Several Midwestern states on opposite ends of the political spectrum have taken steps this year signaling receptiveness to small modular reactor (SMR) development while a factory in Ohio has begun producing uranium tailored to the smaller plants.

Most recently, Maryland-based Centrus Energy opened a uranium enrichment plant this month in Piketon, Ohio, to produce high-assay, low-enriched uranium (HALEU).

The Department of Energy awarded Centrus a competitive, cost-shared contract in 2022. The company was required to begin production of HALEU by the end of 2023 under the agreement. HALEU is tailored for types of SMRs and contains between 5% and 20% fissile uranium, while large nuclear reactors use fuel with up to 5% fissile uranium.

“We hope that this demonstration cascade will soon be joined by thousands of additional centrifuges right here in Piketon to produce the HALEU needed to fuel the next generation of advanced reactors, low-enriched uranium to sustain the existing fleet of reactors and the enriched uranium needed to sustain our nuclear deterrent for generations to come. This is how the United States can recover its lost nuclear independence,” Centrus CEO Daniel Poneman said in a press release.

Deputy Secretary of Energy David Turk said that for the first time ever, “an American company is producing HALEU on American soil.”

The 16-centrifuge cascade produces only about 900 kilograms of HALEU per year, but Centrus said it could expand the Ohio operation to 120 centrifuge machines if it secures enough offtake commitments and funding.

Centrus has TerraPower and Oklo Inc. lined up to execute fuel supply contracts; both are trying to get their own SMR designs certified with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Oklo plans to build two of its liquid metal-cooled, metal-fueled fast reactors in Piketon to supply energy for Centrus and the surrounding area. The plants will be situated on land owned by the Southern Ohio Diversification Initiative, a community reuse organization. The plans are part of the Department of Energy’s push to re-industrialize the area around the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.

Elsewhere in Midwestern states, utilities were in the early stages of development while bills meant to assist SMR progress were drafted.

Early this year, a bipartisan group of Minnesota Senate lawmakers backed a bill that would direct the state’s Department of Commerce to conduct a study exploring the feasibility of SMRs (SF 1171). The Minnesota House and Senate also mulled allowing the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to issue certificates of need to build new nuclear plants less than 300 MW in capacity (SF 2824). Both bills have been referred to the Climate and Energy Finance and Policy Committee.

Minnesota’s nuclear moratorium is nearly three decades old, but some environmental organizations are rethinking their stance on new nuclear as a zero-carbon, baseload backstop to renewable power. Minnesota law mandates that the state reach 100% clean energy by 2040.

In general, SMRs are designed to yield anywhere from 50 to 300 MWs of electricity, as opposed to the typical 1 GW from traditional, large-scale reactors. They can be built indoors and then shipped to sites to be assembled. The U.S. doesn’t have any SMRs in operation.

Meanwhile, Xcel Energy is exploring whether it wants to become operator of a NuScale VOYGR SMR under development at the Idaho National Laboratory. That plant isn’t expected to be commercially operational until 2030.

NuScale’s VOYGR is the first SMR design to win certification from the NRC.

Dairyland Power Cooperative, based in western Wisconsin, has partnered with NuScale Power to evaluate use of small-scale nuclear reactors in Wisconsin.

NuScale also is planning to build a dozen 77-MW pressurized water SMRs for Ohio and Pennsylvania in order to energize two Standard Power data centers by 2029.

If passed, Michigan’s House Bill 4753 would create tax credits of 15% for qualified research and development expenses related to the “design, development or improvement” of SMRs and activities that will hasten them to market. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Tax Policy.

“Per capita, Michigan employs the highest number of engineers in the country,” said state Rep. Pauline Wendzel (R), who introduced the bill. “We have the talent, and we have the capability. Now we need to put our foot on the gas to develop this safe, clean and reliable form of energy.”

Efforts to resurrect the Palisades nuclear power station in southwest Michigan also involve SMRs. Last month, Wolverine Power Co-op signed an agreement with owner Holtec International to buy power, hoping Palisades reopens in 2025. That agreement includes a contract expansion provision to include up to two small modular reactors onsite.

Last year, Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb (R) signed S271 into law, which mandated that the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission work with the state’s Department of Environmental Management to devise rules around granting of certificates of public convenience for the construction, purchase or lease of SMRs. Those rules were adopted at the end of June.

Purdue University and Duke Energy have recommended that Indiana consider public funding of studies dedicated to new nuclear and issuing state tax credits for advanced nuclear technology. Those recommendations were in an interim report of a joint study issued midyear.

Purdue and Duke are exploring the feasibility of using SMRs to meet the energy needs of Purdue’s main campus.

Finally, the Missouri legislature this year weighed HB 225, which would have allowed utilities to file with FERC to raise rates to pay for SMRs. The bill, which cleared the house but failed to gain traction in the Senate after a public hearing, would have modified the state’s 1976 law that prevents utilities from raising rates to pay for the construction of new projects.

Whether SMRs are economical enough to compete in the market remains untested. This month, researchers published a cost analysis of SMRs in the peer-reviewed international journal Energy. They analyzed the levelized cost of electricity among 19 SMR designs and said the costs to generate electricity from SMRs seems to be “non-competitive when compared to current costs for generating electricity from renewable energy sources,” even when accounting for system integration costs that double renewable energy’s price tag.

Researchers also concluded that manufacturers’ cost estimates for SMRs “are mostly too optimistic compared to production theory” and that a Monte Carlo simulation showed “that no concept is profitable or competitive.”