The Future of Nuclear Energy

Nuclear energy is often considered a paradox; despite being one of the safest energy sources, its popularity has waned over the years, primarily due to public apprehension. Although nuclear accidents are rare, the catastrophic consequences when they do occur have significantly tarnished its reputation. In stark contrast, nuclear power results in 330 times fewer fatalities than coal, 263 times fewer than oil, and 38 times fewer than gas. Overall, it is over 97% safer than fossil fuels.

This energy source is crucial for achieving a clean power grid, as solar and wind energy cannot provide continuous power. Nuclear energy stands out as the most dependable and powerful option available; however, the construction of nuclear plants is a daunting task, often taking around seven years and costing billions. The public's reluctance to have plants near urban areas further complicates matters, as high-voltage transmission lines incur extra expenses.

While operational costs per kilowatt (kW) for nuclear plants can be significantly higher than those of gas plants—$6,000 per kW compared to $850 per kW—the rapid construction and lower investment required for gas facilities make them an attractive option for many nations. As a result, some countries continue to prioritize gas over nuclear, despite warnings from experts.

The Rise of Small Modular Reactors

What if there was a solution to many of the challenges faced by traditional nuclear power? Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are being touted as the future of nuclear energy. These compact reactors, about 65 feet tall and housed in containment vessels measuring 76 feet, can be manufactured in factories and transported by rail or ship.

Inside the containment unit, water is heated as it circulates over the core. SMRs utilize a series of tubes and turbines, relying on gravity and buoyancy to generate steam without the need for complex pumping systems. In the event of an emergency, SMRs can naturally control their reactions through pressure and heat differentials, making them inherently safer.

With a single 77 Megawatt (MW) module capable of powering 60,000 homes with over 99% reliability, SMRs offer significant advantages in terms of space and efficiency. More than one module can be installed at a location, and some designs can even be placed underground to mitigate risks from natural disasters. Unlike larger reactors, which require refueling every two years, SMRs can operate for up to 20 years without needing to be refueled.

NuScale, a pioneering company in SMR technology, has developed designs that could save $4 billion compared to traditional nuclear plants while generating 720 MW over a mere 35 acres—18 times less land than conventional facilities. Remarkably, SMRs can provide equivalent energy output to renewables like solar and wind while occupying just 1% of the necessary space.

Despite their numerous benefits, SMRs produce less power than traditional plants, typically generating under 300 MW compared to the 1,600 MW of a full-sized reactor. Their primary role is to supplement the energy grid, enhancing the viability of other renewable sources. However, increasing the number of reactors could raise safety concerns, and the passive safety features of SMRs may still be vulnerable to certain risks, such as hydrogen explosions.