Clean, Safe Too Cheap to Meter:
Is There a Role for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors in the Planet’s Energy Future?
Stanton Green, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Anthropology
Monmouth University
Out of the Box Education Solutions
Global Warming and the Human Demand for Electrical Energy
The realities of global warming has spawned a spate of news stories and professional articles on a new generation of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) as part of the alternative energy mix needed to meet the planet’s future energy demand. To skeptics like myself these promises sound an awful lot like those made in the 1960’s and 1970’s for nuclear power produced electricity that is “clean, safe, and too cheap to meter” (Harry Shearer, Our friend the Atom, Le Show Podcast). Most experts agree that 1960’s style nuclear power is no long viable. Bill Gates considers nuclear power to be at an inflection point.
“Without this next generation of nuclear, nuclear will go to zero,” Gates said during an interview in Washington last month. Germany is shutting 22 nuclear plants, France — a leader in clean-burning nuclear power — has plans to shut down some of its reactors and a similar trend is underway in the U.S. due to economic conditions, said Gates, before adding with a sigh: “So yes, it is daunting.”(Harder 2019)
Dan Mathers of the National Nuclear Laboratory presentation to the International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation in Bucharest states the challenges for these newly designed nuclear reactors simply and directly.
By definition, any new design starts off with all the advantages. The question is whether these advantages will remain once engineering reality intervenes (Mathers 2014).
To get to the heart of this complex matter, let’s simplify things a bit. Nuclear and fossil fuels produce electricity in the same manner: they produce heat to boil water, produce steam, which in turn moves turbines within magnets to produce electricity. The advantage of nuclear energy over fossil fuels is that it does not produce carbon dioxide. This is countered by its billions of dollars of up front costs and its production of voluminous amounts radioactive and toxic waste.
Hydro-electric dams and windmills offer the tremendous advantage of using natural sources of motion to turn turbines and therefore not producing toxic effluent waste or atmospheric pollutants. Solar panels are yet one further step removed from fossil fuels and nuclear power because they produce electricity directly by absorbing solar energy into photovoltaic cells that create current. From a design perspective, solar cells and windmills are the most simplet followed by carbon, oil and then nuclear., which are the most complex.
Can Green Energy Fulfill Energy Demand without Nuclear Power?
Nuclear Power has played a rather ambiguous role in Green New Deal Proposals. At the federal level, congress has sought to find a role for nuclear reactors. Forbes Magazine, for example, describes the roll-out of the GND as follows.
Congressional members rolled out their "Green New Deal" in February that calls for a rapid shift to carbon-free energy. At first, the proposal called for all nuclear plants and not building any new ones. They also released a fact sheet nixing the possibility of building new nuclear power plants. Then they backed off and referred to future energy sources as clean, renewable, and zero-emission, which allows nuclear in.
Before drilling deeper on the nuclear option, let’s look briefly at the fundamental premise used to even consider nuclear power: That a non-nuclear Green New Deal (GND) set of strategies cannot meet the futre energy needs of our planet. I would argue that this assumption seems underrates the effectiveness of perhaps the most essential technological planks of the alternative energy platform: energy conservation. As far back as Amory Lovins’ 1979 study “Soft Energy Paths, ” Green New Deal advocates have demonstrated that energy conservation technology may well be the most important element of Green New Deal. Conservation technologies exist that signifcantly increase energy consumption efficiencies in the production, distribution and use of electricity. I think nearly everyone would agree that if we continue to produce and use electricity at today’s level of (in)efficiency, we will be unable to turn back Global Warming. That is why it is essential that we pay attention to the energy savings of such available technologies as smart thermostats gauge usage, smart grids to distribute electricity, and smart buildings (Lovins 1979, Hawkin 2017).
The resurgence of the nuclear power option derives from the fact that nuclear generated energy is ecologically preferrable to coal and oil and that it provides 24 hour production as opposed to the daily and seasonal variation of solar and wind energy. This pitch ignores two facts. First, nuclear produced electricity’s cost continues to steeply rise while the alternatives fall. Second, “there is similar rapid development of energy storage. This is being driven on by electric automobiles” (Wagonsell, personal communication; The Economist 2020).
As Meigs (2020) points out, while “virtually every other form of energy has gone down over time, nuclear is four to eight times higher than it was four decades ago..” According to Drawdown’s analysis, a $200 billion dollar upfront investment in nuclear power can maintain itat around 10 percent of the energy mix and save approximately 3 gigatons of greenhouse gas emission compared to fossil fuels. For these reasons, Project Drawdown considers nuclear “a regrets solution.”
“At Project Drawdown, we consider nuclear a regrets solution. It has potential to avoid emissions, but there are many reasons for concern: deadly meltdowns, tritium releases, abandoned uranium mines, mine-tailings pollution, radioactive waste, illicit plutonium trafficking, and thefts of missile material, among them.”
Can SMRs solve this Dilemma Economically?
So what does a future of small nuclear reactors look like and how might it fit into a future of alternative energy economies? We know it produces lower carbon emissions (at least in the production process). But how does it compare with respect to construction, operations and waste management costs? Here are two expert opinions.
Irena Chatzis (2019) notes many advantages of Nuclear power.
“Advanced SMRs offer many advantages, such as relatively small physical footprints, reduced capital investment, ability to be sited in locations not possible for larger nuclear plants, and provisions for incremental power additions. SMRs also offer distinct safeguards, security and nonproliferation advantages.”
James Meigs (2020) offers the following “what if” scenarios for implementing SMRs a safe, clean and affordable way.
“… what if there were sources of zero-carbon electricity that didn’t require heavy- handed regulation to make them viable in the marketplace? What if we could produce more power—and do it affordably, with minimal environmental impact? That’s the almost utopian vision that some backers see for the next generation of nuclear power.”
Using a typical nuclear pitch, Meigs posits the economic boogy-man of “heavy handed regulation as the reason nuclear energy cannot be timely or affordable. But what regulations are not necessary? Clearly, the short and long term management of nuclear waste needs to be regulated. So, are we talking about regulations concerning: Where plants can be sited? Specifications for materials and manufacture? Rules constraining the transportion of radioactive and other toxic waste? In addition to the seemingly logical need for these kinds of regulations, the immense cost over-runs and awful environmental disasters of nuclear plants over the past 5 decades do not afford confidence to decrease the legal rules guiding the safety of nuclear power plants.
The advocates of small reactors claim that SMRs could make an impact on the American electricity market within the next several years. This again harkens back to the promises of nuclear plants over the past decades to for expeditious construction, approval and production. Meigs (2020) cites an MIT study that predicts that global electricity consumption will grow 45 percent by 2040 and will therefore require nuclear power as a bridge to a more efficient green future. Even if we concede that SMRs could help bridge this gap between energy demand and green energy production, there is scant history or other evidence that it could do so in a timely fashion that is safe, clean and affordable? Mathers points out quite directly that this affordability argument is totally theoretical.
“All drivers in favour of SMR economics are currently theoretical and need to be demonstrated to work in practice…. No current (2014) SMR has a complete engineering design which is needed before a full engineering cost estimate can be made. Economic figures for SMR designs are often just projections with little supporting base.”
But let’s grant SMRs one more benefit of doubt by assuming that these theoretical designs actually do pan out economically. Meigs’ indicates that SMR plants will produce enough electricity for 40,000 households. This would thereby require 1,000’s of these reactors to be scattered around the country. Medium-size cities of 500,000 people like Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania or Columbia, South Carolina, for example, would themselves require around a half a dozen such plants. Major metropolitan areas could require 50. Since Meigs does not provide a cost or timetable for the construction of these plants, this estimate of how many plants would be required would seem to be economically and environmentally daunting. One advocate cited by Meigs summarizes the possibility of using small nuclear reactors by saying, “… I think these reactors could fit into the future energy mix quite well. The big question is how economically they can build them.” By “economically” I assume he is referring to up-front, ROI, and environmental cost analysis. Again, we are dealing with theory, here.
In contrast to theoretical SMRs the ROI of solar panels for residences, schools, and commercial properties are well known. Today, most home systems can be paid off within 5 years, producing ‘free’ electricity for the remainder of its 25-30 year lifespan. Homeowners also gain an increase the value of their homes. In California, for example, appraisers have an industry rate-chart of increased home value per KWH of installed solar. The installation of solar panel systems is easily retro-fitted to exisitng homes, and even more easily incorporated into the building of new homes. If purchasers cannot afford the upfront costs, solar companies offer no cost lease programs with decreased fixed electricity rates. Large buildings, both residential and commercial have the same advantages.
Can an SMR Future Be Safe and Clean?
Meigs (2020) proposes that small nuclear plants could (his emphasis) have “minimal environmental impact.” We know that nuclear reactors do not emit carbon. But we cannot let that distract us from the existential problem of producing large amounts of radioactive fuel rods, liquids, solid waste and toxic chemical effluents Cost estimates for mitigating these environmental pollutants are really not possible since the required waste management technology remains unresolved. To its credit the nuclear energy industry no longer denies that it has a waste management problem.
Although small modular reactors are designed to produce less radioactive waste than standard, bigger reactors for the same amount of power, the issue of where to safely dispose of nuclear waste remains unresolved (The Conversation 2019)
We can add to this a few additional thoughts of some nuclear industry experts.
Mathers (2014) notes that the new generation of reactors “assume fuel is pond stored for approximately 20 years followed by dry store or repro.” Christopher Xerri (Chatzis 2019) describes SMRs as an opportunity to find solutions for nuclear waste management.
“Engineers and designers have a unique opportunity to work on solutions for the improved management of spent fuel and radioactive waste for SMRs in the early stages of development. “This approach will help address uncertainties related to the back end of the fuel cycle, reduce costs and enhance societal acceptance of nuclear power.”
Nuscale (2018) one of the leading firms developing SMRs breaks down waste management as into the following stages (nuscale.com, 2018).
NuScale reactor building and plant design incorporates a proven safe, secure and effective used fuel management system. A stainless steel lined concrete pool holds used uel for at least 5 years under 60 feet of water.
After cooling in the spent fuel pool, spent fuel is placed into certified casks, steel containers with concrete shells, on site of the plant. The NRC Waste Confidence Rule states that this is a safe and acceptable way to store used fuel for an interim period at the plant up to 100 years.
The NuScale’s standard facility design includes an area for the dry storage of all of the spent fuel for the 60-year life of the plant.
These company waste management solutions ultimately yield to the same theoretical governmental safety net for the final disposal of used fuel.
“The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has responsibility for the final disposal of used fuel under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Under the Act, the generators' of electricity from nuclear power must pay into a fund for the long term disposal of this used fuel; over $35 billion is currently in the Nuclear Waste Fund.”
Let me respond to these claims about waste production and storage considerations with a personal story from one of my earliest classes on the history and future of energy production and use.
Forty years ago I took my university class, called Culture and Energy: a comparison of how Societies Produce and Use Energy, on a tour of of the Savannah River Plant (SRP) in Aiken, South Carolina. This plant was built in the 1950’s to produce bomb-making radioactive isotopes and research on nuclear reactors. The SRP reservation covers 310 square miles and employs 10,000 people. It is an understandably highly regulated federal reservation with one public throughway that does not permit stopping or photography. Cars are given a strict time limit to drive through the reservation. My class was generously given permission to tour the reservation, beginning with a walk and talk through a section of the forest surrounding the actual plant. During this walk one of the students began to put his hand into one of the tributaries of the Savannah River to cool himself. The tour guide immediately shouted for him to back off and announced to the group that it was not safe to expose themselves to the polluted river. A second wake-up call with regard to the plant occurred during a tour of the labs where scientists were trying to develop methods to turn liquid nuclear waste into inert glass. This process of ‘glassificaton’ was promised to be available soon. We are still waiting for this technology to be invented, let alone implemented. The Savannah River Nuclear Plant still stores nearly all of its waste in tanks that were meant to contain nuclear materials and liquids for a maximum of 10- 20 years.
How Safe can Small Nuclear Reactors Be?
Nuclear Reactor safety remains a huge problem for SMRs. That this is the case is clear from the fact that the nuclear industry continues to ask for regulatory exemptions and liability limits for all nuclear plants. Again from Meigs’ (2020) article:
“Not everyone is happy with the push toward new reactor designs. The Union of Concerned Scientists, a perennial nuclear critic, is not convinced that new plants will be safer. “My concern about NuScale is that they believe so deeply that their reactor is safe and doesn’t need to meet the same criteria as the larger reactors, that it’s pushing for lots of exemptions and exceptions,” says Edwin Lyman, acting director of the group’s Nuclear Safety Project.”
Although most SMRs use fuel that that is not usable for bomb-making, some new models require more potent fuel than earlier models. This leads to the not insignificant problem of keeping the fuel secure and out of the hands of domestic and foreign terrorists. This would be especially true given the 1000’s of small reactors located throughout the United States.
“… most SMRs run on mildly enriched uranium, which isn’t suitable for making nuclear weapons. But a small number of next-generation reactors do entail handling more potent isotopes.” This brings up the issue of terrorist acquisition of plutonium fuel for use in so- called “dirty bombs.”
Putting it simply, Mather state, “Small size does not necessarily improve safety.”
Concluding Remarks
Since the 1950’s nuclear energy has largely been given a pass on issues of safety, environmental impact and cost. This would seem to be at least in part the result of a governmental attempt to provide a positive spin (pun intended) for humankind’s splitting of the atom, which Einstein simply and powerfully explained “changed everything”. Somehow using nuclear fuel to produce electricity seemed to balance out its use for building and using nuclear bombs. Today’s awareness of the existential threat of continued carbon emissions and its resultant global warming has heightened the call to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and to reconsider interest in nuclear power. Nuclear advocates are vying to capture the narrative of the energy future by proposing a new generation of reactors. These narratives attempt to erase the enormous environmental and economic failure of the nuclear industries for the last 50 plus years and replace it with promises of new mini-reactors that are clean, safe and affordable. Their case remains theoretical and with significant red flags such as the industry’s call for enormous governmental subsidies, regulatory exemptions, restrictions on liability, and above all safety. Moreover, the same red flags of time extensions and huge cost overruns with the new reactors portend a re-telling of 1970’s nuclear failures.
France’s new energy minister has called a major French nuclear project “a mess” in public interviews. The European pressurized reactor (EPR) that was commissioned for t the Flamanville nuclear power plant, where it joins two existing pressurized water reactors, has been delayed and plagued by problems. The latest extension takes the project timeline from 13 years to 17 at least ,
That puts Flamanville 10 years past its original due date. One of the more alarming causes for delay is a break in the “main secondary system penetration welds,” which has contributed to a budget that’s bloated from a planned $3.9 billion to $14.6 billion.(Delbert, 2020)
Advocates of a future that relies on conservation and green energy have done due diligence over the past 50 years to assess the environmental and ecological ROI of a wide variety of energy production and conservation options including nuclear produced electricity. Solar, Wind and related ways to produce electrical energy can no longer be dismissed as too expensive and not productive enough. They are proven safe and clean. And now they have demonstrated that they are not only more affordable than oil and coal and natural gas (when you include the enormous environmental costs of fracking) but they provide the kinds of ROI required to contribute toward mitigating global warming by 2050. The proliferation of third party energy providers has lowered the prices of electricity by allowing consumers to choose their electricity supply providers. Among the choices 100% of solar and/or wind electricity are among the lowest priced options, in some cases costing half the price of the power company’s offer of oil, gas, nuclear and a smattering of wind and solar (often less than 10%).
The Green New Deal has also been transparent in its evaluation of cultural and behavioral changes required to mitigate global warming. Quantitative measures have been applied to changes in diet, socio-economic equity, and conservation minded social programs. The bonus of such reforms of course is the granting of human and civil rights to women, and economically disadvantaged communities. The beauty of these strategies is their positive self-enhancement. Improving the standard of living of women and girls decreases population growth, while the decrease of eating meat improves health. We can begin to see at little sunshine here if we turn the global climate crisis into an opportunity to improve the quality of life for millions of people.
It is now up to governmental authorities and the people they represent to summon the political will to make decisions based on science and economics and not yield to unsupported narratives of special interests. Politics in its most basic sense is the way communities make decisions. This all begins at local levels like school boards and borough councils, and winds its way to city mayors and councils, to state and federal legislatures and finally global collaborations. The biggest difference between the politics of today and the 1950’s when nuclear power was introduced is that climate change is now being experienced as a real time process. It is not historical and it is not theoretical. Superstorm Sandy really did disrupt many peoples lives. The Fukishima Tsunami did breach major nuclear plants and kill many people as it destroyed large swaths of the Japanese coast. Global Warming as it is expressed in extreme climate change is “known” to everyone who has experienced severe weather, flooding and wildly changing weather patterns.
And this is especially true for the members of the millennial generation (born in the early 1980s’ to the mid 1990’s), who are the first planetary citizens to directly experience climate change and its consequences for their entire lives. They are the first Real Time Generation where climate change and technology change is constantly experienced. They are also the first generation to always have had access to personal computing which appeared in the mid 1970’s. This has in turn allowed them to take full advantage of the world wide web, which was coincidentally made public in the mid 1980’s. They have always been globally connected to nearly every person on the planet and they have always had real time scientific and cultural information at their finger tips via computers and smart devices. Millennials “know” about severe weather and global warming through direct experience and thereby “comprehend” the daunting challenge of not meeting the challenge to stop global warming. Again, global warming is not theoretical or historical to them, it is real and it needs to be addressed immediately, There are many alternatives that are either already being implemented and many that can be immediately initiated. SMRs, however, do not appear to be one of them.
I will end as I began: the promises of new nuclear options sound an awful lot like those of the 1970’s. I remain a skeptic. I believe that the billions of dollars being put into nuclear energy research and engineering design for this a very expensive and dangerous gamble. Even more worrisome is that the SMR technology fix might distract us from investing in proven alternative energy. If momentum maintains the push for SMRs, we have to rely on data science to hold the industry to its projected budgets, and make sure to limit investment appropriately. We cannot again be blinded by the nuclear industry’s pitch that atomic reactors are better than fossil fuel reactors. Nuclear power is at best a small part of a possible sustainable energy future.
References
Irena Chatzis (2019) Small Modular Reactors: A Challenge for Spent Fuel Management? International Atomic Energy Association Bulletin
James Conca (2019) Any Green New Deal Is Dead Without Nuclear Power. Forbes. March 2020.
Caroline Delbert (2020) France's Revolutionary Nuclear Reactor Is a Leaky, Expensive Mess. Popular Mechanics.
Amy Harder (2019). Bill Gates faces daunting nuclear future. Axios.
Paul Hawken (2017) Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming Paperback, Penguin Books.
Amory Lovins (1979) Soft Energy Paths: Towards a Durable Peace (Harper Colophon Books
Dan Mathers (2014) Small Modular Reactors and Waste Management Issues. International Framework for Nuclear Energy Cooperation - Infrastructure development working group meeting. Bucharest.
Donella Meadows, Jorgen Randers, et al (2004) Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update
by Donella H. Meadows , Jorgen Randers
Economist (2020) What the million-mile battery means for electric cars. August.
James Meigs (2020) Next-Gen Nuclear Power Magazine, Manhattan Institute
Winter 2020 Infrastructure and energy
Scott Montgomery (2018), The nuclear industry is making a big bet on small power plants. The Conversation. Conversation.com.
Harry Shearer (2020) Our Friend the Atom, Le Show, Podcast episode August 2020.
Ross Wagonsell (2020) Personal Communication