Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
Even in the improbable event of a core meltdown, Dr. Talabi said that SMRs are still remarkably safe. Unlike the current large-scale power reactors, the advanced designs of the SMRs eliminates the need for active safety systems supported by human operators. If radioactive particles are released from the reactor core, gravity and other natural phenomena such as thermal and steam concentration will force them to settle down within the confines of the reactor containment vessel. In the even more unlikely case that radioactive particles escape the containment vessel, Dr. Talabi’s research suggests that such particles will settle over a much smaller area than if there was a containment breach in a large-scale power reactor. This poses far less of a health and environmental hazard and simplifies cleanup.
Aside from the issue of safety, one of the other great concerns that critics have is the cost. A recent production cost study by the German government states that over three thousand SMRs will need to be manufactured to offset their initial construction cost. However, Talabi said that estimates like that of the German government were just wrong. He said, “It’s as though we’ve only ever built tractor-trailers and we’re trying to figure out what the cost of a motorcycle is.”
Dr. Talabi claims that most economists just take the production cost of a Westinghouse large scale AP1000 power reactor which is a popular design and assume that the cost of an SMR will be proportionally smaller. For instance, they figure that an SMR that produces one hundred megawatts will cost one tenth of the cost of an AP1000 that produces one gigawatt. What economists don’t realize is that many of the systems required by the large-scale power reactors such as the systems that maintain pressure and coolant flow in the reactor’s core will not have to miniaturized in the SMR plants because they will be eliminated.
The theory is that SMRs should also be less expensive because they can be easily factory fabricated. Their smaller parts will be easy for more manufacturers to produce. Only one or two suppliers in the world can produce a reactor vessel for an AP1000, many manufacturers in the U.S. alone should be able to make one for an SMR.
In spite of his optimism for the potential of SMRs, Talabi admits that they do have some drawbacks. Widespread use of SMRs may slash carbon emissions but will necessitate increased uranium mining. They also create a security risk because nuclear fuel will have to be transported between thousands of locations. In addition, reactor sites may be targeted by warring states and terrorists. Current U.S. government statues fail to account for the differences between SMRs and large-scale reactors which will inhibit their construction. Developing countries are in serious need of electric power but they lack the regulatory infrastructure to accept the technology. Their citizens have been exposed to many negative stories about nuclear power through the global press. They may be harder to win over to nuclear power than the U.S. citizens.
Dr. Talabi still believes that the potential for SMRs to help solve the climate change crisis and global energy poverty far outweigh their risks. This makes overcoming their obstacles well worth the effort and cost. In order to support that goal, he founded the Climate Action Through Nuclear Deployment in Developing Countries (CANDiD). CANDiD intends to use technology to create regulatory frameworks that developing nations can utilize to accept and operate SMRs. It also aims to improve the familiarization that the global population needs with the operation and benefits of nuclear power plants.
Dr. Talabi said, “It’s not a technology challenge.” With government and public support, SMRs could soon be powering the globe with carbon-free electricity. To Dr. Talabi, it’s just a matter of awareness and understanding.