DAVID HESS | OPINION


It is clear that most utilities would prefer to stick with what they know, and what they know is light water reactors – pressurised water reactors (PWRs) and boiling water reactors (BWRs)


some high-temperature reactors which are technically SMRs, but the industrial focus has now shifted to the 100 MW PWR which is under construction in Hainan. South Korea is now championing the i-SMR and, no surprises, it too is a PWR. The sole SMR design currently certified in the USA is


a PWR (NuScale VOYGR), while the North American SMR project closes to actually beginning construction is a BWR (GE Hitachi’s BWRX-300 in Darlington Ontario). Where the US-state is supporting vendors competing for overseas projects it appears to be chiefly promoting either of these two designs. For France it is the Nuward design, yet another PWR.


Recent news is that, following discussion with utility customers, the Nuward developers have decided to redesign their reactor with a focus on proven components rather than innovation. About as perfect a confirmation of this thesis as could be wished for. Another confirmation comes from the advanced nuclear


space itself, and one start-up company which read the tea-leaves and decided to switch from pursuing reactor development to offering reprocessing as a service for light water reactor owners. This ongoing dominance of water-cooled reactors


globally should not come as a surprise. These technologies have already been proven capable of operating safely and reliably for greater than 50-year spans. For the companies which must live with their choice of asset over the long- term, this track-record matters a lot. Truly these are remarkable machines. Above and beyond this proven capability, there is a


pragmatic inertia to the water-cooled reactor technologies and a supporting ecosystem which the advanced reactor vendors may not be able to match for decades – including in fuel/component supply chains, exchange of safety information, skilled workers, regulation, and so forth. Pragmatic considerations also override concerns utilities


may have about recent construction performance and cost over-runs. While it is true that much of the recent construction experience with light water reactors has been poor, especially in Western countries, there is currently no evidence to show that advanced reactors will have an easier time with this. True first-of-a-kinds are expected to be harder still to construct, and few utilities are willing to act as guineapigs and take on the first-mover risks. If the vendors of exotic reactor technologies are going to be hard-pressed to win utilities over, it seems unlikely


that they will have an easier time with other new potential customers such as the chemical sector and data centre operators. One might assume that these new operators will seek to follow the lead of their more experienced cousins. We will have to wait and see. For the record, this is not a statement of reactor


technology preference. It’s simply a reflection on the trajectory the global industry now finds itself on. Advanced nuclear reactor technologies promise to create a better version of the nuclear industry – something more economic, safe, sustainable and flexible – but how on Earth do we get there?


In most places the nuclear sector is not a monolithic


integrated combine following an ideal path determined by an inner council of scientific elites with the risks and benefits socialised by all. Rather it is a commercial enterprise, comprised of various companies with their own unique interests and business strategies. If a profound nuclear technology transition is ever to happen then clearly there is a huge role for government to play. And for the advanced reactor and fuel cycle projects which are currently moving ahead, government is clearly the driving force. For example, the Terrapower fast reactor project in Wyoming is being made possible because of the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Project programme and cost-sharing arrangements. But this piece-meal support for demonstration projects seems far from enough to engineer a total reactor technology paradigm shift. Of all the efforts to fully close the fuel cycle and


evolve the nuclear sector, the Russian effort seems the most likely to succeed. Here there is indeed a national nuclear champion integrated across the fuel cycle and what appears to be an accepted technocratic culture. Maybe the same could be said for China and India. But, even in these countries with a clear long-term vision and apparent alignment between government, research bodies and industry, there is no certainty of success. Technology demonstration does not progress by fiat. There is nothing inevitable about an advanced reactor future. It seems that the rest of the world is faced with a water-


cooled reactor future, with a handful of exotic variants on the side. The timescale for this to change appears to be longer than most of us will live. Given how extraordinary water-cooled technologies have proven to be this is far from a bad thing. However, we’d best get good at building them again and we might want to reignite some public enthusiasm for steam. ■


If the vendors of exotic reactor technologies are going to be


hard-pressed to win utilities over, it seems unlikely that they will have an easier time with other new potential customers such as the chemical sector and data centre operators


www.neimagazine.com | August 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