What are small modular reactors and why does Canada want to build them? Here's what to know
Small modular reactors offer a way to create simpler and cheaper nuclear energy, according to the federal government, and are part of Canada’s plan to achieve a low-carbon future.
Prime Minister Mark Carney and Ontario Premier Doug Ford met at an energy facility in Bowmanville, Ont., to make an announcement about investing in the future Canada’s clean energy. Carney said his government would pledge $2 billion to build the new technology.
“The trade war is causing massive economic uncertainty, holding back investment and costing jobs here in Ontario. This is not a transition. It is a rupture. To confront the challenges, to emerge stronger, Canadians must chart a new course,” said Carney. “We must take control of our future, bet big on ourselves, and play to win.”
In May, the Ontario government announced that the province would build the first SMR in the country in Clarington, Ont., east of Bowmanville. Four reactors will be located at the Darlington nuclear site and will help generate electricity in Ontario.
The successful construction of SMRs in Canada would put the country at the forefront of the emerging technology, making it a leader on the global stage. According to the Nuclear Energy Agency , there were 127 SMR designs from around the world as of July. There are two commercial SMRs that are considered to be operational in the world right now, Siemens Energy said . One is in China and one is in Russia.
What is a small modular reactor (SMR)?Small modular reactors are nuclear reactors that are considerably smaller in size and power output than traditional nuclear power reactors, with enhanced safety features, according to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission .
Like traditional reactors, they use fission to create heat that generates energy. SMRs can be as small as a three-storey building to as big as an entire city block.
They are intended to generate up to 300 megawatt electric (MWe) per facility, the Canada Energy Regulator says . That amount of electricity could power roughly 300,000 homes. That’s about one-third of the capacity of a traditional nuclear power reactors, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) . Larger nuclear plants generate more than 1,000 MWe , the European Commission says.
They can also produce heat.
Parts of SMRs can be built off-site and then shipped to a location to be installed, “making them more affordable to build than large power reactors, which are often custom designed for a particular location, sometimes leading to construction delays,” IAEA says. “SMRs offer savings in cost and construction time, and they can be deployed incrementally to match increasing energy demand.”
They are a source of “safe, clean, affordable energy, opening opportunities for a resilient, low carbon future.”
What happened when three premiers met to discuss SMRs in 2019?In 2019, premiers of three provinces — Ontario Premier Ford, former New Brunswick premier Blaine Higgs and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe — met to discuss SMRs .
They signed a memorandum and agreed to work together to “explore new, cutting-edge technology in nuclear power generation to provide carbon-free, affordable, reliable, and safe energy,” according to a news release . They committed to “collaborate on the development and deployment of innovative, versatile and scalable” SMRs in Canada.
As part of its announcement in May, the Ontario government said, along with Ontario Power Generation, it was collaborating with companies in Alberta , Saskatchewan and New Brunswick to deploy SMRs in their jurisdictions.
New Brunswick recently released its energy plan, saying it intends to have SMRs at the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generation Station by 2035.
As part of Canada’s SMR action plan , the federal government said it’s working with provinces and territories, Indigenous Peoples and communities, power utilities, industry, innovators, laboratories, academia, and civil society.
What do critics say?Although they are being “touted as being the ‘solution’ to climate change,” critics of SMRs at the Canadian Environmental Law Association said , the technology “provides too little, too late, with too many risks.”
“Instead of investing in SMRS, Canada should support renewable generation technologies which are socially acceptable, cost effective and scalable now,” said the association.
When the plans for SMRs in Ontario were announced in 2020, the association called them a “dirty, dangerous distraction from the investments we need in climate action.” They would “create new longer-lived forms of radioactive waste before Canada has even found a long-term and socially acceptable means of managing its existing stockpiles of radioactive waste,” the group said.
How much do SMRs cost?While the costs vary, SMRs come with a hefty price tag.
According to the Ontario government, the first SMR in Ontario will cost $6.1 billion, along with costs associated with the reactors that could be up to $1.6 billion. Costs are expected to decline as each unit is built.
Canada Infrastructure Bank committed $970 million for the Darlington site. “The Darlington SMR will be one of the first ever developed and is expected to spearhead similar projects in Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Alberta, with interest also growing in the U.S. and Europe,” the bank said in a statement.
“The project will also support Canadian efforts to become a global SMR technology hub in a market estimated to be $150 billion per year by 2040.”
Moltex Energy says it estimates the cost of the first SMR in New Brunswick to be $1.8 billion, but expects it to be reduced as technology advances, the Telegraph-Journal reported .
What has Carney said about SMRs?The Darlington site was included as one of the first project to be reviewed by the Carney government’s Major Projects Office. It’s part of Carney’s nation-building plan , announced last month.
The Darlington New Nuclear Project “will make Canada the first G7 country to have an operational small modular reactor (SMR), accelerating the commercialization of a key technology that could support Canadian and global clean energy needs while driving $500 million annually into Ontario’s nuclear supply chain,” the statement said.
“Once complete, Darlington’s first of four planned SMR units will provide reliable, affordable, clean power to 300,000 homes, while sustaining 3,700 jobs annually, including 18,000 during construction, over the next 65 years. The project has the potential to position Canada as a global leader in the deployment of SMR technology for use across the country and worldwide.”
Why are SMRs considered safer than traditional nuclear power reactors?There are have been a handful of notable disasters when it comes to traditional nuclear power reactors, which rely on people to monitor and shut down systems in case of emergency.
In Ukraine, there was a steam explosion and fire in one of the reactors at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in 1986. Two people died initially, “plus a further 28 from radiation poisoning within three months, and had significant health and environmental consequences,” said the World Nuclear Association . In 2011, a tsunami following an earthquake in Japan knocked out the power at the Fukushima Daiichi plant , leading to a meltdown of three reactors. Radioactive material was released into the environment in the following days. More than 100,000 people were evacuated from their homes.
Despite the risks, nuclear power is considered a “safe means of generating electricity” and radiological effects on people from the release of radioactive material “can be avoided,” the World Nuclear Association says.
Unlike traditional nuclear power reactors, SMRs have passive safety systems, like lower core power and larger amount of coolants, the European Commission says. “These altogether increase significantly the time allowed for operators to react in case of incidents or accidents.”
It also means that in many cases, no human intervention or external forces are required to shut systems down, “because passive systems rely on physical phenomena, such as natural circulation, convection, gravity and self-pressurization,” according to the IAEA. These safety margins lower the chances of “unsafe releases of radioactivity to the environment and the public.”
The commission adds: “These passive safety systems also allow elimination of a range of components, valves, safety grade pumps, pipes and cables limiting de facto the risk of their failure.”
Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.
Comments
Be the first to comment