‘Landmark moment’ as Great British Energy progresses £2.6bn Wylfa SMR
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero company has signed a two-stage contract with Rolls-Royce to ready the North Wales site for three small modular nuclear reactors.
The contract enables Rolls-Royce SMR to commence site-specific design activity and site enabling works for the SMR nuclear power plant, which will be located on the former Wylfa nuclear site in Anglesey.
SMRs represent the new wave of nuclear power generation, utilising modular, factory-built components to shorten construction timelines. SMRs can also be mass produced and are smaller than their non-modular counterparts. They are currently operational in China and Russia. The Wylfa plant will be the first SMR nuclear facility in the UK.
“This agreement is a landmark moment for the nuclear industry,” said Great British Energy- Nuclear chief executive Simon Roddy.
“Working with Rolls-Royce SMR, we’re bringing a significant long-term investment to the UK industrial supply chain.”
Regarding the contract signing, Rolls-Royce chief executive Tufan Erginbilgic said: “This is a critical milestone for Rolls-Royce SMR, for Rolls-Royce and for the UK as the government looks to realise its ambition of a ‘golden age’ of new nuclear.”
WSP and Mott MacDonald were appointed earlier this year to a £25m contract to conduct environmental assessments for the programme and to ensure its regulatory compliance.
The delivery of the programme is being led by advanced engineering company Amentum, alongside Turner & Townsend, Mace Consult, Hochtief, and Unipart.
The SMR project received a £2.6bn commitment from last year’s Spending Review. The National Wealth Fund has also agreed to invest up to £599m into the development of the SMRs.
National Wealth Fund chief executive Oliver Holbourn said: “The development and deployment of Rolls-Royce SMR’s technology here in the UK will create thousands of jobs and pave the way for an affordable, cleaner, and more secure energy system.
“This is exactly what the National Wealth Fund has been established to deliver, backing promising homegrown projects and technologies that will deliver transformational impacts.”
Chancellor Rachel Reeves added: “This investment, along with vital financing from the National Wealth Fund, will strengthen our energy security, create skilled jobs and help to build a new generation of homegrown nuclear technology that will power our economy for decades to come.
“We have the right economic plan – one where growth and clean energy go hand in hand – and one that will benefit everyone across the country.”
When it is operational in the mid-2030s, GBE-N estimates that the Wylfa plant will be able to power up to 3m homes for more than 60 years.
Please watch ‘just have a think’ by Dave Borlace this week. He has an intelligent, well thought through analysis of SMR’s and they are nowhere near a good investment. Too expensive & a bit of a back of a postcard calculation as to costs.
Q1. Where has any of these ever been an economic success? Nowhere…
Q2. Yes, the actual construction costs may be less, but what about security transport & pre processing of the different new nuclear fuels & other costs ..same as normal or higher
Q3. And what about the waste…
It is probably just another bad government decision heavily lobbied by RR which will cost everyone dearly & won’t solve our energy issues
By Ste
@ April 13, 2026 at 12:37 pm
By Ste
I disagree. The SMR technology is very similar to what is used in nuclear submarines. We need sovereign energy to wean us off volatile markets and nuclear is (alongside tidal and wind) the best bet for the UK. Nuclear is always on too.
I recommend listening to Dr Tim Gregory who carefully debunks the arguments against nuclear.
By Rye
Nuclear submarine power plants are eye-watering expensive & very secure.. not a real comparison
SMR’s are not a straight technology transfer. There is much more financial risk involved and if a dictatorial China can’t make them work financially, what chance do we stand?
And there are alternatives, financially safe & proven, getting cheaper, & effectively the same . Namely, London duration energy storage, & existing technology.
By By Rye
I disagree, Ste.
I don’t even mind if it is more expensive. Whatever it takes to get us fully independent, and also off fossil fuels. as quickly as possible.
By Tom
Well, this feels like another knee‑jerk leap into the unknown. There are only two operational SMRs in the world and around 130 more still in planning. That alone should make us pause and consider the proposal, I am for Nuclear power, but as part of a mix.
Let’s look at the facts. Several political parties have historically opposed nuclear energy, and with the next election cycle approaching, there’s a real question about whether a future government might cancel or delay the scheme. As for the projected timeline ,“mid‑2030s”, that’s optimistic to the point of unrealistic. The reason there are still only two working SMRs, despite more than a hundred being proposed, is that the technology is still moving through long, expensive, and highly regulated early‑stage development.
One final point: this idea of “local SMRs” has the same flaw we see with wind and solar farms. You can’t just drop generation anywhere and assume the energy will flow where it’s needed. Without a National Grid that’s fit for purpose, you end up relying on subsidies to make projects viable. Any serious plan for SMRs has to go hand‑in‑hand with major grid upgrades.
By Steve5839
10 years ?
By Tannoy
@ April 13, 2026 at 1:49 pm
By Steve5839
Continuous upgrades to the National Grid are of course essential.
I think a focus on sovereign energy generation – even with subsidies – is the issue of our time.
By Rye
Hi April 13, 2026 at 4:30 pm By Rye,
Point taken — but the current approach simply isn’t working. We have many days when wind generation exceeds the grid’s constrained capacity. In other words, the grid cannot export energy beyond the bottleneck, which forces wind farms to curtail their output. That curtailment costs Great Britain £1.35 billion per year.
If we’re already paying that much in wasted energy, then instead of continuing to build more wind farms, we should slow the pace of new construction and divert those funds into upgrading the grid. That upgrade process will take up to ten years, and that timeline matters: any turbines built now will be nearing the end of their useful life by the time the grid is finally capable of handling their output.
One more point: efficient green energy systems can reach around 95% efficiency — but our grid operates at roughly 65% efficiency because of these constraints.
By steve5839