Is there a potential role for Next Generation Nuclear power – i.e., Small Modular Reactors and Advanced Reactors –to achieving a carbon-free grid?

As much as we find them intriguing and wish for more of these advanced nuclear reactors, I find them to be extremely dangerous and hazardous if not taken proper care. The implications of the current nuclear power plants are critical enough for the residents living nearby. If we had to have more nuclear reactors, mini or advanced, what would be the global impact of having them at every other place? We do not want another Chernobyl incident to happen. 

Nuclear power is indeed a step towards clean energy but it is not completely renewable due to the materials used. So instead of widespread installation of reactors across globe, we should find alternatives to expanding the existing set ups or finding remote areas where electricity is a dream and set up there to avoid human interaction as much as possible. Keeping in mind that the CO2 emissions caused by this is no less than that of a wind so nuclear is a great alternative. Additionally, we can have large scale deployments too. 

There may be role for SMRs if there were a price on carbon and they can be seen competitive with NG CCGT. In a study performed by one of my students carbon pricing at ~$10/ton may be the threshold. No doubt SMR costs themselves will decline once there is market traction around the world.

Yesterday we published an overview on how small modular reactors are being evaluated as part of carbon reduction strategies.

The link to the report is here.   

The idea is getting traction and companies like Holtec and NuScale are making moves.

The cost to develop the small reactors, particularly licensing, is extremely large. Further, the reliability and safety of several of these reactor types is problematic. These elements combined mean there is a lot of financial risk with the likelihood of profitability pretty small.There is little chance that small reactors will be competitive.

Further, pragmatically the potential presence of small reactors would have negligible impact on the climate. The daunting financial aspects of the technologies mean few, if any, small reactors will ultimately be deployed.

Bottom line is small reactors are more trouble than they are worth from a power generation, financial, and regulatory standpoint.

Definitely YES. Holtec International seems to be taking the lead. The are moving to acquire three US nuclear plants, Oyster Creek, in NJ, Pilgrim in MA, and Indian Point in NY. Their strategy seems to be to deploy their 160MW Small Modular Reactors (SMR-160) at these sites. There are regulatory hurdles, for example in 2017 the NRC launched a rulemaking into emergency preparedness for SMR's, they held a public meeting last summer, received hundreds of comments from stakeholders and still have not finalized the EP rule. EnerKnol is a regulatory analytics platform that monitors developments like this across jurisdictions. With EnerKnol I can keep a laser focus on Holtec. If you want to learn more about EnerKnol please contact me

Hi Sean, 
Advanced nuclear certainly belongs in the mix of clean energy solutions. Nuclear is an excellent clean energy source that pairs well with other clean energy solutions (wind, solar etc.). Achieving a carbon-free grid is going to take a lot of partnership and advanced nuclear can act as a steady, flexible and reliable base-load source. 

SMRs and other advanced nuclear technologies is being advanced cross the globe and I believe will be a vital component to offering clean and affordable access to electricity equitably. SMRs will provide a safe, less expensive and easier-to-operate option for carbon-free generated electricity than the traditional larger plants (that are still needed). The new ability to build and deploy on a smaller scale means there will be more opportunity for communities around the world to afford clean energy and therefore improve quality of life.

Sean - In additional to the smaller size for SMR's leading to lower total investment in facilities vs. the mega scale that most nuclear power plants are built at now, the ability to share development costs across multiple units is critical.  With most of the safety and performance critical work being done in a factory environment, these units will be safer, easier to operate and should be less expensive.  There is history of this, I was fortunate to operate one of the most common nuclear reactors (S6G) - the GE built unit on the Los Angles class submarine (62 total built, 30 still operating).  Even through the generational shifts over the manufacturing life of this most common nuclear submarine, the commonality led to tremendous reliability, safety and although difficult to measure - I assume cost savings.  

Hopefully this type of efficiency can be repeated for civilian SMR's providing the world with critically important carbon-free base load electricity generation.  As we all know, few of our facilities can operate without power, so having consistent generation has a great amount of value.  

Yes they do have a role, Just not in California. See the first recent post below, Especially the last section. Other other three posts are specific to SMRs.

Cold Weather Renewables

Cold Weather Renewables | Energy Central

1. 1. Nukes – Part 4

In the prior Nukes Papers, I indicated that (1) Gen 3 Nukes could not compete with other renewable generation technologies, (2) Small Modular Reactors (SMR) appeared to have the ability to compete with these where they were required, and (3) there are (at least) three SMR manufacturers that seem to have the ability to achieve economic viability.

In this post we will look at the progress that the three U.S. SMR manufacturers have made, and identify any other potential SMR or other nuke manufacturers.

https://energycentral.com/c/pip/nukes-%E2%80%93-part-4

1. 1. Nukes – Part 3

This is my third part in this series: The original “Nukes” was posted in October of 2018. In that paper we reviewed the various generations of reactors, and reviewed the economics of the large reactors currently being constructed (Generation III) versus the economics for other generation technologies.

Nukes – Part 2 (Little Nukes) was posted in January, 2019. This specifically focused on small modular reactors (SMRs), and on the most promising for these designs for U.S. which is being produced by NuScale.

Recently in a periodic review of SMR technology, I discovered that at least one new player has decided to join the party. This post will review the new player and any additional potential SMR designs.

https://energycentral.com/c/cp/nukes-%E2%80%93-part-3

1. 1. Nukes, Part 2: Little Nukes

NuScale's Small Modular Reactor Design now appears to be viable, and thus this paper on their technology and economics.

https://www.energycentral.com/c/cp/nukes-part-2-little-nukes

Development of small modular reactors is a huge global effort. Here are a few highlights.

The leaders for SMR development in the western world are, in order, Canada, UK, and the US.  Canada has an SMR roadmap and is aggressively supporting developers in that nation. At least a dozen vendors are participating in the program. The US has so far focused on just one vendor, NuScale, for a 60 MWe SMR to be built at a first of a kind unit in a 12 pack configuration. A site in Idaho has been selected for the firm's first customer. The UK has been slow to support SMRs and has underfunded the effort, but Rolls Royce, which built small reactors for the UK submarine fleet, has an effort underway to design and build a 440 MWe LWR as a cheaper alternative to the 1600 MWe units being built at Hinkley Point C.

China has recently committed to a single SMR design, mostly for support of military bases, and Russia has focused on using floating nuclear power in the form of SMRs, adapted from their nuclear [powered icebreakers, to deliver electricity to remote arctic sites. South Korea has a 100 MWe SMR that is it co-developing with Saudi Arabia. The IAEA has several surveys and technical reports on the SMR effort globally so check their website for them. https://www.iaea.org/topics/small-modular-reactors

I cover this area on my blog Neutron Bytes.  Here are a few trends.

• SMRs based on LWR designs are mostly focused on electricity generation for utilities that cannot afford 1000 MW plants
• SMRs based on advanced or fast reactor designs are focused not only on electricity generation but also process heat applications across multiple uses such as hydrogen production, desalinization, and steam for industry or district heating
• While the IAEA has established an upper limit of 300 MWe for defining SMRs, some firms have done in the other direction developi mini and micro SMRs in the range of 5-10 MWe for mini and 50-100 MWe for micro. Examples in the US include Oklo and in Canada ARC 100.

For those of you who would like a deeper dive into some examples of SMR development, here are a few articles from my blog that highlight the opportunities and challenges facing SMR developers of all types.

https://neutronbytes.com/2019/04/14/key-questions-for-developers-of-smal...

https://neutronbytes.com/2020/11/03/canadian-smr-developers-focus-on-cog...

https://neutronbytes.com/2020/01/11/nuscale-comes-calling-in-canada-but-...

https://neutronbytes.com/2020/11/26/uk-to-invest-700m-in-smrs-as-part-of...

https://neutronbytes.com/2020/05/24/new-lamps-for-old-australia-puerto-r...

https://neutronbytes.com/2020/02/23/doe-national-labs-kickstart-work-on-...

https://neutronbytes.com/2019/07/21/smr-work-advances-in-u-s-canada-china/

https://neutronbytes.com/2019/05/27/us-smr-firms-mark-progress-milestone...

https://neutronbytes.com/2018/11/18/canadas-smr-development-plan-leaves-...

https://neutronbytes.com/2018/04/18/u-s-and-canadian-nuclear-labs-announ...

https://neutronbytes.com/2017/08/13/china-to-deploy-floating-nuclear-pow...

Dan Yurman
https://neutronbytes.com

There certainly should be a role for them. A big role. Objectively, they have the potential to be the most economical, most environmentally benign solution for decarbonization.

Current generation pressurized water reactors have a concrete and steel footprint an order of magnitude less than that of a modern wind turbine, measured against energy output over working lifetime. Unpressurized small-modular reactors hold the promise of a further 10-fold reduction. The mining impact for nuclear fuel is roughly two orders of magnitude less than the impact for mining and processing of rare earth metals, nickel, cobalt, aluminum, and other materials required for wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries. Some advanced reactor designs would not require mining for fuel at all; they could run for centuries on stockpiled wastes we already have on hand.

None of that says much about the role SMRs and advanced NPPs will actually end up playing. What happens depends on government policies, and government policies are determined by activists and focused interest groups. Advocacy for nuclear power is largely an amateur's pastime. There are many individuals who care about climate change and the environment, but their interests are diffuse. A few understand enough to favor nuclear power, but the issue has little immediacy for them. In this society, most people don't truly think for themselves. They subscribe to the narratives favored by friends and neighbors, or that have the highest public media profiles. Anti-nuclear narratives, alas, have very high media profiles.