The so-called "nuclear power renaissance" is turning out to be non-existent. The only approved small-scale, modular, nuclear reactor was cancelled Wednesday by its owner. Research and development of smaller nuclear plants is funded by the national government. Both the Idaho National Environment and Engineering Laboratory and Oregon State University participated in development. Advocates argue that plants (SMRs) in the 50 to 100MW range that can be built on a modular basis are cheaper, safer and more efficient that the megaliths of 1000MW or more of the past. These have proven extremely expensive and complicated to operate, as well as being vulnerable to natural disasters and terrorist attack. The Biden Administration has made clear its commitment to a new generation of nuclear power. His administration has provided $6 billion to keep America's aging reactors operating and added $100 million to the $600 million already spent on SMRs. [photro courtesy NuScale]
NuScale Power was founded on the technical research a quarter-century ago. Its first SMR design was approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Agency in February. The company planned to build six 77MW modules by 2030, a delay of 2025 start date, as it ran into technical difficulties and the usual cost overruns that ballooned the cost estimate from $3 billion to $6.1 billion. Its first small reactor project was scuttled after NuScale's utility partner backed out when cost estimates escalated further to $9.3 billion. Utilities that might have signed up to buy power also got cold feet, causing NuScale to admit,"it appears unlikely that the project will have enough subscription to continue toward deployment."
NuScale has turned its attention to SMRs in Eastern Europe. But the example of the massive Zaporizhzhia nuclear station in Ukraine has brought home to utilities and governments the dangers of a nuclear plant in a war zone. That six reactor unit, the largest in Europe, has been shut down since shelling took place near it. The potential for a toxic release of radiation due to battle damage is just too great to continue operation. The same concerns occur in earthquake-prone regions--witness the Fukushima station destroyed by an earthquake and tsunami in 2011.
The only new US reactors built recently, in Georgia, are seven years over schedule and cost $34 billion. The original cost estimate was $14 billion. The cost overruns and delays led to the bankruptcy of Westinghouse Inc. a company founded in 1886. Nevertheless, an SMR is planned for Ontario, Canada. It is scheduled to begin operation in 2028--clearly and overly optimistic forecast. SMRs, like their larger forerunners, are simply not economical without government subsidies compared to solar and wind installations that are much simpler in design and can be erected relatively quickly. GE-Hitachi building the Ontario project says it can produce electricity at $60MW/hr. Solar installation with storage capacity figures at $45MW/hr and wind at $30MW/hr. Nuclear has provided about 20% of the nation's energy production since the 1990s, but going forward it will be difficult to get investors and governments interested in new nuclear projects. US Person has no chip on his shoulder; nuclear power is still NOT too cheap to meter.