#small modular reactors

[probablyasocialecologist]

The Nuclear Fallacy: Why Small Modular Reactors Can’t Compete With Renewable Energy

Will the small modular nuclear reactor community be able to find an optimized point on the physics vs modularity curve? I don't think so, and discussed it with Bent Flyvbjerg, global megaproject expert.

Wind and solar have plummeted in costs and grids with higher penetration of renewables are actually more reliable than coal, gas or nuclear heavy grids using industry standard metrics for outages per customer per year. Germany and Denmark, for example, see half or more of their annual electrical generation from renewables and have outages averaging around 13 minutes per customer per year, compared to over an hour for neighboring, nuclear-dominant France, two hours for the US and Canada, and four hours for coal-heavy Poland.

That’s not because renewables are magic, by the way, it’s just that forward thinking grid strategists and managers tend to favor renewables and also build reliable grids and markets that make them work well.

[...]

Small modular reactors won’t achieve economies of manufacturing scale, won’t be faster to construct, forego efficiency of vertical scaling, won’t be cheaper, aren’t suitable for remote or brownfield coal sites, still face very large security costs, will still be costly and slow to decommission, and still require liability insurance caps. They don’t solve any of the problems that they purport to while intentionally choosing to be less efficient than they could be. They’ve existed since the 1950s and they aren’t any better now than they were then.

[...]

SMRs are intentionally going back to the smaller scales of the 1950s and 1960s, scales that were tried and abandoned because they weren’t economical at that scale even with standardized reactors from subs and carriers, without any safety regulation to speak of, with no Fukushimas or Chernobyls in the rearview mirror, and with a national strategy that focused on nuclear energy, aligned with the US’ nuclear weapons program.

And note that SMRs don’t do a thing for the absolute worst case of projects in Flyvbjerg’s data set — nuclear waste storage facilities.

[man-and-atom]

NuScale will get the final approval nearly six years after starting the process.

It remains to be seen whether this ends up being of any practical significance.

The NRC has never granted an operating license to any nuclear generating unit which was ordered subsequent to the establishment of the NRC. They have also never granted an operating license to any non-LWR ― Fort St Vrain operated for years on waivers. NuScale, with their BWR, at least has an advantage there.

Interestingly, the natural-circulation closed-cycle BWR was a staple of the first period of interest in “package power systems” (since re-branded SMRs), in the late 1950s. Everything old is new again!

[probablyasocialecologist]

Nuclear reactors won’t fix Britain’s energy crisis

SMRs have been ‘in development’ in many other nuclear states for decades, without a single plant delivering grid-priced electricity to date, writes Donnachadh McCarthy

There is no reason to believe SMRs will be any faster in development or come in any cheaper than the current fleet of nuclear plants. SMRs have been “in development” in many other nuclear states for decades, without a single plant delivering grid-priced electricity to date.

The US’s NuScale SMR project has been a nightmare of delays and cost over-runs. South Korea’s SMR programme has likewise failed to produce a working plant, despite over a decade of development.

Even the UK government admits that production of these SMRs would start in the early 2030s at the earliest – and that’s if this untried technology passes all safety tests, during a five-year assessment from the Office for Nuclear Regulation. No insurer is willing to carry the risk of a nuclear catastrophe, either.

According to the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency’s latest report, the costs for “cleaning up” Britain’s closing nuclear power stations, has soared to over £132bn pounds, having nearly tripled between 2017 and 2022. Remember about £5bn would insulate every roof in Britain to modern standards, reducing fuel poverty for millions for decades to come.

Another lurking issue is that many of the proposed sites for the SMRs are at existing coastal nuclear power plants. Numerous experts have warned that with accelerating ice-melt at the polar caps, these will be increasingly under threat of inundation. Thus, insurance and decommissioning would be a huge invisible taxpayer subsidy to SMRs, as renewables pay for their own insurance and decommissioning costs.

It is bizarre that the government are unable to say where the uranium to power the plants would come from. 54 per cent of current uranium production comes from just three former Soviet republics: Kazakhstan, Russia and Uzbekistan. Kazakhstan alone produces 41 per cent, and recently invited the Russian army in to quell a rebellion. So much for UK “energy independence” with this nuclear led strategy.

[sustainableyadayadayada]

Where are the Small Modular Reactors?

Small modular nuclear reactors might be a key part of the solution to the climate crisis, or they might not. They seem to be near the end of the R&D stage (although doubtless they can and will continue to be improved) and at the very beginning of pilot testing/proof of concept. They are not yet economically competitive with other forms of power generation (including traditional large nuclear…

[localechonews]

India's Energy Security Strategy: U.S. Collaboration Takes Center Stage

India's Energy Security Strategy: U.S. Collaboration Takes Center Stage Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal, during his recent visit to New York, emphasized that India's energy security objectives will increasingly involve significant collaboration with the United States. He highlighted that the U.S. is poised to play a pivotal role in supporting India's energy needs in the coming years.

Strengthening Energy Trade Ties

The United States has become a crucial energy partner for India. In April 2025, the U.S. surpassed the United Arab Emirates to become India's fourth-largest crude oil supplier, nearly doubling the volume compared to the previous year. Additionally, U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to India have been on the rise, with Indian Oil Corporation entering into a five-year agreement with Trafigura for LNG imports, pricing tied to the U.S. Henry Hub benchmark.

GAIL India Ltd has also taken steps to deepen energy ties by seeking a 26% equity stake in a U.S.-based LNG project, coupled with a 15-year agreement to import 1 million metric tons of LNG annually starting between 2029 and 2030.

Advancing Nuclear Energy Cooperation

Minister Goyal also underscored the importance of nuclear energy in India's long-term energy strategy. The U.S. Department of Energy has granted Holtec International regulatory clearance to transfer small modular reactor (SMR) technology to India. This development is expected to facilitate the construction of U.S.-designed nuclear reactors in India, marking a significant step in Indo-U.S. nuclear cooperation.

The collaboration aligns with the broader goals of the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement, which aims to enhance energy security through peaceful nuclear cooperation.

A Strategic Partnership for the Future

Minister Goyal's statements reflect a strategic alignment between India and the United States in the energy sector. By diversifying energy sources and embracing advanced technologies, both nations are working towards a resilient and sustainable energy future. This partnership not only addresses immediate energy needs but also sets the stage for long-term collaboration in the global energy landscape.

As India continues to expand its energy infrastructure, the involvement of the United States is expected to be a cornerstone in achieving energy security and economic growth.

[anuraxx]

Oklo says engaging with Nuclear Regulatory Commission in readiness assessment.. read more..