Thursday 1 November 2018

SMR Love in


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
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! 

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…