Skip to main content

Walking Toward Nuclear on Tip-Toe

cgs1 Energy Northwest is giving nuclear energy a look-see.

In a May 27 letter obtained by The Associated Press, the [Energy Northwest] consortium asked each of its 25 member public utilities and municipalities to pitch in $25,000 for further research into building one or more small reactors. Those who pay would have first rights to any power produced if a plant is built.

Well, that’s pretty small-d democratic. And Energy Northwest, which had a rough ride with nuclear energy in the 80s – the article goes into all that - is indeed proceeding this time most carefully:

Energy Northwest has spent the past year researching its nuclear options, including a 1,600-megawatt plant that would power more than 1 million homes, before deciding to gauge interest in a small project where 40-megawatt reactors can be added as needed.

Hmm, perhaps too carefully. Although the article doesn’t say it, it looks as though the idea may be to use the smaller plants to backstop their renewable portfolio (the article says wind, solar and biomass, but we think solar is really unlikely in raintown. These are hydro people, with the dams to prove it.)

Read the whole article – there’s a lot of detail in it – but we would note as a final point that the nuclear plant that did come out of the 80s debacle – The Columbia Generating Station – has hummed along quite nicely for the last 25 years. We can’t blame Energy Northwest for walking on tip-toe, because at least they’re walking in the right direction.

The Columbia Generating Station. Not terrible as industrial structures go.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Energy Northwest is not in Seattle! It is located in Eastern Washington near the Hanford Site. With 6-7 inches of rain per year and 300+ sunny days - I believe solar is also on their radar.

But this is certainy an interesting development - it is one of the few areas where the community would support new nuclear readily - though the state interests on the other side of the mountains may oppose.
Anonymous said…
This is very clearly an effort to look at deploying NuScale reactors.

See:

http://www.nuscalepower.com/

Good for Energy Northwest.
Rod Adams said…
I have not yet read the linked article, but have an immediate guess that the folks at Energy Northwest have been talking to their neighbors from NuScale, which is located in Corvallis, OR, the same town as Oregon State University.

The description of a 40 MWe plant module where additional modules can be added as desired fits right in with NuScale's concept of modular light water reactors using natural circulation coolant flow.

Now I need to go read the linked article to confirm my guess.
m said…
People may find the slides from a seminar given by Dr Reyes of Nuscale at MIT of interest.

http://mit.edu/ans/www/documents/seminar/S09/reyes_slides.pdf

Regards,
Mike V
perdajz said…
Reyes presentation is odd. It seems to equate financial risk with severe accident risk, which is not the case. The likelihood of any severe accident is so fantastically low that it means almost nothing from a financial standpoint. In other words, nuclear power is plenty safe already. Reducing core damage frequency from 1E-7 to 1E-9 per year does not accomplish much to get a plant built.

The main financial risks are regulatory and political. Reyes never addresses that. Why would it be easier to build many 40 MW plants than it would be to build one 1000 MW plants? In many respects, the political and regulatory risks are independent of plant size. Nuclear power opponents and their lawyers don't care if the plant is 40 MW or 1000 MW; if it has fission products, it must be delayed and regulated out of existence, in their eyes.

Yeah, I get it: it is easier to build small ones and stack them up. But in the perserve economics and politics of nuclear power, that may or may not hold true. I don't see anything in Reyes presentation to address that, even though there's nothing I like better than doing PRA.

Popular posts from this blog

Knowing What You’ve Got Before It’s Gone in Nuclear Energy

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior director of policy analysis and strategic planning at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

Nuclear energy is by far the largest source of carbon prevention in the United States, but this is a rough time to be in the business of selling electricity due to cheap natural gas and a flood of subsidized renewable energy. Some nuclear plants have closed prematurely, and others likely will follow.
In recent weeks, Exelon and the Omaha Public Power District said that they might close the Clinton, Quad Cities and Fort Calhoun nuclear reactors. As Joni Mitchell’s famous song says, “Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.”
More than 100 energy and policy experts will gather in a U.S. Senate meeting room on May 19 to talk about how to improve the viability of existing nuclear plants. The event will be webcast, and a link will be available here.
Unlike other energy sources, nuclear power plants get no specia…

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…