Nuclear energy has not only returned in recent months. According to many experts, including the United States Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, we go to a “long -awaited American nuclear rebirth.”
The United States has ignored or ignored or transmitted nuclear projects since the end of the Cold War. But last year, 25 states approved legislation to support advanced nuclear energy, including New York. More than 200 bills have already been introduced this year that support or subsidize nuclear energy. The Utah senator, Stuart Adams, boasted that Hussans Utah will be the “nuclear center of the nations”, and the governor of Texas Greg Abbott has declared that his state is “ready to be number 1 in advanced nuclear energy.” The race is underway to be the country’s nuclear leader, and the states are going down millions to give the advantage.
It hurts more than public opinion on nuclear energy is changing, or at least softening. Last year, Pew Research reported that most American adults, or 56%, support the expansion of nuclear energy in the country. About a decade ago, in 2014, only 41% of Americans shared this opinion.
But this return to the days of glory of nuclear energy won as usual. Instead of the gigantic reactors who dominated the last century, new reactors are being developed that are smaller, cheaper and equipped with security measures that would have been unthinkable in the era of Three Mile Island. According to the nuclear energy agency, there are at least 90 different nuclear technologies in several stages of development worldwide, from advanced reactor designs to nuclear and waste fuel management solutions.
Those who receive the most attention, and with the greatest potential to be the wave of the future (nuclear) are small modular reactors or SMR. They produce only a fraction of the energy produced by conventional reactors, around 300 megawatts instead of the 1,000 megawatts of a traditional reactor.
“They are smaller and should be easier to do,” says Brendan Kochas, a nuclear engineering professor at Michigan University.
“It’s like choosing between a huge coach bus that moves 70 people at the same time instead of several pins of each of whom move 15 people at the same time,” says Kochas. “The trucks are easier to build and can implement them more quickly; you can execute the amount of need for the number of people that are easier.”
Technology is as promising that technology companies such as Amazon, Microsoft, Google and Meta are investing in SMRs to handle their growing energy needs. Last month, a Russian envoy suggested that his country would be willing to provide the CEO of Spacex, Elon Musk, a small nuclear reactor to help with its deep spatial ambitions. “We believe that Russia has a lot to sacrifice for a mission to Mars,” said Kirill Dmitriev.
The biggest point of sale for smaller reactors is the price. “More than its components could be made in mass in factories,” says Michael Craig, an assistant professor in energy systems at Michigan University. “Through mass manufacturing, SMRs can be cheaper and less prone to overload by significant costs and delay the construction of duration than large reactors.”
The high costs of conventional plants means that they can take years and, sometimes, decades to build. Two full -size reactors in Georgia, the first new nuclear plants that will be built in decades, tok 15 years to build, a seven -year schedule and cost twice their budget of $ 14 billion.
SMRs are especially useful for dates centers. About 65% of the global center capacity is owned by only three companies: Google, Microsoft and Amazon. And this capacity is expected to be doubled by 2027, reaching an estimate of 122 gigawatts by 2030, according to Goldman Sachs Research, or approximately 12 times what is needed to feed the entire duration of the city of New York (when airs are executed).
It is not just about increasing energy costs, some reports predict that we could see a 70% increase in electricity bills by 2030, but that the electricity demands are without stopping.
“There is an expectation of consumers that the Internet is always notable,” says Kochunas. “You can buy at Amazon at any time. These companies will save money by feeding data centers with nuclear energy rather than the energy of the electricity grid.”
Advances in AI are another great reason for the growing need for power. “Local and international electrical networks simply do not have the ability to deliver the electricity volumes that are forecast to feed the AI,” says Elsa Nightingale, main analyst at ESG of the Global Canalys Technology research firm. By 2030, it is projected that AI will represent 11.7% or the demand for electricity from the USA. “Do we want a hypothetical future where the technology company competes with hospitals for electricity?” Nightingale Question.
Other technologies are also on the horizon, such as next -generation nuclear reactors that use molten salt as a primary fuel. “This allows the reactor to operate at higher temperatures, which makes them operate more efficiently at a much lower pressure,” says Rusty Towell, Ph.D., director of the Experimental Energy Test Laboratory (Next Lab) at the Christian University of Abilene. They also contain a “freezing plug” in the reactor chamber, which allows the salt/fuel grout to drain in underground tanks in case of energy failure.
Towell is involved first hand in the development of molten salt reactors. Last September, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a construction permit for Towell and its fellow Researchers from ACU, which allowed them to start building the 1-MWT investigation reactor, the first reactor fed by molten salt in the country.
But not everyone is impressed. The union of scientists in question published a report in 2021 that suggests that “advanced” nuclear technologies, as rapid reactors refrigerated by sodium, high temperature reactors refrigerated by gas and reactors combined with molten salt, “propose even more safety, proliferation and environmental risks than the current fleet.”
Thus, nuclear energy defenders insist that this is a source of electricity much cleaner than fossil fuels such as gas and coal, since it does not produce carbon emissions, and the evidence seems to support them. In January, the Natural Resources Defense Council published an environmental evaluation for SMRs, concluding that “they would not have significant cumulative effects” on air and water quality, local ecology and animal habitats.
But the reassuring reports of the environmental defense groups are not enough to reassure everyone. It is also unlikely that many Americans feel good about having a small nuclear energy plant in their rear courtyards. The 56% that supports nuclear energy said nothing about a reactor that rose down the street.
“Humans are not always excellent to evaluate the risk,” says Kochunas. “We can be afraid to swim in the ocean because we could be bitten by a shark, but we are not afraid to drive in cars, although it is much more likely to be injured in a car than in a shark.”
The challenge ahead, he says, is not only to make people understand that nuclear energy is safe, “but to make them get folding That is safe, “he says.
Matthew McKinzie, senior director of data analysis and policies at the Natural Resources Defense Council, is not yet convinced. He tells the publication that the SMRs come with the same risks as other nuclear plants, “only in a narrower size.” It is still concerned about the safety characteristics of the SMR and their potential environmental impact, “including the management of nuclear waste.”
Kochunas, however, insists that SMRs have “less likely to have a devastating crisis like Three Mile Island.” It is like the difference in a car accident that involves a semi truck and sedan, he says: “Both are really bad, but the sedan is much narrower and naturally will do less damage.”
Until now, there are only two SMR operating worldwide, in China and Russia. Only two US companies, Nuscale Power Corp. and Natura Resources, have received federal permits to build SMRs, but Nuscale canceled their plans in 2023, citing a lack of interest to the suppliers of fun power in Idaho, which “were not willing to assume the associated risks projecting a first barolario.” Natura is still on the way to launching a test reactor in Texas in 2027.
Craig says he has the hope that nuclear energy will find its base, “but not yet partially optimistic,” he says. McKinzie is equally reluctant to be too optimistic. “The industry has promised that low -cost nuclear energy, safe and reliable is just around the corner for many, many years,” he says. “This time it could be different, but I am waiting to see if the industry delivers.”
But, add nighting, they may not have many options. Last year, global electricity consumption increased by 4.3%, according to the International Energy Agency. The use of energy in some parts of the country could exceed the supply in just a few years, warns Bain & Company management consultant.
“The question is not so much about the supply, it is about demand,” says Nightingale. “The world’s largest technological companies must address the demands of astronomical electricity of AI and innovate to drastically reduce this.” For better or worse, nuclear energy can be our best and perhaps our only option.
