Small
Modular Reactors are being promoted as the next big things in energy- being
allegedly cheaper than conventional large plants since they can be mass-produced.
None yet exist, apart from the small units used for nuclear submarines, but the
proponents envisage all manner of new variants emerging in the years ahead,
with some prototypes already being planned in the US, and Canada, and China
also pushing ahead in this area.
Some
are conventional Pressurised Water Reactors simply scaled down, others, less
developed so far, are planning to test out other routes, including molten salt
flouride reactors using thorium, possibly operating in fast breeder mode. In theory some could also be run in Combined Heat
and Power mode, with the heat delivered to nearby urban areas- if anyone will
allow SMRs to be build near or in cities. That would improve their economics.
There
has been no shortage of promotion of the SMR idea, and in the UK the
Department of Business, Energy and
Industrial Strategy (BEIS) has been supporting some assessment work, for
example by an Expert
Finance Working Group on Small Nuclear Reactors. That reported back in quite glowing terms. The preface, written by the Working Group
chair, who, amongst other things, is a Nuclear Industry
Association director, was almost lyrical:
‘The UNs
Sustainable Development Goals 2030 agenda sets out 17 goals and how they will
be implemented to meet the United Nation’s objectives around people, the
planet, prosperity, peace and partnership. Nuclear & nuclear isotopes play
an important role in 9 of the 17 goals including: food security, improved
nutrition, water & sanitation, climate change, conserving oceans and
ecosystems, medical, energy for all and resilient infrastructure,
industrialisation & innovation. The emergence of small nuclear as, I believe,
a commercially viable technology will further contribute to delivering these
goals and the UK is well placed to take a leading role in their development
both in the UK and across the global energy market’.
The
report itself is a bit more hard headed, pointing to the problems faced by
‘First of Kind’ (FOAK) projects. It says
that ‘For technologies capable of being commercially deployed by
2030, HMG should focus its resources on bringing FOAK projects to market by
reducing the cost of capital and sharing risks through
assisting with the financing of small nuclear through a new
infrastructure fund (seed funded by HMG) and/or direct equity and/or HMG
guarantees’ and by ‘through funding support mechanisms such as
a Contract for Difference (CfD)/ Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) or potentially
a Regulated Asset Base (RAB) model while maintaining the supply chain plans
required for larger low carbon projects. For NOAK projects the market should be
self sustaining having learnt the lessons of the large nuclear plant and the
small nuclear projects that will have gone before’.
A
key thing though will be reduced risk and improved financial confidence – so as
to get support for FOAK development and then shift to ‘nth of a kind’ (NOAK)
mass production. On that, in what might be seen as a breathtaking assertion,
the preface says ‘trust and confidence has developed through HMG’s support of
the Hinkley Point C development’ and from ‘the progress now being made on the Horizon project’.
The
reality is that it’s all a bit tentative. Hinkley’s costs are escalating and its start
up may well be delayed past 2027. The Horizon package is very uncertain, with
Hitachi looking for more funding for Wylfa. The proposed Moorside project in Cumbria is
stalled too. So the UK’s conventional
nuclear expansion programme, which is nearly all based on oversees capital
investment, buttressed by expected CfD
revenue support from consumers, is very conflicted. The government may have to
bail it out. But if it doesn’t and it collapses, some might say that would
leave to path open for SMRs.
However,
there’s not much to show so far. The government’s new £200m Nuclear sector deal
is mostly for rescuing fusion work at Culham post-BREXIT (£86m), with at most £56m
left for R&D on ‘advanced modular reactors’: http://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-deal-with-industry-to-secure-uk-civil-nuclear-future-and-drive-down-cost-of-energy-for-customers
Rolls
Royce has indicated that it needs more of a commitment: https://www.nucnet.org/all-the-news/2018/07/23/rolls-royce-planning-to-shut-down-smr-project-without-government-support
And
the likely urban hosts of SMR projects designed to supply city heat, may not be
so keen, on safety and security grounds, with the Nuclear-Free Local Authorities (NFLA) group also
querying the economics: http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/small-modular-nuclear-reactors-financing-report-nfla-remain-sceptical-such-technology-as-cost-effective-as-renewables/
POST, the
Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology, offered a fairly neutral SMR
guide, but did point to the potential problems, including in relation to
security and proliferation: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/POST-PN-0580
Most
environmental group are not at all impressed: https://climatenewsnetwork.net/small-modular-reactors-have-little-appeal/
and neither are
some energy analysists: http://energypost.eu/small-modular-reactors-for-nuclear-power-hope-or-mirage/ So, apart from
within the nuclear lobby, and to a limited extent BEIS, SMRs are not winning
many friends. And even the nuclear lobby may have doubts- some may prefer to
soldier on with conventional plants. While BEIS will want to avoid spending
money on anything!
For a
comprehensive and very critical overview on SMRs see: http://www.nuclear-transparency-watch.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Nuclear-SMR-promoters-must-face-up-to-some-inconvenient-truths.pdf
It does seem a long off, long shot, with many
safety and security issues, and uncertain economics. Just like most nuclear. Would you want one near you? Polling in 2017 by YouGov
found that 62% of UK respondents would be unhappy living within five miles
of an SMR, whereas only 24% would be
unhappy living near an onshore wind farm, falling to 17% for a community-owned
wind farm:
However, in the end, it may be
the market that will decide. SMR enthusiasts have be trying to promote their
new as yet untested technologies, but not that many seem to want to pay for them.
Some look to the military link to rescue SMRs- they have the same technical and
expertise base as is used for the nuclear propulsion units of the UK’s nuclear submarines.
But so far that doesn’t seem to paid off. Certainly there have been complaints from SMR enthusiasts
about the low level of government support in the UK: http://www.thegwpf.org/who-killed-the-small-modular-nuclear-programme/
Meanwhile, in
the USA, one key project has gone bust, having apparently overreached itself: http://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/612193/nuclear-startup-to-fold-after-failing-to-deliver-reactor-that-ran-on-spent-fuel/ It doesn’t sound
like a booming area of development…
