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 »
NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
COMMISSIONERS NEED TO DELIBERATE MORE
FCC Pushes Vote on Set-Top Boxes
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Federal regulators on Thursday delayed a vote on a proposal to reshape the television market by freeing consumers from cable box rentals, putting into doubt a plan that has pitted technology companies against cable television providers. ... The proposal will still be considered for a future vote. But Tom Wheeler, chairman of the F.C.C., said commissioners needed more discussions."

Source:
UNTIL DEC. 9, ANYWAY
Obama Signs Bill to Fund Government
7 hours ago
THE LATEST
REDSKINS IMPLICATIONS
SCOTUS to Hear Case on Offensive Trademarks
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"The Supreme Court is taking up a First Amendment clash over the government’s refusal to register offensive trademarks, a case that could affect the Washington Redskins in their legal fight over the team name. The justices agreed Thursday to hear a dispute involving an Asian-American rock band called the Slants, but they did not act on a separate request to hear the higher-profile Redskins case at the same time." Still, any precedent set by the case could have ramifications for the Washington football team.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Bannon Still Collecting Royalties from ‘Seinfeld’
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The Hollywood Reporter takes a look at a little-known intersection of politics and entertainment, in which Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon is still raking in residuals from Seinfeld. Here's the digest version: When Seinfeld was in its infancy, Ted Turner was in the process of acquiring its production company, Castle Rock, but he was under-capitalized. Bannon's fledgling media company put up the remaining funds, and he agreed to "participation rights" instead of a fee. "Seinfeld has reaped more than $3 billion in its post-network afterlife through syndication deals." Meanwhile, Bannon is "still cashing checks from Seinfeld, and observers say he has made nearly 25 times more off the Castle Rock deal than he had anticipated."

Source:
×