My Clean Break column today takes a look at the so-called nuclear renaissance and how the economics of building new nuke plants — ones with reactors ranging from 1,200 to 1,800 MW in size — simply aren’t working. “We see little prospect of these costs falling and every likelihood of them rising further,” according to Citigroup, which put out a report last month slamming the attractiveness of nuclear power, largely because of the high development, construction and operational risks associated with them. “In our view, it is extremely unlikely that private sector developers will be willing or able to take on the construction, power price and operational risks of new nuclear stations,” Citigroup reasons. “The returns would need to be underpinned by the government and the risks shared with the taxpayer/consumer.”

The column goes on to discuss the benefits of small-scale nuclear power — i.e. less than 300 mw — and how a number of companies (as well as Sandia National Laboratories) are pursuing the market. In fact, the president of the American Nuclear Society says small nukes are now a big focus of the U.S. industry, which is beginning to acknowledge that utilities want a product that’s modular, scalable, less risky, and potentially less expensive than big reactors. The key is to build them in a factory setting using robotic assembly, and then deliver them filled with enough fuel to operate for up to 20 years without refuelling. The reactors would be low maintenance, have passive safety features, and would be buried underground. I’m not a huge fan of nuclear, but if we are to have it, I’m in favour of this form of distributed nuclear generation.