ANALYSIS: NUCLEAR REACTOR

One of which is ensuring that agreements with vendors or suppliers of nuclear reactors provide for a spent fuel take-back policy or arrangement. This could protect against weaponising spent fuel.

Another way is having the region agree on establishing a common legal or regulatory framework that sets a guideline for managing radioactive waste. This could also cover setting up a single site that will serve as potential central storage.

Lastly, Nian said countries could sign different treaties and agreement that provides for how they can manage radioactive wastes within their respective jurisdictions. However, Nian flagged a potential conflict in this last option as other territories will likely have security concerns.

Ultimately, Andrews-Speed noted that considering there are over 70 designs and a variety of underlying fuel and cooling systems, “it is still too early to assess whether SMRs will be safer than the safest large-scale reactors.”

Weighing clean energy options

In the short term, Andrews-Speed and Schneider agree that renewables are better than SMRs as these are already being manufactured and deployed on a large scale. It has also achieved costcompetitiveness as it has become more affordable for markets across Asia and Europe to build solar and wind farms as well as hybrid renewable energy projects.

“In terms of policy, the most cost-effective option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible should be considered, as every dollar can only be spent once. SMRs are not currently an option and may not be available for the next two decades,” Schneider said. “The focus should be on implementing climate-effective options that are available and cost-effective.”

Weighing both options, Nian said renewables generally have the stronger political support but pointed out that SMRs and renewable energy have their fair share of disadvantages. For instance, SMRs cannot be sited in every geographical location, much like renewable energy.

Citing the case of Southeast Asia, Nian noted that not all markets in the region generate green power from hydro, whereas nuclear reactors need to be sited in an area with a certain degree of access to water.

Nian contended, however, that as SMR technology is more advanced, these nuclear reactors no longer need water as a last line of defence. SMRs have also made nuclear power more flexible as it enables siting both on land and water.

“In Southeast Asia, you have archipelagos such as Indonesia and the Philippines, and large shorelines like Vietnam and Malaysia. These countries can have floating nuclear power plants,” Nian said.

SMRs would also be easier to integrate into the power grid, compared to renewables, particularly in regions such as Southeast Asia where electricity grids are smaller and more scattered. This is due to the reliability of nuclear power as it functions as a baseload power that produces electricity continually, as opposed to the intermittent and variable power generated from renewable energy sources.

“With SMRs, the demand can be stepped up continuously. Therefore, SMRs will be a lot easier to integrate into the grid than large-scale renewables, making it more feasible to have 1GW of SMRs compared to 1GW of renewables in the Asia Pacific context,” Nian said.

“In conclusion, SMRs will be a lot easier to manage in terms of integration and will provide the greatest quality electricity as compared to renewables.”