Posted by Mark Halper

Independent thinking: Babcock & Wilcox CEO James Ferland says modular reactors will help assure U.S. energy independence.

Chalk up a small victory for alternative nuclear power in the West. The U.S. Department of Energy will help North Carolina-based Babcock & Wilcox develop and build a “small modular reactor.”

DOE announced recently that it had awarded funding to a B&W-led group that also includes federally owned electricity provider the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and U.S. construction firm Bechtel Corp.

TVA is applying for a license from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to deploy up to 4 of B&W’s 180-megawatt mPower reactors at TVA’s Clinch River site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where the project is based.

In announcing the decision, Energy Secretary Steve Chu issued an assurance that nuclear has a solid place in the government’s plans for a low carbon future – an assertion that many nuclear supporters would welcome, but with an “I’ll believe more when I see more” shrug.

“The Obama Administration continues to believe that low-carbon nuclear energy has an important role to play in America’s energy future,” said Chu.  “Restarting the nation’s nuclear industry and advancing small modular reactor technologies will help create new jobs and export opportunities for American workers and businesses, and ensure we continue to take an all-of-the-above approach to American energy production.”


Small modular reactors would provide alternatives to large gigawatt-plus nuclear reactors, allowing utilities or private users to add nuclear capacity without having to spend many billions of dollars in upfront costs associated with conventional behemoth reactors.

They could also provide low cost power in remote areas – where expensive and CO2-heavy diesel generators are often used – and can be an effective heat and electricity source for industrial operations. In principle they can be factory-made and transported by truck. They still have some heft though – a New York times blog on B&W’s plans refers to mPower’s “towering metal shell.”

B&W’s mPower and other SMRs  that DOE evaluated are essentially scaled down versions of conventional water cooled, solid fuel uranium reactors.

As such, they are not as pronounced a departure from traditional nuclear as are other designs that we track here at Weinberg, such as liquid molten salt reactors, pebble bed reactors and fast neutron reactors. Those typically fit the “modular” form factor and in many instances will deploy thorium fuel, portending safer and more efficient nuclear operations than with uranium fuel.

South Africa’s Steenkampskraal Thorium Ltd, for instance, is developing a 35-megawatt (electric) pebble bed reactor. Flibe Energy in Huntsville, Alabama, also has modular sizes in mind for its liquid thorium molten salt reactor.


Neither DOE nor B&W would disclose the amount of funding DOE is providing. Various published reports including in the Charlotte Business Journal (Charlotte, North Carolina) and pegged it at $225 million.

“Through a five-year cost-share agreement, the Energy Department will invest up to half of the total project cost, with the project’s industry partners matching this investment by at least one-to-one,” DOE’s press release states. “The specific total will be negotiated between the Energy Department and Babcock & Wilcox.”

The award was part of a project to fund $450 million of SMR development that DOE announced last March, so the $225 million would represent half of that programme.

The New York Times had a more modest sense of the funding, noting, “At one point it (DOE) anticipated a $452 million program over five years, but so far Congress has appropriated only $67 million. The department is asking for another $65 million for the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1. Also, the department has not said how much it was providing to Babcock & Wilcox.”

B&W CEO James Ferland welcomed the funding. “With this public-private partnership, the DOE is providing important national leadership for America in the global pursuit of SMR technology,”  he said. “This partnership is essential to reestablishing our nation’s international competitiveness in the nuclear energy industry, as well as enhancing U.S. manufacturing infrastructure and energy independence. “

The company wasted no time in demonstrating momentum. About a week after winning the funding, it announced it had contracted Bethlehem, Pennsylvania-based Lehigh Heavy Forge Corp. to fabricate the shell.


B&W is believed to have beaten rivals Westinghouse and NuScale for the award.  DOE said it still plans to fund other SMR projects. Westinghouse is developing an SMR that is a smaller version of its large AP1000 “passively cooled” reactor.

But Westinghouse is also partnering with DOE and China on the development of alternative design reactors that can run on thorium or uranium.

The award to B&W is an encouraging sign that DOE is investing outside the traditional nuclear box.  It would be no small development if DOE were to next apply some of its $450 million modular budget to altogether different reactor designs, not just reduced-sized ones.

Photo: Nancy Pierce via Charlotte Business Journal


  1. Martin Kral says:

    When comes to today’s nuclear plants, I just don’t see size as the critical problem. Waste (also potential fuel for Gen IV reactors) is the number one issue and that is the primary focus of all the anti-nuke groups. I do not consider this arrangement a victory for the nuclear industry. In previous blogs here at this site, it has been written that China and Russia are investing in the better solutions. The proposed DOE 2013 budget has a 10% decrease in Nuclear Technology overall and most of the money is for waste management storage solutions. Where is this innovative leadership that President Obama keeps talking about?

  2. Martin Kral says:

    I had to go back and reread the DOE 2013 proposed budget objective for SMR. I have determine there isn’t really any new reactor technology, but just a smaller way to house existing reactor technology. I really don’t understand why this is being funded as a 50/50 public/private project. If the sizing doesn’t help the Gen IV reactor designs, then it shouldn’t be subsidized unless they are going to be useing liquid fuels. Gen IV MSRs don’t need cooling towers, pressurized containers or spent fuel storage facilities.

    Here is what is documented as the goals in the proposed 2013 budget report for SMR:

    Challenges that the program expects to address in executing
    its mission include:

    • Working with industry partners to assure the
    public and our Congressional stakeholders that
    SMRs can meet or exceed the safety standards
    and profiles of the newest plant technologies.

    • Assisting industry in determining whether SMRs
    can compete economically with existing electricity
    generating technologies.

    • Promoting the timely and efficient execution of
    SMR licensing to deploy not only the first-mover
    SMRs, but also a fleet of SMR generation capacity
    to meet the nation’s greenhouse gas emission
    reduction and affordable energy goals.

    I must be missing something because I don’t get it.

Leave a Reply

Sign up for our Weinberg Next Nuclear Newsletter
* = required field

I strongly support the Alvin Weinberg Foundation’s vital work to raise awareness of the urgent need for next-generation nuclear power to combat climate change and to provide clean energy for the future.

— Professor James Hansen


Our latest blog on the nuclear report from the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Lords. We need...
- Wednesday May 3 - 2:36pm

Recent Posts

Three Mile Island – the real disaster

by Suzanna Hinson (June 2nd, 2017)

Nuclear in Africa

by Suzanna Hinson (May 16th, 2017)

Engineers echo politicians: SMRs could help the UK post-Brexit

by Suzanna Hinson (May 11th, 2017)

Breaking the cycle of indecision: nuclear report by the House of Lords

by Suzanna Hinson (May 3rd, 2017)

Posts Archive


  • Economics (89)
  • Efficiency (54)
  • Policy (17)
  • Proliferation (32)
  • Regulation (8)
  • Safety (63)
  • Security (18)
  • Technology advances (23)
  • Uncategorized (53)
  • Waste (52)
  • © The Alvin Weinberg Foundation 2014
    The Alvin Weinberg Foundation is a registered UK charity. Charity number: 1155255
    The Alvin Weinberg Foundation web site uses cookies to record visitor patterns.
    Read our data protection policy

    Design by Tauri-tec Ltd and the Alvin Weinberg Foundation