries with inadequate grid systems.

Media reports also claimed that SMRs cost £200 million to £300 million to build compared with £2 billion for each of the typical large nuclear plants now being planned for the UK.

Tim Deere-Jones: a freelance Radioactivity Consultant working for the UK Nuclear Free Local Authorities, Friends of the Earth Wales, CND Wales and local groups opposed to Nuclear New Build commenting on the reports, said:

"This suggestion is further evidence of the increasing desperation of the pro nuclear group inside the DECC, in the face of increasing doubts over the viability of the proposed Nuclear New Build programme.

The DECC's projected costings for a conventional Nuclear New Build station are deeply flawed with the latest independent assessments running at £8 billion not £2 billion. Underestimation of nuclear costings (for energy generation, waste storage and treatment and site decommissioning) has been a long standing issue since the inception of the technology.

Since the SMRs are so small, many would be needed in order to generate an equivalent amount of energy to the conventional stations. This would lead to a major proliferation in the number of nuclear sites and hence the risks of reactor accidents, nuclear pollution, terrorist attack, the amount of nuclear transport and the problem of dealing with long term waste and presents us all with the possibilty of having a nuclear power station in every major population centre!

The submarine PWRs which are held up as an example of successful SMR technology have been riddled with faults and failings in construction and operation, waste storage and treatment and radioactivie discharges into local environments."

Keith Parker, chief executive of the Nuclear Industry Association, said: "There are very exciting developments in store".