Small reactors, big impact – a breakthrough in green technology
In this week’s video insight, the focus is on Rolls Royce’s groundbreaking technology that could transform the green energy landscape. They have partnered with Skoda JS to manufacture components for a new 470-megawatt-electric pressurised water reactor, which is compact and capable of powering a million homes for sixty years – with zero emissions. As the world shifts towards more reliable energy sources, Rolls Royce’s advancements in nuclear technology promise a smarter, emission-free future.
Transcript:
Today, we’re talking about an energy game-changer – and no, it’s not science fiction.
With the race to net zero smashing into second and third order consequences, few people anticipated that a recent Rolls-Royce announcement could offer a viable solution.
Rolls-Royce is stepping up to the plate with technology that could completely upend the so-called ‘green energy’ narrative we’ve been sold. Rolls-Royce Small Modular Reactors – or SMRs – has signed a landmark agreement with Czech engineering giant Škoda JS. Together, they’re gearing up to manufacture the key components for Rolls-Royce’s innovative 470-megawatt-electric pressurised water reactor design.
This isn’t your grandfather’s nuclear plant. Each SMR module is just 16 by 4 metres – that’s about the size of a billboard and compact enough to be built in a factory and shipped to site – yet powerful enough to produce as much low-carbon electricity as 150 onshore wind turbines. One reactor can power a million homes for 60 years, with zero emissions.
Now that’s something to think about when you consider not only the damage to farmland and national parks already caused by the roll out of Australia’s wind generators, and when you consider the amount of fossil fuel required to produce and deliver them.
The magic here is in the modular build. Around 90 per cent of the reactor is prefabricated in controlled environments, dramatically cutting costs, delays, and risk. And Rolls-Royce is already 18 months ahead of its global competitors in the regulatory race.
The ambitions are huge: 1.5 gigawatts in the UK, powering three million homes, and up to 3 gigawatts in the Czech Republic. Contracts are expected later this year, with the UK’s first SMRs plugged into the grid by the mid-2030s.
Globally, the momentum for SMRs is building fast. In addition to Škoda JS, Rolls-Royce is working with Czech nuclear operator ČEZ, testing and evaluating components with ÚJV Řež, and locking in safety-critical reactor protection systems with Curtiss-Wright in the UK.
This appears to be nuclear done smarter – emission-free, reliable baseload power, deployed faster than ever before.
Now, here in Australia, Energy Minister Chris Bowen keeps telling us that wind and solar – backed by batteries and transmission —–is the cheapest form of power. But here’s what’s actually happened since we started going ‘green’: power prices rose 18 per cent in 2022, 15 per cent in 2023, 21 per cent in 2024, and they’re already 13 per cent higher this year. That’s an 85 per cent increase in four years.
Bowen’s claims lean on the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s (CSIRO) GenCost report… but that’s a report co-authored with the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), whose members include …you guessed it…wind and solar producers, and with funding from private industry players like AGL, Vestas, and Tesla. But even that report admitted coal is currently cheaper than renewables.
While Australia doubles down on weather-dependent generation and spiralling costs, Europe is betting on nuclear – a proven, zero-emission, round-the-clock energy source. Rolls-Royce’s SMRs aren’t just a new technology – they’re a new model for delivering affordable, clean energy at scale.
And the question is: will we keep paying more for less reliable power… or finally join the countries choosing to keep the lights on, the grid stable, and the emissions low?” “This is the future – and it’s being built now. So, while the rest of the world buys iPhone 16s, the question is whether Australia will be left buying iPhone 11s.
Roger Montgomery is the Founder and Chairman of Montgomery Investment Management. Roger has over three decades of experience in funds management and related activities, including equities analysis, equity and derivatives strategy, trading and stockbroking. Prior to establishing Montgomery, Roger held positions at Ord Minnett Jardine Fleming, BT (Australia) Limited and Merrill Lynch.
He is also author of best-selling investment guide-book for the stock market, Value.able – how to value the best stocks and buy them for less than they are worth.
Roger appears regularly on television and radio, and in the press, including ABC radio and TV, The Australian and Ausbiz. View upcoming media appearances.
This post was contributed by a representative of Montgomery Investment Management Pty Limited (AFSL No. 354564). The principal purpose of this post is to provide factual information and not provide financial product advice. Additionally, the information provided is not intended to provide any recommendation or opinion about any financial product. Any commentary and statements of opinion however may contain general advice only that is prepared without taking into account your personal objectives, financial circumstances or needs. Because of this, before acting on any of the information provided, you should always consider its appropriateness in light of your personal objectives, financial circumstances and needs and should consider seeking independent advice from a financial advisor if necessary before making any decisions. This post specifically excludes personal advice.
Brian Lovelock
:
Hi Roger
You state this technology is emission-free. Does it produce Plutonium239 which has a half-life of 24,000 years ie it will take 10 half-lifes to be considered free of radioactivity. Thats 240,000 years.
Regards Brian
Roger Montgomery
:
You raise an important point – no form of large-scale energy generation is truly “impact free,” and nuclear is no exception. Yes, SMRs do produce some plutonium-239 as part of their spent fuel, and that material remains radioactive for a very long time. The difference is that nuclear waste is small in volume, contained, and managed from day one — unlike the dispersed, uncontained, and often unacknowledged environmental footprint of wind and solar.
Here’s a few arguments in favour of SMRs being superior to wind and solar when we compare whole-of-life costs and impacts:
1. Waste and Land Use
A single SMR can power a million homes for 60 years on a site the size of a football field, producing only a few cubic metres of high-level waste each year, all of which is stored securely.
Wind and solar require vast tracts of land — thousands of turbines and millions of panels — which disrupt farmland, ecosystems, and bird/bat populations. End-of-life disposal of blades, panels, and toxic PV materials is already a looming waste crisis, with no dedicated long-term storage equivalent to nuclear’s.
2. Reliability and System Costs
SMRs provide continuous, dispatchable power regardless of weather. This eliminates the need for massive overbuilding and storage infrastructure.
Wind and solar are intermittent, so to keep the lights on you have to invest in building large-scale batteries or pumped hydro, plus long-distance transmission lines. These extra costs — often hidden in “levelised cost” comparisons — are borne by consumers. That’s part of why Australia’s power prices have risen 85% in four years despite record renewable buildout.
3. Energy Density and Lifespan
Nuclear fuel has an extraordinary energy density — a few tonnes of uranium power a city for years. Spent fuel remains in secure facilities, not in landfill or scattered through the environment.
Solar panels and wind turbines degrade in 20–25 years, and their replacement cycles lock in continual mining of rare earths, lithium, cobalt, and other materials, often from countries with poor labour and environmental standards.
4. Safety and Emissions Profile
Modern SMR designs, including Rolls-Royce’s, use passive safety systems and are far smaller than legacy reactors, reducing accident risk dramatically. Over their lifecycle, they produce near-zero greenhouse emissions — on par with wind and lower than solar once manufacturing, transport, and backup requirements are factored in.
While I acknowledge that wind and solar are low-carbon in generation, their supply chains involve significant fossil fuel use for mining, manufacturing, and transport, plus substantial emissions from backup gas plants needed to stabilise the grid.
On the plutonium issue:
Plutonium-239 from civilian reactors is stored under strict safeguards. It’s not released into the environment, and volumes are tiny compared to the waste streams from fossil fuels or the material throughput of renewables. Long-term disposal in deep geological repositories is technically solved — Finland’s Onkalo facility is a working example. By contrast, no equivalent system exists for the vast tonnage of non-recyclable solar panels or wind turbine blades that will accumulate within decades.
Brian, the realities is humans have an inescapable footprint and every energy technology we invent has trade-offs, but SMRs offer reliable, dense, long-lived power with managed waste, versus sprawling, short-lived infrastructure with unmanaged waste. The choice is between a small, contained waste stream over centuries, and a vast, dispersed waste stream that arrives much sooner — alongside higher system costs and reliability risks.
That’s why, for a net-zero grid that actually works, SMRs deserve serious consideration.