DAVID HESS | OPINION
The key universal benefit that SMRs offer is flexibility, not cost.
Flexibility here defined in a broad sense and including application, siting, output (load following) and even flexibility of financing. People don’t expect a sports car to be cheaper per person mile travelled than a bus. It’s curious that this expectation exists for SMRs
They can readily provide heat, hydrogen and motive force in addition to electricity. SMRs radically expand the market envelope of nuclear energy, and this is profoundly more important than the relative economics between large and small. What is most likely to determine the success of any given SMR design/designer is whether it successfully identifies a market niche, meets the requirements of customers and forms partnerships with a competent supply base.
The key universal benefit that SMRs offer is flexibility, not
cost. Flexibility here defined in a broad sense and including application, siting, output (load following) and even flexibility of financing. People don’t expect a sports car to be cheaper per person mile travelled than a bus. It’s curious that this expectation exists for SMRs. Individual SMR designs that promise to do everything
whilst also being radically cheaper deserve scepticism. There is a hint of snake oil in the SMR space. This is natural and to be expected in a competitive start-up sector. More generally though, where industry scepticism towards SMRs used to make sense 10 or so years ago, it simply does not now. It frankly makes more sense to be sceptical of large reactor projects in Western countries than SMRs, given announcement after announcement of disappointing construction performance. This remains true even in light of the cancellation of the NuScale and UAMP Carbon Free Power Project and the recent news that some other Western SMR starts-ups have recently had to scale back or change financial partners. In the commercial-led approach to SMR technology deployment the path was always going to be bumpy. Consolidation is to be expected sooner or later. The question is whether governments take a hand in down- selecting certain promising designs and vendors, or just leave the emerging sector to struggle on. And, for the avoidance of doubt – yes, we will need both
large and small reactors in the coming decades. SMRs are inherently more complementary to large reactors than they are to be considered competition. Indeed, some visionaries have outlined a scenario where the deployment of SMRs allows companies (and countries) to regain the necessary nuclear competencies in a manner that doesn’t bet the farm, and that will eventually allow them to build large reactors efficiently again.
SMRs have clearly now become the buzzword in
nuclear innovation and the badge under which advanced reactor technologies are expected to be researched and developed. While it is a bit silly to hit all technologies with an arbitrary 300 MW size limit and insist on an automated manufacturing approach, it also tolerable if it secures funding and allows progress to be made. The other crucial innovation that SMRs unlock is in
business models. Microreactors are especially noteworthy, with vendors proposing reactor leasing arrangements. The idea of sending an assembled and fuelled reactor to a site, plugging it in, using it for a while and then transporting it away – all whilst never operating/refuelling/maintaining it themselves – is clearly a tantalising one. Big tech especially is paying close attention. SMRs bring the innovation to the nuclear industry and
make it sexy again. But equally they demand innovation from other parts of the fuel cycle and the industry’s supporting bodies. This may now be the primary challenge standing in the way of successful SMR deployment. Regulators especially have proven slow and reluctant to approve crucial enabling features and certify novel designs. Even more disappointing has been the continued snail’s pace on international harmonisation and design certification. In terms of fuel supply the lack of HALEU and facilities
ready to produce this is a well-known bottle neck. But we also need to see the same culture of innovation emerge in the back end – in waste management, reprocessing and disposal – if the real potential of SMRs and a more flexible and adaptive nuclear sector are to be unleashed. In case you missed it, SMRs are no longer future
technology. They are part of the fabric of nuclear sector today. The SMR age officially began on 19 December 2019 when the twin reactors on the Akademik Lomonosov started providing electricity (and later heat) to Pevek. It was further cemented when the high temperature gas cooled reactors connected to the grid in Shidaowan. China and Russia have realised the SMR promise and are set to build more. As usual, other countries are struggling to catch up. Maybe it’s that old idealism talking, but when those first
Western SMR projects do spark up it should mark the end of the long nuclear stagnation in Europe and USA and unleash a new wave of nuclear energy development globally. ■
The factors influencing nuclear economics and construction success are different country by country. They include things such as the established industrial base, labour costs, regulatory approach, market structure, and much more
www.neimagazine.com | April 2024 | 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 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57
