Blog For Iowa

A joke is circulating on the internet that SMR stands for Spending Money Recklessly. It isn’t funny because it is true, even if big money investors have a plan to recoup their investment in Small Modular Reactors with interest. Regular folks like me don’t want new nuclear power when renewable projects that include solar and wind power generation can meet much of our needs.

Here’s the rub with my way of thinking: renewables are clean, cheap, and safe for the first 70-80 percent of meeting our electricity needs. Something needs to fill the gap so the grid can reliably deliver exactly the amount of electricity customers use. What fills that gap? Nuclear energy is a candidate for that, yet it is beset with problems, especially in the United States, like some I mentioned last week.

In her new book, Clearing the Air: A Hopeful Guide to Solving Climate Change in 50 Questions and Answers, author Hannah Ritchie has four on nuclear power:

1. Q: Isn’t nuclear power dangerous? A: Nuclear power is not risk-free, but it’s one of the safest energy sources we have.
2. Q: Doesn’t it take too long to build a nuclear plant? A: Nuclear plant in the West often have long delays., but some countries can build plants in six to eight years.
3. Q: Isn’t nuclear power too expensive? A: Nuclear power is expensive, especially in the U.S. and Europe, but some countries are building it much cheaper.
4. Q: What about radioactive waste? A: We know how to handle radioactive waste safely in deep geological sites, but countries need to prove it.

Ritchie points out there is almost no case for fossil fuels to fill the mentioned 20-30 percent gap in our electricity needs going forward because they are unsafe compared to other forms of electricity generation. When we recognize all their external costs, they are too expensive.

SMR stands for Small Modular Reactor. These nuclear reactors are designed to be factory-built and transported to the installation site as modules, allowing for streamlined construction, scalability, and potential integration into multi-unit configurations, according to Wikipedia.

According to Ritchie, one of the problems of U.S. construction of nuclear power plants is there are not enough experienced workers. We need to build a good number (maybe 10-12) of identical nuclear power plants to train workers in these jobs. Changing government regulations regarding nuclear power have created an environment where each plant is different and that variation is part of the reason construction is delayed. Controlling the design characteristics of Small Modular Reactors by building them in a factory could possibly address the worker issue by standardizing non-site specific differences between nuclear power plants.

As I write this, Eastern Iowa does not have a confirmed commercial SMR project, nor does anyone in the country. There is talk about installing one or more at the Duane Arnold Energy Center in Palo. By “talk” I mean there is policy activity in the Linn County Board of Supervisors, and discussion of existing infrastructure to handle nuclear materials at Palo. Last month, in both the Iowa Senate and House, legislation (HSB 767/SSB 3181) moved to provide sales and use tax exemptions for nuclear energy projects. If enacted into law, it would encourage development of nuclear power projects in Iowa. So far, Iowa is at jump street regarding new nuclear power.

The idea of implementing new SMRs in an environment where there are zero of them in commercial operation in the U.S., seems a bit unlikely. It would be if I were the investor. The role of the federal government is critical in advancing this form of electricity generation.

There is also the legacy to deal with. While nuclear power is safer, by orders of magnitude, than fossil fuel electricity generation, when a problem happens as it did in Fukushima, Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island, it receives global attention. There are other, real-world issues.

Any discussion of nuclear power in the U.S. carries the weight of our earlier nuclear history. Civilian nuclear reactors are distinct from weapons programs, but they share regulations, institutions, supply chains, and a legacy of radiation policy shaped during the Cold War. Uranium mining for both weapons and fuel exposed workers and nearby communities. Atmospheric testing at the Nevada Test Site spread fallout across the country, including in Iowa, and as far away as Rochester, New York, where radioactivity ruined film being produced by Kodak. These experiences led to compensation programs and continue to influence public trust, particularly when new projects or waste sites are proposed. The relevance is not technological equivalence between power generation and weaponry, but the role that historical exposure plays in how communities assess risk today.

One might ask, isn’t the president eliminating regulations to enable the nuclear power industry? Yes and no. While the administration shifted policy direction toward evaluating nuclear reactor proposals more quickly, reducing the regulatory burden, and treating nuclear power as a strategic national priority, it does not mean there are no regulations at all. In fact, the changing regulatory environment is one reason why it takes much longer to build a new nuclear power plant here than in other countries. Every regulation change demands design changes for accommodation. One expects post-Trump administrations to make more regulatory changes.

Small Modular Reactors are no silver bullet, although no form of electricity generation is without issues. Whether SMRs move from planning to commercial use is an open question in 2026.