nuclear-news

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

Exploding Alberta’s Myths about Small Nuclear Reactors

Small nuclear reactors are unproven and years away from being in use. But the Alberta government is presenting them as a way to keep fossil fuels flowing. 

The untested technology is more about greenwashing than about cutting emissions.

Tim Rauf 15 Feb 2024, The Tyee

Alberta’s government is really excited about nuclear power.

More specifically, about novel and unproven small modular nuclear reactors. It hopes to use these to help lower the province’s carbon emissions while letting the energy industry continue operating as usual — an enticing prospect to the government given its intention to increase oil and gas production, while still having the energy sector get to net zero by 2050.

Small modular nuclear reactors produce less than one-third of the electricity of a traditional reactor.

The premise is that small reactors are easier to place and build, and cheaper.

Alberta hitched its horse to this wagon with Ontario, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan in 2022, taking part in a strategic plan for small modular reactor development and deployment. Alberta Innovates, the province’s research body, had a feasibility study conducted for it by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The study focused on using the reactors for greenhouse-gas-free steam emissions for oilsands projects, electricity generation in our deregulated market and providing an alternative to diesel when supplying power to remote communities.

More recently, Ontario Power Generation and Capital Power out of Edmonton entered into an agreement to assess SMRs for providing nuclear energy to Alberta’s grid. Nathan Neudorf, Alberta’s minister of affordability and utilities, was gleeful. “This partnership represents an exciting and important step forward in our efforts to decarbonize the grid while maintaining on-demand baseload power,” he said of the announcement.

All of this buzz makes it seem like SMRs are just over the horizon, an inevitability that will allow the province to evolve to have a cleaner, modern energy landscape.

But small modular reactors are nowhere near ready for deployment, and won’t be in Alberta for about a decade. That means for 10 years, they’ll provide no GHG-free steam to mitigate emissions.

“It’s still in the design phase,” Kennedy Halvorson said, speaking about the reactors. Halvorson is a conservation specialist with the Alberta Wilderness Association. The reactors are “so far off from being able to be used for us,” Halvorson added. “The earliest projections would be 2030. And we need to be reducing our emissions before 2030. So, we need to have solutions now, basically.”

With SMRs unable to stem the emissions tide for years, it’s confusing as to how they could make enough of a difference to get Alberta to net zero by 2050 (in line with United Nations emissions reduction targets to keep global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees).

Capital Power made similar projections………………………………………………………………………..

Construction itself is only one piece. Adding to that is the need to build a regulatory framework, which Alberta doesn’t have for nuclear…………………………………………………….

Ontario’s nuclear troubles

Listening to these public voices is prudent. We can look east to see what happens when the government and power utilities sidestep the process of getting explicit consent from communities that stand to be affected.

With its status as the nuclear activity hub in Canada, we can use Ontario as a litmus test of sorts and gauge Canada’s track record of care with nuclear. The report card isn’t great. There have been multiple cases of improper consultation with Indigenous Peoples on whose lands the waste, production or extraction sites are placed………………………………………………………………………..

Small reactors face a critical economic challenge

Adding to the timeline troubles are questions as to whether small reactors truly offer that much of an economic advantage, if any, compared with their larger counterparts.

In a previous article Ramana wrote, he pointed to the first reactors as an indication of the answer.

The first reactors started off small. Their size, though, coupled with the exorbitant price tag of nuclear development, meant they couldn’t compete with fossil fuels.

The only thing they could do to reduce the disadvantage was to build larger and larger reactors, Ramana said.

A large reactor that could produce five times as much electricity didn’t cost five times as much to build, he said, improving the return from the investment.

Economically the SMR can’t seem to compete with its larger sibling. Adding this to the delays abundant with nuclear, controversies around construction and communities, and the misalignment of timelines for meeting climate commitments, we need to ask why we’re seeing such a fervent enthusiasm for small modular reactors.

Greenwashing by any other name

The answer is likely a simple one: The Alberta government wants to keep the taps on. Their friends in the energy industry do too. Like carbon capture and sequestration before it, SMRs are the next way to stave off pesky talk of divestment and transition…………………………………………………………….

Deflecting and delaying isn’t the only greenwashing happening either, Halvorson argued. She noted there’s a special kind of tactic that comes with nuclear and other “clean” technology, where only carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas offsets are counted.

“When we reduce it all to just how much CO2 something emits, we’re not getting the full picture of environmental impacts,” Halvorson said. She pointed to water use in nuclear as an example.

“Most nuclear technologies require a massive input of water to work. And as we know, right now we’re in a drought in Alberta. Our water resources are so precious. We already have industries that are using way too much water as is, in a way that’s not allowing our environments and ecosystems to replenish their reserves, like their water resources,” she said.

Despite the cheerleading for nuclear Alberta, where small nuclear reactors will let us enjoy the fruits of fossil fuels (and even produce more) in a cleaner way, the bones don’t read that way. The argument that we can keep on drilling so long as we have that newest silver bullet hasn’t stood up to scrutiny before, and it doesn’t now.  https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2024/02/15/Exploding-Alberta-Myths-Small-Nuclear-Reactors/

February 19, 2024 Posted by | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, spinbuster | Leave a comment

Waste issues need consideration in SMR deployment, says UK’s Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM).

 https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Waste-issues-need-consideration-in-SMR-deployment 14 Feb 24

Waste management issues need to have a significantly greater prominence in the process of developing and deploying small modular reactor and advanced modular reactor designs, according to the UK’s Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM).

There is considerable impetus for the development of small modular reactor (SMR) and advanced modular reactor (AMR) designs and their commercial deployment, both for energy security and for environmental reasons, particularly given the historic difficulties of deploying reactors at gigawatt scale,” CoRWM notes in a new position paper.

However, it says the issue of managing the used fuel and radioactive waste from these new reactors “appears, with some exceptions … to have been largely ignored or at least downplayed up to now”. It adds that the issue “must be considered when selecting technologies for investment, further development, construction and operation”.

The paper says: “This must involve addressing the uncertainties about such management at an early stage, to avoid costly mistakes which have been made in the past, by designing reactors without sufficient consideration of how spent fuel and wastes would be managed, and also to provide financial certainty for investors regarding lifetime costs of operation and decommissioning.”


CoRWM says it is essential to know: the nature and composition of the waste and, in particular, of the used fuel; its likely heat generation and activity levels; how it could feasibly be packaged and its volume; and when it is likely to arise.

“So far there is little published material from the promoters and developers of new reactor types to demonstrate that they are devoting the necessary level of attention to the waste prospectively arising from SMR/AMRs,” it notes.

The position paper provides recommendations to the UK government, Great British Nuclear (GBN), and Nuclear Waste Services and regulators to consider as SMR and AMR deployment is progressed.

“There are many questions to be answered concerning the radioactive waste and spent fuel management aspects of the design and operation of SMRs and AMRs,” CoRWM says. “This paper begins the process of raising them, with the caveat that our knowledge of the reactor designs and their fuel requirements is relatively immature compared with large GW reactors.”

CoRWM says there are various mechanisms by which these questions could be addressed in the process of obtaining approval for the new reactors. These are principally: the process of justification, which will be mandatory for all new reactor types; Generic Design Assessment which is optional and non-statutory; nuclear site licensing; and environmental permitting.

“The last two stages of control may in some cases come too late in the process to allow for effective optimisation of designs and the selection of materials that reduce waste,” CoRWM says. “It remains to be seen how effective these mechanisms will be and whether they will occur sufficiently early in the decision-making process to ensure that radioactive waste management is fully and responsibly addressed.”

CoRWM was established in 2003 as a non-statutory advisory committee and is classed as a non-departmental public body. Its purpose is to provide independent advice to the UK government, and the devolved administrations based on scrutiny of the available evidence on the long-term management of radioactive waste, arising from civil and, where relevant, defence nuclear programmes, including storage and disposal.

The UK government has plans to expand nuclear energy capacity to 24 GW by 2050, with a fleet of SMRs a key part of that strategy. Last year, the government and the new GBN arms-length body set up to help deliver that extra capacity began the selection process for which SMR technology to use. In October, EDF, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, Holtec, NuScale Power, Rolls Royce SMR and Westinghouse were invited to bid for UK government contracts in the next stage of the process.

February 18, 2024 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK, wastes | Leave a comment

Small Nuclear Modular Reactors (SMRs) and Consent in Saskatchewan: What You Haven’t Been Told

Uranium Mining in Northern Saskatchewan: What You Need To Know―Four-Part Webinar Series Webinar #2: February 13th, 2024,

Small Nuclear Modular Reactors (SMRs) and Consent in Saskatchewan: What You Haven’t Been Told Everyone is welcome to attend this webinar series that will help you know more about what is happening with uranium mining in Northern Saskatchewan. While many people have been busy in survival mode and exhausted from the pandemic, wars around the world, and the extreme rising cost of living, uranium mining lobbyists and governments have been taking advantage, passing industry-favourable laws that will further degrade and threaten freshwater systems already desperately overburdened by farming and mining use and wastewater byproducts.

Hosted by Tori Cress Guests: Paul Belanger, Keepers of the Water Science Advisor. Dr. Gordon Edwards, President and co-founder of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, and Benjamin Ralston BA, JD, LLM, Assistant Professor at the College of Law, University of Saskatchewan Technical support: Beverly Andrews Paul Belanger works on the Keepers of the Water team as our Science Advisor and is also an environmentalist – entrepreneur, and designer. Paul founded his first environmental organization in 1987, then went on to mentor with scientists and operate an oil field supply and safety company. After more education and some research, Paul began an ecological design company called Living Design Systems – which is still active. Paul holds much knowledge and will now take us through a brief history of uranium mining in Saskatchewan.

Benjamin Ralston is an assistant professor at the College of Law at the University of Saskatchewan. Some of his research areas include Aboriginal rights, Canadian constitutional law, environmental law, human rights law, and natural resource law. Benjamin has worked at the U of S in various capacities since 2014. Including for the first year of the Nunavut law program in Iqaluit. He taught law courses in the Kanawayihetaytan Askiy (kaun-a-way-taa-tan-ah-ski) Program for Indigenous land managers and continues to teach a graduate course on environmental law and policy for the School of Environment and Sustainability. He is completing his Ph.D. at the College of Law with a dissertation investigating the intersection between environmental assessment practices and Indigenous rights in Canada. No registration is required. We will be broadcasting live from our Facebook Event Page here, https://fb.me/e/4cpZppDBU and on our YouTube channel here, https://youtube.com/live/f6TOoWU-w5A?…

February 15, 2024 Posted by | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

First Small Nuclear Reactor (SMR) domino falls, potentially to start cascade

February 8, 2024,  https://beyondnuclear.org/first-smr-domino-falls-potentially-to-start-cascade/—

Same financial risks viewed as generic to entire reactor type

The nuclear industry is rattled by an Opinion piece appearing in the January 31, 2024 edition of the energy trade journal Utility Dive. The article, astutely entitled “The collapse of NuScale’s project should spell the end for small modular nuclear reactors,” is an extensively documented study of yet another nuclear folly. 

Its author, M.V. Ramana, the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and Professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, carefully focuses on the financial collapse of what was heralded to be the first units of a bow wave of mass produced small commercial power reactors to be constructed and operated in the United States.

NuScale Power Corp, the Portland, Oregon based company that started up in 2007, was supposed to be the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) poster child to mass produce the first US Small Modular Reactors (SMR)  owned and controlled by US nuclear giant and thermonuclear weapons manufacturer Fluor Corporation.    Instead, on November 9, 2023, NuScale was announced as just another financial causality in a growing tally of nuclear projects stymied by uncontrollable cost and a recurring pattern of delay after delay.  In this case, however, NuScale fell victim  even before its selected reactor design could be certified by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a viable license for the groundbreaking ceremony.

The NuScale pilot project’s initial goal was to license, construct and operate twelve contiguous units, (50 to 60-megawatts electric (MWe) each for a total up to  720 MWe of generating capacity per site), housed in a single reactor building with one control room. On the promise that this would be safer, cheaper and quicker to build and operate, the NuScale SMR is really just a redesign of a decades-old technology for the impossibly expensive and larger (800 to 1150 MWe per unit) commercial pressurized water reactors operating on license extensions today.

Yet, even with this extensive experience going back to the 1960’s, the redesign has not yielded to be any more reliable for estimating cost-of-completion, time-to-completion or affordable operation. In fact, with the industry’s abandonment of the design and construction of new reactors on “economies of scale,” the prospect for generating affordable electricity from  small “mirage” reactors has apparently only become more unattainable.

The NuScale pilot reactor construction site was awarded by the DOE on the federally owned Idaho National Laboratory (INL) near Idaho Falls. NuScale worked out a deal for its projected electricity customer base on a contract with the Utah Associated Municipal Power System (UAMPS), an electric cooperative of 50 cities in seven western states incentivized by a DOE federal government payout to would be customers of up to $1.4 billion over ten years.

But despite the federally promised awards to reduce nuclear power’s certain financial risks to customers, Ramana documents the NuScale and UAMPS struggle with first building its power purchase subscriptions from members who would shortly run for the designated “exit ramps” scheduled into the contract.

As these municipalities pulled out of the nuclear project because of financial concerns, UAMPS and NuScale renegotiated the project’s generating capacity down to six units each rated at 77 MWe for a total generating capacity of 462 MWe.

The reactor design’s safety, however, is still problematic and uncertified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and now demonstrated to be yet another expensive “house of cards.” Like the previous “nuclear renaissance” initiated by Congress and the nuclear industry in 2005, of the 34 “advanced” Generation III units put forward by industry, only one unit (Vogtle unit 3) is commercially operable today and another unit (Vogtle unit 4) still under construction. The initial $14 billion project in Georgia is now approaching as much as $40 billion to show for it.

In a follow-on article in the February 3, 2024 edition of DownToEarth, M.V. Ramana and Farrukh A. Chishtie are co-authors of “Tripling nuclear energy by 2050 will take a miracle, and miracles don’t happen” which identifies the same dangerous wild goose chase to expand nuclear power that is destined to fail climate change mitigation on the global scale.

Chishtie and Ramana expertly rebut the deluded notion as presented by the United States former Special Envoy on Climate Change John Kerry at the 28th Conference of Parties (COP28) in Dubai, UAE.  They cite “the hard economic realities of nuclear power” historically to date  as the principal reason nuclear power cannot be scaled up from what can only be termed a preposterous level by 2050.  That will be far too late by most accounts to abate an accelerating climate crisis.

“The evidence that nuclear energy cannot be scaled up quickly is overwhelming. It is time to abandon the idea that further expanding nuclear technology can help with mitigating climate change. Rather, we need to focus on expanding renewables and associated technologies while implementing stringent efficiency measures to rapidly effect an energy transition.

February 13, 2024 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

Rolls-Royce snubbed for UK’s first private small nuclear reactor plant

Proactive, Philip Whiterow,  08 Feb 2024

Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC (LSE:RR.)‘s mini-nuclear plans have seemingly suffered a setback with the UK’s first privately funded station to use reactors built by Westinghouse.

The US group said it signed an agreement with Community Nuclear Power to install four AP300 small modular reactors (SMRs) at the North Teesside project to generate up to 1.5 gigawatts of power or enough for up to two million homes.

Westinghouse added it hopes to have the first AP300 operating unit available in “the early 2030s”…………………………………..

Mini-reactors or SMRs were a key plank of former prime minister Boris Johnson’s plans to rejuvenate Britain’s nuclear industry and hit his green energy targets.

…………………………………….

Lord Houchen, the mayor of Tees Valley, said one of the major issues it faced was the lack of policy clarity in the UK over SMRs.

Although reportedly ahead of the competition, Rolls-Royce’s SMR is still said to be only mid-way through the UK approval process.

The new power station is being entirely privately funded and will be sited at Seal Sands, a former chemical works.  https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/1040531/rolls-royce-snubbed-for-uk-s-first-private-nuclear-plant-1040531.html

February 11, 2024 Posted by | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Small Modular Reactors do not solve the many problems of nuclear, NGOs say

 https://www.eureporter.co/energy/nuclear-energy/2024/02/05/small-modular-reactors-do-not-solve-the-many-problems-of-nuclear-ngos-say/

As the European Commission prepares to launch its industry alliance for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) on 6 February, civil society organisations stress the high costs and slow progress, making this technology a risky distraction for the climate.

The European Union (EU) should concentrate its efforts on climate solutions that are already working to reduce emissions quickly, rather than costly experiments.

Davide Sabbadin, Deputy Manager for Climate and Energy at the EEB, said:

In its desperate fight for survival, the European nuclear industry is pleading for public support for SMRs, but smaller-scale nuclear won’t change the poor economics of investments in atomic energy. We don’t even know how long it would take to build SMRs, as all previous attempts have been scrapped. Why should the EU invest in costly alternatives over existing climate solutions? Every euro wasted on nuclear projects could help replace fossil fuels faster and cheaper if invested in renewables, grids, and energy storage instead.”

Like other industry alliances fostered by the Commission, the purpose of the new SMR alliance is to bring together governments, industry players, and stakeholders who seek to accelerate the development of the SMR industry. However, the launch of this alliance signals a dangerous shift of direction for the EU institutions prompted by the nuclear industry’s increasing calls for public funding and administrative support.

Despite the hype, SMRs do not currently answer any of the industry’s fundamental problems:

  • Too expensive: In relative terms, the construction costs for SMRs are higher than for large nuclear power plants due to their low electricity output.
  • Unproven technology: Even the simplest designs used today in submarines will not be available at scale until late next decade, if at all. Taking into account the learning curve of the nuclear industry, an average of 3,000 SMRs would have to be constructed in order to be financially viable.
  • Ineffective climate solution: According to the latest IPCC report published in March 2023, nuclear power is one of the two least effective mitigation options (alongside Carbon Capture and Storage).
  • Waste problem: Current SMR designs would create 2-30 times more radioactive waste in need of management and disposal than
  •  conventional nuclear plants.
  • Geostrategic interests: Several EU countries rely on technology and nuclear fuel supplied by Russia’s state-owned Rosatom. Switching from importing Russian fossil fuels to Russian nuclear energy tech does not serve the EU’s energy security interests in the slightest. 

New nuclear ventures take time and resources that we simply don’t have to tackle the climate crisis. Diverting attention from energy efficiency and faster-to-deploy renewables to costly and experimental technologies risks pushing Europe further away from meeting its climate commitments under the Paris Agreement. 

The science is clear and must guide EU climate policy. In the 20 pages of the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change’s report dedicated to the various “levers” the EU can use to curb carbon emissions in the energy sector, there is not a single reference to nuclear or SMRs. 

February 9, 2024 Posted by | EUROPE, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | 1 Comment

UK govt awards Hitachi  £33.6 m to design small nuclear reactors

GE Hitachi awarded nuclear design funding, 30 January 2024

 GE Vernova’s nuclear business, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, was on 25
January awarded a £33.6 m Future Nuclear Enabling Fund grant from the
UK’s Department for Energy Security & Net Zero. The UK government has
ambitions for 24 GW of nuclear generation by 2050 to help in providing
energy security for the UK and for meeting net zero. The grant will help GE
Hitachi develop its small nuclear reactor design.

 Modern Power Systems 30th Jan 2024

https://www.modernpowersystems.com/news/newsge-hitachi-awarded-nuclear-design-funding-11474778

February 1, 2024 Posted by | politics, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

Nuclear start-up Newcleo drops plans for British factory in favour of France

COMMENT. This is a very interesting article. For one thing, it shows that these “advanced” nuclear reactors require plutonium to get the fission process happening. It also claims that these advanced nuclear reactors can solve the problem of plutonium wastes. That is not true. The wastes resulting from this process are smaller in volume, but more highly toxic. That means that they require the same area/voume of space for disposal as the original plutonium. On another angle, it does indicate the confusion that the British government is in about the way ahead in their highly suspect “Civil Nuclear Roadmap”. And on another angle again, it shows how Macron’s France is putting all its eggs into the one nuclear basket. When we look at the extreme costs, and the extreme climate effects, Macron’s French nuclear obsession is likely to result in political suicide.

Matt Oliver, Sun, 21 January 2024,  https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nuclear-start-drops-plans-british-131702123.html#:~:text=A%20British%20nuclear%20startup%20has,lobbied%20personally%20by%20Emmanuel%20Macron.

A British nuclear startup has dropped plans to build a pioneering power plant in Cumbria and will invest £4bn in France instead, after it was lobbied personally by Emmanuel Macron.

Newcleo, which is headquartered in London, is developing a type of mini nuclear power plant, known as an advanced modular reactor (AMR), that will use nuclear waste for fuel.

The company had hoped to tap into the UK’s vast stockpile of waste at Sellafield, where it wanted to invest £2bn in a waste reprocessing factory and AMR that would have created around 500 jobs.

It was also planning a similarly-sized facility in France.

But Stefano Buono, Newcleo’s chief executive and founder, said the company has now dropped the UK plans after the Government ruled out giving private companies access to the Sellafield stockpile in a nuclear industry “roadmap” published this month.

Instead, Newcleo is planning an enlarged development at an undisclosed location in the south of France, where it now plans to spend £4bn and create around 1,000 jobs, he said.

As part of that scheme, it will buy nuclear waste from French state energy giant EDF.

The company is also currently in the middle of a €1bn (£860m) fundraising.

The decision comes after the company was blocked from participating in the UK’s design competition for mini nuclear reactors.

By comparison, France has eagerly supported Newcleo and Mr Buono was lobbied repeatedly for investment by President Macron in face-to-face meetings.

Newcleo, which was also invited to last year’s “Choose France” business summit at the Palace of Versailles, has never been offered an in-person meeting with a British prime minister.

Mr Buono told The Telegraph: “Our plan initially was to use one factory in France and one in the UK.

“Now, we will double the capacity of France and we are not investing in the UK.”

He added that the company had hoped to pioneer its technology in Britain but added: “In two years, we were not able to even locate the site, so we have decided to accept the offer from France.


“We can proceed with our business model there.”

Newcleo’s decision to build its first plant abroad comes amid growing frustration within the British nuclear industry over the slow progress the Government has made towards identifying sites for new power plants.

The loss of significant investment to France will also be seen as the latest sign that Downing Street’s efforts to attract business investment are being outshone by President Macron, who has launched a charm offensive to lure companies across the Channel since Brexit.

He was the only G7 leader to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, this week, while he has rolled out the red carpet for business leaders including Tesla boss Elon Musk and JP Morgan banker Jamie Dimon at his annual Choose France event.

Last year’s summit resulted in major deals, with Taiwanese car battery maker ProLogium unveiling plans for a €5.2bn plant at the port of Dunkirk and Verkor, a French company, pledging a €1.6bn battery factory there too.

In the UK, six SMR developers including Rolls-Royce have been shortlisted for support under a competition run by Great British Nuclear.

Newcleo was not considered because of the AMR’s lead cooling system and unusual fuel, Mr Buono has claimed.

The company’s novel design would run on processed plutonium, helping countries such as the UK dispose of the dangerous waste, which is expensive to manage. [Ed. This ignores the fact that this process results in a smaller volume of more highly toxic waste]

At Sellafield, the UK has amassed 140 tonnes of plutonium – the world’s biggest stockpile – as a result of historic nuclear weapons programmes and abandoned efforts to develop so-called fast breeding reactors that would have used it as fuel.

A massive effort is currently under way at the Cumbrian site to safely store the waste, but Mr Buono and his colleagues have argued it could be put to better use as reactor fuel.

The entrepreneur made his fortune selling cancer treatment developer AAA to Novartis for $3.9bn (£3.2bn) in 2017, reportedly earning him $420m.

His company has the backing of the Agnelli industrialist family, which made its money from Fiat and Ferrari.

The French government is expected to confirm a deal with Newcleo later this year.

The UK Government did not respond to requests for comment.

January 22, 2024 Posted by | France, politics, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | , , , , | Leave a comment

Big costs sink flagship nuclear project and they’ll sink future small modular reactor projects too. 

 By Susan O’Donnell and M.V. Ramana, 024,  https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2024/01/21/big-costs-sink-flagship-nuclear-project/

The major news in the world of nuclear energy last November was the collapse of the Carbon Free Power Project in the United States. The project was to build six NuScale small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). Given NuScale’s status as the flagship SMR design not just in the U.S. but even globally, the project’s cancellation should ring alarm bells in Canada. Yet SMRs are touted as a climate action strategy although it is becoming clearer by the day that they will delay a possible transition to net-zero energy and render it more expensive.

The NuScale project failed because there were not enough customers for its expensive electricity. Construction cost estimates for the project had been steadily rising—from USD 4.2 billion for 600 megawatts in 2018 to a staggering USD 9.3 billion (CAD 12.8 billion) for 462 megawatts. Using a combination of government subsidies, potentially up to USD 4.2 billion, and  an opaque calculation method, NuScale claimed that it would produce electricity at USD 89 per megawatt-hour. When standard U.S. government subsidies are included, electricity from wind and solar energy projects, including battery storage, could be as cheap as USD 12 to USD 31 per megawatt-hour.

A precursor to the failed NuScale project was mPower, which also received massive funding from the U.S. Department of Energy. Described by The New York Times as the leader in the SMR race, mPower could not find investors or customers. By 2017, the project was essentially dead. Likewise, a small reactor in South Korea proved to be “not practical or economic”.

Ignoring this dire economic reality, provincial governments planning for SMRs – Ontario, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Alberta – published a “strategic plan” seemingly designed to convince the federal government to open its funding floodgates. Offering no evidence about the costs of these technologies, the report asserts: “The power companies assessed that SMRs have the potential to be an economically competitive source of energy.”

For its part, the federal government has coughed up grants totalling more than $175 million to five different SMR projects in Ontario, New Brunswick, and Saskatchewan. The Canada Infrastructure Bank loaned $970 million to Ontario Power Generation to develop its Darlington New Nuclear project. And the Canada Energy Regulator’s 2023 Canada’s Energy Future report envisioned a big expansion of nuclear energy based on wishful thinking and unrealistic assumptions about SMRs.

Canada’s support is puzzling when considering other official statements about nuclear energy. In 2021, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said that nuclear power must compete with renewable energy in the market. The previous year, then Environment Minister and current Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson also emphasized competition with other sources of energy, concluding “the winner will be the one that can provide electrical energy at the lowest cost.” Given the evidence about high costs, nuclear power cannot compete with renewable energy, let alone provide electricity at the lowest cost.

Investing huge amounts of taxpayer money in technologies that are uncompetitive is bad enough, but an equally serious problem is wasting time. The primary justification for this government largesse is dealing with climate change. But the urgency of that crisis requires action now, not in two decades.

All the SMR designs planned in Canada’s provinces are still on the drawing board. The design furthest along in the regulatory process – the BWRX-300 slated for Ontario’s Darlington site – does not yet have a licence to begin construction. New Brunswick’s choices – a sodium cooled fast reactor and a molten salt reactor – are demonstrably problematic and will take longer to build.

Recently built nuclear plants have taken, on average, 9.8 years from start of construction to producing electricity. The requisite planning, regulatory evaluations of new designs, raising the necessary finances, and finding customers who want to pay higher electricity bills might add another decade.

SMR vendors have to raise not only the billions needed to build the reactor but also the funding to complete their designs. NuScale spent around USD 1.8 billion (CAD 2.5 billion), and the reactor was still left with many unresolved safety problems. ARC-100 and Moltex proponents in New Brunswick have each asked for at least $500 million to further develop their designs. Moltex has been unable to obtain the required funding to match the $50.5 million federal grant it received in 2021.

Adverse economics killed the flagship NuScale SMR project. There is no reason to believe the costs of SMR designs proposed in Canada will be any lower. Are government officials attentive enough to hear the clanging alarm bells?

Susan O’Donnell is adjunct research professor and primary investigator of the CEDAR project at St. Thomas University in Fredericton. M.V. Ramana is the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia.

January 22, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | 1 Comment

US Offers Up To $500MM for Advanced Nuclear Fuel Production

by Jov Onsat, Rigzone Staff, Monday, January 15, 2024

The United States Department of Energy (DOE) is offering contracts worth up to $500 million in total for the production of a uranium fuel for smaller nuclear reactors, as it announced a breakthrough in an enrichment project

The request for proposals is for the enrichment of high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU). Currently this fuel is produced only in Russia and the US but only the former makes it at a commercial scale, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The United Kingdom government earlier this month announced funding to enable domestic HALEU production.

“Currently, HALEU is not commercially available from U.S.-based suppliers, and boosting domestic supply could spur the development and deployment of advanced reactors in the United States”, the DOE noted in a press release announcing the funding offer……………………………………………………

Each contractor is assured of a minimum order value of $2 million. They must conduct enrichment and storage activities in the continental US and comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, the DOE said. Proposals are until March 8.

The $500 million offer includes a DOE request announced November for services to deconvert the uranium enriched through this funding into metal, oxide and other forms to be used as fuel for advanced reactor  https://www.rigzone.com/news/us_offers_up_to_500mm_for_advanced_nuclear_fuel_production-15-jan-2024-175378-article/

January 17, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | 1 Comment

Cancelled NuScale contract weighs heavy on new nuclear

Paul Day, 11 Jan 24, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/cancelled-nuscale-contract-weighs-heavy-new-nuclear-2024-01-10/

  • Summary
  • The failure of a high profile small modular reactor (SMR) contract in the United States has prompted concerns that Gen IV nuclear may be further off than expected.

NuScale, the first new nuclear company to receive a design certificate from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for its 77 MW Power Module SMR, said in November it was terminating its Carbon Free Power Project (CFPP) with the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS).

UAMPS serves 50 community-owned power utilities in the Western United States and the CFPP, for which the Department of Energy approved $1.35 billion over 10 years subject to appropriations, was abandoned after the project failed to attract enough subscriptions.

NuScale shares tumbled 37% to less than $2 on the day of the news, November 8, and have remained largely between $2.5 and $3.5 since then. The shares hit highs of nearly $15 in August 2022 just three months after going public.

The CFPP had aimed to build NuScale SMR units at a site near Idaho Falls to be operable by 2029 though concerns arose that some at UAMPS members may be unwilling to pay for power from the project after NuScale raised the target price to $89/MWh in January, up from a previous estimate of $58/MWh.

The cancellation came shortly after another advanced reactor developer, X-Energy and special purpose acquisition company Ares Acquisition Corporation, called off a $1.8-billion deal to go public citing “challenging market conditions (and) peer company trading performance.”

The work with UAMPS had helped advance NuScale’s technology to the stage of commercial deployment, President and CEO John Hopkins said.

However, the failure of the much-anticipated proof case for advanced nuclear alongside the X-Energy market retreat left many questioning whether next generation nuclear could live up to its promises.

“Almost all these kinds of MoUs and contracts, as we saw with the NuScale contract, are just not worth the paper they’re written on. There are so many off ramps and outs for both sides and no one’s willing to expose themselves to the downside risk of projects that go way over budget cost and take too long,” says Ted Nordhaus, Founder and Executive Director of The Breakthrough Institute.

Nordhaus co-wrote a piece for The Breakthrough Institute, ‘Advanced Nuclear Energy is in Trouble’, a scathing criticism of policy efforts to commercialize advanced nuclear which, it says, to date have been entirely insufficient.

The nuclear industry was keen to ‘whistle past the graveyard’ of recent developments and efforts to commercialize the new generation of reactors ‘are simply not on track’, the Breakthrough piece said.

Mounting challenges

There are five areas that pose mounting challenges for the industry, according to Breakthrough; high interest rates and commodity prices, constrained supply chains, a regulatory regime that penalizes innovation, project costs versus system costs, and fuel production.

High interest rate and commodity costs in the last couple of years have hit the industry especially hard due to long project lead times. Nuclear supply chains are struggling to rebuild as tight regulation forces many materials to be tracked from certified mine to certified manufacturer.

The regulatory regime, meanwhile, continues to cut and paste large nuclear reactor regulations on to the small reactor designs, whether it makes sense to do so or not, Nordhaus wrote.

Delivery costs for small nuclear are relatively low due to the relatively small volumes of steel and mortar needed, but system costs must factor in safety regulation which is stricter than other types of energy projects. Proponents argue this makes it harder to compete with fossil fuels and renewables, which pay little to no cost for polluting or intermittency, the Institute says.

Advanced nuclear fuel production, meanwhile, had been outsourced to Russia for decades and is only now being hastily reassembled in the United States for the new reactors, with developers such as Terrapower forced to push delay their commercialization timelines due to a lack of fuel.

“Taken together, these developments suggest that current efforts are unlikely to be sufficient to deliver on the promise of advanced nuclear energy,” The Breakthrough Institute said.

Investor case

e

Over recent years, nuclear power has been recognized as an environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investible asset, taking its place alongside renewables in the European taxonomy and successfully raising cash through green bonds in Canada.

Such classifications allow nuclear companies to attract funds from investors looking to build increasingly popular clean energy portfolios.

Nuclear will also benefit from government schemes such as the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which is expected to subsidize new nuclear through Production Tax Credits (PTC) and Investment Tax Credits (ITC) on first-of-a-kind (FOAK) and nth-of-a-kind (NOAK) builds.

With billions of dollars earmarked for clean technologies and mounting concerns over missing emission targets, certain aspects of the nuclear industry have attracted new investors; Uranium spot prices have nearly doubled in the last year as bets are made on rising demand.

However, with all this tailwind, new nuclear has not been attracting the cash it needs. That’s partly due to developers’ lack of focus on development activities, according to Fiona Reilly, CEO of energy consultancy FiRe Energy.

“They’re so focused on the technology that they’re often not focusing on the commercial aspect. How to be more efficient, how to be more effective. What’s your risk register look like; corporate risks as well as technical risks? What’s your legal structure? Where is the money coming from?” says Reilly.

“They seem to think that if they have this great technology, then the market will finance the projects. How the project will reach financial close and make a return for investors does not always appear to be a key feature.”

The NuScale failure with UAMPS and X-Energy’s cancelled offering are just further bad signs for the market, and came just as the international nuclear community said they need to triple capacity by 2050 at the COP28 summit in Dubai.

“We’ve got to start building a mix of large and small reactors for different applications and, once we can start proving projects can be built in a commercial and efficient way, then you can start talking about targets,” says Reilly.

“You can’t set targets like these when we’re not even building the first reactors in many countries.”

January 12, 2024 Posted by | business and costs, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

The real reason why the USA pushed for the world to “triple nuclear power” at COP 28.

While China dominates the wind- and solar-power sectors, nuclear energy is one area where officials believe the U.S. could compete with its long menu of newer reactor types and fuels.

U.S. puts diplomatic clout behind sales of cutting-edge reactors that have yet to show commercial success

Washington Heats Up Nuclear Energy Competition With Russia, China

By William Mauldin and Jennifer Hiller, Jan. 6, 2024  https://www.wsj.com/politics/national-security/washington-heats-up-nuclear-energy-competition-with-russia-china-f2f18e75

WASHINGTON—To compete with its biggest geopolitical rivals, the U.S. government is looking toward small nuclear reactors.

Not a single so-called small modular reactor has been sold or even built in the U.S., but American officials are trying to persuade partner countries to acquire the cutting-edge nuclear reactors still under development by U.S. firms. The goal: to wrest nuclear market share from Russia—the global industry giant—and defend against China’s fast-growing nuclear-technology industry.

The U.S. hopes that putting its clout behind a new technology can cement future commercial and diplomatic relationships and chip away at China’s and Russia’s ability to dominate their neighbors’ energy supply.

The Biden administration also sees nuclear energy as a way to export reliable green (?) energy, since nuclear-power plants split atoms and don’t burn carbon-based fuels that contribute most to climate change. With Russia’s broad 2022 invasion of Ukraine sending Poland and other European countries looking for new energy partners, U.S. officials and industry leaders see a potential opening in the market for U.S. exports to compete with China’s growing nuclear ambitions.

While China dominates the wind- and solar-power sectors, nuclear energy is one area where officials believe the U.S. could compete with its long menu of newer reactor types and fuels. The U.S. aims to sign agreements for partnerships lasting 50 years or longer to provide U.S. technology to Moscow’s former energy partners and to fast-growing countries in Southeast Asia worried about overreliance on Chinese and Russian energy.

“If we’re the supplier, we support the energy security of our allies and partners,” said Ted Jones, head of national security and international programs at the Nuclear Energy Institute, a U.S. industry group. “We help prevent them from finding themselves in the situation of Europe with respect to Russian gas and nuclear.”

At the core of the U.S. campaign is a technology, yet-unproven in the U.S., called a small modular reactor, or SMR. SMRs generate about one-third the energy of a conventional nuclear reactor and can be prefabricated and shipped to the site. Among other potential advantages, they are intended to be cheaper than larger reactors, which often have to be custom designed, and they can be installed to meet growing demand for energy, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

‘Very, very long-term strategic partnership’

U.S. officials say they are working with developers of SMRs, and the government-run Export-Import Bank and the U.S. International Development Finance Corp., to win overseas orders that will bring down costs and build an order book for the new technology, all while linking the countries’ energy systems to the U.S. and its allies. By 2035, the U.S. Nuclear Energy Agency estimates that the global SMR market could reach 21 gigawatts of power, enough to power two billion LED lightbulbs.

“It’s important that the United States maintains that leadership in the transition from the laboratory to the grid and deployment and commerciality,” said Geoffrey Pyatt, the State Department’s assistant secretary of energy resources. “It’s about building a very, very long term strategic partnership.”

To make nuclear-energy exports a viable tool of foreign policy, U.S. companies will have to prove they can deliver smaller reactors for export on time and budget, a goal that has eluded larger nuclear-power plants in the West.

The U.S. has yet to build an SMR, and none is yet under construction in the U.S. The concept’s economics remain unproven, as does the timeline for building such a reactor. One company, Kairos Power, recently received construction approval for a demonstration project in Tennessee. It plans to focus on the domestic market. NuScale Power, one of the major U.S. players, recently canceled an SMR project in Idaho when a group of utilities in the Mountain West couldn’t get enough members to commit.

To make the concept work, most SMRs’ developers would need a pipeline of orders so they could move into factory-style production, lowering unit costs.

Among the potential customers U.S. industry and government officials are looking at are Polish energy company Orlen, which wants to build SMRs designed by GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy.

The U.S. Export-Import Bank and U.S. International Development Finance Corp. have offered to arrange up to $4 billion in financing for a plant planned by NuScale in Romania, with an aim of going online in 2029 or 2030. U.S. officials also say they are in discussions with Bulgaria, Ghana, Indonesia, Kazakhstan and the Philippines on new nuclear projects.

China is leading the world in reactor construction and recently started commercial operations of a plant with two SMRs. The country is now building 22 of the 58 reactors under construction around the world, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. China has built reactors in Pakistan and aims to join Russia as a major exporter of nuclear technology.

Last year, China and the U.S. were jockeying to provide civilian nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. Washington appeared close to a deal, part of a regional pact with Israel, but it was derailed by Hamas’s attack on Israelis in October and the subsequent war in Gaza.

U.S. sales pitch: We’re less risky than Russia and China

Russia’s state-owned Rosatom, meanwhile, is a major exporter of both reactors and nuclear fuel.

According to the latest World Nuclear Industry Status Report, it was building 24 reactors: 19 large reactors in countries from Turkey to Bangladesh, a barge to be equipped with two small reactors under construction in China but intended for use in Russia, and three reactors at home. Of the reactors under construction in Russia, two are large; the third is an SMR that would use liquid metal for cooling. Rosatom started commercial operations of two SMRs on a floating barge in 2020, though that project took longer and cost more than expected.

Washington is counting on partner countries’ interest in working with U.S. firms and what officials are selling as a less risky tie-up than working with Moscow and Beijing on projects that have a lifespan of 50 years or more.

“It’s never good if our allies are dependent on a potential adversarial country for energy,” said Bret Kugelmass, chief executive of nuclear-power startup Last Energy, which plans to build microreactors that would generate 20 megawatts of electricity and be sited near factories.

The process for hammering out a network of government and commercial deals can take years, with U.S. officials working alongside foreign counterparts, export credit agencies, nuclear-energy firms and utilities, not to mention the U.S. Congress. Russia and China have the advantage of state-led financial sectors to fund projects that can span a decade until power flows.

U.S. industry executives and government officials say they are now working on shortcuts to marketing reactors, including setting up a single government-to-government deal that includes corporate contracts and public and private financing assistance.

The new deals are designed to appeal to partner countries that want a simpler path to getting a reactor, without the heavy dose of Chinese financing that U.S. officials say might have strings attached.

January 8, 2024 Posted by | politics international, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

Mass layoffs at small nuclear reactor companies

Pioneering Nuclear Startup Lays Off Nearly Half Its Workforce. NuScale is the second major U.S. reactor company to cut jobs in recent months.

Huff Post, By Alexander C. Kaufman, Jan 5, 2024,

Almost exactly one year ago, NuScale Power made history as the first of a new generation of nuclear energy startups to win regulatory approval of its reactor design ― just in time for the Biden administration to begin pumping billions of federal dollars into turning around the nation’s atomic energy industry.

But as mounting costs and the cancellation of its landmark first power plant have burned through shrinking cash reserves, the Oregon-based company is laying off as much 40% of its workforce, HuffPost has learned.

At a virtual all-hands meeting Friday afternoon, the company announced the job cuts to remaining employees. HuffPost reviewed the audio of the meeting. Two sources with direct knowledge of NuScale’s plans confirmed the details of the layoffs.

NuScale did not respond to a call, an email or a text message seeking comment.

Surging construction costs are imperiling clean energy across the country. In just the past two months, developers have pulled the plug on major offshore wind farms in New Jersey and New York after state officials refused to let companies rebid for contracts at a higher rate.

But the financial headwinds are taking an especially acute toll on nuclear power. It takes more than a decade to build a reactor, and the only new ones under construction in the U.S. and Europe went billions of dollars over budget in the past two decades. Many in the atomic energy industry are betting that small modular reactors ― shrunken down, lower-power units with a uniform design ― can make it cheaper and easier to build new nuclear plants through assembly-line repetition.

The U.S. government is banking on that strategy to meet its climate goals. The Biden administration spearheaded a pledge to triple atomic energy production worldwide in the next three decades at the United Nations’ climate summit in Dubai last month, enlisting dozens of partner nations in Europe, Asia and Africa.

The two infrastructure-spending laws that President Joe Biden signed in recent years earmark billions in spending to develop new reactors and keep existing plants open. And new bills in Congress to speed up U.S. nuclear deployments and sell more American reactors abroad are virtually all bipartisan, with progressives and right-wing Republicans alike expressing support for atomic energy…………

Until November, NuScale appeared on track to debut the nation’s first atomic energy station powered with small modular reactors. But the project to build a dozen reactors in the Idaho desert, and sell the electricity to ratepayers across the Western U.S. through a Utah state-owned utility, was abandoned as rising interest rates made it harder for NuScale to woo investors willing to bet on something as risky a first-of-its-kind nuclear plant.

In 2022, NuScale went public via a SPAC deal, a type of merger that became a popular way for debt-laden startups to pay back venture capitalists with a swifter-than-usual initial public offering on the stock market.

In its latest quarterly earnings, NuScale reported just under $200 million in cash reserves, nearly 40% of which was tied up in restricted accounts……………………………………..

NuScale, which has four other projects proposed in the U.S. and tentative deals in at least eight other countries, isn’t the only nuclear startup navigating choppy waters.

In October, Maryland-based X-energy, which is working with the federal government to develop a next-generation reactor using gas instead of water for cooling, cut part of its workforce and scrapped plans to go public.

In September, California-based Oklo appeared to lose a $100 million contract to build its its salt-cooled “micro-reactors” at an Air Force base in Alaska, as the independent Northern Journal newsletter first reported. ………. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nuscale-layoffs-nuclear-power_n_65985ac5e4b075f4cfd24dba

January 7, 2024 Posted by | employment, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | 1 Comment

The failed Nuscale project lets Utah down — again

Every time we gamble on a nuclear project like Nuscale to deliver carbon-free power, we are hampering our ability to meet critical climate goals by 2030.

By Lexi Tuddenham | For The Salt Lake Tribune, Dec. 29, 2023  https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2023/12/29/opinion-failed-nuscale-project/

Early last month, Nuscale made headlines by canceling its 462 MW proposal for a small modular nuclear reactor (SMNR) at the Idaho National Laboratory. Here in Utah, the news was met with little surprise.

For the past six years, we’ve been raising crucial questions about the viability of the so-called “Carbon Free Power Project” (CFPP). Was it a project that could deliver power on time and at a reasonable cost to ratepayers? How much would taxpayers and ratepayers ultimately pay, and who would bear the environmental, public health and financial risks? Could it meet our energy needs at a time when electrification is more critical than ever?

In 2015, the Nuscale project was eight years out. In 2022, it was still eight years out. As we watched other nuclear power projects be abandoned or blunder online years late and billions of dollars over cost, there was a sense of inevitability about who would suffer when this project failed: the communities who had placed their faith in its fantastical promises of affordable, reliable and “clean” power.

We were told that these SMNRs would be revolutionary — smaller, more cost-effective and with cutting-edge technology, but as we watched the costs swell from $55/MWh to $89/MWh and well beyond, even with huge federal subsidies, it was clear the financial risks were only mounting. With the collapse of the hypothetical project, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) member communities in rapidly growing areas like Hurricane and Washington City are now left with the reality of scrambling for alternatives to meet their future energy needs.

As we see nuclear projects around the country experience delay after delay, the Nuscale experience is one reason why we continue to watch the developments of the Terrapower Natrium reactor in Kemmerer, Wyoming, with a mix of skepticism and concern. The other reason is that the Terrapower project has promised not just electricity to Pacificorp customers, but also jobs in a community that desperately needs them. This is irresponsible at best.

The projected timeline for the Terrapower reactor to come online has already been pushed to 2030, which Terrapower external affairs director Jeff Navin admits is “cutting it close.” In addition, the community faces an economic abyss between the projected closure of the coal plant and the startup of the nuclear facility, and federal officials recently noted that with no permanent waste repository existent in the U.S., spent nuclear fuel will be stored “temporarily” on-site. Similar concerns can and should be raised about the proposed nuclear plants at Hunter and Huntington in Utah. At the end of the day, it is workers who are being let down, and it is communities who have to deal with the long term consequences.

We know that the next few years are of critical importance in our ability to combat the worst effects of climate change before we kick off even more warming feedback loops. Every time we gamble on a nuclear project like Nuscale to deliver carbon-free power, we are hampering our ability to meet critical climate goals by 2030. As timelines for such projects are inevitably dragged out, in the interim we continue to burn fossil fuels that choke the air that people breathe and force the climate ever closer to its tipping point.

The hard truth is that there is no silver bullet for climate change. Relying on nuclear power maintains dependence on a flawed energy system that primarily benefits industries that have historically profited from past harms. Now they promise to seamlessly plug in nuclear power and conduct business as usual.

According to the latest estimates, about a billion dollars was sunk into the now-abandoned Nuscale CFPP. This is a drop in the bucket compared to some other nuclear projects this country has seen over the last 30 years. But imagine that $1 billion spent elsewhere on legacy cleanups of the nuclear and uranium mining industry, aiding Downwinders or boosting renewable energy capacity that we know can work. There is an opportunity cost for investing in nuclear when we have faster, lower-risk options that we can prioritize now. Instead, we can take on climate change with what has been called “rational hope,” by investing in wind, solar, geothermal power, storage, grid improvements and efficiency technologies that offer cost-effective climate solutions. And Utah’s potential in these areas is immense.

But this energy future requires a reimagining. It requires permitting and energy-sourcing processes that put the health and vitality of communities front and center. It means changing course to avoid mistakes of the past.

Here at HEAL Utah, we collaborate with communities to shape an energy future crafted by the people it serves. This future prioritizes clean air, a healthy environment and family-sustaining jobs, all powered by accessible, sustainable and affordable renewable energy sources. In short, this is rational hope in practice. Together, we can make it a reality.

Lexi Tuddenham is the executive director of the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah (HEAL Utah).

December 30, 2023 Posted by | climate change, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

How green is the UK Government’s nuclear energy strategy?

Small modular reactors have been touted as a solution to reaching net-zero – but how safe are they and will they do the job?

By Lucie Heath, Environment Correspondent, 28 Dec 23,  https://inews.co.uk/news/how-green-is-the-governments-nuclear-energy-strategy-2824596

The Government has pledged to boost the country’s nuclear energy capacity, setting itself a target to power a quarter of the national grid with nuclear energy by 2050.

But i has revealed that the transition to nuclear energy has been beset by delays, prompting former prime pinister Boris Johnson to urge Rishi Sunak to “get on with it”.

Mr Johnson has been a vocal supporter of nuclear energy and has championed the development of new small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs).

SMRs have been touted as a key solution as the world transitions towards a net-zero future, but some have raised questions regarding the green credentials and viability of the technology.

Here i fact-checks the key claims with regards to SMRs.

Nuclear is low carbon

True or False: True

Ed. comment. That’s as long as you don’t count the CO2 emissions from the full nuclear fuel cycle, and the waste disposal methods.

Nuclear power is considered to be a low carbon source of energy. It has a minimal carbon footprint of around 15–50 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour (gCO2/KWh), compared to an average footprint of around 450 gCO2/KWh for a gas powered generator and 1,050 gCO2/KWh for coal.

According to the International Energy Association (IEA), over the past 50 years the use of nuclear power has reduced CO2 emissions by over 60 gigatonnes – nearly two years’ worth of global energy-related emissions.

While nuclear produces far less CO2 than fossil fuels, environmentalists dispute its green credentials, not least due to the high volume of radioactive waste created as part of the fuel cycle.

SMRs will play a key role in the energy transition

True or False: Jury’s out

Small modular reactors have many potential benefits that overcome some of the hurdles of traditional nuclear reactor sites.

Their smaller size means that can be placed in locations not suited to large power plants and the modular nature of their design means they should be cheaper and quicker to build.

But as of 2023, only Russia and China have successfully built operational SMRs, and neither are in commercial use.

Mr Johnson’s plan to have the UK’s first SMRs contributing to the grid by 2030 looks increasingly unlikely. Rolls-Royce, which was one of the winners of a Government competition to develop them in the UK, recently told MPs its project could be contributing to the grid by 2031-32 at the very earliest.

MPs sitting on the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee recently published a report that described the Government’s nuclear strategy as more of a “wish list” and said ministers need to make it clearer what role SMRs will play in the energy transition.

SMRs are cheaper to build

True or False: Unclear

This section fails to mention the one and only commercial application of small nuclear reactors - the NuScale attempt in the USA, which was a financial fiasco, and had to be cancelled.

One of the largest hurdles to the deployment of nuclear energy are the huge costs of developing new plants. In theory, SMRs should be cheaper to build due to their size and modular nature, allowing for prefabrication.

However, it is not known exactly what the cost will be to the public purse of developing new SMRs in the UK.

The Environmental Audit Committee recently launched an inquiry into the topic, saying it was “currently unclear what financing models will be used to fund SMRs”.

Critics of nuclear argue it would be wiser to spend money on the deployment of renewable energy, which is cheaper to build.

SMRs are safer

True or false: True in theory

Safety has proved to be a massive issue preventing wider uptake of nuclear energy in the past. Incidents such as the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident have sparked greater fears regarding the vulnerability of plants during a natural disaster, while nuclear stations can also be a risk during times of conflict, such as in Ukraine.

Proponents of SMRs say they are safer than traditional reactors, partly because their smaller core produces less heat, reducing the likelihood of overheating. A number of other innovations exist in their design which in theory should reduce the risk of failure.

While seen as being safer than large plants, SMRs are still associated with many of the same risks as traditional nuclear.

December 30, 2023 Posted by | environment, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »