The threat of climate change has given the United States an opportunity to be a technological leader and set a global example of how to transition towards a clean energy economy. As U.S. policymakers begin to consider policies like the Green New Deal, we encourage them not to overlook a key tool for reaching climate goals: nuclear energy.
Today, fossil fuels fulfill roughly two-thirds of our country’s energy needs, emitting carbon and harmful air pollutants. Although renewable energy is growing and new technologies such as carbon capture and sequestration are being tested, these trends alone won’t be enough to decarbonize our economy. Advanced nuclear technology like NuScale Power’s small modular reactor (SMR) provides reliable, baseload power that, unlike fossil fuels, emits zero carbon. Indeed, a recent MIT study confirmed that combating climate change will be difficult and expensive without nuclear energy.
Furthermore, SMRs can enable greater deployment of variable renewables, like wind and solar, by having the capacity to load follow and meet energy needs when renewables can’t. Energy infrastructure that integrates SMRs for load-following power can be renewables-heavy and remain zero carbon without sacrificing flexibility and reliability.
Nuclear power is critical for achieving deep decarbonization, particularly for the hard-to-tackle emissions of the industrial sector. A single NuScale power module produces 60 megawatts of clean, affordable and reliable energy, enough to power 45,000 American homes with carbon-free electricity or to provide process heat for applications, such as desalination, hydrogen production, and other industrial and manufacturing processes.
Fortunately, SMRs are on track to becoming a reality in the United States. Last year, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed the first and most intensive phase of review for NuScale’s design certification application—the first and only SMR ever to undergo NRC review. By 2026, NuScale and the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) will commercialize the first SMR nuclear power plant in the United States.
Now is the time to help policymakers understand that nuclear power is a critical piece of our future clean energy puzzle. Forward-looking energy policies should prioritize clean energy solutions while remaining technology agnostic so that innovation and economics can deliver the most efficient and effective energy infrastructure. Such an approach will allow us to harness the full power of SMR technology to meet clean energy goals and mitigate climate change.
Before discussing what role SMR should play in the energy mix, I would like to know (1) what is the all-in cost per kWh (or MWh) for the NuScale SMR?… Read more »
Dan, there have been ample studies done that indicate that renewables can’t provide reliable baseload power. See this link for an explanation that also contains links to several such studies… Read more »
Tom: Scott lays it out below: Of course we could power our nation using efficiency, renewables, storage, and smart grid features like demand response. There is no requirement that clean… Read more »
Hi Dan, thank you for your questions. For our first project in Idaho, our target LCOE is $65/MWh. However, we expect that with the learnings from each subsequent deployment, the… Read more »
Thanks Lenka. How much of the target LCOE $65/MWh is allocated to decommissioning and waste disposition costs?
For several years I have heard from a “sea turtle” working with a foreign owned nuclear company in the US, talking about Jiang Zemin’s commitment to a nuclear scientific world.… Read more »
A PPA (Power Purchase Agreement) doesn’t say anything about the actual viability of a system. People have signed PPAs for space-generated power, if and when that ever becomes a reality.… Read more »
My exhibit “Gallery of Clean Energy Inventions” is linked at padrak.com/vesperman. Displayed are 18 Larger Generators, 29 Smaller Generators, 25 Advanced Self-Powered Electric Vehicle Innovations, 29 Radioactivity Neutralization Methods, 25… Read more »
Lenka: Good pitch for SMR’s. I can see sense in SMR’s and other nuclear technologies as part of the climate solution, but my question is, what policy changes are needed… Read more »
Hi Ed, thank you for your question. Continued government support is important to the success of SMRs. For example, the federal government provided more than $51 billion in incentives over… Read more »
Thanks for the response, Lenka. I am encouraged by your professed support for tech-neutral policy, although you and I may interpret that term somewhat differently. Personally, I would not characterize… Read more »
The assumption is that the entire portfolio of high value energy efficiency, the entire portfolio of renewable energy, and the entire portfolio of energy storage — all together — cannot… Read more »
Scott, Describing the views you disagree with as nonsense is hardly a good way to start your argument. Let me start my response a bit more softly, with a telling… Read more »
So glad to see Scott’s emphasis on the effect that efficiency can have on the demand levels. An engineer who is working against the Atlantic Coast Pipeline has calculated …“the… Read more »
If the first reactor is going to come online in 2026, that’s a long time to wait. What will the cost of solar, wind and storage be by then, if… Read more »
Hi Jason, thank you for your question. While it is true that wind and solar have declined in price in recent years, electricity production from intermittent renewables and from nuclear… Read more »
I was disappointed to see the Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the leading backers of the Green New Deal, has so firmly ruled out nuclear as an element in her… Read more »
Currently, the proposition that we should address climate change by building nuclear power reactors is based on a couple of bad arguments. One of these arguments is made by a… Read more »