The US, Russia and China are competing to monopolize new wave nuclear energy and gain global influence

There is no mystery behind why the US wants to enter the market. It has already lost out to China in the wind and solar energy race, which now supplies most of the world’s solar panels and wind turbines. The big problem is that the United States has not been able to successfully operate SMRs commercially on land.

SMRs are a potentially huge global market that could bring money and jobs to the United States. The United States is selling entire reactor fleets to countries rather than custom-built, large-scale power plants that are notorious for over-budget and over-delivery.

SMRs deliver less energy (typically one-third as much as traditional plants), require less space, and can be built in more locations. These are made up of small parts that can be easily shipped and assembled on site, like flat packs in nuclear power plants.

Most countries are rapidly decarbonizing their energy systems to address the climate crisis. Wind and solar currently provide at least 12% of the world’s electricity, and in some regions, such as the European Union, more than fossil fuels. But as extreme weather events wreak havoc on the planet and renewable energy challenges remain, there is a growing sense of urgency to clean up our energy systems.

Some experts believe that nuclear power in all its forms, large and small, will play an important role in that transition.The International Energy Agency has outlined what many experts say is the world’s most realistic decarbonization plan, calling for more than doubling nuclear energy. By 2050.

“There’s definitely a massive race going on,” said Josh Fried, director of the climate and energy program at think tank Third Way. “China and Russia have more agreements to build all kinds of nuclear reactors overseas than the U.S. does. That’s where the U.S. needs to catch up.”

The United States is trying to sell SMR technology to countries that have never used nuclear power in their history. To convince them that SMR is a good option, you need to sell them hard on safety.

According to data from the Global Nuclear Industry Status Report, construction of conventional nuclear power plants declined after the Chernobyl core meltdown in 1986. After Japan’s Fukushima disaster in 2011, it declined again, driven mainly by a large number of new projects in China.

Over the past decade, most countries around the world have been indifferent toward nuclear power.

But the IEA says a nuclear renaissance is upon us. The group predicts that global nuclear power generation will reach a record high in 2025. That’s because several conventional nuclear power plants in Japan that were shut down after the Fukushima disaster will soon restart, and new reactors in China, India, South Korea and Europe will come online. Start operation.

Decades of concerns about the safety of nuclear power appear to be beginning to fade, and people, or at least governments, are weighing the benefits and risks, including the issue of storing radioactive waste that could remain dangerous for thousands of years. . . This could create a more welcoming market for countries considering exporting SMRs.

If SMR contributes to the widespread use of nuclear power, it could become a powerful tool to combat climate change. In general, nuclear power does not emit global warming carbon pollution when used, and it produces more energy per square meter of land use. Any fossil fuel or renewable energy, according to analysis by Our World in Data.

At the COP28 climate change talks held in Dubai in December, the United States led a commitment to triple the world’s nuclear energy capacity, which 25 countries have now signed. And the U.S. government has earmarked $72 million for the international SMR program, known as FIRST, to provide countries with a suite of tools, from workshops to engineering to feasibility studies, needed to purchase domestically produced SMR fleets. It offers everything. America.

But larger funds are flowing in from state-run financial institutions such as the U.S. Export-Import Bank and the International Development Finance Corporation, in the form of loans offering $3 billion and $1 billion, respectively. These were sent to two SMRs in Poland designed by GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, a Japanese-American partnership headquartered in North Carolina.

The United States and its companies also have success in Southeast Asia, where many countries are trying to loosen ties with China, and in Central and Eastern Europe, where some countries dependent on Russian gas are trying to reduce their dependence. It is contained. President Vladimir Putin’s increasingly hostile state.

Such efforts could threaten Russia’s ambitions abroad. Russia is already building or designing conventional nuclear power plants for China, India, Bangladesh, Turkey, Slovakia, Egypt, and Iran. Russia is also courting countries with Siberia’s Akademik Lomonosov. The CEO of Russia’s state-owned nuclear company said last year that dozens of countries had expressed interest in Russian-made floating SMRs.

Russia has another advantage. The state-run nuclear company supplies nearly all of the world’s demand for SMR fuel (enriched uranium, known as HALEU).

However, countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom are investing in producing their own fuel. This is essential. Two of his SMR demonstration projects, his X-energy company in Washington and Bill Gates’ TerraPower company in Wyoming, have received government support to be operational by 2028. For that, we need fuel.

Although China has not built many nuclear power plants overseas, as the only country operating SMRs on land, it is well positioned to capture a large share of the market.

It’s very difficult for U.S. nuclear energy companies to compete with companies in countries like Russia and China, which have state-owned power companies that don’t have to prove their electricity is economical.

“Our nuclear vendors are competing with cheap natural gas in the United States,” said Kirsten Cutler, senior strategist for nuclear innovation at the U.S. Department of State. “Overseas, they’re competing with authoritarian-backed organizations that put in a lot of political pressure and package deals.”

But Cutler points out that the nuclear deal requires the creation of decades-long relationships with other countries and the benefits of trust and stability.

“Who are you going to build that relationship with? Countries recognize the risks of cooperating with authoritarian-backed suppliers and seek partners who will strengthen their independence and energy security.” Cutler said. “These are not easy decisions. These are very important decisions that span 50 to 100 years and are calling for America.”

If the U.S. is trying to prove it can make SMR a reality, it is not unreasonable to expect the technology to be economically viable, but the U.S. has struggled to demonstrate that.

In 2020, Oregon-based NuScale’s SMR design became the first in the country to win regulatory approval. But in November 2023, the company announced it was canceling an Idaho-based demonstration project that could lead to the next wave of SMRs. Costs have nearly doubled and power prices have soared to the point where the company can no longer sell it.

As with large nuclear power plants, NuScale’s main problem was high cost. Already expensive building materials combined with tight supply chains, inflation, and high interest rates.

This was a major blow to the argument that SMRs are cheaper and faster to build than conventional reactors.

“It certainly dampens the excitement overseas,” said John Parsons, a senior lecturer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a financial economist who specializes in nuclear energy. “Whether or not the U.S. does that will make a big difference in marketing. It will then make it easier for people interested in nuclear power to litigate in their own countries.”

NuScale did not respond to requests for an interview from CNN. In a statement in November, the company expressed confidence that it could maintain its strength at home and abroad and find other customers.

In order to win this competition, the United States is also trying to make efforts in the world of diplomacy.

US climate envoy John Kerry was one of the most vocal supporters of nuclear energy at the COP28 climate change summit. And it is the only foreign country to have lobbied the European Union to include nuclear power on its official list of energy sources it deems “green” and therefore eligible for central funding, according to an analysis by climate consultancy Influence Maps. It was the United States. Asked to confirm the lobbying activity, the State Department said it does not comment on diplomatic activity.

The U.S. nuclear industry is struggling with budgets and schedules, but a rigorous approach to projects could yield some benefits.

Third Way’s Fried said European allies, for example, trust the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, especially when it comes to safety standards. If the SMR is cleared by the NRC and manufactured in the U.S., it “gets the gold stamp” of approval from other countries, he added.

But if the United States really wants to make SMR nuclear energy more economically viable, it will need to rethink fossil fuel production.

“The goal here is to produce electricity more cheaply than coal or gas power plants,” Parsons said. These fossil fuel plants are “very simple and cheap to operate. They’re just dirty,” he added.

Even though the U.S. SMR industry has the potential to grow dramatically, it will still take several years to scale. Mohamed Hamdawi, vice president of renewable energy and power at research firm Rystad Energy, said it will probably take until the end of the decade to see if that is possible.

And that’s the problem. The scientific consensus is that the world needs to make significant and sustained cuts in carbon pollution over the next decade to prevent catastrophic climate change.

“I don’t think it’s going to be a big player in the energy mix until the second half of the next decade,” Hamdawi said. “It will take time.”