Model of a small nuclear reactor from the company Nu Scale Power Corp, but the development of which has now been abandoned
Foto: Conservative Energy Network
When US President Donald Trump stopped by on his golf course in Scotland at the end of July, he received the British Prime Minister Keir Strander for a short chat. The two are said to have exchanged information about a cooperation in the development and construction of small modular nuclear reactors. “The closer we can work together in this area, the better,” said Strander media reports at the meeting. And Trump was quoted with the sentence: “We make smaller and larger ones, but the little one is interesting.”
But the so -called small modular reactors (SMR) are currently difficult for Trump and Starmer. Whether France President Emanuel Macron or Hungary’s head of state Viktor Orbán, whether Tech Groups such as Amazon and Google or the entrepreneur Bill Gates-they all rely on nuclear power in the form of the mini reactors.
What are SMR? Despite the long practiced use of the term SMR, there has been no internationally uniform definition for this. The International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) describes SMR as small nuclear reactors that are to be prefabricated as standard and modular in factories. SMR therefore have an electrical output of less than ten megawatts (microreactors) up to typically 300 megawatts. However, usual conventional nuclear reactors deliver 1,000 to 1500 megawatts.
No uniform concepts
Technologically, SMR cover a wide range. In a number of concepts, they correspond to the functioning of common light water reactors. These types of SMR are therefore subject to lower development risks, the developers can fall back on operational experience with the large nuclear power plants.
On the other hand, some SMR is based on new concept ideas with little or no industrial previous experience. These concepts are, for example, high -temperature reactors, reactors with a fast neutron spectrum or so -called salt melting reactors. In the case of the latter, liquid salt reactor is also distributed evenly in the primary cycle of the reactor. A meltdown in the classic sense is therefore excluded because the core is always in the desired molten state.
But all SMR models have one thing in common: they are far from mass production. So far, there is only a handful of specimens built. According to the IAEA, two SMR are only operated in China and Russia. However, these reactors are individual designs and by no means ready for series production. The majority of the SMR projects announced worldwide are projects whose feasibility is questionable in technical, temporal and financial terms. The current development of SMR is currently largely financed and runs to a large extent in the USA, Canada and Great Britain. Both industrial and geopolitical motifs and military interests play a role. The majority of the countries that pursue SMR development activities entertain nuclear weapons programs and build nuclear submarines. Or you already have a “civil” nuclear program. In addition to traditional nuclear energy countries, countries with a lack of competence and infrastructure in nuclear technology are increasingly interested in SMR, such as Saudi Arabia and Jordan.
SMR supporters advertise-compared to the construction of large nuclear power plants-shorter production times and lower costs. Because individual components or the entire SMR should be manufactured industrially (mass) and, if necessary, transported to the selected locations for installation. Comparable to a modular principle, a single reactor with low performance or a larger system from several small reactor modules could be built from the modules in a short time. More security, high energy efficiency and less nuclear waste are other promises.
Critics consider it unlikely to excluding that they can be redeemed. There are “too many questions, but no answers”, states, for example, the environmental organization Global 2000. And the anti-atomic organization comments on: “Small modular reactors are the soap bubbles of nuclear power: colorful dazzling projection surfaces, behind it quite a lot of air.”
For reasons of cost
In all previous SMR initiatives, the hoped-for cost advantages have resolved, writes the BUND environmental association and refers to the former showcase project of the US company Nu Scale Power Corp. In January 2024, the company actually wanted to submit the application for a building and operating permit for the first facility in the state of Idaho. Two months earlier, on November 8, 2023, announced that the project would be abandoned. For cost reasons: were originally $ 5.3 billion, the official estimates quickly rose to double. It was not taken into account $ four billion that Nu Scale had received from the US government for the development of his SMR.
Nu scale had planned a modular concept with small light water reactors. A single module should have an output of 77 megawatts, in a power plant park four, six or twelve modules should be interconnected. The reactors should be manufactured in a factory and then transported to the site and only installed there. The construction period for a Nu scale reactor was planned at 36 months, the first should go into operation in 2029.
The Nu scale disaster is not an isolated case. In Russia, the “Lomonossow Akademik”, prototype of a floating SMR, was at least four times as expensive as planned: at least 37 billion rubles became the six. This corresponds to just under $ 25,000 per kilowatt of installed performance-almost twice as much as with a modern large reactor.
A high-temperature demonstration reactor went online in China in 2021. In 2022 it ran only 27 of possible 8760 operating hours. The construction costs were three times as high as planned. China has given up plans for the construction of up to 18 other reactors of the same type at the same location.
Even with NU scale, there seem to be no new major orders. On the contrary: planned projects in other countries are now also on the brink. The company is in the process of releasing a third of the workforce. In addition, it has a class action for disappointed shareholders on the neck. You accuse Nu scale of having raised and burned your money with misleading information.
Because there are only concept sketches for many SMR so far, permits, material development and prototype construction often need decades. The nuclear industry itself states that demonstration reactors are expected for many concepts at the earliest in the 2040s. In addition, in many countries, the necessary infrastructure, specialists and admission regulations are missing in many countries. “The fact is: SMR come, if at all, too late for effective climate protection,” summarizes the federal government. “Instead, SMR investments use urgently needed money when expanding renewable energies without knowing whether SMR has ever produced electricity.”
More instead of less nuclear waste
SMR manufacturers advertise, for example, with lower waste quantities. Radioactive waste will also occur with SMR. A study in the US specialist magazine “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences”, led by researchers at Stanford University, even expects the opposite. “Our results show that most small modular reactor concepts will increase the volume of the nuclear waste to be disposed of by a factor of two to 30,” the researchers write. One reason for this is that the smaller reactors released more neutrons, which then contaminated steel parts radioactive. In addition, significantly more transports and interim stores would be necessary.
The Federal Office for the Security of Nuclear Disposal (BASE) also sees the SMR hype critically. In order to generate the same electrical performance worldwide as with current new nuclear power plants, a factor of three to 1000 larger number of systems would be required, according to a statement by the authority.
On the other hand, from the base’s point of view, SMR could potentially achieve safety -related advantages over nuclear power plants, since they have, for example, a lower radioactive inventory per reactor – which the manufacturers also advertise. However, the high number of reactors, which is necessary for the same production volume of electrical power, in turn increases the risk in many ways. Because the number of serious accidents as well as war, sabotage or terrorist attacks alone also increase.
At the same time, according to the Base in its evaluation, there are no SMR-specific national or international security standards. Since many SMR developers were aiming for a worldwide use of their concepts, this would require international standardization of the requirements. This is currently not currently foreseeable in established atomic energy states.
Even with a view to the economy of SMR, the base predominates skepticism. Due to the low electrical power, the construction costs are relatively higher than with large nuclear power plants. A production cost calculation from the nuclear industry suggests that 300 SMR would have to be produced on average before entering series production is worthwhile.