Decarbonizing cities
From buildings, transport and manufacturing, energy is central to everything that makes our society run. The energy sector is still responsible for around three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions – as cities alone account for two-thirds of this energy consumption and are responsible for more than 70% of annual global carbon emissions. It’s fair to say that addressing the dual issue of energy and cities, including the role of nuclear reactors, is a key component towards achieving the UN’s net-zero emissions target by 2025. Even more so in a context where urban populations are likely to increase massively in this same timeframe.
Towards an electric-powered world
While 60% of electricity production is still from fossil fuel sources, many countries are turning to low-carbon electricity sources to engage in the energy transition. Nuclear reactors are increasingly mentioned as the solution to support the growing demand for carbon-free energy. Indeed, this energy source does have a fair few advantages. Not only does it emit lower levels of greenhouse gases, but it acts as a backup to intermittent energy sources, such as wind or solar power. However, nuclear reactors also have a role to play in decarbonizing certain non-electric applications. But to achieve this, we need to take a look at how power plants are currently designed, as only one third of the heat produced from splitting atoms (a process called nuclear fission) generates electricity. The remaining heat is usually released into the environment. In this era of energy efficiency, it’s hard not to focus on this mediocre performance. Waste heat recovery could in fact be repurposed for a number of industrial applications that require a lot of carbon-free heat, such as seawater desalination, “green” hydrogen production, the manufacture of glass, cement or steel, and – for a more domestic application – district heating networks.
Cogeneration – the other nuclear power
The technology behind cogeneration is nothing new. Countries such as the Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia, Russia and Ukraine have already been operating it for a while. Take the Haiyang power plant located on the east coast of China, which has been connected to the regional heating network and providing clean heat to 200,000 inhabitants in the province, replacing twelve coal-fired boilers which up until recently powered the region. As such, this is less a technological problem, rather, the industry’s unwillingness, which is currently slowing down the deployment of this type of solution. Because nuclear power also presents a certain number of barriers that are not always easy to remove. First of all, building nuclear reactors plant is costly in terms of time and money. Just look at the latest generation EPR nuclear reactors, which require more than ten billion euros in investment over a period of around ten years, from preparatory work to connecting to the electricity network. These kind of figures effectively limit candidates for new types of projects. Furthermore, since heat has a strong natural propensity to disperse when transported, such a device could only be feasibly used in a local network. Due to technical reasons and public acceptance, up until now it has been hard to imagine that a nuclear power plant could be built on the outskirts of a major city.
Modular, transportable affordable: nuclear’s new deliverables
The recent emergence of small modular nuclears reactor (SMR) technology changes a lot of things. Technologically speaking, these third generation (or Gen III) power plants are closer to what we find on board aircraft carriers or nuclear submarines. SMRs can produce electricity, heat or both, and as such are becoming an increasingly convincing “local” low-carbon solution for powering cities. Above all, they radically change the way we usually consider nuclear power plants. Starting with its size. We need to imagine these new types of power plants as small units, which have a reduced building footprint and can be made from elements mass-produced in the factory and assembled directly on site. This makes SMRs very quick to build, with the promise of reduced manufacturing costs and an energy production capacity of less than 300 MW that is easy to regulate. So, they’re nothing like the familiar sight of those concrete behemoths that can generate up to 1,500 MW of electrical power.
Towards the new energy order
Unsurprisingly, the countries with the most nuclear reactors – such as Russia, the US, China, Canada and France – are currently those making the most headway with these “pocket” technologies. Around 70 SMR projects are listed around the world and three are already operational in China and Russia. The Akademik Lomonosov, a sort of power barge put into operation in 2020, is the first floating nuclear power plant in the world, providing heat to the Siberian region of Chukotka, in the far north-east of Russia. It symbolizes what this type of power plant could look like tomorrow: mobile, modular and capable of getting as close as possible to needs. These capacities of the new small nuclear reactors open up new markets and allow nuclear power to integrate the range of accessible alternative energy sources alongside renewable energy solutions. Yet this avenue also clashes with reality. Reducing the size of a plant does not always mean reducing the complexity of the systems to be implemented. Many small modular nuclears reactor projects – most of which are still in the pipeline – are already encountering technological flaws which raise fears of skyrocketing construction and operating costs and raise a certain number of reservations regarding systems security.
Barriers endemic with nuclear power
Generally speaking, the topic of nuclear power continues to face public resistance. Even on a small scale, atomic energy continues to collide with public acceptance. We mustn’t forget that “small production unit” doesn’t necessarily mean “small responsibilities.” Like all nuclear reactors, small modular nuclears reactor must comply with international safety standards. The nuclear disasters at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima are yet to fade from public memory, with their dangers still deeply rooted in our collective consciousness. So much so that certain countries like Italy, Germany and Belgium have now turned their backs on civil nuclear power altogether. In this respect, this gives rise to more political questions, such as how plants should be run when they are no longer managed by a national authority. Who would be responsible for an operational error or, even worse, an accident? Would it be the manufacturer of the reactor, its operator or even the national regulatory authority of the country in which it is located? And what about radioactive waste management? These are just some of the many questions concerning international standards which the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is yet to fully set. But as innovation in the sector is occurring a hurtling speed, regulations will have to be put in place pretty quickly.
