Ohio State’s NuScale Partnership: Education or Nuclear Industry Endorsement?

COLUMBUS, OH - The Ohio State University, in collaboration with NuScale Power Corporation, recently unveiled its new Energy Exploration (E2) Center in Columbus, Ohio. Marketed as an innovative educational hub for the nuclear workforce of the future, the initiative is drawing criticism for promoting small modular reactor (SMR) technology without fully addressing the significant challenges it poses, particularly in nuclear waste management and long-term environmental impacts.

A Training Ground for Nuclear Advocacy

The E2 Center, co-funded by Ohio State’s Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and the U.S. Department of Energy’s Nuclear Energy University Programs (NEUP), offers students and community members a hands-on experience in nuclear reactor operations. The centerpiece of the program is a simulator replicating the operation of a 12-module SMR power plant.

“Building a nuclear-ready workforce is critical to the success of the clean energy transition,” said NuScale CEO John Hopkins. This effort to train future nuclear operators aligns with the nuclear industry’s push to promote SMRs as a key component of the global energy transition. However, opponents argue that programs like this prioritize corporate interests over a balanced discussion of nuclear energy’s risks.

“The installation of this simulator will provide opportunities for a better understanding of how nuclear reactors can operate,” added Rob Siston, Chair of Ohio State’s Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering. While operational understanding is valuable, critics warn that the E2 Center may fail to adequately address the unresolved challenges tied to nuclear technology.

The Problem with SMRs: Increased Waste and Costs

Despite claims that SMRs are a safer and more efficient alternative to traditional nuclear power plants, emerging research suggests the opposite. A study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that SMRs could produce two to 30 times more nuclear waste per unit of energy generated compared to conventional reactors. This waste includes highly radioactive materials that require costly, long-term management.

Unlike larger reactors, SMRs experience more neutron leakage due to their compact size. This leakage makes surrounding materials radioactive, further complicating waste disposal. Additionally, some SMR designs utilize chemically exotic fuels and coolants, which require expensive treatment prior to disposal. These factors significantly undermine the argument that SMRs are a cost-effective or environmentally friendly alternative.

NuScale’s promotional efforts around SMRs highlight their scalability and potential to generate carbon-free energy, but they gloss over the fact that the U.S. currently lacks a permanent solution for storing nuclear waste. The Yucca Mountain project, once slated to be a national repository, was abandoned after decades of political and public opposition. Meanwhile, spent fuel continues to accumulate at temporary sites across the country, increasing by about 2,000 metric tons annually.

Education or Industry Endorsement?

Ohio State’s E2 Center will also engage the broader community through tours, demonstrations, and outreach to local leaders and K-12 students. While these efforts are framed as educational, critics argue that they serve as a public relations strategy to normalize nuclear technology, emphasizing perceived benefits while minimizing risks.

Programs like this risk sidelining renewable energy alternatives that do not produce hazardous waste, such as wind, solar, and energy storage. By aligning with NuScale’s vision, Ohio State may inadvertently steer public opinion toward nuclear energy at a time when safer, cleaner solutions are increasingly viable.

Ohio State’s Role in the Nuclear Debate

Ohio State’s partnership with NuScale places it at the center of a broader discussion about the future of energy. While the university positions the E2 Center as a forward-looking educational initiative, critics highlight the unresolved issues of nuclear waste, high costs, and long-term environmental impacts associated with SMRs.

As one of the largest public universities in the U.S., Ohio State has the influence to shape energy policy discussions. Critics argue that it should prioritize research and education on renewable energy technologies rather than promoting a technology that could burden future generations with increased radioactive waste and disposal challenges.

While the E2 Center may offer valuable training for nuclear operators, it also risks advancing an industry narrative that overlooks the profound environmental and financial costs of nuclear power. Ohio State now faces the question of whether its focus on SMRs aligns with its responsibility to promote truly sustainable energy solutions.