NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF SMALL MODULAR REACTORS
1. Increased Front-end Nuclear waste.
In a study, nuclear waste characteristics of three Small Modular Reactor
(SMR) designs (NuScale/VOYGR, Natrium, and Xe-100) were compared to
a traditional large Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR).
The nuclear fuel cycle consists of two phases: the front end and the back
end. Front-end steps prepare uranium for use in nuclear reactors. Back-
end steps ensure that used—or spent—but still highly radioactive, nuclear
fuel is safely managed, prepared, and disposed of.
Compared to PWRs, some SMRs (NuScale/VOYGR) produce more
Depleted Uranium mass per unit of electricity produced.
The DU masses are calculated per gigawatt-year (GWe-year) of electricity
generated, assuming a tail uranium enrichment(residual concentration of
uranium-235 in the depleted uranium that remains after uranium
enrichment process) of 0.25%. Here is the comparison from the study:
1. Reference PWR: 179 tons of DU per Gwe-year.
2. VOYGR SMR: 220 tons of DU per GWe-year (1.23 times that of the
PWR).
3. Natrium SMR: 209 tons of DU per GWe-year (1.17 times that of the
PWR).
4. Xe-100 SMR: 174 tons of DU per GWe-year (0.97 times that of the
PWR), indicating slightly lower DU production than the PWR due to its
higher fuel burnup(In nuclear technology, burnup is a measure of how
much energy is extracted from nuclear fuel before it is replaced. It
essentially indicates how "used up" the fuel is. Higher burnup means that
more of the fuel's energy potential has been utilized, resulting in longer
intervals between refueling and less spent fuel per unit of energy
produced.) and efficiency. [1]
POSITIVE IMPACTS OF SMALL MODULAR REACTORS
1. Decreased back-end nuclear waste in most SMRs.
SNF Mass produced by Small modular reactor is very less (Natrium and
Xe-100)than a PWR.
SNF Activity, Decay Heat, and Radiotoxicity: For short-term storage needs,
Natrium and Xe-100 SNF exhibit reduced decay heat compared to the
PWR. However, long-term radiotoxicity is higher in Natrium due to
plutonium content, while Xe-100 shows lower long-term radiotoxicity.[2]
2. Low Nuclear proliferation risk.
In a research titled “Assessing the nuclear weapons proliferation risks in
nuclear energy newcomer countries: The case of small modular reactors”
published in Nuclear Engineering and Technology, found that according to
the respondents, the nuclear proliferation was mostly influenced by
Uranium enrichment, Nuclear non-proliferation infrastructure and
stability of risk environment, SNF management plans and the least by
reactor type.
It utilized GENIE’s strength of influence with nuclear proliferation as a
target node and the following as parent nodes. 1) nuclear non-
proliferation infrastructure and stability of risk environment, 2) reactor
type, 3) uranium enrichment, and 4) SNF management plans. It was found
that according to the respondents, the nuclear proliferation was mostly
influenced by Uranium enrichment, Nuclear non-proliferation
infrastructure and stability of risk environment, SNF management plans
and the least by reactor type.
The study used three types of SMRs, 1. Light Water Reactor(LWR). 2. High
Temperature Gas Cooled Reactor(HTGR) and sodium fast reactor(SFR).
Experts generally consider LWRs the most feasible and least risky for NEN
countries. Also experts were of the opinion that HGTRs and SFRs are very
unlikely to be deployed in NEN countries.
HTGRs and SFRs use fuel types and nuclear materials that can be more
easily diverted for weapons development.
By contrast, light water reactors (LWRs), which are simpler and safer in
terms of fuel composition, are considered to have less attractive fuel for
proliferation and are therefore preferred for deployment in NENs.
The risk associated with SMR deployment was seen as relatively low,
particularly in countries with strong non-proliferation commitments and
stable political environments. Thus we can say that reactor type plays a
very little role in nuclear proliferation when it comes to SMR.
Thus we can conclude that SMRs have a low nuclear proliferation risk.[3]
3. Reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions and air pollution when used
in SAGD application.
System assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) is an enhanced oil recovery
technology for producing heavy crude oil and bitumen. This crude oil is
extracted from underground oil sands deposits. A pair of horizontal wells
are dug into the reservoir, usually about 400 meters underground. The top
well injects steam, while the bottom well collects the oil and produced
water. The steam heats the oil, reducing its viscosity and allowing it to
flow into the production well. This steam is generated by the help of
natural gas.
SAGD operations, emit significant amount of greenhouse gases (GHGs).
Replacing these systems with SMRs could entirely eliminate GHG
emissions from steam generation, potentially reducing annual CO₂
emissions by approximately 1.15 million metric tons per plant.
A typical SAGD facility producing 30,000 barrels per day with an average
Steam-to-Oil Ratio (SOR) of 3 m³ of steam per m³ of oil consumes about
570 million cubic meters of natural gas annually, resulting in
approximately 1.15 million metric tons of CO₂ emissions per year. Using
SMRs for steam generation could eliminate these emissions. [4]
4. Climate Change Mitigation, by achieving carbon neutrality.
Clean energy transition SMRs can be paired with renewable energy
sources to increase efficiency and help countries meet their sustainable
development goods. Carbon neutrality strategy with small modular
reactor-based hybrid energy system: A case study for a small Island and
isolated power grid.
In this small modular reactor based hybrid energy system we use a small
modular reactor, a proton membrane electrolyser and a fuel cell. This
hybrid energy system can be used to manage the variable grid demands
and mitigate the fluctuations from the renewable energy sources. Also the
hydrogen produced due to excess in the energy is compressed and stored.
and used during the insufficient supply of electricity occurs. This stored
hydrogen can later be used as an energy reserve for generating electricity
when grid demand exceeds SMR output. [5]
References
[1] Kim, T. K., Boing, L., & Dixon, B. (2024). Nuclear waste attributes of
near-term deployable small modular reactors. Nuclear Engineering and
Technology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2024.01.046
[2] Kim, T. K., Boing, L., & Dixon, B. (2024). Nuclear waste attributes of
near-term deployable small modular reactors. Nuclear Engineering and
Technology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2024.01.046
[3] Kim, P., & Chirayath, S. S. (2024b). Assessing the nuclear weapons
proliferation risks in nuclear energy newcomer countries: The case of
small modular reactors. Nuclear Engineering and Technology, 56(8), 3155–
3166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2024.03.016
[4] Ashoori, S., & Gates, I. D. (2024). Small modular nuclear reactors: A
pathway to cost savings and environmental progress in SAGD operations.
Next Energy, 4, 100128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nxener.2024.100128
[5] Kim, J. Y., Seo, J. H., & Bang, I. C. (2024). Carbon neutrality strategy
with small modular reactor-based hybrid energy system: A case study for
a small Island and isolated power grid. Energy Conversion and
Management, 301, 118041.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.118041
