Small Module Reactors: Technology, and Long-Term Feasibility (Essay Sample)

First and Last Name Instructor Course Name Date Small Module Reactors: Technology, and Long-Term Feasibility Nuclear power is among the cleanest to produce when factors like carbon emissions are considered. Yet, even as the world embraces nuclear power as a reliable source of clean energy, daunting challenges remain to widespread implementation. The scale of conventional fission reactors means that they require enormous outlays of resources and human capital. Small module reactors work differently. While at present SMRs are still theoretical technology which is prohibitively expensive to produce, SMRs have the potential to vastly scale up the number of functioning reactors, delivering power to regions which do not have the resources to support a convention fission reactor. The potential benefits are enormous. Nuclear power is a climate-conscious energy source and the carbon footprint of an SMR is miniscule compared with coal-firing plants which currently provide much of the world with power. This could help to mitigate the effects of global climate change while simultaneously expanding affordable electrical access to those without it.  Small module reactors are different from the large reactors currently online in both their size and the resources required for their operation. An SMR is any reactor with a generative capacity of under 300 Mwe (Cooper). While this means that they have less than half the generative capacity of medium-sized reactors, this disadvantage is offset by the fact that SMRs are more scalable, efficient, and can serve a broader range of uses. SMRs can not only generate power for industrial and residential purposes but can also generate heat which can be used in the production of petrochemical fuels and water desalinization (Hidayatullah). Beyond their technical advantages, SMRs are more scalable and economical than present medium scale plants, at least in theory. This is because while present systems, many of which were created during the “nuclear renaissance” of the 2000s, can generate enormous amounts of energy they also require enormous cost outlays and can only feasibly be installed in places with an adequate water source to cool the turbines. Some proposed SMRs would bypass this problem by utilizing different fuel designs, while others would essentially work as scaled-down versions of extant plants (Makhijani 208). This means SMRs could by installed and operate in places which are currently unsuitable. For this project, we imagine that an SMR could be installed in Upstate New York. Although New York state’s rivers could be used to cool turbines, we are assuming that this new SMR will use alternative fuel designs and so would not need to be cooled by water. Since SMRs are currently theoretical technology, there is no way to say for certain how much they might cost. Currently, the technology is considered prohibitively expensive. Estimates by the authors of one study suggest that the cost might be as high as $6500 per kw, making energy generated by SMRs far more expensive than fossil-fuel based alternatives (Cooper). While it is hoped that these costs can be radically reduced, this remains to be seen. It is important to note that the above projection is based on the cost of bringing SMRs to the assembly line with current technology and only a theoretical understanding of how these technologies could be produced at scale. Every complex system which is inexpensive today is based on an expensive, and difficult to produce, prototype. Assuming that the costs of production can be brought down, SMRs have the potential to become cheaper than current fuel sources without the additional externality of carbon emissions. SMRs can deliver more power to more places, are simpler in design than medium-scale plants, and could be scaled according to the needs of neighboring communities and manufacturing centers (Clayton and Wood 4). Section 2: Ownership, Engineers, Managers and the Public Nuclear reactors always require a team of specialists to run and maintain them, and this will be true in the event that SMRs are broadly implemented. Present systems require two technicians for every kilowatt of power they produce, as a general rule of thumb (Clayton and Wood 5). This means that the personnel required to safely operate a nuclear reactor is vast, even if the number of people required on site falls as technological advancements streamline various processes. Because SMRs are scaled down versions of conventional fission reactors, they have the potential to be even more efficient and require fewer personnel. Nuclear power plants are job creators, and this is attractive from the standpoint of both politicians and the public. However, the number of skilled technicians, managers and other experts currently puts restraints on where plants can be operated. Skilled technicians are not mass producible as machines are. SMRs can potentially be remotely monitored, which is not currently safe or feasible with existing systems, thus reducing the need for on-site personnel dramatically (Clayton and Wood 9). While SMRs have the potential to be purchased by private companies, it is reasonable to expect that funding will likely come first and primarily from the public sector. Even if SMRs were scaled down to the point where they could be owned and operated privately, it is still reasonable to assume that the state would regulate many aspects of their operation. This includes where plants are built, what designs are safe enough to operate close to population centers, and so forth. Because SMRs are theoretical technology, plans will have to be approved by government officials before those plans can be implemented. This will mean that the public, or at least some significant subsection of the public, will need to feel that the project is viable and support SMRs being assembled and operated in or near their communities (Makhijani and Ramana, 211). Technical issues have the potential to hamper development in a number of ways. At present, there are at least several dozen working models for what a functioning SMR might look like. While this diversity breeds innovation, it also has the potential to make a create a situation where mutually incompatible systems proliferate. For this reason, standardized designs should be widely implemented so that SMR systems can be made safer economies of scale can help to reduce costs of their construction (Hidayatullah et al). Section 3: Potential Downsides, Issues and Anticipating the Unexpected There are a number of potential issues and areas of concern. Because SMRs rely on theoretical, any number of technical issues might arise in the process of building and designing such systems which cannot be anticipated. One study lists roughly forty-five proposed plans for SMRs with only a few with designs which have been certified by any relevant group of experts. Those which have been approved remain prototypes, and so they remain in the planning stage (Hidayatullah et al). Since these technologies do not currently exist, there is no way to generate a realistic, fact-based timetable to predict the stages of their implementation. This is one reason why the nuclear power industry in general tends to see a boom-and-bust cycle where strong interest drives development only to follow a loss of confidence and a long lull between innovations (Cooper). While it cannot be said with certainty that SMRs will definitely be more difficult to implement, it seems quite likely given the fact that so much about their operation and design is still unknown. Designs which use high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, as some SMRs do, are currently being built in China and consistently fall behind schedule (Makhijani and Ramana 210). In addition to these challenges, there are several others. The prohibitive costs have already been addressed above. They mean ...