DAVID HESS | OPINION The nuclear industry finds itself to be the hero of the hour but is


apparently completely unfit for the task at hand. No one in the nuclear industry can seriously expect it to grow to provide three times more electricity globally by 2050 without profound changes taking place


way lies failure – try cutting all carbohydrates from your diet instantly and see how long you last! There must be a realistic pathway. Goals and milestones have to be specific and achievable.


So what does this full-body-transformation plan for the


nuclear industry actually look like, and what are the sacred cows which must now be slaughtered? Unfortunately, the ability to identify the issues grants no immediate wisdom as to the root causes and even less towards the necessary solutions. These answers should really come from a taskforce of


dedicated experts who feel no strong attachment towards the way things are done today. Ideally these experts would assemble in a neutral global body which effectively becomes the industry’s personal trainer. Their overriding objective would be to get the global nuclear industry fit for a 3X future.


But what is the point of an opinion column if not to share opinions? So here are a few ideas.


3X industry goal number one: Establish at least two new national nuclear reactor export champions before the end of the decade. The nuclear industry would benefit greatly from the


emergence of more reactor vendors to actively compete in the global export market. These should be national champions from countries other than the USA, France, China, South Korea and Russia. This increased diversity and depth should help more newcomer countries get programmes underway sooner. It may seem counter intuitive to competitors that more vendors are needed, but the overall market will be healthier. Canada, Japan, India and the UK are all on this watchlist


due to their existing capabilities. Which governments however are willing to take their national industries to the next level? What can the global industry do to support?


3X industry goal number two: Each established major light water and pressurised heavy water reactor designer to develop a ‘simple-proven’ reactor design that is optimised for cost-first and suitable for newcomer countries Sticking with large reactor and nuclear plant design,


radical changes are clearly needed. The design priority simply must shift from enhancing safety to enhancing constructability if we want to see more plants built quickly around the world. Reports have highlighted complexity as being a


particularly challenging factor for nuclear project management. There can be many contributors to project complexity of course, but a major one is surely design complexity such as additional and interconnected safety systems and heightened safety requirements. Gen III reactor designs are clearly safer-by-design than Gen II, but they are also more complex and as it turns out more costly to construct. Gen IV is expected to be safer again, but in many cases designs may also be more complex. While many advanced reactor designers claim increased simplicity, we only have the paper versions for now. We can only wait to see how demonstrations turn out. There is some precedent for design simplification, with


the Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor emphasising this and the EPR-2 apparently heading in this direction. The question is whether vendors dare go further still down the simplification path? The ‘sacred cow’ on the chopping block here is that


Western reactor vendors meeting elite Western regulatory requirements effectively get to set the global safety baseline. Newcomer countries deserve the right to improve safety over time, just as established nuclear counties had to. Put another way, if a design is at least as safe as Three Mile Island unit 2 turned out to be in 1978 – with a deathless nuclear accident and short-term evacuation – is that not a safe enough design for a country to at least start their nuclear energy programme?


3X industry goal number three: As many as possible radical new nuclear project construction and delivery models to be implemented before the end of the decade The evidence tells us that the components of a nuclear plant typically aren’t too expensive, but assembly and verification is a different story. There are many excellent initiatives that offer solutions that could radically improve nuclear plant manufacture and construction – for example shipyard construction of nuclear plants, and the technologies being pursued as part of the US Nuclear Reactor Innovation Centre’s Advanced Construction Technology Initiative. Indeed, there seems to be no shortage of ideas, but they


need to be trialled with knowledge shared globally ASAP. This piece has focused heavily on nuclear plant


vendors and construction as the weak areas holding the nuclear sector back. The rest of the industry seems to be genuinely doing better, but is certainly not off the hook for improvement. Stand by for part 2. ■


As anyone that has ever attempted a personal transition from couch potato to athlete knows, half measures are simply not going to cut it. You cannot make minor alterations to existing frameworks and orthodoxies and expect to see Olympic results


www.neimagazine.com | February 2025 | 17


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61