Small Modular NUCLEAR Reactors. Climate Solution or Costly Distraction?

During my time as a YouTuber, I’ve had a  few cracks at working out whether Small   Modular Nuclear Reactors are a  good idea or not. I made three   separate videos in fact. One in twenty-twenty,   another one in twenty-twenty-two and a third  in twenty-twenty-four. Each one, if I’m honest,   became a little more sceptical than the last,  for reasons we’ll explore a bit later on.   So, it seems only reasonable to keep up that  unintentional biennial tradition and have a   look at the latest progress in this contentious  technology as we hurtle through twenty-twenty-SIX.

Hello and welcome to Just Have a Think For those unfamiliar with Small Modular   Nuclear technology, which I suspect is very few  of you, they’re typically defined as nuclear   reactors producing up to about 300 megawatts  of electricity per module, which is far smaller   than conventional gigawatt-scale nuclear plants. Companies like NuScale Power, Rolls-Royce SMR,   and GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy are  developing designs based largely on   proven light-water technology, while others  are pursuing advanced concepts like molten   salt reactors or high-temperature gas reactors. There’s even a company called NANO Nuclear Energy   Inc. working on very small modular reactors. Their  current public product focus is on a micro modular   reactor family — rebranded as the LOKI MMR™ and  KRONOS MMR™ — with designs in the single-digit and   low-teens megawatt range. They’re targeting  a demonstration of the first unit at Idaho   National Laboratory’s DOME facility around 2027. I’m not going to dive into the specific of each   of those technologies today, but I’ve liked my  previous videos down there in the description   section along with a couple of extremely helpful  articles by some well -known industry experts.

I guess you could say there are three main  claims outlined by proponents of SMRs though.   Firstly, as the name suggests, they allow for  modularity. In other words, major components   can in theory be built in factories and  assembled on site, rather than constructed   piece by piece outdoors over many years. Secondly, they allow for standardisation.    Instead of bespoke mega-projects, these  companies say they can create identical units   that can be replicated many times – ideal for mass  production and apparent economy of scale savings.   And thirdly, these things will all have passive  safety features, with designs that rely on physics   and gravity to shut down the process when  a fault occurs without relying on any human   intervention or on complex active safety systems. According to policymakers and industry advocates,   this combination could reduce construction  risk, shorten build times, and bring costs   down through serial production —  much as aircraft or wind turbines   benefit from manufacturing learning curves. The U. S. Department of Energy has supported   advanced reactor programmes and fuel supply  development. The European Commission has launched   initiatives aimed at accelerating SMR deployment.   3:05 The UK government has selected a preferred   technology partner (Rolls Royce – quel surprise! )  and is progressing siting and regulatory steps.   So, it appears that the momentum is  real. At least for the time being anyway.   But political momentum and economic  reality are not the same thing, are they?   So, the plan today is to dig into that side  of things a bit more to try to understand   whether SMRs really are accelerating  towards a major place in the energy   supply network or whether the observations  of sceptics and critics are well-founded.

Before we get stuck into all that though, I’m  delighted to let you know that I will once again   be hosting several discussion panels at the  upcoming Everything Electric LIVE show up in   Harrogate on Friday the 8th and Saturday the 9th  of May. There’s all the usual brilliant stuff like   test drives of all the latest electric vehicles,  of which there are now of course about a gazillion   to choose from, plus a whole arena full of experts  to guide you through the process of choosing heat   pumps, solar panels, battery energy systems, car  chargers and just about everything else you might   be looking for to transform your home as part of  the global energy transition. There’s plenty of   outdoor space too with great food zones and space  for the kids to run around and have a bit of fun.    A daily ticket cost ten pounds, or you can get a  two-day ticket for fifteen pounds, PLUS if you use   my Just Have a Think discount code at the bottom  of the screen, then you’ll get twenty percent off   those prices. What’s not to like? So, scan the  QR code or follow the link in the description   section to grab your tickets while they’re still  available, and I’ll hopefully see you there!

Right, so let’s start with the question  of economics. One of the most persistent   criticisms of SMRs comes from engineers and energy  analysts who argue that the economics of scaling   down nuclear reactors are inherently challenging. They point out that nuclear power historically   benefited from economies of scale. Large reactors  spread fixed costs like containment structures,   safety systems, licensing and of course  staffing — over a very large output.   When you shrink the reactor, you don’t  shrink all those costs proportionally.   Those same engineers and analysts argue that while  modular factory production might eventually create   savings, it requires very high production volumes  to offset the loss of scale — volumes that the   nuclear power industry has never achieved in  practice. Those volumes could only really have   any chance of becoming a reality if ALL production  was concentrated into ONE design built at massive   volume in a relatively small number of locations  perhaps as few as one or two mega factories on   each continent. But today there are dozens  of companies all over the world, all with   different technologies and methodologies, all  competing for a slice of the same notional pie.   There is apparently a concept in nuclear  industry economics known as FOAK versus NOAK.   First-of-a-Kind versus Nth-of-a-Kind. Essentially it reflects the fact that   the first reactor built to a new design almost  always costs more and takes longer. Only after   repetition do learning effects reduce costs. The difficulty is that nuclear projects   have historically struggled to demonstrate  consistent cost declines across generations.    In some Western markets, costs have risen  over time due to regulatory complexity,   supply chain disintegration, and increased  financing risk. SMR advocates argue that   smaller size and factory fabrication will finally  allow nuclear power to access the same kind of   learning curves seen in wind and solar. Critics respond that nuclear power   is not the same as wind turbines. Each reactor site, whatever the size,   still requires extensive civil works, grid  integration, emergency planning, security,   licensing, and skilled operators. Even if modules  are factory-built, the overall project remains   capital-intensive and heavily regulated. The point isn’t that SMRs as a technology   can’t work from a technical point of view. They  absolutely can. The reactors used to power nuclear   submarines and surface warships for example are  compact, self-contained nuclear fission plants   that share several characteristics with modern SMR  concepts — they’re relatively small compared with   full-size land-based power reactors. They’re  designed to operate reliably for long periods   without refuelling, and they were developed  specifically to fit into tight hull spaces   and support autonomous operation at sea. And what I wanted to say next was ‘and   they’re f**king eye-wateringly expensive’ But because I’m jolly good British chap who   tries to keep things impartial, what I’m actually  going to say is this - naval reactors have been   operating for decades, but detailed cost data  for those systems isn’t publicly available,   because submarine propulsion programmes are  classified. So, they don’t provide a transparent   benchmark for commercial SMR economics. Whichever way you look at it though,

the burden of proof appears to lie in  DELIVERED cost, not projected cost.   Then there’s the fuel itself of course. Many of the newer SMR concepts don’t use   the same fuel as today’s large reactors. Instead  of standard 3–5% enriched uranium, several designs   require something called HALEU, or high assay  low enriched uranium — enriched to higher levels.   At the moment, large-scale commercial HALEU  production outside Russia is extremely limited.    The U. S. Department of Energy and companies  like Centrus Energy are working to build   domestic capacity — but it’s not yet an  established, mature supply chain. 8:24 to 8:25  And it’s not just enrichment. Some advanced  reactors need entirely new fuel types,   new fabrication facilities, new transport  approvals and updated regulatory frameworks.   So, the question isn’t simply ‘Does the reactor work? ’  It’s ‘Does the whole industrial  ecosystem to fuel it exist at scale? ’  And for many advanced SMRs, that  ecosystem is still under construction.   There are also technical debates about  spent fuel characteristics. Some studies   have suggested that certain advanced reactor  designs may produce different waste profiles   or higher volumes per unit energy than  conventional large reactors — although to   be fair that is contested by industry developers. Again, you could say the picture is nuanced. Or   you could say it’s not clear at all whether  the hazard would be greater or the same.

Arguably the most strategic criticism  though, has to do with opportunity cost.   Renewable energy and battery storage are already  scaling extremely fast, with rapidly declining   costs and global manufacturing capacity now  measured in the hundreds of gigawatts per year.   If public funds are limited, which they  always are, then sceptics are asking   whether it make sense to allocate large  dollops of capital to technologies that   might not reach commercial maturity until  the early to mid-twenty-thirties, by which   time they may not actually be needed at all. On the other hand, if deep decarbonisation   ultimately requires firm, dispatchable  low-carbon generation to complement renewables,   then developing nuclear options today  could prove strategically valuable.

Both arguments seem to hinge on timelines and  cost trajectories — and both remain uncertain.   So why are there some serious  organisations and institutions backing   the apparently massive gamble of SMR technology? Well, for a start there was the whole illegal   Russian invasion of Ukraine thing, which caused  shockwaves around the world, not least here in   Europe, where governments suddenly had to reassess  their dependence on imported fossil fuels. And of   course, we now have an ever-worsening situation  in the Middle East affecting global gas and oil   supplies. Doubling down on renewables roll out  has definitely been a big part of the response,   but in many countries the debate around nuclear  power has once again come to the fore as well.    The thinking in some government departments has  been that lots of little nuclear power plants   all over the place, with years of fuel stored  on site, might offer strategic resilience.   Plus high-temperature reactors could, in theory,  provide process heat for hard to electrify sectors   like steel, cement and chemicals, and perhaps  even provide the power to run electrolysers to   produce so-called green hydrogen, which despite  its own patently obvious shortcomings is still a   bit of a pin-up boy on the walls of many trade  and environment ministers around the world.   Then there’s site repurposing. SMRs are  often proposed as direct replacements for   retiring coal plants, using existing grid  connections and existing workforces with   many of the required skills already in place. Some analysts also argue that new regulatory   frameworks, advanced construction methods, and  public-private partnership models could reduce   the financing premium that has historically  plagued large scale nuclear projects.   Proponents of this sort of thing argue that  if governments are serious about net zero,   they should support multiple pathways rather  than betting exclusively on one technology.   My own view, for what it’s worth, which frankly  isn’t much, but anyway my own view on this   particular assertion is that if everything  is a priority then by definition NOTHING is   a priority. And when NOTHING is a priority,  focus tends to disappear into the ether of   ambiguity and complacency. Anyway, what do I know!?!

What I do know is that according to the World  Nuclear Association, despite lots of activity   going on with SMRs around the world when you  filter down using the search term ‘operable’   you only find two that are actually sending  electrons into grids. The pressurised water   reactor on the Russian Akademik Lomonosov  floating nuclear power plant, which was   supposed to be commissioned in twenty-ten but  actually wasn’t finished until twenty-twenty,   and the Shidaowan high temperature gas reactor  in China, which took eleven years to complete,   at a cost of about four hundred and  thirty million US dollars and with   an electricity generation capacity of  just over two hundred and ten megawatts.   So, if even the mighty People’s Republic of  China, with all it’s technical expertise AND   autocratic focus struggled to get one of  these things up and running in good time,   then perhaps the cynics have a point. The energy transition is not a single

race, that’s for sure. It’s really lots of  different races all going on at the same time.   And maybe that’s where the  conversation needs to be reframed.   Rather than asking whether SMRs are technically,  economically and politically ‘good or bad’,   perhaps the more useful question  is - what role, if any, can they   realistically play within the narrow time  window available for deep decarbonisation?   In other words, if commercial deployment doesn’t  materialise until the mid-twenty-thirties,   will that meaningfully accelerate  emissions reductions — or will other   technologies have already filled the gap? On the other hand, if the grids of the   twenty-forties still require firm low-carbon  backup for high-renewables systems, could SMRs   represent a stabilising complementary technology? Again, these aren’t ideological questions. They’re   pragmatic questions about timing and costs. And no doubt you’ve got your own views on   those questions. So, as always, the place to  leave your thoughts is in the comments below.   That’s it for this week though. A massive thank you to the absolutely   indispensable group of heroic individuals who  support me over on the Patreon platform and   who enable me to keep this channel free  from all ads and sponsorship messages.   Don’t forget to like and subscribe  if you found this useful.   And most importantly of all — Thanks for watching.   Have a great week. And remember…  To just have a think. See you next week.