Part 5 of 5 Parts (Please read Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 first)
     Rolls Royce operates the Vulcan Naval Reactor Test Establishment at Dounreay under the Vulcan Trials Operation and Maintenance contract. Rolls Royce has already been a benefitiary of U.K. government money flowing into new nuclear projects. It has been lobbying the U.K. government to support its SMR research and development project. When the Office of the Prime Minister submitted its pitch document in 2017, it copied phrases right out of Rolls Royce statements to give to the Financial times.
      It appears that Rolls Royce is lobbying a Boris Johnson aide named Dominic Cummings who is reputed to oppose energy efficiency. His influence is obvious in the push for SMRs and BEIS is also pushing for government support for Sizewell C. The pandemic triggered crash in the aviation industry has caused Rolls Royce to fire up to eight thousand employees. This troubled company is a big example of Great Britain supporting huge unprofitable companies. Critics say that it would not be wise to pour more millions of dollars of public money into Rolls Royce.
      Analysts say that both Sizewell and the SMRs would be much too expensive for the public purse which is already absorbing the shock of the pandemic. Burke said that the pitch for SMR funding should be “Cummings fights back against the public pressure for Sizewell from EDF and (Tom) Greatrex”. Tom Greatrex is the Nuclear Industry Association’s chairman. In a recent Times article he called for “a strong and unambiguous statement of the need for new nuclear to be able to meet the net-zero target” and he also specifically requested backing for Sizewell C.
     There is a major PR battle in the U.K. media over new nuclear projects. Editors of publications seem to be in favor of giving pro-nuclear writers free reign and seldom question their unsupported claims that nuclear power is zero carbon. Dr. Lowry says that this is questionable proposition and not based on any emperical data. If the carbon footprint of the full uranium fuel cycle is considered from uranium mining, milling, enrichment, fuel fabrication, irradiation, radioactive waste conditioning, storage, packaging to final disposal then the carbon emissions of nuclear power plants are between ten and eighteen times greater than the carbon emissions from renewable energy technology. This was determined by a recent study conducted by Mark Jacobsdon who is a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanfod University in California.
     Another recent peer-reviewed article published in Nature Energy indicated that nations installing nuclear power do not have lower carbon emissions but those installing a lot of renewable energy systems do have lower carbon emissions. As a third recent study showed, investment in new nuclear power reactors tends to compete with investment in renewables. The two choices for power generation cannot peacefully co-exist.
      Renewables offer a more rapid and cost-effective means to reach zero carbon targets. The opportunity costs of nuclear power are extremely negative. The 2019 World Nuclear Industry Status Report comprehensively refutes any evidence-based arguments that the implementation of nuclear power will help address the problem of climate change. But, in the end, none of those arguments really reach the heart of the matter. Military nuclear programs require the support of the civilian nuclear power industry.