Fossil Fuels are the Greenest Energy Sources

 

 Share This

 

 Tweet This

 

 Email This

Indur M. Goklany – August 30, 2022

Contrary to the claims of proponents of the Green New Deal and Net Zero, fossil fuels are the greenest fuels.

First, uniquely among energy sources, fossil fuel use emits CO2, which is the ultimate source of the elemental building block, carbon, found in all carbon-based life, i.e., virtually all life on Earth.

The increased amplitude of the seasonal cycle in atmospheric CO2 and satellite-borne instrumentation to measure solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence from plants provide direct evidence that global photosynthetic activity (or Gross Primary Production, GPP, a measure of the change in global biomass) has increased over the past several decades (Frankenberg et al. 2011; Graven et al. 2013). Observed variations (Campbell et al. 2017) of atmospheric CO2 over the past two centuries are consistent with increasing primary productivity. Other satellite studies also show that the earth has been greening continually in recent decades (Zhu et al. 2016; Piao et al. 2020). Second, fossil fuel dependent technologies have increased agricultural yields directly or indirectly by at least 167% (Goklany 2021).  This increase in agricultural productivity is due to the use of fossil-fuel-dependent technologies, specifically, nitrogen fertilizers, pesticides and carbon dioxide fertilization resulting from fossil fuel emissions.  This has enabled human beings to meet their demands for food using less cropland, which then spares land for the rest of nature.  Thus, in the absence of fossil fuels, at least 167% more land would have to be cultivated to maintain global food production at current levels. That would be equivalent to increasing current cropland from 12.2% of global land area (GLA) (FAO 2019) to 32.7%.  But diversion of habitat (land) to agriculture is already deemed to be the greatest threat to global biodiversity. Fossil fuels have, therefore, not only increased productivity of already-converted habitat, they have forestalled conversion of at least an additional 20.4% of GLA.

Consequently, the world sustains 10 times more people today (7.97 billion) than at the start of the Industrial Revolution (786 million in 1750), while supporting more biomass.

Moreover, to compare the impacts of the various energy options on habitat, we should consider the physical footprint needed to produce an equivalent amount of energy via each option (solar, wind and the various fossil fuels). Second, for wind and solar to be viable substitutes for fossil fuel energy, they should be coupled with batteries to solve their intermittency problem which requires substantial amounts of metals and other materials that must be mined, smelted and refined which necessarily would disturb the land.

The Greening of the Earth and the Increase in Biomass

Based on satellite data, Zhu et al. (2016) found that from 1982–2009, 25–50% of global vegetated area had become greener while 4% had become browner.  They attributed 70% of the greening to CO2 fertilization from emissions from fossil fuel combustion (which increases photosynthesis and water use efficiency, WUE, of most vegetation), 9% to nitrogen deposition (also from the use of fossil-fuel-derived fertilizers), 8% to climate change, and 4% to land use change. The first three, responsible cumulatively for 87% of the greening, are related to the use of fossil fuels.

Chen et al. (2019) report that global leaf area increased by 5.4 million km2 over 2000–2017, equivalent to the area of the Amazon rainforest (Piao et al. 2020). They noted, per MODIS data, that 34% of the globe is greening while 5% is browning. Leaf area increased at the rate of 2.3% per decade from 2000‒2017.  China and India accounted for 25% and 6.8% of the global net increase in leaf area despite only having 6.6% and 2.7% of global vegetated area, respectively.  Greening occurred mainly in forests and croplands in China, and croplands (82%) in India, suggesting that greening is from reforestation and agricultural practices (e.g., fertilizers and multi-cropping).

Song et al. (2018) found that, contrary to prevailing wisdom, global tree cover increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1%) from 1982–2016. A net loss in the tropics was outgained by increases in the extratropics. Global bare ground cover decreased by 1.16 million km2 (−3.1%), most notably in agricultural regions in Asia. 60% of all land use/cover changes were associated with direct human activities and 40% with indirect factors such as climate change, which indicates net reforestation and net de-desertification over the study period, partly attributed to climate change.  Reforestation was probably enabled by increased productivity of agricultural lands substantially due to the use of fossil-fuel-derived fertilizers and pesticides, and increases in CO2 fertilization (indirectly from using fossil fuels). Together, they rendered land surplus to agricultural needs.

Using data from 1982-2011, Gao et al. (2019: 9) found that productivity, using annual maximum Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) as a proxy, increased significantly in 45.8% of global grasslands while declining significantly in 1.5%.

Using data from 1982-2011, Cheng et al. (2017) found that global gross primary productivity (GPP) increased, mainly due to increased WUE of vegetation, an expected, but underemphasized, consequence of increasing CO2 concentrations.  Despite large-scale occurrence of droughts and disturbances over the study period, annual GPP increased 0.6 ± 0.2% per year. About 65% of vegetated land showed significant positive trends in GPP. Ecosystem WUE also increased significantly in 78% of vegetated areas.

In a review article on global greening drawing upon the above studies, among others, Piao et al. (2020) note that:

“Greening is pronounced over intensively farmed or afforested areas, such as in China and India, reflecting human activities. However, strong greening also occurs in biomes with low human footprint, such as the Arctic, where global change drivers play a dominant role. Vegetation models suggest that CO2 fertilization is the main driver of greening on the global scale, with other factors being notable at the regional scale.”

Satellite-derived empirical trends in greening from 1982 to 2018, using the mean growing season (GS) leaf area index (LAI) as a surrogate, are shown in Figure 1 (Piao et al. 2020).

Figure 1. Changes in mean growing season (GS) leaf area index (LAI) based on empirical satellite-derived data. (a) Based on changes in Advanced Very- High-Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) LAI from 1982–2009. The AVHRR LAI dataset is the average of three sets of satellite data products (GIMMS13, GLOBMAP23 and GL ASS192). (b) Based on changes over four regions from 1982–2009. (c) Based on changes in Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) LAI from 2000–2018. (d) Based on changes in MODIS LAI over four regions during 2000–2018. Source: Piao et al.2020.

Finally, Sun et al. (2020) estimated that GPP increased at the rate of 0.16% per year from 2000 to 2014 largely due to CO2 fertilization. Combining this estimate with Campbell at al.’s estimate of a 31% increase in GPP during the 20th century, gives a cumulative increase of 34% from 1900 to 2014.

The increased productivity from higher photosynthetic rates and WUE due to higher CO2 concentrations implies the biosphere produces more plant matter, i.e., more food for all carbon-based organisms even under water-stressed conditions, which further enables earth to sustain higher biomass, that is, more organisms and/or a larger variety of species while also increasing its resiliency to drought, a chronic condition detrimental to most life forms (but which may favor drought-tolerant species).

Habitat Saved by Fossil Fuel Usage from Conversion to Human Use

Use of fossil fuel technologies has enabled human beings to spare 20.4% of GLA for the rest of nature.  This exceeds both the habitat lost currently to cropland (12.2% of GLA) and the global cumulative area currently reserved or identified as conservation areas (estimated at 14.6% of GLA) (Goklany 2021). Clearly, conversion of this magnitude of habitat to agriculture would devastate global biodiversity.

The increased agricultural productivity allowed cropland in many areas to revert to forest or other non-agricultural use.  For example, between 1990 and 2020 forestland in the USA and Western Europe increased 2.4% and 10.1% despite population increases of 30% and 11%, respectively (FAOSTAT 2022).

Physical Footprint of Various Electrical Generating Facilities

Different energy sources have different demands on land.  Figure 2 compares the physical footprint needed to site a 1 MW power plant using different energy sources.  The estimates shown include direct and indirect land requirements based on U.S. practices as of 2015.  They include estimates of land used during resource production, for transport and transmission lines, and store waste materials. Both one-time and continuous land-use requirements were considered (Stevens et al. 2017).

Figure 2. Physical footprint per megawatt of energy produced using various energy technologies, based on practices as of 2015. (Source: Stevens et al. 2017)

Figure 2 shows that compared to fossil fuels, solar would need more than three times as much land; wind, five times as much; and hydropower, 25 times as much.

Land Needed for “Clean” and Fossil Fuel Energy Systems

To replace fossil fuel and nuclear generation, wind and solar would need to be coupled, at a minimum, with battery backup to provide electricity round-the-clock.  However, the manufacture of batteries, as well as solar panels and wind turbines involves relatively vast quantities of metals and minerals. This necessarily entails equally vast mining operations and land disturbance.

Although, the amount of mining would no doubt increase, the estimated global areal extent of mining operations is very small relative to agricultural operations (5.7 million hectares vs. almost 5 billion hectares, about one-third of which is cropland and the remainder, pastureland and meadow for livestock) (Maus 2020, FAO 2019).  Thus, the additional amount of surface disturbance may be relatively minor. This is because while agriculture depends substantially on the energy harvested from the sun which is a function of the surface area occupied by the array of solar panels or windmills, mining involves the excavation and processing (including transportation, smelting, and refining) of vast quantities of material (volume operations).  Nevertheless, these operations themselves require substantial energy consumption and emit significant amounts of air and water pollution.

The International Energy Agency (2022) notes that solar and wind powered energy systems typically require more metals and minerals than their fossil fueled analogs. For instance, it notes that a typical electric vehicle requires six times the mineral inputs of a conventional car and an onshore wind plant requires nine times more mineral resources than a natural gas-fired power plant, while offshore wind plants require fifteen times as much as natural gas.

Figure 3 shows the demand estimated by the International Energy Agency for various metals to generate 1 MW of power using different energy technologies (IEA 2022).  It shows that demand for these metals is substantially larger for renewable energy technologies. However, this figure excludes demand for concrete and cement, steel and aluminum. The demand for those materials is shown in Figure 4 (in tonnes per TWh of electricity generated).

Figure 3.  Metals demand for clean energy technologies compared to other power generation sources. Note: Steel and aluminum are not included. The values for offshore wind and onshore wind are based on the direct-drive permanent magnet synchronous generator system (including array cables) and the doubly-fed induction generator system respectively. The values for coal and natural gas are based on ultra-supercritical plants and combined-cycle gas turbines. Actual consumption can vary by project depending on technology choice, project size and installation environment.  Note: Lithium demand is included in the “rare earths” category. Source: IEA 2022, The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions.

We see from Figure 3 that fossil fuels (natural gas and coal, in that order) have substantially lower demand for metals (and, therefore, associated land disruption), followed by nuclear, solar and, finally, wind. [Metals demand for hydropower was not provided in the IEA report.]

Figure 4.  Demand for concrete, steel and aluminum (in tonnes per TWh) for different energy technologies. Source: World Nuclear Association 2022). Note: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in combination with coal and gas are included although CCS is not generally economically viable. 

Figure 4 shows that fossil fuels and nuclear have the lowest total demand for concrete, steel and aluminum, followed by solar, wind and hydroelectric (in that order). Once again, we see that land disturbance would be substantially greater for renewables than for fossil fuel and nuclear.

Figure 4 also includes demand for concrete, aluminum and steel for plants that may use carbon capture and storage (CCS) in combination with coal and gas although CCS has not been proven to be economically viable even in special circumstances where the CCS product can be used in captive facilities, e.g., for enhanced oil recovery. Notably, the advantage of coal and gas over nuclear (regarding demand for these three materials) disappears if CCS is employed. However, it should also be noted that economic viability does not seem to constrain policymakers nowadays.

Conclusion

Fossil fuel combustion has increased the amount of carbon dioxide available to green the earth.  This has contributed the major share of the approximately 34% increase in the earth’s GPP that has occurred since 1900 that has literally greened the earth.  Second, by enhancing agricultural productivity, fossil fuel-dependent technologies have forestalled the conversion of at least 20.4% of global land area to agricultural uses. This is 25% larger than the entire area of North America. Remarkably, this exceeds the total amount of land currently set aside globally for both cropland (12.2%) and conservation worldwide (14.6%).  Third, relative to renewable energy sources, fossil fuels have smaller physical footprints and lower demand for metals and other minerals. The latter substantially limits mining and other land disturbance. Such disturbance would inevitably result in “browning” of the land.  Hence, fossil fuels are indeed the greenest energy sources. But “greenest” does not necessarily mean the “cleanest”. That distinction may have to be reserved for nuclear energy, but that is another topic.

Acknowledgments

My thanks to Drs. Will Happer and Greg Wrightstone for their incisive and constructive comments, which have resulted in a much-improved paper. Any flaws and omissions, however, are my responsibility.

References

Campbell JE, Berry JA, Seibt U, Smith SJ, Montzka SA, Launois T, Belviso S, Bopp L, Laine M. Large historical growth in global terrestrial gross primary production. Nature. 2017 Apr;544(7648):84-7.

Chen, C. et al. China and India lead in greening of the world through land- use management. Nat. Sustain. 2, 122–129 (2019a).

Cheng, Lei, Lu Zhang, Ying-Ping Wang, Josep G. Canadell, Francis HS Chiew, Jason Beringer, Longhui Li, Diego G. Miralles, Shilong Piao, and Yongqiang Zhang. 2017. Recent increases in terrestrial carbon uptake at little cost to the water cycle. Nature Communications, 8(1): 110.

Forkel M, Carvalhais N, Rödenbeck C, Keeling R, Heimann M, Thonicke K, Zaehle S, Reichstein M. Enhanced seasonal CO2 exchange caused by amplified plant productivity in northern ecosystems. Science. 2016 Feb 12;351(6274):696-9.

Frankenberg C, Fisher JB, Worden J, Badgley G, Saatchi SS, Lee JE, Toon GC, Butz A, Jung M, Kuze A, Yokota T. New global observations of the terrestrial carbon cycle from GOSAT: Patterns of plant fluorescence with gross primary productivity. Geophysical Research Letters. 2011 Sep;38(17).

Gao, Qingzhu, Mark Schwartz, Wenquan Zhu, Yunfan Wan, Xiaobo Qin, Xin Ma, Shuo Liu, Matthew Williamson, Casey Peters, and Yue Li. 2016. Changes in global grassland productivity during 1982 to 2011 attributable to climatic factors. Remote Sensing, 8(5): 384.

Goklany IM. Reduction in global habitat loss from fossil‐fuel‐dependent increases in cropland productivity. Conservation Biology. 2021 Jun;35(3):766-74.

Graven HD, Keeling RF, Piper SC, Patra PK, Stephens BB, Wofsy SC, Welp LR, Sweeney C, Tans PP, Kelley JJ, Daube BC. Enhanced seasonal exchange of CO2 by northern ecosystems since 1960. Science. 2013 Sep 6;341(6150):1085-9.

International Energy Agency 2022. The Role of Critical World Energy Outlook Special Report Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions.

Maus V, Giljum S, Gutschlhofer J, da Silva DM, Probst M, Gass SL, Luckeneder S, Lieber M, McCallum I. A global-scale data set of mining areas. Scientific data. 2020 Sep 8;7(1):1-3.

Piao S, Wang X, Park T, Chen C, Lian XU, He Y, Bjerke JW, Chen A, Ciais P, Tømmervik H, Nemani RR. Characteristics, drivers and feedbacks of global greening. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. 2020 Jan;1(1):14-27.

Song, Xiao-Peng, Matthew C. Hansen, Stephen V. Stehman, Peter V. Potapov, Alexandra Tyukavina, Eric F. Vermote, and John R. Townshend. 2018. Global land change from 1982 to 2016. Nature, 560(7720): 639.

Stevens, Landon et al. 2017.  The Footprint of Energy: Land Use Of U.S. Electricity Production. Strata.  Available at https://docs.wind-watch.org/US-footprints-Strata-2017.pdf.

Zhu, Zaichun, Shilong Piao, Ranga B. Myneni, Mengtian Huang, Zhenzhong Zeng, Josep G. Canadell, Philippe Ciais et al. 2016. Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nature climate change 6(8): 791.

Authored by Indur M. Goklany

Indur Goklany is a Member of the CO2 Coalition. He is an author, researcher, and longtime civil servant. He became involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since before its inception. His degrees are PhD and MS (Electrical Engineering and Systems Science) and Bachelor of Technology (Electrical Engineering). 

Mobility, Flexibility, Scalability: SMRs Forging Nuclear's Future

The need for emissions-free power generation, along with the ability to provide more power when and where it’s needed, is driving research and development of smaller nuclear reactors.

Energy industry analysts have said nuclear power will be important as part of the move toward zero-emissions electricity generation. They also agree that finding scalable nuclear solutions is key for providing the needed energy in a faster, lower-cost fashion.

Small modular reactors (SMRs), generally considered those with a generation capacity of 300 MW or less, and smaller microreactors are touted as a way to support a more rapid buildout of nuclear power. Countries around the world are looking at projects to install SMRs, particularly as scientists and engineers continue to work on the technology and investors pour money into research and development (R&D).

The goal is to prove the viability of SMR technology, and enable large-scale production of units that can provide power when and where it’s needed, at less expense—and in less time—than building utility-scale reactors.

1. The Akademik Lomonosov floating nuclear power plant, equipped with two KLT-40S reactors, was fully commissioned in 2020. Courtesy: Rosatom

“SMRs represent a serious next step in nuclear technology developments designed to give a far more flexible, cost-effective, and inherently safer answer to nuclear power,” said Brandon Young, CEO at Utilities Now, a Texas-based retail electricity provider. “As of now, Russia and China are leading the charge in SMR deployment. Both countries have successfully brought four SMRs into operation. Russia, with its floating nuclear power plant Akademik Lomonosov [Figure 1], has been a pioneer in this field, demonstrating not just the feasibility but also the commercial viability of SMRs in remote regions. China, too, has capitalized on its robust manufacturing and regulatory environment to deploy SMRs quickly.”

Young told POWER, “In contrast, the U.S. and Canada, despite being home to some of the most advanced nuclear technology companies, have lagged behind in terms of deployment. The reasons for this delay are multifaceted. Both countries have stringent regulatory frameworks designed to ensure the highest safety standards, which, while crucial, have also slowed the pace of deployment. Moreover, the emphasis on ‘getting it right’ means that U.S. and Canadian companies often engage in extended periods of design refinement, testing, and public consultations before moving forward.”

The Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act, enacted in July, followed the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) announcement in June of as much as $900 million in funding for SMR deployments. The money comes from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law signed by President Biden in 2021.

Mission-critical sites such as military bases and data centers are increasingly considering the potential of nuclear power to supply baseload, flexible, and carbon-free power for operations. Companies such as Microsoft, Google, and Amazon Web Services are working on SMR deals for future facilities to provide power for technology around artificial intelligence (AI).

A report from BMI, a unit of Fitch Solutions, earlier this year said the group “anticipate[s] that Small Modular Reactors will become key in transforming the global nuclear landscape. Gaining international support, SMRs are set to be vital for low-carbon baseload in markets pursuing cleaner energy sources.” The report added, “SMRs in our Key Projects Database (KPD) are set for completion within the next decade, accounting for just under 4% of all nuclear projects in the planning or construction phase, with a combined capacity of 10.85 GW.”

The BMI report said four countries, led by Canada and Poland, are leading the market for SMRs, with the U.S. and France also showing commitments to the technology. BMI also noted that “markets such as China and Russia are leading the charge in SMR development. China is making significant strides with its HTR-PM pebble bed modular reactor, while Russia has advanced with the deployment of its floating nuclear power plant, the Akademik Lomonosov.”

Debate About Economics

Not everyone agrees with the promise of SMRs. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), a group that examines issues related to energy markets, trends, and policies, in a report earlier this year said SMRs are still too expensive, too slow to build, and too risky to play a significant role in transitioning away from fossil fuels.

“A key argument from 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,” said David Schlissel, IEEFA director of resource planning analysis and co-author of the report, published in May and titled, “Small Modular Reactors: Still Too Expensive, Too Slow and Too Risky.”

The IEEFA in the report wrote, “The experience of other reactor projects has repeatedly shown that further significant cost increases and substantial schedule delays should be anticipated at future stages of project development. Finally, IEEFA questions the assertion by SMR advocates that costs will decline as more reactors of a given design are brought online, leading to what is known as a positive learning curve. The U.S. nuclear industry has never shown a positive learning curve. Instead, it has repeatedly shown a negative learning curve where the cost of new reactors continued to rise, even as more were built.” The report continued, “And any positive learning curve achieved in building SMRs will depend heavily on how many of each design are built. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates that there are about 80 SMR designs currently being proposed and marketed worldwide, making it highly uncertain how many of each design will be constructed. Too few, and there may not be any cost savings over time, and there may also be no economic justification for modular construction in a factory.”

The folks making financial decisions, though, appear to see the promise of SMR deployment. Several well-known energy companies, such as Westinghouse, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, and Russia’s state-owned Rosatom, along with national laboratories in both the U.S. and Canada, are heavily involved in R&D of SMR technology. Allied Market Research earlier this year released a forecast that said the SMR market could grow up to 9% annually, and be worth at least $13.4 billion by 2032.

Jigar Shah, director of the Loan Programs Office at the DOE, told POWER recently that the agency is “very excited about small modular reactors.” Shah, whose office makes loans and loan guarantees available to help deploy a wide variety of energy and other projects in the U.S., said SMRs are attractive because “bite sizes are more affordable for the utilities,” as opposed to the cost of a utility-scale nuclear plant. Shah said, though, his office and the DOE are involved in supporting large-scale nuclear projects as well as smaller ones, saying, “We want to support what it takes to build these projects, whether it’s a nuclear power plant or producing stable aviation fuel.”

Shah said SMRs could be a faster and more cost-effective solution at many sites, including where transmission infrastructure already exists—such as at retired coal-fired power plants.

“We definitely need to look at putting nuclear power plants at these existing coal plants,” said Shah. “It’s very clear that we need to [take advantage of existing infrastructure] in the constraints of our system.” Shah added, “We’re looking for solutions to how we meet load growth on the distribution grid. We can handle 65,000 new megawatts at those [decommissioned] sites.”

Shah also noted the rise of AI and data centers, and their impact on power demand, which has led to tech companies inking deals with SMR developers to provide electricity for their energy-intensive operations. “There’s a hunger to find people who are willing to pay a premium for 24/7 clean, firm power,” said Shah.

Varied Technologies

Several companies are involved with developing SMR technology, including established nuclear power developers such as Westinghouse. The company calls it AP300 “the most advanced, proven and readily deployable SMR solution.”

2. The Westinghouse AP300 reactor is based on the company’s AP1000 pressurized light water technology. Courtesy: Westinghouse

Westinghouse said the 300-MW AP300 (Figure 2) “is based on the licensed and operating AP1000 pressurized light water technology that has demonstrated industry leading reliability.” The AP1000 technology is used in two reactors that came online at Plant Vogtle in Georgia over the past several months, representing the first utility-scale new-build nuclear power plant in the U.S. in decades. Westinghouse has said, “The AP300 SMR is the backbone of a community clean energy system. Flexible performance provides a proven capability to stabilize modern renewable heavy electric grids, including fast load change capabilities to support variations in demand. Includes additional capability to support district heating, desalination, and hydrogen production.”

Westinghouse also is developing the eVinci microreactor, which the company said “can produce 5 MWe with a 15-MWth core design. The reactor core is designed to run for eight or more full-power years before refueling.” It has said the eVinci is “fully factory-assembled and transportable in shipping containers via rail, barge, and truck. Above-ground installation requires minimum ground disruption with less than a 2-acre footprint.”

3. This graphic shows the inner workings of X-energy’s Xe-100 small modular reactor (SMR). Courtesy: X-energy

X-energy is developing its Xe-100 (Figure 3) advanced SMR along with TRISO-X fuel. Each reactor unit is engineered to provide 80 MW of electricity, according to X-energy, which said the design “is optimized in multi-unit plants ranging from 320 MW to 960 MW. The innovative and simplified modular design is road-shippable and intended to drive geographic scalability, accelerate construction timelines, and create more predictable and manageable construction costs.”

Tech company Amazon in October announced it had led a $500 million financing round for X-energy. The groups said the investment “will help meet growing energy demands by funding the completion of X-energy’s reactor design and licensing as well as the first phase of its TRISO-X fuel fabrication facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee,” adding that “the funding will support future carbon-free projects that will use X-energy’s Xe-100 advanced small modular nuclear reactors.”

Kam Ghaffarian, founder and executive chairman of X-energy, said, “The investments from Amazon, our Series C-1 funders, and valued partners like Dow and the U.S. Department of Energy underscore X-energy’s leadership in commercializing SMR technology and delivering the clean, safe, affordable, and reliable power our world needs now. Reaching this milestone is a testament to the dedication of the X-energy team and the essential energy solutions we’ve built. We remain focused on bringing our advanced reactor technology to market, enabling a future powered by sustainable, zero-carbon energy.”

4. This rendering shows a power station with Kairos Power’s FHR reactor technology. The company is building a demonstration reactor at a technology park in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Courtesy: Kairos Power

Kairos Power, headquartered in California and with offices in other cities including Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in October signed corporate purchase agreements to provide energy for tech giant Google. The group said it would purchase nuclear energy “from multiple small modular reactors to be developed by Kairos Power. The initial phase of work is intended to bring Kairos Power’s first SMR [Figure 4] online quickly and safely by 2030, followed by additional reactor deployments through 2035. Overall, this deal will enable up to 500 MW of new 24/7 carbon-free power to U.S. electricity grids and help more communities benefit from clean and affordable nuclear power.”

Kairos Power said its “FHR (KP-FHR) is a novel advanced reactor technology that leverages TRISO fuel in pebble form combined with a low-pressure fluoride salt coolant. The technology uses an efficient and flexible steam cycle to convert heat from fission into electricity and to complement renewable energy sources.” Kairos’ demonstration reactor, known as Hermes, is sited at the East Tennessee Technology Park in Oak Ridge. The company said, “Hermes will be designed to achieve a thermal power level of 35 MWth, compared to 320 MWth for Kairos Power’s future commercial reactors.”

5. NuScale’s VOYGR small modular reactor was the first SMR to receive design approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Courtesy: NuScale

NuScale’s VOYGR SMR plants (Figure 5), powered by the NuScale Power Module, were the first SMR to receive design approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NuScale Power Module design is based on proven pressurized water-cooled reactor technology, and was developed to supply energy for electrical generation, district heating, desalination, commercial-scale hydrogen production, and other process heat applications.

Fluor Corp. in July announced the company had signed a contract with RoPower Nuclear for Phase 2 front-end engineering and design (FEED) work at an SMR facility in Doicesti, Romania. Fluor completed Phase 1 FEED work late last year.

The project will utilize NuScale Power’s SMR technology. A contract signing ceremony took place during the Partnership for Transatlantic Energy and Climate Cooperation summit in Bucharest, Romania, on July 24. The event included representatives from Fluor and NuScale, as well as Romanian Minister of Energy Sebastian Burduja and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm. The project has received substantial support from both the Romanian and U.S. governments.

“We are pleased to continue our role in supporting this important project to deploy the next generation of nuclear power to produce clean and reliable baseload electricity for Romania and Europe,” said Pierre Bechelany, president of Fluor’s combined liquefied natural gas (LNG) and Power business line. “When completed, this facility will be the first of its kind in Europe.” Fluor’s Phase 2 FEED work will customize a six-reactor SMR power plant with NuScale technology, capable of producing up to 462 MW of power. Fluor is the majority investor in NuScale.

The Romania project is among nine chosen in October for support by the European Industrial Alliance on Small Modular Reactors. The alliance said it will support research as part of its project working groups, or PWGs, a first step toward the alliance’s goal of deploying SMR technologies across Europe by the early 2030s. The alliance is a public-private platform launched by the European Commission in February of this year. It picked the projects from a pool of 22 applications. The group said the nine projects are: EU-SMR-LFR project (Ansaldo Nucleare, SCK-CEN, ENEA, RATEN); CityHeat project (Calogena, Steady Energy); Project Quantum (Last Energy); European LFR AS Project (newcleo); Nuward (EDF); European BWRX-300 SMR (OSGE); Rolls-Royce SMR (Rolls-Royce SMR Ltd.); NuScale VOYGR SMR (RoPower Nuclear S.A.); and Thorizon One project (Thorizon).

Design and Construction

Louis Shoukas, chief nuclear officer for PCL Construction, a group that works on a variety of projects, told POWER his company “is engaged with Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation [USNC] for module fabrication, reactor vessel fabrication, and site construction and installation of the nuclear and conventional power plants.” He said PCL also is working with X-energy in support of policies around emissions reduction in Canada, along with the “Reshaping Energy Systems grant [a Canadian program] that X-energy was awarded to evaluate their technology from a cost, schedule, and construction perspective for a site in Alberta, Canada.”

Shoukas noted that USNC, which filed for bankruptcy in late October, has a project deploying its technology at the Chalk River Canadian Nuclear Laboratories site in Ontario, and is in the regulatory process to obtain a license to prepare the site with a target of full operation in 2028. USNC executives said the company “will maintain full operational continuity across its projects,” so the bankruptcy may not impact Chalk River.

Shoukas added that while X-energy does not presently have a project to deploy a reactor in Canada, the company is working with Dow Chemical as part of the DOE’s Advanced Reactor Deployment Program to deploy a first commercial application in Seadrift, Texas, by the end of the decade.

Shoukas told POWER that R&D of SMRs has many challenges, including financial considerations. “New reactor technologies will have FOAK [first-of-a-kind] cost challenges. To create a path for commercialized deployments, it is critical that FOAK nuclear projects receive financial support from various sources, including the government.” He said PCL is a partner with X-energy and USNC “in the early stages of design to provide construction input to ensure our construction knowledge is incorporated such that it leads to a design that is low cost and easily constructible.”

Shoukas said the USNC project “fits on two acres and produces 15 MWe per reactor for a two-unit site. X-energy’s Xe-100 fits on three to four acres and produces 80 MWe. The standard design is commonly a four-pack, which is 320 MWe.” Shoukas said both reactors use TRISO fuel. “Both designs, USNC and Xe, can produce high-pressure and high-temperature steam, making them great candidates for industrial companies that use steam in their processes.” In addition to conventional electrical generation, other uses include inside-the-fence electrical generation to feed industrial companies, such as data centers, desalination plants, and so on. Their distributed generation ability makes them easily deployable to any market.

6. TRi-structural ISOtropic particle fuel, or TRISO fuel, is a small, robust nuclear fuel made for use in advanced reactors, including SMRs and microreactors. Source: U.S. Department of Energy

“These new advanced reactors are based on TRISO fuel (Figure 6), which is not readily available at the higher uranium contents required,” said Shoukas. “This is a major development that has to be ready for the unit to go online. USNC is producing TRISO under its patent, and X-energy is also developing its own fuel. Reactors like GE Hitachi’s BWRX-300 and ARC Clean Energy’s ARC-100 already have an established fuel supply. Terrestrial also has to perform a fuel qualification process.”

Shoukas added, “These advanced reactor vessels are built to new codes and standards. There is a significant investment from the supply chain, like PCL, to become qualified for these new standards, which are costly and take at least a year or more to establish. Aside from that, there are a limited number of suppliers around the world that supply and fabricate vessels under these new codes. With the resulting increase in demand, there will be a bottleneck in the supply chain’s manufacturing, delivery, and installation portions in the coming years.” Shoukas also noted that “The licensing process is a significant cost and a four- to five-year process that must be completed prior to construction permits being awarded and the plant can begin to operate.”

Jag Singh, regional sector lead for Clean Generation at Stantec, an engineering, architecture, and environmental consulting company, told POWER, “Stantec is engaged with several vendor and utilities within the SMR arena. The basic premise around effective SMR deployment is implementing a ‘standard design’ into a specified site. Stantec’s role within the SMR industry is to execute the site-specific design and engineering.”

Singh listed nearly two dozen cost considerations for SMRs, including upfront R&D, site works and building construction, equipment manufacturing and testing, and off-site modular factory acceptance testing. Other costs include securing the fuel supply, its route to the site, the electrical switchyard, and waste management.

Said Singh, “I believe that SMRs will be a part of the future as a clean energy source for grid supply and industrial applications providing stable baseload electricity and heat. For the technology to be rapidly deployed and truly successful, it is imperative that nuclear regulatory approvals are expedited, and public funding sources are secured, to propel the industry onwards. Once the first-of-a-kind SMR plants have been deployed successfully, the Nth-of-a-kind will become significantly more attractive and cost-effective.”

Use Cases

Oklo, a California-based nuclear technology group, in a financial update in August of this year said its customer pipeline has grown 93% to 1.35 GW year-over-year, as of July. The company said most of the agreements have been non-binding letters of intent and term sheets that Oklo hopes to turn into new power purchase agreements (PPAs). The company said most of the new customer demand is coming from the data center sector.

7. Oklo has said its Aurora reactor, notable for its distinct architecture that some compare to a ski chalet, would represent the first advanced nuclear reactor completed in the U.S. Courtesy: Oklo

Oklo, which wants to commission a commercial-scale version of the company’s Aurora reactor (Figure 7) at Idaho National Laboratory in the next few years, has said that project would represent the first advanced nuclear reactor completed in the U.S. The company has been working on microreactors ranging from 15 MW to more than 50 MW in generation capacity. It is still waiting on approval for a combined license from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), in which the NRC would combine its review of “the applicant’s qualifications, design safety, environmental impacts, operational programs, site safety, and verification of construction” into a single process. Oklo in a shareholder letter earlier this year said the company has engaged with the NRC since 2016, longer than any other non-water-cooled advanced reactor company. The agency in 2022 denied Oklo’s application for a smaller 1.5-MWe reactor design.

Oklo has a signed PPA deal with Diamondback Energy to electrify that company’s Permian Basin oil and gas operations; oil and gas exploration companies in recent years have discussed using SMRs to power field operations, in much the same way some sites use renewable energy resources to power drilling rigs and compressor stations. The company in a recent shareholder presentation said its technology’s levelized electricity costs would range from $40/MWh to $90/MWh, which would be competitive—and in some cases less—than other DOE-estimated per-MWh costs for generation from sources such as natural gas, other advanced nuclear, and renewable energy plus storage.

NANO Nuclear Energy, a microreactor developer, purchased land around Oak Ridge in eastern Tennessee earlier this year, a site where the company plans to build its technical headquarters. James Walker, the company’s CEO, has said NANO wants to build deconversion and fuel fabrication facilities as well as develop its SMR technology.

8. The ZEUS micro modular reactor, developed by NANO Nuclear Energy, is designed for use in rural areas among other locations. Courtesy: NANO Nuclear Energy

Walker told POWER: “We’re pioneering a new approach to small modular reactors with our proprietary reactor design. Our focus is on the ZEUS [Figure 8], a micro modular reactor that is designed to be versatile, scalable, and deployable in remote locations. ZEUS represents a significant leap forward in nuclear technology, emphasizing safety, efficiency, and adaptability. We’re incorporating advanced materials and cutting-edge nuclear fuel technology to ensure that our reactors are not only compact but also capable of running efficiently in a variety of environments.”

Walker, originally from the UK and working in both Canada and the U.S., said his company is “targeting the early 2030s for the commercial operation of our reactors. Currently, we’re deep into the R&D phase, and have started physical test work to begin collecting the data for the licensing process and ensure our technology meets all safety and operational standards. The timeline includes rigorous testing and validation phases, which are critical to delivering a product that our customers can trust. Our goal is to have a fully functional product by the early 2030s.”

Walker said his company’s reactor will use high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU, see sidebar) as fuel, which offers a higher energy density compared to traditional nuclear fuels. “HALEU is particularly well-suited for SMRs due to its efficiency and the smaller volume of waste it produces. Additionally, the use of HALEU allows for longer intervals between refueling, which enhances the overall operational efficiency and lowers costs over the reactor’s lifespan,” Walker said.

Fueling the Growth of SMRs Several companies are working on the design and development of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). Part of that work involves the production of fuels necessary to operate those units.   One of the groups working in the fuels space is ASP Isotopes (ASPI), a company with its roots in South Africa’s uranium enrichment program in the 1980s. The group today works in the medical and semiconductor fields, and is involved in the development and production of advanced nuclear fuels.  Viktor Petkov, the company’s vice president of funding and business development, provided POWER with insight about his company’s operations and how ASPI works with SMR designers and developers. POWER: What current technology is your company working on with regard to supporting the market for SMRs? Petkov: ASP Isotopes (ASPI) is focusing on producing critical nuclear fuels necessary for the operation of small modular reactors. These include HALEU (High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium), Lithium-6 and Lithium-7, Chlorine-37, and Thorium Fluoride. Currently, there is no Western producer of HALEU, which poses a significant risk to the deployment and viability of SMRs. By developing a reliable supply chain for these fuels, ASPI aims to address this challenge and support the growth of SMR technology in the energy sector. POWER: Do you have a timeline for commercial operation of your technology? Petkov: Our technology is fully prepared for deployment, pending the necessary approvals to operate an isotope enrichment facility. We are targeting 2025/2026 for the production of Lithium-6 and Lithium-7. ASPI is actively engaged in discussions with multiple governments to secure authorization for the construction of a uranium enrichment plant, which will produce HALEU. Once the required permits are obtained, we anticipate that the facility could be operational within 12 to 18 months. POWER: What financial considerations must be accounted for prior to, and during, the development process?  Petkov: In nuclear fuel production, the key financial considerations revolve around capital expenditures for the procurement, manufacturing, and assembly of specialized equipment. At ASPI, we handle the in-house fabrication of certain components, such as separators, while sourcing other essential parts like compressors, heat exchangers, and valves from the broader market. Once operational, the primary ongoing costs include electricity, feedstock, labor, and facility rental. POWER: Is your company working with partners on development of your fuels for SMRs? Petkov: We are working in a close partnership with several SMR developers for establishing a reliable supply chain for the nuclear fuels of the future. ASPI will be capable of producing a range of fuels for use in SMRs and molten salt reactors such as HALEU, Lithium-6 and Lithium-7, Chlorine-37, and Thorium Fluoride. POWER: What do you see as the practical applications of the SMRs that will use your company’s fuels? Petkov: ASPI is collaborating with multiple SMR manufacturers, each offering reactors of varying sizes and generation capacities. Some of these reactors are designed to power large communities and contribute to the broader energy grid, while others are better suited for more specialized applications, such as data centers, factories, and other commercial and industrial facilities. We aim to build a reliable and cost-effective supply chain for the nuclear fuels essential to SMR manufacturers, positioning ourselves as an indispensable partner in their success. POWER: What safety features are you incorporating into your technology? Petkov: Our isotope enrichment technology is classified as dual-use, meaning it is subject to protection and oversight by the Non-Proliferation Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). We strictly adhere to the highest safety standards, and our facilities undergo regular inspections by the nuclear regulatory authorities to ensure full compliance. POWER: How will your company address environmental radiation and nuclear waste? Are there regulatory hurdles for your technology? Petkov: The use of our technology does not generate radiation or nuclear waste. In fact, we aim to repurpose nuclear waste, such as depleted uranium tails, as feedstock for the production of HALEU. We are currently awaiting government approval to establish a uranium enrichment facility at one of the selected sites we have identified. POWER: What is your opinion of the future market for SMRs? Petkov: We are confident that SMRs will play a pivotal role in the future energy landscape. SMRs have the potential to provide reliable, cost-effective, and low-carbon energy, making them essential for supporting the electricity grid as we transition toward a net-zero future. Their scalability and flexibility make them particularly well-suited for integrating into renewable energy systems, offering consistent power generation to complement intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar. Additionally, SMRs will be crucial in meeting the increasing energy demands of industries such as large data centers, especially with the growing needs of AI and quantum computing. These reactors can ensure these energy-intensive operations have a dependable and sustainable power supply.

NANO’s ZEUS reactor is designed to be incredibly compact, making it ideal for deployment in confined or remote locations, according to the company. Despite its small size, ZEUS and ODIN are engineered to deliver a generation capacity of up to 5 MWth, which is substantial for a micro modular reactor. “This makes it versatile enough to power small communities, industrial sites, or even support disaster recovery efforts,” the company said.

Walker told POWER, “The practical applications for our ODIN and ZEUS reactors are extensive. It’s designed to provide reliable, off-grid power for remote and island communities, military bases, and industrial operations such as mining and oil extraction.”

Putting SMRs at Palisades

Holtec International, involved in restarting the Palisades nuclear power station in Michigan, also is talking about putting SMRs at that site to provide even more energy. Dr. Kris Singh, Holtec’s CEO, said, “Siting the first two SMR-300 units at Palisades eliminates the delays associated with erecting the plant at an undeveloped property and confers the many benefits of synergy that accrue from the presence of a co-located operating plant—including shared infrastructure and operational expertise, enhancements to grid stability, and resource optimization. By building at our own site with our own credit and our own at-risk funds, we hope to deliver the dual-unit SMR-300 plant within schedule and budget—an outcome that has eluded our industry for a long time.”

9. Holtec International wants to put SMRs of the company’s design adjacent to the Palisades nuclear plant in Michigan. The company has said it could restart Palisades, which was closed in 2022, by the end of 2025. Courtesy: Holtec International

Holtec officials said the company’s SMR (Figure 9) has been in development since 2011. The company said, “The SMR-300 reactor is intended to be deployable in virtually any terrain, including those with significant seismic loadings. The plant is also readily adaptable for diverting all or some of its cycle steam for other purposes such as hydrogen production and industrial thermal needs.”

Holtec wants to restart the Palisades nuclear station by the end of next year. The company said it hopes to have the SMRs approved by regulators, built, and in commercial operation by 2030 or 2031. Holtec also is considering deployment of an SMR at its Oyster Creek site in New Jersey, where the company is decommissioning a nuclear power plant that closed in 2018. DOE officials have said SMRs at that site could support clean hydrogen generation as part of the Mid-Atlantic Clean Hydrogen Hub.

Steady Energy, a Finnish technology company, in October said its LDR-50 SMR can be operational within seven years, complete with all necessary permits, for under €100 million ($108 million). The company said its reactor could be used for district heating, and “is also suitable for producing industrial steam and desalinating seawater in regions affected by drought.” Steady Energy said it has letters of intent and preliminary investment agreements to build 15 to 20 reactors to provide district heating in Kuopio, Helsinki, and Kerava in Finland, and to sell reactors to Sweden.

The company, which plans to begin building a pilot plant in Finland in 2025, in October announced an agreement with Finnish utility Keravan Energia to develop nuclear-powered district heating. Steady Energy said construction of the SMR could begin as soon as 2029, with commercial operation beginning in 2032.

“Think of district heating as a large system of hot water pipes, where heat flows to radiators from a giant boiler, where the heat source now is biomass and peat. While green electricity is a good backup, we need more stable solutions to counter electricity price volatility. A dedicated nuclear heat source, like Steady Energy’s reactor, is a very viable option,” Keravan Energia CEO Jussi Lehto said.

Steady Energy said its LDR-50 is a 50-MW SMR, specifically designed to produce heat up to 150C (302F). “Heating water to 150 degrees accounts for 10% of global emissions. Our reactor focuses solely on this task, making it possibly the world’s simplest commercial nuclear reactor. This design ensures that SMR-produced heat is cost-competitive compared to other alternatives,” said Steady Energy CEO Tommi Nyman. Officials said the LDR-50 is the size of a standard shipping container and can be constructed underground.

‘Safe, Reliable, and Widely Accepted’

SMR developers know they must address the questions that always surround nuclear power, such as safety and cost. They say the pros outweigh any cons.

“Looking forward, the global market for SMRs is poised for significant growth,” said Young of Utilities Now. “The flexibility and reduced upfront capital costs of SMRs make them an attractive option for both developed and developing nations seeking to reduce carbon emissions and meet growing energy demands. In the U.S. and Canada, the focus remains on getting it right rather than getting there first. Companies are working closely with regulators to ensure that once SMRs are deployed, they will be safe, reliable, and widely accepted by the public. This cautious approach could pay off in the long run, as a well-regulated, safe, and efficient SMR technology might become the gold standard worldwide.”

Proponents of SMRs tout their safety features, while opponents argue any type of nuclear power is unsafe. It’s a debate that’s not likely to end soon, if ever, though SMR developers say their technology will prove its viability and be able to ease concerns.

“What makes these reactors safe is the advanced fuel development that prevents uranium in the fuel from reaching its melting point. [These] reactor types don’t have any design basis accident scenarios that can melt the fuel,” said Shoukas. “As such all the safety systems that are typically present on traditional reactors are not required. During events, these reactors don’t have any operator intervention for at least 72 hours because of the ability to passively cool themselves in the most extreme events.”

Those who spoke with POWER agreed it’s important for Western nations, including the U.S. and Canada, to have lead roles in SMR development. That’s of particular importance as rising demand for power, particularly emissions-free generation, puts a premium on clean energy.

Said Young, “The aggressive pace set by Russia and China cannot be ignored. These countries are likely to continue capitalizing on their head start, expanding their SMR fleets and possibly exporting their technology to other nations. This could create a competitive market where countries are faced with choosing between faster-to-deploy but potentially less-regulated technology from Russia and China or the more meticulously vetted SMRs from North America.”

Mike Naughton, CEO of Ohio-based energy broker Integrity Energy, said, “While I believe the adoption of SMRs will be a bit slow to start, the future of SMR applications is bright. A modern and reliable electrical grid needs distributed energy resources. Solar and wind power have been great for reducing our carbon footprint, however, SMR technology has the potential to create a carbon-neutral energy system.”

Naughton told POWER, “While the upfront investment is considerable, nuclear power is inexpensive for consumers and highly reliable. It’s an ideal complement to intermittent renewable power and can greatly improve energy access in remote or rural communities. It also offers a quicker path to addressing the growing energy demands from the tech industry. Ultimately, it will take public education and a final pivot in public opinion to foster greater SMR adoption.”

Said Shoukas: “As a constructor who has executed heavy industrial work across all major sectors, PCL is well-positioned to deliver energy transition projects. This includes projects where nuclear technology is leveraged for alternative uses such as hydrogen production and desalinization. There is a place for these technologies to provide clean, safe, reliable electricity to the industrial sector. There are no greenhouse gas emissions, making it one of the most cost-effective generation [types].”

—Darrell Proctor is a senior editor for POWER.