Modular reactors: The new face of nuclear energy?

LAST week, Energy Secretary Raphael Lotilla and US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken signed an agreement that paves the way for adding nuclear power to the Philippines’ energy mix.

At the core of the “123 Agreement” is the building of small modular reactors, or SMRs, which are compact nuclear plants that are seen as a safer and more cost-effective alternative to traditional nuclear facilities.

Interest in SMRs has grown worldwide, and the US has signed agreements with Russia, China, Canada, South Korea, the United Kingdom, Japan and several other countries to provide them with SMR technology.

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has hailed the signing of the 123 Agreement as “another milestone towards a more energy-secure and green Philippines.”

In 1976, construction began on the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, which was designed to generate 620 megawatts, almost half of the Luzon grid’s capacity at the time.

By 1984, the plant was almost complete. Safety issues, however, prevented it from being switched on.

The plant was mothballed after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, and its fate was finally sealed after radioactive materials leaked from the tsunami-disabled nuclear complex in Fukushima, Japan, in 2011.

The Fukushima disaster accelerated the transition of nuclear plants from boon to bane. In 2015, nuclear energy supplied only 10.8 percent of global electricity needs, down from a record high of 17.6 percent in 1996, according to one study.

Germany shut down its nuclear industry, while several other European countries decided not to replace existing reactors or build new ones.

The Fukushima plant meltdown also shifted attention to SMRs.

An SMR can turn out up to 300 megawatts, or about a third of the generating capacity of a full-sized nuclear plant. It works best as a power source for communities that are too remote to be connected to a grid.

Because it is modular, an SMR’s systems and components can be assembled in a factory and shipped to the site for installation.

Its proponents say SMRs cost far less to build and maintain than large power reactors.

SMR companies claim that modular reactors can run for three to seven years before they require refueling, compared to between one and two years for conventional plants.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also says that SMRs can produce low-carbon electricity at about a third of the generating capacity of traditional nuclear facilities.

In the Philippines, SMRs gained little attention until last January, when the Department of Energy said it would study the feasibility of installing modular plants.

The country has long been trying to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels and shifting to green energy. Its current energy mix is 30.2 percent coal, 35.5 percent renewables, 28 percent oil-based sources and 6 percent natural gas. President Marcos Jr. wants nuclear energy to become a part of the mix by 2032.

‘Expensive, risky, uncertain’

Not everyone is enthusiastic about SMRs. A $7.5-million project by a US-based company to set up modular reactors in the Philippines was disparaged as “too expensive, too risky and too uncertain.”

Critics also cited 2020 findings that “most small modular reactor designs will actually increase the volume of nuclear waste in need of management and disposal, by factors of 2 to 30.”

The Nuclear and Coal-Free Bataan Movement (NCFBM) warned that the country might be used as a guinea pig by SMR companies “because there are no existing examples operating these.”

Despite the indictments, the Marcos Jr. administration is upbeat on the 123 Agreement. The President is convinced the pact will enable the country to meet its growing energy demands and lead to a “more investor- and consumer-friendly environment.”

The opportunities offered by the agreement are too good to pass up. But the government must be careful not to be swept up in a wave of enthusiasm.

Big-ticket projects require full diligence and comprehensive evaluation. SMRs are no exception.