Considering what you've said about the issues with Hinckley Point C, is there a way we could build nuclear cheaper?
We stop believing spurious levelised cost of energy calculations for LWRs and build whatever design appears to be most "constructible".
Nuclear operating costs are so low that increasing them by a few percent by tolerating a 'cruder' but simpler to build plant design is a good idea in the current environment.
Also realistically - get the man from the Treasury to write us a cheque.
If the state built a nuclear plant using the rates offered by the Public Works Loan Board, let alone what the Treasury actually pays to borrow, nuclear becomes the cheapest form of energy possible, possibly excluding tidal barrages.
(In this scenario you want the lowest possible O&M costs, which excludes offshore wind
Maybe it would be good to have a UK design that is used for several new sites across the country. Then they can be built by the same teams and share parts/labour.
I'm afraid we used to own the AP1000 before Westinghouse got sold by BNFL (to Toshiba).
Also thanks to Clegg we are in no position to manufacture reactor pressure vessels in this country, he having cancelled the loan guarantee for Sheffield Forgemasters to build an ultra large forging press in 2010.
Also, I wonder what can be done about public relations. Most members of the public are still under the impression that renewables can actually offer a viable alternative to our current energy mix. Unfortunately though they aren't reliable enough, so end up with coal/gas coming online to fill in the mix. Power storage just isn't really there, unless we put considerable effort into building pump storage. Also, in colder climates like ours, solar basically generates electricity at the exact opposite times when people need it. Generates during the day, when people don't need lights on and is most effective in summer, when people need the least heating...
Oh it is possible in an engineering sense, but it will either be hilariously expensive or require the conversion of most of the Scottish Highlands and Mid Wales into lakes for pumped storage plants.
They can be. But only because we do nuclear the expensive way. Small units (tens to low hundreds of MWe), of a modular mass-producable design is a much cheaper way to go. They wouldn't need the massive protection structures which are a huge proportion of the costs either.
It really isn't.
SMRs are a desperate attempt to force nuclear into the Thatcherite electricity business model for which is it entirely unsuited.
The economies of scale from medium and large units are hilariously enormous, which is why the "SMR" concepts have been creeping up in size for years, to the point where the Rolls Royce design is the size of a late Magnox unit and approaching the size of the Dungeness B AGR!
The answer is probably however a massive build programme using a design optimised for easiest constructibility.
My own PhD baseline assumption is currently one gigawatt scale unit per month (just the UK), as that is the scale necessary to actually make a difference to climate change in the time allowed.
Also I wish you good luck convincing the regulator that you do not require a shield building on your reactor.........
You will need it.