These might be markedly different from those in developed countries (Hecht, 2012). This has to do with differing value systems and weight given to different socioeconomic aspects, for example, antipathy to coal mining or conversely national reliance on coal mining; environmental desiderata; water scarcity; the existence of mining operations; the relative openness and transparency of energy policymaking and bid procedures; the potential for participation in the supply chain and for technology transfer. The pressing need for clean, sustainable power and water supplies in deprived and burgeoning countries alike might create greater openness for small-scale nuclear power in the form of SMRs. Moreover, public-acceptance factors are as potent or determinant for developed countries as for developing countries when the prospect of wide deployment of nuclear is raised, whether it be in the shape of SMRs or not. Fear of increased access of developing countries to nuclear power would contribute to a policy that locks countries with highest growth prospects and most acute need for low-carbon electricity into unsustainable, high-emitting, or costly renewable technologies (Ropeik, 2012). Nevertheless, how nuclear is construed is historically or culturally determined, and can change (Weart, 2012).

SMR provides an opportunity and vehicle for development and should not just be considered a tool, or even a goal in itself, to demonstrate technical advancement.

20.2 SMR choices in developing countries

This chapter posits SMR as a counterfactual choice — ‘what one would have chosen if one had the choice’ — for energy for developing countries (Sen, 1995). At an historical moment when developing countries disproportionately suffer the effects of climate change and, for some, the energy-security challenge of importing fuels with high price volatility, there is considerable value in the potential for an emissions-free energy source with comparatively stable fuel prices.

Embedded risk biases may currently prevent recognition of it; however, in the looming crisis of climate change, the true costs of business as usual will fall disproportionately on developing countries. That they may prove higher than going along the SMR route is a matter of opinion. However, it is not an outlandish conclusion to draw: ‘The biggest factor in the decision to construct a plant, may shift from the customer’s ability to finance the project to a careful consideration of opportunity cost,’ observe Abdulla et al. (2013), in the context of the possibility of more stringent carbon regulation.

As a developing country, if SMR were not available, what would be the alternatives? What are the potential consequences (including for the climate, societal development, the economy, and thus the ethical dimension), for developing and developed countries, viewed as a dyad?