Small Reactor’s Big Problems

The statement of the Prime Minister of Armenia made in Paris yesterday, according to which “Armenia has made a decision on the use of small modular reactor (SRM) technology”, is a significant political impulse. And the question is not only about the content.

Recently, the Minister of Territorial Administration and Infrastructures noted that the final choice of the specific model of the nuclear power plant has not yet been made, and modular reactors have not yet gained wide popularity and require additional study. At the same time, in the public sphere, the American diplomat specializing in nuclear energy issues, Thomas Armbruster, urged the Armenian government to carry out public awareness, because the technology of PMRs remains poorly understood by the public and cannot have spontaneous public approval. Against this background, the government’s refusal to discuss the issue publicly is unacceptable.

The construction of a new nuclear power plant is not an “ordinary” infrastructure project. We are talking about a long-term model for ensuring the country’s energy security, large financial commitments, selection of international technology partners, new regulatory norms, waste management and, most importantly, public legitimacy of the country’s energy security roadmap.

Therefore, it is of fundamental importance not only what decision the government makes, but also how it is made. When the Prime Minister orders such a decision to the public with a statement made outside the country’s borders, this proves that the “proud” citizen of Armenia is not acting as a participant in the strategic choice, but merely as a subject to the decision.

Armenia’s interest in the development of nuclear energy is quite legitimate in itself: the operation period of the existing nuclear power plant expires in ten years. However, it does not follow from this that a small modular reactor is the most optimal solution. The international expert discussions about them show that the advantages of PMRs are still theoretical and unverified.

The peculiarity of the technical and economic assessment of small modular reactors is due to the fact that their competitiveness is based on a different economic logic than that of traditional large nuclear power units. The competitiveness of the latter is based on economies of scale. the increase in power unit capacity leads to a decrease in the unit cost of produced electricity.

And in the case of PMRs, the expected economic efficiency, on the contrary, is due to the effect of multiple reproduction of standardized modules (economies of multiples), that is, the serial production and operation of a significant number of similar plants. In other words, the supposed reduction of costs becomes possible only in conditions of mass production and operation.

Therefore, the arguments regarding the economic efficiency of PMR and the cost of electricity produced by them are quite controversial. In practice, the implementation of such projects shows not only their high cost, but also problems related to financial planning, as a result of which the transition from the design stage to implementation is associated with serious financial risks.

Thus, the unexpected significant increase in the project cost was the reason for the suspension of the construction of the PMR in the state of Utah, USA. Such risks are more dangerous for Armenia, because the mistake of choosing a costly technology will become a long-term heavy burden, both for public finances and for the national energy system.

The experts of the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development also emphasize the safety issues of PMRs. Proponents of nuclear reactors often attribute their supposed advantages to the use of passive safety systems, as well as the smaller size of the reactors and the flexibility of deployment.

However, according to experts, it does not follow that the level of safety of PMRs is high compared to powerful reactors. Therefore, in their opinion, at present it is more correct to speak not about the superiority of PMRs in terms of safety, but about certain design expectations that still need empirical confirmation.

The Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development also highlights the issue of nuclear fuel. The operation of PMRs implies the use of nuclear fuel with a higher degree of enrichment. Meanwhile, the relevant production and logistics chains are still not sufficiently developed and, as a consequence, supply constraints are considered a factor that will hinder the proliferation of these reactors.

The issue of the future fate of used nuclear fuel is also worthy of attention. Contrary to the intuitive assumption that a smaller reactor size also implies less complexity of the post-operational fuel cycle, the studies do not rule out the possibility of a larger volume of waste per unit of energy produced and more difficult to manage.

The very fact of such discussions proves that there are still no definitive solutions in this regard.

For a country deciding on the future structure of nuclear energy, the issue of waste management is as important as the issues of cost, implementation dates and safety.

The mentioned circumstances, especially in the absence of public discussion, give grounds to question the validity of the criteria by which the Armenian government was guided when making a decision on the construction of a small modular reactor.

Until the issues touched on are properly developed and presented in the public sphere, the Prime Minister’s Paris statement is more reminiscent of a political commitment made on the eve of the upcoming elections than the result of a comprehensive technical and economic analysis.

ARMEN MARTIROSYAN

Deputy of the RA Supreme Council (1990-95)

Deputy of the RA National Assembly (1995-99)

RA Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary

—