By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The UK government, led by Keir Starmer, has announced that three small modular reactors (SMRs) will be built in north Wales by British manufacturer Rolls-Royce SMR, with an investment of £2.5 billion. This decision has sparked criticism from the US, who hoped a US manufacturer would be chosen, particularly Westinghouse Electric Company, which recently signed a large deal. The government’s decision to utilize a British company to produce homegrown clean power has also been met with some criticism from labor unions, but the project is viewed as a positive move by the Nuclear Industry Association. This project at Wylfa, which previously housed a nuclear power plant, is a part of the government’s plan to embrace nuclear energy and provide the opportunity for a large new export industry in SMRs.
Read the original article here
US ‘disappointed’ that Rolls-Royce will build the UK’s first small modular reactors is generating a predictable, and frankly, a somewhat ironic response. It’s almost as if the US is surprised that a close ally, the UK, chose to leverage its own domestic industry for a critical infrastructure project. The sentiment being expressed across the board is one of bewildered exasperation. After all, the UK has a highly respected, globally recognized engineering powerhouse in Rolls-Royce. Why *wouldn’t* they use them?
This perceived “disappointment” from the US is met with a collective shrug of shoulders. The prevailing attitude is, “Well, duh.” The UK, it seems, is being savvy and prioritizing its own national interests, which is a concept that the US, with its recent trade policies, should understand. Many perceive the US’s stance as a symptom of a broader problem: an increasingly isolationist and protectionist approach to global trade. The US has, in the recent past, shown a willingness to disregard trade agreements and impose tariffs on its allies, creating a sense of distrust.
The core of the issue boils down to a fundamental lack of trust. Many feel that the US has become an unreliable partner, one that is not committed to fair trade practices. This is compounded by the perception that the US is primarily interested in its own short-term gains, even at the expense of its allies’ economic well-being. The US seems to have forgotten that a prosperous trading partner is also a valuable customer. They forget that in the long run, supporting the development of their trade partners’ economies actually benefits them, making them richer and thus more likely to buy from the US. This kind of shortsighted, zero-sum game mentality seems to be a major source of frustration.
It’s also pointed out that the decision to award the contract to Rolls-Royce makes perfect sense from a strategic perspective. These reactors will be building key national infrastructure. Having a British company build it not only supports the UK economy through tax revenue and local jobs, but also means that sensitive information and intellectual property remains within the UK. In an era of increasing geopolitical tensions, this is a significant consideration. The implication here is that the US, rather than seeing this as a sign of disrespect, should understand this as a simple, sound business decision based on mutual benefit.
Some observers go even further, suggesting that the US is in no position to be critical. Given the current political climate and the perceived instability of the US government, many question why the UK would *want* to rely on American companies for such a critical project. There’s a strong sentiment that the UK is wise to distance itself from the US, especially with all the chaos going on. The US has been accused of undermining scientific and engineering endeavors, causing greater distrust from international partners.
The use of a British company is seen as a source of national pride. Why wouldn’t the UK use Rolls-Royce, a company known for its exceptional engineering prowess, when it has the capacity to do so? This whole situation highlights the US’s loss of global standing.
The reactions are clear: the US’s disappointment is not reciprocated. The UK’s decision is seen as logical, strategically sound, and in line with its own national interests. It’s a sign of a shifting global landscape, where long-held alliances are being reevaluated in light of changing political and economic realities. The overall feeling is the UK has made a smart move, focusing on its own strengths and safeguarding its future.