Small Modular Reactors – Nuclear Energy and Climate Change – Pros and Cons
Nuclear power sources are highly controversial as they produce energy without contributing much to climate change or air pollution but at the same time result in toxic waste, safety issues, high costs, and other problems. About 63% of electricity production worldwide in 2019 came from burning fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil. According to Natural Resources Canada, “Fossil fuels are the second most important source of electricity in Canada. About 9.5 per cent of electricity supply comes from coal, 8.5 per cent from natural gas and 1.3 per cent from petroleum.” The electricity sector worldwide accounted for two-thirds of global climate change emissions growth in 2018 and much of this is from fossil fuels. This is a core reason why nuclear power is being considered an alternative option. This is particularly true about Ontario’s plan to adopt a specific nuclear power technology known as Small Modular Reactors (SMR’s) in its fight against climate change. SMR’s provide about 300 megawatts of electricity whereas typical nuclear reactors provide over a thousand megawatts of electricity. It’s worthwhile addressing some of the pros and cons of the SMR approach.
Positives of Small Modular Reactors
Several advantages exist for SMR’s in relation to full-sized nuclear power plants and other electricity sources (such as wind or solar renewable power). SMR’s – like renewables and other traditional nuclear sources – provide clean electricity with minimal carbon emissions. SMR’s take up a lot less land than sources such as traditional nuclear reactors. Unlike traditional nuclear reactors, SMR’s modules can be built at factories and then transported to the reactor site resulting in significant reductions in costs and construction time. This mass production approach is felt by proponents to likely reduce SMR costs over time due to efficiencies gained with factory production. SMR’s are much more economical in relation to traditional reactors. Traditional reactors can cost in the tens of billions of dollars whereas SMR’s can cost several billion. A special type of SMR – known as a fourth generation fast neutron reactor – can use used fuel from today’s reactors and also accept used fuel from our large stockpile of depleted uranium. This can help eliminate million year toxic fuel waste from our nuclear power sources while at the same time provide carbon-free electricity. The need for uranium mining will also be much less due to the ability to use existing toxic stockpile waste. In addition, whereas wind and solar renewable energy sources are intermittent (they do not always produce electricity) SMR technology can be turned on and kept on to provide electricity consistently over time (i.e. it is not an intermittent source). Also, according to proponents of SMR technology, SMR’s are less likely to overheat in part because of their smaller cores and can be built to be a lower risk than traditional nuclear plants because of fewer moving parts.
Negatives of Small Modular Reactors
A review of SMR’s provided by the US environmental health group The Environmental Working Group (EWG) provides a number of reasons why SMR technology is not an effective way forward for our electricity sector. They argue that SMR’s will not be cost competitive due to the need to build thousands of such high priced reactors to achieve factory-based cost reductions. SMR’s currently have dozens of designs and not a single standard design. This will make it harder to reduce costs as cost savings from factory manufacturing require a fixed design. The EWG report also states that – for the nuclear industry – reactors have become more expensive over time in comparison to earlier reactors. SMR’s, which advocates say will benefit from manufacturing at factory sites instead of at the final site of the reactor like traditional nuclear, might need to have parts that are recalled as a result of errors with the factory process. However, recalling parts of a radioactive reactor is challenging and can place the robustness of the power generation sector into question. The authors ask “What will happen to an electricity system that relies on factory-made identical reactors that need to be recalled?”. When it comes to the current SMR’s cost escalations have been significant. The cost of an SMR in Idaho has risen from $3 billion in 2015 to $6.1 billion in 2020. When it comes to cost comparisons with renewables such as wind and solar – US nuclear energy costs USD $160 per MWh while solar and wind cost about $40 per MWh and the cost of these renewables are continuing to decline. According to the Clean Air Alliance, the cost of solar (15.7 cents per kWh in 2016) and wind (8.6 cents per kWh in 2016) in Ontario is currently less than the projected cost of SMR (16.3 cents per kWh which will rise to 21.5 cents per kWh in the event of a cost overrun which can happen with this technology). The authors argue this cost difference can be used to justify spending on storage technology such as batteries to make up for the fact that solar and wind are intermittent energy sources. In the US, given how the technology is progressing the earliest projected deployment date for SMR’s is 2029 to 2030 but we need to fight climate change now and cannot wait. Another criticism is the significant use of water that an SMR needs. A single 300 MW SMR operating at 90% capacity would need 160 million to 390 million gallons of water every day for heating before discharge. In addition, SMR’s have existed since the 1950’s but the approach has not gained significant support to replace the use of traditional nuclear and other electricity options.
The EWG report authors conclude by saying that “two things are in critically short supply on the read to a climate-friendly energy system: time and money. An objective evaluation indicates that SMR’s are poor on both counts.”
Conclusion – Next Steps to Make it a Win
Several next steps are needed to make SMR’s a winning technology for Ontario and Canada. First is the acceptance of the notion that nuclear technologies such as SMR’s are needed alongside renewables to fight climate change. Some researchers in the area are already acknowledging this by stating that to get to net zero climate emissions by 2050 (which is a goal for the Canadian government) we need nuclear technology to complement other clean energy sources such as renewables. Second, a standard SMR design needs to be accepted among the many designs that currently exist. This will ensure that costs come down as a result of being able to use factory production methods. Third safety features built into SMR’s will need to be shown to be sufficient to ensure no nuclear reactor disasters like the ones that have occurred at traditional nuclear electricity production sites (eg. Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island). The general public will need to feel safe around SMR facilities given advanced SMR safety protections and the industry needs to convince the public of the safety of new SMR’s. Fourth, the cost of renewables (eg. solar, wind) alongside battery storage technologies will need to be sufficiently high to ensure that SMR technology can still compete with these cheap alternatives. SMR technology has promise but these requirements above are needed to ensure that it is a winning technology over the course of the next few decades as we ratchet up our fight against climate change.
