Small Modular Nuclear Reactors

Ontario’s Costly Nuclear Folly

May 12, 2025 • David Robertson, https://socialistproject.ca/2025/05/ontarios-costly-nuclear-folly/#more

The last time the nuclear industry got its way in the province, Ontario Hydro spent over two decades building 20 nuclear reactors. It was a mash-up of missed deadlines, cost overruns, and a troubling pattern of declining nuclear performance.

Even more troubling, the last generation of nuclear reactors forced Ontario Hydro to the edge of bankruptcy. And it saddled us with a mountain of nuclear debt that we are still paying off.

The Conservative government of Doug Ford is now repeating those costly mistakes in the largest expansion of the nuclear industry in Canada’s history. A nuclear blunder on steroids.

Part 1: Past Debt Due

In 1999, Ontario Hydro collapsed under the staggering weight of its nuclear debt. When the account books were opened, the reality hit home. At the time, Hydro’s assets were valued at $17.2-billion but its debt amounted to $38.1-billion. The government was faced with a stranded debt of $20.9-billion.

In response, the government of the day split Ontario Hydro into five separate organizations. Ontario Power Generation took over the generating facilities (hydro, coal, gas, nuclear) and Hydro One, later privatized, inherited the transmission grid. Neither of these organizations would survive if they had to carry the debt. The government was aware that any future hopes of privatizing the successors of Ontario Hydro would be scuttled if investors had to absorb the debt. The debt was transferred to Ontario families through special charges on electricity bills (until 2018), regular electricity bills, and the tax system. It was the world’s largest nuclear bailout, one we are still paying.

The Ontario Electrical Financial Corporation is one of the five Ontario Hydro successor entities. It was set up to manage and service the long-term debt of the former Ontario Hydro. According to its 2024 Annual Report, the total debt, twenty-five years later, is still $12.1-billion. In 2024, OEFC paid $626-million in interest charges alone, an amount that is recouped from taxpayers and ratepayers. In its financial statements the organization notes that its longest-term debt issue matures on December 2, 2050. In 2050, Ontario will still be paying the debt of the failed nuclear program of the 1970s and 80s.

Part 2: Repeating Past Mistakes

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is owned by the government of Ontario. OPG is leading Ontario’s nuclear resurrection. It is aided and abetted by the IESO (Independent Electricity System Operator) another surviving offshoot of the collapse of Ontario Hydro. And it is directed by a series of government policy announcements and legislative initiatives. These directives put nuclear on the fast track while shouldering aside clean, cost-effective, and safe renewables.

It is an astonishing nuclear industry coup. Without putting up their own money, without bearing the financial risks, the nuclear industry has captured Ontario’s energy policy and turned crown agencies into nuclear cheerleaders.

Even a few years ago this would have seemed impossible. The nuclear industry was on the ropes. Catastrophic nuclear accidents at Three Mile Isle in the US, Chernobyl in Ukraine, and Fukushima in Japan had severely tarnished the nuclear safety image. All around the world, the cost overruns and lengthy build times of nuclear plants had chilled utility and government interest in more nuclear plants. In Europe, only one nuclear plant has been built and come on line since 2000.

In Ontario, the last nuclear reactor went into operation in 1993. Nuclear plants that had been forecast to operate for 40 years showed major signs of early ageing after about ten years. Most of the existing nuclear fleet was rapidly reaching its best before dates. Safety and operational issues plagued the industry. The four units at Pickering had been shutdown because of safety reasons. And shut down again. By 1993, Bruce A’s performance, as a result of ‘fretting’ pressure tubes, had drastically declined. In 1997, Ontario Hydro announced that it would temporarily shut down its oldest seven reactors. By that time, the escalating costs of the newest reactors at the Darlington site were already a cautionary tale. Originally billed in 1978 at $3.9-billion, the final cost in 1993 had more than tripled to $14.4-billion (1993 dollars).

The first generation of nuclear plants had clearly demonstrated the failure of the nuclear industry to deliver electricity on time and on budget. It also demonstrated that nuclear reactors couldn’t provide affordable electricity. In fact, Ontario Hydro’s last public cost comparison (1999) revealed the cost of nuclear energy to be more than six times the cost of hydro electricity. (7.72 c/kWh vs $1.09)

Part 3: The Nuclear Resurrection

It seems that all those ‘hard lessons’ learned have been willfully forgotten. The Ford government has now launched a multipoint nuclear power offensive. It has passed legislation to ensure that nuclear is Ontario’s energy priority. It has made commitments to build untested and costly small modular reactors (SMRs). It has decided to refurbish antiquated nuclear plants (Pickering) when there is no business case to do so. It has announced as the centrepiece of its energy policy the irrational goal of becoming a nuclear energy superpower. And it has opened the public purse to the appetite of the nuclear industry.

It is a power play with some revealing features.

3a. A Propaganda Push

In 2023, OPG launched a series of propaganda ads. The ads, in bus shelters and transit, print, and television, were designed to overcome public skepticism and convince us that a new generation of nuclear was safe, reliable, and clean. The company behind the pubic relations campaign made the following claim: “For years, popular culture has distorted perceptions about nuclear power with false narratives that served to stoke fear.” They go on: “The campaign is intended to recast nuclear power as a “true hero” of the province’s clean energy mix.”

Some of the ads focused on Gen Z and Tik Tok with the cartoon character “Pelly the uranium pellet.” Others were tailored to older generations who were well aware of the problems with the nuclear industry and there were ads which simply made outrageous claims. For example, the ad for Small Modular Reactors declared that “SMRs are clean and reliable.” Quite the claim since none have been built.

The ad campaign effectively echoed the industry’s talking points, talking points that have become the mantra of the Ford government. Nuclear energy is now described by Ontario’s energy minister as “clean,” “non-emitting,” “reliable,” and “fundamental to our future.”

3b. A revolving door between the government and the industry

Back in June 2024, former Energy Minister Todd Smith left the government, after spending billions on the nuclear industry and promising billions more. Upon his departure, Todd Smith landed a job as a VP of CANDU Energy Inc. CANDU Energy Inc was created when SNC-Lavalin purchased the commercial reactor division of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited from the federal government in 2011. In an effort to distance itself from its scandal ridden past, SNC-Lavalin has since changed its name to AtkinsRealis. The company is heavily involved in the refurbishment of Ontario nuclear plants and the plans for new builds.

3c. The technological hype of SMRs

Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are not small and they are not that modular. And they are not that new. The designs, of which there are about 54, have been kicking around for a long time. It’s just that no one wanted to build them, and investors were loathe to put up their own money. The fate of SMRs changed when the nuclear industry convinced governments in Canada to develop what it called the “SMR Roadmap.” The “Roadmap,” largely produced by the industry, was all hype and little substance, but it was enough to convince the Ford government to join the parade.

The World Nuclear Industry Status Review is an annual independent assessment of the global nuclear industry. In its 2022 review, it concluded:

“Small modular (nuclear) reactors or SMRs continue to hog the headlines in many countries, even though all the evidence so far shows that they will likely face major economic challenges and not be competitive on the electricity market. Despite this evidence, nuclear advocates argue that these untested reactor designs are the solution to the nuclear industry’s woes.”

In the 2024 edition of the review, the analysts note: “The gap between hype about Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and reality continues to grow. The nuclear industry and multiple governments are doubling down on their investments into SMRs, both in monetary and political terms.”

3d. Over-the-top visioning and ideological straw men

Stephen Lecce became the Minister of Energy in June 2024. Shortly afterwards, he travelled to the US where he made a pitch to western leaders and industry movers and shakers. He told them that Ontario is building a blueprint for a nuclear energy future.

A CP wire story put it this way: “Ontario is selling itself as the nuclear North Star to guide the direction of American power.”

Speaking to a largely American audience, he said it’s time to “rid our economies of any dependence on these foreign states that … do not share our democratic embrace,” (Oops).

The minister’s early charm offensive turned more aggressive back home when he criticized those who support renewable energy as” ideologues” who want to “romanticize certain resources.” As he told the National Post, “We are seeing forces on the left, the illiberal left, who cannot come to terms with the fact that in order to decarbonize we’re going to need nuclear.”

The commitment to nuclear was further baked into Ontario’s future when the Ford government released its energy vision in October 2024. The document ironically entitled “Ontario’s Affordable Energy Future” sets the stage for a massive build out of nuclear power.

It also makes it clear that Ontario has set its sights on becoming a nuclear energy superpower in the hopes of selling expensive nuclear electricity to the US and costly nuclear technology to the world.

Reflecting the grandiose aspirations of a would-be energy superpower the Minister declared that “this was Ontario’s moment.”

3e. The legislative lock-in

In December 2024, the government passed the misnamed “Affordable Energy Act” (Bill 214) The legislation has many troubling aspects. Various sections of the act restrict public consultation, further erode the independence of regulatory tribunals, and shifts more decision making to the government. But most alarming is how the government has used the Act to give preference and priority to nuclear power. Section 25.29 (2) of the Act refers to, “the prioritization of nuclear power generation to meet future increases in the demand for electricity …”

3f. The commitment to underwrite the costs of nuclear

The government is bankrolling the nuclear expansion with public money because investors don’t want their own money at risk. The costs of nuclear power have driven private investors away. Even with massive subsidies from governments, investors are reluctant to ante up.

A spokesperson for the government-owned Ontario Power Generation made the point very clear when commenting on small modular reactors.

Kim Lauritsen is a senior OPG vice-president. She told a Global Business conference audience that the crown corporation was willing to take the “first-mover risk.”

As she put it: “Because they (small modular reactors) take too long and the industry needs to see that these things can be built successfully, to give investors the confidence and really get the ball rolling for other jurisdictions.”

Because investors are nervous and because Ontario wants to show the way for other jurisdictions, the Ford government is prepared to saddle Ontario families and future generations with the exorbitant costs of nuclear power.

Part 4: The nuclear three-prong plug: Refurbishments, SMRs and New Large Scale Reactors

Refurbishments

The Ontario government is spending billions to refurbish old nuclear plants. Fourteen reactors are scheduled to be rejuvenated – 6 at Bruce, 4 at Darlington, and 4 at Pickering. The repair schedule for existing nuclear plants stretches out for decades. While these reactors are off line, the government plans to make up the electricity shortfall with more climate wrecking, fossil-gas generating plants.

The cost of the refurbishments will be in excess of $40-billion. That forty billion and the millions more in interest charges will find its way onto our electricity bills.

As our electricity bills go up, so does political pressure and when that pressure reaches a tipping point, the government steps in with subsidies to help reduce electricity bills. It is a repeated pattern in Ontario.

A recent report from the Government’s Financial Accountability Office (FAO) projected the cost of current electricity subsidies to be $118-billion over the next 20 years. These are not all nuclear electricity subsidies. But as we spend more on nuclear and nuclear increases the cost of electricity and governments are pressured to reduce the cost of electricity, there will be even more subsidies to shift the costs from our electricity bills to our taxes.

Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)

In addition to the massive refurbishment program the Ford government has announced a series of nuclear new builds.

There will be four new small modular reactors (SMRs) built at the Darlington nuclear location. Site preparation work is already underway on the first one. OPG has convinced the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to forego an environmental impact assessment, relying instead on an assessment that had been done years ago on the site for a different project.

The government has selected the GE-Hitachi BWRX-300 design. This is based on a design that has been kicking around for about 20 years and has had to be redesigned about ten times. It still has never been built. The engineering designs for Darlington have again been changed, making the small modular reactor less small and even less modular.

OPG has not released a cost estimate for the reactors. But there are some indications of the probable magnitude. In the US, the only SMR project that had been approved by the US federal government was NuScale in the mid-west. The project was cancelled because of escalating costs. Originally estimated at $3-billion (US), it was terminated in 2024 when the projected costs reached $9.3-billion (US).

The Tennessee Valley Authority, a large power utility in the US, has partnered with the OPG to promote the GE-Hitachi SMR. The TVA recently provided some estimates of the costs of building the SMR in the US. It indicated that the cost of the first reactor could be about $5.4-billion (US). It hoped the costs could be reduced to about $3.7-billion (US) if more were built. These costs do not include any interest charges, cost overruns, or missed deadlines.

If we assume the lower cost and convert to Canadian dollars, the price tag for the four SMRs at Darlington would be about $20-billion before things go wrong. In 2019, the company’s indicated the costs would have to be below $1-billion (US).

New Large Scale Nuclear Reactors

The Bruce C Project

In July 2023, the Ontario government announced its support to expand the capacity of the Bruce nuclear power plant near Kincardine. The Bruce nuclear generating station is owned by OPG but operated by Bruce Power, a private consortium. Bruce Power is planning a major expansion of the site’s generating capacity. At present, six of the eight reactors are being refurbished. This new development, if it goes ahead, will add an additional 4800 MW, which would require building four or five new reactors. Admittedly, it is early days, and no costs have been provided.

Port Hope

In January 2025, the Ontario government announced that it was in the preliminary stages of a massive new nuclear plant that could be built at the OPG site in Wesleyville, near Port Hope. Officials have suggested the plant could have a capacity of 8,000 to 10,000 megawatts and be in operation by the 2040s. Achieving that generating capacity would require building eight or more nuclear reactors.

Part 5: Calculating the Costs

Continue reading →

May 15, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, politics, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Critics Slam Cost of Ontario SMR Plan, Question Dependence on U.S. Uranium

May 12, 2025, Mitchell Beer, https://www.theenergymix.com/critics-slam-cost-of-ontario-smr-plan-question-dependence-on-u-s-uranium/

Critics are taking a hard line on Ontario’s announcement that it will build four 300-megawatt small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) at the existing Darlington nuclear plant near Bowmanville, with most concerns focused on the cost of the project and the geopolitical risk in sourcing enriched uranium from a U.S. supplier.

Ontario Power Generation announced provincial approval for the first of the four units May 8, describing it as “the first new nuclear build in Ontario in more than three decades.”

“This is truly a historic moment,” said OPG President and CEO Nicolle Butcher. “This made-in-Ontario project will support provincial companies, create jobs for Ontarians, and spur growth for our economy.”

Energy and Mines Minister Stephen Lecce declared the 1,200-megawatt installation, the first of its kind in the G7, a “nation-building project being built right here in Ontario.” Durham MPP Todd McCarthy called it “the next step to strengthening Ontario and Canada’s energy security.”

The published cost of the project is $7.7 billion for the first reactor, including $1.6 billion for infrastructure and administrative buildings, and $20.9 billion to complete the series of four. Citing Conference Board of Canada figures, OPG said the four SMRs will contribute $38.5 billion to Canada’s GDP over 65 years and sustain an average of about 3,700 jobs per year, including 18,000 per year during construction.

First Mover Advantage or Boutique Pricing?

In the OPG announcement, Butcher suggested an advantage in being the first G7 jurisdiction to bring an SMR to market. “As a first mover on SMRs, Ontario will also be able to market our capabilities and nuclear expertise to the world to further grow our domestic industry,” she said.

The Globe and Mail says the Darlington New Nuclear Project “is being watched closely by utilities around the world,,”, and OPG’s BWRX-300 design “is a candidate for construction in the United States, Britain, Poland, Estonia, and elsewhere.” But “the costs published Thursday are higher than what independent observers argue are necessary to attract many more orders. For comparison, a recently completed 377-megawatt natural gas-fired power station in Saskatchewan cost $825-million.”

Ed Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Cambridge, MA-based Union of Concerned Scientists, called the Ontario estimate “an eye-popping figure, but not unexpected given what we know about the poor economics of small nuclear reactors.” That would make the Darlington SMR facility “a boutique unit that’s going to produce electricity for a very expensive price.”

An independent study released last week by the Ontario Clean Air Alliance found that the Darlington SMRs will cost up to eight times as much as onshore wind, almost six times as much as utility-scale solar, and 2.7 times as much offshore wind in the Great Lakes after factoring in the federal tax credit. The analysis by Hinesburg, Vermont-based Energy Futures Group “used data from Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) but used realistic real-world capital costs and performance measures to develop a more accurate comparison of the cost of nuclear and renewable power options,” OCAA writes.

The report calculates the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) from different sources in 2030 and 2040, with and without the federal government’s 30% clean energy investment tax credit (ITC). It places the unsubsidized costs per megawatt-hour in 2030 at:

• $33 to $51 for onshore wind;

• $54 for utility-scale solar;

• $105 to $113 for offshore wind;

• $214 to $319 for different SMR designs;

• $279 to $307 for conventional nuclear plants.

By 2040, the prices range from $30 for onshore wind and $41 for utility-scale solar to up to $269 for SMRs and $307 for conventional nuclear. SMR pricing falls as low as $137 per MWh with a 30% ITC.

“It remains unclear how this, and the province’s larger nuclear expansion program, will actually be paid for,” Mark Winfield, co-chair of York University’s Sustainable Energy Initiative, told The Energy Mix in an email. “Putting this on the rate base means higher rates for Ontario electricity consumers, even if the costs are as claimed.”

He added that “the potential role of the federal ITC and [Canada] Infrastructure Bank Investment raises serious questions about what should be defined as ‘clean’ energy given the risks involved in this case, in terms of economic and technological viability, safety risks, and unanswered questions regarding waste streams.”

Critics were already questioning whether field experience with four individual SMRs will be enough to drive down production costs from $6.1 billion plus surrounding infrastructure for the first unit to a range of $4.1 to $4.9 billion for the next three, after the estimated price of the project has already ballooned. Now, with New Brunswick scaling back its SMR development plans, “Ontario is taking something of a technological and economic flyer on this, on behalf of everyone else, underwritten by the electricity ratepayers and, ultimately, taxpayers of Ontario,” Winfield wrote. “This is a project that demands serious economic, technological, and environmental scrutiny, and has been subject to virtually none.”

Uranium Sourced from the United States

OPG is also running into concerns with its plan to power the BWRX-300 with enriched uranium supplied by a firm in the U.S. state of New Mexico. When Donald Trump launched his tariff war earlier this year and began muttering about making Canada a 51st state, Premier Doug Ford applied a short-lived tariff to Ontario power sales and referred publicly to cutting exports as a retaliatory measure. Now, the province is proposing to make 1,200 MW of electricity supply dependent on a vendor that could see its price driven up by tariffs, or be compelled to cut off the supply entirely.

“Developing a dependence on another country for our nuclear fuel has always been a concern, and recent events have proven those concerns are justified,” Bob Walker, national director of the Canadian Nuclear Workers’ Council, told the Globe and Mail in February. “The arrangements are probably as robust as they could be under normal circumstances, but the circumstances are no longer normal.”

In an email to the Globe at the time, OPG spokesperson Neal Kelly described the situation as “very fluid”, adding that “we are proactively evaluating potential impacts and will act as the situation arises.”

Kelly did not respond to an email Monday morning asking whether OPG has any concerns about sourcing enriched uranium from the U.S., and whether it has or needs a Plan B.

May 15, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Westinghouse drops out of UK SMR competition

Nuclear Engineering International 30th April 2025, https://www.neimagazine.com/news/westinghouse-drops-out-of-uk-smr-competition/

S Westinghouse has pulled out of the UK’s small modular reactor (SMR) design competition, according to the UK The Telegraph.

Earlier in April, three of the four competition finalists in Great British Nuclear’s (GBN’s) small modular reactor (SMR) competition submitted their final tenders. The four finalists received an Invitation to Submit Final Tender (ISFT) in February – GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy International, Holtec Britain, Rolls-Royce SMR, and Westinghouse Electric Company.

GEH (part of GE Vernova) proposed its BWRX-300 boiling water reactor; Holtec proposed its SMR-300 – a 300 MWe pressurised water reactor (PWR); the Rolls-Royce SMR is a 470 MWe PWR; and the Westinghouse AP300 is a 300 MWe/900 MWt PWR. Westinghouse, however, failed to submit its final tender.

GBN was expected to announce two winners this summer with bidders told to prepare to build three to four mini reactors each. The winners will be awarded contracts to co-fund further design development as well as the necessary regulatory, environmental and site-approvals before a final investment decision is taken in 2029. The contracts are expected to total £20bn ($26.7bn) – £10bn each if two companies are selected.

However, The Telegraph reported in February that the Government was considering awarding only one contract as Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor “is struggling to balance the books as weak economic growth makes it harder to meet her self-imposed ‘fiscal rules’ for borrowing.

According to The Telegraph, Westinghouse did not deny it had withdrawn but declined to give its reasons. “One industry source suggested the company had baulked at the commercial offer made by the Government.”

A spokesman from the UK Energy Department said: “Great British Nuclear is driving forward its SMR competition for UK deployment. It has now received final tenders, which it will evaluate ahead of taking final decisions this spring.”

There is growing concern that the economics of SMRs could prove even hard to justify at the high costs for the initial four units. None of the bidders has built their designs which are still in development. All SMRs in the GBN competition will be first-of-a-kind units (FOAK), which will push up costs.

Commenting on the issue, Neutron Bytes noted: “Most estimates are that economies of scale based on factory production of SMRs, promised by all four vendors, only kick in when order books come in “fleet mode,” e.g. by the dozen or more. It follows that even £10bn could be insufficient to cover the costs of four units any of the three 300 MWe offerings based on their status as FOAK projects.”

It added: “Splitting the difference for the GBN competition, e.g. awarding one winner £10bn, keeps the SMR initiative alive, but does nothing to promote long-term “fleet mode” production of SMRs which the UK nuclear industry points out is the only way to achieve economies of scale with factory production of SMRs.”

May 8, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

US nuclear giant Westinghouse pulls out of race to build Britain’s first mini-nukes

There are growing fears that the economics of SMRs could prove even harder to justify – because they have many of the same problems as large reactors – meaning security and waste disposal – but produce far less electricity and so make less money.

Westinghouse has not submitted its final bid for the UK’s SMR design competition

Matt Oliver, Industry Editor, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/04/26/us-company-pulls-out-race-build-britains-first-mini-nuke/

US nuclear giant Westinghouse has pulled out of the UK’s small modular reactor (SMR) design competition.

The four companies remaining in the contest were given a deadline of mid-April to make their final bids, but The Telegraph understands that Westinghouse did not submit one following a negotiation process.

It means only three finalists – Rolls-Royce, GE-Hitachi and Holtec – remain in the running.

Great British Nuclear (GBN), the quango responsible for the SMR programme, was expected to announce two winners this summer with bidders told to prepare to build three to four mini reactors each.

Westinghouse did not deny it had withdrawn on Friday but declined to give its reasons.

One industry source suggested the company had baulked at the commercial offer made by the Government.

GBN previously advertised contracts worth £20bn in total for SMR “technology partners”, a figure that is understood to be based on the assumption two winners would be chosen.

However, The Telegraph revealed in February that the Government was considering awarding a contract to only one company as Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, looks to make savings in her cross-departmental spending review.

The Chancellor is struggling to balance the books as weak economic growth makes it harder to meet her self-imposed “fiscal rules” for borrowing.

SMR supporters claim they could be a breakthrough in nuclear power because they would be made predominantly in factories and then assembled on site, cutting building times from around a decade to a few years. In theory this could cut costs – as would-be builders of SMRS have repeatedly promised..

Many politicians have snapped up that bait. When he opened the latest stage of the SMR competition, Mr Miliband said: “Small modular reactors will support our mission to become a clean energy superpower.”

However, the nuclear industry has a mixed record on bringing in key projects on time and on budget.

The biggest current example is the UK’s Hinkley Point C power station in Somerset which EDF originally said would cost under £20bn and be operating by now. Current costs estimates are for a final price approaching £50bn and a start-up after 2030.

On Friday, a GBN spokesman declined to comment on Westinghouse’s position as did Westinghouse itself.

April 28, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

‘I guarded Britain’s nuclear sites – our security can’t cope with new mini reactors’

mini reactors do not pose miniature hazards. “On security, size doesn’t matter. When it comes to the fuel and the byproducts, they are equally dangerous.”

“You get less energy, but you’re still going to have exactly the same security concerns,” says Okuhara. “How enthusiastic is a site operator going to be paying for security when that’s eating into their bottom line?”

INTERVIEW . Matthew Okuhara, a former armed officer with the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, fears that current security plans will be inadequate to protect the UK’s next generation of nuclear power plants..

Rob Hastings, Special Projects Editor , April 22, 2025

Sometimes he would patrol rural lanes on foot, carrying his assault rifle, looking out for any terrorists hiding in the countryside. On other assignments he would man machine guns mounted on armoured ships, watching for any sign of hostile vessels coming his way. Or he would drive in weapons-laden road convoys, monitoring potential threats from vehicles.

While serving as an armed officer with the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC), Matt Okuhara saw every aspect of how the UK’s nuclear power stations and their radioactive fuel are protected from terrorists.

He spent years escorting the transport of uranium fuel to and from plants, which would be planned for months in advance. “Nuclear material is at its most vulnerable when it’s in transit,” he explains. “You’ve got to move it as secretly as possible.”

Working for the specialist force, Okuhara always felt confident the country’s civil nuclear programme was in safe hands. “Any threat has been detected long before it’s been able to cause any problems,” he says.

However, he believes the situation is “definitely more dangerous now” than when he was serving. Terrorism has become more advanced and there are new fears about so-called hybrid warfare from geopolitical adversaries including Russia.

“You don’t have to be a James Bond super-villain to realise where the vulnerable parts of a site are. You can just look on Google Maps and say, ‘We’ll attack that bit,’ especially now we’ve got drones. The threat has really shot up.”

With new technology also on the horizon, he believes the nuclear industry must face up to big security questions.

The CNC currently guards just a handful of sites, all in relatively remote locations. But experts believe the Government’s planned array of cutting-edge mini nuclear power stations could lead to a “proliferation” of reactors around the country, potentially much closer to towns and cities. This may also lead to their fuel being transported more often.

Small modular reactors (SMRs) are seen as an essential source of green energy for the UK in decades to come. Proponents say they will be quicker and cheaper to build than conventional plants, because they will be largely prefabricated.

But security experts are worried about the complex implications for how SMRs will be policed and protected, as The i Paper revealed this week. Analysts say that thousands more armed officers would have to be recruited, co-ordination with local police would have to be strengthened, and a new national infrastructure force may even have to be created.

Okuhara shares these concerns. “I don’t think the CNC’s current policing model would be able to cope with any more sites,” he says. “The generating sites, they’re kept well away from the public for good reasons.

“One, they’re easier to protect. And two, if something goes wrong, the contingency engineers have got some space to work with.”

What is the Civil Nuclear Constabulary?

The CNC is a specialist armed force with about 1,600 officers and staff. It was created in 2005 to guard civil nuclear sites and material.
“The CNC will deter any attacker whose intent is the theft, sabotage or destruction of nuclear material, whether static or in transit, or the sabotage of high consequence facilities,” its web page explains.
It adds: “If an attack occurs, CNC will defend that material and those facilities and deny access to them. If material is seized or high consequence facilities are compromised, the CNC will recover control of those facilities and regain custody of the material.”

New small reactors, same big risks

After fighting in the Iraq War with British infantry, Okuhara joined the CNC in 2006 and served for six years. He describes how he helped to protect Gloucestershire’s Oldbury Power Station – which is now undergoing decommissioning – in his new book, Nuclear Copper. “Based within the high metal fences and fortress-like security measures of the power station, there was a heavily armed police presence on duty at any given time,” he writes.

To deter and prevent terrorism, the team patrolled surrounding roads and villages, wearing body armour and carrying G36C assault rifles. They benefited from the rural location by building relationships with local farmers and villagers, who “could recognise an unfamiliar car or person instantly” and knew to inform officers.

Rules currently state that nuclear power stations can only be placed in “semi-urban” settings. A spokesperson for the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero insists: “All new nuclear projects, including SMRs, are prevented from being built in densely populated areas.” The Government is loosening restrictions on them being built in the countryside.

But a majority of industry figures believe that “new nuclear technologies could be safely located closer to densely populated areas,” according to an official consultation paper.

The Whitehall document says that the semi-urban restriction will be reviewed every five years “to ensure it remains relevant and effective,” and the Government is “open to revising” this rule in future……………………….

The nuclear industry argues that SMRs will be small enough to build in urban settings, but Okuhara argues this would rob officers of a key advantage. “An intervention zone around a site gives you plenty of space where you can detect things,” he explains.

And he underlines that mini reactors do not pose miniature hazards. “On security, size doesn’t matter. When it comes to the fuel and the byproducts, they are equally dangerous.”

At the moment, energy companies cover much of the CNC’s costs. But having many smaller sites is likely to make security operations proportionately more expensive.

He continues: “If you think about the largest sites in the UK, places like Sellafield or Dounreay, they’ve got hundreds of officers. There are plenty of people out on patrol. Are these SMRs going to be given sufficient resources? Or are the companies going to be saying: ‘It’s a small reactor, we don’t need as many bodies on the ground’?”

The Government offers reassurance that any SMR will “need to have the highest levels of security in place.” A spokesperson said: “All operators are answerable to a robust and independent regulator – the Office for Nuclear Regulation – which must approve their security plan covering physical, personnel and cyber security.” The CNC declined to comment.

Vetting failures

If potentially thousands more armed officers must be recruited to guard SMRs, the CNC must improve its vetting procedures. That much is clear because of one man: Wayne Couzens.

Couzens’ name became infamous after he raped and murdered Sarah Everard in Surrey in 2021, having used his Metropolitan Police ID to falsely arrest her.

Couzens had previously been an authorised firearms officer with the CNC, serving at Sellafield and Dungeness. He had passed the CNC’s vetting procedures in 2011 despite previously being accused of numerous sexual offences, including harassment, assault and indecent exposure. He transferred to the Met in 2018.

The CNC’s Chief Constable, Simon Chesterman, apologised “unreservedly” on behalf of the force in 2024, “for the part CNC played in his entry as a full-time police officer.”………………………………………………

No matter whether they’re protecting groundbreaking SMRs, or conventional nuclear sites, or convoys of radioactive fuel, “every officer in the CNC should have the top level of vetting,” he says. “They’ve got access to firearms. They can access some of the most toxic material that has ever existed.”

It’s a reminder that when it comes to nuclear security, sometimes the biggest threats can come from insiders.

‘Nuclear Copper: The Secret World of Nuclear Policing’ by Matt Okuhara is out now (£22.99, Amberley Publishing) @robhastings.bsky.social https://inews.co.uk/news/crime/i-guarded-britains-nuclear-sites-security-mini-reactors-3649782

April 25, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

INSIDER THREAT SECURITY CONSIDERATIONSFOR ADVANCED AND SMALL MODULAR REACTORS.

The wide range of nuclear power plant technologies currently in design
globally have an assortment of unique characteristics that create novel
security considerations compared to large conventional nuclear power
plants.

Some of these characteristics create “insider threat”
considerations for nuclear security, where insiders are defined as
individuals with legitimate access to nuclear facilities and materials who
use this access to carry out sabotage or theft of nuclear material.

These include a lack of mature security culture in developer organisations,
serial plant manufacturing in a production line environment, plant siting
in remote and isolated areas, minimised staff numbers, teleoperation of
plants by offsite staff, the increased reliance on digital instrumentation
and control systems, and the potential for greater involvement of foreign
experts and third-party suppliers, especially on short-term bases for, e.g,
refuelling and maintenance.

The paper takes a technology agnostic approach
to examine what these factors may mean for insider threat risks and
suggests that plant designers should be identifying and minimising the
opportunities of insiders to act throughout the engineering design process.
Doing so is anticipated to strengthen effective insider threat mitigation
in deployed small and advanced reactors.

Kings College 21st April 2025 – https://kclpure.kcl.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/311074601/Paper_381_Insider_Threat_for_SMR.pdf

April 23, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | safety, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Small nuclear reactors are no fix for California’s energy needs

I know all too well that the hype is built on quicksand …….. many of those “building support for small modular reactors” are putting forward “rhetorical visions imbued with elements of fantasy.”

SMRs are just one of several wildly overhyped false promises on which the world is poised to spend hundreds of billions of dollars by 2040

Joseph Romm, April 18, 2025 , https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2025-04-18/small-modular-reactors-cost-california

It might seem like everyone from venture capitalists to the news media to the U.S. secretary of Energy has been hyping small modular reactors as the key to unlocking a nuclear renaissance and solving both climate change and modern data centers’ ravenous need for power.

On Monday, the Natural Resources Committee of the California Assembly will consider a bill to repeal a longstanding moratorium on nuclear plants in the state, which was meant to be in place until there is a sustainable plan for what to do with radioactive waste. Defeated multiple times in the past, this bill would carve out an exception for small modular reactors, or SMRs, the current pipe dream of nuclear advocates.

SMRs are typically under 300 megawatts, compared with the combined 2.2 gigawatts from Diablo Canyon’s two operating reactors near San Luis Obispo. These smaller nukes have received so much attention in recent years mainly because modern reactors are so costly that the U.S. and Europe have all but stopped building any.

The sad truth is that small reactors make even less sense than big ones. And Trump’s tariffs only make the math more discouraging.

I’ve been analyzing nuclear power since 1993, when I started a five-year stint at the Department of Energy as a special assistant to the deputy secretary. I helped him oversee both the nuclear energy program and the energy efficiency and renewable energy program, which I ran in 1997.

So I know all too well that the hype is built on quicksand — specifically, a seven-decade history of failure. As a 2015 analysis put it, “Economics killed small nuclear power plants in the past — and probably will keep doing so.” A 2014 journal article concluded many of those “building support for small modular reactors” are putting forward “rhetorical visions imbued with elements of fantasy.”

But isn’t there a nuclear renaissance going on? Nope. Georgia’s Vogtle plant is the only new nuclear plant the U.S. has successfully built and started in recent decades. The total cost was $35 billion, or about $16 million per megawatt of generating capacity — far more than methane (natural gas) or solar and wind with battery storage.

As such, Vogtle is “the most expensive power plant ever built on Earth,” with an “astoundingly high” estimated electricity cost, noted Power magazine. Georgia ratepayers each paid $1,000 to support this plant before they even got any power, and now their bills are rising more than $200 annually.

The high cost of construction and the resulting high energy bills explain why nuclear’s share of global power peaked at 17% in the mid-1990s but was down to 9.1% in 2024.

For decades, economies of scale drove reactors to grow beyond 1,000 megawatts. The idea that abandoning this logic would lead to a lower cost per megawatt is magical thinking, defying technical plausibility, historical reality and common sense.

Even a September report from the federal Department of Energy — which funds SMR development — modeled a cost per megawatt more than 50% higher than for large reactors. That’s why there are only three operating SMRs: one in China, with a 300% cost overrun, and two in Russia, with a 400% overrun. In March, a Financial Times analysis labeled such small reactors “the most expensive energy source.”

Indeed, the first SMR the U.S. tried to build — by NuScale — was canceled in 2023 after its cost soared past $20 million per megawatt, higher than Vogtle. In 2024, Bill Gates told CBS the full cost of his 375-megawatt Natrium reactor would be “close to $10 billion,” making its cost nearly $30 million per megawatt — almost twice Vogtle’s.

All of this has played out against a backdrop of historically cheap natural gas and a rapid expansion of renewable energy sources for electricity generation. All that competition against nuclear power matters: A 2023 Columbia University report concluded that “if the costs of new nuclear end up being much higher” than $6.2 million per megawatt, “new nuclear appears unlikely to play much of a role, if any, in the U.S. power sector.” R.I.P.

SMRs are just one of several wildly overhyped false promises on which the world is poised to spend hundreds of billions of dollars by 2040, including hydrogen energy and direct air carbon capture.

But nuclear power is the original overhyped energy technology. When he was chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, Lewis Strauss — the Robert Downey Jr. character in “Oppenheimer” — predicted in 1954 that our children would enjoy nuclear power “too cheap to meter.”

Yet by the time I joined the Department of Energy in 1993, nuclear power costs had grown steadily for decades. Since then, prices for new reactors have kept rising, and they are now the most expensive power source. But solar, wind and battery prices have kept dropping, becoming the cheapest. Indeed, those three technologies constitute a remarkable 93% of planned U.S. utility-scale electric-generating capacity additions in 2025. The rest is natural gas.

China is the only country building many new nuclear plants over the next five years — about 35 gigawatts. Less than 1% of this projected capacity would be from small reactors — while more than 95% will be from reactors over 1,100 megawatts. Now compare all that to the 350 gigawatts of solar and wind China built — just in 2024.

For the U.S., President Trump’s erratic tariffs make small modular reactors an even riskier bet. If the U.S. economy shrinks, so does demand for new electric power plants. And the twin threats of inflation and higher interest rates increase the risk of even worse construction cost overruns.

Also, China, Canada and other trading partners provide critical supply chain elements needed to mass-produce SMRs — and mass production is key to the sales pitch claiming this technology could become affordable. That logic would apply only if virtually all of the current SMR ventures fail and only one or two end up pursuing mass production.

So, can we please stop talking about small modular reactors as a solution to our power needs and get back to building the real solutions — wind, solar and batteries? They’re cheaper and cleaner — and actually modular.

Joseph Romm is a former acting assistant secretary of Energy and the author of “The Hype About Hydrogen: False Promises and Real Solutions in the Race to Save the Climate.”

April 22, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

Bill Gates enters race to build mini-nuclear reactors in Britain

Competition from billionaire’s company TerraPower threatens blow for Rolls-Royce

A company founded by Bill Gates has submitted a bid to build
mini-nuclear reactors in Britain, dealing a potential blow to
Rolls-Royce’s hopes of dominating the domestic market.

Seattle-based TerraPower has written to the Government outlining its intention to submit
its reactor design for regulatory approval. The move kickstarts efforts by
the US company to enter an increasingly competitive market to build small
modular reactors (SMR), which are expected to play a key role in the UK’s
shift to cleaner energy.

The Microsoft billionaire’s company has
developed a reactor, called Natrium, that uses a molten sodium heat storage
system that allows it to rapidly ramp up its power output at peak times.
Natrium is the Latin word for sodium which has the chemical symbol Na.
Chris Levesque, TerraPower chief executive, said: “I am incredibly
excited to begin the process of licensing the Natrium technology in the UK.
Rolls-Royce had hoped to corner UK market with its small modular reactors.
While TerraPower is not involved in the competition for the UK’s SMR
contract, the potential entrant of a new deep-pocketed rival into the
market will pose a fresh challenge to Rolls-Royce’s plans.

Telegraph 16th April 2025, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/04/16/bill-gates-bids-to-build-mini-nuclear-reactors-in-britain/

April 20, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

UPENN REPORT: TARIFFS LIKELY NAIL IN COFFIN OF U.S. SMALL NUCLEAR REACTORS.

Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are a “false promise” for powering
proposed artificial intelligence (AI) data centers nationwide, according to
a new report published today by the University of Pennsylvania’s (UPenn), Dr. Joseph Romm, a former Acting Assistant Secretary of Energy.

The research report, “Smaller nuclear reactors (SMRs) are a costly dead end,
especially for AI, and Trump’s tariffs and other policies make them even
more of a losing bet,” is an expanded version of a chapter in Dr.
Romm’s new book, “The Hype About Hydrogen: False Promises and Real
Solutions in the Race to Save the Climate” (Island Press, April 22).

The report examines recent economic developments, including the over-budget $35
billion completion of Georgia’s Vogtle plant, current and canceled SMR
proposals, and how Trump’s tariffs (and other policies) threaten the
nuclear industry. The study concludes that these factors will ultimately
doom the likelihood of new American commercial nuclear reactors playing
much of a role in meeting U.S. electricity demand needs for the foreseeable
future.

“It would be unprecedented in the history of energy for smaller
nuclear reactors to overcome not only the high cost per megawatt of large
nuclear plants but also the diseconomies of shrinking them down—and then
to somehow keep dropping in price so sharply that SMRs become such clear
marketplace winners as to make a major contribution to cutting greenhouse
gas emissions by 2050. This is especially true since SMRs show every sign
of the kind of cost escalation that has plagued larger nuclear reactors for
decades,” according to the report.

Hastings Group 15th April 2025,
https://hastingsgroupmedia.com/SMF/041525-Romm-SMR-Dead-End-Report-news-release.pdf

April 18, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

U.S. advances microreactor program for military sites

Nuclear Newswire, Apr 15, 2025,

The Defense Innovation Unit announced April 10 next steps in the Advanced Nuclear Power for Installations (ANPI) program, launched in 2024 to deploy microreactor nuclear systems for increased power reliability at select military locations.

The ANPI program is a collaboration between DIU, which is under the Department of Defense, and the Departments of the Army and the Air Force, with the goals of working to design, license, build, and operate one or more microreactor nuclear power plants for the armed forces………………..

The DIU released the names of eight companies eligible to receive Other Transaction awards to provide commercially available dual use microreactor technology at various DOD installations:

Antares Nuclear
BWXT Advanced Technologies
General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems
Kairos Power
Oklo
Radiant Industries Incorporated
Westinghouse Government Services
X-energy

“Projecting power abroad demands ensuring power at home and this program aims to deliver that, ensuring that our defense leaders can remain focused on lethality,” ………………………………………………………………… https://www.ans.org/news/2025-04-14/article-6931/us-advances-microreactor-program-for-military-sites/

April 18, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

SMRs most expensive of all electricity technologies per kW generation

31 Mar, 2025 By Tom Pashby

Small modular reactors (SMRs) are projected to be the most expensive source per kW of electricity generated when compared with natural gas, traditional nuclear and renewables.

(behind a paywall)

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/smrs-most-expensive-of-all-electricity-technologies-per-kw-generation-31-03-2025/

April 4, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Mini nuclear reactor rush has a short half-life.

By Rob Cyran,

The rush to produce mini nuclear reactors on the cheap might have a short
half-life. In search of vast quantities of power for the data centers
fueling artificial intelligence, Meta Platforms, Alphabet and Amazon have
backed a goal, to triple the world’s nuclear power capacity by 2050.

The prospects for nuclear are indeed brightening, but it is still more
expensive and far slower to build than renewables. The upstart approach of
making smaller, identikit reactors will struggle even harder to close that
gap. Theoretically, SMRs can reduce costs by simplifying the underlying
design into a set of mass-produced, standard parts made off-site. About 95
companies are actively chasing this dream, according to John Ketchum, chief
executive of NextEra, the nation’s largest power developer.

Big names are in the fray, like OpenAI chief Sam Altman and his side project Oklo, or
Google and Amazon, which have invested in Kairos and X-energy,
respectively. UK-based engineering giant Rolls-Royce is urging the British
government to begin moving ahead with new projects.

This idea isn’t entirely new. The U.S. built some small commercial reactors in the 1960s.
But bigger reactors benefit from economies of scale, requiring
proportionately less material and fewer operating staff, resulting in a
one-third advantage versus smaller plants in costs per kilowatt of power,

Reuters 31st March 2025
https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/mini-nuclear-reactor-rush-has-short-half-life-2025-03-31/

April 4, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Behind the hype -“New wave of smaller, cheaper nuclear reactors sends US states racing to attract the industry “

No modular reactors are operating in the U.S. and a project to build the first, this one in Idaho, was terminated in 2023, despite getting federal aid.

The U.S. remains without a long-term solution for storing radioactive waste

Nuclear also has competition from renewable energies.

New wave of smaller, cheaper nuclear reactors sends US states racing to attract the industry, By ASSOCIATED PRESS, 29 March 2025 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-14549543/New-wave-smaller-cheaper-nuclear-reactors-sends-US-states-racing-attract-industry.html

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) – With the promise of newer, cheaper nuclear power on the horizon, U.S. states are vying to position themselves to build and supply the industry’s next generation as policymakers consider expanding subsidies and paving over regulatory obstacles.

Advanced reactor designs from competing firms are filling up the federal government’s regulatory pipeline as the industry touts them as a reliable, climate-friendly way to meet electricity demands from tech giants desperate to power their fast-growing artificial intelligence platforms.

The reactors could be operational as early as 2030, giving states a short runway to roll out the red carpet, and they face lingering public skepticism about safety and growing competition from renewables like wind and solar. Still, the reactors have high-level federal support, and utilities across the U.S. are working to incorporate the energy source into their portfolios.

Last year, 25 states passed legislation to support advanced nuclear energy and this year lawmakers have introduced over 200 bills supportive of nuclear energy, said Marc Nichol of the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade association whose members include power plant owners, universities and labor unions.

“We´ve seen states taking action at ever-increasing levels for the past few years now,” Nichol said in an interview.

Smaller reactors are, in theory, faster to build and easier to site than conventional reactors. They could be factory-built from standard parts and are touted as flexible enough to plunk down for a single customer, like a data center or an industrial complex.

Advanced reactors, called small modular reactors and microreactors, produce a fraction of the energy produced by the conventional nuclear reactors built around the world for the last 50 years. Where conventional reactors produce 800 to 1,000 megawatts, or enough to power about half a million homes, modular reactors produce 300 megawatts or less and microreactors produce no more than 20 megawatts.

Tech giants Amazon and Google are investing in nuclear reactors to get the power they need, as states compete with Big Tech, and each other, in a race for electricity.

For some state officials, nuclear is a carbon-free source of electricity that helps them meet greenhouse gas-reduction goals. Others see it as an always-on power source to replace an accelerating wave of retiring coal-fired power plants.

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee last month proposed more than $90 million to help subsidize a Tennessee Valley Authority project to install several small reactors, boost research and attract nuclear tech firms.

Long a proponent of the TVA’s nuclear project, Lee also launched Tennessee’s Nuclear Energy Fund in 2023, designed to attract a supply chain, including a multibillion-dollar uranium enrichment plant billed as the state’s biggest-ever industrial investment.

In Utah, where Gov. Spencer Cox announced “Operation Gigawatt” to double the state’s electricity generation in a decade, the Republican wants to spend $20 million to prepare sites for nuclear. State Senate President J. Stuart Adams told colleagues when he opened the chamber’s 2025 session that Utah needs to be the “nation´s nuclear hub.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott declared his state is “ready to be No. 1 in advanced nuclear power” as Texas lawmakers consider billions in nuclear power incentives.

Michigan lawmakers are considering millions of dollars in incentives to develop and use the reactors, as well as train a nuclear industry workforce.

One state over, Indiana lawmakers this month passed legislation to let utilities more quickly seek reimbursement for the cost to build a modular reactor, undoing a decades-old prohibition designed to protect ratepayers from bloated, inefficient or, worse, aborted power projects.

In Arizona, lawmakers are considering a utility-backed bill to relax environmental regulations if a utility builds a reactor at the site of a large industrial power user or a retired coal-fired power plant.

Still, the devices face an uncertain future.

No modular reactors are operating in the U.S. and a project to build the first, this one in Idaho, was terminated in 2023, despite getting federal aid.

The U.S. Department of Energy last year, under then-President Joe Biden, estimated the U.S. will need an additional 200 gigawatts of new nuclear capacity to keep pace with future power demands and reach net-zero emissions of planet-warming greenhouse gases by 2050 to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

The U.S. currently has just under 100 gigawatts of nuclear power operating. More than 30 advanced nuclear projects are under consideration or planned to be in operation by the early 2030s, Nichol of the NEI said, but those would supply just a fraction of the 200 gigawatt goal.

Work to produce a modular reactor has drawn billions of dollars in federal subsidies, loan guarantees and more recently tax credits signed into law by Biden.

Those have been critical to the nuclear industry, which expects them to survive under President Donald Trump, whose administration it sees as a supporter.

The U.S. remains without a long-term solution for storing radioactive waste, safety regulators are under pressure from Congress to approve designs and there are serious questions about industry claims that the smaller reactors are efficient, safe and reliable, said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Plus, Lyman said, “the likelihood that those are going to be deployable and instantly 100% reliable right out of the gate is just not consistent with the history of nuclear power development. And so it´s a much riskier bet.”

Nuclear also has competition from renewable energies.

Brendan Kochunas, an assistant professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Michigan, said advanced reactors may have a short window to succeed, given the regulatory scrutiny they undergo and the advances in energy storage technologies to make wind and solar power more reliable.

Those storage technologies could develop faster, bring down renewables’ cost and, ultimately, make more economic sense than nuclear, Kochunas said.

The supply chain for building reactors is another question.

The U.S. lacks high-quality concrete- and steel-fabrication design skills necessary to manufacture a nuclear power plant, Kochunas said.

That introduces the prospect of higher costs and longer timelines, he said. While foreign suppliers could help, there also is the fuel to consider.

Kathryn Huff, a former top Energy Department official who is now an associate professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, said uranium enrichment capacity in the U.S. and among its allies needs to grow in order to support reactor production.

First-of-their-kind reactors need to get up and running close to their target dates, Huff said, “in order for anyone to have faith that a second or third or fourth one should be built.”

March 31, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

DOE Reissues $900M Nuclear SMR Opportunity, Scraps Community Criteria to Focus on Technical Merit

Power, Mar 26, 2025, by Sonal Patel

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has reissued a $900 million funding opportunity to accelerate deployment of Generation III+ small modular reactors (SMRs), removing community benefit requirements and shifting the focus solely to technical merit—a move that reflects the Trump administration’s revised energy and industrial priorities.

The funding opportunity announcement (FOA)—officially designated DE-FOA-0003485—was first issued in October 2024, backed by funds appropriated through the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and authorized under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024. The effort remains jointly administered by the Office of Nuclear Energy and the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED), with technical support from the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Community Requirements Dropped

According to the FOA, eligible Tier 1 projects must feature Generation III+ light-water reactor (LWR) designs ranging between 50 MWe and 350 MWe per unit. (To be considered, total plant output, including process heat loads, must be below 350 MWe.) Projects may involve single-unit or multi-unit configurations with no cap on total site output. Designs must meet a minimum Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 6, signaling sufficient maturity for system-level validation and procurement.

The FOA also stresses that cost-sharing is a core requirement. “DOE cannot contribute more than 50% of the overall project cost; therefore, the total award value will be no less than $1.6 billion, if the full government share is awarded.” It adds that “DOE will pay out based on previously agreed milestone amounts upon their completion,” and that “the agreed upon milestone payment from DOE cannot account for more than 50% of the project costs incurred in completing the milestone.”………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

The most prominent change— as highlighted above—is that the March 24 submission formally eliminates all community benefit obligations that were central to the October 2024 solicitation. That includes the removal of the Community Benefits Plan, which had been a required five-page submission outlining how projects would support community and labor engagement, workforce investment, and equity objectives. It also eliminates the “Program Policy Factors” section, which the DOE previously used after technical review to prioritize projects based on geographic diversity, local job creation, engagement with disadvantaged communities, and alignment with broader social goals such as the Justice40 Initiative. The reissued FOA now states that “applications will be evaluated solely on technical merit.”……………………………………………………………………………………………more https://www.powermag.com/doe-reissues-900m-nuclear-smr-opportunity-scraps-community-criteria-to-focus-on-technical-merit/

March 29, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Failure After Failure: Let’s Ditch Small Modular Reactors.

The World Mind, February 25, 2025, Carmine Miklovis https://www.theworldmind.org/briefing-archive/failure-after-failure-lets-ditch-small-modular-reactors2025/2/25

Imagine a revolutionary new coffee machine – one that can get twice as much coffee from the same amount of beans. This machine would make coffee cheaper to make at home and buy at shops like Dunkin’ and Starbucks. This coffee machine starts to get buy-in from major companies in the coffee business, like Keurig and Nespresso, and is projected to be launched in Summer 2025. Halfway through the spring, it’s announced that, due to delays, it will now be launched in Winter 2027. After another delay, it’s announced that the project is now expected by 2030. Keurig and Nespresso, in response, withdraw from the project, further delaying it until 2035. After 10 years of delays, would you still invest in this machine? Probably not, so why are we investing in an energy technology that’s built on the same promises?

Small modular reactors (SMRs), unlike the coffee machine, are a real technology that promise to make nuclear energy cheaper and more accessible. In theory, their smaller size allows them to be deployed more quickly and in a variety of settings, an advantage over solar panels, wind turbines, and tidal energy, which have location restrictions. Some of these reactor designs can reprocess spent fuel (known as a “closed fuel cycle”) to extract more energy than traditional reactors can from the same amount of fuel. As such, many have hailed these nuclear reactors as the key to addressing the climate crisis, as they seem to resolve a lot of the current problems that have plagued nuclear power thus far.

On an international level, France and India have announced plans to begin constructing SMRs together, praising the energy source for its potential to enable the transition to a low-carbon future. India is also expected to work with U.S. firms to enhance investment in the technology. Similarly, Trump’s pick for energy secretary, Chris Wright, served on the board of Oklo Inc., a company that focuses on advanced nuclear technology, and is pushing for investments in nuclear energy (alongside fossil fuels). As the Trump administration ditches renewables for fossil fuels and nuclear energy, some, including Wright, have said that now is the time for the nuclear renaissance.

Unfortunately, however, it seems increasingly likely that these reactors will fail to live up to their promise. Talks of deploying small modular reactors have been ongoing for over a decade, and while around a hundred designs exist, only two reactors have been deployed–one in China and one in Russia. In the U.S., while private companies and the federal government have invested billions into their development, projects have faced delays and cancellations. Long construction times, issues with quality control, and disproportionately high energy costs (for producers and consumers alike) have led many to conclude that the energy source is a false promise. Recognizing this failure, many of the largest energy companies, such as Babcock & Wilcox and Westinghouse have withdrawn their investments, leaving many other investors hesitant to put any of their assets in the nuclear cause. While the potential of these models is exciting in theory, investors would much rather hedge their bets on just about anything else.

To make matters worse, small modular reactors come with an additional catch: they risk enabling the proliferation of nuclear weapons. SMRs are a dual-use technology; after reactors have extracted energy from the fuel rods (the real-life equivalent of the coffee beans from earlier), they’re left with weapons-grade plutonium in the nuclear waste that could be used to create a potent nuclear weapon. This risk is particularly acute for reactors that reprocess for more energy, as the leftover waste is more potent and more viable for a nuclear weapon.

This presents a particular challenge, as in order for the touted benefits of SMRs to materialize, they need to distinguish themselves from the nuclear reactors we have now. As such, these new designs have to be more efficient and take advantage of their versatility, which means a lot of smaller reactors capable of reprocessing. More fissile material (in quantity and quality) coming out of more reactors makes it difficult to effectively monitor where all the waste goes. To complicate things, monitoring is already a problem, as it’s difficult to accurately measure nuclear material as it’s being transported from the facility to a waste disposal unit. The ease of diverting material could provide a pathway for states that have long had nuclear ambitions, such as Iran (who is also in a proxy war against a nuclear-armed adversary), or opportunistic non-state actors (such as domestic extremists or terrorist groups like ISIS) to finally get their hands on a nuclear weapon.

Unfortunately for proponents, it’s unlikely that the U.S. will be able to control or monitor the spread of this technology. The U.S. cannot set the standards for SMRs when it continues to lag behind Russia and China in production. Even then, why would countries already in China’s global infrastructure program, known as the Belt and Road Initiative, choose to get nuclear reactor designs from the U.S. further down the line when they can get nuclear reactors from China now? Chinese energy technology is likely more interoperable—able to work with pre-existing infrastructure—than U.S. designs, further restricting the U.S.’ potential market share. Even our closest allies wouldn’t want U.S. models, as some of them, including Germany and Japan, have given up on nuclear energy altogether. Given this hesitation and the long delays, SMRs would either fail to be deployed at a sufficient scale to resolve climate change, or would be completed hastily, which increases the risk of state or non-state actors acquiring a nuclear weapon.

While some may argue that any investment in renewable energy is a net positive in the fight against climate change, investing in nuclear energy hamstrings the response of future administrations. Investing in nuclear power creates a dangerous moral licensing, wherein future leaders may feel less incentivized to invest in other, effective renewable energy sources because they feel that they already have it covered with nuclear power. Historically, because of the way subsidies are distributed under the Clean Power Plan, nuclear energy actively stifles the development of other energies. In an effort to make nuclear power prices competitive, the U.S. government subsidizes it, which actively siphons those subsidies away from solar, wind, and tidal energy. As solar energy becomes the cheapest option available, subsidies to expand its gap or aid its clean partners could enhance renewable energy’s grip on the market. Absent these subsidies, however, fossil fuels may retain their foothold in the market for the foreseeable future. Given the existential threat at stake, the risk that this poses for the climate response cannot be overstated.

While advocates of SMRs are right that renewable energy needs to be adopted swiftly, trying to haphazardly rush out these reactors to deploy around the world risks trading one crisis for another, enabling a new era of nuclear proliferation. Similarly, if the Trump administration wants to keep its promise of low energy prices, their best bet is to stop investing in the nuclear power industry and let solar and wind energy take the reins. Like the hypothetical coffee machine, the benefits of SMRs will remain a nice thought, but nothing more than that. As climate change beckons at our doorstep, we can’t afford to invest in a false promise—it’s time to ditch SMRs.

March 8, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »