JEREMY GORDON | OPINION


This is a vision of a large, competitive global market in which big money could be made, even while the cost of the power plants would surely be lower and much more competitive


CANDUs can be refuelled while online, which is a


neat feature that hasn’t lived up to its promise, but nevertheless operational runs of 962 days by India’s Kaiga 1 and 894 days by Canada’s Pickering 7 hint at what might have been routine with a larger community around the technology. Even the CANDU lifecycle of extensive refurbishment


after 30 years of operation is healthier than the equivalent in light water reactors, where licence extension is a smaller job that tends to come a decade later. With a large enough fleet, this kind of predictable work would be amply sufficient to keep vendors’ skills up to scratch. Indeed, new build of CANDUs has come onto the agenda in Canada now its industry has a few successful refurbishments under its belt (see page 36).


This is a vision of a large, competitive global market in which big money could be made, even while the cost of the power plants would surely be lower and much more competitive than we see now for large LWRs. What I am describing is more like a ‘normal’ industry than the kinds of arrangements we have become used to in nuclear: segregated markets with lumpy orders for a few units at most, separated by years of building nothing. It would have lower to barriers to entry for new countries, little gatekeeping of technology and higher security of supply for users as a result. But sadly, none of this happened. Instead, national


interests prevailed and we stayed with a system dominated by national champions and heavy industry giants, each of which had its own unique product – not that those products were even very different. Large LWRs, whatever the vendor, are essentially the


same machine. The selection of reactor designs has been more down to preference than performance, or even price. In some ways the reactor market has been like a car showroom that only stocks BMW, Mercedes and Volvo: a buyer is faced with a range of options that are all good, that are all reliable, that are all safe. The choice between PWR or BWR has been akin to choosing a petrol or diesel engine – there are pros and cons but you won’t go wrong no matter which one you choose. You might have noticed this omits one big factor: geopolitics. The buyer’s relationship with the salesman is


usually more of a factor than anything else. When a user selects a technology they bind themselves the supplier for decades, and sometimes its home government too. Indeed, an uncomfortable number of reactor sales have been state-to-state deals, negotiated alongside sales of other prestigious national goods like fighter jets. As the bulk of today’s real life industry scrambles to


remove Russian products from the chain, we can muse on whether this kind of issue would be easier to handle for utilities in a global CANDU market. The war in Ukraine, among other things, should make clear that nuclear would have been much better off with both of its feet firmly in the commercial world. Back in the real world, we are now on the verge of


rolling out small modular and advanced reactors and this puts a range of divergent futures before us once again. There has been a resurgence of national teams pushing package deals based on flagship products. Russia and China already took the lead and are operating demonstration units for their own markets. Elsewhere, the UK is pushing Rolls-Royce, France has directed EDF to develop its NUWARD design and India recently announced that it wanted to develop its own SMR to name just a few. But can any of these keep up with designs like GE-Hitachi’s BWRX-300 or NuScale which have now started racking up orders, or even the rest of the US scene with the array of advanced reactors being pushed along by the Department of Energy with more funding than other countries can even imagine?


On the other hand, all of the new small reactors have been designed to rely as much as possible on off-the-shelf components, which promises a more open entry to become a nuclear supplier. This applies especially to low-pressure designs like the molten salt reactors. This approach is giving them huge potential to realise ambitious scale when mounted on barges like Seaborg’s SMR offering. It has always been unlikely that more than a handful


of small reactor designs would succeed commercially, yet most of the vendors still subscribe to a winner-takes- all mindset. Perhaps it will soon be time for technology vendors to think about alliances and licensing, rather than rivalries, to create the biggest market for everyone when small reactors really take off. ■


we are now on the verge of rolling out small and advanced reactors and this puts a range of divergent futures before us again. There has been a resurgence of national teams pushing package deals based on flagship products


www.neimagazine.com | April 2023 | 15


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