SMR Summary
The articles discuss the prospects and challenges of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). The key points are:
An IEEFA report finds SMRs are still too expensive, slow to build, and risky to play a significant role in transitioning from fossil fuels in the next 10-15 years. The report argues investing in SMRs diverts resources from cheaper, available renewables that can drive the transition forward. It expects 375,000 MW of new renewable capacity in the U.S. in 7 years, while SMRs are unlikely to be operational in that time.
However, the U.S. Department of Energy highlights potential benefits of SMRs, including lower upfront costs, scalability, safety enhancements, and suitability for locations that can't accommodate large reactors. SMRs could help drive economic growth and high-paying jobs if deployment reaches sufficient levels.
SMRs are gaining attention globally as they can provide reliable, low-carbon power and heat to help meet climate goals. Governments like the U.S., U.K., France and Canada are providing funding and policy support. Companies like EDF, Rolls-Royce and NuScale are developing SMR designs.
However, challenges remain, especially in regulation, licensing, and public perception. The proliferation of designs risks spreading expertise too thin. SMRs will face scrutiny and potential opposition.
Overall, SMRs offer a compelling low-carbon option, but proponents will need to work with stakeholders to overcome challenges and unlock their full potential. Near-term prospects seem limited compared to renewables.
Small modular nuclear reactors get a reality check in new report
A new report has assessed the feasibility of deploying small modular nuclear reactors to meet increasing energy demands around the world. The findings don't look so good for this particular form of energy production.
Small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) are generally defined as nuclear plants that have capacity that tops out at about 300 megawatts, enough to run about 30,000 US homes. According to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), which prepared the report, there are about 80 SMR concepts currently in various stages of development around the world.
While such reactors were once thought to be a solution to the complexity, security risks, and costs of large-scale reactors, the report asks if continuing to pursue these smaller nuclear power plants is a worthwhile endeavor in terms of meeting the demand for more and more energy around the globe.
The answer to this question is pretty much found in the report's title: "Small Modular Reactors: Still Too Expensive, Too Slow, and Too Risky."
If that's not clear enough though, the report's executive summary certainly gets to the heart of their findings.
"The
rhetoric from small modular reactor (SMR) advocates is loud and
persistent: This time will be different because the cost overruns and
schedule delays that have plagued large reactor construction projects
will not be repeated with the new designs," says the report. "But the
few SMRs that have been built (or have been started) paint a different
picture – one that looks startlingly similar to the past. Significant
construction delays are still the norm and costs have continued to
climb."
Too Expensive
The cost of SMRs is at the forefront of the report's argument against the deployment of the reactors. According to some of the data it provides, all three SMRs currently operating (plus one now being completed in Argentina) went way over budget, as this graph shows.
IEEFA
The report authors also point out that a project in Idaho called NuScale had to be scrapped because during its development between 2015 and 2023, costs soared from $9,964 per kilowatt to $21,561 per kilowatt. Additionally, the costs for three other small plants in the US have all skyrocketed dramatically from their initial cost assessments.
More out-of-control costs for SMR projects in the United States
Not only are the excessive costs of building SMRs problematic in and of themselves, says the IEEFA, but the money being poured into the projects is money that is not being spent on developing other sources of energy that are cleaner, quicker to deploy, and safer.
"It
is vital that this debate consider the opportunity costs associated
with the SMR push," write the authors. "The dollars invested in SMRs
will not be available for use in building out a wind, solar and battery
storage resource base. These carbon-free and lower-cost technologies are
available today and can push the transition from fossil fuels forward
significantly in the coming 10 years – years when SMRs will still be
looking for licensing approval and construction funding."
Too Slow
That last bit gets to another of the report's findings: that building SMRs simply takes too much time. The Shidao Bay project in China, for example, was supposed to take four years to build, but actually took 12; the Russian Ship Borne project had an estimated completion time of three years, but took 13; and the ongoing CAREM project in Argentina was supposed to be done in four years, but it's now in its 13th year of development.
IEEFA
The report also points out that the MPower PWR project, which was one of the first planned SMRs in the US, had its plug pulled in 2017 after it was clear it wouldn't meet its 2022 deployment date – a decision that effectively wasted the $500 million that had already been spent on the effort.
"Despite this real-world experience, Westinghouse, X-Energy and NuScale, among others, continue to claim they will be able to construct their SMRs in 36 to 48 months, perhaps quickly enough to have them online by 2030," write the authors. "GE-Hitachi even claims it ultimately will be able to construct its 300MW facility in as little as 24 months.
"Admittedly, there is a not-zero chance this is possible, but it flies in the face of nuclear industry experience, both in terms of past SMR development and construction efforts and the larger universe of full-size reactors, all of which have taken significantly longer than projected to begin commercial operation."
Despite breakthroughs in SMR manufacturing, such as the welding advance that allows workers to put together an SMR reactor vessel in 24 hours instead of 12 months, the time it takes to get these facilities into the field will likely continue to be a major barrier to their adoption.
Too Risky
Both the unpredictable costs and the extraordinary building delays makes SMR development just too big of a risk, says the IEEFA. But that's not the only potential peril. Because the technology for this small-scale nuclear facility is fairly new and untested, risks could exist in terms of functionality and safety as well. For example, the authors question if the new SMRs will actually be able to output the kind of power they claim. Based on cost and development estimates going so widely afield, the sense in the report is that power output claims could also be off.
In terms of safety, the report quotes a 2023 study for the US Air Force that said: "Since SMR technology is still developing and is not deployed in the US, information is scarce concerning the various costs for [operations & maintenance], decommissioning and end-of-life dissolution, property restoration and site clean-up and waste management."
The authors also point out that because many SMRs are being built using identical technologies, if a component of that tech fails, it could easily affect reactors around the world.
For example, they bring up the fact that steam generators have needed to be replaced at more than 110 pressurized water reactors (PWRs), with half of those operating in the US, because of the denting and wall thinning of tubes made from a material called "heat-treated Alloy 600."
"We’re
not arguing that new SMRs will have these same issues," they write. "We
expect that the design and material decisions made for SMRs will
reflect remedial measures taken at existing reactors. Our concern is
broader in that a problem at one SMR might have serious repercussions at
many other SMRs with the same standardized design."
Conclusion
So: too expensive, too slow, and too risky. And not at all where we should be focussing our, um – energy – these days, as the study authors make clear in their conclusion.
"At least 375,000 MW of new renewable energy generating capacity is likely to be added to the US grid in the next seven years," they say. "By contrast, IEEFA believes it is highly unlikely any SMRs will be brought online in that same time frame. The comparison couldn’t be clearer. Regulators, utilities, investors and government officials should acknowledge this and embrace the available reality: Renewables are the near-term solution."
You can read the full report in PDF format online.
Source: IEEFA
Benefits of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)
The term “modular” in the context of SMRs refers to the ability to fabricate major components of the nuclear steam supply system in a factory environment and ship to the point of use. Even though current large nuclear power plants incorporate factory-fabricated components (or modules) into their designs, a substantial amount of field work is still required to assemble components into an operational power plant. SMRs are envisioned to require limited on-site preparation and substantially reduce the lengthy construction times that are typical of the larger units. SMRs provide simplicity of design, enhanced safety features, the economics and quality afforded by factory production, and more flexibility (financing, siting, sizing, and end-use applications) compared to larger nuclear power plants. Additional modules can be added incrementally as demand for energy increases.
SMRs can reduce a nuclear plant owner’s capital investment due to the lower plant capital cost. Modular components and factory fabrication can reduce construction costs and duration.
SMRs can provide power for applications where large plants are not needed or sites lack the infrastructure to support a large unit. This would include smaller electrical markets, isolated areas, smaller grids, sites with limited water and acreage, or unique industrial applications. SMRs are expected to be attractive options for the replacement or repowering of aging/retiring fossil plants, or to provide an option for complementing existing industrial processes or power plants with an energy source that does not emit greenhouse gases.
SMRs can be coupled with other energy sources, including renewables and fossil energy, to leverage resources and produce higher efficiencies and multiple energy end-products while increasing grid stability and security. Some advanced SMR designs can produce a higher temperature process heat for either electricity generation or industrial applications.
SMR designs have the distinct advantage of factoring in current safeguards and security requirements. Facility protection systems, including barriers that can withstand design basis aircraft crash scenarios and other specific threats, are part of the engineering process being applied to new SMR design. SMRs also provide safety and potential nonproliferation benefits to the United States and the wider international community. Most SMRs will be built below grade for safety and security enhancements, addressing vulnerabilities to both sabotage and natural phenomena hazard scenarios. Some SMRs will be designed to operate for extended periods without refueling. These SMRs could be fabricated and fueled in a factory, sealed and transported to sites for power generation or process heat, and then returned to the factory for defueling at the end of the life cycle. This approach could help to minimize the transportation and handling of nuclear material. Light water-based SMRs are expected to be fueled with low enriched uranium, i.e., approximately 5 percent U-235, similar to existing large nuclear power plants. The “security by design” concepts being applied to these technologies are expected to increase SMR resistance to theft and diversion of nuclear material. Also, reactor cores for these light water SMRs can be designed to burn plutonium as a mixed oxide (MOX) fuel. Further, SMRs based on non-light water reactor coolants could be more effective at dispositioning plutonium while minimizing the wastes requiring disposal.
The case for SMR economic competitiveness is rooted in the concept that mass manufacture of modular parts and components will reduce the cost per kilowatt of electricity on par with current generating sources. There is both a domestic and international market for SMRs, and U.S. industry is well positioned to compete for these markets. DOE hopes that the development of standardized SMR designs will also result in an increased presence of U.S. companies in the global energy market. If a sufficient number of SMR units were ordered, it would provide the necessary incentive to develop the appropriate factory capacity to further grow domestic and international sales of SMR power plants.
SMR deployment to replace retiring electricity generation assets and meet growing generating needs would result in significant growth in domestic manufacturing, tax base, and high-paying factory, construction and operating jobs. A 2010[1] study on economic and employment impacts of SMR deployment estimated that a prototypical 100 MWe SMR costing $500 million to manufacture and install would create nearly 7,000 jobs and generate $1.3 billion in sales, $404 million in earnings (payroll), and $35 million in indirect business taxes. The report examines these impacts for multiple SMR deployment rates, i.e., low (1-2 units/year), moderate (30 units/year), high (40 units/year), and disruptive (85 units/year). The study indicates significant economic impact would be realized by developing an SMR manufacturing enterprise at even moderate deployment levels.
[1] Economic and Employment Impacts of Small Modular Reactors, June 2010, Energy Policy Institute of the Center for Advanced Energy Studies
Why small modular reactors will shape the future of nuclear debate | White & Case LLP
The authors would like to thank Shannon Quinn, Vice-President of Science, Technology and Commercial Oversight at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and Seth Grae, president and CEO of Lightbridge for their contributions to this article.
SMRs are now gaining the attention of governments and power providers across the world, and even though they are a relatively nascent concept, judging by the backers lining up behind it, that won’t be the case for much longer
The vessel Akademik Lomonosov—named after an 18th-century Russian scientist, and anchored off Russia's Arctic coast—is a surprising place to find the future of nuclear energy. Yet for now, the barge is home to the world's only operating small modular reactor (SMR), a nuclear plant that produces enough electricity to power a city of about 100,000 people.
SMRs are a relatively nascent concept, but judging by the backers lining up behind it, that won't be the case for much longer. Newly elected US President Joe Biden has already signaled that they have a key role to play in the world's biggest economy's US$2 trillion investment in clean energy, while UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has also said he'll pour money into the concept. And it's not just governments; companies including EDF—the world's biggest operator of atomic plants— and Rolls -Royce are championing the future role of the SMR.
SMRs are now gaining the attention of governments and power providers across the world because of the optionality they offer. They can provide reliable energy in the form of both electricity and heat. The heat can help lower the emissions from carbon-intensive industries such as steel and cement making, while the power offers baseload energy that can help underpin more intermittent supply from renewables such as wind and solar. The SMR offers a step change from the existing world of nuclear power.
In 1954, the Soviet Union started the world's first nuclear power plant, sending nuclear-generated electricity to a power grid, creating a whole new industry that promised to deliver a never-ending supply of reliable power. Yet that dream has faced challenges to deliver on its potential. Despite nuclear being a safe, carbon-free source of energy, the cost and scale of projects, along with major incidents at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, have threatened to undermine the industry. However, the arrival of the SMR offers a solution to many of these issues.
400 nuclear power reactors are in operation around the globe
The case for nuclear
Nuclear reactors generate virtually emission-free power, which means they can play a crucial role in global efforts to lower emissions and reach the Paris climate goals. The global power sector accounts for approximately one-third of global emissions, with the burning of fossil fuels still the dominant source. The role of renewable energy generation—amid dramatic falling costs—has risen exponentially in recent years, but the inability of solar and wind to deliver reliable baseload generation has meant that many countries still rely on fossil fuels to fulfill that role.
Yet the pressure is on governments around the world to replace fossil-fuel power generation. The provision of affordable and clean energy is one of 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, and at least 80 percent of the world's electricity must be low carbon by 2050—by which point the world's energy consumption is expected to have more than doubled—to have a realistic chance of keeping warming within 2°C of pre-industrial levels. Nuclear plants have a small environmental footprint and keep the air clean. They require only a small amount of fuel compared to gas or coal, and take up a fraction of the space required for wind and solar farms.
Currently, the roughly 400 nuclear power reactors that operate in some 30 countries around the globe provide about 10 percent of the world's power supply. The majority of the installed capacity is in Western countries, but a significant shift to developing nations—predominantly in Asia—is forecast over the next two decades. There is currently uncertainty about plans for replacement or life extensions in dominant producers France, Japan and the US.
80% of the world's electricity must be low carbon by 2050
What exactly is an SMR?
SMRs are broadly defined as nuclear reactors that produce less than 300 MWe—compared to the more than 1,600 MWe that modern nuclear power plants can produce.
The attraction of building smaller plants, based on a set design framework, is clear. Plants can be built quickly and to a proven standard. Additional plants can be added as more power is required, and economies of scale can be achieved as more numbers are produced. The capital outlay also becomes manageable for smaller utilities, whereas at the moment only the biggest players can shoulder the initial capital outlay burden and risks associated with some developments.
The smaller size and diversity of reactors can also mean they can be built in locations not traditionally suitable for nuclear power plants, and—importantly—close to power-intensive industries or remote communities. This allows them to cover areas of the world that rival power solutions can't reach, with the potential to replace highly inefficient and polluting power sources such as diesel generators.
SMRs can also be deployed on the sites of retiring coal plants, making the new small nuclear plants more locally acceptable by providing employment. Taking advantage of existing infrastructure, including electrical switchyards and coal plant turbines, could reduce SMR construction costs and avoid the need of adding new transmission lines from the sites.
Political support is widespread
Governments have been quick to see the potential. After years of setbacks in the UK in developing the next generation of large nuclear power plants, Prime Minister Johnson has promised funding and political support to develop the next generation of small and advanced reactors as part of his government's 10 Point Plan for a green industrial revolution.
In the US, President Biden has set goals of achieving 100 percent carbon-free electricity production by 2035 and reducing net CO2 emissions to zero by no later than 2050. Biden's energy platform specifically cites advanced nuclear as part of "critical clean energy technologies," and his administration also plans to create an Advanced Research Projects Agency for climate that will have a specific focus on modular reactors. During April's US-led climate summit, Biden pledged to cut the country's emissions to half of 2005 levels by 2030, stressing that the world is in a "decisive decade" for tackling climate change.
The nuclear industry has not been shy to showcase its potential role in the fight. Coinciding with Biden's two-day summit, six nuclear industry trade associations released a statement importuning that nuclear power be included in the fight against emissions, arguing that the size and urgency of the challenge demands that a "realistic, science-based approach that addresses all sectors" is required. In order to deliver the quantity of clean energy required to meet carbon neutrality, "this will require that we use every low-carbon technology at our disposal. Nuclear power must be one of those technologies," the associations said.
70 There are currently almost 70 different SMR technologies under development
Source: International Atomic Energy Agency
The private sector is also keen
Some of the biggest industrial companies and utilities have also gotten behind the technology, with reactor designs being developed by companies from Rolls-Royce to NuScale Power and TerraPower, which has drawn investment from Bill Gates. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there are currently almost 70 different SMR technologies under development, a significant jump from just a couple of years ago.
EDF said earlier this year that it sees a huge global market developing for small reactors over the next decade to replace fossil-fuel generators. The company plans to complete the basic design of a 170 MW reactor by the end of 2022, and will try to convince the French government to build a pilot project by about 2030. The signs are positive. In April, French ministers signed an updated strategic plan for the French nuclear industry to account for the challenges the pandemic has brought. Almost €500 million is to be made available for the industry, with €70 million of this directed towards special projects that include the construction of a prototype SMR.
Canada released its own SMR Action Plan in December, laying out a roadmap for the development and deployment of the technology, described by the Minster of Natural Resources as "the next great opportunity," as the country seeks to phase out coal and electrify carbon-intensive industries. Shannon Quinn, Vice-President of Science, Technology and Commercial Oversight at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, a government agency which owns the country's largest nuclear science and technology laboratory, spells it out more clearly: "SMRs are a real option in the fight against climate change. In order to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets, there is a need to bring to bear all technology options—renewables, nuclear, hydrogen and many more. We need all of them to be successful." The Baltic state of Estonia is also developing plans to place SMRs at the center of its low-carbon future. In March, Rolls-Royce and Fermi Energia—a company founded by Estonian energy and nuclear energy professionals to bring SMRs to their homeland—signed a Memorandum of Understanding to study the potential deployment of SMRs across the country.
It's not all about state-level decision-making though; there are also opportunities for smaller, more innovative companies that have been locked out of the more costly and technologically advanced traditional plants. The emergence of both private investors and smaller companies in the space offers a step change from the traditional route of government-led and funded research, development and implementation, and offers an opportunity for new methods and approaches.
One such smaller, more innovative company is Lightbridge, which has developed new metallic fuel rods that it believes are significantly more economical and safer than traditional fuel. "We have less time than the length of a typical mortgage to change the world‘s energy mix," says Seth Grae, president and CEO of Lightbridge. "Renewables most likely will generate only a small portion of the clean energy the world will need by 2050."
For Grae, there are arguably too many SMR technologies in development, which risks spreading expertise too thin: "After all, Apollo didn't happen because of a hundred private sector players pursuing different options," he adds. The world needs to get behind the most reliable and cost-effective methods. This would better enable what to scale up more quickly and provide the consistent baseload that helps offset the intermittent nature of renewables.
It’s not all about state-level decision-making when it comes to SMR technologies; there are opportunities for smaller, more innovative companies
5% of the world's total energy consumption comes from nuclear energy
Challenges remain, namely regulation
Regulation has always been a challenge in nuclear plant development, and that's likely to remain the case for SMRs. Issues include factors such as certification of design, construction license and operation license costs, which are hurdles that are likely here to stay.
Licensing risk has long been a difficult and controversial issue in nuclear power, and has attracted significant attention from policy makers, the public and environmentalists. The proliferation of nuclear plants envisaged by the widespread rollout of SMRs will be unlikely to avoid this scrutiny. Given the required oversight at all levels of development, the prospect of delays, cost overruns and disputes remains, particularly in the initial rollout of new technologies.
The industry must also overcome many of the perceptions from previous generations of nuclear power; that the projects are too costly and complex, especially when compared to both traditional fossil-fuel power generation and the breakneck rollout of renewables. The issue of waste is also pertinent to the conversation. NuScale says that because SMRs contain less radioactive material and can be located below ground, their risks are lower; however, this has received criticism from some experts.
As of yet, there is no guarantee that SMR producers will not face the same obstacles that have plagued developers of traditional nuclear power. There also exists the challenge of convincing industrial users—a customer that seems well suited for the SMR offering—that it can compete with low-cost natural gas or proven renewables such as wind and solar. And the nature of SMRs mean they will have to be built close to the communities they serve, raising new challenges for public engagement.
The rollout of a new generation of nuclear power will inevitably lead to legal and commercial disputes. The intense scrutiny, from policy-makers and the public—given the safety and security angle combined with a nascent technology—will likely cause delays and conflicts. So will jockeying for position in a potentially more competitive nuclear industry marketplace. With first-of-a-kind designs, and potentially new and less experienced players in the market, comes increased risk of regulatory issues, delays, cost overruns and disputes. Understanding the nuclear regulatory framework and the nature of risks that commonly arise concerning nuclear projects will be key to navigating these issues and minimizing their impact.
Unlocking the SMR's full potential
The SMR has widespread political support. The technology's offering is compelling: carbon-free power that's reliable, safe, more affordable and can be built and deployed without the significant costs and complexity of traditional nuclear power.
In a world where almost every investment decision will now be measured against its climate impact and whether it is compatible with the Paris climate goals, the SMR offers a solution without many of the drawbacks that have hobbled its larger predecessors.
Yet, as with all new technologies, there are challenges to overcome and, as is always the case with nuclear power, these can be costly and protracted. The champions of the SMR will have to work with all stakeholders, from governments and investors to the wider public, to ensure its potential can be fully unlocked.
Click here to download 'Why small modular reactors will shape the future of nuclear debate' (PDF)
White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.
This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.
© 2021 White & Case LLP
No comments:
Post a Comment