The US team of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) has released a report today.

It shows that small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) still look to be “too expensive, too slow to build, and too risky” to play a significant role in transitioning from fossil fuels in the coming 10-15 years.

The IEEFA says proponents of SMRs have claimed for years that the price and construction time of these power plants will be quicker and cheaper than previous nuclear projects, but this report shows the industry is still plagued by cost overruns and schedule delays.

“A key argument from SMR proponents is that the new reactors will be economically competitive,” said David Schlissel, IEEFA director of resource planning analysis and co-author of the report.

“But the on-the-ground experience with the initial SMRs that have been built or that are currently under construction shows that this simply is not true.”

Too expensive:

The reports says a key tenet for SMR proponents is that the new reactors will be economically competitive.

But the on-the-ground experience with the initial SMRs that have been built or that are currently under construction shows that this simply is not true. 

There currently are three operating SMRs worldwide — two in Russia and one in China, plus a fourth under construction in Argentina.

Costs for all four have been significantly higher than originally forecast (see below).

Too slow:

The report says a second tenet for SMR backers is that the reactors can be built quickly — in sharp contrast to recent history with larger units.

But just as with the cost claims, the rhetoric here does not match reality.

Turning again to the results in Russia, China and Argentina, long construction delays have been the norm, not the exception.

As the graphic below shows, not one of these SMRs has come close to meeting its projected three- to four-year construction schedule.

The report’s authors say it’s vital that the debate about the economic feasibility of SMRs consider the opportunity costs associated with the SMR push.

“The dollars invested in SMRs will not be available for use in building out a wind, solar and battery storage resource base,” they say.

“These carbon-free and lower-cost technologies are available today and can push the transition from fossil fuels forward significantly in the coming 10 years — years when SMRs will still be looking for licensing approval and construction funding.

“IEEFA released its first analysis of the SMR sector more than two years ago, concluding that the much-hyped resource would be too slow, too expensive and too risky to help in the transition away from fossil fuels. We stand by that conclusion.”

The report, which is in PDF format, can be accessed via the link below: