Twenty mini nuclear reactors within the next decade. Donald Trump e Keir Starmer They've heralded it as a "historic partnership" for clean energy. Small, modular, safe: the rhetoric is that of a "high-performance" green transition. The problem is that no efficient and effective commercial mini-reactor has yet been truly put into operation. And several independent analyses show that they cost more than renewables, produce 30 times more waste, and take decades to become operational. So why all the enthusiasm? The answer lies not in the bills, but in the nuclear fleets. Behind the civilian mini-reactors lies the navies' dependence on nuclear reactors. Without the "civilian" nuclear industry, nuclear-powered submarines become unsustainable. A hall of mirrors that transfers billions from taxpayers' pockets to defense budgets. Now crucify me, you various "lawyers," while I continue.
Mini-reactors: The numbers don't add up.
- Small Modular Reactors, or SMRs, are small-scale nuclear fission reactors, up to 300 megawatts of electrical power. They should be cheaper, faster to build and inherently safer compared to traditional power plants. We have also talked about it several times, as those who are curious about the future and without prejudice (but then we form an idea about things, after). Rolls-Royce, which will build them in the UK, claims that the mini-reactors will reduce energy costs and ensure energy independence. The point is that even the most optimistic industry assessments admit that mini-reactors cannot compete with renewables.
A analysis published in New Civil Engineer concluded that SMRs represent “the most expensive energy source per kilowatt generated” compared to natural gas, traditional nuclear and renewables. Royal Society, historically in favour of nuclear power, has demonstrated that 100% renewable systems outperform any nuclear configuration in terms of cost, flexibility and safety. World statistics confirm: Nuclear is not generally associated with carbon emission reductions, while renewables are.
Uno study by Stanford University and the University of British Columbia published on Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences He analyzed three types of minireactors. The results: the volume of spent nuclear fuel increases by a factor of 5,5 compared to traditional reactors; high-level waste increase by a factor of 30; those of low and medium intensity by a factor of 35And the inherently higher neutron loss in SMRs compounds the waste management issues.
Mini-reactors, the real customer: the navies
If economics don't justify mini-reactors, what does? Military dependence on nuclear reactors. Change my mind. Maintaining a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines requires a functioning civilian nuclear industry. Without that industrial base, defense costs would explode. Rolls-Royce, which builds both reactors for British submarines and civilian SMRs, has already openly stated this in 2017: a civilian mini-reactor program “will relieve the Department of Defense of the burden of developing and maintaining skills and capabilities”.
Nuclear Intelligence Weekly in 2020 He emphasized that Rolls-Royce's SMR program has an important "symbiosis with the UK's military needs." A former executive at BAE Systems, which builds British submarines, explained that military costs can be "masked" behind civilian programs. A study commissioned by the British government estimated the value of this transfer. at around £5 billion a year in the UK alone. In the United States, About $25 billion a year flows from civilian to military nuclear power.
Italy enters the game
Italy is also following this path. Fincantieri drive the Minerva project, funded by the National Military Research Plan with 2,1 million euros, to study the integration of mini-reactors on naval vessels and submarines. The consortium includes Ansaldo Nuclear, Rina Services andUniversity of GenoaThe Admiral Enrico Credendino, Chief of Staff of the Navy, confirmed in March 2025 that work is underway on “nuclear engines for fighter jets and submarines”.
The model is not new. France, Russia and China are explicit on the inseparable links between civil and military nuclear power. Emmanuel Macron He said it clearly: "Without civil nuclear power, no military nuclear power. Without military nuclear power, no civil nuclear power." For these states, military nuclear capabilities are a sign of great-power status. Ending the civil program would jeopardize not only jobs and energy, but their position at the "big table."
Microreactors: The Next Frontier of War
In addition to SMRs, the microreactors, even smaller and more experimental. From a commercial energy perspective, they make no sense. But they are considered essential in US plans to power military bases, space infrastructure, and new high-energy weapons such as anti-drone and anti-missile systems. Microreactors will become increasingly prominent in “civil” debates on energy (and in the speeches of the "nuclear lawyers" or the "naive" pop communicators) precisely because military objectives are needed.
Minireactor developers and nuclear advocates often use simple metrics like mass or total radiotoxicity to suggest that advanced reactors will generate less spent fuel. But the detailed analysis reveals that mini-reactors will increase the equivalent volumes of nuclear waste requiring management and disposal, with more voluminous and chemically reactive waste than traditional PWRs.
Whatever one's opinion on these military developments, It's a matter of democracy that there is honesty about what is really happening. The real drivers of the recent nuclear deal between the US and the UK They lie in the military projection of force, not in the civilian production of energy. Yet this remains absent from most energy policy discussions. Mini-reactors are sold as a climate solution when in reality they are a disguised subsidy to nuclear fleets. Taxpayers pay through higher bills for military capabilities that don't appear in defense budgets.
Calling it “clean energy” is just a more elegant way of making citizens pay for nuclear weapons.
