ANALYSIS: NUCLEAR REACTOR Pessimism surrounds SMRs’ viability in carbon reduction push

Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) could miss out on contributing to the critical carbon emission reduction timeframe, despite their potential to provide consistent clean power, analysts caution, as only Russia and China have deployed the technology.

“In principle, SMRs could make a difference by supplying large quantities of reliable, low-carbon energy that is not intermittent. However, the problem is that they are unlikely to be deployed at a sufficiently large scale in the next 15 years, which is the period when significant reductions in carbon emissions must be made,” Philip Andrews-Speed, senior principal fellow of the Energy Studies Institute, National University of Singapore, told Asian Power.

Likewise, the International Energy Advisory Council (IEAC) pointed out that as SMRs are “largely conceptual,” this new power source might not be developed in time, adding that to date, only Russia and China have so far deployed these compact nuclear reactors.

“By the time SMRs could be available, significant progress should have been made to address the climate emergency. Even if series production were available, it would be too late to capture current market opportunities and much too late for the climate,” Mycle Schneider, IEAC founding board member and spokesperson, said.

Schneider said there are only two 30 MW floating prototypes in Russia, two 100 MW high-temperature reactors in China, and none in the West. A 25 MW reactor domestically designed in Argentina was started in 2014, but its grid connection is set to be completed in 2027; whilst a 100-MW design certified in 2012 in South Korea never found a buyer.

“The only design that received general certification in the western world is NuScale in the US, but that certification was subject to solving several technical issues. Additionally, NuScale has increased the module size twice since certification, making it questionable whether it will be operational before 2030,” Schneider added.

Game-changing SMRs

Last January, NuScale Power secured the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) certification for its proposed SMR design. This was followed by the NRC’s announcement in March that it has started the second round of review for the Standard Design Approval application of NuScale for its six co-located pressurised-water reactor modules. Each has a capacity of 77 MWe, with a total output of around 460 MWe.

NuScale President and CEO John Hopkins noted that this brings the company closer to the commercialisation of SMR technology.

SMRs are considered a “game-changer” as these provide the same reliable and emission-free electricity with enhanced safety features, mitigating security threats often associated with large nuclear reactors.

“When we look at large reactors in the aftermath of Fukushima, public sentiment is that they are probably not safe enough and are difficult to manage in the event of an accident. Older-generation technologies are also not deemed safe enough,” said Dr. Victor Nian, co-founder and CEO of the Centre for Strategic Energy and Resources, an independent think tank headquartered in Singapore.

Nian was referring to the 2011 incident, when a 15-metre tsunami hit three Fukushima Daiichi reactors in Japan that led to high levels of radioactive releases.

“Newer generation technologies, together with small modular reactors, are now believed to be a game-changer because they are much safer compared to conventional nuclear power technologies,” Nian said.

He said whilst security issues will always be present, SMRs have the technology to manage risks better than large reactors. SMRs are also flexible as these reactors can be sited offshore.

These nuclear reactors also have a smaller footprint, unlike larger reactors that require exclusion zones in case of emergencies. Multiple SMRs may also be deployed in a single site, which eases difficulty in licensing.

As these are still in development, SMRs still cost higher, but Nian said this will likely change as the SMR market scales up and standardises. Further, the upfront commitment for SMRs is only about 30%40% of a large reactor.

Andrews-Speed, however, raised that whilst standardisation could significantly lower the capital costs of building SMRs, compared to larger reactors, “this has yet to be demonstrated in practice.” This means that the companies that will build SMRs will need to make a large number of orders to prove their economic benefit, he said.

Schneider, then argued that SMRs will likely lack economies of scale, as the smaller size of these reactors does not guarantee cost-effectiveness.

“NuScale, the most advanced design in the West, increased its projected construction cost by 75% from US$5.3b to US$9.3b, with a generation cost close to US$120/MWh. This makes it more costly than the most expensive large-scale nuclear plants currently under construction in Europe and the US,” Schneider commented.

He added that in terms of waste generation, SMRs are expected to generate more spent nuclear and highlevel radioactive waste per gigawatt of capacity than a standard GW pressurised water reactor.

“They would also bring about proliferation risks with the proliferation of weapons-usable nuclear knowledge, materials, and facilities,” Schneider noted. Although, identified three ways to handle spent fuel management, at least in the Southeast Asian context.