There has been a lot of discussion in the nuclear industry about the development of a new type of nuclear reactor referred to a “small modular reactor (SMR).” Conventional power reactors are built onsite and can exceed a gigawatt in capacity. The new SMRs will be three hundred megawatts or less. The U.S. Office of Nuclear Energy (ONE) is charged with the task of developing and demonstrating a SMR but no such reactor is even remotely near being deployed. A new study from three universities just published in the Environmental Research Letters offers details of the failure of the ONE to deliver.
This new type of reactor will be non-light water in contrast to the current ubiquitous light-water reactors supplying electricity today. Some of the new designs would allow reactors to operate at higher temperatures and provide superior performance than current reactors. Some designs will be able to operate for decades without refueling which reduces maintenance costs and generates much less waste. Another benefit is supposed to be that these SMRs will be built in factories and be subjected to better and more uniform quality control than is currently possible with the custom onsite construction that is common.
The report goes into depth about how resources were allocated and how the research and development program was run. What the researchers found was that the program “violated much of the wisdom about how to effectively run an applied energy research program.” The lead researcher said "There were often inconsistencies in the annual budget documents. The budget itself varies significantly over the period of study, which is fine if these variations are part of a coherent vision that is being pursued, but that is not the case. At all levels, NE favours existing technologies and fuels over innovation, and, where it does support truly innovative research, it is prone to changing priorities before any concrete progress has been made.”
"One example of this lack of vision is the gap that exists between the advanced reactor and advanced fuel programs. Investing in advanced fuels research is critical to developing a new nuclear reactor technology. However, NE has mostly invested in one fuel type while exploring multiple reactor designs, most of which do not use that fuel. This disjunction between the two programs is naturally problematic."
The study reported that a lot of the money spent on the program did not go to projects that directly supported the actual development of SMRs. Some of this misspent money was dedicated to defense projects in an echo of the original promotion of nuclear power which was really intended to collect more funding for the Department of Defense nuclear programs. The lead researcher said "Despite substantial expenditure and commitments to this future, NE lacks the funding and programmatic focus required to execute its mission. Even if the program had been well designed, it still would have been insufficient to demonstrate even one non-light water technology.
"It has dedicated only $2 billion over the past 18 years to all advanced reactor and fuel initiatives. While that may appear to be a substantial sum, by NE's own estimates it is not enough to ready even one such design for commercial deployment."
The researchers recommended that the ONE do a better job of focusing funding of projects that will actually lead directly to the development of SMRs. They also recommend a more transparent process. The different reactor designs need to be evaluated against a set of key performance requirements. This would allow an informed debated on the relative merits of each design with respect to issues of economics, safety, security and waste.
In a grim prediction of the prospects for SMRs, the lead researcher said, "Without a sense of urgency among NE and its political leaders, the likelihood of advanced reactors playing a substantial role in the transition to a low-carbon US energy portfolio is exceedingly low. From a broader perspective, this failure means that the US will cede its leadership on nuclear matters to other nations, limiting its ability to exert influence in key areas such as safety and non-proliferation as well."
