It’s just what the military power wanted

We are experiencing a very well-funded nuclear renaissance thanks to the small modular reactors (SMR). The recent agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom to build 20 of these mini-reactors is just the tip of the iceberg. Companies like Amazon, Google and Microsoft They have bet on them. They are said to be faster to build, more flexible, cheaper, and vital to decarbonizing the grid. But the numbers don’t quite add up.

There is a cat trapped. As researchers from the University of Sussex point out in an analysis for The ConversationSMRs are not only “the most expensive source per kilowatt of electricity generated” when compared to natural gas, traditional nuclear and, above all, renewables. Many designs have not yet left Power Point.

So, if they are not the best or the cheapest option, if the majority of designs have not been commercially built anywhere in the world, why this political and financial boom? The answer has little to do with the electricity bill and a lot to do with military power.

Subsidies. The markets already know all this: they support SMRs because they are a way to take advantage of billions of dollars in government subsidies. The factor that is ignored in almost all energy debates is the military’s dependence on the civilian nuclear industry.

Maintaining a nuclear weapons program or a nuclear-powered submarine armada requires constant access to reactor technologies, specific materials and, most importantly, highly qualified personnel. Without a civilian nuclear industry, supporting this military capability becomes astronomically more expensive.

Submarines. The United States operates 66 nuclear submarines; the UK has nine. These vessels require a robust national and nuclear industrial base. This is where a company like the British Rolls-Royce becomes the key player: it already builds the reactors for British submarines and is ready to build the new civil SMRs.

Rolls-Royce he openly admitted it in 2017: a civilian SMR program would “free the Ministry of Defense from the burden of developing and retaining skills and capability.” With a strong industry, military costs are “masked” under civilian programs. Thus, the money to maintain the submarine fleet does not come entirely from defense budgets, but from energy budgets, paid for by taxpayers and consumers through higher electricity bills.

A global pattern. In the United States, the Pentagon sees mini nuclear reactors as an essential part of its future energy strategy on the battlefieldas well as space infrastructure and the development of new high-energy weapons, such as anti-drone and anti-missile laser systems.

But the military push of the SMR is not exclusive to the Anglo-Saxon world. It is the modus operandi of all nuclear powers. In China and Russia they do not even hide the inseparable links between its civil and military programs. And in France, President Emmanuel Macron put it bluntly: “without civil nuclear energy, there is no military nuclear energy; without military nuclear energy, there is no civil nuclear energy.”

And the renewable ones? The irony of this matter is a letter that has just been published Guardian signed by retired senior European military commanders. It is a letter in favor of investment in renewable energies coming out of the Defense budgets.

These former NATO leaders argue that the climate crisis is a threat to national security. They maintain that investing in solar and wind energy would make us more resistant to threats from aggressor countries like Russia. “We must end our dependence on foreign oil and gas,” they write. “A dependence on fossil fuels makes our countries less safe.” Energy sovereignty, after all, is a matter of national security.

Image | Rolls-Royce

In Xataka | The reason why China is winning the nuclear race: it takes half as long to build and costs six times less