nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Business complications for SMR companies X-energy and NuScale – 6 November last day of trading in public shares

NEI Magazine, 3 November 2023

US-based X-Energy Reactor Company and publicly-traded special purpose acquisition company Ares Acquisition Corporation (AAC), have mutually agreed to terminate their previously announced business combination agreement with immediate effect. …….  X-energy and AAC agreed not to proceed with the transaction citing “challenging market conditions, peer-company trading performance and a balancing of the benefits and drawbacks”.

……………………………………….Neither party is required to pay the other a termination fee as a result of the mutual decision to terminate the agreement. AAC determined that it will not be able to consummate an initial business combination within the time period required by its amended and restated memorandum and articles of association and intends to dissolve and liquidate. AAC anticipates that the last day of trading in the public shares will be 6 November…………………….

 NuScale is also facing difficulties after a lengthy report by Iceberg Research entitled “Nuscale Power ($SMR): A fake customer and a major contract in peril cast doubt on NuScale’s viability”. Iceberg alleged that NuScale had sold 24 reactors to a “fake customer”. This referenced a deal NuScale announced in October to supply Standard Power with 1,848 MWe of power provided by 24 SMRs to power two US data centre sites. Iceberg predicts Standard Power will be unable to support the contract. 

……………………………….. The Standard Power deal is bigger than NuScale’s other contract, with the government-backed Carbon Free Power Project (CFPP) to provide Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) with 462 MWe. Iceberg said NuScale has “around 15 months before its cash runs out” and that the UAMPS contract is reaching a crucial stage. Overall shares in NuScale have fallen around 75% since their peak in late 2022, from around $14 to around $3.5……………………………………………………………………………… https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsbusiness-complications-for-smr-companies-x-energy-and-nuscale-11268599. #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclearfree #NoNukes #smr

November 6, 2023 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

Bad guys and bombs: The nuclear risks of small modular reactors

National Observer, By John Woodside  November 3rd 2023

Nuclear proliferation experts are warning that 50 years of policy designed to limit the spread of nuclear weapons is unravelling as governments invest in certain small modular reactors that could be misused to build bombs.

The concerns are aimed at Moltex, a Saint John, N.B., nuclear startup building small modular reactors (SMRs) that will be powered with spent fuel from CANDU reactors. To make the fuel, Moltex plans to separate plutonium from uranium in CANDU waste and use the extracted plutonium to power new SMRs.

It is this separation process that led a dozen nuclear scientists to write to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in September, warning him that Moltex is a nuclear weapon proliferation risk and calling for a formal risk assessment of emerging nuclear technologies.

Edwin Lyman, Union of Concerned Scientists nuclear power safety director, was one of the signatories of the letter. Lyman — who has testified multiple times before the U.S. Congress and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the topics of nuclear power safety, security and proliferation — said that by separating and concentrating plutonium, Moltex is completing one of the most difficult steps on the path to making a bomb.

“The very process of extracting plutonium from the spent nuclear fuel and concentrating it is itself a very serious proliferation and security threat because you’re simply doing the work of the bad guys for them by concentrating and extracting plutonium,” he said.

Extracting plutonium from nuclear waste, converting it into a fuel and then transporting the fuel to a reactor increase the nuclear weapon proliferation threat “immensely,” Lyman said. The alternative is leaving the plutonium in the waste, where it is more difficult to extract, he said.

Currently, nuclear waste created by existing reactors is stored in facilities designed for interim storage. But because the waste stays radioactive for thousands of years, long-term storage solutions are a pressing concern. Canada is exploring plans to deal with the waste by burying it deep underground. Moltex, which has received at least $50.5 million worth of federal government subsidies, $10 million from New Brunswick, and $1 million from Ontario Power Generation (and is eyeing roughly $200 million more), said its SMRs, which will use plutonium extracted from the waste and use it as new energy to power a reactor, is another viable solution because the waste becomes less radioactive in the process.

Both recycling and burying spent nuclear fuel come with risks. Burying the waste deep underground could hypothetically mean the site could be exploited as a plutonium mine for future nuclear weapon production while reprocessing it could open the door for clandestine repurposing.

The reactor technology is still being developed, but in the view of nuclear weapon proliferation experts interviewed by Canada’s National Observer, the Moltex design is similar enough to previously studied nuclear technologies that are called “proliferation-prone” rather than “proliferation-resistant.” For that reason, the company should be stopped in its tracks, they say…………………………………………….

Kuperman said it’s “misleading” to say the proliferation risk is only for a short period of time because Moltex not only would need to reprocess spent fuel at the start of its process to obtain the plutonium it needs but would also reprocess the fuel over the life of the reactor to “remove undesired products of reactor operation.” In other words, the proliferation risks last the life of each reactor, which is estimated at 60 years.

He said safeguards are also difficult, if not impossible, to implement when the risk is that plutonium could be diverted from the reactor to make bombs because discovering misuse after the fact is too late. A 2009 study from six U.S. national laboratories analyzing various types of nuclear-reprocessing technologies, some of which Kuperman described as similar to Moltex’s design, emphasized this risk.

“While an attempt by the state to separate pure plutonium in facilities using these technologies might be readily detected, once the state has withdrawn or broken out from its non-proliferation obligations, estimates of the time to convert the facility to separate pure plutonium ranges from a few days to a few weeks,” the study found.

That 2009 study is “objective and authoritative,” Kuperman said. “By contrast, the Moltex CEO is a businessman trying to make money by downplaying the nuclear weapons proliferation risks of his technology.”

In Kuperman’s view, the big picture is that there is a documented history of nuclear energy with peaceful purposes in mind having been misused to create bombs — and there is no reason to risk it again………………………………. more https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/11/03/news/bad-guys-bombs-nuclear-risks-small-modular-reactors #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclearfree #NoNukes

November 4, 2023 Posted by | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Lawyers circle nuclear startup NuScale over claims a 24-reactor deal will fail

Short seller brands blockchain firm Standard Power a “fake customer”

October 27, 2023 By Peter Judge  https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/lawyers-circle-nuclear-startup-nuscale-over-claims-a-24-reactor-deal-will-fail/

Nuclear power startup NuScale is facing investigation by lawyers after a short-seller’s report alleged that it has sold 24 reactors to a “fake customer.”

NuScale announced a deal earlier this month to supply blockchain firm Standard Power with 1,848MW of power provided by 24 of NuScale’s small modular reactors (SMRs), to power two US data center sites.

Last week its share price dropped around 10 percent after a scathing report from short seller Iceberg Research claimed that the deal, estimated at $37 billion, had “zero chance of being executed.” The shares bounced back around six percent earlier this week, when NuScale responded, saying the Iceberg claims were “riddled with speculative statements with no basis in fact.”

NuScale has contracted to provide Standard Power with 1,848MW of power, but Iceberg predicts Standard Power will be unable to support the contract. Among other things, Iceberg points out that Standard Power’s CEO Maxim Serezhin has an outstanding $54k tax warrant in New York, rendering his assets vulnerable to seizure, adding that a former Standard Power leader, Adam Swickle, was found guilty of securities fraud in 2003.

The Standard Power deal is massively bigger than NuScale’s only other contract, with the government-backed Carbon Free Power Project (“CFPP”) to provide Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (“UAMPS”) with 462MW, and is also bigger than Standard Power’s other major deal, a 200MW contract for nuclear power at Shippingport Pennsylvania.

Iceberg says NuScale has “around 15 months before its cash runs out,” and says the UAMPS contract is reaching a crucial stage, claiming: “NuScale has been given till around January 2024 to raise project commitments to 80 percent or 370 MWe.”

Iceberg also cast doubt on NuScale’s commercial partner Entra1, saying it was set up in 2021 to finance NuScale reactors, has only one employee, and was “very unlikely to be able to finance even a portion of this contract.”

NuScale said it “will not engage in a point-by-point rebuttal of every falsehood,” but issued statements on several points, saying that NuScale has a “solid balance sheet,” and that US Department of Energy (DOE) support for the CFPP “has advanced our SMR technology to the point of commercialization.”

DOE support has been a key factor in NuScale’s development, helping it bring nuclear power down to a commercial price point, however, the price of nuclear electricity from its projected plans has been creeping up, from an initial estimate of $55 per MWh to around $90 per MWh, making it less competitive.

NuScale said it “will not engage in a point-by-point rebuttal of every falsehood,” but issued statements on several points, saying that NuScale has a “solid balance sheet,” and that US Department of Energy (DOE) support for the CFPP “has advanced our SMR technology to the point of commercialization.”

Iceberg suggests that it may not be able to fully deliver without further support from the US government, which it says will “dilute” shareholder value. NuScale went public with a SPAC in May 2022.

Lawyers investigated NuScale on behalf of investors over “possible violations of federal securities laws,” include Howard G. Smith, which issued a press release this week, and Rosen Law Firm, which is planning a class action lawsuit. These releases are classed as “attorney advertising.”

Overall shares in NuScale have fallen around 75 percent since their peak in late 2022, from around $14 to around $3.5.

October 29, 2023 Posted by | legal, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

NUSCALE POWER ($SMR): A FAKE CUSTOMER AND A MAJOR CONTRACT IN PERIL CAST DOUBT ON NUSCALE’S VIABILITY

As of now, there are only two operational SMR plants in the world — located in Russia and China — and both have experienced cost blowouts and delays. NuScale claims approximately 680 issued and pending global patents. But the company does not have an operational SMR and the only revenue it generates comes from the reimbursement of specific R&D activities.

Considering Fluor’s plan to divest its NuScale stake and the apparent lack of substantial activity at Entra1, one could speculate that Standard Power and Entra1 were brought in primarily to pump NuScale’s stock, just like many other SPACs. 

October 19, 2023 · by Iceberg Research

Main Findings

  • NuScale, a developer of small modular nuclear reactors (SMR), recently disclosed a huge contract with blockchain datacenter service provider Standard Power. The deal aims for a projected capacity of 1,848 MWe that we estimate is worth ~$37bn. This contract has zero chance of being executed as Standard Power clearly does not have the means to support contracts of this size. Its managing director Adam Swickle was found guilty of securities fraud in the past. Entra1 — NuScale’s commercial partner — is expected to help with the funding. The company was created in 2021 and it is very unlikely to be able to finance even a portion of this contract.
  • NuScale has a more credible contract with the Carbon Free Power Project (“CFPP”) for the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (“UAMPS”). CFPP participants have been supportive of the project despite contracted energy prices that never seem to stop rising, from $55/MWh in 2016, to $89/MWh at the start of this year. What many have missed is that NuScale has been given till around January 2024 to raise project commitments to 80% or 370 MWe, from the existing 26% or 120 MWe, or risk termination. Crucially, when the participants agreed to this timeline, they were assured refunds for project costs if it were terminated, which creates an incentive for them to drop out. We are three months to the deadline and subscriptions have not moved an inch.   
  • NuScale has around 15 months before its cash runs out. We fully expect further shareholder dilution, as completion of the CFPP remains an iffy prospect with its constant cost overruns. On 13 October 2023, former CFO Chris Colbert sold the last of his NuScale stake.  
  • We believe these commercial and financial struggles present hurdles NuScale won’t cross without continued support from the Department of Energy (“DOE”). This presents a double-edged sword. Even if that support continues, the DOE’s usual policy is that costs have to be shared with the private sector, meaning that existing shareholders will be diluted. 

Presentation of NuScale

NuScale Power Corporation, based in Portland, Oregon, has been developing small modular nuclear reactors (“SMRs”) since 2007. In May 2022, the company went public through a merger with SPAC Spring Valley Acquisition Corp. NuScale’s market cap stands at ~$1.2bn. This valuation combines both Class A and Class B shares, which can’t be traded unless converted to Class A. Fluor Enterprises Inc, NuScale’s parent company, holds 126 million Class B shares that represent 55.8% of NuScale’s voting power.

SMRs have power capacities of up to 300 MWe per unit while conventional nuclear reactors generate around 1,000 MWe. For example, NuScale’s design is 77 MWe. These SMRs come with lower upfront costs because of their smaller size. But this benefit is offset by lower economies of scale compared to conventional reactors. 

Over the last 16 years, NuScale has spent ~$1.6bn to develop its SMR tech, funded by a mix of SPAC money, government grants, and private investments. The Department of Energy (“DOE”) has contributed over $650m of grants to NuScale’s endeavors.

The company is going toe-to-toe with industry goliaths like Westinghouse, Rolls-Royce, EDF, etc. But it managed to snag the first-ever Standard Design Approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2020 – a 12-module plant at 50 MWe each. However, in August 2023, the company decided to switch the blueprint – a six-plant design featuring an uprated 77 MWe. NuScale is now waiting for the new design’s approval, which would take ~24 months according to the company.

As of now, there are only two operational SMR plants in the world — located in Russia and China — and both have experienced cost blowouts and delays. NuScale claims approximately 680 issued and pending global patents. But the company does not have an operational SMR and the only revenue it generates comes from the reimbursement of specific R&D activities.

As for customers, NuScale has two significant contracts. The first is a 462 MWe agreement with the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (“UAMPS”), a consortium that supplies wholesale electricity to around 50 municipalities, priced at $9.3bn. The second is a 1,848 MWe deal that was recently signed with blockchain datacenter service provider Standard Power, with an estimated value of ~$37bn.

New client Standard Power: Crypto mixed with nuclear energy – What could possibly go wrong?

On 6 October 2023, NuScale’s stock popped over 20%, after the company announced its largest-ever contract, to deliver 24 units of 77 MWe modules in 2029. As part of this agreement, NuScale’s commercial partner Entra1 would develop, manage, own, and operate these SMRs, while blockchain datacenter service provider Standard Power would be the end-user.

The deal’s total projected output is 1,848 MWe, four times the size of NuScale’s existing agreement with its other major client UAMPS, and translates to a staggering $37bn financial commitment. Considering there are only two operational SMR plants globally, one in China and the other in Russia, this agreement not only marks a significant achievement for NuScale but also holds the distinction of being the largest SMR contract ever.

Unsurprisingly, the sell-side cheerleaders have applauded this deal…………………………….

Both Standard Power and Entra1 present obvious credit and performance risks.

1) Standard Power

Standard Power was formed in 2018 to provide data centre services for blockchain mining and high performance computing applications. 

According to its LinkedIn page, the company operates with just 30 employees.

Searching the internet suggests that Standard Power’s most significant partnership to date was with Cipher Mining. In 2021, the company signed a hosting agreement with Cipher ‘to provide a total mining capacity of at least 200 MW’. This deal ultimately fell apart as the contract was terminated in February this year (see below on original).

In addition, Standard Power’s management team raises some serious red flags, especially when it comes to their managing director, Adam Swickle. 

Swickle has a track record that screams “investor beware”. He cut his teeth at notorious Wall Street firms like Stratton Oakmont and Meyers Pollock & Robbins — both infamous for pump-and-dump schemes and ultimately shuttered due to regulatory crackdowns.

In 2003, the SEC went after Swickle for setting up a fake foreign exchange trading house and making off with investors’ cash. As the CEO of United Currency Group, from May 2001 to December 2002, he conducted a fraudulent offering of securities based on misleading info. This included the company’s plans for an IPO, Swickle’s own background, and how corporate funds would be used. …………………………………………………………………………..

Taking these factors into consideration, it appears that Standard Power does not have the balance sheet to support this contract, both in the present and in the future.

2) ENTRA1

NuScale portrays Entra1 as having a “strong global pipeline of energy production projects” and a ““one-stop-shop” for the financing, investment, development, execution, and management of NuScale-powered projects and opportunities”, suggesting that Entra1 will finance the Standard Power contract. 

Entra1 was incorporated in Delaware in December 2021. But the firm has only one employee referenced on LinkedIn, its online presence is almost non-existent, its Twitter account is essentially a NuScale bulletin board, and its only announced deal is unsurprisingly, with NuScale.

At a recent Analyst/Investor Day event, it was disclosed that Wadie Habboush, the founder of Entra1, has a longstanding personal relationship with NuScale’s CEO, John Hopkins. Around 10 years ago, Habboush formed a joint venture with Fluor — NuScale’s controlling shareholder — for projects in the Middle East e.g., Iraq. We can’t see how experience working on Middle Eastern projects would be directly transferable to managing a $37bn mega-SMR project in the US.

Fluor, NuScale’s controlling shareholder, has been open about its intention to reduce its stake (55.8%) in the company. Its long-term plan is to own only 20%-25% of NuScale as per EVP Joseph Brennan on Fluor’s 3Q22 call. He further elaborated in 4Q22 that Fluor had “kicked off the strategic exercise” and the company would be in a better position to discuss that at the end of 1Q23. There were no updates on Fluor’s 2Q23 call.

Considering Fluor’s plan to divest its NuScale stake and the apparent lack of substantial activity at Entra1, one could speculate that Standard Power and Entra1 were brought in primarily to pump NuScale’s stock, just like many other SPACs. 

We believe that the contract with Standard Power has zero chance of being executed. Announcing a deal with such counterparties damages the credibility of a company in an industry where public trust is paramount. We doubt established players like Westinghouse would deal with a questionable client like Standard Power. 

The situation at the Carbon Free Power Project is much worse than what NuScale lets on

Unlike Standard Power, the Carbon Free Power Project (“CFPP”) started off as a sound counterparty.  The project was launched in 2015 by the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), as part of its long-term strategy to reduce carbon emissions and replace outdated coal-fired plants. If completed, the Idaho Falls plant will begin generating power in 2029, and will deploy six, 77-MWe modules to generate 462 MW of electricity by 2030. Its development and construction is funded under a cost-share agreement between the DOE and UAMPS.

Originally, between 2016 and 2020, NuScale priced the power at $55/MWh. Then, the price was raised to $58/MWh when the project was downsized from 12 reactor modules to just six (924 MWe to 462 MWe). By December 2019, 35 UAMPS members had signed on for 200 MW of power. But escalating costs have caused these numbers to shrink. As of March this year, there were 26 participants, and subscriptions dropped to ~120 MW (see appendix for table), representing 26% of the project’s total capacity.

The shocker came in January this year when new cost estimates pushed that figure up by 53%, setting it at $89/MWh. NuScale attributed the significant increase to a 75% rise in estimated construction costs, from $5.3bn to $9.3bn, caused by factors such as commodity price inflation and higher interest rates. The actual cost would be much higher, if not for more than $4bn in subsidies the project expects to get from US taxpayers, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.


The good news for NuScale is that the participants extended their commitment and accepted the revised cost. On NuScale’s 1Q23 earnings call, CEO Hopkins stated, “Right now, we feel very comfortable with that $89 megawatt hour.” 

What was generally overlooked in the press is that the agreement includes conditions that essentially kick the can down the road, and endanger the project. The extension (Pg 4) states that NuScale must raise subscription levels from its current 120 MWe (26% of total capacity) to 370 MWe (80% of total capacity), on the earlier of the combined license application (“COLA”) submission, or 1 February 2024. ……………………………………………..

UAMPS member Idaho Falls laid out the stakes at its council meeting (Pg 4) in February. If NuScale fails to meet the subscription target, and costs continue to go up, so does the risk of project termination………………………………….

Key to the extension is this condition: participants will be refunded their costs if the 80% threshold is not reached. Now, with this new clause, they have a strong financial incentive to withdraw if NuScale fails to meet the subscription target. 

NuScale has around three months to the deadline but is nowhere near the 80%. In August 2023, the company told news outlet Power that “no changes have occurred since March”. At a September meeting of the Washington City power board, when asked about subscription progress, director Rick Hansen said (1:01:10-1:04:00) that “Not anybody that’s able to or willing to sign at this point.” He added. “We have lots of cheerleaders but not a lot of people that want to jump in the game at this point.” Interested parties want additional mechanisms to de-risk it, according to him. This suggests no one has signed on since March. 

The contract that has lent NuScale credibility is hitting a wall. The company seems to echo this sentiment, based on recent language in its 10-Q, which now adds: “While it is reasonably possible we will be required to pay these amounts, no accrual has been recorded in our financial statements.”…………………

Specifically, NuScale had a capped financial obligation’ of $83.5m to UAMPS. As of the end of June, this looming liability was around $37m.

Even if the project continues, NuScale’s $89/MWh commitment adds further financial risk. The nuclear reactor industry has a notorious history of cost overruns and delays during the construction stage. NuScale has not built a SMR yet so there’s no reason to believe the company will defy industry norms. For equity holders, this is uncomfortable, as they will bear the brunt of these performance shortfalls and costs.

NuScale’s heavy cash burn will lead to shareholder dilution

NuScale’s financial position appears increasingly shaky under the uncertainty hanging over the CFPP. The company has around 15 months of cash, based on its end-June cash balance of ~$215m, and LTM operating cash flow of negative $167m. That runway could stretch to ~26 months if the company maxes out its $150m at-the-market equity line, announced on 9 August 2023. But this does not account for potential CFPP cost repayments………………

We fully expect further shareholder dilution. Completion of the CFPP remains an iffy prospect, and given NuScale’s track record with cost overruns, that seems almost inevitable.

Against this backdrop, we noted that former CFO Chris Colbert has been selling his shares since May 2023, fully unloading his stake on 13 October 2023 – reaping total gross proceeds of ~$1.7m over this period. This could be a leading indicator of NuScale’s unspoken issues. …………

Conclusion

NuScale’s delusional contract with Standard Power seems more like an act of desperation to shore up investor confidence, rather than a strategic move. The company is struggling and we believe its equity has little to no value without government support. Even if that support continues, the DOE’s usual policy is that costs have to be shared with the private sector, meaning that existing shareholders will be diluted. 

Importantly, the DOE holds a non-exclusive worldwide license to NuScale’s intellectual property, according to financing agreements. This creates the possibility that the DOE could simply transfer this intellectual property to a more established player, if NuScale is unable to meet performance obligations. ……………………..

We are short NuScale……………………………

Appendix………….. https://iceberg-research.com/2023/10/19/nuscale-power-smr-a-fake-customer-and-a-major-contract-in-peril-cast-doubt-on-nuscales-viability/ #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclearfree #NoNukes

October 23, 2023 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

Why are Small Modular Nuclear Reactors a Dog’s Breakfast of Designs?

SMRs Information Task Force, 18 Oct 23  https://preview.mailerlite.com/i0i8d4u0o3/2327788063679321961/y8d5/

As of 2023 roughly 50 small modular reactor (SMR) designs are under development, with electrical generating capacity varying between 5 and 300 megawatts.

Compared to the current generation of larger nuclear reactors, SMRs would require smaller capital investments and provide options for deployment at remote locations with smaller power demands. But as reactor size goes down, unit cost goes up, as does the amount of radioactive waste per unit of electricity generated. 

Different technology options attempt to address the concerns that plague the nuclear industry: safety, cost, radioactive waste, and weapons proliferation. However, designing for “passive safety”, opting for “waste recycling”, or providing “proliferation resistance” all involve trade-offs. With no clear “best” design, and no sizeable market, there is no justification for building a factory to mass-produce “modular” components to bring down costs.

SMR promoters have steered the debate away from these issues, arguing that all options for addressing climate change must be on the table. More SMR designs mean more opportunities to secure public subsidies.

The Government of Canada appears to have accepted the “all options” argument, and by funding multiple SMR designs is contributing to the illusion of profitability. Canada’s nuclear regulator, despite its limited capacity for technical assessment of SMR designs, has opted to boost them through largely inconsequential “vendor design reviews.”

More than 80 years have passed since the first controlled, self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction. All proposed SMRs are essentially variations on older reactor designs that were tested decades ago and eventually abandoned.

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report concludes that SMRs “will likely face major economic challenges and not be competitive on the electricity market.” #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclearfree #NoNukes

October 19, 2023 Posted by | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | 1 Comment

Small modular nuclear reactors: Unlikely, unaffordable, dirty and dangerous

So local jobs may only amount to security, cutting the grass, and periodic reactor maintenance with possible radiation exposure.

The Appalachia Peace Education Center in Abingdon considers the small reactors a bad idea. Here’s why.

by Rees Shearer, October 16, 2023 https://cardinalnews.org/2023/10/16/small-modular-nuclear-reactors-unlikely-unaffordable-dirty-and-dangerous/

A year ago, Gov. Glenn Youngkin came to Bristol to announce proposals from his new Virginia Energy Plan. He declared, “A growing Virginia must have reliable, affordable and clean energy for Virginia’s families and businesses.”

As a requisite to achieving those goals, the Governor proposed four small modular nuclear reactors for the Southwest Virginia Coalfields. But SM[n]Rs fail to meet the governor’s three laudable goals.

SM[n]Rs cannot be reliably licensed and constructed for a decade or more. No commercial SM[n]R has been successfully licensed. There are competing designs and even the Governor said the project would take 10 years. Nuclear power has a notorious history of construction and licensing delays. That means no new nuclear energy generation for at least a decade. There can be no reliable generation when the plant is not up and running. Solar energy and energy storage on restored mine lands can be brought online in a fraction of that time.

SM[n]Rs are unaffordable. At utility scale, the electricity energy standard, Lazards Levelized Cost of Energy, rates nuclear as the most expensive means to generate electric power. It’s not clear whether nuclear waste management, insurance, and decommissioning are included among the costs. The Nu-Scale reactor, under construction in Idaho, is the only SM[n]R even close to licensing. Between 2016 and 2023,  NuScale’s estimated power cost increased 60%. That’s in addition to $4 billion in subsidies from U.S. taxpayers. The latest nuclear project to come online (seven years late), Georgia Power’s Vogtle Units 3 and 4, exceeded cost projections by 120%. It’s unclear how much of the cost overruns customers will be forced to shell out. Nuclear power construction history shows an unfailing correlation between new designs and cost increases and project delays. Youngkin is opting for new technology designs. SM[n]Rs will not be affordable and Apco and Dominion Energy try to make sure customers bear the costs, even if the SM[n]R project is canceled before generating one Watt. The LCOE shows solar and on-shore wind, even adding battery storage, are the lowest cost sources of new power generation. 

SM[n]Rs are dirty and dangerous. SM[n]Rs produce plutonium 239, the most lethal element in high-level nuclear waste. A Stanford University study concluded that “small modular reactors may produce a disproportionately larger amount of nuclear waste than bigger nuclear plants.” That element is deadly for a quarter million years, a horrifying legacy. There is no permanent storage solution. Just to maintain this waste is already costing taxpayers and utility customers tens of billions of dollars. Additionally, plutonium 239 is the key element in proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear terrorism. There is risk of radiation leaks or a catastrophic accident. This becomes all the more concerning, given the proximity of sites already evaluated as potential SM[n]R locations to Southwest Virginia schools, neighborhoods, and downtowns. The governor proposes reprocessing the waste, which adds transportation and terrorism risks.

But what about jobs, you may ask? Modular design means that the reactors would be manufactured in one central location. Modules would be transported by truck to reactor sites. Then a specialized crew, moving from site to site, would assemble the reactor. At most, ground preparation will be the work for local contractors. What about high skill nuclear technology jobs the Governor is touting?  A spokesperson at NuScale Power, eagerly anticipated, “NuScale developed the information needed to obtain NRC approval that allows up to 12 NuScale Power Modules to be operated remotely from a single control room.” So local jobs may only amount to security, cutting the grass, and periodic reactor maintenance with possible radiation exposure.

The Clinch Coalition is a leading regional voice for transparency and opposition to  SM[n]Rs. The Coalition developed satellite videos (available at their website), demonstrating the risky proximity of homes, a school and businesses of three of seven SM[n]R sites proposed in a study by LENOWISCO Planning District Commission.

Gov. Youngkin could have proposed solar farms on restored mine lands. When combined with current technology battery storage, solar generates reliable, affordable and clean power — 24/7, installed and maintained by a local workforce — today. Just what the governor said he wanted.

Rees Shearer is a 40-year member of the Appalachian Peace Education Center in Abingdon. He writes this on the center’s behalf in response to the Sept. 9 opinion piece: “Virginia’s clean energy revolution begins in Southwest.” #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclearfree #NoNukes

October 18, 2023 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

New Brunswick small nuclear tech could be used for nuclear war: physicist.

John Chilibeck, Local Journalism Initiative reporter|, Brunswick News, 11 Oct 23

A physicist from British Columbia is warning that New Brunswick is heading down a dangerous path, increasing the likelihood of a nuclear war by supporting the development of small reactors for export.

M. V. Ramana, a professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security at the University of British Columbia, says the two companies that are trying to develop small modular reactors at Point Lepreau near Saint John – Moltex and ARC – use technology that could one day be used to make nuclear weapons.

If those reactors fell in the wrong hands, he says, humankind could be put at risk.

“All reactors use plutonium and many of them use enriched uranium. Both of these processes can also be used to produce weapons material,” the academic said from the Vancouver airport on Wednesday, a day ahead of his lecture at St. Thomas University in Fredericton at 7 p.m. at the Kinsella Auditorium, McCain Hall. “The other issue is personnel. People working with reactors can learn to make nuclear weapons. And lastly, in many countries, it’s the same institutions that are involved in developing nuclear energy as developing nuclear weapons.”

Ramana cited the country of his birth, India, which ostensibly developed reactors for peaceful purposes through its Department of Nuclear Energy but after a couple of decades started making weapons out of the material to counter the influence of Pakistan, which it has fought four wars against since independence in 1947.

He also mentioned Iran, which first acquired the technology for nuclear energy in the 1970s when the Shah was in power and the country was friendly to the West. Following the revolution of 1979, religious extremists took over who now sponsor terrorist attacks around the world – such as the Hamas raid last weekend that left 1,000 Israeli citizens and soldiers dead – and also want to develop their own nuclear arsenal.

New Brunswick, he said, could unwittingly undo years of international efforts to stop nuclear proliferation once the ARC and Moltex technologies are ready, expected sometime around 2030 or a few years after.

Despite a long history of producing nuclear energy, Canada has never made nuclear weapons. Ramana said that could change if the wrong politicians came to power.

“Look at what happened on January 6, 2021 at the Capitol Building,” he said of the attempted insurrection in the United States. “I don’t think anyone thought that would ever happen. And we don’t know who will be in power in Canada in 30 years.”

Moltex and ARC have made no secret of their desire to create prototype reactors in New Brunswick that could one day be made and sold to other places, both within Canada and to other countries. It’s part of their business model.

Rory O’Sullivan, the CEO of Moltex, recently wrote a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau rebutting the criticisms of a group of anti-nuclear non-proliferation academics from the United States.

Ottawa has already provided Moltex $50 million to develop its technology, and New Brunswick $5 million. It will likely need more public investment to keep developing its technology…………………………..

“Imagine one day they export reactors to South Korea, or Saudi Arabia, or Nigeria, whatever country you want to think about it. When they send the reactors abroad, they’ll have to send the fuel for those reactors, and they have a very large amount of plutonium. A country could get the reactor and the plutonium and say, ‘we’re going to use the plutonium to make nuclear weapons,’ there’s very little we can do to sanction that country.”– said Ramana #nuclear #antinuclear #NuclearFree #NoNukes #NuclearPlants

October 12, 2023 Posted by | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

UK small #nuclear competition: Rolls Royce in, Bill Gates snubbed

CITY,AM NICHOLAS EARL 3 Oct 23  #antinuclear #nuclear-free #NoNukes

Bill Gates’ nuclear reactor design company Terrapower has not been shortlisted for the next round of the government’s competition for scaled-down power plants.

Industry vehicle GB Nuclear has selected six companies to advance to the latest stage, including rumoured front-runner Rolls-Royce which has already secured over £200m in government funding.

The remaining contenders also include EDF, GE-Hitachi, Holtec Britain, Nuscale and Westinghouse Electric.

These companies will be invited to bid for government contracts later this year, with successful companies announced next spring and contracts awarded in the summer.

Gates, the world’s fifth richest man and the co-creator of Microsoft, founded Terrapower in 2006.

He is currently the company’s chairman and is still their biggest investor, leading a £588.3m funding round last year.

The company has been pitching bespoke ‘Natrium’ reactors powered by high-assay low-enriched uranium and announced its intentions earlier this year to enter the UK race for projects.

However, Whitehall officials have reportedly been concerned over insufficient supplies to import at scale to meet demand for Terrapower reactors, as most of the uranium it needs is produced in Russia – which is under sanctions following the country’s invasion of Ukraine.

City A.M. understands GB Nuclear wanted to prioritise the most ready-made technologies which could guarantee a final investment decision by the end of the decade.

Instead, Terrapower could feature in an upcoming consultation on advanced technology.

Small modular reactors are a cornerstone of the government’s plan to revive domestic nuclear energy and replace the country’s ageing fleet – with 85 per cent of the country’s current capacity set to go offline over the next 12 years.

……………………..Downing Street is targeting operational SMRs in the UK by the mid-2030s, with a £20bn cap being placed on the competitive process.

………………Downing Street is targeting operational SMRs in the UK by the mid-2030s, with a £20bn cap being placed on the competitive process.  https://www.cityam.com/uk-small-nuclear-competition-rolls-royce-in-bill-gates-snubbed/

October 4, 2023 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Aukus: UK defence giant BAE Systems wins Australian £3.95bn nuclear submarine contract

BBC News By Peter Hoskins, Business reporter 2 October Britain’s biggest defence firm, BAE Systems has won a £3.95bn ($4.82bn) contract to build a new generation of submarines as the security pact between the US, UK and Australia moves ahead.

In March, the three countries announced details of the so-called Aukus pact to provide Australia with nuclear-powered attack submarines by the late 2030s.

The pact aims to counter China’s ambitions in the Indo-Pacific region.

Beijing has strongly criticised the three countries over the deal.

……………………..”This multi-billion-pound investment in the Aukus submarine programme will help deliver the long-term hunter-killer submarine capabilities the UK needs to maintain our strategic advantage and secure our leading place in a contested global order,” UK Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said as the Conservative party conference got under way in Manchester.

………………….Other major UK defence contractors are also getting a boost from the Aukus deal.

In March, it was confirmed that Rolls-Royce Submarines would provide all the nuclear reactor plants that will power the SSN-Aukus vessels.

In June, Rolls-Royce said it would almost double the size of its Raynesway facility in Derby as a result of the deal. On Sunday, Babcock International, which maintains and supports the UK’s submarines, said it had signed a five-year deal with the Ministry of Defence to work on the SSN-Aukus design.

The Aukus security alliance – which was first announced in September 2021 – has repeatedly drawn criticism from China.

However, the three Western countries say the deal is aimed at shoring up stability in the Indo-Pacific more https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66979798

October 4, 2023 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

New Brunswick Indigenous communities and Canadians need facts about Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, not sales hype.

Until the government shares facts instead of sales pitches for small modular nuclear reactors, Indigenous nations must assume that representation is not connected to people, but to industry.

BY HUGH AKAGI AND SUSAN O’DONNELL | September 28, 2023

FREDERICTON, N.B.—Governments and other nuclear proponents are failing both Indigenous and settler communities by promoting sales and publicity material about small modular nuclear reactors (SMNRs) instead of sharing facts by independent researchers not tied to the industry.

For decades, nuclear proponents, including both the federal and New Brunswick governments, have focused on the ‘dream of plentiful power’ without highlighting the risks. The nuclear fuel chain—mining uranium, chemically processing the ore, fabricating the fuel, fissioning uranium in a reactor creating toxic radioactive waste remaining hazardous for tens of thousands of years—leaves a legacy of injustices disproportionately felt by Indigenous Peoples and all our relations.

Now the same is happening with the push for SMNRs. We are promised safer reactors by nuclear startup companies in New Brunswick using modifications of reactor designs—molten salt, sodium cooled—that have never operated successfully and safely on a grid anywhere despite billions of dollars of public funds spent in other countries.

Only one example of the misguided SMNR sales pitches for Indigenous and settler communities in New Brunswick is that used CANDU reactor fuel can be “recycled” to make new fuel. The technical name for this process is “reprocessing.” Calling it “recycling” is a buzzword meant to reassure people because the truth is impossible to accept. Less than one per cent of the used fuel at Point Lepreau is plutonium and other elements that could possibly be extracted and re-used for new fuel. The more than 99 per cent left over will be a toxic mess of new kinds of nuclear waste that nobody knows how to safely contain.

The reprocessing method planned for New Brunswick is based on a technology developed by the Idaho National Laboratory, which has spent hundreds of millions of dollars so far, over two decades, attempting to reprocess a small amount of used fuel.

In different countries, commercial reprocessing has been an environmental and financial disaster. In just one example, a small commercial reprocessing plant in the United States operated for six years—heavily subsidized by the federal government and New York state—before shutting down for safety improvements. After the owner abandoned the project in the 1970s, the multi-billion-dollar cleanup continues today.

The research on reprocessing used fuel is clear: it’s an expensive nuclear experiment that could leave a multi-million-dollar mess affecting entire ecosystems and the health of people and other living beings. Why are governments sharing sales and promotional material about the project, and fantasies about ‘recycling’ instead of facts about reprocessing and the experiences in other countries? Why are New Brunswickers and First Nation leaders not demanding the evidence?

The lack of transparency by governments on the risks of SMNRs indicates that either they are not concerned with the risks, or they choose not to share them—the opposite of what is required under the United Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Much of society’s standards for integrity have been lost. We accept circular references, we accept that no one is declaring a conflict of interest in conversations surrounding nuclear. When our integrity is lost, so is our quality of life. Words such as “protect” and “conservation” have no meaning anymore. Though we use the terms “transparency” and “accountability” more and more often, they have less and less meaning.

The Peskotomuhkati Nation in Canada and Wolastoq Grand Council cannot provide consent for any new nuclear developments in New Brunswick without considering the lessons they have learned in the past, the current relationships and communications they are experiencing, and the impacts of toxic wastes that remain dangerous forever. First Nations in New Brunswick cannot provide consent for toxic radioactive waste to be sent to Ontario, where Indigenous nations also do not want it on their territories.

The Wolastoq Grand Council, which issued a statement on nuclear energy and nuclear waste in 2021, opposes any destruction or harm to Wolastokuk which includes all “Flora and Fauna” in, on, and above their homeland. Nuclear is not a green source of energy, or solution to a healthier future for our children, grandchildren and the ones who are not born yet. Wolastoqewi-Elders define Nuclear in their language as ‘Askomiw Sanaqak,’ which translates as ‘forever dangerous.’

The Peskotomuhkatik ecosystem includes Point Lepreau. The Peskotomuhkati leadership in Canada has repeatedly tried to bring facts about both New Brunswick SMNR projects and their potential environmental implications to the attention of New Brunswickers and all Canadians, writing twice to Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault urging him to designate the SMNR projects in New Brunswick for a federal impact assessment, so that all the facts could be made public. Both attempts were denied, the most recent in August this year.

Peskotomuhkati leadership has participated, and continues to participate, in Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and various provincial processes, and has firsthand experience that these past and current engagement and assessment tools do not provide a sufficient framework to address adverse effects and impacts to Indigenous rights.

The SMNR projects planned for Point Lepreau within Peskotomuhkatik homeland will have profound and lasting impacts on Indigenous rights as well as those of Indigenous communities in Ontario where the nuclear industry is proposing to build a deep geological repository for the used nuclear fuel and other sites for intermediate radioactive waste. The SMNR projects will also have profound and lasting impacts on the Bay of Fundy, the marine life the bay supports, and coastal communities.

Until the government begins to ask for and share facts about SMNRs instead of sales materials, Indigenous nations must assume that representation no longer means peoples’ representation, but rather representation of the industry.

Hugh Akagi is chief of the Peskotomuhkati Nation in Canada. Dr. Susan O’Donnell is the lead investigator of the CEDAR research project at St. Thomas University in Fredericton

September 30, 2023 Posted by | Canada, indigenous issues, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Trudeau warned of nuclear weapon risk over emerging small modular reactors

National Observer, By John Woodside | News, Energy, Politics | September 27th 2023

A dozen nuclear energy experts are calling for a formal risk assessment of emerging nuclear technologies and warning Prime Minister Justin Trudeau if a company in New Brunswick were to be successful, its product could be used by other countries to make nuclear bombs.

The open letter sent to the Prime Minister’s Office is dated Sept. 22, and spells out concerns that Saint John-based nuclear startup Moltex is embarking on a risky path. The proposed Moltex reactor is planned to be built at the site of the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station in Saint John, where it would essentially recycle spent nuclear waste sourced from CANDU reactors to produce more energy. The letter, signed by experts like former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commissioner Peter Bradford, director of nuclear power safety with the Union of Concerned Scientists Edwin Lyman, George Washington University research professor and former State Department official Sharon Squassoni, says the risk is the plutonium in the used nuclear fuel could be separated and used to make weapons.

Despite Moltex claiming its technology is “proliferation-resistant,” the expert letter says there is “every reason to be skeptical of Moltex’s reactor technology.” The letter points to failed attempts in the United States and the United Kingdom to reprocess nuclear waste as a fuel, resulting in hundreds of billions worth of cleanup costs. To date, Moltex has received at least $50.5 million worth of federal government subsidies, $10 million from New Brunswick, and $1 million from Ontario Power Generation –– and is eyeing roughly $200 million more.

……………………………………………………For the experts who wrote the letter, inadvertently creating a product that could be used to make nuclear weapons is a very real concern, and one with precedent. As the letter to Trudeau details, Canada and the United States were both exporting nuclear reactor technology to India decades ago for power generation purposes and ended up increasing the risk of nuclear war.

“Some of the plutonium India produced and separated with that assistance was used in the plutonium-fuelled prototype bomb India tested in 1974, precipitating the South Asian nuclear arms race,” the letter reads.

Canada and its allies are concerned that as new nuclear technologies are developed, the technology could similarly lead to unexpected nuclear weapon development. In May at the annual G7 meeting, Canada committed “to prioritizing efforts to reduce the production and accumulation of weapons-usable nuclear material for civil purposes around the world.”

The letter requests a nuclear weapons proliferation risk assessment of the technology………………………………………………..

As the energy transition unfolds, nuclear energy is increasingly seen as a contentious fuel. While it is non-emitting, making it a potentially valuable tool in the race to decarbonize, nuclear waste is a long-lasting environmental concern with unclear storage options given it can be hazardous for thousands of years. Moreover, preventing the worst impacts of climate change requires slashing fossil fuel use by about half globally by the end of the decade, meaning experimental technology not yet suitable for use does not have any meaningful role to play in near-term emissions reductions.

In fact, a report by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine concluded small modular reactor designs like Moltex’s would struggle to be deployed by 2050, and require tremendous large-scale investment to succeed.  https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/09/27/news/trudeau-warned-nuclear-weapon-risk-over-emerging-small-modular-reactors#:~:text=A%20dozen%20nuclear%20energy%20experts,countries%20to%20make%20nuclear%20bombs.

September 28, 2023 Posted by | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Bill Gates’ nuclear firm Terrapower fears falling behind in Small Nuclear Reactor race.

A row is brewing between a nuclear energy company founded by Bill Gates and the
UK government over fears it may be sidelined from a £1 billion competition
to build new small power plants. The billionaire is the chairman of Terrapower, which fears exclusion from the race to build the next generation of reactors over questions about its fuel source, according to people familiar with the matter.

In May, The Sunday Times revealed that
Terrapower had joined the likes of Rolls Royce, GE-Hitachi and Bechtel in
the running to manufacture Britain’s future nuclear infrastructure. But
Terrapower is concerned that the government is prioritising so-called small
modular reactors designed by its rivals, rather than Terrapower’s model,
which uses more innovative technology and is classed as an “advanced
modular reactor”, sources said.

Terrapower’s reactor, called Natrium,
uses high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) as fuel. Officials are said to
be concerned that it does not have reliable supplies to import at scale, as
most of it is produced in Russia. A government spokesman said: “Great
British Nuclear is assessing the bids received as part of the latest phase
of the competition launched earlier this year and will announce an update
in due course.”

Times 24th Sept 2023

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bill-gates-nuclear-firm-terrapower-fears-falling-behind-in-smr-race-6l5txvlz2

September 26, 2023 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Small modular nuclear reactors for Ukraine (safe?)

Ukraine’s Energoatom and the US firm Westinghouse have signed a memorandum
of understanding (MoU) relating to the development and deployment of AP300
small modular reactors (SMRs) in Ukraine.

World Nuclear News 12th Sept 2023

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Westinghouse-and-Energoatom-agree-AP300-SMR-cooper

September 15, 2023 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Small Modular reactors- a US view

we now have ‘an echo chamber, with each outlet clambering over the next to crow about the great benefits of nuclear power in misleading language that suggests this technology is already entirely proven out’. 

It all fits into what see she see as an emerging pro-SMR mind set, with there being a lot of speculative investment venture cash still around- and a lot of press support. She says that though ‘very few of the proposed SMRs have been demonstrated and none are commercially available, let alone licensed by a nuclear regulator’, the media has been promoting them as the way ahead.

August 12, 2023  https://renewextraweekly.blogspot.com/2023/08/small-modular-reactors-us-view.html

Allison Macfarlane, who was Chair of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) from 2012-2014, has been looking at Small Modular Reactors in the USA and elsewhere. She thinks they are likely to be uneconomic, much like the their larger brethren, which, as she describes, have recently been doing very poorly in the USA. 

Indeed, just like the EPR story in the EU, it makes for a sorry saga: ‘The two units under construction in South Carolina were abandoned in 2017, after an investment of US$9 billion. The two AP-1000 units in Georgia were to start in 2016/2017 for a price of US$14 billion. One unit started in April, 2023, the second unit promises to start later in 2023. The total cost is now over US$30 billion.’

Big reactors do look increasingly hard to fund and build on time and budget, while it is argued that smaller ones could be mass produced in factories at lower unit costs and finished units installed on site more rapidly. However, that would mean foregoing conventional economies of (large) scale, and, overall, Macfarlane claims that SMRs may end up being worse that large plants in operational and economic terms. 

For example, she says ‘one of the reasons SMRs will cost more has to do with fuel costs’ with some designs requiring ‘high-assay low enriched uranium fuel (HALEU), in other words, fuel enriched in the isotope uranium-235 between 10-19.99%, just below the level of what is termed “highly enriched uranium,” suitable for nuclear bombs.’ She notes that ‘currently, there are no enrichment companies outside of Russia that can produce HALEU, and thus the chicken-and-egg problem: an enrichment company wants assurance from reactor vendors to invest in developing HALEU production. But since commercial-scale SMRs are likely decades away, if they are at all viable, there is risk to doing so.’

She also notes that the use of HALEU, so as to offset the smaller size of the reactor core, will ‘result in increased security and safeguards requirements that will add to the price tag’. As she has explored in a PNAS paper with others, smaller cores mean more neutron escapes and so a need for more shielding, which will become activated, adding to the waste burden to be dealt. Indeed she says, overall, some SMRs may produce ‘significantly more high-level waste by volume that current light water reactors.’ That view did not go down well with SMR promoters, who sometimes portray SMRs as being cleaner than standard reactors.  

Some advanced SMRs may use molten salt fluids as a reactant and also coolant, and the waste chemistry then is different, although there will still be wastes to deal with. But for the moment, the focus is on simpler technology – just scaled down versions of the standard  Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR). Macfarlane notes that one of these, NuScale, is the only SMR design to received ‘design certification’ for its 50MW unit from the NRC

However, the company has now decided to submit a new application to the NRC to build a larger version, presumably in the expectation that this would be more economic. It’s also proposed to have multiple units on one site, sharing some common services.  That might offset some of the extra costs of small systems, but not much. Macfarlane says ‘cost estimates for the reactor have risen from US$55/megawatt electric (MWe) in 2016 to $89/MWe in 2023, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.’

Arguably, to be economic, they need to be bigger. That seems to have been the logic behind another mini-PWR, the Rolls Royce SMR being developed in the UK by Rolls Royce. Although at 470MW, that one is hardly ‘small’. 

By contrast, Oklo, another US company, is going in the opposite direction. It has been developing Auora, an advanced micro-nuclear power plant. It’s a tiny (1.5 MW) liquid sodium cooled fast neutron reactor. However, it was outright rejected by the NRC. Macfarlane says that ‘the NRC rarely outright rejects an application, instead working with licensees until they either get the application right or decide to walk away. In this case, Oklo refused to fill “information gaps” related to “safety systems and components.’ But Oklo persevered. And she notes it has gone for public finance via a merger with AltC Acquisition Corporation. 

It all fits into what see she see as an emerging pro-SMR mind set, with there being a lot of speculative investment venture cash still around- and a lot of press support. She says that though ‘very few of the proposed SMRs have been demonstrated and none are commercially available, let alone licensed by a nuclear regulator’, the media has been promoting them as the way ahead.

Even usually sane US outlets like the Atlantic Policy journal seem to have joined in. She says we now have ‘an echo chamber, with each outlet clambering over the next to crow about the great benefits of nuclear power in misleading language that suggests this technology is already entirely proven out’. 

 So she concludes, a bit pessimistically, that, in the USA, ‘in the nuclear celebratory mood of the moment, there is little patience or political will for sober voices to discuss the reality that new nuclear power is actually many decades away from having any measurable impact on climate change – if at all’.

The situation in Europe is a bit different. Although nuclear is also being supported in some countries, like the UK and France, anti-nuclear views are also apparent. For example a recent academic paper in Joule claims that ‘relying on nuclear new-builds to achieve the EU climate targets is virtually impossible.’ And overall it concludes ‘in solving the climate crisis, new nuclear is a costly and dangerous distraction.’ Whereas SMRs will be any better is unclear. There are quite few speculative SMR ventures around the word, as a UK review noted, but a recent study of 19 proposed SMR designs found that they were likely to be generally more expensive than conventional nuclear, and even more so than renewables. So, why bother?

As Macfarlane says, the battle lines are drawn on this issue around the world, with much of it being a PR battle – there is no real hardware yet. While the likes of Forbes magazine are pushing SMRs as the ‘go-to energy source’, in a hard hitting article in Fortune, Stephanie Cookes says ‘the billions currently being spent on nuclear are crowding out viable, less costly solutions for decarbonizing the power sector.’ 

Place your bets…but, for some, the outcome already looks clear. As David Schlissel said in US trade journal Utility Drive, ‘an old adage is that anything that sounds too good to be true probably is. Given the history of the nuclear power industry, everyone – utilities, ratepayers, legislators, federal officials and the general public – should be very skeptical about the industry’s current claim the new SMRs will cost less and be built faster than previous designs.’

August 15, 2023 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs) are supported by ideology alone

The ”tech bro” libertarian culture that valorizes new technology, loathes regulation, and embraces the marketplace has spawned a new generation of, according to the Washington Post, “nuclear bros.”

The media has become an echo chamber, with each outlet clambering over the next to crow about the great benefits of nuclear power in misleading language that suggests this technology is already entirely proven out.

The end of Oppenheimer’s energy dream

iai news, Allison Macfarlane Allison Macfarlane is the director of the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia and former chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 21st July 2023

Nuclear energy is both lauded as a baseload renewable power and decried as risky, expensive and outdated technology. Small modular reactors have received billions in venture capital and unprecedented media attention, but are they a red herring, with philosophy, rather than science, driving our fixation? Professor Allison Macfarlane explores the current sombre state of the technology, where it is falling short, and what philosophy is driving the interest in this unpromising tech.

From the inception of Oppenheimer’s harnessing of the power of the atom, first as a device for war, and later, as a means of peaceful energy production, nuclear energy has possessed both promise and peril. With large nuclear power plants struggling to compete in a deregulated marketplace against renewables and natural gas, small modular reactors (SMRs) offer the promise to save the nuclear energy option. In the past few years, investors, national governments, and the media have paid significant attention to small modular nuclear reactors as the solution to traditional nuclear energy’s cost and long build times and renewable’s space and aesthetic drawbacks, but behind the hype there is very little concrete technology to justify it. By exploring the challenges facing small modular reactor technology, I will demonstrate that this resurgence in nuclear energy speaks to the popular imagination, rather than materializing as actual technological innovation.

News broke last week that Oklo, a company that has designed an advanced micro-nuclear power plant, will go public via a merger with AltC Acquisition Corporation. Co-founder of AltC Acquisition and Chair of Oklo’s board, Sam Altman, hopes to raise US$500 million with this offering. Oklo’s news is a sample of the almost-constant barrage of excitement around the potential of small modular reactors (SMRs) to help mitigate climate change.

But can they?

The Oklo story is intriguing, since its license application to build and operate its Aurora design reactor was outright rejected by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the country’s nuclear safety regulator (full disclosure: I was Chairman of the NRC from 2012-2014). And note that such rejection is an accomplishment: the NRC rarely outright rejects an application, instead working with licensees until they either get the application right or decide to walk away. In this case, Oklo refused to fill “information gaps” related to “safety systems and components.”

Most of these designs are just that: designs. Very few of the proposed SMRs have been demonstrated and none are commercially available.

There are many new SMR companies in the U.S., Canada, U.K., Europe, China, and elsewhere, and the reactor designs themselves are numerous as well. There are smaller versions of existing light water reactors, like those in the U.S., France, Japan, and elsewhere. There are more “advanced” designs like sodium-cooled fast reactors (like Oklo and Bill Gate’s company Terrapower’s design), high-temperature gas reactors, and molten salt reactors.

…………………………….. One U.S. company, NuScale, is the only SMR design in the US to received “design certification” from the NRC. NuScale has an agreement with UAMPS, a consortium of utility companies, to build the first NuScale reactors in Idaho in the U.S. But NuScale won’t build the already-certified design in Idaho; the company has a new application at the NRC to build a larger, and presumably more economic, model of the reactor. Nonetheless, cost estimates for the reactor have risen from US$55/megawatt electric (MWe) in 2016 to $89/MWe in 2023, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

Many of the non-light water SMR designs will likely be even costlier, based on recent analyses. A recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study suggests that SMRs will run significantly higher in cost than large light water reactors, especially in per MW comparable “overnight” costs (how much it would cost to build a new reactor if one could do so overnight) and operations and maintenance costs.

Advanced reactors do not solve the problems of nuclear waste and may, in fact, exacerbate the problem.

Recent construction experience in the US and Europe does not herald success for SMR new builds. The two French-design evolutionary power reactor (EPR) builds have been far over budget and schedule. The EPR in Finland was originally supposed to cost 3 billion euros and open in 2009. It finally began producing electricity in 2023 at a cost of 11 billion euros. There is a similar story in France, where the EPR at Flamanville was set to begin operation in 2012 at a cost of 3.5 billion euro. Instead, it is still under construction and costs have ballooned to 12.4 billion euros.

And Europe is the rule, not the exception. US – based Westinghouse’s AP-1000, a robust design with passive safety features has suffered similarly. The two units under construction in South Carolina were abandoned in 2017, after an investment of US$9 billion. The two AP-1000 units in Georgia were to start in 2016/2017 for a price of US$14 billion. One unit started in April, 2023, the second unit promises to start later in 2023. The total cost is now over US$30 billion.

SMR designers appeal to factory construction to avoid some of the pitfalls of large reactor construction (thus the “modular” in Small Modular Reactor). But the AP-1000 should provide a cautionary tale: ……………………………………

One of the reasons SMRs will cost more has to do with fuel costs. Most non-light water designs require high-assay low enriched uranium fuel (HALEU), in other words, fuel enriched in the isotope uranium-235 between 10-19.99%, just below the level of what is termed “highly enriched uranium,” suitable for nuclear bombs. Currently, there are no enrichment companies outside of Russia that can produce HALEU, and thus the chicken-and-egg problem: an enrichment company wants assurance from reactor vendors to invest in developing HALEU production. But since commercial-scale SMRs are likely decades away, if they are at all viable, there is risk to doing so. Use of HALEU will also result in increased security and safeguards requirements that will add to the price tag.

The ”tech bro” libertarian culture that valorizes new technology, loathes regulation, and embraces the marketplace has spawned a new generation of, according to the Washington Post, “nuclear bros.”

HALEU fuel is needed to offset the smaller size of the reactor core, which results in increased neutron leakage – and neutrons are the initiators of fission reactions that release the energy harnessed as electrical power. Smaller reactor sizes can also result in comparatively more waste volume, next to existing large light water reactors. In fact, a recent U.S. National Academy of Science analysis noted that advanced reactors do not solve the problems of nuclear waste and may, in fact, exacerbate the problem. Some reactor designs will produce significantly more high-level waste by volume that current light water reactors, other designs will produce waste the requires chemical processing prior to disposal. These types of issues are relatively little examined and will add to the final price tag of the new technology.

With all these potential drawbacks and delays, why would anyone invest in an SMR company? I put a similar question to Ray Rothrock, a venture capitalist, at a meeting of a committee of the National Academy of Engineering that was studying the potential of these new reactors (and of which I was a member). If these reactors won’t be commercially available for a decade or more, how do investors make money? His response? “Even before they sell [energy], they go public and that’s how early investors make money…it fits the model – the company hasn’t made money, but the investors have made money.” He goes on to say that going public opens the door to much more money that is needed.

But all of this in the future. If SMRs are not ready to deploy in the next ten years, what are the implications? There are two significant ones. The first is that, given the development timelines for these new reactor designs, they are not likely to have a significant impact on CO2 emissions reductions for decades, and as a result their relevance to the climate argument shrinks.

The media has become an echo chamber, with each outlet clambering over the next to crow about the great benefits of nuclear power in misleading language that suggests this technology is already entirely proven out.

More significantly, if, as a recent study showed, that SMRs will be significantly more expensive than solar photovoltaic (PV) and on-shore wind, and even geothermal, what will the marketplace look like in 20 or 30 years, when renewables will presumably be even cheaper?

………………….. So why there so much hype around new nuclear power technologies that so far, largely, don’t exist and will likely be very costly? The need to decarbonize energy production plays a role

The advent of large amounts of available venture capital in the past decade is another factor. One analyst told me, “there’s a lot of stupid money out there right now [for investing].”

The ”tech bro” libertarian culture that valorizes new technology, loathes regulation, and embraces the marketplace has spawned a new generation of, according to the Washington Post, “nuclear bros.” Naomi Oreskes notes that an appeal to nuclear power to address our energy needs in a warming world reflects our “technofideism,” the faith that technology will solve our problems. 

In the nuclear celebratory mood of the moment, there is little patience or political will for sober voices to discuss the reality that new nuclear power is actually many decades away from having any measurable impact on climate change – if at all.  https://iai.tv/articles/the-end-of-oppenheimers-energy-dream-auid-2549

July 27, 2023 Posted by | 2 WORLD, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | 2 Comments

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »