• About
    • Which Energy Mix is this?
  • Climate News Network Archive
  • Contact
The climate news that makes a difference.
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
  FEATURED
Renewables ‘Set to Soar’ with 440 GW of New Installations in 2023: IEA June 4, 2023
Greek Industrial Giant Announces 1.4-GW Alberta Solar Farm, Canada’s Biggest June 4, 2023
Shift to Remote Work Cuts Commutes, Frees Downtown Space for Affordable Housing June 4, 2023
2.7M Hectares Lost, Nova Scotia at Ground Zero in ‘Unprecedented’ Early Wildfire Season June 4, 2023
Is Equinor’s Bay du Nord ‘Delay’ a Cancellation in Slow Motion? June 1, 2023
Next
Prev

U.S. Small Modular Reactor Design ‘Too Late, Too Risky’, Analyst Concludes

February 20, 2022
Reading time: 3 minutes

Nuclear Jordan/Facebook

Nuclear Jordan/Facebook

22
SHARES
 

The small modular reactor (SMR) that Oregon-based NuScale Power has been developing since the turn of the century is “too late, too expensive, too risky, and too uncertain,” according to an analysis conducted by an American think tank that recommends the project be abandoned.

Best estimates are that NuScale’s long-promised SMR won’t generate electricity before 2029, which—on top of a host of other challenges—just isn’t soon enough, says the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA).
The IEEFA analysis dismisses NuScale’s claim that construction will be complete in less than 36 months, pointing out that “no new reactor has been built in the U.S. in that short a time in 60 years,” and recalling the company’s since retracted 2018 pledge to have the SMR generating power by 2026.

  • Concise headlines. Original content. Timely news and views from a select group of opinion leaders. Special extras.
  • Everything you need, nothing you don’t.
  • The Weekender: The climate news you need.
Subscribe

IEEFA also queries NuScale’s projection that its SMR “will run at a 95% capacity factor during its entire life.” Of the 93 reactors operating in the United States, none have reached that goal, while only three “have averaged better than 85% during their first 10 years of operation.” IEEFA adds that “the median capacity factor for all U.S. reactors during these years has been only 67%.”

The analysis also points to the rising cost of construction. Responding to NuScale’s claim that it will build its SMR for less than US$3,000 per kilowatt (kW), IEEFA writes, “no nuclear power plant has been built that cheaply in decades,” adding that U.S. Department of Energy estimates are almost double NuScale’s, at more than $6,800/kW.

Those numbers add up to a significant financial threat “to the member communities of the Utah Associated Municipal Power System that have signed up for a share of its power and to any other communities and utilities thinking about doing so,” IEEFA says. The institute points to a corresponding difference between NuScale’s projection that it will generate power at a price of $58 per megawatt-hour (MWh), and other estimates that show consumer costs for power generated by new SMRs reaching $200/MWh.

Report author David Schlissel, IEEFA’s director of resource planning analysis, urged communities contemplating SMRs to shift to renewables instead because, even if the $58/MWh projection pans out, the expense is nearly double the cost of wind and utility-scale solar.

In addition to the anticipated high cost of SMR-generated power, “customers of communities and utilities that remain signed up for the project after construction begins will be liable for all of its costs and expenses,” including the cost of repairs if the SMR is damaged or destroyed, he added.

Elsewhere, Reuters reports that U.S. energy company Southern Co. has “boosted estimated costs for its Georgia Power utility’s share of two nuclear reactors under construction at the Vogtle plant in Georgia to around $10.4 billion from roughly $9.5 billion.”

Reuters adds that the reactors, “which are already billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule, are the only U.S. nuclear units under construction.”

SMRs are nuclear fission reactors that are smaller than conventional nuclear plants like Vogtle, with about one-third the energy-generating capacity. 



in Carbon Levels & Measurement, Community Climate Finance, Nuclear, Solar, United States, Wind

The latest climate news and analysis, direct to your inbox

Subscribe

Related Posts

sunrise windmill
International Agencies & Studies

Renewables ‘Set to Soar’ with 440 GW of New Installations in 2023: IEA

June 5, 2023
176
Pixabay
Solar

Greek Industrial Giant Announces 1.4-GW Alberta Solar Farm, Canada’s Biggest

June 4, 2023
148
Oregon Department of Transportation/flickr
Cities & Communities

Shift to Remote Work Cuts Commutes, Frees Downtown Space for Affordable Housing

June 5, 2023
97

Comments 7

  1. Pete Knollmeyer says:
    1 year ago

    Where is the balance in your article? IEEFA is not an independent non-profit. They are funded by foundations pushing renewables. I support renewables. I also support nuclear power. The IEEFA report is rife with opinion, mis-statements and mis-represented data. Why not cite studies like MIT 2018 that show a mix of renewables and nuclear is the lowest cost, reliable grid for the consumer. IEEFA analysis on capacity factor is insulting to the nuclear industry. By averaging in early data (1970s and 1980s), IEEFA has lowered the capacity factors nuclear achieves. IEEFA failed to mention that 15 USA reactors have exceeded the 95% capacity factor already over the past three years. Maintenance and reliability have come a long way since the 1980s and NuScale is a further step improvement. Reactor capacity factor is much less a function of start-up performance and more influenced by maintenance practice and refueling outage management. I could give a dozen other examples of mis-truths in the IEEFA analysis. I would love to see some independent challenge of the IEEFA story by media outlets that support the truth, not the agenda of special interests.

    Reply
    • Mitchell Beer says:
      1 year ago

      Thanks, Pete. I don’t know anything about IEEFA’s funding, but my first reaction was…you’re saying it’s a *bad* thing if their funding comes from foundations that understand what renewables can do and want to help them get there faster? More broadly, I’m not sure any entity that needs reliable cash flow of any kind to support its work (so that’s every organization and, for that matter, every household everywhere) can ever be 100% independent. So what we look for when we’re sourcing stories is a consistent record for gathering the evidence and following where it leads, and that’s why IEEFA is one of our most trusted references.

      Reply
      • David Schlissel says:
        1 year ago

        IEEFA’s mission, presented on its website, is to “accelerate the transition to a diverse, sustainable and profitable energy economy.” Now that doesn’t preclude new nuclear investments if we believed that building a new nuclear SMR would be the most economic and fastest way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. Unfortunately, based on actual industry experience, we don’t believe that is true, and besides pure speculation and misleading use of the present tense when discussing what the NuScale SMR does, NuScale doesn’t have any actual data to convince us or, we expect, many or even most people who have open minds on the subject. I say misleading use of the present tense because, as we note in the report, on its website NuScale claims the wonderful things that its SMR does. The only problem with that is there is no actual NuScale SMR yet. Oops.
        As for the 15 reactors achieving 95% capacity factors over the past three years. If accurate that is a good achievement. But NuScale is claiming that it will do that for a full 40 or 60, or even 80, year operating life. No reactor has done that, and as we showed, very few have even come close.
        Finally, give me a hand Peter, how about naming each of the dozen other mistruths in our report on SMRs. If you do that, we’ll make whatever corrections in our report are warranted. That’s more productive than throwing around unsupported attacks.
        By the way, if you or anyone else at Fluor or at NuScale would like to discuss or debate with us about these issues and the accuracy of your and NuScale’s claims, we’re open to that.

        Reply
        • Mitchell Beer says:
          1 year ago

          We would totally host that debate. Webinar, anyone?

          (Peter, David, I’m not kidding. We already have a session booked for next month — mark your calendar for March 24, and watch this site for details. But would you gents like to join us for a structured, moderated session in April?)

          Reply
          • David Schlissel says:
            1 year ago

            We’re in.

            David

    • Acme Fixer says:
      1 year ago

      Neither you nor IEEFA make the decisions on whether or not new nuclear power plants are the choice for the future. The utilities and to some extent the NIMBY ratepayers make those decisions, and after seeing not only Vogtle, but other new NPPs in other countries, they are deciding that new NPPs are not the best choice. Renewables are nearly half the cost per kWh, and are still getting cheaper. And pumped hydro storage along with renewables can more than adequately provide dispatchable power. And at a much lower cost and faster time to bring online. Utilities have had it with billions of dollars in cost overruns and decades of construction delays. Until those two problems are solved the new NPPs will not be considered.

      Reply
  2. Acme Fixer says:
    1 year ago

    Read this.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Trending Stories

/MaxPixels

‘Substantial Damage’, No Injuries as Freight Train Hits Wind Turbine Blade

May 25, 2022
14.7k
Natural Resources Canada

2.7M Hectares Lost, Nova Scotia at Ground Zero in ‘Unprecedented’ Early Wildfire Season

June 4, 2023
232
sunrise windmill

Renewables ‘Set to Soar’ with 440 GW of New Installations in 2023: IEA

June 5, 2023
176
Pixabay

Greek Industrial Giant Announces 1.4-GW Alberta Solar Farm, Canada’s Biggest

June 4, 2023
148
Equinor

Is Equinor’s Bay du Nord ‘Delay’ a Cancellation in Slow Motion?

June 1, 2023
897
Clairewych/Pixabay

Demand Surges for Giant Heat Pumps as Europe Turns to District Heating

June 4, 2023
111

Recent Posts

Oregon Department of Transportation/flickr

Shift to Remote Work Cuts Commutes, Frees Downtown Space for Affordable Housing

June 5, 2023
97
nicolasdebraypointcom/pixabay

Factor Gender into Transportation Planning, IISD Analyst Urges Policy-Makers

June 4, 2023
40
moerschy / Pixabay

Federal Climate Plans Must Embrace Community-Driven Resilience

June 4, 2023
66
debannja/Pixabay

Austin, Texas Council Committee Backs Fossil Non-Proliferation Treaty

June 4, 2023
100
Ottawa Renewable Energy Co-op/Facebook

‘Hinge Moment’ for Humanity Demands ‘YIMBY’ Mentality: McKibben

June 1, 2023
81
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Notley

Notley Would Have Backed Carbon Capture Subsidies, Smith Less Certain: Ex-Pipeline Exec

June 1, 2023
103
Next Post
Glen Dillon/Wikipedia

FERC Introduces Tougher Impact Assessments, New Climate Rules for Gas Infrastructure

The Energy Mix - The climate news you need

Copyright 2023 © Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy and Copyright
  • Cookie Policy

Proudly partnering with…

scf_withtagline
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities

Copyright 2022 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}