So Called Small Modular Reactors Would Be Nuclear Nightmares

Note they took the word "Nuclear" out rather like the Geological Disposal Facility, lets not scare the horses!

Civil Nuclear Police - Heysham Nuclear in Lancashire

There was an excellent letter in the Westmorland Gazette this week, a newspaper covering the South Cumbria area.

The letter from Philip Gilligan of South Lakeland and Lancaster District CND points out that the so called Small Modular Reactors would produce nuclear waste. This is true and bad enough but only tells part of the story. The waste from these new reactors would be far more dangerous than from existing reactors. Stanford-led research found that small modular reactors would exacerbate challenges of highly radioactive nuclear waste “We found that small modular reactors will generate at least nine times more neutron-activated steel than conventional power plants. These radioactive materials have to be carefully managed prior to disposal, which will be expensive.”

The study also found that the spent nuclear fuel from small modular reactors will be discharged in greater volumes per unit energy extracted and can be far more complex than the spent fuel discharged from existing power plants. Along with the increased radioactive wastes each site would require the presence of armed police from the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. As Noel Wauchope writes on the Australian Independent Media Network …

‘New Civil Engineer brought up a few points that have escaped notice, following the publication of the draft National Policy Statement for nuclear energy generation (EN-7) They note that; “Despite EN-7 being 64 pages, just two lines are dedicated to specifically addressing the security of SMRs.”

The new regulations for SMRs would allow for many new nuclear sites near communities.

For large nuclear power sites, security is funded by the developers themselves. For SMRs, the security needs would be provided by the Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) and also by local police. But these bodies are not under the direction of the ONR or the DESNZ. The writer quotes a policing expert, John McNeill:

“Not even [the government] can direct them.

Policing of airports and football grounds, even schools and educational campuses, shows how hard this will be to fund fairly.”

The expansion of AI and data centres add another complexity to the question of the amount of security needed, and of who pays for it. The proliferation of nuclear sites, closer to populated areas also means the increase in transport of radioactive materials – again bringing the risks of accidents, theft, and terrorism. And again, bringing the need for more security measures.”

So there we have it so called Small Modular Reactors would bring BIGGER and much more complex radioactive waste problems along with armed police who are not answerable to the laws of the land, with a range up to 5 kilometres from the nuclear sites.

Here is Philip Gilligans letter in the Westmorland Gazette this week…

Advocates of ongoing dependence on nuclear power seem very keen to emphasise the word SMALL when promoting proposals to build 'Small Modular Reactors' at sites like Heysham. They seem remarkably less keen to emphasise either the word MODULAR or the word REACTOR.

In doing so, they are, perhaps, hoping that we might not notice the obvious elephants in the room.

Yes, SMRs are smaller than existing nuclear power stations, but these unproven so-called 'mini reactors' inevitably produce proportionately smaller amounts of electricity. Hence, any decisions to site them in places like Heysham are very likely to involve not just one, but several reactors.

And, just like existing reactors they will still produce large amounts of dangerous nuclear waste.

One SMR may be a quarter the size of an existing nuclear power station but it would take four of them to produce similar amounts of electricity. As a result, both the immediate and the long-term risks would remain very much the same.

Our sustainable future needs to be built on renewables, not on nuclear reactors, whatever their size.

Philip Gilligan on behalf of South Lakeland and Lancaster District CND