US-UK Nuclear Energy Partnership Sparks Military Concerns

The recent partnership between the United States and the United Kingdom aims to develop nuclear energy through small modular reactors (SMRs) and microreactors. During his visit to the UK, former President Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced plans to construct 20 of these reactors, marking what they describe as a “landmark partnership” in nuclear energy. This initiative is touted to usher in a “golden age” of nuclear energy, promising to reduce energy costs significantly.

Despite these optimistic claims, the reality surrounding nuclear power is fraught with historical challenges, including escalating costs, project delays, and a lack of commercially operational plants globally. While proponents of nuclear energy argue that SMRs are essential for cutting emissions and meeting the growing electricity demands from sectors like electric vehicles and data centers, the feasibility of this technology remains uncertain.

“SMRs are the most expensive source per kilowatt of electricity generated when compared with natural gas, traditional nuclear, and renewables,”

noted an analysis published earlier this year in New Civil Engineer. Furthermore, independent assessments, including those from the Royal Society, indicate that renewable energy systems outperform nuclear alternatives in terms of cost, flexibility, and security.

The renewed enthusiasm for SMRs also arises from influential institutional voices advocating for nuclear energy. These voices include the industry itself, suppliers, and governments heavily invested in military nuclear programs. For these stakeholders, the imperative is not whether to develop nuclear reactors but rather which types to prioritize and the speed of development.

The challenges of SMR technology are compounded by the fact that many proposed designs exist only in conceptual stages, often referred to as “PowerPoint reactors.” Assertions that these unbuilt designs will be cost-effective are largely speculative, according to investment analysis. Financial markets recognize the hype but remain cautious about the viability of the technology itself.

The military implications of civilian nuclear programs cannot be overlooked. Maintaining nuclear-armed naval forces and weapons programs necessitates a robust civilian nuclear industry to provide essential reactor technologies, skilled labor, and special materials. Without such a foundation, sustaining military nuclear capabilities becomes increasingly difficult and expensive.

Nuclear submarines, in particular, require a national reactor industry and supply chains. The costs associated with nuclear submarines are already substantial, and integrating the expenses of their supporting infrastructure only amplifies this financial burden. Rolls-Royce, a key player in this sector, manufactures the UK’s submarine reactors and is also set to produce the newly announced civil SMRs. The company has previously stated that a civil SMR program would alleviate the Ministry of Defence of the responsibility to develop and retain necessary skills and capabilities.

As noted by Nuclear Intelligence Weekly, the Rolls-Royce SMR initiative has significant ties to UK military needs. This interdependence allows military costs to be obscured within civilian nuclear projects, effectively shielding these expenses from public scrutiny. A funded investigation estimated the annual cost of this overlap at around £5 billion (approximately $6.6 billion) in the UK alone. This financial interplay is masked by higher electricity prices and government budgets that are ostensibly civilian in nature.

The relationship between military and civilian nuclear capabilities is not isolated to the UK. Other nuclear powers, notably the United States, are more transparent about these connections. The US Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, characterized the recent US-UK nuclear deal as vital for securing nuclear supply chains across the Atlantic. In the US, approximately $25 billion annually is allocated from civil to military nuclear activities.

Countries like Russia and China openly acknowledge the intertwined nature of their civilian and military nuclear programs. French President Emmanuel Macron has articulated this sentiment, stating, “Without civilian nuclear, no military nuclear; without military nuclear, no civilian nuclear.” For these nations, maintaining military nuclear capabilities is seen as essential to securing their status among global powers. An end to civilian nuclear programs could jeopardize not only energy security but also their geopolitical standing.

As the development of microreactors gains momentum, new military applications for nuclear power are emerging. Microreactors, which are smaller and more experimental than SMRs, are being considered for military uses such as battlefield power, space infrastructure, and advanced anti-drone and missile technologies. Despite their limited commercial viability, microreactors are expected to feature prominently in discussions about civilian nuclear energy, primarily due to their military applications.

The implications of the recent US-UK nuclear partnership extend beyond energy production, touching on critical military objectives. It is essential to recognize that the motivations driving this collaboration are deeply rooted in military strategy rather than purely civilian energy needs. Transparency about these motivations is crucial for informed public discourse and democratic accountability in energy policy discussions.

Phil Johnstone, a visiting fellow at the School of Global Studies, University of Sussex, and Andy Stirling, a professor of science and technology policy at SPRU, University of Sussex Business School, contributed to this analysis, highlighting the need for an honest conversation regarding the underlying factors influencing nuclear energy initiatives.