Natural Security Blog: Post
The State of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
November 28, 2012 | Posted by Francisco Bencosme, Joseph S. Nye, Jr. Researcher - 10:00am | 3 Comments
Last week the Department of Energy (DOE) announced
its decision to award the first company to receive government funding in
support of commercializing Small Modular Reactors (SMR), a new generation of
nuclear power plants. Funds were awarded to a consortium of companies
responding to a funding announcement in March 2012; the consortium is led by
Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) in conjunction with the Tennessee Valley
Authority and Bechtel. The Department of Energy established the Small Modular
Reactor Licensing Technical Support Program to provide federal support of up to
$450 million to expedite the licensing process of SMRs Originally, two projects
would receive funding; so far only one has, leaving other initiatives such as
Westinghouse, NuScale and the Holtec HI-SMUR out of luck for now.
The SMR initiative is part of the Obama administration’s efforts to have low-carbon nuclear energy play an important part of America’s energy future. SMRs are defined as having power outputs of up to 300 megawatts of electricity, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. They are touted for their compact scalable designs that offer a host of safety, construction and economic benefits. According to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, SMRs have the potential to create new export and job opportunities for many Americans as the world is increasingly demanding nuclear energy to fulfill its energy needs, despite recent retreat from nuclear power by some countries. Developing countries that do not have the capacity or expertise are looking for more modular and cost effective power sources and SMRs may be an increasingly attractive option.
SMRs also present a unique opportunity for the United States to restore leadership in the global nuclear energy market. As U.S. SMR businesses grow the share of the market, the United States is positioned to play a leading role in future negotiations on nuclear reprocessing and spent fuel. More countries will be eager to reinstate 1-2-3 negotiations and the United States will have subsequently more leverage in these discussions. U.S. leadership in the nuclear energy markets can go a long way in ensuring safeguards can go in place of nuclear stockpiles which are critical to non-proliferation goals.
While SMRs could usher in a new wave of nuclear renaissance, many hurdles still lie ahead. First, the Nuclear Regulation Commission (NRC) still has to approve all of the design certifications before any nuclear reactor becomes operational. The NRC hasn’t issued a license for a full-scale nuclear reactor since 1976, which is in part a reason the U.S. influence in the nuclear energy market has eroded. The NRC has more experience and familiarity with large light water reactors and has thus taken a more cautious role in studying the safety of SMRs. This presents a problem for manufacturers because the uncertainties of NRC regulations make it so they won’t invest in SMR production. Whether the Small Modular Reactor Program established by the DOE will be able to overcome NRC licensing costs is still unclear as negotiations for the exact cost of its partnership with B&W is still being negotiated.
Some have argued that the Department of Defense (DOD) would be a unique testing ground for an SMR demonstration. While this might be true, there does not appear to be enough political will for using the DOD as a site for energy experimentation. A DOD SMR program might also entail high political costs due to the larger defense cut negotiations that are taking place in Congress as part of the fiscal cliff.
The bottom line: the administration’s recent moves are a sign that SMRs are poised to play a large role in any nuclear energy future.
Photo: Courtesy of flickr user Irish Typepad.
I'm skeptical. Does the US
I'm skeptical.
Does the US have the means to actually begin a new, safe nuclear renaissance? Isn't the fact that the NRC hasn't issue a license for new nuclear designs since 1976 an argument for why the agency is unprepared to handle a flood of new small modular reactor designs?
Even if the DoD does invest in the development of SMRs, this only provides them with a guaranteed cash flow; however, this doesn't seem to overcome safety barriers. Should the DoD make the necessary push for SMRs, what is the likelihood that proliferating states suddenly drop all weapons in light of a new technology? It seems that the very states that contradict US nonproliferation goals are also the very states that will be unlikely to adopt proliferation-proof reactors.
Lastly, nuclear power doesn't seem to represent a viable option for a sudden energy revolution. The shale natural gas and new tight oil fields that are being developed reveal vastly more promise for increased energy independence. This not only means SMRs, or any nuclear technology, will likely lack new forms of investment, but also that the ONLY new form of energy likely capable of satisfying the massive energy requirements of the US is these dirtier alternatives.
These areas must be examined before pledging full support for a new energy silver bullet technology.
The question is whether the
The question is whether the administration will be hesitant to invest in more SMR projects besides B&W due to political considerations. Obama was already attacked by conservatives during the election season for putting too much money into Solyndra, Evergreen Solar, and other green energy initiatives that failed. I would imagine that they are going to be a little more risk-averse about any other energy initiatives (green, nuclear, or otherwise) that might become fodder for political attacks in the future, especially with the fiscal cliff approaching. The fact that the NRC has not (as you pointed out, and the commenter addressed) issued a license for a nuclear design in 36 years is also quite discouraging; the administration is almost surely going to need to take this information into account before they throw too much money at any other SMR developers. I would commend them for exercising such prudence, too - no matter how promising SMRs might be, I'm not sure that they should play a "large role in any nuclear energy future" until a better regime exists to approve their funding and use.
The United States has unique
The United States has unique expertise that makes it important in any new nuclear energy market. The Navy has a history of using small modular technology to power nuclear ships. The NRC is seen as the “gold standard” for design certification and licensing approval. The NRC has made statements that it is reviewing the possibility of certifying SMRs. B&W and other companies have begun the process of submitting several proposals for NRC certification. The DOE’s funding opportunity is meant to help the viability of SMR through the NRC process.
The case for non-proliferation is that if the U.S. gets to make the decisions in future nuclear energy markets then it can more safely monitor and ensure safeguards in future potential “would be” proliferators. A world in which the U.S. has some say in those negotiations is better than one in which it doesn’t.
Natural gas prices are an important concern when discussing any potential for SMRs to permeate the market. For more on how the economics of SMRs compete in comparison to natural gas the University of Chicago did a study on this I recommend.
Politics does play a role. However, it is promising that Congress has approved, in previous budgets, the SMR program mentioned above and the administration has signaled its support for the new wave of nuclear reactors.
Hope this answers both of your questions!
Add your comment