A lot of enthusiastic guff goes on about the joys of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors (SMRs). They don’t say much about the fuels that SMRs require. So – just for fun, let’s take a look at that. Let’s pretend, for the moment, that SMRs actually exist, and that they are privately funded, cheap, clean, safe, and welcomed by local communities. So – that’s all good.
Now – what about their fuel?
They don’t need as much, or perhaps ANY dirty uranium mining. Ain’t that great? Well some designs (eg, the Westinghouse evinci micro reactor) do use low-enriched uranium (LEU) which contains less than 20% of uranium-235 (U-235). Such LEU SMRs have a shorter expected life, and because of their graphite content have a high volume of wastes. So now the emphasis is on a new kind of fuel – high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU): 5–20% U-235 and/or plutonium.
For a non-physicist such as myself, trying to navigate the labyrinth of information on nuclear fuels is a daunting task. And I’m sure that the nuclear lobby intends to keep it that way. They’ve traded for decades on the principle that the great unwashed cannot and should not understand nuclear power, and that only nuclear physicists are qualified to have an opinion on this. (No wonder they vilified Dr Helen Caldicott, who described nuclear power as “an expensive way to boil water”).
What makes it all more complicated is the variety of SMR designs, and of the fuel types now being planned, generally to use the HALEU or mixed uranium-plutonium. This means that the SMR company has to get these advanced fuels from somewhere more special than the conventional uranium fuel train. But who supplies the world’s highly enriched uranium? Omigawd – it’s Russia! So that fact has caused a bit of a panic. The U.S, government’s Department of Energy has now selected 11 advanced reactor designs under its Reactor Pilot Program, most of them to. run on HALEU. As Peter McKillop of the Energy Mix says:
“… here lies the problem. By embracing HALEU, the DOE is effectively jump‑starting an international HALEU market and expanding the global circulation of material that can shorten the path to a bomb.”
The required plutonium has to come from recycling the spent nuclear fuel from large nuclear reactors. Of course the nuke lobby boasts that this solves the nuclear waste problem – what was previously called “trash” now becomes a “resource” and a nuclear waste solution. More about that later on.
The fuel needs of SMRs raise not only the weapons proliferation problem: they bring the risks of radiation-releasing accidents, theft, terrorism, and consequently the need for extra security and extra costs.
What about the radioactive wastes?
The nuclear lobby is rather coy on this subject. When their propagandists are talking to us, the great unwashed, they tell a comforting and optimistic story. You see, SMRs produce a very small volume of radioactive wastes, and even that can be recycled to be used again, leaving an even smaller volume. So SMRs are not only themselves clean, but they are a benefit to humanity, solving the existing nuclear waste problem.
SMR propagandists don’t bother our poor little heads with the technical details. That’s because the technical details tell quite a different story. Stanford-led research finds small modular reactors will exacerbate challengesof highly radioactive nuclear waste. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences “Our results show 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
SMRs will produce more voluminous and chemically/physically reactive waste than LWRs, which will impact options for the management and disposal of this waste. The very high toxicity of these wastes mean that the spent fuel pellets will require a larger area in deep disposal than those from conventional reactors. SMR waste streams will bear significant (radio)chemical differences from those of existing reactors. “Molten salt and sodium-cooled SMRs will use highly corrosive and pyrophoric fuels and coolants that, following irradiation, will become highly radioactive.”
No wonder the current push for SMRs does not emphasise that fraudulent story about wastes. For ordinary people it is probably the really ugliest and most off-putting aspect of any presentation of the wonders of small modular nuclear reactors.
Also by Noel
Crunch time for the nuclear lobby’s biggest lie (Small Modular Nuclear Reactors)?
The costs of nuclear wastes from “in service” nuclear submarines
Keep Independent Journalism Alive – Support The AIMN
Dear Reader,
Since 2013, The Australian Independent Media Network has been a fearless independent voice – holding power to account and delivering journalism that matters.
Running this site isn’t cheap. Rising costs mean we need your support now more than ever. Every donation, big or small, keeps our servers running, our writers working, and our stories free for everyone.
Donate here:
PayPal or credit card – just click on the Donate button below
Direct bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
We’ve also set up a GoFundMe as a dedicated reserve fund for hosting and future improvements.
Thank you for standing with us. We couldn’t do this without you.
With gratitude,
The AIMN Team
Thanks for that Noel.
A background reason for the nuclear option (but an important one) is that nuclear power take-up leaves governments and corporations in control of energy provision to consumers.
That power to control energy provision gives governments and corporations leverage in areas that on the surface appear totally disconnected to energy consumption.
But…but…P Duddy and his nookaleagh fizzyzicalist T “Flourman” O’Brien said that each SMR would only produce a single coke can size lump of waste per year? What do knowledgeable scientists know when compared to two such giant intellects.
Disposing of such a small amount of waste would only involve putting it into coke cans, sealing it in concrete, then throwing it overboard, while no-one is watching of course, into the the ocean outside the 12 nautical mile limit. Out of sight, out of mind.
Better still, tell Orange Man that it’s a really special created just for him diet cola and he’d slurp it down, burp, and ask for more. Just think of the glowing (literally) orange complexion it would create for him.
It’s going to be years, if not decades, of proving that SMR’s are a viable and safe alternative. So until such time my view is tell ’em to get stuffed about setting them up here.
Ah yes …..
Nuclear waste disposal – this is well worth a read.
Especially when we in Oz are having difficulty finding/creating suitable storage facilities for low level medical waste
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230613-onkalo-has-finland-found-the-answer-to-spent-nuclear-fuel-waste-by-burying-it
Why do you have scam adds on your news page?
The scam is for an AI investment scam
Hi, John.
We don’t put those ads those particular ads here – they are done by Google. I haven’t see the ad as most of the time every reader sees something different.
I can, however, go into Google’s vast database of ads and request that certain ads not be displayed on this site. If you see it again, note the company whose ad it is and let me know.
For a couple of weeks we were ad free while we trialled income alternatives. They failed miserably, so we’re back with the ads. However, we will continue to experiment with alternatives in the coming months.
It’s a dilemma for most independent sites:
Are ads annoying? YES.
Can we survive without them? NO.
HALEU: The Missing Line Item in Australia’s Nuclear Debate
Putting the proliferation and physics issues to one side, HALEU is also where the SMR cost story quietly blows up. Serious cost work by the US Nuclear Innovation Alliance puts baseline HALEU production costs at around 23,700–25,700 USD per kilogram of uranium at 19.75% enrichment, even before you add any geopolitical risk premia or supply disruptions. Roughly two‑thirds of that cost is driven by the existing LEU fuel cycle – mining, conversion, and enrichment – which has already seen sharp price rises since 2019; those higher feedstock and SWU prices alone add several thousand dollars per kilogram to HALEU compared with earlier estimates.
For Australia’s SMR advocates, this creates an awkward double bind. On the one hand, they want voters to believe in “cheap, reliable nuclear” without pricing in the capital and operating costs of dedicated HALEU enrichment, deconversion, security and waste systems in a non‑nuclear country. On the other hand, they almost never mention that Western HALEU production outside Russia is currently measured in single‑digit tonnes per year, while projected SMR fleets would demand approaching a hundred tonnes annually within a decade, and hundreds of tonnes by the late 2030s, with 3–5 year timelines just to build enrichment capacity and far longer to establish a complete, reliable supply chain in a country without existing fuel-cycle infrastructure. The result is a public conversation in which HALEU is presented as a technical detail, when in reality it is both the most sensitive proliferation choke‑point and one of the largest unpriced cost and timeline risks in the entire SMR narrative.
Two Paths from HALEU to a Weapon
Path 1: Re-enrichment to 90% weapons-grade
This is the straightforward route. The separative work required to push 19.75% HALEU up to 90% weapons-grade HEU is roughly 40% of the effort needed starting from standard reactor LEU (3–5%). The same gas centrifuge cascades used to make HALEU can be reconfigured to continue the enrichment. The IAEA classifies HEU (20%+) as “direct-use” material with a material conversion time of 1–3 months — meaning that is the estimated time to convert it into the metallic components of a nuclear explosive device.
Path 2: Direct use without further enrichment
This is the more contentious and alarming possibility. A 2024 analysis published in Science by Kemp, Lyman, Garwin, von Hippel and Deinert concluded that HALEU enriched above about 12% U-235 could be used directly to make a practical nuclear weapon with yields comparable to Hiroshima/Nagasaki — no further enrichment required. The bare critical mass for 19.75% HALEU is about 780 kg (vs. ~50–60 kg for 90% HEU), but with neutron reflectors and modern weapon design, that mass can be reduced to practical levels. Science magazine’s coverage of the paper included a pull-quote stating that possession of HALEU could place a state or terrorist group “only days away from a bomb.”
My thanks to those helpful commentators. Especially Sparty, who clearly knows this HALEU stuff much better than I do. (I write, as a peasant, for the peasantry) But we badly need the Spartys of this world, for the proper information that we must have..
Thanks uncletimrob. That interesting article is dated 2013, but is clearly up to date, quoting Sweden’s decision in 2022.
Unlike Sweden, Finland failed to be transparent on nuclear waste burial. Sweden’s decisions on nuclear waste have been reached in a much more democratic way than Finland’s. ”In Finland, the predominant tone of news items regarding the issue was more neutral and pro-technology, favouring politicians and the core actor groups of the nuclear waste regime, i.e. industry and authorities, as “speakers”.” There are disputes not only on the risks of copper corrosion in Finland’s waste disposal, but also on the space available that may be inadequate for Finland’s own needs, let alone anyone else’s.
Finally my hearty agreement with Michael Taylor. The more ads the merrier – it is evidence that a website is not funded by biased corporate interests.Corporate -backed websites can be marvellously ad-free (Try World Nuclear News – clean as a whistle from ads)
Steve, I laughed at your mention of governments wanting to control electricity production. While I agree with your point, its hilarious to think of govts who sold off electricity generation in the great privatisation push, now salivating over the prospect of a second round of govt sell off. This time by privatisation they can also pass the buck on disposing of contaminated waste. If I didn’t laugh, I would cry.
The anti-AUKUS subs military pundits have been trashing the use of the US Virginia class & proposed AUKUS class subs along a line:
That their HEU sealed reactors, which equate to the sub life, pose huge problems in both insertion of a whole hull section (containing the sealed reactor) and the same for end-of-life removal. Then the entirety of that hull section (and rector) need to be transported to a repository and stored safely / inspected /monitored for 1000+ years (involving the IAEA)
That such process requires a massive rebuilding & expansion of the Osborne shipyard infrastructure & personnel to cope with such massive hull section load handling, & safe transport, ultra-high-level security of the entire facility and all personnel. An upgrade that would take at least a decade or more.
Whereas, they suggest that the French Suffren-class LEU sub is smaller (more suited to Oz needs), and does not require the above type of upgrade / expansion of Osborne shipyard. Because it can be refueled through appetures in the hull, and the reactor removed through a hatch without destroying the hull integrity. Nor would it involve the IAEA or all the massive ultra-high-security as necessary for the AUKUS-type HEU systems.
Noel’s article and the subsequent comments appear to dispel any cold comfort that the Suffren-class LEU subs might have given.
Oz can’t even settle of disposal of nuclear medicine waste. Anything nuclear (fission) to do with war/defense or power generation appears all no good, and ought be ditched from the global mindset. It seems to me to be mostly driven by ‘flat-earth’ ultra-competitive mercantile interests in old dangerous tech by individual states and their corporations.
In the alternative, much more globally exciting projects requiring global cooperation and investment since mid-1980s can be found in safe nuclear (contained plasma) fusion projects such as ITER (West) in France at a comparative paltry* budget of ~€65 billion, with contributing membership of EU 45.6%, and China, Russia, India, USA, Japan and South Korea each at 9.1%. Non-member technical contribution agreements are also held with Australia, Kazakhstan, Canada and Thailand. Check out the ITER website.
The reason I say ‘paltry’ is by comparison, other committed but likely less important large projects include the F-35 Fighter Jet Program ($1.5 trillion), the Manhattan Project ($30.6 billion), the Apollo program ($156 billion), the James Webb Space Telescope ($9.8 billion), SpaceX ($85 billion), and AI investment at 2024 ($252 billion with a growth rate of 44% since).
It behoves me to contemplate that all the fear and dread mongering of the ‘West’, is driven by capture-capitalism and brutal coercive mercantilism driven by their old elites, and substantially hijacked by the modern hegemon USA. The USA’s depletive m.o. preying on its own citizens and the rest of the world via religious-myth-supremacist based neo-conservative neoliberalism and its Military Industrial Complex (and its invisible tax-avoiding investors). It can easily be seen as being the root cause of war-prep and arms escalation across the world.
Although it has unlikely arrived at its nadir or zenith, nowhere has this depletive suicide mission become more stark than in the USA’s Trumpian regime (egged on by the psychopath Netanyahu), and of late its adventures in the Caribbean, Venezuela and the Persian Gulf.
Less (fission) nukes and ballistics please.
Thanks for that,
depressed but enlightened.
Dr JiMM