SMRs | OPINION mistakes of the past SMR and the


SMRs offer a great opportunity for new nuclear development, but the industry will not be served well by over promising on price and development timeframes


By Dr Charles McCombie, Independent nuclear advisor


THE NEW GENERATION OF SMALL modular reactors (SMRs) are anticipated to provide enhanced safety, lower cost, easier financing, better grid compatibility and reduced project risks (which can improve social acceptance and attract private investment). Because of this, the nuclear community and even the public media are increasingly looking to SMRs to herald in a long-awaited but never yet observed “nuclear renaissance”. But this will not happen if SMR developers repeat past mistakes. Over promising on low costs is a major issue – one remembers early claims that nuclear electricity would be “too cheap to meter”. It is yet to be shown that the economies of scale which led to nuclear power plants becoming ever larger can be outweighed by the economies of multiples which are expected from factory line production – assuming that full order books can keep these lines busy. But for how many of the over 80 SMR designs being developed will there be a large enough market to feed a factory production line? Already 50 years ago, physicists and engineers designing


large nuclear power plants were focused on the interesting challenges of proposing ever more reactor variants that looked – on paper – to be more efficient, safer or cheaper. But even the comparatively limited variety of designs proposed back then proved to be more an obstacle than an advantage. The UK, for example, dithered for years in making hard choices, while building and operating expensive first-of-a-kind units of many different types. The most successful large reactor programme was in France where an early decision was taken to narrow in to a standardised PWR design. Today, the clear lesson is that


only a handful of SMR designs can hope to benefit from economics of multiples and thus reach commercial success. A further mistake from the past which also affects


the economics is the long timescales required for implementation of nuclear power plants. Many of the delays have been due to technical or project management weaknesses but a large contributor has often been the time needed by regulators to license a new design. The way to overcome this obstacle is to develop a set of risk-informed regulations tailored to smaller SMR designs and then to harmonise licensing regulations across potential user countries. A useful precedent is the US Federal Aviation Administration whose aircraft regulations are accepted globally as the technical basis for all national regulations. But getting the economics of SMRs right and shortening


Right: Over promising on low costs is a major issue for SMR development and is reminiscent of early claims that nuclear electricity would be “too cheap to meter” The most successful approach has been to focus on a standard PWR design Source: WNA


Control rods Pressuriser


Steam generator


Steam


Steel pressure vessel


Water Fuel elements


licensing and construction times will not on their own solve the problem. There are other challenges which large reactor designers ignored until too late. The clearest example here is neglecting to address the issue of safe disposal of spent fuel and/or highly radioactive wastes. Even today, although safe geological disposal facilities are being implemented, for example in Finland, the “unsolved waste problem” is still put forward by many as an objection to expanding nuclear power. SMR developers should, already at the design stage be considering what wastes will be produced and at the tendering stage should be offering specific help and advice to their potential customers, most especially if these are small or new nuclear nations. In addition to these potential impediments to wide deployment of SMRs, there are some novel issues to be addressed. One of these is related to the nuclear proliferation and security concerns which might arise in a scenario where hundreds of SMRs are distributed around the globe in many countries with no nuclear experience and, in some cases, in remote regions within these countries. In the end, because of their smaller fissile inventories and compact designs, the nuclear security concerns with widespread SMR deployment may be less than with current nuclear-power plants with their much larger inventories of fissile materials. However, the issue should be discussed now by the nuclear community and not ignored until it is brought up as an impediment by nuclear opponents in potential SMR user countries. If we want to learn from the bitter lessons of past


Reinforced concrete containment and shield


hoped-for nuclear renaissances, then we should learn from the mistakes made back then and also anticipate any new and novel issues that will arise with widespread SMR deployment. ■


www.neimagazine.com | November 2023 | 21


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