Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are the future of reliable, abundant energy—and they run circles around solar farms in every critical category, according to US action group the Grassroots Army.
The SMRs sound like a better alternative to Peter Dutton’s plan to send Australia even deeper into debt with five large reactors that would cost an estimated $600 billion. They would be built on the sites of five current major coal-fired power stations – Liddell and Mount Piper in NSW, Tarong and Callide in Queensland, and Loy Yang in Victoria.
The Coalition does, however, propose SMRs at the Northern Power Station in South Australia and Muja Power Station in Western Australia. Why not other locations?
A major advantage of SMRs over large reactors is that prefabricated units of SMRs can be manufactured and then shipped and installed on site, making them more affordable to build than large power reactors, which can face construction delays and large cost blowouts.
SMRs by contrast offer savings in cost and construction time, and can be deployed incrementally to match increasing energy demand, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Grassroots Army should have included wind farms in its spiel because they share the same basic problem as solar farms – low energy density.
As pointed out by the US activists, a single SMR can power an entire city on a fraction of the land required for a solar farm. For example, the 300-megawatt SMR requires less than 10 acres, while a solar farm generating the same output demands over 2000 acres, land that could be used for farming, housing, or industry.
Unlike “unreliables”, SMRs provide consistent, 24×7 energy. As we know, solar panels stop producing the moment the sun sets, forcing reliance on expensive and inefficient battery storage, complicated salt-heat storage systems or backup fossil fuels. Meanwhile, SMRs deliver constant, uninterrupted power rain or shine, day or night.
It’s common sense, which seems beyond present-day bureaucracies in Canberra and the state capitals.
If carbon dioxide is seen as a problem (which it isn’t) economic planners can give themselves the warm fuzzies by knowing that SMRs generate power without producing CO₂ emissions and don’t require the massive mining operations needed for solar panels, which rely on rare earth metals from places like China.
Unlike solar panels, which have a lifespan of 20-30 years and create mountains of toxic waste, SMRs can operate for decades with minimal waste and zero reliance on foreign supply chains.
As mentioned previously, the matter of energy density, that is how many households can be powered from a given unit of energy, one fuel load in an SMR can provide years of power, while solar panels must be constantly maintained, cleaned, and replaced.
SMRs also keep running when extreme weather such as snowstorms or cyclones hit, and solar panels and wind turbines become useless.
“SMRs aren’t just a better energy solution; they’re the only realistic path to long-term energy independence and stability,” says Grassroots Army.
“If America (read Australia) wants energy security, environmental responsibility, and economic prosperity, we need nuclear innovation, not sprawling solar fields that eat up our land and drain our resources.”
