By Kennedy Maize
“Plethora, noun, pleth·o·ra ˈple-thə-rə: an ample amount or number: abundance, profusion
… Grand Cayman offers a plethora of bustling restaurants, ritzy resorts and comfortable condos …—Susanne Cummings
… a world whose credibility is threatened by the meaningless plethora of material goods it goes on producing.”
That definition from the venerable Merriam-Webster fits the circumstances behind what has been occurring for about a decade on the U.S. nuclear power scene. Small modular reactor proposals and “advanced” reactor projects have blossomed like desert flowers after a prolonged drought.
On a practical basis, there’s no reason to make much of a distinction between SMRs and advanced reactors. There’s no complete measure of the number of these projects now on the U.S. scene, nor is there a precise definition that distinguishes the SMR from legacy large nukes that defined the market for decades.
The Paris-based Nuclear Energy Agency’s SMR dashboard provides one useful roster of the players in the SMR game. Of the 21 SMR projects NEA is tracking across the global playing field, eight are located in the U.S., followed by China and Russia with three each, the UK and Canada with two, and Argentina, France, and Sweden each with one.
The U.S. Department of Energy this year selected 10 projects for its Reactor Pilot Program, aimed to “fast-track commercial licensing” here. There are many proposed projects on both lists.
NEA’s definition of a small, modular reactor is realistically flexible: “Innovative designs range in sizes from smaller than 5 megawatts electric to larger than 300 megawatts electric. They vary in outlet temperatures from about 285°C to nearly 900°C, with some advanced designs in research and development seeking to exceed 1 000°C.
“This wave of SMR innovation includes various reactor concepts – some based on existing light water designs, others based on next generation concepts – and various configurations – some land-based, others mobile, and marine-based.”
What is clear is that the historic era of mammoth, gigawatt-scale reactors is dead and buried. These legacy “bet the company” reactor projects have set the stage for the brave, new world of small, modular, flexible advanced designs.
Anyone familiar with gambling would figure that not all 21, nor all of America’s identified eight or 10 (and there are certainly more), are going to succeed. For those inclined to make wagers on the U.S. survivors, the Washington-based Nuclear Innovation Alliance has released a report on how to track the U.S. players: “Progress of Early Mover Nuclear Projects: Key Indicators to Watch,” by NIA staff economist James Richards.
Richards offers “indicators,” practical mileposts, to use in scoping out the progress of a project. He writes, “The indicators include site selection, licensing, offtake, project teaming, and funding, including future orders. These indicators serve as a qualitative evaluation of a project’s progress.”
Site selection. This element “is critical to any energy project. Site selection reflects, in order of importance, a commitment by the project developer, a knowable set of environmental characteristics, and a particular local community.” Indicators of strength include a selected and characterized site with local permits in hand, environmental reviews completed or underway, and civil site work begun.
Licensing, largely meaning relationships with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a strong project having a licensed design or application in process, meeting milestones on time, and – the gold standard, an NRC construction permit or combined construction and operating license. Richards comments, “For early mover projects, pre-application engagement with the NRC is considered best practice. It is important for familiarizing the NRC with a given reactor technology and its safety case, as well as helping the technology developer understand the regulatory process and requirements.”
Offtake. This means having a solid power purchase agreement or utility regulatory approval where required, including rate agreements. “An energy project with a firm contract that has a negotiated purchase price, duration, offtake amount, and right to procure any carbon credit or clean energy certificates significantly improves the project’s outlook and ability to close financing,” he advises.
Project team, including contractors selected, contracts signed, designs finalized, long lead time equipment selected, and commitments for future orders. Richards says, “When performing diligence, evaluators should understand (1) who the project developer is, (2) what their specific experience is within the nuclear industry, and (3) what commercial relationships have been finalized.”
Funding in hand. Richards offers familiar advice: follow the money. “The type and amount of financing that is committed to a project is a major indicator of the project’s likelihood of success…. Companies that are well funded are better positioned to deploy nuclear energy projects.”
Orderbook. “Even with strong project planning, it may be difficult to achieve high confidence in the key indicators described in this paper for a first-of-a-kind (FOAK) project,” Richards notes. “However, once the first project of a given technology is completed, the risk to the second project drops significantly.”
The NIA paper ends with a warning: “A crucial theme across these indicators is the distinction between non-binding intent and firm commitment…. These actions provide far more confidence in a project’s future than preliminary memoranda of understanding or teaming agreements.”