Not a single one is an example of what I asked.

Maybe the solution for the UK is to create mountainous rivers or move the country to techtonically active parts of the planet.

If it is that easy, show me one example where any of those technologies have been deployed at a scale required for even a day usage of an entire nation?

Truth is, its hard to do. We will get there, but not sufficiently fast for where we need, hence the continuing need for nuclear.

We know historic nuclear is expensive. Cost is the entire point of SMRs. Let's not use reductionist logic to make a complex problem seem simple. It is complicated and whether SMRs succeed is still to be determined but there is good logic in the aims they have set out and I hope they succeed.

As for renewable, it would be wonderful if we could store energy to overcome the ebs and flows of power they currently produce, but I am not aware of any technology currently allowing this to sufficient costs and practicalities. This is where nuclear may be required

It doesn't matter if you produce 400% the required energy in a year with renewables if we have to go without even a fraction of the time.

The technology of modern reactors ,like the one in the article, is a greater advancement from early reactors that the 1900th century electric car to a modern one.

The materials, manufacturing techniques, fuels, controls, and components are only achievable due to modern advancements.

The latest reactors will be cheaper, more efficient, and safer. They are a necessary stopgap to overcome the transient nature of renewable energy in the UK and an important piece in ensuring energy availability and detachment from from fossil fuels.

And electric cars have had over 100 years, so should we have given up on them? Your argument is flawed.