If the United States intends to meet its grid decarbonization goals or its nuclear power targets, the country needs to deploy fission reactors in volume — and it needs to get started today, according to the updated “Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Advanced Nuclear” report by the U.S. Department of Energy.
The document sets a course to meet America’s ambitious COP28 pledge to triple its current 100 gigawatts of nuclear power to 300 GW by 2050. (COP28, was the 28th United Nations Climate Change conference, held from Nov. 30 to Dec. 13, 2023.)
Just a few years ago utilities were shutting down reactors, but now companies are exploring reopening closed sites, upgrading capacity, and extending operation of existing plants to 60 or 80 years. There are 94 nuclear reactors still operating in the United States, which once had more than 100 large nuclear reactors. All but three of those operational reactors were built more than three decades ago.
The turnaround has been triggered by a surge in electricity demand after decades of little to no growth. This rising need for electricity is not just the result of the artificial intelligence and data-center boom. It’s also due to the rapid reshoring of domestic manufacturing and the increasing electrification of vehicles and buildings.
The U.S. needs to deploy13 GW of new nuclear per year starting in 2030, according to the report. As of today there are no signed contracts to construct new nuclear reactors in the U.S. However, a shuttered Michigan nuclear plant is poised to start up again, buoyed by $3.1 billion in public subsidies.
In Pennsylvania, tech giant Microsoft said its need for more electricity led it to strike an unprecedented deal to buy all of the power for the next 20 years from one of the reactors at Three Mile Island — the site of the worst nuclear disaster in the United States in June 1979.
And the nation’s largest public power utility, Tennessee Valley Authority, continues to march toward building a small modular reactor (SMR), making it the first utility to do so in the U.S.
The federal government is pouring billions into keeping the nation’s current nuclear fleet operating and getting next-generation technologies ready for commercial use. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included $6 billion to prevent older reactors from shutting down prematurely, and the Biden Administration’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, includes tax breaks, loan guarantees and other incentives for new reactors.
In July the president signed the Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy or Advance Act, designed to streamline the siting and approval process for next-generation reactors.
Lawmakers in at least four states – Connecticut, Illinois, West Virginia and Wisconsin – have in recent years at least partially removed moratoriums on future reactors. Other states have included various tax breaks and other financial incentives for nuclear power in wide-ranging laws to boost clean energy.
The U.S. Department of Energy has identified 85 sites in 28 states where nuclear reactors would be suitable to replace closing coal plants. Montana and Wyoming are among those considering placing reactors on the sites of shuttered coal plants.
The agency said the United States could triple the amount of nuclear energy by 2050 by building more large and small reactors and boosting the generating capacity of existing reactors, a process known as “uprating.”
The highly ambitious goal has a stark caveat: The country would need 275,000 skilled workers, tens of millions more tons of uranium, a large supply of critical components, “significant resources” added to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and additional sites for nuclear waste storage and disposal. That work, the report said, needs to start now.
The chief question is: Can it be done in time and at a cost consumers can afford? History says, “no.”
Currently, less than 20% of U.S. electric demand is met by nuclear power, yet it makes up slightly more than half of the nation’s clean electricity. The stringent safety requirements built into the permitting and construction process are part of what makes the reactors the most expensive type of power plant to build.
The most recent expansion of nuclear generation, at Georgia Power’s Plant Vogtle, southeast of Augusta, cost more than twice its original budget at nearly $35 billion and took 15 years to build. What’s more, the project’s original contractor, Westinghouse Electric Co., went bankrupt when the costs on Vogtle and a similar project in South Carolina skyrocketed.
Tennessee Valley Authority TVA’s board recently approved another $150 million toward its proposed small modular reactor (SMR) named Clinch River 1. Scott Hunnewell, vice president of TVA’s new nuclear program, said SMRs cost “a fraction” of the billions of dollars it takes to build the larger reactors, but there are a range of price tags depending upon the size of the reactor.
TVA stands out because it is the only large electric provider in the United States that is pressing forward on building the smaller reactors, which have never been used commercially in the U.S. power sector. None of the others has committed to building SMRs or any of the other advanced reactor technologies, sometimes referred to as “Generation IV” designs.
Cost overruns have dogged the industry for decades. According to 2008 Energy Department report, the actual costs of 75 of the nuclear power plants exceeded their initial estimates by 200%. That leaves plenty of room for skeptics to say that restarting dormant reactors will suffer the same fate.
In 1973, Public Service Co. of Oklahoma proposed to build the Black Fox Nuclear Power Plant approximately three miles west of downtown Inola, 13 miles south of Claremore. The estimated cost of construction in 1973 was $450 million, but by 1979 – the year of the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania – the cost had soared to $3.4 billion. PSO canceled the Black Fox project in 1982.
Hennewell said TVA, a federal agency, will apply for a $900 million competitive grant from an IRA program run by the Energy Department. But “even if we were going to get all of that money, that’s not enough” to finish the Clinch River project, and more “assistance” will be needed in the future, he said.
Source: Most of this information was supplied by Canary Media and Floodlight, both of which are independent non-profits and offer their stories for free publication.