stewartb

‘Imagine how a ‘fleet’ of them will go down with the Nimbys already kicking up hell about pylons…‘ (Bob Lamont comment in TuS, yesterday) Indeed – and let’s add to their concerns.

The website https://small-modular-reactors.org is a rich source of information on Small Modular (Nuclear) Reactors (SMRs). It has a noteworthy section on Waste Storage Solutions. ‘Challenges’ for SMR Spent Fuel Disposal include but are not limited to:

‘Higher burn-up and radioactivity: The high burn-up and radioactivity of SMR spent fuel make it more difficult to handle, transport, and store, requiring enhanced safety measures and additional resources.’

Regarding ‘higher burn-up’ – ‘By achieving higher burnup, SMRs can extract more energy from their fuel, leading to lower fuel consumption and waste production’ and ‘Although high burnup can reduce the volume of nuclear waste generated, it can also result in higher levels of radioactivity in spent fuel. This may require new strategies for spent fuel management, such as advanced reprocessing and disposal techniques.’

Another ‘challenge’ – ‘Geographical distribution: SMRs are typically deployed in remote or distributed locations, making it more difficult to centralize spent fuel management and disposal. This can lead to higher transportation costs and additional logistical challenges.’’

‘Public perception: The public perception of nuclear power and its associated waste management remains a significant challenge. Addressing the unique characteristics of SMR spent fuel and ensuring public acceptance of disposal solutions is vital for the successful deployment of these reactors.’

As far as I can see there are no efforts by the UK government to inform far less consult on the implications of locating ‘fleets’ of SMRs. We do know there are reforms to planning regulations in England being legislated for by the Westminster government. Most of the attention has focused on what the reforms will mean for house building: implications for siting SMRs coupled with on-site nuclear waste disposal anyone?

And on the characteristics of the waste from SMRs: ‘Similar to their large-scale counterparts, SMRs generate two primary types of nuclear waste: low-level waste (LLW) and high-level waste (HLW). LLW typically consists of materials used in reactor operations, such as protective clothing, filters, and tools, which have been contaminated by radioactive isotopes. In contrast, HLW is predominantly spent nuclear fuel (SNF), which contains highly radioactive isotopes that can remain dangerous for thousands of years.

‘Although SMRs produce a smaller volume of nuclear waste compared to traditional reactors, the higher power density of SMRs can result in higher radioactivity levels in the generated waste.’

The source acknowledges the lack of permanent disposal options for nuclear waste at present – ‘still being researched and developed’: ‘still’ being the key word here. There will be reliance on ‘interim storage solutions’, using both on-site and off-site facilities.

So NIMBYs take note once again: ‘On-site storage facilities are located within the boundaries of the SMR plant and typically consist of pools, casks, or silos designed to store spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive waste. These facilities often employ a combination of wet and dry storage methods to safely contain the waste. Wet storage involves placing spent fuel rods in deep, water-filled pools, while dry storage involves transferring the spent fuel to robust, sealed containers that can be stored on-site or transported off-site. SMRs can benefit from on-site storage solutions, as they often have smaller land requirements and may be built closer to populated areas.‘

‘Off-site storage facilities are designed to accommodate nuclear waste from multiple reactors, including SMRs. These facilities can take the form of centralized storage sites, which consolidate waste from several plants, or regional storage facilities, which serve a specific geographic area. Off-site storage can be an attractive option for SMR operators, as it allows for economies of scale and the potential for cost savings by sharing infrastructure and resources. Additionally, off-site storage can alleviate concerns related to on-site storage capacity, especially for SMR plants with limited available land.’

The website also discusses ‘deep geological repositories’ (DGRs) for permanent storage of waste and advanced reprocessing technologies. On DGRs, it notes: ‘For SMRs, the small modular design may allow for the development of smaller-scale DGRs tailored to the unique requirements of these reactors, potentially reducing the time and cost associated with constructing large-scale facilities.’ Fleet of mini Sellafields?

These options for fleets of SMRs – and in the context of more permissive planning legislation in England – should be yet another alert for future ‘NIMBYs’!