Eve here. Nuclear reactors are popular because they expect large amounts of AI-powered energy needs and require a source to be purchased to withstand. Consider the search results:
Sub-supporters are promoting small nuclear reactors as one solution. Our commenter sub has this cold water on that idea. This post reinforces their views with its long form treatment.
Leon Still has a background in energy science (MSC and BSC) and pursues a doctorate in energy policy. He is now an independent energy expert and is a co-owner and director of Hovyu BV. He holds the profession of teaching his enemies at universities in applied science and at universities of international business scholars. Originally published on Oulprice
SMR is welcomed as the perfect solution for large industrial consumers. SMR is currently marked like the nuclear energy iPhone. Smarter, smaller, cheaper and scalable. Evoid The Hype, currently, SMR is not operating on a commercial scale.
You can feel the topic: the nucleus is back. Or we are AWD.
From Brussels to Washington, a new wave of enthusiasm for so-called small modular reactors (SMRSs) is sweeping policy circles, think tanks and energy startups. Bese Compact, perhaps Plug and Parry Unit, is welcomed as the perfect solution for messing up energy transitions with power data centers, growing hunger, clean and stable electricity.
There’s only one problem. In fact, there are a lot. All of them are small.
The hype cycle is spinning completely
SMR is currently marked like the nuclear energy iPhone. Smarter, smaller, cheaper and scalable. A miraculous solution for everything from remote grids to decarbonised heavy industry and AI server farms. Countries such as the US, Canada and the UK have announced plans to unfold ambitiously. Major developers, including Nuscale, Rolls-Royce SMR, GE Hitachi and Terrapower, are tormenting their shiny timelines with their sparkling promises.
Except Fineprint tells another story.
Currently, there are no operational commercial SMRs anywhere in the world. It’s not just one. US frontrunner Nuscale recently canceled its flagship Utah project after Balleonele spent more than $9,000 per kilowatt, with no investors found. Even their CEOs have admitted that no pleas occurred before 2030. Meanwhile, Rolls-Royce’s much-exaggerated SMR Factory still produces a single bolt.
Therefore, we are betting on technologies that are not yet present on a commercial scale and will not arrive in meaningful numbers before the 2030s, and will require thousands of units to contribute significantly to the global energy demand. That’s not a strategy. It’s science fiction.
Big Nuclear doesn’t exactly encourage Confidenze Eitherer
Even large projects that SMRS claim to be “improvement” are appealing. Ibn takes UK Hinckley Point C, which was told as the future of European nuclear energy. It is expensive twice as planned (over £46 billion), at least five years behind, facing ongoing construction. The design of the French-supported EPR reactor based on it has already been plagued by similar problems in Flemmanville (France) and Orkiluoto (Finland), and is dramatically extended by completion after more than promised.
Please be honest. I laughed out of the room if other energy technologies were very unreliable when they were delivered.
Nuclear price floor, and price ceiling for reasons
In France and Finland, authorities now agree to guarantee the lowest price for new nuclear power, effectively writing blank checks to revive the profitability of operators. In Finland, recent transactions have led to floors exceeding 90 euros/MWH for 20 years. Meanwhile, solar and wind regularly remove wholesale power auctions at 30-50 euros/MWh across Europe, with even lower marginal costs.
Why, to be precise, “Are you loading decades of prices for a market-based energy future? It’s hard to help help consumer, industrial, or climate targets.
SMR Promise: Too Small, Too Slow
Return to SMRS. Let’s say a best case scenario is unfolding. Some designs that clarify regulatory approvals between 2027 and 2028 saw construction begin in the early 2030s, with the first commercial units coming online before 2035. It’s a logistics nightmare and we don’t discuss public acceptance, licensing bottlenecks, uranium supply, or waste management either.
In the viewpoint: the time it takes to build a single SMR can be deployed for 10-20 solar, wind and battery storage, with less money, shorter lead times and no radioactive heritage.
Unlike the nuclear, technology is also modular today. They are scalable now. They rely on themselves everywhere, from the Australian outback to the German rooftops and California substations.
Elephants in the reactor chamber: waste and risks
Nuclear fans love to emphasize how “safe” modern design is. And yes, statistically speaking, nuclear energy is relatively safe per kilowatt-hour. But it is also the only energy source with catastrophic failure and non-zero risk of waste, and can be toxic for thousands of years.
Why, exactly, if you have multiple clean energy options with zero risk of explosions and you have a recyclable or inert waste smur, why do you risk that?
You don’t have to be a nuclear physicist to ask this. How to bet on high-cost, slow-deployment, risk-taking, politically toxic infrastructure, better ideas than wind, solar, storage?
Footnotes during transition, not heading
Let’s be clear: nuclear power will probably continue to play a role in the sub-smart energy mix. France and Sweden have legacy fleets. New projects could be made in China or South Korea, where costs will be fitted and plans will be centralized. But for most of the world, especially in countries that are rapidly decarbonizing, new nuclear weapons are not the answer.
SMR, ESE branding doesn’t save the day. They are niches at best and are probably small contributors to certain applications, such as remote areas, military bases, or industrial clusters where other solutions don’t work. That’s good. But stop pretending they’re a total energy silver bullet.
I’ll finish my thoughts
We are in a definitive decade of climate action. Every euro, dollar and yuan we invest should bring about maximum emissions reductions per unit of time and cost. By that standard, SMR is flat. Small or large nuclear power is simply too expensive, too slow, too dangerous, too narrow for ITSE cases and too narrow to lead the energy transition.
So let’s cool down the reactor hype. Instead, focus on already-wondered technologies such as wind, solar, batteries, heat pumps, grid flexibility, and green hydrogen. These are not dreams. They are being deployed by Gigawatts today. SMR is attractive, yes. However, when it comes to decarbonization, it requires workholes, not unicorns.
