FAQs

Last updated 9 August 2024

Who wrote the report?

ATSE is a learned Academy which counts over 900 of Australia’s leading engineers and applied scientists as its Fellows. This includes specialists in nuclear engineering and energy infrastructure.

This report was developed by a working group of Fellows who were asked to investigate SMRs explaining macro technological developments, licencing and release timescales, risks and opportunities; all framed within the Australian context.

The scope-of-work required ATSE Fellows with demonstrated analytical skills in technical-industry structure, market and Australian regulatory knowledge.

The group of ATSE reviewers included a wide range of experts from across academia and industry, with decades of experience in this space.

How long has this report been in development and what was the process leading to its publication?

ATSE has been working on a technical explainer on Small Modular Reactor technology since November 2023. Information, progress reports and updates were provided to ATSE Fellows using our Assembly, Policy Steering Group and Newsletter mechanisms.

The working group provided an interim report to ATSE’s Policy Steering Group in March 2024. A summary version of the report was fully drafted in June 2024 and a group of Fellow reviewers with energy and related domain expertise was convened. Their comments informed the final version of the summary report, publicly released in July 2024.

Some media outlets have reported that it will be possible for Australia to procure SMRs in the 2030s. Is this correct?

Based on developer announcements and regulatory processes, it is possible that several prototype SMRs may be licenced, commissioned and built in OECD countries by the mid-2030s. Commercial releases could commence by the late 2030s to mid-2040s, with a mature market likely emerging during the mid to late 2040s, depending on regulatory approvals and investment and resource allocation.

If Australia pursues nuclear technology, the least risky option would be to procure SMRs once several designs have been established and operated in other OECD countries. The technology remains unproven, with no SMRs operational in an OECD country. If Australia chose to pursue SMRs before a global market for SMRs emerges, the financial and technical risk would be significant.

A mature, well-functioning SMR market would:

• Have transitioned from full-scale prototypes to ongoing commercial SMRs delivered using well-established manufacturing facilities and robust supply chains.
• Offer a choice of SMR systems from various established and successful vendors.
• Provide transparent and proven capital and operating costs from multiple operating vendors and sites.
• Demonstrate the operational safety and environmental performance of SMRs in line with Australian society’s expectations.
• Require a suitably scaled nuclear-power qualified skills base.

Currently, none of these conditions exists in Australia.

Are nuclear submarines powered by Small Modular Reactors?

Yes, nuclear submarines are powered by a form of Small Modular Reactor. However,  it is unclear if they adhere to all the SMR definitions set out in page 5 of the ATSE report. 

The World Nuclear Association listing of SMRs in “near term deployment – development well advanced” does not list any OECD military reactor designs.

Nuclear submarine reactors which are being delivered as part of AUKUS use a highly enriched Uranium fuel that differs from commercial reactor systems.

A more detailed review of both nuclear submarine and other marine reactor systems can be found in this article from the World Nuclear Association: Nuclear Powered Ships.

Why were the Rolls-Royce SMR and Westinghouse AP-300 SMR not included in the report?

The Rolls-Royce and Westinghouse SMR designs are not in our analysis because they're not judged to be in late stage or near deployment by the World Nuclear Association, the leading body representing the promotion interests of the industry.

Currently, the Rolls-Royce and Westinghouse designs are judged by the World Nuclear Association to be at earlier stages of development.

Westinghouse is currently engaged in a pre-application process with the USA Nuclear Regulatory Commission regarding a design certification process for their new AP300 design.

Earlier this year, the Polish government reportedly approved a “decision-in-principle” to build a Rolls-Royce SMR, but no build date or criteria are specified. Licensing and review through the appropriate regulator would still be needed.

Why isn’t the approved NuScale 55MWe SMR included in the report?

The NuScale 77MWe reactor is included in the report (see page 7). This design is currently under review in the USA with their Nuclear Regulatory Commission, with a target completion date of August 2025.

In 2022, NuScale received a licence for a smaller 55MWe reactor which has since been removed from the market and is no longer in development. That approval covered the reactor power unit only, not the full building to house it. This is noted on page 6 of the report: “OECD-developed SMR designs have yet to be licensed for construction by relevant OECD country regulators, noting that an early iteration 55 MWe VOYGR reactor by the company NuScale was licensed in 2022 in the United States. This licence was cancelled by NuScale in 2023 as it has chosen to pursue a larger reactor size.” 

Why does the report only focus on OECD countries?

ATSE focused on designs for SMRs from the OECD and classified by the World Nuclear Association as in late stage or near deployment, as these are the only ones for which reliable public information could be found and which could realistically be acquired for construction in Australia.

ATSE is aware of SMRs in use in Russia and China. Neither country is a member of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency which facilitates international cooperation and coordination, including shared standards. 

As far as we can tell, the Chinese SMRs are not intended for commercial production or available for Australia as a potential technology. Similarly, the two SMRs in Russia are not commercially available and appear to be limited to very specific use cases.

Moreover, countries outside the OECD will not necessarily use the shared standards coordinated by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, limiting opportunities for their commercialisation. Other OECD countries are the most comparable global economies to Australia, with similarities in governance and legislative systems, as well as existing advanced technological and industrial relationships.

Was this report funded?

No, this report was undertaken using the existing resources of ATSE utilising the volunteer expertise of our Fellows, with the support of our Secretariat staff.  This report was not commissioned or funded by an external organisation.

Why doesn’t this report consider the findings of the University of Queensland report ‘What would be required for nuclear energy plants to be operating in Australia from the 2030s’?

ATSE notes the relevance of the 2021 report by Stephen Wilson for the University of Queensland (UQ). The UQ report was reviewed by the authors and deemed to be outside the current report’s scope of work, as it is not SMR focused. The two examples of SMRs cited in the UQ report (NuScale and BWRX-300) are considered in the ATSE report.

What does this report say about wind power?

ATSE is aware of comments in the media that the report shows that wind power is not reliable. This is not an accurate statement about the report. The report’s discussion of wind power is limited to:

• Comparisons between wind and nuclear power for the following aspects: lifetime carbon emissions, land footprint, and electrical output.
• A note that nuclear energy has characteristics that are complementary to those of wind (and solar).
• A note that the affordability of nuclear power from SMRs would need to be explored with comparison to wind and other sources.

Why doesn’t this report discuss baseload power?

The report notes that SMRs could contribute to Australia’s baseload power in the future. However, as the report states, how SMRs could fit into the power grid is out of scope for this report.

Why does this report discuss ‘prototypes 'instead of 'first-of-a-kind'?

As noted in the report, we have referred to ‘first-of-a-kind’ (FOAK) SMRs as prototypes. The nuclear industry uses FOAK terminology. As this report is intended to improve public understanding, we used the term ‘prototype’ instead. This also has a slightly different meaning which we consider more appropriate when discussing SMRs.

Within engineering, prototypes are understood as demonstrating that a design works, including how the different components and subsystems work together, and has achieved a desired level of functionality. Prototyping also enables enriched communication between the involved stakeholders.

FOAK is defined elsewhere as “the first commercial plant built with estimated equipment, materials, and labour productivity based on current or recent nuclear plant experience”.

The SMR design and performance concept contains a range of unique features not incorporated into conventional nuclear systems. Light water SMRs – identified in the ATSE report as boiling water and pressurised water reactors SMRs – are based on conventional nuclear reactor designs which have been in operation for many years. Of the 14 designs considered in the ATSE report, 6 are light water designs.

Therefore, the FOAK proposition, “based on recent nuclear plant experience”, whilst correct for some aspects of predominantly light water based SMRs, cannot be applied to the unique engineered characteristics of SMRs in development simply because there is no recent nuclear plant experience available to support what are new design concepts.

Hence the ATSE SMR report uses the phrase, “full-scale working prototype” to describe the second stage of market development. We submit that this descriptor best reflects the proposed first release of SMRs. It has also been chosen to resonate with wider public understanding.

Was this report peer reviewed?

This report was not published in an academic journal, and therefore has not been subjected to the peer review process that a journal publication would require. To validate the findings, ATSE undertook an internal review process with a group of ATSE Fellows (separate to the working group).

Why doesn’t this report consider the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) SMR Strategy?

The NEA SMR Strategy was not referenced in the ATSE report; however, it was reviewed as part of the research process. THE NEA SMR Strategy promotes the benefits of SMRs to potentially deliver carbon emission reduction, and uses historical data sets to model reduction based on assumed rapid SMR deployment post-2035.

The NEA SMR Strategy has alignment with the ATSE SMR report in several important areas: the definition and unique features of SMRs, and drivers of cost competitiveness. For the purposes of the ATSE SMR report, the NEA SMR Strategy did not detail developer SMR segmentation, licencing and prototype progress including contemporary prototype release date estimates – all required to inform the ATSE SMR report’s findings.