So, What Exactly Are Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRS) ? - 2020

Nuclear Power Industry

Deign asked the rhetorical question in the Fall, 2020: "Does nuclear have a role in a digital, decentralized, renewable energy world?" He opines on the weird and wonderful world of clean energy. But what’s the problem with expanding nuclear energy? At a time when lawmakers are scratching their heads over how to decarbonize national energy systems, nuclear is a technology that is low-carbon, mature and, despite the odd meltdown [which management has now learned to handle without causalities], is now considered safe [relative to oil & gas production and utilization, coal production & utilization, as well as in wind and solar production & utilization, all in producing electricity.]

Yet across North America and Europe, nuclear can’t seem to get a foothold [beyond that of producing 20% of the U.S. electricity that is.] More than half of the 48 new reactors that the World Nuclear Association (WNA) lists as being built worldwide are in just four countries: China, India, the United Arab Emirates and Russia. China alone accounts for a quarter of the total. Meanwhile, in the U.S., the world’s top generator of nuclear power, [only two new reactors have been constructed old way at the Southern Company’s Plant Vogtle over that 30 years.].

It’s the same story in France, which has a higher proportion of nuclear energy on the grid than any other country in the world. French developer EDF was hoping for its sole new-build project to go live last year, along with another reactor it is building in Finland. It failed to meet both targets. Nuclear construction cost and schedule overruns are causing the industry to fall from grace in these formerly hospitable markets. And the business case for reactors is increasingly shaky in places where the grid is moving to a more digital, distributed and renewable model, [but renewables (wind and solar projects) are not economically viable with a back-up power grid. Natural gas is developing markets to fill this need, but it is not climate friendly. Nuclear power is better fitted to fill such needs becasue nuclear is not only climate friendly, it is also renewable, safe, and cost effective when subsidies have been removed form wind, solar, and oil and gas.]

To stay relevant in regions such as Europe and North America, the nuclear industry knows it needs a new plan. It’s betting on a sleeker, more appealing kind of nuclear technology: the small modular reactor, or SMR. Whereas the world’s largest traditional nuclear reactors have topped 1.6 gigawatts of generating capacity per unit, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) defines the "small" category as anything delivering up to 300 megawatts. The IAEA has also used SMR as an acronym for "small and medium reactors," which encompasses units of up to 700 megawatts. But today, the term "SMR" is usually reserved for small reactors that are designed for factory-style serial production (hence the term "modular"). To round off the SMR nomenclature class, there are also fun-sized units called "very small modular reactors," or VSMRs, of up to 15 megawatts, and micro modular reactors, or MMRs, of up to 10 megawatts.

The Pros and Cons of Small Modular Reactors

Very small such reactors have been around for almost as long as the nuclear industry itself and are still found in places such as naval vessel engine rooms and research facilities. Today’s SMR developers are hoping to build on the experience gained with such units to create a new class of nuclear technology that can operate safely in a range of power market environments and be mass-produced to reduce unit costs and installation times. While smaller reactors may miss out on the economies of scale that are inherent "big" nuclear plants, SMR proponents say that a factory approach to manufacturing could help the sector cut costs and remain competitive as renewables [meaning wind & solar projects] come down in capital costs of construction.

One 2017 study suggested that a factory-produced pressurized water SMR might be between 15 percent and 40 percent cheaper than a traditional plant scaled to provide the same electrical output. Oregon-based NuScale Power, one of the front-runners in SMR development, estimates it could build its first plant, with a dozen 50-megawatt reactors totaling a net 684 megawatts of electrical power, for $3 billion. That’s roughly 20 percent cheaper on an installed per-megawatt basis than the $14 billion quoted to the Georgia Public Service Commission in 2014 for the two 1.25-gigawatt units now under construction at the Vogtle plant located near Waynesboro in that state (although the final cost will be around $28 billion.)

Alongside theoretically cheaper construction, the size of SMRs means they could potentially be deployed in many situations where it wouldn’t make sense to have a full-scale nuclear plant. They can also in theory be designed to incorporate the latest safety features, allowing them to be placed in brownfield sites or otherwise close to areas of human habitation [or even at existing transformer sites sites around town that would decrease power transmission losses from remote locations] Advocates see them being used to power remote towns [and sections of cities], desalination plants, mines and other similar sites. One early possible application, now being pioneered in Russia, is for SMRs to be mounted on vessels for the provision of nuclear power to remote coastal communities.[Note this has already been accomplished, see (here).]

So What’s the Catch?

The main problem with the SMR concept is that it has yet to be tested in earnest [Note: Fact Check: Numerous models are currently undergoing testing (here)]. There is a handful of sub-300-megawatt reactors in operation across China, India and Russia, but none of them would qualify as SMRs in the modern sense. The closest thing to an SMR out there in the real world is a Russian floating plant that uses naval reactors [Fact Check: U.S. has more than 50 SMRs in various Navy ships (more)].The plant is estimated to have cost 21.5 billion rubles (a bargain-basement $314 million at today’s rates), but it is hard to imagine that model being licensed for use in places such as the U.S. [Fact Check: This is a stupid statement by Deign]

Indeed, certification is a major stumbling block for SMRs generally [Fact Check: Certifications are moving along more so than in the past, see (here)]. And you can hardly blame bodies such as the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission [Fact Check: Another unfounded, and stupid, statement by author]. Many SMR designs use novel technologies and construction techniques, and regulators have to issue licenses based on developer proposals rather than real-life plants. This means licensing has proceeded slowly in markets such as the U.S. and Canada [Fact Check: Another unfounded, and stupid, statement by author].

In the U.S., for example, NuScale only passed the fourth of a six-phase Nuclear Regulatory Commission design certification application review last December, almost 12 years after initiating the process. No other SMR maker has undergone the U.S. regulator’s design certification review.[Fact Check: And another unfounded, and stupid, statement by author, there are others making progress].

Until SMRs are approved and built in bulk, it is impossible to test whether developers’ cost claims are true.[Fact Check: Another unfounded, and stupid, statement by author]. Not everyone is convinced that they are.[Fact Check: Another unfounded, and stupid, statement by author].

Canadian "academic"? Professor M.V. Ramana, for example, believes scant demand for SMRs coupled with a massive diversity of designs means no vendor could likely achieve the level of mass production required for low-cost manufacturing. [Fact Check: Another unfounded, and stupid, statement likely misunderstood by author based on Ramana content]. 

Has that Skepticism put Nuclear Developers Off?

Oh, no. A few years back, the IAEA listed no fewer than 48 potential SMR designs under development. And the WNA lists 19 small reactors as currently operating, under construction or close to deployment [This contradicts what the author has stated above] The countries most interested in developing or deploying SMRs can be gleaned from the membership of the IAEA’s SMR regulators’ forum: Canada, China, Finland, France, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, the U.K. and the U.S. SMRs are under development in a range of countries, including the U.S., Canada, South Korea, Argentina and several countries in Europe. “We are likely to see demonstration and first-of-a-kind plants from many of the programs over the coming decade," says WNA Senior Communication Manager Jonathan Cobb.

NuScale's Progress with its Small Modular Reactor

It’s a fair bet that the first SMR that will enter operation in U.S. soil will be the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems plant that NuScale expects to have operating by 2027 [or before]. NuScale got the NRC’s final stamp of approval on its SMR design this September, a critical step for the Portland, Oregon-based company’s plans to build its first commercial systems. In March, the company said its schedule would not be affected by the coronavirus pandemic. And NuScale is far from the only U.S. contender in the race to commercialize SMRs. Another one to watch is Bill Gates-backed TerraPower, which in August added molten salt storage to its technology mix. It is aiming to have reactors working in the late 2020s.

But Won’t Renewables be even Harder to Beat by Then?

Oh, yes. In 2018, NuScale was predicting its SMRs would have a levelized cost of energy of $65 per megawatt-hour. For comparison, the U.S. Energy Information Administration calculates that by 2025 solar PV will have an LCOE of $32.80 per megawatt-hour and onshore wind will be at $34.10.[Fact Check: The luster is coming off the large wind and solar projects now that their actual operation & maintenance costs are beginning to be realized. This is being "overlooked" by the USEIA. This increases the cost of electricity to the consumer and exposes their need to have a grid-level power supply back-up currently provided by the cheap natural gas and by nuclear power plants, where available].

Of course, if NuScale’s plant works without problems, then its power supply won’t be subject to intermittency,[which is the major drawback to solar and wind project and the reason they need grid power that is reliable 24-7]. That might be a lot to ask of the first-ever U.S. SMR to roll off the assembly line, however. And a long history of delays and cost overruns in traditional nuclear construction does not exactly bode well for the competitiveness of SMRs in the mid- to late 2020s. [Fact Check: Another unfounded, and stupid, statement by author]

What Happens to the Nuclear Industry if it can’t get anywhere with SMRs?

Nuclear faces steep challenges in many of its former strongholds, and if SMRs don't pan out as a concept, then the future for the industry looks bleak in those markets. However, there is still a strong commitment to nuclear in China, India and Russia, not to mention smaller markets such as Argentina and Turkey. Russia has already effectively started deploying SMRs with its floating plant, and Cobb said China was likely to commission a 210-megawatt high-temperature gas-cooled reactor at the end of this year. So even if SMRs don’t make it in places like Western Europe or North America, they might still become part of the generation mix in some of the world’s biggest energy markets.

And if all else fails, there is still the promise of fusion,[which may still be 50 years away to realization]

Reviewers Note: Beyond the comments already made above, the author exhibits clear bias against nuclear power, and in particular SMRs. In such cases as this in the article, an opposing agenda usually underlies the author's views, which are often paid for by the fossil fuel industry, likely by natural gas interests, or by the wind and solar industries, or both and whose expansion is threatened by the arrival of the new nuclear plants, which will offer grid-power 24/7 and at reasonable prices and along with certified safety.