tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/small-modular-reactors-26037/articlesSmall modular reactors – The Conversation2024-02-28T04:09:29Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2245132024-02-28T04:09:29Z2024-02-28T04:09:29ZDutton wants a ‘mature debate’ about nuclear power. By the time we’ve had one, new plants will be too late to replace coal<p>If you believe Newspoll and the Australian Financial Review, Australia wants to go nuclear – as long as it’s small. </p>
<p>Newspoll this week <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/most-australians-would-back-a-move-to-small-scale-nuclear-power/news-story/88589682d1d46b8257c0386f61d51aa6">suggests a majority</a> of us are in favour of building small modular nuclear reactors. A <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/afr-readers-want-small-nuclear-reactors-considered-20230723-p5dqi9">poll of Australian Financial Review readers</a> last year told a similar story.</p>
<p>These polls (and a more general question about nuclear power in a <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/voters-warm-to-nuclear-as-billionaire-andrew-forrest-slams-coalition-bulldust-20240226-p5f7wo.html">Resolve poll</a> for Nine newspapers this week) come after a concerted effort by the Coalition to normalise talking about nuclear power – specifically, the small, modular kind that’s meant to be cheaper and safer. Unfortunately, while small reactors have been around for decades, they are <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544223015980">generally costlier</a> than larger reactors with a similar design. This reflects the economies of size associated with larger boilers. </p>
<p>The hope (and it’s still only a hope) is “modular” design will permit reactors to be built in factories in large numbers (and therefore at low cost), then shipped to the sites where they are installed.</p>
<p>Coalition enthusiasm for talking about small modular reactors has not been dented by the failure of the only serious proposal to build them: that of NuScale, a company that designs and markets these reactors in the United States. Faced with long delays and increases in the projected costs of the <a href="https://www.nuscalepower.com/en/products/voygr-smr-plants">Voygr reactor</a>, the intended buyers, a <a href="https://www.uamps.com/">group of municipal power utilities</a>, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/nov/09/small-modular-nuclear-reactor-that-was-hailed-by-coalition-as-future-cancelled-due-to-rising-costs">pulled the plug</a>. The project had a decade of development behind it but had not even reached prototype stage. </p>
<p>Other proposals to build small modular reactors abound but none are likely to be constructed anywhere before the mid-2030s, if at all. Even if they work as planned (<a href="https://www.energycouncil.com.au/analysis/small-nuclear-reactors-come-with-big-price-tag-report/">a big if</a>), they will arrive too late to replace coal power in Australia. So Opposition Leader Peter Dutton needs to put up a detailed plan for how he would deliver nuclear power in time.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1761878125166932135"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/is-nuclear-the-answer-to-australias-climate-crisis-216891">Is nuclear the answer to Australia's climate crisis?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>So why would Australians support nuclear?</h2>
<p>It is worth looking at the claim that Australians support nuclear power. This was the question the Newspoll asked:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There is a proposal to build several small modular nuclear reactors around Australia to produce zero-emissions energy on the sites of existing coal-fired power stations once they are retired. Do you approve or disapprove of this proposal?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This question assumes two things. First, that small modular reactors exist. Second, that someone is proposing to build and operate them, presumably expecting they can do so at a cost low enough to compete with alternative energy sources. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, neither is true. Nuclear-generated power <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-nuclear-the-answer-to-australias-climate-crisis-216891">costs up to ten times as much</a> as solar and wind energy. A more accurate phrasing of the question would be:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There is a proposal to keep coal-fired power stations operating until the development of small modular reactors which might, in the future, supply zero-emissions energy. Do you approve or disapprove of this proposal?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It seems unlikely such a proposal would gain majority support.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1762312474165227964"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/military-interests-are-pushing-new-nuclear-power-and-the-uk-government-has-finally-admitted-it-216118">Military interests are pushing new nuclear power – and the UK government has finally admitted it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Building nuclear takes a long time</h2>
<p>When we consider the timeline for existing reactor projects, the difficulties with nuclear power come into sharp focus.</p>
<p>As National Party Senate Leader Bridget McKenzie has <a href="https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/that-is-rubbish-bridget-zali-steggall-and-bridget-mckenzie-clash-over-nuclear/video/652fb62845ef39da803325f0f14bd49d">pointed out</a>, the most successful recent implementation of nuclear power has been in the United Arab Emirates. In 2008, the UAE president (and emir of Abi Dhabi), Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, announced a plan to build four nuclear reactors. Construction started in 2012. The last reactor is about to be connected to the grid, 16 years after the project was announced.</p>
<p>The UAE’s performance is better than that achieved recently <a href="https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time">in Western countries</a> including the US, UK, France and Finland.</p>
<p>In 16 years’ time, by 2040, most of Australia’s remaining coal-fired power stations will have shut down. Suppose the Coalition gained office in 2025 on a program of advocating nuclear power and managed to pass the necessary legislation in 2026. If we could match the pace of the UAE, nuclear power stations would start coming online just in time to replace them. </p>
<p>If we spent three to five years discussing the issue, then matched the UAE schedule, the plants would arrive too late.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/dutton-wants-australia-to-join-the-nuclear-renaissance-but-this-dream-has-failed-before-209584">Dutton wants Australia to join the "nuclear renaissance" – but this dream has failed before</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>It would take longer in Australia</h2>
<p>Would it be possible to match the UAE schedule? The UAE had no need to pass legislation: it doesn’t have a parliament like ours, let alone a Senate that can obstruct government legislation. The necessary institutions, including a regulatory commission and a publicly owned nuclear power firm, were established by decree.</p>
<p>There were no problems with site selection, not to mention environmental impact statements and court actions. The site at Barakah was conveniently located on an almost uninhabited stretch of desert coastline, but still close enough to the main population centres to permit a connection to transmission lines, access for workers, and so on. There’s nowhere in Australia’s eastern states (where the power is needed) that matches that description.</p>
<p>Finally, there are no problems with strikes or union demands: both are illegal in the UAE. Foreign workers with even less rights than Emirati citizens did almost all the construction work.</p>
<p>Despite all these advantages, the UAE has not gone any further with nuclear power. Instead of building more reactors after the first four, it’s <a href="https://www.khaleejtimes.com/energy/uae-new-1500mw-solar-plant-to-be-developed-in-abu-dhabi-will-power-160000-homes">investing massively</a> in solar power and battery storage.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-minister-chris-bowen-says-replacing-coal-fired-power-stations-with-nuclear-would-cost-387-billion-213735">Climate minister Chris Bowen says replacing coal-fired power stations with nuclear would cost $387 billion</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Time to start work is running out</h2>
<p>The Coalition began calling for a “<a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/peter-dutton-calls-for-mature-debate-over-nuclear-energy/news-story/bb023ce4ee8691c1709b772876f6beca">mature debate</a>” on nuclear <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/06/the-coalition-didnt-do-much-on-nuclear-energy-while-in-office-why-are-they-talking-about-it-now">immediately after losing office</a>. </p>
<p>But it’s now too late for discussion. If Australia is to replace any of our retiring coal-fired power stations with nuclear reactors, Dutton must commit to this goal before the 2025 election. </p>
<p>Talk about hypothetical future technologies is, at this point, nothing more than a distraction. If Dutton is serious about nuclear power in Australia, he needs to put forward a plan now. It must spell out a realistic timeline that includes the establishment of necessary regulation, the required funding model and the sites to be considered.</p>
<p>In summary, it’s time to put up or shut up.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/224513/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Quiggin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Small modular reactors are popular among conservative politicians and supposedly the Australian public. But they’re nowhere near ready to power Australia in time to replace coal-powered stations.John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2173542023-11-22T20:54:00Z2023-11-22T20:54:00ZAre small nuclear reactors the solution to Canada’s net-zero ambitions?<iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" allowtransparency="" allow="clipboard-read; clipboard-write" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/are-small-nuclear-reactors-the-solution-to-canadas-net-zero-ambitions" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>As Canada grapples with the imperative to meet its net-zero carbon emission targets, a new player has emerged on the energy scene: <a href="https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-are-small-modular-reactors-smrs">Small Modular Reactors</a> (SMRs). These compact reactors present a modern twist on traditional nuclear technology, which has <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544211003653">languished without significant new developments for three decades</a>. </p>
<p>By promising faster construction, lower costs and enhanced safety, SMRs are not just another alternative energy source. They represent a <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-11-14/us-uk-to-push-pledge-to-triple-nuclear-power-by-2050-at-cop28#xj4y7vzkg">potential game-changer in our energy landscape</a>.</p>
<p>But is this the solution Canada has been waiting for <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/services/environment/weather/climatechange/climate-plan/net-zero-emissions-2050.html">in our quest for net-zero</a>?</p>
<p>In my academic career exploring the energy transition — from researching <a href="https://news.usask.ca/articles/research/2022/city-usask-projects-target-m%C3%A9tis-history,-clean-runoff,-green-rental-housing.php">energy efficiency in low-income households </a> to fostering <a href="https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/september-2023/scale-up-renewable-energy-co-operatives-to-energize-the-nation/">renewable energy co-operatives</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.ca/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=dYV4k9gAAAAJ&citation_for_view=dYV4k9gAAAAJ:u-x6o8ySG0sC">decentralized energy systems</a> — the most common hurdle I have observied is achieving the right scale and speed of deployment. </p>
<p>SMRs offer an intriguing proposition, potentially overcoming deployability challenges due to their uniquely <a href="https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-03/7560_smr_report.pdf">scalable and flexible implementation</a>. But as with any emerging technology, their promise comes with uncertainties.</p>
<h2>What are small modular reactors?</h2>
<p>SMRs offer a compact alternative to nuclear power, with outputs much smaller than traditional reactors, usually in the range of <a href="https://small-modular-reactors.org/smr-environmental-impact/">10 to a few hundred megawatts</a> — enough to indefinitely power approximately 10,000 to 300,000 homes. This smaller scale and modularity allows for more flexible site placement and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666032620300259#abs0010">potentially faster, more cost-effective construction</a>.</p>
<p>Unlike large-scale renewables, SMRs provide a less visually intrusive and space-consuming option, making them suitable for diverse locations, including <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032121009138?casa_token=__wKJ8X9D0wAAAAA:WArV8jcyT5GdC0rDWVN0jQaYbg5OYx3vaeAlfajpuheqshVqDda2mL4KQF15yofcDnvv9go">remote areas</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cbrT3m89Y3M?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A brief overview of Small Modular Reactor technology produced by Undecided with Matt Ferrell.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The overall life-cycle emissions of SMRs are significantly lower than those of fossil fuels, and comparable to other low-carbon energy sources like wind and solar power.</p>
<h2>Emerging technology concerns</h2>
<p>The primary concerns with SMRs are their largely untested nature on a commercial scale and the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032121011473">speculative nature of their economic projections</a>. The actual costs of building, operating and maintaining these reactors <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032119307270">could differ significantly</a> from initial estimates. For instance, the recently approved <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/02/08/1067992/smaller-nuclear-reactors/">Oregon-based NuScale</a> cancelled their project, <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/deal-build-pint-size-nuclear-reactors-canceled">citing concerns related to its escalating costs</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/small-nuclear-power-reactors-future-or-folly-81252">Small nuclear power reactors: Future or folly?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Regulatory hurdles also present a challenge, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544220312445">necessitating the development of new regulations and standards</a>, which can be a time-consuming and complex process.</p>
<p>Canada’s approach to managing waste from SMRs echoes its <a href="https://natural-resources.canada.ca/our-natural-resources/energy-sources-distribution/nuclear-energy-uranium/radioactive-waste/canadas-policy-for-radioactive-waste-management-and-decommissioning/24987">policy for conventional nuclear plants</a>, addressing a key concern in the nuclear debate. </p>
<p>The strategy, shaped by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, integrates <a href="https://www.nwmo.ca/Canadas-plan">community input and focuses on sustainable, long-term disposal solutions</a>. This reflects Canada’s proactive stance on responsible and environmentally conscious nuclear waste management.</p>
<p>For SMRs to succeed in Canada, it’s essential to establish a supportive regulatory environment, ensure financial viability and leverage existing nuclear expertise while focusing on safety and environmental sustainability.</p>
<h2>Economic and environmental potential</h2>
<p>Economically, SMRs present a promising avenue for growth. A <a href="https://www.conferenceboard.ca/product/a-new-power-economic-impacts-of-small-modular-nuclear-reactors-in-electricity-grids/">recent report</a> from the Conference Board of Canada projects that building and operating a fleet of four SMRs could contribute approximately $15.3 billion to Canada’s GDP, with a notable $13.7 billion impact on Ontario’s economy. </p>
<p>According to the Conference Board, this initiative is also expected to sustain 2,000 jobs annually over the next 65 years, marking a significant stride in job creation. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/nuclear-power-why-molten-salt-reactors-are-problematic-and-canada-investing-in-them-is-a-waste-167019">Nuclear power: Why molten salt reactors are problematic and Canada investing in them is a waste</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Environmentally, SMRs stand out for their potential in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150297%22%22">reducing greenhouse gas emissions</a>, particularly in the heavy industrial sector. <a href="https://cna.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/GHG-Study-Slide-Deck.pdf#:%7E:text=Beyond%20their%20value%20in%20cutting%20GHG%20emissions%20in,to%20%245%20billion%20to%20GDP%20annually%20by%202050.#:%7E:text=Beyond%20their%20value%20in%20cutting,to%20GDP%20annually%20by%202050">Projections suggest</a> that by 2050, SMRs could reduce these emissions by 18 per cent, signifying a considerable step towards Canada’s net-zero goals.</p>
<p>SMRs, alongside renewable energy sources like solar and wind, as well as advancements in energy efficiency, are crucial components to reduce emissions at the scale necessary to reach our national targets.</p>
<h2>The current state</h2>
<p>The journey towards SMR development is marked by strategic initiatives and significant investment. </p>
<p>The Canadian government’s <a href="https://natural-resources.canada.ca/our-natural-resources/energy-sources-distribution/nuclear-energy-uranium/enabling-small-modular-reactors-program/24959">Enabling Small Modular Reactors Program</a> underscores this commitment with its funding pool of $29.6 million over the next four years. </p>
<p><a href="https://cib-bic.ca/en/projects/clean-power/darlington-small-modular-reactor/">Financing provided by the Canada Infrastructure Bank</a> for the Darlington SMR project in Clarington, Ont. further positions Canada at the forefront of commercial SMR deployment. Meanwhile, Ontario has <a href="https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1003248/ontario-building-more-small-modular-reactors-to-power-provinces-growth">received approval</a> for the development of the first SMR in Canada, the <a href="https://nuclear.gepower.com/bwrx-300">GE BWRX-300</a>, by 2028.</p>
<p>At this crossroads, SMRs represent more than an innovative clean energy solution; they offer a chance for Canada to assert global leadership in a <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128239162000229">rapidly evolving energy landscape</a>. </p>
<p>As the world races to mitigate climate change and energy security, Canada has the opportunity to pioneer a technology that could make significant strides to advance the energy transition.</p>
<h2>A collaborative approach</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-premiers-meeting-trudeau-carbon-tax-1.7025799">Amid tensions</a> surrounding Canada’s carbon tax, SMRs are emerging as a point of <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/11926422.2022.2116063">collaborative progress</a>. </p>
<p>The Canadian federal government has shown substantial support for SMRs. The <a href="https://smractionplan.ca/">SMR Action Plan</a> was launched in December 2020 with <a href="https://smractionplan.ca/#inline_content">significant progress</a> across sectors: from utilities, municipalities, provincial governments, vendors and universities to Indigenous organizations. </p>
<p>Together, Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Alberta have made a joint strategic plan for SMRs and an inter-provincial <a href="https://publications.saskatchewan.ca/api/v1/products/117374/formats/134796/download">Memorandum of Understanding</a>. These commitments — and more — show strong collaboration.</p>
<p>As Canada ventures into developing SMRs, we find ourselves at a pivotal juncture — a now-or-never moment in our energy transition. This exploration isn’t merely about embracing a new technology; it’s a crucial opportunity to assert leadership in global clean energy innovation and make tangible strides toward our net-zero targets.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/217354/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Boucher does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Small modular reactors may hold the key to Canada’s net-zero energy future.Martin Boucher, Faculty Lecturer, Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of SaskatchewanLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2168912023-11-02T19:14:00Z2023-11-02T19:14:00ZIs nuclear the answer to Australia’s climate crisis?<p>In Australia’s race to net zero emissions, nuclear power has surged back into the news. Opposition leader Peter Dutton <a href="https://ipa.org.au/research/climate-change-and-energy/peter-dutton-address-to-ipa-members-sydney-7-july-2023">argues</a> nuclear is “the only feasible and proven technology” for cutting emissions. Energy Minister Chris Bowen insists Mr Dutton is promoting “<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-18/energy-minister-says-nuclear-power-too-expensive/102868218">the most expensive form of energy</a>”.</p>
<p>Is nuclear a pragmatic and wise choice blocked by ideologues? Or is Mr Bowen right that promoting nuclear power is about as sensible as <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/radionational-breakfast/-unicorn-and-a-fantasy-energy-minister-slams-nuclear-energy/102866944">chasing “unicorns”</a>?</p>
<p>For someone who has not kept up with developments in nuclear energy, its prospects may seem to hinge on safety. Yet by any hard-nosed accounting, the risks from modern nuclear plants are orders of magnitude lower than those of fossil fuels.</p>
<p>Deep failures in design and operational incompetence caused the Chernobyl disaster. Nobody died at Three Mile Island or from Fukushima. Meanwhile, a Harvard-led study found <a href="https://seas.harvard.edu/news/2021/02/deaths-fossil-fuel-emissions-higher-previously-thought">more than one in six deaths globally</a> – around 9 million a year – are attributable to polluted air from fossil combustion.</p>
<p>Two more mundane factors help to explain why nuclear power has halved as a share of global electricity production since the 1990s. They are time and money.</p>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-973" class="tc-infographic" height="400px" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/973/534c98def812dd41ac56cc750916e2922539729b/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>The might of Wright’s law</h2>
<p>There are four arguments against investment in nuclear power: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant">Olkiluoto 3</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3">Flamanville 3</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station">Hinkley Point C</a>, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant">Vogtle</a>. These are the four major latest-generation plants completed or near completion in Finland, the United States, the United Kingdom and France respectively. </p>
<p>Cost overruns at these recent plants average over 300%, with more increases to come. The cost of Vogtle, for example, soared from US$14 billion to $34 billion (A$22-53 billion), Flamanville from €3.3 billion to €19 billion (A$5-31 billion), and <a href="https://illuminem.com/illuminemvoices/nuclear-economics-lessons-from-lazard-to-hinkley-point-c">Hinkley Point C</a> from £16 billion to as much as £70 billion (A$30-132 billion), including subsidies. Completion of Vogtle <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/vogtles-troubles-bring-us-nuclear-challenge-into-focus-2023-08-24/">has been delayed</a> by seven years, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/after-18-years-europes-largest-nuclear-reactor-start-regular-output-sunday-2023-04-15/">Olkiluoto</a> by 14 years, and <a href="https://www.nucnet.org/news/decree-sets-startup-deadline-of-2024-4-3-2020">Flamanville</a> by at least 12 years.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-beat-rollout-rage-the-environment-versus-climate-battle-dividing-regional-australia-213863">How to beat 'rollout rage': the environment-versus-climate battle dividing regional Australia</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>A fifth case is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgil_C._Summer_Nuclear_Generating_Station">Virgil C</a>, also in the US, for which US$9 billion (A$14 billion) was spent before cost overruns led the project to be abandoned. All three firms building these five plants – Westinghouse, EDF, and AREVA – went bankrupt or were nationalised. Consumers, companies and taxpayers <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/07/18/hinkley-points-cost-consumers-surges-50bn/">will bear the costs</a> for decades.</p>
<p>By contrast, average cost overruns for wind and solar are <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/we.2069">around zero</a>, the <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629614000942">lowest</a> of all energy infrastructure.</p>
<p><a href="https://ark-invest.com/wrights-law/">Wright’s law</a> states the more a technology is produced, the more its costs decline. Wind and especially solar power and <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/battery-price-decline">lithium-ion batteries</a> have all experienced <a href="https://www.irena.org/News/pressreleases/2023/Aug/Renewables-Competitiveness-Accelerates-Despite-Cost-Inflation">astonishing cost declines</a> over the last two decades.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-australia-urgently-needs-a-climate-plan-and-a-net-zero-national-cabinet-committee-to-implement-it-213866">Why Australia urgently needs a climate plan and a Net Zero National Cabinet Committee to implement it</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>For nuclear power, though, Wright’s law has been inverted. The more capacity installed, the more costs have increased. Why? This <a href="https://www.cell.com/joule/pdf/S2542-4351(20)30458-X.pdf">2020 MIT study</a> found that safety improvements accounted for around 30% of nuclear cost increases, but the lion’s share was due to persistent flaws in management, design, and supply chains.</p>
<p>In Australia, such costs and delays would ensure that we miss our emissions reduction targets. They would also mean spiralling electricity costs, as the grid waited for generation capacity that did not come. For fossil fuel firms and their political friends, this is the real attraction of nuclear – another decade or two of sales at inflated prices.</p>
<h2>Comparing the cost of nuclear and renewables</h2>
<p>Nevertheless, nuclear advocates tell us we have no choice: wind and solar power are intermittent power sources, and the cost of making them reliable is too high.</p>
<p>But let’s compare the cost of reliably delivering a megawatt hour of electricity to the grid from nuclear versus wind and solar. According to both <a href="https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=csiro:EP2022-5511&dsid=DS1">the CSIRO</a> and respected energy market analyst <a href="https://www.lazard.com/media/typdgxmm/lazards-lcoeplus-april-2023.pdf">Lazard Ltd</a>, nuclear power has a cost of A$220 to $350 per megawatt hour produced.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/beyond-juukan-gorge-how-first-nations-people-are-taking-charge-of-clean-energy-projects-on-their-land-213864">Beyond Juukan Gorge: how First Nations people are taking charge of clean energy projects on their land</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Without subsidies or state finance, the four plants cited above generally hit or exceed the high end of this range. By contrast, Australia is already building wind and solar plants at under <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/act-starts-to-bank-its-cheapest-wind-power-yet-in-next-stage-to-kick-out-fossil-fuels/">$45</a> and <a href="https://reneweconomy.com.au/nsw-gets-stunning-low-price-for-wind-and-solar-in-biggest-renewables-auction/">$35 per megawatt hour</a> respectively. That’s a tenth of the cost of nuclear.</p>
<p>The CSIRO has <a href="https://www.csiro.au/-/media/EF/Files/GenCost/GenCost2022-23Final_27-06-2023.pdf">modelled the cost</a> of renewable energy that is firmed – meaning made reliable, mainly via batteries and other storage technologies. It found the necessary transmission lines and storage would add only $25 to $34 per megawatt hour.</p>
<p>In short, a reliable megawatt hour from renewables costs around a fifth of one from a nuclear plant. We could build a renewables grid large enough to meet demand twice over, and still pay less than half the cost of nuclear.</p>
<h2>The future of nuclear: small modular reactors?</h2>
<p>Proponents of nuclear power pin their hopes on <a href="https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-are-small-modular-reactors-smrs#:%7E:text=Small%20modular%20reactors%20(SMRs)%20are,of%20traditional%20nuclear%20power%20reactors.">small modular reactors</a> (SMRs), which replace huge gigawatt-scale units with small units that offer the possibility of being produced at scale. This might allow nuclear to finally harness Wright’s law.</p>
<p>Yet commercial SMRs are years from deployment. The US firm <a href="https://www.nuscalepower.com/en">NuScale</a>, scheduled to build two plants in Idaho by 2030, has not yet broken ground, and on-paper costs have already <a href="https://ieefa.org/resources/eye-popping-new-cost-estimates-released-nuscale-small-modular-reactor">ballooned</a> to around A$189 per megawatt hour.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-original-and-still-the-best-why-its-time-to-renew-australias-renewable-energy-policy-213879">The original and still the best: why it's time to renew Australia's renewable energy policy</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>And SMRs are decades away from broad deployment. If early examples work well, in the 2030s there will be a round of early SMRs in the US and European countries that have existing nuclear skills and supply chains. If that goes well, we may see a serious rollout from the 2040s onwards.</p>
<p>In these same decades, solar, wind, and storage will still be descending the Wright’s law cost curve. Last year the Morrison government was spruiking the goal of getting solar below <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/ultra-low-cost-solar-power-a-priority-for-australia-20220108-p59msj.html">$15 per megawatt hour by 2030</a>. SMRs must achieve improbable cost reductions to compete.</p>
<p>Finally, SMRs may be necessary and competitive in countries with poor renewable energy resources. But Australia has the richest combined solar and wind resources in the world.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/too-hard-basket-why-climate-change-is-defeating-our-political-system-214382">Too hard basket: why climate change is defeating our political system</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Should we lift the ban?</h2>
<p>Given these realities, should Australia lift its ban on nuclear power? A repeal would have no practical effect on what happens in electricity markets, but it might have political effects. </p>
<p>A future leader might seek short-term advantage by offering enormous subsidies for nuclear plants. The true costs would arrive years after such a leader had left office. That would be tragic for Australia. With our unmatched solar and wind resources, we have the chance to deliver among the cheapest electricity in the developed world.</p>
<p>Mr Dutton may be right that the ban on nuclear is unnecessary. But in terms of getting to net zero as quickly and cheaply as possible, Mr Bowen has the relevant argument. To echo one assessment from the UK, nuclear for Australia would be “<a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-10-30/u-k-risks-looking-economically-insane-with-edf-nuclear-deal?">economically insane</a>”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/216891/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Reuben Finighan is a research fellow at the Superpower Institute.</span></em></p>When Australia’s government and opposition argue over how to get to net zero emissions, nuclear power is the flashpoint. The argument against nuclear is stronger, but not for the obvious reason.Reuben Finighan, PhD candidate at the LSE and Research Fellow at the Superpower Institute, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2095842023-07-12T05:58:23Z2023-07-12T05:58:23ZDutton wants Australia to join the “nuclear renaissance” – but this dream has failed before<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/536986/original/file-20230712-15-jfvglj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=33%2C33%2C7315%2C3382&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Last week, opposition leader Peter Dutton <a href="https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/australia-must-join-nuclear-renaissance-dutton-20230706-p5dmap">called for</a> Australia to join what he dubbed the “international nuclear energy renaissance”. </p>
<p>The same phrase was used <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/australia-and-the-nuclear-renaissance/3343652">20 years ago</a> to describe plans for a massive expansion of nuclear. New <a href="https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/advanced-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx">Generation III</a> plants would be safer and more efficient than the Generation II plants built in the 1970s and 1980s. But the <a href="https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/ac80b701-bdfc-48cf-ac4c-00e60e1246a0/weo2009.pdf">supposed renaissance</a> delivered only a trickle of new reactors – barely enough to replace retiring plants.</p>
<p>If there was ever going to be a nuclear renaissance, it was then. Back then, solar and wind were still expensive and batteries able to power cars or store power for the grid were in their infancy. </p>
<p>Even if these new smaller, modular reactors can overcome the massive cost blowouts which inevitably dog large plants, it’s too late for nuclear in Australia. As a new report <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/11/nuclear-power-too-expensive-and-slow-to-be-part-of-australias-plans-to-reach-net-zero-study-finds">points out</a>, nuclear would be wildly uncompetitive, costing far more per megawatt hour (MWh) than it does to take energy from sun or wind. </p>
<h2>The nuclear renaissance that wasn’t</h2>
<p>Early in the 21st century, the outlook for nuclear energy seemed more promising than it had in years. As evidence on the dangers of global heating mounted, it became clear that the expansion of coal-fired power in the 1990s – especially <a href="https://www.iea.org/commentaries/fading-fast-in-the-us-and-europe-coal-still-reigns-in-asia">in Asia</a> – had been a mistake. </p>
<p>And despite the prevalence of slogans such as ‘Solar not Nuclear’, the <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices">cost of solar</a> and wind energy was then too high to make fully renewable systems a reality. </p>
<p>The rise of Generation III and III+ designs promised to eliminate or at least greatly reduce the risk of accidents like those at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. </p>
<p>The time seemed right for a nuclear renaissance – especially in the United States. Between 2007 and 2009, 13 companies applied for construction and operating licenses to build 31 new nuclear power reactors. But all but two of these proposals stayed on paper.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/can-nuclear-power-secure-a-path-to-net-zero-180451">Can nuclear power secure a path to net zero?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The first, in Georgia, is expected to be completed this year after running way behind schedule and way over budget. The other project in South Carolina <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/31/climate/nuclear-power-project-canceled-in-south-carolina.html">was abandoned</a> in 2017 after billions of dollars had already been poured into it. The same disastrous cost and time blowouts have hit new reactors in France (Flamanville, 10 years <a href="https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Further-delay-to-Flamanville-EPR-start-up">behind schedule</a>), Finland (Olkiluoto, which opened this year after a <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/after-18-years-europes-largest-nuclear-reactor-start-regular-output-sunday-2023-04-15/">14 year delay</a>) and the UK (Hinkley Point C, still under construction with <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/may/20/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-power-station-edf-delayed-covid-costs-rise">cost and time blowouts</a>).</p>
<p>China has built a trickle of new nuclear plants, commissioning three or four a year over the last decade. China currently has about 50 gigawatts (GW) of nuclear power capacity. This pales into insignificance compared to the nation’s extraordinary expansion of solar, with 95-120 gigawatts of additional capacity expected this year alone. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/536969/original/file-20230712-19-398xez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Olkiluoto nuclear" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/536969/original/file-20230712-19-398xez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/536969/original/file-20230712-19-398xez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536969/original/file-20230712-19-398xez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536969/original/file-20230712-19-398xez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536969/original/file-20230712-19-398xez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536969/original/file-20230712-19-398xez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536969/original/file-20230712-19-398xez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Finland’s new Unit 3 reactor only came online this year as part of its Olkiluoto plant after a major delay.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Nuclear falls short on cost, not politics</h2>
<p>What went wrong for nuclear? Despite the claims of <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/only-nuclear-energy-can-save-the-planet-11547225861">some nuclear advocates</a>, the renaissance in the 2000s did not fall short because of political resistance. Far from it – the renaissance had broad <a href="https://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2028092,00.html">political support</a> in key markets.</p>
<p>And, unlike in the 1970s where intense anti-nuclear sentiment was tied to fears of nuclear war, environmentalists in the 2000s had refocused on the need to stop burning carbon-based fuels. Anti-nuclear campaigns and protest marches were almost non-existent. </p>
<p>What stopped the nuclear noughties was a bigger problem: economics. Governments looking at nuclear saw the cost and time over-runs and decided it wasn’t worth it. </p>
<p>As megaproject expert Bent Flyvbjerg <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.7404">has shown</a>, cost overruns like these are typical. First of a kind nuclear plants offer an extreme example of the problem. To date, no Generation III or III+ design has been produced at scales large enough to iron out the inevitable early problems.</p>
<p>At the same time, other energy sources were growing in importance. The United States <a href="https://www.strausscenter.org/energy-and-security-project/the-u-s-shale-revolution/">found ways</a> of tapping its unconventional shale gas reserves. </p>
<p>All the while, solar and wind were getting cheaper and cheaper, driven by generous subsidies from European governments such as Germany and manufacturing economies of scale in China. Solar and wind production ramped up exponentially, growing around 30% a year every year since the beginning of the century.</p>
<p>In Australia, the writing was on the wall by 2007, when an <a href="https://www.sensiblepolicy.com/download/2006/2006_Umpner_report.pdf">inquiry found</a> new nuclear power would struggle to compete with either coal or renewables. A string of subsequent inquiries have come to precisely the same conclusion.</p>
<h2>Could it be different this time?</h2>
<p>To make nuclear viable these days, advocates believe, means making it safe, cheap and easy to build. No more megaprojects. Instead, build small reactors en masse on factory production lines, ship them to where they are needed and install them in numbers matching the needs of the area. </p>
<p>Advocates hope the efficiency of factory production will offset the lower efficiency associated with smaller capacity. Ironically, off-site mass production and modular installation is the basis of the success of solar and wind. </p>
<p>To date, the most promising reactor design is <a href="https://www.nuscalepower.com/en/products/voygr-smr-plants">NuScale’s VOYGR</a>. It has yet to be produced and the US company has no firm orders. It does have preliminary agreements to build six reactors in Utah by 2030 and another four in Romania. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/536985/original/file-20230712-23-1h7d7a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="solar farm" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/536985/original/file-20230712-23-1h7d7a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/536985/original/file-20230712-23-1h7d7a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536985/original/file-20230712-23-1h7d7a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536985/original/file-20230712-23-1h7d7a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536985/original/file-20230712-23-1h7d7a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536985/original/file-20230712-23-1h7d7a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/536985/original/file-20230712-23-1h7d7a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Solar and wind are modular systems, built in factories. So you can add more capacity easily.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If all are built, that’s still less than the capacity of a single large Gen III plant. More strikingly, it’s about the same as the <a href="https://www.iea.org/reports/renewable-energy-market-update-june-2023/executive-summary">new solar capacity</a> installed every single day (~710 MW) this year around the world.</p>
<p>Even with US government subsidies, NuScale estimates its power would cost A$132 per MWh. In Australia, average wholesale prices in the <a href="https://www.aer.gov.au/wholesale-markets/wholesale-statistics">first quarter</a> of 2023 ranged from $64 per MWh in Victoria to 114 per MWh in Queensland. </p>
<p>So why, then, is Australia’s opposition still talking about new nuclear? Dutton <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/jul/07/peter-dutton-ramps-up-nuclear-power-push-and-claims-labor-down-renewable-rabbit-hole">claims</a> Australia’s future nuclear submarines to be built under the AUKUS deal are “essentially floating SMRs”. This is a red herring – while submarine reactors are small, they are not modular. </p>
<p>The simplest answer is political gain. Announcements like this yield political benefits at low cost. </p>
<p>The US, UK and France have decades of experience in nuclear power, even if failures outnumber successes. So yes, there is a slim chance the latest “nuclear renaissance” will succeed in these countries. </p>
<p>But in Australia, promises to create a nuclear power industry from scratch based on as yet unproven technologies and in competition with cheap renewables is simply delusional.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/if-the-opposition-wants-a-mature-discussion-about-nuclear-energy-start-with-a-carbon-price-without-that-nuclear-is-wildly-uncompetitive-184471">If the opposition wants a mature discussion about nuclear energy, start with a carbon price. Without that, nuclear is wildly uncompetitive</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/209584/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Quiggin is a former Member of the Climate Change Authority. He has given evidence to Royal Commissions and Parliamentary inquiries into nuclear power over the past decade.</span></em></p>20 years ago, solar and wind were expensive enough to make nuclear seem like an option for Australia. With cheap renewables a reality, there’s simply no point to domestic nuclear.John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1844712022-06-09T20:10:46Z2022-06-09T20:10:46ZIf the opposition wants a mature discussion about nuclear energy, start with a carbon price. Without that, nuclear is wildly uncompetitive<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/467921/original/file-20220609-24-bfsenj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=7%2C14%2C4786%2C2334&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Getty</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The idea of nuclear power in Australia has been hotly debated for decades. Most of this discussion has been unproductive, focusing on symbolism and identity politics rather than the realities of energy policy. For that reason alone, we should welcome the commitment by opposition party leaders David Littleproud and Peter Dutton to a <a href="https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/nationals-leader-david-littleproud-to-write-to-anthony-albanese-calling-for-action-on-nuclear-power-in-australia/news-story/707c0e461d7316e852d59cdecacc0160">mature conversation</a> about nuclear power, free of political taboos.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1534317069692436488"}"></div></p>
<p>Far and away the most important such taboo is the unwillingness of either Labor or the LNP to consider an effective price on carbon. A string of inquiries into nuclear power such as the 2006 Switkowski Review and the 2016 South Australian Royal Commission concluded nuclear power will never be commercially viable without a high price on carbon dioxide emissions.</p>
<p>The reasoning behind this conclusion is simple. Nuclear power directly competes with coal-fired electricity as a source of continuous 24-hour generation. But building nuclear plants is much more expensive than new coal-fired plants. In Australia, nuclear power would compete with existing coal plants, the construction costs of which were recovered long ago.</p>
<p>So nuclear power could only replace our ageing coal plants if its operating costs are lower. But as long as coal generators are permitted to dump their waste (carbon dioxide and particulate matter) into the atmosphere at no cost, nuclear power can’t compete, except in rare periods of ultra-high coal prices. As energy minister Chris Bowen <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/national/australia-news-live-police-probe-chinese-criminal-syndicate-money-in-vic-nsw-bowen-energy-ministers-agree-new-plan-20220609-p5asd8.html">pointed out yesterday</a>, nuclear is “the most expensive form of energy.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/467914/original/file-20220609-13-38bcqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="turbine and nuclear power" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/467914/original/file-20220609-13-38bcqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/467914/original/file-20220609-13-38bcqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467914/original/file-20220609-13-38bcqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467914/original/file-20220609-13-38bcqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467914/original/file-20220609-13-38bcqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467914/original/file-20220609-13-38bcqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467914/original/file-20220609-13-38bcqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Without a carbon price, nuclear will struggle to find a place complementing renewables.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Getty</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why is a carbon price fundamental to nuclear being able to compete?</h2>
<p>Take the example of the most recent nuclear plant under construction in the developed world, the UK’s Hinkley Point C plant. In 2012, the plant’s owners <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c-dreadful-deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant">negotiated</a> a guaranteed price for power of around $A160 per megawatt hour, pegged to inflation. That’s extraordinarily expensive. </p>
<p>In Australia, the typical wholesale price for coal power in our National Electricity Market is typically $A40 to $A60, though it fluctuates and is currently very high. Even if the costs of nuclear power fall substantially, and the market price of coal remains high, there will still be a gap which won’t be bridged without a carbon price.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-mini-nuclear-reactors-56647">Everything you need to know about mini nuclear reactors</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Despite their calls for a mature discussion, none of Australia’s prominent advocates of nuclear power have suggested accepting a carbon price in return for removing the Howard government’s ban on nuclear power. Indeed, when I proposed this <a href="https://theconversation.com/nuclear-power-should-be-allowed-in-australia-but-only-with-a-carbon-price-123170">grand bargain</a> with the support of a number of conservative economists, the idea was <a href="https://johnquiggin.com/2019/12/14/no-takers-for-a-nuclear-grand-bargain/">ignored or dismissed</a> out of hand by LNP members sitting on parliamentary inquiries. </p>
<p>Where does that leave us? Just as the ban had no practical effect, the current calls for its removal are purely symbolic given we have no carbon price to make the economics stack up. Rather, the Coalition’s sudden nuclear push represents just another round in the endless culture wars bedevilling Australian politics for decades.</p>
<h2>If we had a carbon price, large scale nuclear would still not stack up</h2>
<p>Let’s assume our leaders reach agreement on a carbon price. Would nuclear stack up then? </p>
<p>Certainly not in its traditional form. Large, centralised power plants based on 20th century designs are dead, as most pro- and anti-nuclear advocates would agree. That’s due to cost and difficulty of construction. For many years, the most promising candidate for a large 21st century nuclear plant has been the <a href="https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/new-plants/ap1000-pwr">AP1000 reactor</a> built by US company Westinghouse. Massive cost and schedule over-runs on two US projects <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westinghouse-nucle-idUSKBN17Y0CQ">sent Westinghouse broke</a>, almost taking parent company Toshiba with it.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/467917/original/file-20220609-18-ncvtac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="hinkley point c nuclear station" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/467917/original/file-20220609-18-ncvtac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/467917/original/file-20220609-18-ncvtac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467917/original/file-20220609-18-ncvtac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467917/original/file-20220609-18-ncvtac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467917/original/file-20220609-18-ncvtac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467917/original/file-20220609-18-ncvtac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467917/original/file-20220609-18-ncvtac.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The UK’s Hinkley Point C nuclear power station is built to the European Power Reactor design.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Getty</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are also the European Power Reactor and the <a href="https://home.kepco.co.kr/kepco/EN/G/htmlView/ENGBHP00102.do?menuCd=EN07030102">APR1400</a> designed by Korean company KEPCO. The EPR, as it is now known, is the massively expensive design under construction at Hinkley Point. The same design has had disastrous cost overruns in other projects in France and Finland. Cost details on the APR1400 are harder to find, but there have been no new orders for a decade. </p>
<p>That leaves Chinese and Russian designs. Any prospect of Australia opting for one of these was almost certainly scotched by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Finland, which unwisely went with Russian company Rosatom for its fifth nuclear plant, has <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finnish-group-ditches-russian-built-nuclear-plant-plan-2022-05-02/">pulled the plug</a>, while the UK is <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-25/u-k-eyes-removing-china-s-cgn-in-energy-plans-as-ties-fray">trying to cut</a> China out of its role in its new reactors. </p>
<h2>What about the small reactors touted as the future?</h2>
<p>The great hope for the future is “small modular reactors”. Here, small reactors of less than 100-megawatt capacity are built in factories and shipped to sites as needed (this is the “modular” bit). While many small reactor outfits have tried to latch on to the idea, <a href="https://www.nuscalepower.com/projects/carbon-free-power-project">US company NuScale</a> is the only one worth considering. </p>
<p>Even given the smaller size, NuScale has hit major delays. In 2014, the company <a href="https://atomicinsights.com/nuscale-doe-finalize-agreement-announced-six-months-ago/">predicted</a> the first project would be operating by 2023. That date has now been pushed out to 2030, though it hopes the first unit will be in place just before the end of this decade. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/467918/original/file-20220609-22-qhuwdk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="nuscale small reactor" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/467918/original/file-20220609-22-qhuwdk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/467918/original/file-20220609-22-qhuwdk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467918/original/file-20220609-22-qhuwdk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467918/original/file-20220609-22-qhuwdk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467918/original/file-20220609-22-qhuwdk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467918/original/file-20220609-22-qhuwdk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467918/original/file-20220609-22-qhuwdk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Small modular reactors like this mock-up from NuScale are much smaller than traditional nuclear plants.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NuScale-Upper-One-Third-Mockup.jpg">Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Let’s suppose, though, that everything goes right for nuclear. Imagine NuScale reactors can arrive on time and on budget, that Australia has a carbon tax high enough to make nuclear competitive with coal, and cheaper alternatives of firmed renewables (battery-backed solar and wind) run into issues. How long would it take before we could actually generate nuclear power in Australia?</p>
<p>Work on the legislative framework and the regulatory authority could be done in advance. But it would be silly to spend large amounts if the design isn’t proven. That means that we couldn’t start design approvals, site selections – which would be controversial – and impact assessment until the early 2030s. </p>
<p>With a determined push and broad social consensus, construction might start in the late 2030s and start producing electricity some time in the 2040s. That could be worthwhile as a backup to our energy system, which by then will be based mainly on solar and wind. </p>
<p>But to get to this point two decades away, the very first requirement for a mature discussion of nuclear energy is accepting a carbon price. </p>
<p>Until we see that, the opposition is offering a fantasy, not an energy policy.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/yes-australia-is-buying-a-fleet-of-nuclear-submarines-but-nuclear-powered-electricity-must-not-come-next-168110">Yes, Australia is buying a fleet of nuclear submarines. But nuclear-powered electricity must not come next</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/184471/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Quiggin has appeared before numerous public inquiries into nuclear power in Australia</span></em></p>Renewed interest in nuclear energy will go nowhere unless we talk about carbon pricing. As energy minister Chris Bowen points out, nuclear is extremely expensive.John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1691852021-10-06T14:21:20Z2021-10-06T14:21:20ZHow nuclear energy can help make all UK electricity green by 2035<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/424796/original/file-20211005-26-4sgs37.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3199%2C2136&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/nuclear-power-plant-out-focus-on-1792784392">Pyty/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Boris Johnson is set to announce at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester that all of Britain’s electricity will come from renewable sources by 2035, according to a recent report <a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/all-britains-electricity-to-be-green-by-2035-ns76tl7vm">in the Times</a>.</p>
<p>The government suspects that the British public – tired of petrol station queues and dreading winter gas bills – will like the idea of moving away from fossil fuels. But the nature of this energy crisis, stoked by a late summer lull in wind power generation, high wholesale gas prices and Britain’s meagre prospects for storing energy, demands a careful response.</p>
<p>And what energy technology offers low-carbon credentials and a reliable base supply? The UK government’s emphatic answer appears to be nuclear power. </p>
<p>Only three years ago, UK ambitions for new nuclear power plants were in trouble. Major Japanese conglomerates Toshiba and Hitachi had pulled the plug on their separate nuclear projects in the country. But with renewed support from Boris Johnson’s government, one of these now appears to be back on the table. </p>
<p>It was recently revealed that there are ongoing discussions between the government and American partners about US nuclear engineering firm Westinghouse building a <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-58668704">new nuclear power plant</a> on the island of Anglesea in north Wales. There is even talk of government support for Derby-based industrial giant Rolls-Royce to develop a series of smaller modular nuclear reactors. These are, in essence, scaled-down versions of traditional power plants that will generate 470 megawatts of electricity compared with the 1,000 megawatts from their larger equivalents. Importantly, with these new designs, true factory-based manufacture becomes possible. The factories produce modules for rapid assembly on-site.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-mini-nuclear-reactors-56647">Everything you need to know about mini nuclear reactors</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There are likely to be benefits for British businesses in the government’s approach. But how would a new generation of nuclear plants help keep the lights on while cutting emissions from the energy sector?</p>
<h2>The nuclear option</h2>
<p>The reactors in nuclear power stations convert the heat generated by splitting atoms (a process known as nuclear fission) to electricity, and can usually run at maximum power for months, whatever the weather. This process doesn’t emit greenhouse gases – although there are likely to be emissions during the construction of the plant itself. The vapour that rises from the iconic cooling towers of a nuclear power plant is water, not carbon dioxide. </p>
<p>Large nuclear power stations have huge turbine generators spinning at high speed. These hold their speed in the face of small national fluctuations, providing stability to the grid. A constant base supply of nuclear power could continue to meet demand when renewable generation falters because the wind isn’t blowing and the Sun isn’t shining. </p>
<p>There are other ways nuclear energy can aid decarbonisation. Heat generated in nuclear reactors might be pumped into the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-future-of-nuclear-power-stations-could-make-hydrogen-heat-homes-and-decarbonise-industry-148445">central heating systems</a> of homes and other buildings, replacing fossil gas boilers. Nuclear energy could even go towards producing hydrogen fuel – a form of stored energy with potential benefits in heating and transport. And because nuclear fuel like uranium is what’s called energy-dense, even relatively small amounts can offer an ample supply. The UK also has its own <a href="https://www.westinghousenuclear.com/springfields/">fuel factory</a> and <a href="https://www.urenco.com/global-operations/urenco-uk">plant for enriching uranium</a>, allowing greater national control over the entire process.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-future-of-nuclear-power-stations-could-make-hydrogen-heat-homes-and-decarbonise-industry-148445">The future of nuclear: power stations could make hydrogen, heat homes and decarbonise industry</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There remain concerns about the cost and safety of nuclear power. But these should now be placed in the context of climate change. Fossil fuels in power generation must end, and the stable and continuous operation of nuclear power plants is a useful complement to the varying output of renewable sources such as wind and solar. This appears to be the government’s logic, favouring a boost to both nuclear and renewables investment. </p>
<p>UK governments have pushed to rebuild British’s nuclear capacity more than once in the last two decades. When Tony Blair was prime minister, he aimed for a series of very large nuclear power plants. The construction of the first of these, Hinkley Point C, is well underway. The pandemic and other problems have caused delays, but the first electricity generated from its two large reactors is expected in <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-nuclearpower-edf-idUSKBN29W0NV">the summer of 2026</a>.</p>
<p>Hinkley Point C is underpinned by a finance deal with China, struck by former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne. The days when, in 2015, Osborne said “Britain should run towards China” are fading. So too is the rhetoric of a nuclear renaissance that coincided with a post-cold war optimism for globalisation and market liberalisation. First it became clear that competitive electricity markets struggled with the challenge of replacing old nuclear with new. Then globalisation faltered with the return of great power nationalism. </p>
<p>Nuclear technology is back in the government’s sights, but this time it will involve more British money and technology. Talk of a green future has been joined with voices on the right clamouring for a new sense of national self-reliance, free from the vicissitudes of global fossil-fuel supply. Despite such realities, and the many difficulties encountered along the way, the UK nuclear renaissance remains internationalist in outlook. It is a strength that should be defended.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/169185/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>William Nuttall is a co-investigator on grants from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council relating to nuclear energy.
He is currently finalising the second edition of his book "Nuclear Renaissance" (Taylor and Francis group) originally published in 2005.
Professor Nuttall has recently contributed to work by Policy Connect relating to energy matters.</span></em></p>The UK government sees a reliable and low-carbon solution to future energy crises in nuclear power.William Nuttall, Professor of Energy, The Open UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1641382021-07-20T12:16:04Z2021-07-20T12:16:04ZThe US Army tried portable nuclear power at remote bases 60 years ago – it didn’t go well<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410670/original/file-20210709-23-zyldp6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C404%2C5097%2C5783&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Part of a portable nuclear power plant arrives at Camp Century in 1960.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/the-u-s-army-engineers-who-are-installing-a-portable-news-photo/1180258522?adppopup=true">Bettmann Archive/Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a tunnel 40 feet beneath the surface of the Greenland ice sheet, a <a href="https://www.west-point.org/class/usma1955/D/Hist/Century.htm">Geiger counter screamed</a>. It was 1964, the height of the Cold War. U.S. soldiers in the tunnel, 800 miles from the North Pole, were dismantling the Army’s first portable nuclear reactor. </p>
<p>Commanding Officer Joseph Franklin grabbed the radiation detector, ordered his men out and did a quick survey before retreating from the reactor. </p>
<p>He had spent about two minutes exposed <a href="https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/arlington-va/joseph-franklin-7323412">to a radiation field he estimated at 2,000 rads per hour</a>, enough to <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/emergencies/arsphysicianfactsheet.htm">make a person ill</a>. When he came home from Greenland, the Army sent Franklin to the Bethesda Naval Hospital. There, <a href="https://www.west-point.org/class/usma1955/D/Hist/Century.htm">he set off</a> a <a href="https://www.osti.gov/includes/opennet/includes/Understanding%20the%20Atom/Whole%20Body%20Counters.pdf">whole body radiation counter</a> designed to assess victims of nuclear accidents. Franklin was radioactive.</p>
<p>The Army called the reactor portable, even at 330 tons, because it was built from pieces that each fit in a C-130 cargo plane. It was powering Camp Century, one of the military’s most unusual bases. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Three people stand at the opening of a trench with a half-round metal cover" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410664/original/file-20210709-15-qcgv1l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410664/original/file-20210709-15-qcgv1l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410664/original/file-20210709-15-qcgv1l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410664/original/file-20210709-15-qcgv1l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=486&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410664/original/file-20210709-15-qcgv1l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=610&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410664/original/file-20210709-15-qcgv1l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=610&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410664/original/file-20210709-15-qcgv1l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=610&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Camp Century tunnels started as trenches cut into the ice.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Camp_Century_trench_construction.png">U.S. Army Corps of Engineers</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Camp Century was a series of tunnels built into the Greenland ice sheet and used for <a href="https://gombessa.tripod.com/scienceleadstheway/id9.html">both military research and scientific projects</a>. The military boasted that the nuclear reactor there, known as the PM-2A, needed just 44 pounds of uranium to replace a million or more gallons of diesel fuel. Heat from the reactor ran lights and equipment and allowed the 200 or so men at the camp <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnBG37CPDLI">as many hot showers as they wanted</a> in that brutally cold environment. </p>
<p>The PM-2A was the third child in a <a href="https://www.osti.gov/includes/opennet/includes/Understanding%20the%20Atom/Power%20Reactors%20in%20Small%20Packages%20V.2.pdf">family of eight Army reactors</a>, several of them experiments in portable nuclear power. </p>
<p>A few were misfits. PM-3A, nicknamed <a href="https://theconversation.com/remembering-antarcticas-nuclear-past-with-nukey-poo-99934">Nukey Poo</a>, was installed at the Navy base at Antarctica’s McMurdo Sound. It made a <a href="https://books.google.se/books?id=wwoAAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA32&ots=VkjNgAvyhE&dq=PM-3A+Nukey+Poo&pg=PA32&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false">nuclear mess in the Antarctic</a>, with 438 malfunctions in 10 years including a cracked and leaking containment vessel. SL-1, a stationary low-power nuclear reactor in Idaho, blew up during refueling, <a href="https://www.osti.gov/sciencecinema/biblio/1122857">killing three men</a>. SM-1 still sits 12 miles from the White House at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. It cost <a href="http://www.virginiaplaces.org/energy/nuclearbelvoir.html">US$2 million to build</a> and is expected to cost <a href="https://www.nab.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Releases/Article/2328156/army-corps-to-decommission-and-dismantle-historic-deactivated-nuclear-power-pla/">$68 million to clean up</a>. The only truly mobile reactor, <a href="https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc100219/m2/1/high_res_d/metadc100219.pdf">the ML-1</a>, <a href="https://atomicinsights.com/ml1-mobile-power-system-reactor-box/">never really worked</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A truck with a box on a trailer behind it" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410448/original/file-20210708-13-16ie7j3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410448/original/file-20210708-13-16ie7j3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410448/original/file-20210708-13-16ie7j3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410448/original/file-20210708-13-16ie7j3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410448/original/file-20210708-13-16ie7j3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=624&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410448/original/file-20210708-13-16ie7j3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=624&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410448/original/file-20210708-13-16ie7j3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=624&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Army abandoned its truck-mounted portable reactor program in 1965. This is the ML-1.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p15141coll5/id/4152/rec/19">U.S. Army Corps of Engineers</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Nearly 60 years after the PM-2A was installed and the <a href="https://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/Users/071/27/327/Exhibits/x05%2006%20-%20Experimental%20Reactors.jpg?ver=2019-06-13-150102-913">ML-1 project abandoned</a>, the U.S. military is exploring portable land-based nuclear reactors again. </p>
<p>In May 2021, the Pentagon requested $60 million for <a href="https://www.cto.mil/pele_eis/">Project Pele</a>. Its goal: Design and build, within five years, a small, truck-mounted portable nuclear reactor that could be flown to remote locations and war zones. It would be able to be powered up and down for <a href="https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40914/the-militarys-mobile-nuclear-reactor-prototype-is-set-to-begin-taking-shape">transport within a few days</a>. </p>
<p>The Navy has a long and mostly successful history of mobile nuclear power. The first two nuclear submarines, the Nautilus and the Skate, <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.14321/rhetpublaffa.16.3.0521#metadata_info_tab_contents">visited the North Pole in 1958</a>, just before Camp Century was built. Two other nuclear submarines sank in the 1960s – their reactors sit quietly on the Atlantic Ocean floor <a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/09/f66/NT-19-1.pdf">along with two plutonium-containing nuclear torpedos</a>. Portable reactors on land pose different challenges – any problems are not under thousands of feet of ocean water.</p>
<p>Those in <a href="https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2545869/strategic-capabilities-office-selects-two-mobile-microreactor-concepts-to-proce/">favor of mobile nuclear power</a> for the battlefield claim it will provide nearly unlimited, low-carbon energy without the need for vulnerable supply convoys. Others argue that the <a href="https://sites.utexas.edu/nppp/files/2021/04/Army-Reactor-Report-NPPP-2021-April.pdf">costs and risks</a> outweigh the benefits. There are also concerns about <a href="https://thebulletin.org/2020/06/small-military-nuclear-reactors-in-need-of-global-safeguards/">nuclear proliferation</a> if mobile reactors are able to avoid international inspection. </p>
<h2>A leaking reactor on the Greenland ice sheet</h2>
<p>The PM-2A was built in 18 months. It arrived at Thule Air Force Base in Greenland in July 1960 and was dragged 138 miles across the ice sheet in pieces and <a href="https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p266001coll1/id/3968/">then assembled</a> at Camp Century.</p>
<p>When the reactor went critical for the first time in October, the engineers turned it off immediately because the PM-2A leaked neutrons, which can harm people. The Army fashioned lead shields and built walls of 55-gallon drums filled with ice and sawdust trying to protect the operators from radiation. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kUVnYKIUeQU?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">‘The Big Picture,’ an Army TV show distributed to U.S. stations, dedicated a 1961 episode to Camp Century and the reactor.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The PM-2A ran for two years, making fossil fuel-free power and heat and far more neutrons than was safe. </p>
<p>Those stray neutrons caused trouble. Steel pipes and <a href="https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/4456377/">the reactor vessel grew increasingly radioactive over time</a>, as did traces of sodium in the snow. Cooling water leaking from the reactor <a href="https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/4844195">contained dozens of radioactive isotopes</a> potentially exposing personnel to radiation and leaving a legacy in the ice.</p>
<p>When the reactor was dismantled for shipping, its metal pipes shed radioactive dust. Bulldozed snow that was once bathed in neutrons from the reactor released radioactive flakes of ice.</p>
<p>Franklin must have ingested some of the radioactive isotopes that the leaking neutrons made. In 2002, he had a <a href="https://www.west-point.org/class/usma1955/D/Hist/Century.htm">cancerous prostate and kidney removed</a>. By 2015, the cancer spread to his lungs and bones. He died of kidney cancer on March 8, 2017, as <a href="https://www.west-point.org/class/usma1955/PWP/FranJ.htm">a retired, revered and decorated major general</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Two men in uniform standing in a hangar." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410677/original/file-20210709-27-e1viyu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410677/original/file-20210709-27-e1viyu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410677/original/file-20210709-27-e1viyu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410677/original/file-20210709-27-e1viyu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410677/original/file-20210709-27-e1viyu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=604&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410677/original/file-20210709-27-e1viyu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=604&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410677/original/file-20210709-27-e1viyu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=604&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Joseph Franklin (right) with pieces of the decommissioned PM-2A reactor at Thule Air Base.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">U.S. Army Photograph, from Franklin Family, Dignity Memorial</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Camp Century’s radioactive legacy</h2>
<p>Camp Century was shut down in 1967. During its <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/10/ancient-soil-secret-greenland-base-suggests-earth-could-lose-lot-ice">eight-year life</a>, scientists had used the base to drill down through the ice sheet and extract an ice core that <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=nZ6d2zUAAAAJ&hl=en">my colleagues and I</a> are still using today to <a href="https://theconversation.com/ancient-leaves-preserved-under-a-mile-of-greenlands-ice-and-lost-in-a-freezer-for-years-hold-lessons-about-climate-change-157105">reveal secrets of the ice sheet’s ancient past</a>. Camp Century, its ice core and climate change are the focus of a book I am now writing.</p>
<p>The PM-2A was found to be highly radioactive and was buried in an Idaho nuclear waste dump. <a href="https://www.southpolestation.com/oaes/tr__174_camp_century.pdf">Army “hot waste” dumping records</a> indicate it left radioactive cooling water buried in a sump in the Greenland ice sheet.</p>
<p>When <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL069688">scientists studying Camp Century in 2016</a> suggested that the warming climate now <a href="https://theconversation.com/shrinking-glaciers-have-created-a-new-normal-for-greenlands-ice-sheet-consistent-ice-loss-for-the-foreseeable-future-144992">melting Greenland’s ice</a> could expose the camp and its waste, including lead, fuel oil, PCBs and possibly radiation, by 2100, <a href="https://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/10/17/greenland-warns-denmark-over-thawing-us-military-bases/">relations between the U.S, Denmark and Greenland grew tense</a>. Who would be responsible for the cleanup and any environmental damage?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410199/original/file-20210707-27-1pxg1qd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Diagram of Camp Century reactor in trenches" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410199/original/file-20210707-27-1pxg1qd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/410199/original/file-20210707-27-1pxg1qd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410199/original/file-20210707-27-1pxg1qd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410199/original/file-20210707-27-1pxg1qd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410199/original/file-20210707-27-1pxg1qd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=604&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410199/original/file-20210707-27-1pxg1qd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=604&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/410199/original/file-20210707-27-1pxg1qd.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=604&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A schematic diagram of Camp Century’s nuclear reactor in the Greenland ice sheet.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Portable nuclear reactors today</h2>
<p>There are <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-nuclear-power-generating-reactors-have-evolved-since-their-birth-in-the-1950s-36046">major differences</a> between nuclear power production in the 1960s and today. </p>
<p>The Pele reactor’s <a href="https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.2.20210628a/full/">fuel will be sealed in pellets the size of poppy seeds</a>, and it will be air-cooled so there’s no radioactive coolant to dispose of.</p>
<p>Being able to produce energy with fewer greenhouse emissions is a positive in a warming world. The U.S. military’s liquid fuel use <a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-06/lu-umc061919.php">is close to all of Portugal’s or Peru’s</a>. Not having to supply remote bases with as much fuel can also help protect lives in dangerous locations. </p>
<p>But, the U.S. still has <a href="https://news.stanford.edu/2021/03/24/biden-can-jumpstart-u-s-nuclear-waste-strategy/">no coherent national strategy</a> for nuclear waste disposal, and critics are asking <a href="https://thebulletin.org/2019/02/the-pentagon-wants-to-boldly-go-where-no-nuclear-reactor-has-gone-before-it-wont-work/">what happens if Pele falls into enemy hands</a>. Researchers at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the National Academy of Sciences have <a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/21874/chapter/7#90">previously questioned the risks</a> of nuclear reactors being attacked by terrorists. As proposals for portable reactors undergo review over the coming months, these and other concerns will be drawing attention.</p>
<p>The U.S. military’s first attempts at land-based portable nuclear reactors didn’t work out well in terms of environmental contamination, cost, human health and international relations. That history is worth remembering as the military considers new mobile reactors.</p>
<p>[<em>Get our best science, health and technology stories.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/science-editors-picks-71/?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=science-best">Sign up for The Conversation’s science newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/164138/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Bierman receives funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation</span></em></p>Nearly 60 years after a radiation-leaking reactor was removed from a US Army base on the Greenland ice sheet, the military is exploring portable nuclear reactors again.Paul Bierman, Fellow of the Gund Institute for Environment, Professor of Natural Resources, University of VermontLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1484452020-11-04T13:43:05Z2020-11-04T13:43:05ZThe future of nuclear: power stations could make hydrogen, heat homes and decarbonise industry<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367470/original/file-20201104-13-14y2vew.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C462%2C4907%2C2776&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/LWnD8U2OReU">Frédéric Paulussen/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Nuclear power has provided low-carbon electricity to the UK for over 60 years and today it generates 17% of <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/904805/DUKES_2020_Chapter_5.pdf">the country’s electricity</a>. Until mid-2018, 15 nuclear reactors were the country’s largest source of low-carbon energy. Of these, only Sizewell B is planned to remain operating in 12 years’ time. The only new plant under construction is Hinkley Point C, and with a total generating capacity of 3.26 gigawatts, it would provide just 8% of the UK’s current electricity demand.</p>
<p>The Committee on Climate Change advises the UK government on the effort to reach <a href="https://www.theccc.org.uk/uk-action-on-climate-change/reaching-net-zero-in-the-uk/">net-zero emissions by 2050</a>. Its proposals are strangely silent on nuclear power, occasionally lumping it in with “other low-carbon generation”. It supports a massive increase in renewable energy generation and continued burning of natural gas, using carbon capture and storage technology to mop up the CO₂ emitted. Elsewhere, the plan is to electrify transport, heating and industrial processes, meaning batteries in cars, and heat pumps powered by electricity in homes and factories.</p>
<p>While reducing the amount of gas and oil burned, this would at least double the amount of electricity the national grid will need by 2050. Perhaps this could be met with renewables and electricity storage in batteries, to cover those moments when the Sun isn’t shining and there’s no wind to generate green energy. But sadly, battery technology isn’t currently powerful enough to store energy at that scale.</p>
<p>Even today’s largest battery stores can only provide back-up electricity for <a href="https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/08/20/worlds-largest-battery-storage-system-now-operational/">a few hours</a>, which is not always enough to cover extended periods of low wind or shorter daylight hours during winter. Battery technology is improving all the time, but it may not do so fast enough to meet rising electricity demand. Rolling out lots of electric vehicles could squeeze the supply of batteries even further, potentially even increasing their cost.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A row of wind turbines in the background with solar panels and large battery modules in the foreground." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367474/original/file-20201104-13-p620du.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367474/original/file-20201104-13-p620du.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=350&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367474/original/file-20201104-13-p620du.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=350&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367474/original/file-20201104-13-p620du.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=350&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367474/original/file-20201104-13-p620du.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367474/original/file-20201104-13-p620du.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367474/original/file-20201104-13-p620du.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=440&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Can renewables and battery storage alone make up the soaring demand for green power?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/battery-energy-storage-concept-nice-morning-765921109">Petrmalinak/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Carbon capture and storage is not a proven technology either, so it would be unwise to put too many of eggs in that basket. Aside from other <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/call-for-ccus-innovation">technical issues</a> – storing the CO₂ produced by burning natural gas is a potential safety hazard – the unexpected release of gas stored underground could suffocate life at the surface. While plans are afoot to make “green hydrogen” the new lifeblood of the economy, producing enough of the low-carbon fuel would take a lot of electricity. Can renewables generate enough to do that while having enough left over for the surge in electricity demand elsewhere?</p>
<p>Simply put, we need to start rebuilding the UK’s capacity to generate nuclear power.</p>
<h2>A new generation of reactors</h2>
<p><a href="https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/low-carbon-energy-programme/nuclear-cogeneration/">Future nuclear reactors</a> will not just be big kettles making steam to drive turbines that generate electricity. The heat produced during the nuclear reaction can be diverted to power processes that are currently difficult to decarbonise. </p>
<p>Take heating in buildings, for example. Heat cooler than 400°C can be extracted after the turbine, and pumped into district heating systems, replacing fossil fuels like natural gas. This is a process that is already carried out daily from municipal waste incinerators across Europe.</p>
<p>High-temperature heat (between 400 and 900°C) could be diverted from nearer the reactor, before it reaches the turbine in a nuclear plant. It could be used to power processes that produce low-carbon hydrogen fuel, ammonia and synthetic fuels for ships and jets. This heat could also supply industries such as steel, cement, glass and chemical manufacturing, which often otherwise use burners powered by fossil fuels.</p>
<p>This flexibility links perfectly with renewables. While the sun is shining and the wind’s blowing, nuclear reactors can continue generating hydrogen or other fuels that serve as an energy store – a standby source that can be burned to generate additional energy when needed. That energy could also heat homes or produce aluminium, steel, bricks, cement and glass. When it’s cloudy and still, the reactor can still generate electricity for the grid.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367480/original/file-20201104-23-ex4dcq.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A schematic illustrating how nuclear power can distribute heat and electricity for various processes." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367480/original/file-20201104-23-ex4dcq.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/367480/original/file-20201104-23-ex4dcq.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=523&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367480/original/file-20201104-23-ex4dcq.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=523&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367480/original/file-20201104-23-ex4dcq.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=523&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367480/original/file-20201104-23-ex4dcq.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=657&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367480/original/file-20201104-23-ex4dcq.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=657&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/367480/original/file-20201104-23-ex4dcq.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=657&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Nuclear reactors have evolved to achieve more than just electricity generation.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/low-carbon-energy-programme/nuclear-cogeneration/%20%22%22">Royal Society</a>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The smaller reactors <a href="https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx#:%7E:text=Small%20modular%20reactors%20(SMRs)%20are,production%20and%20short%20construction%20times.">currently being developed</a> worldwide typically generate about 300 megawatts of electricity each. They’re much cheaper to build than the current fleet of larger reactors which generate over 1,000 megawatts, such as the UK’s Hinkley Point C. Because they burn the fuel more efficiently, this new generation of reactors also produces much less nuclear waste. </p>
<p>Many contain passive safety measures too, which can flood an overheating reactor with cool water or remove the fuel source if there’s a problem. They’re designed to serve multiple purposes, either making electricity for the grid when renewable generation is low or making hydrogen and other fuels when it’s high. Because they’re smaller, these reactors can even be placed in industrial parks, providing a guaranteed electricity and heat supply to neighbouring factories.</p>
<p>We don’t believe that reaching net-zero emissions within the time we have left is possible without building new nuclear reactors. Fortunately, the new models awaiting construction can do so much more than just generate electricity.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/148445/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bill Lee receives funding from Welsh Government and the European Union, and has previously received funding from the EPSRC. He also serves on an advisory board for Tokamak Energy, a company developing miniature nuclear fusion reactors.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Rushton receives funding from Welsh Government and European Union and has previously received funding from the EPSRC.</span></em></p>Don’t count nuclear energy out – it may be our best hope of reaching net-zero emissions within the time we have left.Bill Lee, Ser Cymru Professor of Materials in Extreme Environments, Bangor UniversityMichael Rushton, Senior Lecturer in Nuclear Energy, Bangor UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/947952018-06-08T10:52:24Z2018-06-08T10:52:24ZThe nuclear industry is making a big bet on small power plants<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/222045/original/file-20180606-137322-1jdd1qw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">NuScale Power aims to build the nation's first advanced small modular reactor.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/small-modular-nuclear-reactors">U.S. Department of Energy</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Until now, generating nuclear power has required massive facilities surrounded by acres of buildings, electrical infrastructure, roads, parking lots and more. The nuclear industry is trying to change that picture – by going small.</p>
<p>Efforts to build the nation’s first “advanced small modular reactor,” or SMR, <a href="https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/04/nuscale-small-modular-nuclear-reactor-first-ever-to-complete-nrc-phase-1-review.html">in Idaho</a>, are on track for it to become operational by the mid-2020s. The project took a crucial step forward when the company behind it, NuScale, secured an <a href="http://newsroom.nuscalepower.com/press-release/company/nuscale-powers-small-modular-nuclear-reactor-becomes-first-ever-complete-nucle">important security certification</a> from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. </p>
<p>But the first ones could be generating power <a href="https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/iaea-expands-international-cooperation-on-small-medium-sized-or-modular-nuclear-reactors">by 2020 in China, Argentina and Russia</a>, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. </p>
<p>The debate continues over whether this technology is worth pursuing, but the <a href="http://smrstart.org/">nuclear industry</a> isn’t waiting for a verdict. Nor, as an <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=dCRySjIAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">energy scholar</a>, do I think it should. This new generation of smaller and more technologically advanced reactors offer many advantages, including an assembly-line approach to production, vastly reduced meltdown risks and greater flexibility in terms of where they can be located, among others. </p>
<h2>How small is small?</h2>
<p>Most small modular reactors <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx">now in the works</a> range between 50 megawatts – roughly enough power for 60,000 <a href="http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-household-electricity-consumption">modern U.S. homes</a> – and 200 megawatts. And there are designs for even smaller “mini” or “micro-reactors” that generate <a href="https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/03/4-megawatt-modular-micro-nuclear.html">as few as 4 megawatts</a>.</p>
<p>In contrast, full-sized nuclear reactors built today will generate about 1,000-1,600 megawatts of electricity, although many built before 1990, including over half the <a href="https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=104&t=3">99 reactors now operating in the U.S.</a>, are smaller than this. </p>
<p>But small nuclear reactors aren’t actually new. India has the most, with 18 <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-g-n/india.aspx">reactors with capacity ranging between 90 and 220 megawatts</a>, which were built between 1981 and 2011.</p>
<p>The U.S., Russia, China, India, France and the U.K. operate <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships.aspx">hundreds of nuclear submarines</a> and aircraft carriers. Russia has dozens of nuclear-powered icebreakers cruising around the Arctic, and its first <a href="https://gizmodo.com/russias-floating-nuclear-power-plant-has-hit-the-sea-1825650002%22%22">floating nuclear power plant</a> has been completed and will be deployed in 2019 near the town of Pevek in East Siberia. </p>
<p>The Siberian plant will replace <a href="https://insp.pnnl.gov/-profiles-bilibino-bi.htm">four 12-megawatt reactors the Soviets built in the 1970s</a> to power a remote town and administrative center, as well as mining and oil drilling operations.</p>
<p>Even though the reactors will be small, they may operate at much bigger power plants with multiple reactors. NuScale, for example, wants to install 12 reactors at its initial Idaho site. Based on the company’s latest projections, it will have a <a href="http://newsroom.nuscalepower.com/press-release/company/breakthrough-nuscale-power-increase-its-smr-output-delivers-customers-20-perce">total capacity of 720 megawatts</a>.</p>
<h2>A global trend</h2>
<p>Private and state-owned companies are seeking to build these small power plants in about <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx">a dozen countries</a> so far, including the U.S. and <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-nuclear-smr/nuclear-developers-have-big-plans-for-pint-sized-power-plants-in-uk-idUSKCN10X1FC">the U.K.</a></p>
<p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/france-nuclearpower-smr/france-considers-developing-mini-nuclear-reactors-eyes-cost-idUSL8N1QX6WS">France</a>, which gets three-quarters of its electricity from <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx">nuclear energy</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/small-nuclear-power-reactors-future-or-folly-81252">Canada</a> may soon join the fray.</p>
<p>This global interest in small modular reactors comes as <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/decommissioning-nuclear-facilities.aspx">more standard nuclear reactors are being decommissioned</a> than <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx">are under construction</a>. </p>
<h2>Some advantages</h2>
<p>Proponents of these advanced small modular reactors say they will be <a href="http://www.nuscalepower.com/why-smr">easier to build and more flexible in terms of where they can be located</a> than the larger kind. The word “modular” refers to how they will be built in factory-like settings, ready for hauling either fully assembled or in easily connected parts by truck, rail or sea. </p>
<p>These reactors can potentially power rural towns, industrial plants, mountainous areas and military bases, as well as urban districts and ports. Small modular reactors may also prove handy for industrial uses.</p>
<p>Small modular reactors will differ from the smaller reactors already deployed because of their new technologies. These advances are intended to make it less likely or even <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/01/24/can-we-make-a-nuclear-reactor-that-wont-melt-down/#3a5ccf195b7e">impossible for them to melt down or explode</a>, as happened during <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx">Japan’s Fukushima disaster</a>.</p>
<p>The power plants where these small reactors will be located will have added protections against sabotage and the theft of radioactive material. For example, they may be equipped with <a href="http://www.nuscalepower.com/smr-benefits/safe">cooling systems that continue working</a> even if no operators are present and all electric power is lost. In many cases, the entire reactor and steam-generating equipment will be below ground to safeguard these facilities during natural disasters like the earthquake and tsunamis that led three Fukushima Daiichi reactors to melt down. </p>
<p>Like renewable energy, nuclear power emits no carbon. And compared to wind and solar power, which are intermittent sources, or hydropower, which is affected by seasonal changes and droughts, it operates all the time and has a much smaller footprint.</p>
<p>As a result, small modular reactors could be <a href="https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:43012344">paired with renewable sources</a> as a substitute for coal-fired or natural gas plants. Yet they will probably have to compete with advanced <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-energy-storage-is-starting-to-rewire-the-electricity-industry-93259">energy storage systems</a> for that market. </p>
<h2>Concerns and costs</h2>
<p>Whether these advantages materialize, obviously, remains to be seen once these reactors are deployed. <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/got-science-podcast/ed-lyman#.Wxk8-kgvxPY">Some experts are skeptical</a> of the industry’s promises and expectations.</p>
<p>Although small modular reactors are designed to produce <a href="https://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/201701/reactors.cfm">less radioactive waste</a> than standard, bigger reactors for the same amount of power, the issue of where to <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-federal-government-has-long-treated-nevada-as-a-dumping-ground-and-its-not-just-yucca-mountain-96700">safely dispose of nuclear waste</a> remains unresolved. </p>
<p>Small modular reactors face other challenges, some of their own making.</p>
<p>Strong interest in the potential global market has led many companies to propose their own individual reactor designs. In my opinion, there are already too many versions out there. Before long, a shakeout will occur.</p>
<p>And, especially in the U.S., there is currently no clarity regarding the length of time required for licensing new reactor designs lacking any commercial track record – creating a lot of <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/rodadams/2017/01/09/nrc-vision-and-strategy-for-licensing-advanced-reactors-needs-improvement/#793becf81bcb">regulatory uncertainty</a>.</p>
<p>It’s also unclear what small modular reactor-generated power will cost. That will probably remain the case for at least the next 10 to 15 years, until a few designs are actually built and operating.</p>
<p>Some experts foresee small modular reactors penciling out at levels that could be <a href="https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/interest-in-small-modular-nuclear-grows#gs.3ln6s0E">higher than for full-sized reactors</a> which generally <a href="https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf">cost more to build</a> and <a href="https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html">operate</a> than other options, like natural gas, for the same amount of power. NuScale, however, predicts that its SMRs will be <a href="http://www.powermag.com/nuscale-boosts-smr-capacity-making-it-cost-competitive-with-other-technologies/">more competitive</a> than that in terms of their cost.</p>
<p>And some observers fear that reactor owners might <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/nuclear_power/small-isnt-always-beautiful.pdf">cut corners</a> to reduce costs, compromising safety or security.</p>
<p>Although their costs are unclear and their advantages relative to other energy choices remain unproven, I believe these small reactors, as non-carbon sources, are needed to help resolve the energy challenges of our time. And the rest of the world seems ready to give them a try with or without the U.S.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94795/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Scott L. Montgomery does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Advanced small modular reactors, known as SMRs, will probably have many advantages over older technology. But it’s not yet known how they will stack up against other sources of electricity.Scott L. Montgomery, Lecturer, Jackson School of International Studies, University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/812522017-07-24T23:18:46Z2017-07-24T23:18:46ZSmall nuclear power reactors: Future or folly?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178921/original/file-20170719-13558-rs7g2s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C532%2C4000%2C2377&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Large nuclear reactors could fade into history, proponents of small modular nuclear reactors argue. The reality may be more complex.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/nuclear-power-plant-temelin-czech-republic-256727668">(Shutterstock)</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Nuclear energy companies are proposing <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/608271/small-reactors-could-kick-start-the-stalled-nuclear-sector/">small nuclear reactors</a> as a safer and cheaper source of electricity. </p>
<p>In June, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories put out a “call for a discussion around <a href="http://www.cnl.ca/en/home/news-and-publications/news-releases/2017/SMR.aspx">Small Modular Reactor (SMRs) in Canada</a>,” and the role the organization “can play in bringing this technology to market.” </p>
<p>The news release asserts that SMRs are “a potential alternative to large-scale nuclear reactors,” would be effective at “decreasing up-front capital costs through simpler, less complex plants” and are “inherently safe” designs. All of this warrants examination. </p>
<p>As a physicist who has researched and written about various policy issues related to nuclear energy and different nuclear reactor designs for nearly two decades, I believe that one should be skeptical of these claims. </p>
<p>SMRs produce small amounts of electricity compared to currently common nuclear power reactors. In Canada, the last set of reactors commissioned were the four at Darlington, east of Toronto, which entered service between 1990 and 1993. These are designed to feed 878 megawatts into the electric grid. </p>
<p>In contrast, the first two nuclear power reactors commissioned in Canada were the Nuclear Power Demonstration reactor at Rolphton, Ont., in 1962, and Douglas Point, Ont., in 1968. These fed 22 and 206 megawatts respectively to the grid. </p>
<p>In other words, reactors have increased in size and power-generating capacity over time. For perspective, normal summer-time peak demand for electricity in Ontario is estimated at <a href="http://www.ieso.ca/en/power-data/demand-overview/real-time-demand-reports">over 22,000 megawatts </a>.</p>
<h2>Cost considerations key</h2>
<p>The reason for the increase in reactor output is simple: Nuclear power has always been an expensive way to generate electricity. Historically, <a href="http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/the-forgotten-history-of-small-nuclear-reactors">small reactors built in the United States all shut down</a> early because they couldn’t compete economically. One of the few ways that nuclear power plant operators could reduce costs was to capitalize on economies of scale — taking advantage of the fact that many of the expenses associated with constructing and operating a reactor do not change in proportion to the power generated. </p>
<p>Building a 800-megawatt reactor requires less than four times the quantity of concrete or steel as a 200-megawatt reactor, and does not need four times as many people to operate it. But it does generate four times as much electricity, and revenue.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179096/original/file-20170720-24021-1kb0xsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179096/original/file-20170720-24021-1kb0xsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179096/original/file-20170720-24021-1kb0xsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179096/original/file-20170720-24021-1kb0xsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179096/original/file-20170720-24021-1kb0xsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=375&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179096/original/file-20170720-24021-1kb0xsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=472&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179096/original/file-20170720-24021-1kb0xsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=472&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179096/original/file-20170720-24021-1kb0xsd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=472&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Small modular reactors are compact enough to be transported fully assembled, as this image from NuScale Power illustrates.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.nuscalepower.com/our-technology/factory-built">(Handout/NuScale)</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Small modular reactors are even smaller. The <a href="http://www.nuscalepower.com/smr-benefits/small">NuScale reactor</a> being developed by NuScale Power in the United States is to feed just 47.5 megawatts into the grid. This reduction is chiefly due to the main practical problem with nuclear power: reactors are expensive to build. </p>
<p>Consider the experience in Ontario: In 2008, the province’s government asked reactor vendors to bid for the construction of two more reactors at the Darlington site. The bid from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. was reported to be <a href="http://www.thestar.com/business/2009/07/14/26b_cost_killed_nuclear_bid.html">$26 billion for two 1200-megawatt CANDU reactors</a> — more than three times what the government had assumed. The province <a href="http://globalnews.ca/news/894709/ontario-nixes-building-two-nuclear-reactors/">abandoned its plans</a>.</p>
<p>Not surprisingly, with costs so high, few reactors are being built. The hope offered by the nuclear industry is that going back to building smaller reactors might allow more utilities to invest in them. </p>
<p>NuScale Power says a 12-unit version of its design that feeds 570 MW to the grid will <a href="http://www.nuscalepower.com/smr-benefits/economical/construction-cost">cost “less than $3 billion.”</a> But because the reactor design is far from final, the figure is not reliable. There is a long and well-documented history of <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629614000942">reactors being much more expensive</a> than originally projected. This year, Westinghouse Electric Company — historically <a href="https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/Westinghouse-Origins-and-Effects-of-the-Downfall-of-a-Nuclear-Giant.html">the largest builder of nuclear power plants in the world — filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy</a> protection in the United States precisely because of such cost overruns. </p>
<p>Cost overruns aside, smaller reactors might be cheaper but they also produce much less electricity and revenue. As a result, generating each unit of electricity will be more expensive.</p>
<h2>Design aims to reduce costs</h2>
<p>The second part of the SMR abbreviation, “Modular,” is again an attempt to control costs. The reactor is to be mostly constructed within a factory with limited assembly of factory-fabricated “modules” at the site of the power plant itself. It may even be possible to completely build a SMR in a factory and ship it to the reactor site. </p>
<p>Modular construction has been increasingly incorporated into all nuclear reactor building, including large reactors. However, since some components of a large reactor are physically voluminous, they have to be assembled on site. Again, <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/pre-fab-nuclear-plants-prove-just-as-expensive-1438040802">modularity is no panacea</a> for cost increases, as Westinghouse found out in recent years.</p>
<h2>Safety in scale?</h2>
<p>SMR developers say the technology poses a lower risk of accidents, as Canadian Nuclear Laboratories suggests when it asserts “inherent safety” as a property of SMRs. Intuitively, smaller reactors realize safety benefits since a lower power reactor implies less radioactive material in the core, and therefore less energy potentially released in an accident. </p>
<p>The problem is that safety is only one priority for designers. They must also consider about other priorities, including cost reductions. These <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629614000486">priorities drive reactor designs in different directions</a>, making it practically impossible to optimize all of them simultaneously.</p>
<p>The main priority preventing safe deployment is economics. Most commercial proposals for SMRs involve cost-cutting measures, such as siting multiple reactors in close proximity. This increases the risk of accidents, or the impact of potential accidents on people nearby. </p>
<p>At Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant, explosions at one reactor damaged the spent fuel pool in a co-located reactor. Radiation leaks from one unit made it difficult for emergency workers to approach the other units.</p>
<h2>Looking ahead</h2>
<p>The future for nuclear energy in Canada is not rosy. Canada’s National Energy Board’s latest <a href="https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/ftr/2016updt/index-eng.html">Canada’s Energy Future 2016 report</a> that projects supply and demand to the year 2040 states: “No new nuclear units are anticipated to be built in any province during the projection period.” It notes annual nuclear generation is forecast to decline nearly 12.5 per cent from 98 terawatt-hours in 2014 to 77 in 2040.</p>
<p>Promoters of SMRs argue that investing in small reactors will change this bleak picture. But technical and economic factors, as well as the experience of small nuclear reactors built in an earlier era, all suggest that this is a mislaid hope.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81252/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>MV Ramana has received funding from various foundations, including MacArthur Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, and Princeton University's Carbon Mitigation Initative to research various policy issues related to nuclear energy and small modular reactors. All opinions expressed in this article, however, are his own. </span></em></p>Nuclear industry players tout small modular reactors as an “inherently safe,” cost-effective source of electricity. The reality may be less attractive.MV Ramana, Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security at the Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British ColumbiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/655242016-09-16T15:59:50Z2016-09-16T15:59:50ZHinkley C must be the first of many new nuclear plants<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138093/original/image-20160916-17005-jwg55k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The country needs more nuclear power – but not more Hinkleys.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ganibal / shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Despite Hinkley Point C’s obvious problems, Britain badly needs the proposed nuclear power station. But Hinkley, which was finally <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/15/hinkley-point-c-nuclear-power-station-gets-go-ahead">given the go-ahead</a> on September 15 after a six week government review, must be just the start of a major programme of new nuclear plants in the UK. Coal and gas are too dirty – and wind and solar too intermittent – for the country to be able to rely solely on any of these technologies. </p>
<p>Only nuclear can provide the consistent and secure supply of low-carbon electricity that the UK needs to secure the long-term supply to its national grid.</p>
<p>In order to maintain a stable flow of electricity, Britain needs at least some large fossil or nuclear-fuelled generators. Wind and solar alone can’t do it as the technologies are inherently <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-energy-grid-handles-the-surge-after-a-solar-eclipse-38922">unable to hold the grid frequency stable at 50Hz</a>. Yet the UK’s dirty coal-fired plants will be gone by 2025 – so that leaves gas and nuclear plants to provide this stability into the future.</p>
<p>The debate surrounding the proposed nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point C has focused largely on <a href="https://theconversation.com/hinkley-point-c-delay-how-to-exploit-this-attack-of-common-sense-in-energy-policy-63293">the price EDF will get</a> for electricity generated. This was set four years ago at an inflation-linked £92.50/MWh. That’s more expensive than generation from gas, or Britain’s soon-to-be-defunct coal plants, but it should be affordable. </p>
<p>Wind power can take up some of the slack. The UK now has enough turbines installed that, on windy days, total generation is similar to that from nuclear. Things will only accelerate thanks to several <a href="https://theconversation.com/britain-is-only-just-beginning-to-exploit-its-vast-resources-of-offshore-wind-64134">huge projects in the pipeline</a> such as DONG Energy’s Hornsea One, which will become the world’s first offshore windfarm with greater than 1GW of generating capacity. All this has been achieved under an industry target of reducing the cost of energy from offshore wind to below £100/MWh by 2020.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138098/original/image-20160916-17031-uh33rz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138098/original/image-20160916-17031-uh33rz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138098/original/image-20160916-17031-uh33rz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138098/original/image-20160916-17031-uh33rz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138098/original/image-20160916-17031-uh33rz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=360&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138098/original/image-20160916-17031-uh33rz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138098/original/image-20160916-17031-uh33rz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138098/original/image-20160916-17031-uh33rz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Coal power is being phased out.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Brian Maudsley</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>An unavoidable consequence of the drive towards cleaner and more sustainable power is that the industry will rely on government subsidies and more expensive electricity prices in order to incentivise the necessary new technologies. Electricity from regular, dirty coal is by far the cheapest form of large-scale generation, but the decision has already been made to move away from this. Many UK coal stations are now closed and in some cases pulled down. So Hinkley C is expensive, but not out of line with the direction of travel in the industry.</p>
<h2>The long-term nuclear option</h2>
<p>The larger questions concerns the long-term security of Hinkley’s supply. After all, it will take a minimum of ten years to build the plant and all the evidence suggests it is highly likely to be <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/new-nuclear-finlands-cautionary-tale-for-the-uk">much longer</a> before it actually comes online. </p>
<p>Hinkley C will use the new third-generation Areva EPR nuclear reactor design which is not yet in commercial operation anywhere in the world. New nuclear plants at Flamanville (France), Olkiluoto (Finland) and Taishan (China) are all currently under construction with this new type of reactor – and all of these projects are <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/edf-britain-idUKL8N15C22S">experiencing long delays and significant cost over-runs</a>.</p>
<p>At the moment the <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/united-kingdom.aspx">UK’s nuclear plants</a> consist of a number of Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor (AGR) stations (including Hinkley B) and the Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) station at Sizewell B. The AGRs have now all passed their original design lives and have been specially licenced for <a href="http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-UK-nuclear-plant-gets-ten-year-extension-2001157.html">extended operation</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138096/original/image-20160916-17023-4isbf9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138096/original/image-20160916-17023-4isbf9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138096/original/image-20160916-17023-4isbf9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138096/original/image-20160916-17023-4isbf9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138096/original/image-20160916-17023-4isbf9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138096/original/image-20160916-17023-4isbf9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138096/original/image-20160916-17023-4isbf9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138096/original/image-20160916-17023-4isbf9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Dungeness B was supposed to close in 2018 but has been extended until 2028.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/llamnuds/8552274609/">Shaun Dunmall</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But as the plants get older, the risks inevitably increase. Only two winters ago <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11169625/Nuclear-reactor-heat-turned-down-to-stop-boilers-cracking.html">cracks were found in the steam generators</a> on the AGR units at Heysham, Lancashire. Not only was Heysham shut down for inspection and repair, but also its sister units in Hartlepool. The result was that a significant proportion of the UK’s nuclear generators were not available for several months over the winter demand-peak, leading to concerns at the time over the <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/2d3c0786-329b-11e4-93c6-00144feabdc0">availability of reserve generating capacity</a>.</p>
<p>With a variety of creaky old nuclear plants dating back to the 1970s or 1980s, and question marks over exactly when Hinkley C will be available, what the UK needs is a nuclear building plan that severely reduces the risk of supply gaps.</p>
<p>Fortunately, other nuclear options are potentially more secure. <a href="https://theconversation.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-mini-nuclear-reactors-56647">Small Modular nuclear Reactors (SMRs)</a> are now receiving increased attention and government interest. Each SMR unit is typically capable of delivering 100-200MW of electricity. That’s far smaller than Hinkley C’s planned two units totalling 3,200MW, but their size means they can be built quickly, each one requires a fraction of the capital investment of Hinkley, and they could even be built locally. </p>
<p>New SMR reactor designs are available. <a href="http://en.cnnc.com.cn/2016-04/28/c_51725.htm">China National Nuclear Corporation’s ACP100</a> for example, passively cools the nuclear core in the event of a complete power failure in the same way as the much larger EPR reactor design planned for Hinkley C will do. </p>
<p>The UK needs viable new nuclear plants – and Hinkley C has only ever been one part of the solution. Many more will be needed. Britain is running out of time to deliver further nuclear power before major disruption to its future electricity supply. The door may be opening for small modular nuclear reactors.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65524/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Simon Hogg holds the DONG Energy Chair in Renewable Energy at Durham University. He receives government funding through RCUK and industry funding from Dong Energy and GE Power to support his research activity.</span></em></p>This is a big opportunity for smaller reactors that can be built quickly and cheaply.Simon Hogg, Executive Director of the Durham Energy Institute, Durham UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/566472016-03-24T13:45:37Z2016-03-24T13:45:37ZEverything you need to know about mini nuclear reactors<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116212/original/image-20160323-28182-10hagh7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Because knowledge is power</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">FooTToo/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Nuclear power can be a touchy subject, one that seems to divide opinion. Many people believe it is unclean, controversial and costly – and the <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx">2011 Fukushima disaster</a> showed the world just how unsafe nuclear can be; the meltdown of the power plant was the worst nuclear disaster since <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx">Chernobyl in Ukraine</a>, 25 years earlier. </p>
<p>On the other hand we <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-case-for-nuclear-power-despite-the-risks-41552">still need nuclear power</a>. It has decreased the UK’s dependence on fossil fuels such as gas, coal and oil, which are in limited supply. And nuclear is a much more reliable energy source – for the same amount of fuel, nuclear produces much more energy than its carbon-based counterparts. And, as well as being cost effective, it also produces little waste.</p>
<p>The chancellor of the exchequer, George Osborne, now wants the UK to be a “global leader in innovative nuclear technologies”. Part of this plan involves <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/small-modular-reactors">spending £250m</a> on a research and development programme to put the UK in with a chance of “winning” the race to develop <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/12017695/UK-plans-small-modular-nuclear-reactor-in-2020s.html">small modular reactors</a> (SMR).</p>
<p>In the recent Budget, Osborne launched a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/small-modular-reactors-competition-phase-one">competition</a> for the “best value” design of small modular reactors for use in the UK. The government has also said it plans to publish a small modular reactor delivery “roadmap” later this year and will allocate at least £30m for an <a href="https://www.energylivenews.com/2016/03/22/1-5m-awarded-for-nuclear-waste-disposal-research/">advanced manufacturing programme</a> to develop nuclear skills.</p>
<p>All of which will pave the way towards <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spending-review-and-autumn-statement-2015-documents/spending-review-and-autumn-statement-2015">building</a> one of the world’s first small modular reactors in the UK in the 2020s.</p>
<p>Given the amount of investment, it’s clear SMRs are big business for government – and for good reason: experts suggest that small nuclear reactors may be <a href="https://theconversation.com/small-nuclear-reactors-may-be-the-key-to-a-low-carbon-future-28994">the key</a> to a low-carbon future.</p>
<h2>What are small modular reactors?</h2>
<p>Small modular reactors are essentially scaled down versions of full-sized nuclear reactors. They are defined by the <a href="https://www.iaea.org/">International Atomic Energy Agency</a> as having a power output of up to 300MW – which is enough to power around 428,000 700-watt washing machines. This compares to a full sized nuclear power reactor which boast around 1,000MW – more than three times as much.</p>
<p>Each person in the UK <a href="http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/average-household-electricity-consumption">uses an average of 226 Watts</a> throughout the year, and a <a href="http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/New-Plants/Small-Modular-Reactor">typical SMR</a> can theoretically produce enough power for roughly 1m people using 226 Watts. </p>
<p>Compare this to the <a href="http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/turbine-mhi-vestas-offshore-wind-v164-8.0-mw-tid89.html">largest</a> commercially available wind turbine installed in Denmark which usually runs at 26% of capacity. This equates to supplying 9,203 people – making the difference in output huge.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116215/original/image-20160323-28182-1bi0l3y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/116215/original/image-20160323-28182-1bi0l3y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116215/original/image-20160323-28182-1bi0l3y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116215/original/image-20160323-28182-1bi0l3y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116215/original/image-20160323-28182-1bi0l3y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116215/original/image-20160323-28182-1bi0l3y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/116215/original/image-20160323-28182-1bi0l3y.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Could large nuclear reactors become a thing of the past?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Petr Louzensky/Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At the other end of the size scale, the new nuclear power station which will be built at <a href="https://www.edfenergy.com/energy/nuclear-new-build-projects/hinkley-point-c">Hinkley point C</a> over the next decade or so will have a capacity of 3,200MW – which will be able to provide energy for more than 14m people, more than ten times the power of any SMR. But what SMRs lack in size and output they make up for in accessibility and the small amount of time it takes to build them.</p>
<h2>Why should we use them?</h2>
<p>The main benefit of SMRs compared to full-sized reactors is probably financial – the capital start-up costs are <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054421200093X">far lower</a>, reducing the cost risk for any interested builder.</p>
<p>Another advantage over full-sized reactors is that most countries are better equipped for smaller power loads than bigger ones – the national electricity grid of some countries cannot handle the huge power load from a full-sized power station – they would simply overload and shut down – so SMRs would be ideal in these circumstances.</p>
<p>The modular design of the SMRs also ensures they can be manufactured and assembled at a central factory then sent to their new location where they can be installed relatively easily. This is particularly useful in remote locations which might not have the best manufacturing facilities. </p>
<p>SMRs also have <a href="http://www.saimm.co.za/Journal/v072n03p093.pdf">good safety features</a> including a natural cooling feature which comes via an underground cooling mechanism. This can continue to function without external power because the primary coolant system uses <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149197015000050">natural circulation</a> so there are no pumps required – making it an ideal safety feature against <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-energy-primer/">core meltdown</a> – which was the problem in Japan when the 2011 tsunami hit.</p>
<p>Then there is also the advantage of being able to locate the reactor underground, providing more security and protection from natural hazards, such as high winds.</p>
<h2>What about the disadvantages?</h2>
<p>The obvious drawback is the increased running costs – each kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity from an SMR would be expected to cost between <a href="http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=45669">15% and 70% more</a> than a kWh of electricity produced in a full-sized nuclear power station, due to economies of scale. This means power output decreases while other costs stay constant.</p>
<p>There are also the usual public fears surrounding nuclear power generation and nuclear waste – which can make SMRs a hard sell, although some of the designs use a “<a href="http://www.energy.gov/ne/nuclear-reactor-technologies/small-modular-nuclear-reactors">breeder facility</a>”, which helps to reduce the waste output. Design features such as this combined with an increase in knowledge surrounding SMRs should help to avert public fears over safety. </p>
<p>There are already a number of SMRs in operation around the world including in <a href="https://www.uxc.com/smr/uxc_SMRDetail.aspx?key=Indian%20220%20MWe%20PHWR">India</a> and <a href="https://www.uxc.com/smr/uxc_SMRDetail.aspx?key=CNP-300">China</a>. There are also numerous other SMRs in various states of completion too, from the <a href="http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=13250">35 MWe KLT-40s</a> which is under construction in Russia, to the <a href="http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2014/11/13/the-uks-forgotten-molten-salt-reactor-programme/">Molten salt-based reactor</a> still in the design stage in the UK. </p>
<p>The government’s SMR competition is a great step forward in taking things closer to development. Once funding has been allocated to a preferred design then there’s just a small matter of building one. So while the use of SMRs may be one step closer, it is still going to be some time before these smaller nuclear reactors are in widespread use across the UK.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56647/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen Monk has at some point received funding from EPSRC, the NDA and the NNL</span></em></p>Small nuclear reactors are one step closer to powering the UK’s future energy requirements.Stephen Monk, Lecturer, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.