That's such a cheap take on the issue that it's hard to take serious. > The reality is that they would not be small – for example, the system being developed b

That's such a cheap take on the issue that it's hard to take serious. > The reality is that they would not be small – for example, the system being developed by Rolls-Royce is 470 megawatts, larger than most of the old, now closed, magnox reactors that were built in the UK in the 1960s. Small comes from the model definition (the S on SMR), it's fair to think that even a small model with modern technologies could deliver more energy than a gas cooled reactor built in the 1960s. > And they will not be cheap – even backers, like the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, have admitted that they “could have higher costs per MW compared to gigawatt-scale reactors”. Author now complain about higher costs because the reactor is "too small" but fall short to say that the higher costs are still at least the same level as solar and wind but much stronger availability, which is specially useful to deal with the "still dark weeks" that is the biggest problem in the UK's grid right now due to the dependency on gas to cover for baseload and all the contracts for difference affected by it. Unless we're forecasting a revolution in offshore long transmission and battery in the next couple of years I don't know how you can think about reducing the cost per unit in the UK without nuclear.