Show the Working

Scale Up Nuclear Power with Small Modular Reactors

Conservative · what the evidence says

An independent, source-checked look at Conservative’s policy “Scale Up Nuclear Power with Small Modular Reactors” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.

Prosperity & living standards — Mixed picture

moderate · moderate confidence

Approving SMR fleets could boost UK energy security, create skilled jobs, and support a new export industry — but the technology is unproven at scale, costs are uncertain, and operational benefits are unlikely before the mid-2030s at the earliest. Near-term, this policy is largely a planning approval rather than a delivered economic gain.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether SMR costs genuinely fall to competitive levels through factory-build learning curves, or whether first-of-a-kind projects repeat the cost overruns seen in previous UK nuclear builds.

Our reading: This policy is primarily a planning and regulatory commitment — approving two SMR fleets within 100 days — rather than a delivered economic instrument. The genuine economic effects on O13 (real living standards, productivity, investment, opportunity) are almost entirely long-term and uncertain at this stage. On the upside: if SMRs are built and perform as projected, the economic contributions are potentially significant. The developer projects £54 billion in economic contribution over 80 years and thousands of skilled jobs, plus a possible new export industry. Reliable, lower-carbon energy could support energy security and reduce business energy cost risk over the long run — a supply-side benefit for productivity and investment. The 24,000-person skills demand in the nuclear sector represents a genuine economic opportunity channel. On the downside: the policy's near-term effect on living standards is negligible — operational deployment is not expected until the mid-2030s and a final investment decision not until 2029. The stated goal of 'cheaper energy' is not yet evidenced: the projected LCOE of £60–70/MWh is materially higher than offshore wind at £45/MWh, so any cost advantage depends on how intermittency and system balancing costs are weighed. FOAK risks are real: first-of-a-kind SMR projects may face the cost overruns and delays that have historically beset UK nuclear. Critics credibly question whether the technology is proven at commercial scale. The approval commitment in 100 days is a real step — it removes one bottleneck — but the distance between approval and operational energy or economic output is a decade-long gap filled with further regulatory steps, investment decisions, construction risk, and supply chain development. The economic benefits are genuine candidates but contingent on resolving these uncertainties. This earns 'mixed/moderate/long-term': real upside if delivery succeeds, but no near-term living standards improvement and meaningful downside risks on cost and feasibility.

Cost of living — Mixed picture

moderate · low confidence

SMRs could eventually lower energy bills by adding cheap low-carbon power to the grid, but the first plants won't be running until the mid-2030s at the earliest, and costs could be higher than hoped if the technology underdelivers. There is no near-term relief for household energy costs.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether SMR build costs will fall as projected or repeat the delays and overruns of past UK nuclear projects — if costs run high, bill payers could end up subsidising expensive electricity rather than benefiting from cheaper power.

Our reading: The policy's direct relevance to cost of living hinges on whether SMRs deliver cheaper electricity to households. On the upside, the stated ambition is explicitly to deliver 'cheaper, cleaner energy', and the projected LCOE target of below £70/MWh — falling to £60/MWh at scale — is broadly competitive with advanced nuclear benchmarks. If achieved, adding reliable low-carbon baseload to the grid could reduce wholesale electricity costs and, in turn, household bills over the long run. However, several factors temper this optimism. First, timing: SMRs are projected to be operational in the mid-2030s, meaning zero near-term impact on household bills. Second, cost risk: first-of-a-kind projects often run over budget, and the evidence notes that SMRs may be more expensive per unit than large reactors due to lost economies of scale. Third, financing risk: the structures typically used for UK nuclear mean cost overruns can be passed to bill payers rather than investors. Fourth, the projected LCOE is still above offshore wind at £45/MWh, so SMRs are not obviously the cheapest available option. The 'mixed' verdict reflects a genuine split: there is a credible long-term pathway to lower energy costs if SMR technology matures and costs fall as projected, but there is also real downside risk from delay, overrun, and financing exposure that could raise rather than lower costs for ordinary households. Confidence is low because the technology is unproven at scale in the UK and the key cost and timeline parameters span a wide range that honest analysis cannot currently resolve.

Good work & fair pay — Helps

minor · low confidence

This policy could create thousands of skilled, well-paid nuclear jobs over the coming decades, but the numbers are modest relative to the UK workforce and the jobs won't arrive until the mid-2030s at the earliest. Whether the technology delivers on time and cost is genuinely uncertain.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether SMR construction stays on schedule and on budget — historical nuclear cost overruns and the unproven nature of the technology could delay or reduce job creation significantly.

Our reading: The policy makes a clear stated commitment to job creation alongside nuclear expansion. The projected job figures — up to 3,000 at peak construction and thousands more in the supply chain — are real but modest: against a current nuclear workforce of ~87,000 and a projected sector-wide need for 24,000 additional personnel by 2030, the SMR-specific contribution is a fraction of the overall requirement. The jobs that do materialise would be highly skilled and well-paid, which is directly relevant to O4. However, two significant constraints limit the verdict. First, timing: operational deployment is projected for the mid-2030s, so employment gains are a decade away. Approving fleets within 100 days is a planning/regulatory act, not a job-creation act — actual hiring follows construction, which follows regulatory completion (GDA Step 3 expected August 2026) and a final investment decision not expected until 2029. Second, delivery risk: critics including Greenpeace UK flag the technology as unproven and historical nuclear projects have suffered severe delays and cost overruns. If SMR construction is delayed or cancelled, the job projections evaporate. The policy direction is positive for O4 — skilled, well-paid employment in a growing sector — but the magnitude is minor at the population scale of UK employment, and confidence is low given delivery uncertainties. The counterfactual matters too: some of these jobs may materialise under any pro-nuclear policy; the marginal contribution of halving approval times is real but unquantifiable from the evidence provided.

Crime, justice & national security — Little effect

minor · low confidence

This policy is about expanding nuclear power generation and does not target crime, justice, or national security in any direct way. None of the provided evidence connects SMR deployment to O5 indicators such as crime rates, court backlogs, or defence posture.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether energy-security benefits from domestic nuclear capacity would materially improve national resilience to external threats — but no provided evidence addresses this link.

Our reading: O5 covers crime rates, court backlogs, antisocial behaviour, national security and defence posture, and resilience to external threats. This policy is an energy infrastructure measure. Its stated objectives — expanding nuclear capacity, cutting approval times, creating jobs, reducing energy costs — do not target any O5 indicator directly. A theoretical pathway exists via energy security (domestic nuclear reducing reliance on imported fuels could improve resilience to external threats), but none of the 39 provided evidence units address this link, and the policy text itself does not claim a national security effect. Without a cited mechanism connecting SMR deployment to any O5 indicator at population scale, the magnitude floor rule applies: the direction is negligible. The time horizon is set to long-term to reflect that any conceivable indirect effect (e.g. energy resilience) would only materialise after the mid-2030s operational deployment at the earliest.

Clean environment & nature — Helps

moderate · moderate confidence

Approving small modular reactors would add significant low-carbon electricity generation to the UK grid, cutting emissions over the long run — but the technology won't be operational until the mid-2030s at the earliest, and cost and delivery risks remain real.

The evidence

Biggest unknown: Whether SMRs can be built on time and within budget, given that no fleet has been commercially deployed at scale and historical nuclear projects have suffered major delays and cost overruns.

Our reading: Nuclear power is low-carbon at the point of generation, and a programme adding up to 1.5 GW of firm, dispatchable low-carbon electricity — complementing intermittent renewables — would make a genuine positive contribution to the UK's emissions trajectory and long-term climate outcome. The case for an O6 'improves' verdict rests on this mechanism being real and substantial at scale, which it is if the reactors are built. The near-term effect on O6 is negligible: regulatory approval is not yet complete (GDA Step 3 targets August 2026), a final investment decision is not expected until 2029, and operational deployment is projected for the mid-2030s. The 100-day commitment is to grant approvals, not to deliver generation. Near-term emissions are unaffected. Long-term, the low-carbon contribution is credible in direction but uncertain in magnitude. The programme is projected to add up to 1.5 GW — meaningful, but not transformative on its own relative to overall grid decarbonisation needs. SMRs also provide grid-stabilising dispatchable power that complements wind and solar, which is an indirect environmental benefit. On the downside, nuclear waste management concerns are real and unaddressed in the policy text. Historical delays and cost overruns in UK nuclear are well-documented; critics question whether halving approval times translates into faster operational delivery. If projects slip significantly or are abandoned (as has happened before), the environmental gain shrinks or disappears. On balance, the direction is 'improves' for O6, but the effect is long-term and dependent on delivery. The near-term is negligible and the long-term gain is moderate if realised — hence a moderate, long-term verdict with moderate confidence, reflecting genuine delivery uncertainty rather than doubt about the mechanism's direction.

Compare all parties on prosperity & living standards →Compare all parties on cost of living →Compare all parties on good work & fair pay →Compare all parties on crime, justice & national security →Compare all parties on clean environment & nature →Open this in the interactive comparison →← Show the Working home