The Big Idea: Energy Production

Our modern, always-on lifestyle demands tremendous amounts of it to power homes, businesses, and technological advancements. Crypto mines and cloud server farms are already straining utility grids in some places, and artificial intelligence (AI) is escalating demand even further. According to the World Economic Forum, by 2028 the power consumed by AI applications alone could exceed the total amount of electricity used by Iceland in 2021.

At the same time, there’s the threat of malicious actors burrowing into the software that controls power plants and distribution systems, enabling them to take down electrical power for entire regions — as happened in Ukraine in 2016 and 2022. The world’s virtually limitless technological horizon is underpinned by a finite, environmentally risky, and vulnerable resource.

One solution could be an oft maligned energy source that is making a comeback: nuclear power — specifically, small-scale nuclear reactors called micro­reactors. “They’re designed to be shipped to a site, deployed quickly, run for five to 20 years, and then sent back to the factory where they were made to be refueled or decommis­sioned,” says Timothy Crook, a nuclear mechanical engineer in Austin, Texas, with experience at several advanced nuclear reactor companies.

Large reactors operated by utility companies typically develop power measured in gigawatts (billions of watts). One gigawatt can power approximately 875,000 U.S. homes for one year. Sometimes called “nuclear batteries,” microreactors produce in the range of 1 megawatt (millions of watts) to 20 megawatts. Instead of large industrial complexes isolated on hundreds of acres, microreactors are the size of one to four shipping containers and need to be surrounded by a safety zone of only an acre or less.

Commercial microreactors are still in development, though one or more of them could become operational in the U.S. within the next year. They hold potential for industrial, transportation, military, municipal, and other applications where portable, reliable power is needed — and show great promise for addressing some of the world’s growing energy challenges.

The Possibilities

Some small reactors already exist: They have powered naval ships and some spacecraft for decades. Rolls Royce has even produced a concept model for a microreactor that could power a base on the moon by the early 2030s. But microreactors for local power needs are still in the design stage.

When available, these petite power plants could be revolutionary for the defense industry. They could be sited at military installations in remote locations to provide reliable power that would be difficult for adversaries to disrupt. In fact, the U.S. Department of Defense has been one of the primary sponsors of microreactor research — its Project Pele microreactor could be operational by the end of 2025.

Crook also sees many civilian applications, from IT infrastructure to rural energy solutions. “An IT server farm might have one to five microreactors, with one unit sent back for refueling or decommissioning each year beginning in year 10,” he explains.

They also could be useful in places like Alaska, where isolated villages can’t realistically use solar power. “Their alternative is a diesel generator, which can be expensive to run,” Crook says. “That makes it economically attractive to look at a microreactor.”

While naval vessels have been powered by small reactors for more than half a century, nuclear-powered commercial merchant ships have lagged. However, recent attacks on shipping in the Red Sea have caused operators to avoid the area, sending cargo around the southern tip of Africa. This lengthens a trip from South Asia to Europe by three weeks and dramatically increases the consumption of dirty bunker C fuel oil. Using a microreactor for propulsion could cut the carbon emitted by a typical container ship in that transit to almost zero.

Crook says nuclear power may be more environmentally friendly than the alternatives in the long run. Unlike coal, diesel, and natural gas plants, nuclear reactors don’t emit greenhouse gases, although the spent fuel does have to be disposed of eventually and requires a safe and secure long-term storage solution.

The Perils

The 1979 film The China Syndrome, in which a nuclear power plant in Los Angeles almost goes into meltdown, was largely hyperbolic — but not entirely. Actual meltdowns at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979, Chernobyl, Ukraine, in 1986, and Fukushima, Japan, in 2011 caused the release of radioactive material into the environment.

The loss of cooling water to the reactors was a key factor in those accidents. Crook says most microreactors do not rely on cooling water to prevent runaway reactions. There also are “walk away” safety features, which can quickly shut down a reactor if there’s a problem. And the amount of fissile material in a microreactor is a small fraction of the amount in a gigawatt reactor.

“Microreactors are as safe or safer than commercial U.S. nuclear power plants,” Crook asserts. “Nuclear energy is the safest source of electricity on Earth per unit of energy generated.”

Nonetheless, the technology has inherent risks. The U.S. Government Accountability Office, for example, warns that widespread deployment of microreactors could increase the opportunity for theft of nuclear fuel. Additionally, the reactors could be targets for terrorism and cyberattacks.

Moreover, the mining and processing of uranium for nuclear fuel could have environmental impacts. Crook points out that many of these concerns would be addressed through strict government oversight, such as by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group.

The Pitfalls

One impediment to expanding nuclear power has been its cost. In the U.S., nuclear power is about 45% more expensive per megawatt hour than power generated using solar or natural gas, according to the most recent data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Nuclear Energy Agency. That differential is driven in part by initial capital and operating costs, but also by the abundance of comparatively cheap natural gas in the U.S. However, Europe, China, and Japan don’t have the vast natural gas reserves found in the U.S., and the costs of nuclear power there are much more comparable to natural gas.

Another challenge is public opposition to nuclear projects near their homes due to perceived negative impacts such as noise, pollution, or reduced property values. Still, energy production needs to increase and aging coal plants — responsible for nearly one-fifth of the electricity in the U.S. and almost two-thirds of power in China — produce more carbon pollution than other available options. Whether climate-related issues and increasing power costs will soften public attitudes toward nuclear energy projects remains an open question.

The Prospects

Despite the obstacles, nuclear power has been gaining governmental support globally. In March, the Biden administration announced a $1.52 billion loan to restart a nuclear power plant in Michigan that was shut down in 2022. And at the end of 2023, the COP28 climate summit produced a pledge by more than 20 countries and 120 companies to triple nuclear-generated power by 2050.

Public support around decarbonization may be the key that brings nuclear back to the table. A 2024 global survey by energy consultancy Radiant Energy Group found that more people support the use of nuclear energy (46%) than oppose it (28%).

Crook is among the supporters, noting that microreactors could serve applications where only “dirty power” works now. “Microreactors are something on the horizon that could open up new ways to make people’s lives better,” he asserts.