The CBC Fredericton Information Morning radio show interviewed Dr. Ed Lyman, Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, DC on April 12, 2022. The link to the CBC interview recording is HERE.
Here’s the transcript.
CBC
Well, worried about keeping your home warm and the lights on and a net zero future? No need to panic say more and more politicians and utility experts. They’re putting their hopes on SMRs, small modular reactors. Natural Resources and Energy Development Minister Mike Holland was on the program last month. He calls them an exciting step forward for New Brunswick as it works with other provinces to deploy safe, reliable, and emissions free energy from reactors. And they’re described as not much larger than transport trucks. Edwin Lyman has studied SMRs and their development. He’s a physicist and director of nuclear safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, DC. Good morning.
Dr. Edwin Lyman
Good morning.
CBC
Before we begin and get into small modular reactors, can you just explain the Union of Concerned Scientists and its role in the US?
Dr. Edwin Lyman
Yes. The Union of Concerned Scientists is a science based nonprofit organization, where we focus on applying science to solving problems such as climate change, and global security, food in the environment, and environmental justice.
CBC
You’ve taken a look, a closer look, at small modular reactors, something we’ve been hearing a lot about lately, here in New Brunswick, what potential first of all do you see in SMRs?
Dr. Edwin Lyman
Frankly, I think the actual potential of SMRs is small, like the reactors themselves. I believe that their promise is being overhyped, and just does not jive with the reality.
CBC
What makes you come to that conclusion?
Dr. Edwin Lyman
Well, the first observation about a small reactor is that if you hold everything else constant, and you just shrink down a nuclear reactor, it’s going to produce more expensive electricity. And that’s because economies of scale have led to an increase in the size of nuclear reactors over the decades. The larger the reactor, the cheaper the electricity it generates.
So the case for shrinking reactor down depends on the ability to compensate for that penalty by cutting costs in other ways. The advocates of this technology claim that by centralizing production of these modular reactors in a factory that you can achieve significant cost savings in that way. But that would really take a lot of experience, a long time of operation, a large number of orders before you start to realize those cost reductions if, in fact, they will be viable. And so that isn’t a cost savings that you’re likely to see for many years or decades.
So in the interim, these reactors are going to produce more costly electricity unless you can reduce the capital and the operating costs relative to large reactors. And that means cutting corners on things like reactor containment, that is the robust structure that’s designed to protect the reactor and to prevent radiation from escaping into the environment, if there’s an accident that causes damage to the fuel.
It also requires reducing operating costs. That is, the personnel who operate the reactor, who maintain it, the security officers who guard it. Those are expensive components of the operation of a nuclear reactor, and to increase the economic viability, you’re going to have to slash those.
And so the question is, can you really cut corners in all those different areas and ensure that this reactor is going to be safe, or as safe as large reactors? And I don’t believe you can.
CBC
One of the arguments that our energy minister, Mike Holland, was making recently on our program about them was that: Yes, fine, the initial costs, the startup cost of creating these SMRs could be high, but that after that it will be much cheaper to produce them. Is that true, from your view? And is there a way to recoup those sunken costs?
Dr. Edwin Lyman
Well, I think it’s an unproven proposition. The experience with modularity and nuclear construction so far has already not validated that assumption. For instance, in the United States, there are two large nuclear reactors under construction. And the company that designed those reactors, decided that it would try to cut costs by building a factory to produce modules. So in other words, they were going to build that plant in a modular fashion. And they made the same claim that by centralizing production of these modules, they’re going to cut costs. But it turns out, it’s not so easy to do that, in fact, if the factory that’s producing the modules itself is not doing a good job, then you are not solving your problem, you’re only amplifying it. And that’s, in fact, what happened in the United States.
Right now, the only small modular reactor project that’s moving forward is a reactor called NuScale, which has gotten some level of approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But it’s still not clear if that company has the full financing to go forward with the project to actually construct it. And there are safety issues associated with that reactor that still have not been resolved, even though the regulator has approved it.
CBC
Like what, what are the safety issues there?
Dr. Edwin Lyman
The claim is often that these small modular reactors are passively safe, they can just shut themselves down in case there’s any problem and you don’t even need an operator to intervene or do anything. And that was the claim for NuScale.
But it became clear that there are certain types of accidents, where it doesn’t look as passively safe as it was originally promised. One issue with passive safety, which means instead of having electrically powered pumps and valves that operators can manipulate, really to inject water into the core of the reactor in case there’s something like a leak, and it’s losing water, instead of having those systems that are highly reliable, you have to depend on natural forces like gravity to do the work. And that doesn’t always work out so well.
So there’s actually loss of control, unless you make sure that you have the backup safety systems that you need and you can actually make them work when they’re needed. But the problem is backup safety systems can cost a lot of money. So here’s another example where reactors NuScale are trying to cut costs.
CBC
If, as you say, these SMRs are so prohibitively expensive, that they have these safety concerns that there is literally only one of them built off the coast of in Russia, a Russian Arctic town, like they’re not built pretty much anywhere. If all these things are true, why are governments so attracted to them?
Dr. Edwin Lyman
I think it’s because the nuclear industry has been trying different messages to try to get the attention of the public and lawmakers, and the industry puts itself out is the savior of humanity. And the fact is that, in practice, the industry has often fallen short of what it’s promised.
And just taking the example of the two reactors in the United States that I was talking about, they were licensed on the premise that they were going to be cheaper and quicker to build than current generation reactors. In fact, that hasn’t panned out. In fact, they’ve, they’re taking at least twice as long and more than twice the original estimated cost to build.
To say, you know, ‘alright, we’re not going to build large reactors anymore, we’re going to build small ones and a small one is smaller, so it’s going to be cheaper,’ I think that’s a soundbite, really, that a lot of people are falling for. But that’s because they aren’t looking into the fundamental economic issues that I was talking about
CBC
Here in New Brunswick, we are looking to replace the energy that is generated by the coal fired power plant, the Belldune plant, which will need to close by 2030. And so that’s why this is on the table, this discussion about this, these SMRs. If not the SMR is what other power sources should we be considering here in New Brunswick to fill that gap?
Dr. Edwin Lyman
Well, let’s talk about the actual designs that are being discussed for New Brunswick. And this is another element. This isn’t really the fact that they’re smaller than conventional reactors, but they’re fundamentally different designs. And they use different types of materials. They raise different safety issues. They require a different supply chain, and they have much less or no operating experience.
So in my view, that the two designs that are being talked about for New Brunswick can’t plausibly be deployed in this decade. They’re going to take a lot more research, development and demonstration before they could be safe to operate. There are a range of options that planners can consider for an energy future that is low carbon. And some of those may involve nuclear power and some others don’t. But don’t take for granted that we’re going to need nuclear power, even if it doesn’t make sense, economically, or from a practical standpoint.
CBC
Are you concerned that we are pouring a lot of money into this, hear in this province, and that we will feel obligated to use this technology once it is up and running, even if it takes a long time? Even if there are other options eventually on the table that end up being cheaper?
Dr. Edwin Lyman
Well, that is the problem with nuclear power. And then it does, because of its high costs, its long deployment time, it has the potential to distract attention and resources from other options, which may be more feasible and maybe quicker to implement, and maybe safer.
So nuclear power does require huge investment. I don’t think that the amount of money so far that’s been made available, is anywhere near would be necessary even to build these first of a kind reactors. You don’t want to chase after pie in the sky technologies that are being overhyped, that might distract you from more feasible solutions.
So it’s just necessary to kind of keep perspective and a level of objectivity in analyzing these issues. And certainly, the United States and many other markets, wind and solar costs have come down considerably. But there are the intermittency issues that require additional attention, as when solar becomes greater parts of the grid. So again, you need to keep an open mind, not be swayed by sales pitches by self-interested parties. You need to have an objective fact-based and peer-reviewed, set of policies going forward. And nuclear power can fit into that. But you have to maintain perspective, it’s not going to be a panacea. And it’s going to take a lot of money and time to actually do it safely and reliably.
CBC
Dr. Lyman, it’s good to have you on. Thanks for joining us.
Dr. Edwin Lyman
Thank you.
CBC
Edwin Lyman is a physicist and director of nuclear safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists based in Washington DC. He’s the author of Advanced isn’t always better: assessing the safety, security and environmental impacts of non-light water nuclear reactors.