Small Reactors May Be Nuclear Power’s Future

Advocates of small modular reactors, pictured in this illustration, say they can bring costs down.
National Journal
Clare Foran
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Clare Foran
Sept. 30, 2013, 11:49 p.m.

While coun­tries such as Ja­pan and Ger­many are mov­ing away from nuc­le­ar en­ergy in the wake of the Fukushi­ma re­act­or melt­down in 2011, the United States is tak­ing a dif­fer­ent tack.

“The prom­ise of nuc­le­ar power is clear,” En­ergy Sec­ret­ary Ern­est Mon­iz said in Ju­ly at a Sen­ate En­ergy and Nat­ur­al Re­sources Com­mit­tee hear­ing, adding, “Nuc­le­ar power has an im­port­ant role in Pres­id­ent Obama’s all-of-the-above ap­proach to en­ergy.”

For the White House, part of nuc­le­ar en­ergy’s prom­ise comes in the form of scaled-down fa­cil­it­ies called small mod­u­lar re­act­ors, or SMRs. The av­er­age U.S. nuc­le­ar re­act­or has an op­er­at­ing ca­pa­city of 1,000 mega­watts or more; SMRs, by con­trast, have a gen­er­at­ing ca­pa­city of less than 300 mega­watts. They have yet to be de­ployed on a com­mer­cial scale, but the ad­min­is­tra­tion is bet­ting on this op­tion as a way to di­ver­si­fy the na­tion’s en­ergy port­fo­lio and rein in car­bon emis­sions.

Obama has put the En­ergy De­part­ment at the helm of a $452 mil­lion pub­lic-private part­ner­ship to fin­ance SMR con­struc­tion. In Novem­ber, DOE awar­ded a grant to U.S-based Bab­cock & Wil­cox to cre­ate a 180-mega­watt SMR in co­oper­a­tion with the Ten­ness­ee Val­ley Au­thor­ity and Bechtel. The re­act­or is slated to be up and run­ning by 2022.

Why the push for smal­ler re­act­ors?

First, there’s the eco­nom­ic ar­gu­ment. SMRs would be cheap­er than con­ven­tion­al re­act­ors simply be­cause they’re smal­ler. This means less over­head for util­ity com­pan­ies. The com­pon­ent parts of SMRs would be man­u­fac­tured in factor­ies as mod­ules that could be shipped for on-site as­sembly. Sup­port­ers of the tech­no­logy say this would also bring down costs, al­though not every­one agrees.

“In the early 1970s, power com­pan­ies built large re­act­ors to bring down costs by achiev­ing eco­nom­ies of scale,” said Thomas Co­chran, a con­sult­ant for the Nat­ur­al Re­sources De­fense Coun­cil’s nuc­le­ar pro­gram. “So if we start mak­ing smal­ler re­act­ors, you’d ex­pect costs to rise.”

Pro­ponents of the tech­no­logy fol­low a dif­fer­ent line of reas­on­ing. “Smal­ler re­act­ors could be cost-com­pet­it­ive be­cause, since they’re built in a fact­ory, you can con­struct them more quickly and on a mass scale,” said Doug Wal­ters, vice pres­id­ent of reg­u­lat­ory af­fairs at the Nuc­le­ar En­ergy In­sti­tute, a pro-nuc­le­ar ad­vocacy group. “That would al­low for faster and more ef­fi­cient as­sembly.”

In ad­di­tion, SMRs could be safer than the aging stock of U.S. nuc­le­ar power plants. This is be­cause they’ll fea­ture pass­ive design tech­no­logy, built-in safety sys­tems that rely on auto­mated mech­an­isms with­in the re­act­or and would con­tin­ue to func­tion in the event of an emer­gency or a loss of elec­tri­city.

“Be­cause SMRs are new­er, they prob­ably will be safer than the cur­rent gen­er­a­tion of re­act­ors in the same way that a 2013 Ford is safer than a 1973 Ford,” said Mi­chael Mari­otte, the ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of the non­profit Nuc­le­ar In­form­a­tion and Re­source Ser­vice, an an­ti­nuc­lear or­gan­iz­a­tion. “But there could be oth­er safety con­cerns…. For ex­ample, some com­pan­ies have been talk­ing about cut­ting costs by us­ing just one con­trol room to run five to six re­act­ors,” he said. “When you get to the root cause of nuc­le­ar ac­ci­dents, it’s al­most al­ways due to hu­man er­ror, and if you have few­er people watch­ing the re­act­ors, there’s a great­er chance of prob­lems.”

While SMRs re­main an un­proven tech­no­logy, DOE is con­tinu­ing to look for com­pan­ies to de­vel­op the tech­no­logy and is ex­pec­ted to award ad­di­tion­al match­ing grants in the com­ing months.

Ac­cord­ing to Charles Ebinger, a for­eign policy seni­or fel­low and the dir­ect­or of the En­ergy Se­cur­ity Ini­ti­at­ive at the Brook­ings In­sti­tu­tion, Obama sees this as a way to help ad­vance his second-term cli­mate agenda, giv­en that nuc­le­ar power, over the life of a re­act­or, is a near-zero-emis­sions tech­no­logy.

Peter Ly­ons, the En­ergy De­part­ment’s as­sist­ant sec­ret­ary for nuc­le­ar en­ergy, echoed this sen­ti­ment. “Nuc­le­ar plants of­fer the op­por­tun­ity to de­ploy clean-en­ergy tech­no­logy across the coun­try,” he said. “The pres­id­ent’s plan isn’t a fo­cus on nuc­le­ar, but it is a re­cog­ni­tion that nuc­le­ar is one of the few clean-en­ergy op­tions avail­able oth­er than re­new­ables. It’s cer­tainly a piece of the puzzle.”

If SMRs take off, they could spur U.S. man­u­fac­tur­ing and be shipped abroad, boost­ing ex­ports. Keep­ing a hand in nuc­le­ar power could also be­ne­fit na­tion­al se­cur­ity.

“I think from a glob­al per­spect­ive it’s best for the U.S. to stay a prom­in­ent play­er in the nuc­le­ar in­dustry,” said Dar­ren Gale, vice pres­id­ent and pro­ject dir­ect­or of Gen­er­a­tion mPower, LLC, a com­pany formed between Bab­cock & Wil­cox and Bechtel re­spons­ible for de­vel­op­ing the com­pany’s SMR pro­to­type with fund­ing from DOE. “If we don’t, the U.S. won’t have a voice in con­ver­sa­tions about nuc­le­ar tech­no­logy in the in­ter­na­tion­al arena.”

What We're Following See More »
SOUND LEVEL AFFECTED
Debate Commission Admits Issues with Trump’s Mic
19 minutes ago
THE LATEST

The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.

Source:
TRUMP VS. CHEFS
Trump Deposition Video to Be Released
35 minutes ago
THE LATEST

"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."

Source:
A CANDIDATE TO BE ‘PROUD’ OF
Chicago Tribune Endorses Gary Johnson
3 hours ago
THE LATEST

No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."

FUNERAL FOR ISRAELI LEADER
Obama Compares Peres to ‘Giants of the 20th Century’
4 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Speaking at the funeral of former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, President Obama "compared Peres to 'other giants of the 20th century' such as Nelson Mandela and Queen Elizabeth who 'find no need to posture or traffic in what's popular in the moment.'" Among the 6,000 mourners at the service was Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Obama called Abbas's presence a sign of the "unfinished business of peace" in the region.

Source:
THE QUESTION
How Many New Voters Does the Clinton Campaign Aim to Register?
4 hours ago
THE ANSWER

Three million—a number that lays "bare the significant gap between Donald Trump’s bare-bones operation and the field program that Clinton and her hundreds of aides have been building for some 17 months."

Source:
×