At a recent hearing in Tallahassee, Florida, I testified on the advantages and promise of advanced nuclear technologies, as well as the policies needed to reduce costs and bring small modular reactors online more efficiently. The most critical point, however, is to protect the consumers. Policymakers at all levels should prioritize the consumer and seek to ensure grid reliability at the lowest possible cost. Regarding advanced nuclear, the following is a Q&A of noteworthy topics covered during the hearing. 

What are the advantages of small modular reactors? 

A wide variety of small modular reactor (SMR) technologies have emerged in recent years. The International Atomic Energy Agency reports that there are 80 SMR designs and concepts worldwide. These reactors differ in design and size, ranging from 1-megawatt microreactors to 300-megawatt models. Many of these reactors can be mass-produced in factories, similar to automobiles, rather than built on site, which could reduce cost overruns and delays. Like their large, light-water counterparts, SMRs are clean, safe, and provide reliable power. They feature passive safety systems, meaning they “don’t require any safety-related electric pumps or operator intervention to safely shut down.” 

SMRs are less costly upfront and offer greater mobility and versatility. They can be deployed in remote areas and customized for specific uses, such as powering a defense base or serving industrial and energy-intensive industries, including those involved in refining or powering data centers. For example, X-Energy’s Xe-100 reactor has a base capacity of 80 MWe but can be configured into a “four-pack” system to produce up to 320 MWe, with the option for further expansion thanks to its modular design. Amazon has committed to developing a four-unit, 320-megawatt project with regional utility Energy Northwest in central Washington, with the potential to expand the project to 12 units, totaling 960 megawatts.

What about the land and water usage? 

Most SMRs can be built on 15 to 30 acres of land, while most microreactors can be constructed on less than an acre. Additionally, many SMRs use less water per kilowatt-hour than larger reactors. One reason is that several SMR technologies do not use water as a coolant but instead utilize molten salt, liquid metals, high-temperature gas, or condensed air. Another reason is that they operate at higher temperature levels, producing more kilowatt-hours per BTU of heat. If the reactor is used for an industrial purpose, then less water will be necessary to condense the steam back into water.  In fact, one of the industrial heat purposes could be to power a desalination project, which would make even more water available. Other sources of water could include recycled water, such as Arizona’s Palo Verde station, which uses recycled sewage water. 

Do we have a solution for the spent fuel? 

Because nuclear fuel is incredibly dense, the entire amount of spent fuel produced by the nuclear industry for the last 60-plus years could be buried on a single football field at a depth of less than 10 yards. The spent fuel streams produced by SMRs would differ by technology.  Currently, spent fuel sits in interim storage. The storage casks that house spent fuel are designed to withstand natural disasters, train derailments, and even impact from airplanes. That fuel contains much of its energy and can be recycled or used by advanced reactor technologies. SMR technologies would likely utilize similar storage casks, but it is noteworthy that some companies could run off the spent fuel. 

The problem isn’t spent fuel but the federal government’s poor management of it. According to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, the federal government was supposed to handle spent fuel and create long-term storage sites, but it has failed to meet this obligation. As a result, it pays power plant operators to store spent fuel on-site. Taxpayers are paying $2 million each day, totaling nearly $9 billion since 1998. Without action, this amount could reach about $30 billion by 2030. Congress needs to find ways to introduce private sector management and price signals into spent fuel operations and disposal. While the federal government may be the entity that takes long-term ownership of spent fuel (as it is the entity that can take the longest-term view), the industry has proven very capable of efficiently and safely operating power plants. International models, such as Finland’s, empower the industry to manage and pay for long-term nuclear waste storage – with buy-in and support from the community. 

What can states do to embrace nuclear energy? 

Much of the licensing, permitting, and regulation of nuclear energy falls under the federal government’s authority, and several reforms are needed to adjust those regulations and processes appropriately. As the Institute for Progress has documented, construction costs for nuclear in the U.S. have increased, and added burdensome regulation (offering little or no benefit) plays a major role. Federal reforms that remain technology-neutral could help reduce construction costs and bring reactors online more quickly.  However, states should pursue several actions that open opportunities for advanced reactors to compete in the market. They include: 

• Lift moratoriums and restrictions on nuclear build. Twelve states have restrictions on the construction of new nuclear generation. Productively, several states have enacted reforms to lift bans and allow for SMRs to be built. States should lift all moratoriums, including for larger reactors, and let them compete for customers. The model legislation, the Overturn Prohibitions and Establish a Nuclear Coordinator (OPEN) Act, would accomplish this objective. 
• Be a proactive partner with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).  States have access to key datasets and information that are critical to the environmental review and permitting process. This could include everything from studies and data on seismology, regional climates, hydrology, and sea-level rise. The Breakthrough Institute recently a Guide to NRC Application Data Requirements for State Implementers that would help states be ready and willing partners with the NRC. Furthermore, the OPEN Act’s promotion of a state nuclear coordinator and provisions for timely and concurrent reviews would enhance efficiency and prevent duplication. 
• Enable consumer-regulated electricity. Pioneered by Glen Lyons and Travis Fisher, consumer-regulated electricity would allow private grids to develop between generators and consumers. If speed to power is the biggest concern for hyperscalers, this model would let consumers pay only for the power they need, which could include financing and developing SMRs. The energy sources would still adhere to strict environmental and safety standards but operate outside of public utility regulation. As Fisher explains, “For state policymakers, private grids are a no-cost economic development plan. Rather than incentivizing new industries to locate in the state through tax credits or other subsidies, just getting out of the way of new developments would be a pro-growth policy. And if a new development fails, so be it—there’s no risk to taxpayers or ratepayers, unlike with projects built by regulated utilities.” Another model bill, the Act to Allow for Consumer Regulated Electric Utilities, would accomplish this objective. 
• Build capacity for in-house expertise in state licensing and permitting when the opportunity arises. States already have the authority to regulate certain nuclear materials under the Agreement State Program in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. They can demonstrate to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that they possess the necessary expertise to oversee activities such as construction, operation, and fuel cycle facilities. This would incentivize states to develop regulatory programs that enable the timely construction of reactors while allowing the NRC to concentrate on its core tasks, including relicensing and restarting nuclear power plants within its existing fleet. A current lawsuit brought by Last Energy and several states could pave the way for states to develop the regulatory capacity to license SMRs. 

As interest in advanced reactor technologies grows, state legislatures are asking the right questions. Knowledge sharing and community engagement will help ensure that nuclear energy can be a safe, clean, and abundant energy source. With the right policy reforms, nuclear can be an integral part of a diversified, cost-competitive fuel mix that benefits consumers and the environment alike. 

The views and opinions expressed are those of the author’s and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of C3.