A new University of Michigan report says that despite its promise as a clean, cheap energy source, advanced nuclear technologies could end up fueling—or exacerbating—social and environmental problems.
The report, titled The Reactor Around the Corner: Understanding Advanced Nuclear Energy Futures, looks at historical examples of what happened when major new technologies touted as game-changers were introduced. It concludes that without “robust governance frameworks” in place, next-generation nuclear is likely to reinforce or even create problems that technology alone can’t fix.
According to the report, advanced nuclear reactors generally use novel fuel types for power generation, higher uranium enrichment levels, and alternative coolants. The most common and increasingly popular form of advanced nuclear reactors are small modular reactors, or SMRs.
SMRs are slightly smaller than conventional nuclear reactors, producing about a third of the electricity output of a conventional reactor. They’re attractive to governments and power providers due to their generally lower upfront construction costs and shorter construction times, and are often seen as a safer alternative to larger traditional nuclear infrastructure. However, the report notes that “the technology is at an early stage, and it is still unclear whether the SMR industry can fulfill its promises.”
Nonetheless, many SMR projects are either planned or about to come online, said Shobita Parthasarathy, a UM professor of public policy specializing in the history of technology, and one of the report’s authors. The planned reactors include two SMRs at the site of West Michigan’s Palisades nuclear plant — the first in the country to be revived after being decommissioned. Governor Gretchen Whitmer announced the project, which is backed by a $400 million investment from the U.S. Department of Energy and additional federal support, earlier this month.
“This historic investment will double Palisades’ capacity, provide more clean energy for Michigan homes and businesses, and protect 900 good-paying Michigan jobs,” Whitmer said in a statement. “(It) will lower energy costs, reaffirm Michigan’s clean energy leadership, and show the world that we are the best place to do business.”
Parthasarathy said looking at historical examples of other technologies touted as game-changers can be instructive. She said one concern the report highlights is that while nuclear energy may itself be considered “clean,” it can be used to power other industries or technologies that are far from it. And in the case of SMRs, she said that some tech companies have proposed building them alongside the massive data centers that fuel energy and water-hungry artificial intelligence.
And as for the promised economic boost, Parthasarathy said some skepticism is in order. “What we have found in our work is that those promises, at best, are very short-lived,” she said. “The jobs don't last very long often. “
After analyzing historical examples of technologies that have parallels to advanced nuclear, the report found that its expansion likely “introduces — and in some cases reinforces — problems that technological solutions alone will not be able to fix.” And it suggests that the only way to head off those problems is to have “robust governance frameworks in place before the widespread implementation of SMRs.”
Parthasarathy noted that currently, those large scale frameworks don’t exist, nor do they seem likely to anytime soon. And she said that because of SMRs' size — about that of a city block in some cases — they're likely to show up in many community landscapes. “They’re going to be right next to us,” she said.
But Parthasarathy said that also presents an opportunity: because SMRs are so much smaller than traditional nuclear plants, it could give local residents a real chance to influence how these technologies are deployed. And her hope is that this report can help them do that.
The report “provides a guide to communities on what they should be thinking about intervening in and maybe mobilizing around,” Parthasarathy said. “[It] can empower citizens to ask detailed, sophisticated questions about the implications of nuclear power for them and their communities.”
