stewartb
Small modular reactors (SMRs i.e. nuclear reactors that produce <300 MW electricity) have been getting a lot of attention because of claims of inherent safety features and reduced cost [from GMB, Cons and Labour]. It is possible that it will be SMRs that the UK government pushes towards Scotland. Adversely critical or sceptical voices on SMRs don’t get much coverage by the media.
The peer reviewed academic paper on SMRs referenced below notes that ‘remarkably few studies have analyzed the management and disposal of their nuclear waste streams.’ Comparing three distinct SMR designs to a conventional 1,100-MW elec pressurized water reactor the authors conclude that water-, molten salt–, and sodium-cooled SMR DESIGNS WILL INCREASE THE VOLUME OF NUCLEAR WASTE IN NEED OF MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL BY FACTORS OF 2 TO 30. (my emphasis)
The authors argue that: ‘Although the costs and time line for SMR deployment are discussed in many reports, THE IMPACT THAT THESE FUEL CYCLES WILL HAVE ON NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL IS GENERALLY NEGLECTED.’
And to this concern the authors from their analysis of the SMRs’ waster products add this: ‘SMRS WILL EXACERBATE THE CHALLENGES OF NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL.’
The authors conclude: ‘we find that, compared with existing PWRs (pressurised water reactors), SMRs will increase the volume and complexity of LILW (low- and intermediate-level waste) and SNF (spent nuclear fuel i.e. high-level waste). This increase of volume and chemical complexity will be AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON WASTE STORAGE, PACKAGING, AND GEOLOGIC DISPOSAL. Also, SMRs offer no apparent benefit in the development of a safety case for a well-functioning geological repository.’
Source: Krall et al (2022) Nuclear waste from small modular reactors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 119 , No. 23 (https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2111833119 )
Now it’s only one paper, albeit by researchers from a top US university, Stanford in a top international journal, commented upon here by a non-expert in inorganic chemistry! But it’s focusing on a topic – the impact long term of waste from nuclear power plants – that seems so often to be downplayed by enthusiasts for building new nuclear power plants. So it’s worth keeping in mind.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) is currently reporting c.80 different SMR designs under development world-wide, including several designs in operation as demonstrators. Given the immature state of the technology and the locations of its development beyond Scotland, it’s hard see any reason why Scotland would benefit from being an early adopter of SMRs – even before we take account of associated, longer term environmental and cost legacies.
Why is nuclear generation needed here anyway given Scotland’s yet to be fully exploited, huge potential for generating electricity from wind and tides; its pumped hydro potential, its CC&S potential which may enable environmentally acceptable use of oil and gas for industrial purposes for longer during the transition to net zero, and with scope for hydrogen generation/use, future access to improved battery technologies plus potential for enhancing efficiencies in energy use?
Talking-up Scotland 'Albatraz' 
England have left every country that broke away from their control in absolute disarray.
Look across the world those countries coloured in pink on older maps.
England does not sell Scotlands oil and gas and keep the money oh no it’s more sinister than that , if they were just selling our oil and gas Scotland would be able to take control of the oil and gas money when we become independent but England in their usual sinister way decided to sell plots of our sea and keep the money they spend it as they receive it when they sell off the plots of our seas to the highest bidder every few years in their auctions this hands over all future ownership of the oil and gas coming out of those plots to the oil companies forevermore which means when Scotland becomes independent we either have to just accept this arrangement or try and nationalise the oil and gas extraction picking a fight with the oil and gas companies who will say they have already paid for the rights to take the oil and gas.
Nuclear reactors of the type described here in this article will be smaller and cheaper at installation but much much more costly when decommissioned by an independent Scotland.
Like hungry rats in a bag English politicians care nothing for survival of any of us if there’s money to be had.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes, although when Scotland is independent it takes back control of all it’s assets,
including the sea, whether or not it was sold off, the energy companies will have to
renegotiate with Scottish Government if it wants to retain it’s presence………..
International Law!!! England could well owe Scottish people a “countries” ransom!!!
LikeLiked by 3 people
That’s certainly the narrative westminster would like you to believe. Firstly revenue for the oil and gas company’s is determined on Oil and gas extracted, they don’t own the oil or gas only what they extract not the resorvoir. Secondly licences can be recinded, westminster did this after the decision to base the nuclear deterrent at Faslane and shutdown the whole operation in the Clyde basin with the loss of potentially 10,000 jobs while killing off the coal industry in Scotland. Lastly and probably most importantly , the transfer of Scotland’s assets to the English Crown in 1932 was unlawful and therefore the licences sold are invalid in an independent Scotland. We should be looking for about £2 Trillion in reparation.
Golfnut.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Golfnut , how do you know this ? I glean my information about the North Sea oil and gas from Westminster announcements regarding their auctioning of plots of the sea for oil and gas exploration , how can you rescind a license without penalty and if we get into a disagreement about this with the oil companies that have the licenses will they refuse to extract the oil and gas for an independent Scotland , if they do , who then extracts it ?
LikeLike
Well I don’t get my information from Westminster but if you do it helps if you can look past the obvious attempt to obfuscate and confuse. They don’t actually auction plots, they auction licences within plotted areas 1) to initiate exploration and 2) to extract and they are exactly the same kind of licences sold for offshore wind and wave turbines. Companies can sell those licences, normally to smaller operations when the reservoir is no longer seen as a good long term investment but they can only make money so long as they continue to extract. You can almost guarantee that there will be disagreement but it will probably centre around how big a share Scotland takes of the operation, Norway goes for about 51%, the controlling interest, 49% of something is better lab 100% of nothing, at no time does Norway relinquish ownership of the reservoir. Any question of liability is likely to focus whether the licence was lawful.
Golfnut.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Golfnut , what you say gives me hope for the Scottish children of the future Independent Scotland
LikeLike
NuScale planned a 6 SMR reactor project in Idaho. In spite of substantial federal support its electricity was too expensive to attract customers and the project has been cancelled.
The future is already the past although the UK seems desperate for Rolls Royce to find some mugs to buy into the scam.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are other considerations.
Scotland is stuck with expensive Nuke electricity while giving England our cheap renewable power.
Scotland, having nuke power is then in line for the UK nuclear waste deposit site.
LikeLiked by 1 person
With China pulling out of the Hinkley project and EDF in some difficulty with reliability problems in their EPR design units, Hinkley could be on route to join HS2. I suspect that SMRs will be their fall back plan.
China pulling out;
design problems, a project going nowhere?
a guaranteed good mW price into the future, but paid in Sterling?
LikeLike
Let us not forget that the geological disposal of nuclear waste was almost totally focused on Scotland’s ancient, stable geology.
The English may well develop their small reactor array with an eye to disposal in Scotland’s granite .
LikeLiked by 2 people
A most interesting article, one never to be seen from the keyboards of such as David Bol at the Herald.
The propaganda game over SMRs for Scotland has not gained any traction with the Scottish public and probably never will, the ‘clean bountiful energy supply so cheap it is not worth billing for’ which never arrived lives long in memories….
It is England quite specifically who are in deep trouble over energy supplies – Hinkley Point going nowhere fast was the spur for SMRs, sold as if it’s just like a container generator only needing a slab and a fuel supply, unload it, couple it up, switch on and voila.
Except it’s anything but.
England woes are doubled in that they need even more power if they ever gey around to solving their water supply issues with RO plants, having ignored it since the 1980s…
On Scotland, HMG are caught in a bind – How to simultaneously hobble Scotland’s charge toward renewables whilst taking as much of it as they can get their hands on, and solve the current and future nuclear waste dumping of anywhere but here…
The future lies in reducing power demand and boosting alternative sources, but HMG have fought tooth and claw to prevent it lest nuclear can no longer be justified.
All continental interconnects go to England for a reason, that is why EU not UK funding is developing tidal arrays, etc.. London is obsessed with money and profits, not solutions.
LikeLike
The Westminster Gov are spending £13Billion a year decommissioning nuclear. Over ten year £130Billion. Then will be spending more. Yet plan to try and build more.
Wasting £Billions on Hickley Point. All nuclear plants built very few. In France and Finland were years late and over budget. No country can afford them.
Chernobyl has a cover to last 100 years. Still radioactive. Cost £Billions. Fukushima nuclear plant 2011 disaster. Nuclear waste contaminated water still being discharged into the sea.
Westminster dumping nuclear facilities in Scotland. Faslane 40mins from Glasgow. One of Scotland’s main cities. Greenham Common nuclear facilities shut down in 1992. 40 mins from London. They do not want it there.
LikeLiked by 1 person