Small modular reactors (SMR) offer many potential advantages over their full-sized peers. Whether these materialize remains to be seen, writes Scott L. Montgomery of the University of Washington. Nevertheless, SMRs are needed to help resolve the energy challenges of our time, the author argues. Courtesy: The Conversation
Until now, generating nuclear power has required massive facilities surrounded by acres of buildings, electrical infrastructure, roads, parking lots and more. The nuclear industry is trying to change that picture – by going small.
Efforts to build the nation’s first “advanced small modular reactor,” or SMR, in Idaho, are on track for it to become operational by the mid-2020s. The project took a crucial step forward when the company behind it, NuScale, secured an important security certification from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
But the first ones could be generating power by 2020 in China, Argentina and Russia, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The debate continues over whether this technology is worth pursuing, but the nuclear industry isn’t waiting for a verdict. Nor, as an energy scholar, do I think it should. This new generation of smaller and more technologically advanced reactors offer many advantages, including an assembly-line approach to production, vastly reduced meltdown risks and greater flexibility in terms of where they can be located, among others.
How small is small?
Most small modular reactors now in the works range between 50 megawatts – roughly enough power for 60,000 modern U.S. homes – and 200 megawatts. And there are designs for even smaller “mini” or “micro-reactors” that generate as few as 4 megawatts.
In contrast, full-sized nuclear reactors built today will generate about 1,000-1,600 megawatts of electricity, although many built before 1990, including over half the 99 reactors now operating in the U.S., are smaller than this.
But small nuclear reactors aren’t actually new. India has the most, with 18 reactors with capacity ranging between 90 and 220 megawatts, which were built between 1981 and 2011.
Even though the reactors will be small, they may operate at much bigger power plants with multiple reactors
The U.S., Russia, China, India, France and the U.K. operate hundreds of nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers. Russia has dozens of nuclear-powered icebreakers cruising around the Arctic, and its first floating nuclear power plant has been completed and will be deployed in 2019 near the town of Pevek in East Siberia.
The Siberian plant will replace four 12-megawatt reactors the Soviets built in the 1970s to power a remote town and administrative center, as well as mining and oil drilling operations.
Even though the reactors will be small, they may operate at much bigger power plants with multiple reactors. NuScale, for example, wants to install 12 reactors at its initial Idaho site. Based on the company’s latest projections, it will have a total capacity of 720 megawatts.
A global trend
Private and state-owned companies are seeking to build these small power plants in about a dozen countries so far, including the U.S. and the U.K.
France, which gets three-quarters of its electricity from nuclear energy, and Canada may soon join the fray.
This global interest in small modular reactors comes as more standard nuclear reactors are being decommissioned than are under construction.
Some advantages
Proponents of these advanced small modular reactors say they will be easier to build and more flexible in terms of where they can be locatedthan the larger kind. The word “modular” refers to how they will be built in factory-like settings, ready for hauling either fully assembled or in easily connected parts by truck, rail or sea.
These reactors can potentially power rural towns, industrial plants, mountainous areas and military bases, as well as urban districts and ports. Small modular reactors may also prove handy for industrial uses.
Small modular reactors will differ from the smaller reactors already deployed because of their new technologies. These advances are intended to make it less likely or even impossible for them to melt down or explode, as happened during Japan’s Fukushima disaster.
The power plants where these small reactors will be located will have added protections against sabotage and the theft of radioactive material. For example, they may be equipped with cooling systems that continue working even if no operators are present and all electric power is lost. In many cases, the entire reactor and steam-generating equipment will be below ground to safeguard these facilities during natural disasters like the earthquake and tsunamis that led three Fukushima Daiichi reactors to melt down.
Small modular reactors could be paired with renewable sources as a substitute for coal-fired or natural gas plants
Like renewable energy, nuclear power emits no carbon. And compared to wind and solar power, which are intermittent sources, or hydropower, which is affected by seasonal changes and droughts, it operates all the time and has a much smaller footprint.
As a result, small modular reactors could be paired with renewable sources as a substitute for coal-fired or natural gas plants. Yet they will probably have to compete with advanced energy storage systems for that market.
Concerns and costs
Whether these advantages materialize, obviously, remains to be seen once these reactors are deployed. Some experts are skeptical of the industry’s promises and expectations.
Although small modular reactors are designed to produce less radioactive waste than standard, bigger reactors for the same amount of power, the issue of where to safely dispose of nuclear waste remains unresolved.
Small modular reactors face other challenges, some of their own making.
Strong interest in the potential global market has led many companies to propose their own individual reactor designs. In my opinion, there are already too many versions out there. Before long, a shakeout will occur.
And, especially in the U.S., there is currently no clarity regarding the length of time required for licensing new reactor designs lacking any commercial track record – creating a lot of regulatory uncertainty.
It’s also unclear what small modular reactor-generated power will cost
It’s also unclear what small modular reactor-generated power will cost. That will probably remain the case for at least the next 10 to 15 years, until a few designs are actually built and operating.
Some experts foresee small modular reactors penciling out at levels that could be higher than for full-sized reactors which generally cost more to build and operate than other options, like natural gas, for the same amount of power. NuScale, however, predicts that its SMRs will be more competitive than that in terms of their cost.
And some observers fear that reactor owners might cut corners to reduce costs, compromising safety or security.
Although their costs are unclear and their advantages relative to other energy choices remain unproven, I believe these small reactors, as non-carbon sources, are needed to help resolve the energy challenges of our time. And the rest of the world seems ready to give them a try with or without the U.S.
Editor’s Note
Scott L. Montgomery is lecturer at the Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington. and author of many books, including “The Powers That Be: Global Energy for the Twenty-First Century and Beyond”, and “The Shape of the New: Four Big Ideas and How They Built the Modern World”.Â
This article was first published on The Conversation and is republished here with permission from the author and publisher.
[adrotate banner=”78″]
Luke says
“As a result, small modular reactors could be paired with renewable sources as a substitute for coal-fired or natural gas plants.”
Seems an odd idea. As much as I know nuclear can not be easily ramped up and down. So it is difficult to compensate a fluctuating power source. A Problem most coal plants share.
In Germany we can clearly see how inflexible nuclear is. Because they produce at almost full power even if the electrcity price is negative.
It is a bit of a fairytale that we want or need a constant 24/7 power source. Because the load is not steady. I am not saying it is a bad thing per se. However a flexible (not to be confused with fluctuating) power source is what everyone really wants.
So clearly I believe that storage and load managemant are going to make it. There the cost development is clear.
NeilC says
There are multiple ways which a load-following regime could be implemented using SMRs in theory.
However, in my eyes the most attractive and pragmatic solution lies with cogeneration. Rather than ramping the reactor(s) power output up/down, during dips in demand (from peaks in renewable output), each unit can continue to run at optimal power, however the excess output can be diverted into a form of cogeneration. Desalination, hydrogen production and district heating are just a few of the most attractive and realistic cogeneration options, however this would depend on location and socio-economic factors.
Bas Gresnigt says
So significant deployment of SMR’s could start in ~2030.
At that time new wind, solar, storage solutions are almost everywhere capable to produce for <3cnt/KWh.
While for SMR the discussion regards whether they will become cheaper than present new reactors, which are at ~15cnt/KWh (incl. liability, etc. subsidies).
"… small modular reactors could be paired with renewable sources as a substitute for … natural gas plants"
While SMR's have an emission benefit against natural gas, they'll loose that gradually as more renewable generated hydrogen will be used. Then only their lower flexibility, higher costs and dangers rest.
[…]
Raffaele Piria says
The article does not indicate a “big bet” on small reactors made by the industry, as suggested by the title. In fact, I could not find any figure about investments.
Does the author have any figures or assessments about the size of investments into small modular reactors (SMR)? Would it be possible to provide an assessemnt of the share of public money (such as this one: http://www.nuscalepower.com/about-us/doe-partnership ) vs. private capital really flowing into the development and deployment of SMR?
It could be relevant to compare these amounts with the total/private investments going in developing and deploying onshore wind, offshore wind, photovoltaics, solar thermal power, geothermal, hydropower, batteries, other storage technologies, demand response.
And it would be interesting to compare the SMR investment volumes with the size of the gap btw the provisions set aside for decommissioning existing reactors + waste disposal and the costs that can realisitically be expected. Only in Europe, this gap is in the order of a few hundreds of billions of Euros.
For the time being, I would make a big bet that the “big bet” made by the nuclear industry (possibly in fact mainly by a handful of national governments) is massively lower than these two terms of comparisons. Even lower if one does not count the tax financed parts of it.
If only few SMR are built, they will not make a difference. If many are built, we should make sure that their full lifecycle costs are carried by those who make the investment decision, not by future generations.
Kind regards
José DeSouza says
Even in India, where most operating SMRs are located, solar and wind are producing more electricity presently, according to a link provided by the author himself in this article.
So, what’s the big fuss about SMRs after all?
Geoffrey Rothwell, PhD says
I cannot believe how ill informed this discussion is or how retarded is the discussion of SMR economics. Show me the business plan! Russia is already delivering barge mounted SMRs to the Far North: ALREADY! What does the IAEA know about developments in Argentina and China? Nothing. The small unit in Argentina is a proto-type, not a SMR! China might develop a small unit, but doesn’t need it until it dominates the international NSSS market. NuScale’s price sheet assumes the owner/operator builds 12 units at once, or pays for the set-up to build more units on site. The site is $2B for a total capacity of 12 units. Further, most of what is discussed in this discussion are Generation IV reactors that won’t have prototypes ready until after 2030. None of the Gen IV reactors have proven nuclear fuel cycles. I don’t want to pop anybody’s balloon, but we should stay focused on keeping what we already got going! There will be no SMRs if there are no ALWR fleets! Show me your business plan and I will show you where the holes are! All the business plans I’ve seen look like Swiss cheese and the Swiss aren’t building any more nuclear plants!
Ian Hore-Lacy says
“comes as more standard nuclear reactors are being decommissioned than are under construction.” This is slightly misleading in that the 150+ reactors being decommissioned – a 40+ year process usually, while about 60 are being built – a 5-6 year process usually (or up to 10 years for FOAK).
Currently there are a few SMRs under construction: 2×35 MW KLT40S in Russia, several 50 MW RITM-200 in Russia (for icebreakers and planned for FNPP), a 27 MW CAREM-25 in Argentina and a 110 MW HTR-PM in China (which they are keen to replicate rapidly). NuScale looks like being next in the West, and ACP100 is imminent in China.
The economics of larger, multi-module plants, depends on sequential construction so that you have cash flow from the first before construction of the last few modules starts.
HarryDutch says
Business and Energy Secretary Greg Clark announced a New deal with industry to secure UK civil nuclear future. An ambitious deal with the nuclear sector to ensure that nuclear energy continues to power the UK for years to come through major innovation, cutting-edge technology and ensuring a diverse and highly-skilled workforce, was announced today (28 June 2018) as part of the modern Industrial strategy. The deal, worth over £200 million, follows the government’s recent announcement that it is to enter into negotiations with Hitachi over the Wylfa Newydd project. The deal will spearhead Britain’s move towards cleaner economic growth, while promoting new opportunities in the sector including a focus on innovation to develop the technology and skills needed to maintain the UK’s position as one of the world’s leading nuclear countries.
HarryDutch says
28 Jun 2018 Moltex successful in the UK government £300k Advanced Modular Reactors competition. London, 22 June 2018 – Moltex Energy, a leading advanced nuclear reactor technology company and proprietor of the Stable Salt Reactor (SSR) design, has been awarded a £300k contract by the UK Government as part of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s Advanced Modular Reactor (AMR) scheme.
Edward Knuckles says
Thank you for a balanced and well referenced discussion on SMRs. One minor point is the statement “… small modular reactors are designed to produce less radioactive waste than standard, bigger reactors for the same amount of power…” is not correct. The waste per MWe for the same type of reactor is similar whether it’s large or small. However, the waste/MWe can be different when comparing different types of reactors, i.e. thermal vs. fast as pointed out in your reference. Reactors using thermal neutrons are generally the standard for electrical generation whereas reactors using fast neutrons are considered a more advanced development of the nuclear fuel cycle with mixed operational results.