Randomized trial evaluates energy resilience in food manufacturing, suggesting benefits from small modular reactors.
Utility disruptions may stem from insufficient power generation, inferior infrastructure, or secondary weather perils (e.g., tornadoes, floods, snowstorms) that take energy infrastructure offline. The latter present a unique risk that not all existing power options can mitigate. Regardless of their origin, power disruptions have the potential to cripple food supply chains and undermine food system sustainability. To prepare for managing future disruptions, food and beverage manufacturers may couple electrical microgrid and thermal district heating infrastructure with small modular reactors (SMRs) or smaller microreactor systems to form low-carbon power islands. Although SMR technology is a somewhat new source of energy and has not yet achieved commercial viability, it provides the potential to make food and beverage manufacturing more resilient and sustainable when it becomes broadly available. To assess the potential cost–benefit of activating such technology as a sustainability-oriented resilience investment, we conducted a technoeconomic downtime threshold analysis. The case assumes that the technology is the full-time power source and the SMR yields stronger returns as facility downtime or downtime costs rise. The analysis found the breakeven point to range from 12.3 h down to 613.2 h down annually for a 5 MW system, depending on facility scale and assumed downtime costs. At a representative downtime opportunity cost of $10,000/h, SMR adoption requires approximately 61.3 h (5 MW) of annual outages to break even, highlighting scale effects on feasibility. Incorporating a 20% thermal energy credit reduces required outage thresholds by roughly 20%, lowering the breakeven level to 49.1 h. These results highlight the potential role of SMR-enabled power islanding in supporting sustainable food manufacturing through improved energy resilience, low-carbon power, and thermal energy recovery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Parcell et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: