Among the important political priorities of the Biden administration is the creation of a carbon-free electricity sector by 2035. To accomplish this objective, the US authorities are considering nuclear energy, which accounted for 19% of the country’s total energy production in 2023.
Nevertheless, the construction of new reactors is a costly and time-consuming endeavor, prompting the United States to look for alternatives. One such option, now actively supported and promoted by the US authorities, are the so-called Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). Currently, only Russia and China have successfully built SMRs. Thus, given the fact that the only operating SMRs are located in the countries that the US deems as its geopolitical rivals, it becomes increasingly vital for the US to build its first SMR, even though, according to experts, these power plants will not reach their commercial stage until 2030s.
Taking into account the high priority of the issue, the idea of SMRs is widely promoted in the US, particularly by the US Department of Energy. According to the Office of Nuclear Energy of the US Department of Energy, SMRs are expected to feature simpler designs, shorter construction timelines, and lower deployment costs. Typically, SMRs can generate between several dozen to 300 megawatts of power. According to the department, SMRs offer a number of advantages: they are smaller in size and can occupy a small area compared to large nuclear power plants and require less investment. In addition, SMRs offer enhanced security benefits. For this reason, the Department has provided significant support to the emerging SMRs that are undergoing licensing review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and are likely to be operational by the late 2020s to early 2030s.
As the energy sector evolves, the need and demand for cleaner and cheaper energy solutions are increasing. That is the reason why SMRs have become such a popular topic of discussion. In spite of the fact that SMR proponents claim that these technologies can play a revolutionary role in the field of nuclear energy, becoming a safer alternative to traditional reactors, deeper research by some analysts offers a less positive picture fraught with economic, safety and other challenges.
Probably the most important challenge is the economic challenge. SMRs are promoted as being more economical than large reactors. However, the research shows that smaller reactors will in general produce more expensive electricity than larger reactors. The price factor has played a decisive role in canceling two US SMR projects- “NuScale Power” and “Generation mPower.” The “NuScale” project, which planned to build a 460-megawatt, 6-unit SMR in Idaho, was estimated at more than $20,000 per kilowatt. This figure is significantly higher than the cost of “Vogtle” large reactor design, which costs around $15,000 per kilowatt, much cheaper than the smaller reactor design. For the other project, “Generation mPower”, the joint venture companies spent more than $375 million in addition to a $111 million contribution from the US Department of Energy, which is a significant investment but did not result in any SMR built.
It is also assumed that generating less electricity will bring less revenue and construction costs will be much more expensive. Thus, due to their unprofitability, SMRs are shut down even before they are operational and don’t enter the commercial phase. It is no coincidence that almost all of the more than 70 initiatives under development around the world are still in the design phase.
