The Ministry of Defence, together with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, has announced the formation of a new Nuclear Skills Taskforce to support growth opportunities within the UK’s defence and civil nuclear sectors.
The task force, under the leadership of Sir Simon Bollom, former Chief Executive Officer of Defence Equipment and Support, will work towards ensuring that the UK’s nuclear sectors have the requisite manpower and skillsets to meet growing opportunities.
Sir Simon’s role is seen as instrumental, given his extensive experience in defence and his well-established industry network.
“By developing nuclear skills, we are not just investing in the UK economy but our national security,” stated James Cartlidge, Minister for Defence Procurement. Cartlidge believes that the new taskforce will help address the nuclear skills gap in the UK and position the nuclear sector for future success.
The UK’s nuclear sectors, currently in periods of growth, are expected to expand even further, driven by the AUKUS nuclear submarine partnership and the government’s focus on energy security.
The taskforce’s mission, therefore, involves building a long-term and sustainable skills pipeline to meet the country’s nuclear ambitions amid rising international competition for such roles.
Andrew Bowie, Minister for Nuclear, sees the initiative as key to the UK’s nuclear revival, stating, “The UK’s nuclear revival, with the launch of Great British Nuclear, will put us centre-stage in the global race to unleash a new generation of nuclear technology.”
The taskforce will build on the initiatives already undertaken by the Ministry of Defence and Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, developing a comprehensive skills strategy. This strategy aims to support the significant growth expected in the defence and civil nuclear sectors over the coming years.
doesn’t help that most if not all nuclear reactors in the UK are foreign owned, mainly EDF
… and foreign designed, we gave up our civil expertise after the Advanced Gas Cooked Reactor programme the products of which are already working beyond their planned lifespan, I believe now Heysham 1 has just been extended to 2026 Heysham 2 to 28. That said there is no doubt plenty of expertise in and around the sector in support so not all bad. Just read indeed that Heysham set a record in 2016 for continuous uninterrupted electrical output so hey maybe these designs weren’t quite due the criticism they received. We do love a moan esp about our own technology… Read more »
Grant Shapps started the ball rolling earlier this mounth with an invitation to register interest being issued to industry to deliver smaller factory built reactors. Very early doors yet and we won’t see any electricity generated until the middle of the next decade, although I think that will turn out to be optimistic… The big issue with Rolls Royce is they are already maxed out on the SSN / SSNB reactors from what I understand and I would suggest that this initiative is somewhat late given the skills shortage. One day our politicians might learn that you cannot just turn… Read more »
RR maintain a large and highly skilled workforce of nuclear engineers and physicists that in the old days would be called a “centre of excellence”. They have built many nuclear reactors for the RN and to my knowledge not one has had any safety issues. Their SMR design is based on this knowledge and experience and the government really should have got them to build one by now. Numerous councils such as on Angelsea have approved replacement reactors Areva/Siemens/EDF took 13 years too long to build the Olkiluoto-3 EPR civil power reactor in Finland with a huge cost overun but… Read more »
Activities relating to expanding & financing reactors have been gaining pace quietly and I’m sure I read somewhere the next decision point on RR SMR is due by the end of the year. In theory, according to RR, they are able to scale in tech to meet demand. We will see.
Not such a problem as you may think. The SMR and PWR develop along very separate paths with no crossover of technology, development or production. To do so would break just about every rule in the book and to. E honest pretty pointless. Just think of the engine in Fiat 500 and a Ferrari F1, yes they are both internal combustion engines and owned by Fiat but that is about it. When they say SMR everyone thinks that it is small and based on a submarine reactor. Well it isn’t, it’s a smaller version of a Civilian Reactor but built… Read more »
This is exactly right. People think SMR or AMR is ready to go, but both projects are still on the drawing board. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee published its findings this week and basically said unless the UK government starts to put its money where its mouth is, and actually back something, our nuclear ambitions are little more than that, ambitions.
Don’t hold your breath then – I won’t. I believe we were up there with the best in Nuclear Tech (and green coal tech – I think) in the 80;s – and then Thatcher came along Chem Eng degree or no Chem Eng degree.
Different Rolls Royce divisions, Submarine reactors are produced in Derby while the SMR business is based in Manchester.
You’ve forgotten that when the channel is calm, literally hundreds of doctors and engineers reach our shores by dinghy and boost GDP. It’s simple Torynomics. Whatever the problem facing this country, the answer is always more BAMEs.
Hundreds of doctors and engineers, surrounded by thousands of hangers on with limited/nil skill set. Oh dear the rose tinted agenda glasses are being worn again!
You missed the sarcasm I think.
Sarcasm, from you in regard to immigration and diversity, wow maybe your a little more right wing than you realise!
I said I’m a nationalist. I’m not wedded to any red or blue uni parties economic policies. And yes, I think “diversity” and mass immigration has been the biggest disaster to hit this country since WW2.
Well bugger me, you and I may be thinking along similar lines all the time we have our little to and fro hun fights 👍! I have to say I totally agree.
Yeah, we probably agree on more than you or I imagine. Sorry if I got wound up and made things personal. I’m off for a beer, life’s too short.
Likewise, it’s grown up time from now 👍 I’m off for a rum! 👍
“And yes, I think “diversity” and mass immigration has been the biggest disaster to hit this country since WW2.”
Well said that man. I agree. 👍
Diversity is a load of bollocks, agreed.
Immigration? Who would have run the trains,buses and NHS after WW2?
Of course, it also begot:
Priti Patel
Suella Braveman
Sajid Javid
Helen Grant
Shailesh Vara
Sam Gmiyah
Alok Sharma
Kwasi Kwarteng
Nadim Zahawi
Nus Ghani
James Cleverly
Kemi Badenoch
Seema Kennedy
Ranil Jayewardena
Paul Scully
Alan Mak
Rehman Jhisti
Darren Henry
Claire Coutinho
AND
Rish!
Yep, you’re right, twats, the lot of them.
Ah, but as usual ( as this wider point is constantly ignored by the left who support it ) there is a difference you do not mention. Mass immigration vs immigration. My father was an immigrant too, thank you. He worked as soon as he came here, not arrived illegally in a dingy, was put up in a hotel at the cost of 6 million a day, and 2 billion a year. We also then had the power to deport people, now that is impossible. We also then had the infrastructure for 56 million people, and by the looks of… Read more »
And I note you also said “after WW2”
I’m not talking about Windrush, I’m on about mass immigration from the 90s onwards. That is not “after WW2”
This is unsustainable.
Where in my post did I say I supported it?
Illegal entry to this Country has been a Con induced failure that the gammon voted for when they voted Brexshit.
Bluffer is doing well, living off our backs.
The total crap he… delivered… will take generations to put right.
As to infrastructure, please tell us the meaning of a new hospital and the delivery on the 40 new hospitals promised.
Thatcher had planned a whole fleet of reactors – only one got built.
Whilst Thatcher got plenty of stick over investment this was one place she was well ahead of the curve. Trust Me Tony spent 10 years navel gazing whilst saying nuclear was needed.
If Thatcher’s plan had been enacted getting rid of coal would have been a doddle.
Question is: would a large nuclear fleet have stopped wind taking off?
“stopped wind taking off” pun intended ? shudda bought a kite ..
Blair was a twat in many thngs(well everything tbh) but he had to pander to the Greens at that point (ironically even some of the Greens now recognise the need for Nuclear even if they can’t support it)
Wind will never replace the need for Nuclear.
Thatcher didnt support Nuclear as she ought to have done.
Thatcher did supper the building of a new nuclear fleet.
Thatcher did support the building of a new nuclear fleet.
Her successors cancelled it….
Many thanks for the background. The Advanced Gas Cooled Reactors have been very successful, despite lengthy development times and cost over runs, surpassing their planned operational lives. They are inherently safe. Witless C.N.D. campaigners in the 70s and 80s made civil nuclear so toxic it dropped off our national energy future. Huge mistake. I have always been pro-nuclear and condemned for it.
I don’t think it can all be blamed on CND. Chernobyl put the frighteners across the world. For the U.K. Gas was cheap and literally being flared off and privatisation of the energy market assets made any new build nuclear unlikely. The government unwillingness to give low interest loans was another large factor.
Now the U.K. have a nuclear power station being built which will be the most expensive generator of electricity in the world.
I hope SMR work out as the large hinkley point reactor is an example of how not to do it.
We never think beyond 10 years ahead except the Navy and RAF.
The issue is always the obsession with new nuclear technology rather than spiral well understood designs.
Anything that big m, that new and that complicated is bound to run into issues.
Great. I do hope this or some government puts more money where its mouth is. The UK has some potentially really very exciting small companies working in both fission and fusion (“potentially” because one can never be sure that promising research will lead to viable commercial implementations). For fission “Moltex Energy” springs to mind and for fusion “First Light Fusion” looks promising in that it avoids the plasma issues (containment, turbulence, stability). I’m sure there is plenty of other interesting UK stuff going on that hasn’t made it onto my radar but those two in particular piqued my interest covering… Read more »
As usual they will be starved of proper UK support and investment and be bought out and taken by a foreign company.
That’s what I like to see positive thinking😂
The bulk of the money will not come from Government – just incentives. This whole sector needs serious cash and the Government have not got that sort of cash nor could they get it.
Rubbish !
No way can that happen, due to the work undertaken by RR, HMG has a Golden Share which just like that at BAe vetoes any foreign takeovers.
If it didn’t then both would have been bought years ago and to be honest when you look at the size of RR holdings not many folks have deep enough pockets.
Who is talking about RR & BAe? I’m referring to the smaller, newer innovator companies referred to in Julians post.
Moltex is Canadian
You’re right. I don’t know why I thought it was British. I suppose because the founders were British, or at least studied at UK universities. Anyway, my mistake; thanks for the correction.
I still wish the UK would look at exploiting this technology though. Moltex does have a UK office.
Yes the big win would be viable fusion reactors. Looks like the plan is to back Nuclear and if fusion is not practicle then everyone can fall back on Fision. Both seems fine to me – you can have too much energy😀
Believe commercially viable fusion reactors are a definite possibility, from mid-century onward. At least another ren years of R&D, followed by a period of licensing and regulation, the courting of appropriate venture capital entities and finally the build cycle. Never know, could possibly be an interesting spin-off from AUKUS Pillar 2 programme. In any event, predict ChiComs will prove to be the principal pacing entity. 🤔
…ten…🙄
Isn’t that the problem with fusion? It always just another ten years away.
I thought it was 50…..
I was going to ask the language, klingon or some such, you being AF might had a close encounter or three.
Not nuclear but Reaction engines looks like a very promising space launch system. I suppose their cooling method could have some crossover if AGRs ever get a second generation, but that seems very unlikely.
Very good news. Personally I would like to see more Fleet submarines in the future and with AUKUS that should be in the bag. The main change here though, is the government moving forward with Rolls Royce and associated companies with small reactors, a real shift from where we are now and energy self sufficiency in the near future.
Simon Bollom was CEO of DES during some of its most disastrous cock-ups. Pushing this chap upstairs into something as crucial as organising nuclear engineering skillsets and expertise for ARKUS etc epitomises what is wrong with our system. But it’s typical civil service management
I can’t say my heart soared when I read the name. He was paid over a third of a million per annum at DE&S by the time he left — so at least he knows how to negotiate.
Off-Topic, but interesting news for some on here.
“Amsterdam plans on acquiring four diesel-electric submarines equipped with US Tomahawk long-range missiles to provide a “niche capability within NATO and the EU,” a spokesperson for Netherlands State Secretary of Defense Van der Maat, told Breaking Defense in a statement.”
The UK has a small stake in the Saab-Damen bid so I suppose it behooves us to cheer that one along. I can’t see the conventionally powered Barracuda, probably the same as France was going to build for Australia, winning it, so the German 212CD is probably the main competition.
*The Hague
about time!