Small Modular Nuclear Reactors: Too Expensive, Too Slow, and Too Risky
A new report has assessed the feasibility of deploying small modular nuclear reactors to meet increasing energy demands around the world. The findings don’t look so good for this particular form of energy production.
Small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) are generally defined as nuclear plants that have a capacity that tops out at about 300 megawatts, enough to run about 30,000 US homes. According to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), which prepared the report, there are about 80 SMR concepts currently in various stages of development around the world.
While such reactors were once thought to be a solution to the complexity, security risks, and costs of large-scale reactors, the report asks if continuing to pursue these smaller nuclear power plants is a worthwhile endeavor in terms of meeting the demand for more and more energy around the globe.
The answer to this question is pretty much found in the report’s title: “Small Modular Reactors: Still Too Expensive, Too Slow, and Too Risky.”
If that’s not clear enough though, the report’s executive summary certainly gets to the heart of their findings.
“The rhetoric from small modular reactor (SMR) advocates is loud and persistent: This time will be different because the cost overruns and schedule delays that have plagued large reactor construction projects will not be repeated with the new designs,” says the report. “But the few SMRs that have been built (or have been started) paint a different picture – one that looks startlingly similar to the past. Significant construction delays are still the norm and costs have continued to climb.”
Too Expensive
The cost of SMRs is at the forefront of the report’s argument against the deployment of the reactors. According to some of the data it provides, all three SMRs currently operating (plus one now being completed in Argentina) went way over budget.
The report authors also point out that a project in Idaho called NuScale had to be scrapped because during its development between 2015 and 2023, costs soared from $9,964 per kilowatt to $21,561 per kilowatt. Additionally, the costs for three other small plants in the US have all skyrocketed dramatically from their initial cost assessments.
Not only are the excessive costs of building SMRs problematic in and of themselves, says the IEEFA, but the money being poured into the projects is money that is not being spent on developing other sources of energy that are cleaner, quicker to deploy, and safer.
“It is vital that this debate consider the opportunity costs associated with the SMR push,” write the authors. “The dollars invested in SMRs will not be available for use in building out a wind, solar and battery storage resource base. These carbon-free and lower-cost technologies are available today and can push the transition from fossil fuels forward significantly in the coming 10 years – years when SMRs will still be looking for licensing approval and construction funding.”
Too Slow
That last bit gets to another of the report’s findings: that building SMRs simply takes too much time. Projects have experienced long delays far beyond their initial estimations.
The report also points out that the development and construction of SMRs have historically taken significantly longer than projected, leading to wasted resources.
Despite breakthroughs in SMR manufacturing, such as the welding advance that allows workers to put together an SMR reactor vessel in 24 hours instead of 12 months, the time it takes to get these facilities into the field will likely continue to be a major barrier to their adoption.
Too Risky
Both the unpredictable costs and the extraordinary building delays make SMR development just too big of a risk, says the IEEFA. Because the technology for this small-scale nuclear facility is fairly new and untested, risks could exist in terms of functionality and safety as well.
In terms of safety, the report highlights potential issues with operations & maintenance, decommissioning, waste management, and safety concerns due to the untested nature of SMR technologies.
The authors also raise concerns about the standardized design of many SMRs, suggesting that if a component fails in one reactor, it could have widespread repercussions.
Conclusion
At least 375,000 MW of new renewable energy generating capacity is likely to be added to the US grid in the next seven years, while it is highly unlikely any SMRs will be brought online in that same time frame. The comparison couldn’t be clearer. Regulators, utilities, investors, and government officials should acknowledge this and embrace the available reality: Renewables are the near-term solution.
Overall, the report makes a compelling case against the continued pursuit of small modular nuclear reactors, pointing to their high costs, slow construction, and potential risks as significant barriers to their viability in meeting the world’s energy needs.
Source: IEEFA
You can read the full report in PDF format online.
A small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) is a type of nuclear reactor that is smaller in size and capacity compared to traditional nuclear reactors. SMRs are designed to be more flexible, safer, and more affordable than large-scale nuclear reactors.
One of the key advantages of SMRs is their modular design, which allows for easier construction and deployment. SMRs can be built in factories and transported to their final location, reducing construction time and costs.
SMRs can also be used for a wide range of applications, including power generation, district heating, desalination, and industrial processes. They are particularly well-suited for remote areas and locations with limited access to traditional sources of energy.
Overall, SMRs offer a promising solution for meeting the growing demand for clean and reliable energy sources while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing energy security. As a result, there is growing interest in the development and deployment of small modular nuclear reactors around the world.