Akihabara News (Tokyo) — As the government promotes nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuel energy sources, small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) have met a divided response as a possible way forward.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) defines small modular nuclear reactors as those that produce around 300MW of electricity. The reactors are “modular” because they can be assembled and transported as whole units to their intended locations for relatively fast installation.
These reactors have been praised by some analysts as being environmentally friendly as well as efficient, safe, and economically advantageous.
NuScale Power, a US company that specializes in the designing and marketing of small modular reactors, reported in 2020 that “the global [small modular reactor] market is estimated to be more than US$100 billion by 2035, based on best-case estimates by the Nuclear Energy Agency.”
According to the World Nuclear Association, the reactors require fewer safety systems than their larger counterparts due to their small and compact build. The size and modularity of small modular reactors further means that their manufacturing can follow higher quality standards while still allowing for lower costs and faster construction.
Locating such structures underground or underwater is also possible. Indeed, the reactors have the potential for better protection from natural or manmade disasters, such as tsunamis and aircraft crashes.
The IAEA explains that small modular reactors have reduced fuel requirements. Refueling is needed only once every three-seven years, rather than every one-two years, as is standard for larger power plants.
Some critics, however, argue that the claims of these proponents are entirely wrong.
For example, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, an independent advisory organization in the United Kingdom, argues that the economic advantages of increasing size and output is precisely what led to large nuclear reactors achieving much of their commercial success. As such, “[small modular reactor] economics should overall be worse than those of large reactors.”
Michael Barnard, strategist at Agora Energy Technologies, further disputes the claim that small modular reactors are less costly than traditional nuclear plants. Barnard notes that “decommissioning a nuclear reactor is a billion dollar, 100-year venture.”
Some research has also concluded that small modular reactors may produce more radioactive waste than most conventional nuclear power plants.
According to an article published by three researchers in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, small modular reactors “will produce more voluminous and chemically / physically reactive waste than [conventional reactors].” They add that “water-, molten salt-, and sodium-cooled… designs will increase the volume of nuclear waste in need of management and disposal by factors of two to thirty.”
Recent Nuclear Energy Related Articles
