Small Modular Nuclear Reactors' Role in Future of Energy

What role do you think small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) will play in meeting the energy needs of the future??

?I believe SMRs represent a viable way forward with the use of nuclear energy, particularly when conventional nuclear energy has been deemed too challenging in terms of cost, public opinion and politics. It’s important here to distinguish the capabilities of SMRs over their larger standard commercial reactor counterparts though. I don’t believe that SMRs alone will be able to adequately address baseload demands in the near term, given their relatively small size and output capacities. I see their best value in providing localized power for smaller remote areas and military bases initially, or possibly providing peak power delivery to offset high grid demand in lieu of small gas turbine units. SMRs’ relative lower-cost threshold, inherent safety design characteristics and modular construction make them an attractive option for these types of uses. Perhaps eventually, SMRs will also provide more baseload generation from multi-unit SMR sites once the design and technology has proven itself.?

?How about in comparison to “traditional” energy sources – oil and gas?

?Despite the uptick in alternative energy sources these days – everything from solar and wind to new innovations in electric and hydrogen fuel-powered vehicles, it’s not likely we’ll be weaning ourselves off oil and gas anytime soon. I feel that we are in a very transitional stage right now as a society and as a world, and it’s not an “either/or” situation, but rather a “both” one. Our energy demands continue to accelerate exponentially each year, so every possible method must be explored to sustainably carry humankind into the future. SMRs are just one part of that equation.?

?What are your thoughts on the criticism that small modular nuclear is prohibitively expensive, especially compared to wind and solar, which some see as more proven and easier to scale?

?I don’t think it’s fair to assert that renewables like wind and solar are more proven than SMRs. Wind and solar are intermittent energy sources that require enormous geographic footprints to achieve relatively little net gain electric generation -- and only when weather conditions permit. An SMR, like any other nuclear reactor, can provide continuous power 100 percent of the time for weeks or months on end without interruption. I also don’t believe them to be prohibitively expensive in the long-term. As SMR technology develops, we’ll see costs reduce – especially once manufacturing and supply chains develop to support multiple construction projects and ongoing operating sites. Wind and solar experienced this same pattern -- there was not a very high return on investment on wind and solar during their formative periods.?

?How has your background as navy nuclear engineers helped your work at Rev1??

Because of my background as a Navy Nuke, I came to Rev1 with a high level of knowledge of how power generation systems work and was able to get up to speed very quickly on the differences between naval nuclear power and commercial power generation. The commercial nuclear industry took its cues from the Navy’s nuclear program decades ago, mostly thanks to Admiral Hyman G. Rickover and his team, so in many ways the industry has developed in a way very familiar to Navy Nukes.?

?At Rev1, I help accurately assess project needs from a technical perspective and recruit and dispatch the right personnel to any given job. My experience as a Navy Nuke helped prepare me to handle the rigors of this line of work and commit to our clients’ needs with the attention to detail and reliability expected in not only the nuclear world, but for all our conventional and renewable energy clients as well.