It is almost tangible: the discussion about nuclear energy is turning. Political enthusiasm predominates. A more right-wing House of Representatives, geopolitical unrest and a faltering energy transition are the basis for this. The Jetten cabinet wants to accelerate the arrival of a specific type of nuclear reactor, the small modular reactor (SMR). State Secretary Jo-Annes de Bat (Climate and Green Growth, CDA) is expected to present plans to this end in June.
An overwhelming majority in Parliament is enthusiastic about these SMRs. The idea is that this reactor can be built ‘factory’ (modular) and – after increased production – will be a lot cheaper than regular, custom-made nuclear power plants. Many parties are short on superlatives: they call this nuclear energy flexible, safe and conducive to the energy transition.
In the meantime, the business community is asking politicians for financing and accelerated procedures. For example, the French-Dutch scale-up Thorizon and the company Allseas – which supplies submarine pipelines, among other things – recently stated in the House of Representatives that this is where the biggest brake on the arrival of SMRs lies. The technology itself can be developed quickly, they assured the House of Representatives.
If you assume that the Netherlands still has a lot of industry in 2050, you may not be able to survive with solar and wind energy alone.
Confusingly, the SMR does not exist. More than a hundred companies worldwide are currently designing this type of reactor. That “small” can be misleading: most SMRs do not produce on a small scale, but on an industrial scale. Some (micro) SMRs have a capacity of 25MW. Others, such as the English Rolls-Royce, produce almost as much (470MW) as the power plant in Borssele (485MW).
The SMRs, such as those being developed in the United States, Argentina or France, fall broadly into two types. On the one hand, those that resemble ‘miniature versions’ of existing nuclear power plants; on the other hand the ‘advanced’ SMRs. The latter variant often uses different fissile materials (read: fuel) than ‘normal’ uranium. And they do not cool their reactors with water, but with, for example, molten salt or liquid lead.
State Secretary De Bat will be guests at Thorizon on Monday, together with Peter Wennink, former ASML CEO who wrote an advice on Dutch innovation capacity, and European Commissioner Wopke Hoekstra. Now that SMRs are in the political spotlight, it is weighing NRC five arguments for this type of nuclear reactor.
Also read
1SMRs are necessary for a stable energy system
A nuclear reactor can contribute to the stability of the electricity grid, agrees Behnam Taebi, professor of climate and energy ethics at TU Delft. “In general, a nuclear reactor can be a good one baseload deliver.” In other words, a continuous supply of electricity, other than sun and wind. On the other hand, Taebi says, an SMR is not necessary for this. “You can also organize that type of stability differently, for example through large-scale storage of surplus power.”
The SMR is not a panacea, says Aart Kooiman of TNO. He investigates the impact of nuclear energy on the entire energy system. “Still, it may be a pleasant addition,” he says. If you assume that the Netherlands still has a lot of industry in 2050, you may not be able to make it with solar and wind energy alone. “If you assume less industry, you have more room to choose.”
According to Kooiman, the SMR can help with the balance between supply and demand of electricity. When a lot of electricity is generated at peak times, such as in the summer, it is possible to reduce the production of a reactor somewhat. But he says, it is also not as flexible as a gas power plant, which you can operate for a few hundred hours a year. In theory it is possible, but it is best to run an SMR for thousands of hours per year, he says. “It is a major investment and you don’t put down an SMR and hardly ever have it on.”
Joannes Laveyne, researcher in electricity production at Ghent University, also points this out. “With a nuclear power plant that only runs 60 percent of the year, the electricity quickly becomes twice as expensive,” he calculates. “Nuclear energy operators are generally not interested in flexible power use: that worsens their business case.” The same applies to renewable energy, he notes. “No one likes to throw away electricity.”
An SMR is not as flexible as a gas power plant, which you can operate for a few hundred hours per year
2SMRs reduce grid congestion
That study also explored another option: connecting a nuclear power plant to the power supply of a company or business park. By placing an SMR ‘behind the meter’ in this way, a heavier connection would become unnecessary for that company. Then, for example, Dow Chemicals can replace a gas power plant.
Yet this is not without snags, says Laveyne. “A site with an SMR must meet many safety requirements.” According to Laveyne, companies especially like this if the government bears the majority of the risk. “Suppose that in five years a company says: we will close down. Then the SMR will no longer have any customers.”
According to Kooiman, there is often a lack of research that maps out how an SMR can make a positive contribution to grid congestion and at what costs. However, he does think it is “very conceivable” that an SMR could fit in an area with a high energy demand and little production, such as the Chemelot industrial cluster in Limburg.
3SMR technology is safe
Proponents emphasize the safety of the SMR. For example, Thorizon is developing a ‘molten salt reactor’. In the event of overheating in the process, the salt ‘expands’, which overcomes that reaction. In theory, a nuclear reactor cannot overheat like this and a meltdown to get.
“On paper, many safety claims of these types of innovative SMRs seem legitimate,” says Taebi. As an example, he cites a Chinese design of a gas-cooled SMR, where the fuel is incorporated into ceramic in a way that in principle it cannot melt. “But many of these models do not yet exist in real life or there is little operational experience with them. Much is uncertain. We have to see in practice whether it works. Because it is still a nuclear reactor.”
A more traditional design, such as the water-cooled reactor that Rolls-Royce is developing, generally contains less uranium than the classic nuclear reactor. An incident also has less serious consequences, says Laveyne. “Yet that argument should be taken with a grain of salt.” According to Laveyne, SMRs do not differ too much from traditional nuclear power plants, which he also calls safe.
Furthermore, Taebi states, the discussion about safety focuses too much on the moment when the SMR generates energy. “While: the innovative SMRs use different fuels,” he says. Take Thorizon, which aims to use the nuclear waste product thorium, or the Chinese design that does use uranium, but in a relatively new form. “These newer designs produce unknown waste flows. We don’t yet know how to process that.”
Also read
4SMRs are cheaper than regular nuclear power plants
Factory building until the same design eventually becomes cheaper: that is the promise of the SMR. Yet the political discussion about nuclear energy is strongly focused on securing its own frontrunner, a first of a kind. And preferably a Dutch-made SMR. The House of Representatives is therefore calling for people not to join the back of the queue (with another foreign producer).
Now that the global race for SMRs is in full swing, the question is which design will achieve commercial success and who can deliver on the promise of low-cost production. Governments are already investing a lot of money in projects, but according to Kooiman it is too early to say whether the SMRs will actually become cheaper. Rolls-Royce has a good chance, Taebi expects. “It uses existing technologies and is already selling other nuclear reactors.”
Laveyne is skeptical. “Because nuclear power stations are expensive, every country prefers to award them to its own construction firms. This means that every country has to acquire all that knowledge and every country will build its own reactor. As long as that happens, nuclear energy will not become cheaper.”
5SMRs are necessary for Europe’s autonomy
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recently called ending nuclear energy “a strategic mistake.” The Commission wants to use SMRs to accelerate Europe’s dependence on energy imports and has, among other things, designated Thorizon as a ‘priority’ project. The Jetten cabinet also sees a role for SMRs in strengthening Europe’s ‘strategic autonomy’.
Since the 2022 energy crisis, nuclear energy has been presented as an independent source, says Taebi. “On the one hand, that is true: then you are less dependent on Russian gas or oil from the Middle East. On the other hand, nuclear energy is anything but national energy.” The entire cycle from importing and enriching uranium to dealing with radioactive waste is international, he emphasizes.
The US and UK are investing billions in their own HALEU fuel for SMRs – although this appears to be slow to get going
“Europe does not have uranium, but it can be found in many places around the world,” says Laveyne. In Canada or Australia, for example. And the import is of a different order than that of our fossil fuels, he says. “We need less and we can store it longer.” Moreover, Kooiman says, fuel for nuclear energy costs “a fraction” of the total cost of a nuclear reactor, allowing companies to stockpile.
Laveyne does point out that a number of ‘advanced’ SMRs use a type of uranium (HALEU) that so far only Russia produces commercially. The United States and the United Kingdom are investing billions in their own HALEU – although this appears to be finding it difficult to get started. “It will easily take ten years to set up such a processing operation,” estimates Laveyne. “The question is whether this type of SMRs will be successful enough to make such investments profitable. It is now a matter of guessing.”
Ultimately, all forms of energy have dependencies, says Taebi. “Nuclear energy, in addition to sun and wind, will play a role in making Europe more independent,” he expects. “It is just short-sighted to think that nuclear energy will be the total solution. There is no such thing as complete independence.”
Also read
