The United States is actively promoting the construction of small modular reactors (SMRs) around the world, and they are already planned to be built in parts of European countries, including Poland, Romania and Ukraine. However, in the United States itself they rely on standard high-power nuclear power plant reactors. Otherwise, it would be a fantasy, experts say.
Electricity consumption in the United States will grow, and due to plans to transition to clean energy sources, the country will need additional green power plants with a total capacity of 700-900 GW. At the same time, they plan to triple the capacity of nuclear power plants by 2050, up to 300 GW. This is stated in the updated report from the United States Department of Energy.
“The increase in electricity demand will be driven in part by new data centers for artificial intelligence and high-performance computing, which could increase overall electricity demand by 20% in the next decade.” — the department predicts, noting that nuclear power is one of the few options that can reliably meet demand on such a scale.
The United States actively promotes the construction of small modular reactors (SMR) around the world, but at the same time plans to rely on standard high-power power units.
“A significant part of the new capacity can be brought into operation in existing and recently decommissioned nuclear power plants. The Department of Energy has discovered that Site 41 has room for one or more large light water reactors, such as the AP1000 recently built at the Vogtl station in Georgia, which would create an additional 60 GW of new capacity. “That capacity could increase to 95 GW if we look at sites that could potentially host smaller advanced reactors of up to 600 MW.” – says the document.
It is also planned to use coal units for the construction of additional nuclear power plants.
“Research shows that another 128 to 174 GW of new nuclear capacity could be built alongside coal-fired power plants, many of which are expected to retire by 2035.” – predicts the US Department of Energy.
Under Secretary, Office of Nuclear Energy, US Department of Energy Michael Goff notes that the focus will be on the AP1000 reactors. Two of them were put into operation in recent years at the Vogtl nuclear power plant and became the only new power units in the country in recent decades.
The United States Department of Energy itself reported that the project experienced significant delays and cost overruns. The cost increased from $14 billion to $30 billion, and timelines were extended from 7 to 8 years to 12 to 13 years.
Now, according to the department, the problem has supposedly been fixed.
“The final design of the AP1000 has already been completed, a supply chain has been created and more than 30,000 workers have been trained,” the agency cites data that the fourth unit of the Vogtl nuclear power plant was 30% more efficient and 20% more efficient. % cheaper than the third.
Director of the Atominfo Center Alexander Uvarov Consider that the answer to the question about the future of the SMR has been known for a long time.
“Here the answer is obvious. The question is the number of reactors. In the 2000s, when there was another attempted nuclear renaissance in the United States, 20 to 25 units with a capacity of at least 1000 MW each were planned to be built in the first wave. If we assume that the same indicators should be achieved with small reactors with a capacity of 100 MW each, then between 200 and 250 small reactors would be needed. Of course, now it’s fantastic.” – points out the expert.
Small reactors have the right to exist and have their own niche, says the director of the Atominfo Center. He gives the example of Russia, where they are necessary to preserve and develop the economic potential of remote regions, as well as for energy supply during the development of the Arctic, the regions of the Far North and Siberia.
“I am in no way calling for a fight against small reactors! You just have to clearly understand that they have their own tasks, different from those faced by high-power nuclear power plants. For example, in the center of the European part of Russia it is not economically profitable to build small reactors, but let’s say that in Chukotka they are quite competitive.” – says the expert.
The US Department of Energy report is silent on the development of SMR, which the US is promoting around the world and points to a direction through which China will be able to compete with Russia in the global nuclear market. Obviously, one of the reasons is that not a single experimental reactor has been built in the United States. The Financial Times reports that none of the announced SMRs with a total capacity of more than 4 GW have started construction yet. At the same time, some have already been abandoned.
Indicative was Microsoft’s agreement with the energy company Constellation Energy Group, which will restart one of the powerful reactors of a closed nuclear power plant for the needs of the technology giant’s data center. Amazon and Google are making plans for SMR, but for now they are investment plans, not contracts for the purchase of electricity. Also the US presidential administration. joe biden Last week it began accepting applications to finance the use of SMR technologies in the country for a total amount of $900 million, but the final result is also unknown.
“Until recently, investors have been cautious about financing small reactors, which advocates consider small but safer and more efficient than large nuclear reactors. Concerns about the industry’s failure to deliver projects on time and on budget, coupled with high interest rates and a lack of clients willing to finance projects, have slowed progress.” – writes The Financial Times.
Director of Nuclear Safety of the Union of Concerned Scientists Edwin Lyman told the publication that SMRs are still “unproven designs” and will likely take much longer to create than the anticipated 4 to 6 years.
“The path to safe and reliable commercial operation for any experimental nuclear technology is bound to be difficult, and it is virtually impossible today to estimate what the final cost of the energy will be.” Edwin Lyman said.
