Nuclear Power Daily

Access requires a paid subscription. Year-long (until June 2024) subscriptions are $69 for an individual student and $299 for a school. School subscriptions allow access for 100 users.

AI supports energy integration across the grid

John Watson 8-1, 2023, How AI is Advancing Clean Energy’s Future. https://medium.com/@johnwatsonjw23/how-ai-is-advancing-clean-energys-future-3c7c18693c8b

Emerging Artificial Technology (AI) such as ChatGPT, Bard AI and Bing have broadly impacted our life. This technology is also in a way advancing the clean energy future. Costas Polycarpou while expressing the views on AI and its effects on energy, says that AI will play a crucial role in addressing the energy sectors and lowering the carbon footprints. By leveraging solar and wind farms, improving the dependability and resilience of the power grid, and accelerating carbon capture and power fusion advances, AI is transforming the way we power the planet. AI and faster processing are being used by NVIDIA and its environmentally minded partners to maximize renewable energy sources including sunshine, wind, and water. These developments allow utilities and energy providers to manage distributed energy resources and balance power supply and demand in real-time, all while lowering consumer monthly rates. AI is being used by companies that optimize power-generation sites, such as DroneDeploy and Siemens Gamesa, to optimize solar farm layouts, maximize energy production, and keep track of equipment health. Smart cameras on the field trucks of Ohio-based utility FirstEnergy automates manual inspections as part of the grid infrastructure maintenance industry. Orbital Sidekick and Eneryield use edge AI and hyperspectral images to find gas and oil leaks, and Eneryield looks for signal irregularities in underwater cables and forecasts equipment breakdowns to increase the dependability of electricity provided. AI and digital twins are also revolutionizing climate and weather simulation. Transformator-based AI models developed by Open Climate Fix, trained on satellite data, increased estimates of solar energy generation by three times. Nested FNO is a neural operator architecture that was created by researchers from the California Institute of Technology, Stanford University, and NVIDIA to mimic pressure levels during carbon storage in a fraction of a second and double accuracy on some tasks. The first effective use of nuclear fusion was demonstrated by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which also used artificial intelligence to model the outcomes of experiments. Thus, AI can make a significant difference in the field of clean energy. Costas Polycarpou is also quite optimistic regarding the contribution that AI will make to the clean energy transition. He thinks that AI technology such as geological and seismic surveys, advanced algorithms and many more will contribute efficiently towards the clean energy transition for a sustainable future.

Whoever gets to fusion gets to infinite energy and global leadership through AI innovation, which is energy internsive

Marcel Kasumovich, Head of Research for One River Asset Management, 7-31, 23, Hedge Fund CIO: “Nuclear Is The Only Practical, Scalable Solution”, https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/hedge-fund-cio-nuclear-it-only-practical-scalable-solution

The irony is everywhere. Innovation defines cold wars. And innovation centers on energy. But the race to “net-zero” emission brings into focus the most efficient energy production in the long, long term. Nuclear. It is the only practical, scalable solution. Demands of new technologies give new meaning to the race. The fear and greed around technologies like artificial intelligence are a great leap. Even the Hollywood bubble fears disruption with likeness of stars trivially replicated, almost costless. Only, it isn’t costless. AI consumes inordinate amounts of energy. And that needs a vast amount of investment. Low inflation was deemed the ideal path to efficient investment – the best way to support innovation. It failed. Overvalued assets are in the hands of the few and overwhelming debt in the arms of the many. Innovation needs financial resources – a clean balance sheet. And despite wildly different economic philosophies, the US and China are commonly burdened by liabilities built from smoothing past shocks. Both are also racing to build our sun on earth – nuclear fusion, perpetual energy. China leads on patents, the US on commercialization. Who controls infinite energy takes an impenetrable advantage. Resolving debt challenges is where philosophy will shine brightest – liberalism and the invisible hand guiding to safety, not censorship. Fate has a great sense of irony.

China expanding nuclear power plants

Andrew Hayley, 8-30, 23, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-approves-expansions-three-nuclear-power-plants-2023-08-01/, China approves expansions at three nuclear power plants

BEIJING, Aug 1 (Reuters) – China has approved expansion projects at three nuclear power plants, according to a statement from the State Council released on Monday. Six new nuclear power generation units have been approved to expand three existing plants in Shandong province, Fujian province and Liaoning province, according to reporting from state-backed media outlet the Paper. The State Council did not provide information regarding the expected generation capacity of the new nuclear units. Advertisement · Scroll to continue Report this ad Total investment into the new units is estimated at 120 billion yuan ($16.74 billion), according to the Paper. Nuclear power accounts for just around 2.2%, or about 56 gigawatts, of China’s total generation capacity, according to data from the National Bureau of Statistics. In 2020, China set out plans to increase total nuclear capacity to 70 GW by 2025. The latest announcement comes amid a concerted drive for energy security, as Beijing tries to shore up domestic power supply whilst pursuing the country’s ambitious renewables build-out. Advertisement · Scroll to continue Report this ad Nuclear power generation has a considerably smaller carbon footprint than fossil fuel plants, but can dispatch power more consistently and reliably than weather-dependent renewable sources such as wind or solar. China approved 10 new nuclear projects last year, according to reporting by the Paper.

Future reactors can be built faster and cheaper now that Georgia is complete; larger reactors can be built faster than small ones

Energy Wire, 7-31, 23, What Vogtle’s stumbling finish means for U.S. nuclear energy, https://www.eenews.net/articles/what-vogtles-stumbling-finish-means-for-u-s-nuclear-energy/

Plant Vogtle’s problems have been “the accumulation of quite a few design and construction deficiencies,” said Edwin Lyman, nuclear power safety director for the Union of Concerned Scientists. The AP1000 reactor, a design from Westinghouse Electric Co., is at the heart of Vogtle’s expansion. Approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2006, it was aimed at simplifying large nuclear with modularized designs meant to shorten construction schedules and reduce costs that would set a new industry standard. But “big, complicated, megaprojects” require a “great deal of project management and coordinated project planning,” Kathryn Huff, who leads DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy, said in an interview. Challenges ranged from workforce constraints — the project required 9,000 builders, welders, electricians at the peak of construction — to what critics called a lack of meaningful regulation from public utility commissions to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. “It’s not that simple to manufacture these complex components and just stamp them together like Legos,” Lyman said. Smith from the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy pointed to difficulties at a similar South Carolina nuclear project. An attempt to add two AP1000s to South Carolina’s V.C. Summer nuclear plant fell through in 2017. The expansion was designed to be similar to Vogtle’s and had an estimated $9.8 billion cost. But its price quickly ballooned, and its construction timeline was pushed back years past scheduled operational dates of 2016 and 2019. Vogtle may have survived Westinghouse’s bankruptcy, but the plant has “taken so long that the industry itself has kind of moved beyond the whole concept of AP1000s,” Smith said. While small modular reactors are worth researching in Biegalski’s view, he said the AP1000 design is the country’s “only option” for the immediate future of nuclear. Nuclear advocates have acknowledged the delays. “I can certainly understand the frustration — the nuclear industry has a track record of over-promising and under-delivering,” said Madison Hilly, executive director at the Campaign for a Green Nuclear Deal. Still, the recently trained Vogtle workforce is a prime reason to keep the ball rolling, Georgia Tech’s Biegalski said. With this expertise, he sees future projects being built quicker and at a lower cost. “If we put the baton down as the U.S. and wait another 10 or 15 years before we start building other nuclear power plants, it’s going to be the same exact story, where you have to recreate the wheel,” he said. Tim Echols, vice chair of the Georgia Public Service Commission, also shares the view that Vogtle shouldn’t be the last of its kind. But “no one seems to be interested in doing a big project anymore,” he said in an interview. Biegalski said energy needs are only going to grow, noting extreme heat events in the country’s most populous two states: California and Texas. The Golden State was in danger of rolling blackouts last summer, and the Lone Star state’s electricity use is reaching all-time highs this summer. While small modular reactors are worth researching in Biegalski’s view, he said the AP1000 design is the country’s “only option” for the immediate future of nuclear, he said.

The best chance to control proliferation is US nuclear leadership

Energy Wire, 7-31, 23, What Vogtle’s stumbling finish means for U.S. nuclear energy, https://www.eenews.net/articles/what-vogtles-stumbling-finish-means-for-u-s-nuclear-energy/

Last month, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm visited Georgia — and POLITICO Pro reported that she expressed confidence that Vogtle’s latest woes wouldn’t depress future nuclear investment. Granholm insisted that the new reactor’s entry into commercial operations would bring international interest to American nuclear. That interest is crucial to U.S. national security if the nation wants to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and maintain its deterrence capabilities, Shah told E&E News. That’s because other countries will continue to pursue nuclear energy regardless of where the U.S. takes it, he said. “If we don’t show a proactive stance here, then countries who want access to nuclear technology will go to those other countries, oftentimes Russia and China,” Shah said. Biegalski echoed the sentiment, saying the United States has “to be very, very, very careful at how world maps are redrawn and alliances are redrawn through these energy policies.” As for improving upon Vogtle’s delays and cost overruns, and those of nuclear plants that preceded it, Lyman said that it “doesn’t seem like the industry writ large is really interested in learning those lessons.” Domestic appetite for nuclear is still holding on strong among some power providers. Dominion and Duke have included nuclear power in integrated resource plans. Duke in particular got $70 million approved from the North Carolina Utilities Commission, Shah said, to start working out early site permitting for a small modular reactor.

We can get uranium from Niger

The Zimbabwean, 7-30, 23, Niger is world’s 7th-biggest producer of uranium, French nuclear power plants source 10 percent of their uranium from there, https://www.thezimbabwemail.com/world-news/niger-is-worlds-7th-biggest-producer-of-uranium-french-nuclear-power-plants-source-10-percent-of-their-uranium-from-there/

Niger is the world’s seventh-biggest producer of uranium, according to the World Nuclear Association (WNA). The radioactive metal is the most widely used fuel for nuclear energy. It is also used in treating cancer, for naval propulsion, and in nuclear weapons. Below are details of Niger’s uranium deposits and mines: Niger, which has Africa’s highest-grade uranium ores, produced 2,020 metric tons of uranium in 2022, about 5% of world mining output, according to the WNA. This was down from 2,991 tons in 2020. The world’s three biggest producers are Kazakhstan, Canada and Namibia. © Lixiviation en tas – SOMAÏR © Orano Niger has one major mining operation in the north operated by France’s state-owned Orano, another major mine that closed in 2021, with one under development. Orano said on Friday it was continuing mining despite ongoing “security events”. French nuclear power plants source less than 10% of their uranium from Niger, Orano added. ARLIT MINING SITES Several open pit mining sites are located near the city of Arlit, in the northwest, and operated by Somair, a joint venture of Orano and Niger’s state-owned Sopamin. AKOUTA MINE This underground mine near Akokan, southwest oif Arlit, produced 75,000 metric tons of uranium from 1978 until March 2021, when it closed after its ore reserves had been depleted. The mine was owned by Cominak, 59% owned by Orano, 31% by Sopamin and 10% by Spain’s state-owned Enusa. IMOURAREN This deposit about 50 miles south of Arlit contains one of the largest reserves in the world, according to Orano. An operating mine permit was awarded in 2009, but work to bring the mine into operation was suspended in 2014 until uranium prices improve.

New safety features stop old accidents and the risk is statistically irrelevant

Cutwright, 7-29, 23, Jeremiah Cutright, a student at the University of Pittsburgh, is a writer and activist with the American Conservation Coalition., Jeremiah Cutright: Pennsylvania needs nuclear power, https://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/guest-columns/2023/07/29/nuclear-power-vogtle-three-mile-island-hydrogen-hydropower/stories/202307290013

It’s important to note, however, that TMI was very different from the new reactors coming online at Plant Vogtle in Georgia. While the incident in 1979 was largely the result of human error, new plants have much more advanced safety systems. For example, if an incident were to occur at Vogtle 3 & 4, no human intervention would be required to shut down the reactors. This further lowers the risk of an accident and provides extra security under even the worst-case scenarios. Personally, though, I find this all to be a bit of semantics, as nuclear power is already statistically just as safe as solar and wind, even when including disasters such as TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

SMRs can’ be built quickly

Dr John Harry Secretary of the Australian nuclear Association, 7-29, 30, Calls for nuclear energy to replace fossil fuels, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrat35BAVjI

Secretary of the Australian nuclear small modular reactors are going to be much more built in factories and they’re going to be much quicker big four or five years um or the Pentagon has has to make a site one has to select a site there’s a slight process there’s a regulatory processor to be put in place the once construction starts it’s three to four years for a small modular reactor

Chernobyl technology is antiquated and not used

Dr John Harry Secretary of the Australian nuclear Association, 7-29, 30, Calls for nuclear energy to replace fossil fuels, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrat35BAVjI

we we hear you know talks of Chernobyl and big nuclear plants over the years tell us from your point of view your expertise how safe they they are I think they’re very safe I mean basically one one isn’t going to build a Chernobyl reactor that’s that was a very old technology and under a Soviet system um each each of the time is there is an instant or an accident uh the technology has been improved like all other Technologies so a new modern advanced reactor is going to be very safe other 6:54 countries around the world have decided that this is good for them so

Government support critical to micro nuclear fusion

Energy Portal, 7-29, 23, https://www.energyportal.eu/news/the-role-of-government-and-private-sector-in-advancing-micro-scale-nuclear-fusion/48918/, The Role of Government and Private Sector in Advancing Micro-Scale Nuclear Fusion

Micro-scale nuclear fusion, a technology that promises to revolutionize the energy sector, is currently at the forefront of scientific research. This transformative technology has the potential to deliver clean, safe, and virtually limitless power, marking a significant step forward in the global quest for sustainable energy solutions. The development and advancement of micro-scale nuclear fusion, however, requires a concerted effort from both the government and the private sector. The government plays a pivotal role in this endeavor, primarily through funding and regulation. Government funding is crucial in supporting the basic research that underpins micro-scale nuclear fusion. This type of research is often high-risk and long-term, characteristics that can deter private investors. By providing financial support, the government can ensure that this vital research continues, even in the face of financial uncertainty. In addition to funding, the government also plays a key role in regulating the development and deployment of micro-scale nuclear fusion. This includes setting safety standards, overseeing testing and deployment, and managing waste disposal. By doing so, the government can ensure that micro-scale nuclear fusion is developed and used in a way that is safe and environmentally responsible. However, the government cannot advance micro-scale nuclear fusion alone. The private sector also has a crucial role to play. Private companies bring a wealth of expertise and resources to the table. They can drive innovation, speed up development, and bring products to market more quickly. Moreover, they can provide the commercial impetus needed to scale up production and make micro-scale nuclear fusion a viable energy option. One example of this collaborative effort is the partnership between the U.S. Department of Energy and private companies like Tri Alpha Energy and Helion Energy. These partnerships have resulted in significant advancements in the field of micro-scale nuclear fusion. For instance, Tri Alpha Energy has developed a unique approach to fusion that could potentially overcome some of the key challenges facing the technology. However, for these collaborations to be successful, there needs to be a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities of each party. The government needs to provide a supportive regulatory environment and stable funding, while the private sector needs to focus on innovation and commercialization. Furthermore, both parties need to work together to address the challenges that micro-scale nuclear fusion faces. These include technical hurdles, such as achieving the high temperatures and pressures needed for fusion, as well as societal challenges, such as public acceptance of nuclear power. In conclusion, the advancement of micro-scale nuclear fusion requires a collaborative effort between the government and the private sector. The government plays a key role in providing funding and regulation, while the private sector drives innovation and commercialization. By working together, these two sectors can help to bring this transformative technology to fruition, offering a new and sustainable energy solution for the future.

SMRs more reliable than big nuclear or renewables

Callahan, 7-23, 23, Kelsey Callahan is senior director, energy and special projects at the Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy., The Hill, For a cleaner energy future, we must embrace small nuclear reactors, https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/4110185-for-a-cleaner-energy-future-we-must-embrace-small-nuclear-reactors/

As “Oppenheimer” looks set to blow the box office competition away in theaters this month, this decade Americans will see  the utilization of small nuclear reactors as the key to  a sustainable and clean energy future. Small nuclear reactors offer numerous advantages like efficient power generation, low carbon emissions and potential versatility that make them a key component in achieving a renewable energy future. Solar, wind, and hydropower are equally vital to an “all of the above” energy solution, but they currently have limitations such as intermittency and land requirements. Small nuclear reactors are designed to produce electricity more efficiently compared to their larger counterparts used in traditional nuclear power plants. The compact size allows for better heat management and the utilization of advanced cooling techniques, resulting in a higher conversion of nuclear energy to electricity. This increased efficiency helps maximize power output with fewer resources and reduced environmental impact. Small nuclear reactors generate electricity through nuclear fission, which produces significantly lower carbon emissions compared to fossil fuel-based power plants. By replacing conventional plants with small nuclear reactors, considerable emissions can be mitigated, making them a major contributor to decarbonization efforts. This transition would aid in combating climate change while maintaining a reliable source of energy. Another advantage of small nuclear reactors lies in their versatility and scalability. The small size of these reactors allows for easier integration into existing power grids and built environments (which are human-made or modified structures that provide people with living, working, and recreational spaces), reducing the need for large-scale transmission infrastructure and minimizing aesthetic impact. Moreover, small nuclear reactors can be deployed in a variety of applications, including remote power generation, district heating, water desalination and even hydrogen production. This versatility provides a flexible and adaptable framework for integrating nuclear power into diverse energy systems. Safety is a paramount concern when it comes to nuclear power. Small nuclear reactors, with their advanced designs, incorporate improved safety features compared to older and larger nuclear reactors. They employ passive safety mechanisms, such as inherent shutdown capabilities, to prevent accidents and eliminate the need for external power or operator intervention. Furthermore, they operate at lower power levels, minimizing the potential consequences of any catastrophic event. These enhanced safety measures, coupled with rigorous regulatory oversight, ensure that small nuclear reactors can be used with confidence and reduce the risks associated with nuclear power. Of course, when utilizing nuclear power, nuclear waste must be addressed. Small nuclear reactors offer potential benefits in waste management compared to traditional large-scale reactors. These reactors can utilize advanced fuel cycle options, such as recycling, which can reduce the volume and prolong the lifespan of nuclear waste. Additionally, they produce relatively smaller quantities of waste due to their reduced power output. Proper management and end-of-life considerations can limit the environmental impact and ensure a responsible approach to nuclear energy. Small nuclear reactors are a crucial component in our pursuit of a renewable energy future. Their enhanced efficiency, reduced carbon emissions, versatility and scalability make them a valuable addition to the energy mix. Furthermore, their advanced safety features and potential waste management advantages lay the groundwork for responsible and sustainable deployment of nuclear power. By harnessing the benefits of small nuclear reactors alongside other renewable energy sources, we can create a resilient and low-carbon energy system, paving the way toward a cleaner and brighter future for generations to come.

AI supports fusion breakthroughs

Candace Clark, 7-22, 23, Applying AI to Combat Climate Change and Build a Sustainable World, https://fagenwasanni.com/news/applying-ai-to-combat-climate-change-and-build-a-sustainable-world/70069/

In addition to optimizing existing infrastructure, we need scientific breakthroughs to establish a sustainable energy future. Nuclear fusion has the potential to provide limitless carbon-free energy but requires mastering the control of plasma in fusion reactors. We have partnered with the Swiss Plasma Center at EPFL to develop an AI system that predicts and controls plasma in a tokamak-style fusion reactor. This breakthrough facilitates further experimentation and progress in nuclear fusion. To develop effective AI solutions, it is crucial to understand the challenges faced by people worldwide. This involves gaining access to representative data, partnering with domain experts, following regulatory guidelines, and finding real-world opportunities for testing these systems. We prioritize collaboration with affected communities, scientists, industry professionals, regulators, and governments in our sustainability efforts.

No wait to meet climate targets without including nuclear

Economic Times, 7-21, 23, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/energy/power/oppenheimer-and-the-business-of-nuclear-power/articleshow/102014866.cms, Economic Times, Oppenheimer and the business of nuclear power

Nuclear power proponents say Germany will have to go back to nuclear eventually if it wants to phase out fossil fuels and reach its goal of becoming greenhouse gas-neutral across all sectors by 2045 as wind and solar energy will not fully cover demand. “By phasing out nuclear power, Germany is committing itself to coal and gas because there is not always enough wind blowing or sun shining,” said Rainer Klute, head of pro-nuclear non-profit association Nuklearia.

It takes 5.5 years to build an SMR

In Europe, the search for alternative sources to Russian energy during the war in Ukraine has refocused attention on smaller, easier-to-build nuclear power stations, the SMRs. UK-based Rolls-Royce SMR says its SMRs are much cheaper and quicker to get running than standard plants, delivering the kind of energy security that many nations are seeking.

The estimated cost of a Rolls-Royce SMR is 2.2 billion to 2.8 billion pounds (USD 2.5 billion to USD 3.2 billion), with an estimated construct time of 5 1/2 years, AP reported. That’s two years faster than it took to build a standard nuclear plant between 2016 and 2021, according to International Atomic Energy Agency statistics.

Deploying nuclear now means renewables don’t have time to become cost competitive

Camille Lafrance and Benjamin Wehrmann, 7-21, 23, Energy Post, Does Nuclear slow down the scale-up of Wind and Solar? France and Germany can’t agree, https://energypost.eu/does-nuclear-slow-down-the-scale-up-of-wind-and-solar-france-and-germany-cant-agree/

In a joint attempt to provide greater technical clarity on the nuclear power debate, French think tank IDDRI and German Agora Energiewende set out in 2018 to understand how nuclear energy will influence the transformation of energy systems in both countries. They found that if a high share of coal or nuclear based conventional power capacity stays online in both countries, this will likely to delay the time when market prices allow renewable power operators to cover their production costs and run the operations at a profit. They also found that exporting surplus electricity with conventional plants bites into renewable power investments abroad. At the same time, the growing share of renewables would eventually render most conventional plants unprofitable. “In order to avoid stranded assets, it is essential to gradually reduce conventional capacities,” the bi-national report concluded.

Renewables don’t have adequate storage capacity now

For Moreno, these technicalities fail to consider a crucial point the in the argument for nuclear power: “The only thing that matters is to get out of carbon-based energies,” he argued. Germany’s plans to replace coal capacity with gas would not deliver on this key premise, Moreno said, adding the all-renewables approach was complicated by a lack of viable electricity storage technologies. “Technically speaking, it would be necessary to store up to 20 percent to be able to smoothen renewable power supply.” Those who believe that this will be possible through a combination of different storage options are chasing “a dream,” Moreno argued.

More invested in renewables than nuclear now

Nuclear power proponents in France and elsewhere have repeatedly labelled Germany’s insistence on exiting nuclear power and shifting towards renewables imprudent or even reckless during the energy crisis. However, it is overall more in line with international trends than a nuclear expansion, as the money raised for new reactors remain a fraction of what is spent on wind turbines, solar panels and other renewables in global clean energy investment figures over the past few years. “The main question that arises in all this discussion about present and future options for the energy problem is really feasibility,” said Schneider. “The German strategy is based on existing technical options whose feasibility has been demonstrated, that are economically and industrially competitive. Before 2030, we will see whether Germany can feed its electricity network, essentially from renewables, or else it would be a huge failure,” Schneider argued, adding that the French nuclear-newbuild is “simply not feasible at that time horizon.”

Renewable variability covered by fossil fuels now

Pascal Canfin, French MEP for liberal Renew Europe furthered the view that nuclear’s formerly unquestionable role in France has softened. “In the past, the nuclear lobby in France has prevented the development of renewables. I sincerely believe that this is no longer the case today, we are moving on,” he said in an online panel on Franco-German nuclear positions. If France and other European countries were to fully integrate into a flexible European system, this would also greatly alleviate concerns over oscillating renewable power production. Today, the variability of renewable energy is managed at the European level by fossil-fired power plants, a report by French grid operator RTE noted, supported by hydro power, particularly in France, Switzerland and Scandinavia.

Nuclear solves intermittency and promotes grid reliability

John Kotek, senior vice president for Policy and Public Affairs with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), 7-20, 23, https://www.powermag.com/how-to-achieve-a-thriving-nuclear-power-industry-in-the-u-s/

In terms of where nuclear power stands today, it produces about 18% of the electricity that we use here in the United States globally, that figures closer to 10%. We’ve got 92 nuclear reactors now operating across the US, although we’ve got two more coming online here relatively soon. Texas, Vogel unit three in the state of Georgia should be coming online very soon. And then what we’ll use with Unit Four some months down the road, in terms of how it, how it operates and fits in the grid. The big thing about nuclear is that it runs 24/7 and runs for many many months at a time between shutdowns for refuelling. So a typical nuclear power plant will run for an 18 or even a 24 month fuel cycle as I’m sure you know, from from your experience working with plants. So that around the clock generating capability is really crucial now because you think about where we’re headed with our grid. As we see more wind and solar coming onto the grid as we seek to get to a lower overall carbon energy system. The fact that those technologies, right intermittently requires that we have something that’s available around the clock to compensate for that. So we’re gonna need to build a lot more wind solar makes a lot of sense, part of the lower carbon grid, but if you looked at the grid today, about 80% of the resources we have on the grid between nuclear and coal and natural gas, they can run in what we used to call baseload mode, right. They’re firm generating resources company can turn on and off as you need it. As we see more and more of these intermittent technologies coming online, we’re going to need something like nuclear that can provide that phone tower and provide a cleanly to help compensate for the growing shares of nonfarm resources. This summer, we’re seeing record setting temperatures I think anybody that’s following the news is heard. You know, in in Phoenix, Arizona, for example, they’ve been in excess of 110 degrees now for for 20 consecutive days and still counting, which is a new record for them. And there’s forecasts, you know, that suggests they could be seeing these type of temperatures for another 10 days or more. And of course, there’s also taxes throughout the rest of the country and even around the world. So it’s not an isolated situation at all. How does nuclear energy contribute to a reliable grid during these types of extreme weather conditions, such as heat waves and perhaps even in the winter cold spells?

Yeah, great question. Nuclear. By virtue of being available around the clock can really help compensate for disruptions in other generating technologies during these extreme conditions. It’s really, you know, this is when nuclear shines the most because, as you know, from your experience in the industry, you don’t build an electric grid to serve load on an average day, right? You build the grid so that it’s there when you need it in the most extreme conditions, when demand is highest. So when you look at some of these extreme weather conditions, you know, for example, in real extreme summer heat that’s when when can really drop off, right. On the other hand, you mentioned your winter storms as well in winter storms, in just on winter days, when of course you could, you could shorter days, solar generation can go way down. And so you need something that that’s available dispatchable around the clock to compensate for the loss of some of these other technologies. Now, look at recent experience. For example, winter storm Eliot, recently, the liquid plants in the US operated with a greater than 90% capacity factor winter storm Yuri hit Texas but but rather parts of the country a couple of years ago, again, nuclear was above 90% capacity factor. In fact, over the last 10 years report by the Electric Power Research Institute found that we are lost only about 1/10 of 1% of its capacity factor due to weather events during that 10 year period. And so your weather while other technologies can be significantly impacted by weather conditions. Nuclear is there when you need it. And I think that you know that coupled with the fact that you’ve got fuel security that you’re not worried about, just in time deliveries of fossil fuels, for example, to polar gas plants, affected the nuclear fuel was on site, it’s there in the core for that 18 to 24 month operating period. Those attributes make nuclear particularly value in extreme weather conditions like we’re seeing now. Sure.

Nuclear solves climate change

That really is a big reason probably the biggest reason why you’re hearing so much renewed interest in nuclear energy technology, right? It’s it’s that zero carbon generation attribute. So nuclear, even today is far and away the largest source of carbon free generation we have on our grid. And that’s part of the reason why you’re seeing so many utilities pledging to keep operating the plants that they have just as long as they can, can do so safely and economically. So, reactors in the US is it’s your listeners may know, are operated initially for a 40 year licence period. They can proceed something called like licence renewal to get approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to operate another 20 years and just about every reactor in the US has applied for and received that permission. Now, many of the reactors in the US are planning on pursuing what we call subsequent licence renewals. So it’s an extra 20 years on on top of the now 60 year licences expect to see almost all of the existing reactors in the US pursue that subsequent licence renewal in fact, a survey that we conducted of our utilities found that more than 90% of the reactors are planning to apply for that subsequent licence renewal and so keeping the nuclear that we have is a huge part of meeting our decarbonisation commitment, but looking beyond that, as we look at closing down even more of the coal in the US and ultimately backing away from fossil fuel years, entirely or incorporating things like carbon capture utilisation and storage. A lot of the utilities are now starting to look at nuclear as a way of meeting their decarbonisation commitments. And, again, just just to highlight to users, more than 80% of the utilities in the US are more than 80% of the customers in the US are now served by utility that is pledged to go largely or completely carbon free by 2050 or sooner. Even absent a global clean energy standard or national price on carbon there’s still a huge momentum to head in this direction of lower carbon. So as a result, utilities are starting to include nuclear in their decarbonisation plans or in their integrated resource plan that companies like do TVA dominion, Pacific Corp, that included nuclear in IRP is just today there was an announcement that energy Northwest is working with X energy to look at building X energy reactors. They’re adjacent to the Columbia generating station in the state of Washington. The list goes on and on. So quite a number of utilities are planning to nuclear online to help decarbonize their generating portfolio. But beyond that, you’re starting to see companies looking at nuclear to help decarbonize non electric applications. So for example, the announcement by dow that they’re working with X energy to look at building one of x energy, high temperature gas reactors to help decarbonize chemical production and the Dow facility that I think is just the tip of the iceberg and that you’re gonna see a lot more interest in nuclear or process heat. Within, say the oil, gas or chemical sectors, you’re gonna start seeing a lot more interest in nuclear for hydrogen production. For industrial use, or using heavy transport, maybe in ammonia, fertiliser production. So I think you’re going to start to see a lot more interest in nuclear beyond the traditional large scale electricity applications and to start seeing more and more use of nuclear to help decarbonize some of these these harder to decarbonize sectors.

SMRs have passive safety systems

Yeah, so many things. Have me excited about that. And there are literally dozens of companies that are seeking to innovate in the advanced nuclear space and you know, that innovation is taking place in a number of dimensions, for example, size, the reactors that we operate in the US, and most of the reactors around the world tend to be on the order of 1000 megawatts, big big reactors that can power a half a million homes at a time. We’re now seeing innovation in the smaller output plants, whether it’s micro reactors have a few megawatts or a few 10s of megawatts or the small modular reactors or advanced reactors that are more in the hundreds of megawatts can set a wider use or wider ranges and use cases. And so, for example, here in the US when you see the TDA to others looking at new nuclear, they’re principally looking at these small modular reactors or advanced reactors in the smaller sizes. We’re also seeing advances in the technology itself. So we’ve been running commercial nuclear plants in the US for more than six years. And as a result, we’ve learned quite a bit and the small modular reactor developers who are developing advanced water cooled reactors are incorporating things like passive safety features where instead of relying on pumps and valves, you’re relying on things like gravity and natural convection.

Some of the advanced reactors are looking at more novel coolants you know, going beyond water and looking at liquid metals or molten salts or high temperature gases, as a way of developing reactors that have, for example, higher outlet temperatures, where you can use that nuclear generated heat for more than just turning the turbine maybe you can use it to help drive an industrial process. Or at some of the really high temperatures, maybe even have some chemicals cycles that are producing hydrogen with higher efficiency. So you’ve got just a really, really wide variety of advances going on in next generation nuclear quickly. It’s gonna be really exciting. Within the next decade or so to see which ones of these actually are the most successful in the marketplace. But given the me and not just the US, but abroad. I think we’ve got room for many isms. That could be one.

Counterlpan – Clean energy standards

Well, first, this is where I’d be remiss if I didn’t say a huge thank you to the Congress and the administration for the tremendous policy support that we’ve seen here over the last several years. Things like the bipartisan infrastructure law and inflation Reduction Act represented huge strides. In the Nuclear Energy policy of the United States. The bipartisan infrastructure law for example, with the support it provided for both existing nuclear reactors and for demonstration of next generation reactors through the advanced reactor demonstration programme that was a huge step forward. That bill also included funding for clean hydrogen production hubs, including one specifically focused on the use of nuclear energy. So that that was really a landmark for us. And then the inflation Reduction Act, the first time put new nuclear on par with new wind and solar in terms of the tax incentives that those technologies received. And so that that really was a game changer. And that’s driven a lot of the interest that we’re seeing in new nuclear among our utility companies. The inflation Reduction Act also included a very important tax credit for existing nuclear generation. So again, sure to buy or should a congressional commitment to ensuring that we don’t shut down any more nuclear power plants for economic reasons. Going forward, we certainly need to retain those tax credits. Those I think are really helped move the needle for for new nuclear. I think we need to see at the state level. These policy incentives adopted for example, we still got a lot of states that are focused on meeting renewable portfolio standards. If you’re serious about decarbonisation, you really need to evolve those to a much more aggressive clean energy standard. So we have seen several states state of Washington really, really lead the way here in terms of establishing a 100% Clean Energy Standard and washing that 2045 But not yet now you have those in California, Oregon and several other states as well. Seeing more states move in that direction, will create more demand for nuclear because the more you’re focused on getting to 100% carbon free, the more the value of nuclear really comes through. Policymakers are coming understand that the lowest cost carbon free energy systems include nuclear power. And so I think policy movements in that direction would be would be very helpful.

We envision nuclear energy as being poised for significant growth, both in the in the US and beyond. Just as an example, we we surveyed our member utilities ask them how much nuclear they anticipate bringing on to the grid and they reported back, they anticipate roughly doubling the size of nuclear generation in the US by the 2050s. When you consider that our electric utility member companies only represent a little less than half of the electric generation on the US grid. That tells you that number could be significantly higher. The Department of Energy put out a report fairly recently, part of their pathways to commercial liftoff series. I recommend that highlight to your to your listeners. That report deal we saw where we can have 300 megawatts of nuclear Scipio tripling during the gigawatts of nuclear weapons, so roughly tripling the size of our carrying capacity for nuclear by mid century again, driven by the need to decarbonize and by the need to electrify things like light transportation and other things that aren’t currently significantly electrified. We think that nuclear is going to grow considerably in that regard. We think it’s going to grow quite a bit globally as well. You look at the circumstances in Europe, if we come up with new nuclear designs, that makes sense in the US context, given our low energy costs and the abundance of options that we have getting a huge in Europe, you consider electricity prices in Europe, considerably higher than they are here in the US. You can apply for carbon where we don’t so easily make sense in the US it’s going to be a game changer in Europe and beyond.

People who can run coal plants can run nuclear plants

And finally, when I think about that deployment of nuclear, both in the US and abroad, but definitely here in the US, I see it as something that’s going to really help communities that are facing closure as a full time. You look at the circumstance with TerraPower the Bill Gates company working with Pacific Corp in the state of Wyoming, they’re going to build their first of its kind at the site. Of a retiring coal plant and camera while and in fact, when power was looking for a location for their plant, they rented this opportunity to four communities in the state of Wyoming that are facing closure of a coal plant and by the end of this discussion it turned into a bit of a competition between those communities as to which one was going to get to host the nuclear plant. So we’re hearing more and more of that interest from communities around the country that are really worried about losing jobs, the tax base, and other benefits that come from hosting a call facility. They would love to see not just the infrastructure at that site that there’s really valuable highly skilled well trained employees that run a coal plant be trained to run a nuclear plant and and we you know, from your experience, your what it takes to run a nuclear plant once you get beyond the nuclear islands. The nuclear plant looks a lot like a coal plant in terms of being a steam driven power system. And so a lot of the people who are working at those coal plants can be put to great use and take advantage of their their high skill level to run new nuclear plants and so I expect this as we grow the nuclear sector in the US we see a lot of that taking place at existing or near existing coal plants.

US leads global nuclear development

Yeah, I just want to underscore this opportunity that exists in the export space. We know from having worked in this industry, the US really led the first wave of global nuclear energy deployment outside the old former Soviet Union. And we’ve accrued a lot of benefits as a nation as a result of that. When you export a reactor to another country you enter into what can be 100 year relationship with that recipient country when you think about how long it takes to licence and build a plant 6080 years of operation and then decommissioning the plant in some of our strongest relationships, as a country are with those kinds of nations with which we have strong civil nuclear energy partnerships, Japan and South Korea, certainly top of mind, and so I think we are really poised to lead the second generation, the second wave of nuclear builds globally, to benefit from those very long term relationships with a growing number of nations around the world. And I think now is a really important time for the US to act to demonstrate these technologies that we’re taking through the commercialization process now, to position ourselves to compete and win in that global marketplace.

Air pollution kills 100,000 in the US each year

Daryl Fears, 7-20, 23, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/07/20/without-focus-race-biden-effort-air-pollution-disparities-will-fail-report-says/, Without focus on race, Biden effort on air pollution disparities will fail, report says

Air pollution causes about 100,000 premature deaths in the United States each year, “which corresponds to billions of dollars of health damage each day,” the report says. The Clean Air Act has dramatically improved air quality for all Americans since its adoption in the 1970s, but gaping racial disparities continue to exist.

Poor, minority groups experience the worst air pollution

The White House took issue with the study’s finding, saying its portrayal of how emissions should be addressed is not how Justice40 works. “This study analyzes a fictional scenario with air quality investments being made haphazardly and without thought to actually cutting pollution from sources that are upwind of communities,” a spokesperson for the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality said in a statement. “This is not how the Justice40 Initiative is being implemented. Instead, agencies use the screening tool to target the historic investments secured by the Biden-Harris Administration appropriately so that the benefits of nearly 470 federal programs actually reach the communities that are most underserved and overburdened by pollution.” The council oversees the Justice40 initiative. Air pollution causes about 100,000 premature deaths in the United States each year, “which corresponds to billions of dollars of health damage each day,” the report says. The Clean Air Act has dramatically improved air quality for all Americans since its adoption in the 1970s, but gaping racial disparities continue to exist. The report focused on fine particulate matter pollution when investigating the impact of using a colorblind strategy to alleviate poor air quality. Exposure results in higher rates of lung cancer, stroke, heart attacks and respiratory problems such as asthma. African Americans are exposed to more fine particulate matter than any group, followed by Asian Americans, Latinos and White people. The report used a mapping tool to peer 20 years into the future to determine pollution emissions with and without federal intervention. With no stronger regulation, a business-as-usual scenario, African Americans and other racial groups would continue to suffer disproportionately from exposure to fine particulate matter. With Justice40 intervention based on factors that do not include race, air quality would dramatically improve for everyone, but for racial groups, the disparities will still continue. “This outcome could be interpreted as undermining a core environmental justice goal: eliminating exposure disparities by race-ethnicity,” the report says.

Democrats oppose nuclear power expansion

Heid, 7-19, 23, Markham Heid is a freelance journalist who chiefly covers health and science. His work has appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time magazine, and other outlets, Why ultra-green Germany turned its back on nuclear energy, https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2023/7/19/23799448/germany-climate-change-nuclear-power-fukushima-carbon-emissions-coal-global-warming

But environmental advocacy groups and left-leaning American voters have traditionally opposed nuclear power. And, despite the president’s efforts, recent Gallup data suggest this is still the case: Less than half of Democrats back nuclear, compared to 62 percent of Republicans. It’s not all that odd that environmentally conscious Germans would support finishing off the country’s long-dying nuclear sector.

Far more people die from coal than any side effect of nuclear

However, when making energy trade-offs, these risks must be balanced against the harms associated with the use of non-nuclear energy sources — such as air pollution and CO2 emissions produced by fossil fuels. According to estimates from Our World in Data, nuclear is cleaner and safer than any power source apart from solar. The number of deaths caused by either accidents or air pollution as a result of nuclear power is estimated to be just 0.03 deaths per terawatt-hour of energy produced. That is far, far below the 18 deaths and 25 deaths per terawatt-hour associated with oil and coal sources, respectively.

Reduced nuclear increases air pollution and death

His comments are grounded in some of his own peer-reviewed research. Similar analyses, including a more-recent paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a US-based nonprofit, have likewise found that Germany’s withdrawal from nuclear resulted in thousands of preventable deaths, mostly due to air pollution caused by the burning of coal. That NBER paper also concluded that the phase-out cost the country $12 billion.

Need nuclear to provide base power

Kharecha acknowledges that Germany has done “a very impressive job” of rapidly scaling up solar and wind sources of energy production. But he says the unreliability of renewables requires supplementation with other sources, and that’s where nuclear is needed. “Nuclear provides continuous ‘baseload’ power,” he says. “Renewables and nuclear really should be viewed as complementary choices, not binary ones.”

Nuclear isn’t flexible enough to work with renewables

But other energy experts say renewables and nuclear make poor bedfellows. “One of the issues with nuclear is its inflexibility — it either operates at 100 percent or zero, and you can’t just flip a switch and turn it on or off,” says Andrzej Ancygier, a lecturer at New York University’s Berlin satellite campus and a senior energy and climate policy analyst at Climate Analytics. For renewables to work at scale, he says, flexible complementary energy sources are needed, and nuclear isn’t that.

Also, nuclear power plants have a finite lifespan. To extend that lifespan requires significant investments of both cash and time, and may come with mounting risks. “Operating a plant longer than is planned … in my opinion, it’s dangerous, but I can understand the discussion there,” Ancygier says. On the other hand, he argues that building new nuclear facilities now, in 2022, makes little sense: “Economically and from a climate change perspective, it is complete nonsense. They’re much, much more expensive than renewables, they come with more risks, and they always take much longer to build than planned.”

It takes 10 years to build a nuclear plant and it is massively expensive

Schreurs, the Technical University of Munich professor, makes a similar point. She says that very few Western nations, even pro-nuclear countries, have managed to build new nuclear plants in recent years. Those that have tried — for example, the UK’s still-in-progress Hinkley Point power plant — have run into major delays and massive budget overruns. “The upfront costs of nuclear are immense, and the time to build new plants is on average something like 10 years,” she says. “If you’re talking about building new facilities to reduce emissions quickly, it’s hard to argue for nuclear over renewables.”

Nuclear power plants can be built quickly and safely

Columbia’s Kharecha agrees that high costs and long lead times are arguably the biggest challenges for new nuclear. But he says these are solvable problems, and history has shown that they can be overcome. “France and Sweden built lots of reactors very rapidly, decades ago, and neither country has experienced major problems with them,” he says.

Despite the June 2006-June 2003 comparison, there is a net decrease in Arctic ice, and it’s caused by CO2 emissions

Kate Peterson, 7-18, 23, USA Today, June 2006 v. June 2023 Arctic sea ice comparison doesn’t disprove global warming, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/07/18/arctic-sea-ice-declining-despite-june-comparision-fact-check/70385012007/

A June 17 tweet (direct link, archive link) shows Arctic sea ice extent images from June 16, 2006, and June 16, 2023. The sea ice appears to cover roughly the same area in both images from the National Snow and Ice Data Center. “Not the narrative: June 2023 Arctic sea ice extent about the same as June 2006, despite ~800 billion tons of emissions representing a 41% increase in industrial era CO2,” reads the caption. “Emissions-driven warming is a hoax.” The tweet was shared to Facebook more than 100 times in less than a month, according to Crowdtangle, a social media analytics tool. It was also retweeted more than 6,000 times. Follow us on Facebook!Like our page to get updates throughout the day on our latest debunks Our rating: False While Arctic sea ice extent − the area covered by a certain amount of floating ice − was similar in June 2006 and 2023, Arctic sea ice is decreasing overall due to global warming. Multiple lines of evidence show that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming. Arctic sea ice decreasing overall despite variability Arctic sea ice is declining overall due to climate change, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. About half of the sea ice cover at the “minimum extent” − the time of year after the summer melt has concluded − has been lost, according to the United Nations Environment Programme. “We have over 43 years of data now, and the signal of decreasing sea ice is very clear,” Walt Meier, a senior research scientist at National Snow and Ice Data Center, previously told USA TODAY. Fact check: Humans are responsible for a significant amount of CO2 in the atmosphere However, seasonal weather and short-term climate variations also influence the size of extent, he told USA TODAY in an email. This means that even though sea ice is declining overall, it is still possible for a more recent year or month to roughly match the extent of past months or years. This is the case for June 2006 and June 2023, which had similar extent sizes throughout the month, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph. However, the extents in both June 2006 and June 2003 were both lower than June extents between 1979-2004 as well as some more recent years. Overall, June Arctic sea ice extent has decreased by 3.8% per decade since the late 1970s, according to National Snow and Ice Data Center. Other parts of the year, such as the September minimum extent, have sustained much greater losses. Global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions More than a trillion metric tons of CO2 have been released by fossil fuel burning and land use changes since 1850, according to the 2022 Global Carbon Budget. Multiple lines of evidence show this CO2 has warmed the planet, Josh Willis, a NASA climate scientist, previously told USA TODAY. For one, CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, which warms the lower atmosphere by slowing the escape of heat into space. “The amount of warming we see matches what we expect based on the increased CO2 we’ve added,” he said. “The timing of the warming matches the timing of the CO2 increase caused by people.” Additionally, the type of carbon found in fossil fuels can be detected in atmospheric CO2, which confirms the gas was introduced by human behavior. Fact check: Arctic sea ice declining overall, though level varies by year and season The post’s figures for CO2 emissions since 2006 are in the ballpark, but may be somewhat overstated. Carbon Brief reports that humans released around 660 billion metric tons of CO2 between 2006-2022 through fossil fuel burning and land use changes. However, the Carbon Brief data (which is from the Global Carbon Project) also subtracts some emissions that were absorbed by the concrete manufacturing process. The social media user who posted the claim did not immediately respond to questions about the source of the CO2 emissions estimate in the post or which types of emissions are included in the estimate.

Nuclear power expansion inevitable. Russia and China are dominating the markets. The US needs to act to catch-up

Maria Korsnick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, July 18, 2023, Hearing Testimony, https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/07_18_23_Testimony_Korsnick_9af85b42f7.pdf

Nuclear power is the largest, most reliable form of clean energy. Demand for nuclear energy in the U.S. and globally is projected to surge. Nuclear is poised to play a pivotal role in meeting U.S. energy security and carbon redu ction goals via the long-term operation of our existing large light-water reactors and deployment of new, advanced plants. China and Russia are aggressively broadening their geopolitical leverage with nuclear technology export sales. For U.S. companies to succeed abroad, international customers expect U.S. technologies to be deployed here at home. It is thus a national security imperative to accelerate domestic and international deployments of innovative U.S. technologies. To achieve our energy security, national security, and decarbonization goals, NEI urges the following critical actions: 1. Modernize the NRC regulatory process. The NRC should update its mission to drive greater efficiency in its regulatory processes. Reducing review schedules, eliminating mandatory uncontested hearings, leveraging the National Environmental Policy Act innovations enacted in the Fiscal Responsibility Act, and other actions to improve efficiency will enhance— not detract from—safety by allowing the agency to focus on the most safety significant issues. 2. Establish a secure, reliable, domestic fuel supply. Having a strong domestic nuclear fuel cycle is a national security imperative. The U.S. commercial industry is committed to phasing out Russian fuel imports, but federal support is essential to the industry establishing a secure, competitive supply of conversion and enrichment in the U.S. 3. Surmount financing obstacles facing domestic plant development. Federal tax incentives are a game-changer for existing plants and new plant deployment. Additional federal support is necessary to meaningfully accelerate domestic deployments. 4. Support U.S. competitiveness in global nuclear market. The U.S. should assign strategic value to nuclear exports and streamline the cumbersome Part 810 process. 5. Reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act. Congress should maintain the PriceAnderson Act’s well-established liability framework by acting on renewal in the near term. The Act has been successfully implemented for over six decades and preserving its indemnification authority is critical for the industry’s continued growth. 6. Establish an integrated approach to used fuel management. Ongoing consolidated interim storage efforts and recycling research should be complemented by making progress on a disposal facility

-Securing a domestic fuel supply is a key part of supporting nuclear power

Maria Korsnick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, July 18, 2023, Hearing Testimony, https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/07_18_23_Testimony_Korsnick_9af85b42f7.pdf

We appreciate that Congress recognizes nuclear energy’s importance. More than a dozen bills are under discussion that would support current and future nuclear plants by enhancing licensing efficiency, streamlining application review schedules, reducing regulatory costs, providing support for a domestic fuel supply, and bolstering export opportunities.

Nuclear plants are hardened and critical to grid reliability

Maria Korsnick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, July 18, 2023, Hearing Testimony, https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/07_18_23_Testimony_Korsnick_9af85b42f7.pdf

. In addition to its substantial clean energy benefits, nuclear generation is critical to grid reliability, annually providing nearly 800 billion megawatt-hours of 24/7 electricity. Nuclear plants are hardened facilities that are protected from physical and cyber threats, helping to ensure we have a resilient electricity system in the face of potential disruptions.

Nuclear supports rural America

Maria Korsnick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, July 18, 2023, Hearing Testimony, https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/07_18_23_Testimony_Korsnick_9af85b42f7.pdf

Nuclear power plants also are valuable contributors to the nation’s economy, adding $60 billion annually to the GDP. Nuclear power plants also serve as the economic backbone for communities in which they operate, producing more than $12 billion annually in federal and state tax revenue. Tax revenue from plants often provides rural small towns with essential funding for schools, roads, emergency personnel, and other needs.

Jobs advantage

Maria Korsnick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, July 18, 2023, Hearing Testimony, https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/07_18_23_Testimony_Korsnick_9af85b42f7.pdf

Nuclear power plants serve as engines for job creation. Construction of a new nuclear plant can provide thousands of well-paying jobs. For example, at its peak the Vogtle 3 and 4 project provided more than 9,000 construction jobs and is anticipated to provide more than 800 permanent jobs once the units begin operation. Today, the U.S. nuclear energy sector directly employs nearly 100,000 people in long-term jobs with salaries that are 50 percent higher on average than those created by other electricity generation sources. Maintenance work at existing plants accounts for 20 million union person-hours annually. Recruiting from universities, community colleges, the military and the trades, nuclear power plants provide highquality jobs to the whole community. All told, these facilities are responsible for 475,000 direct and secondary jobs.

Plan: Improve the licensing process

Maria Korsnick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, July 18, 2023, Hearing Testimony, https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/07_18_23_Testimony_Korsnick_9af85b42f7.pdf

Ensuring U.S. leadership in nuclear energy places the NRC in a central and decisive role. Despite the well understood technology of light water reactors used by the commercial nuclear industry during the last 50 years, NRC’s processes have become more cumbersome, rather than 5 Letter from M. Korsnick, NEI, to Chair Rodgers, Chair Duncan, Ranking Member Pallone, and Ranking Member DeGette, House Energy and Commerce (May 4, 2023). 6 Letter from M. Korsnick, NEI, to Chair Warner, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (June 2, 2023). 6 more efficient. And, too often, the agency diverts its focus to activities that have a negligible effect on safety. With the pending expansion of nuclear in the U.S. and worldwide, it is critical that NRC’s regulatory and licensing processes not only provide adequate protection of public health and safety, but also facilitate achievement of the policy goal announced in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 that nuclear energy make the “maximum contribution to the general welfare.” 7 We believe the NRC can achieve both objectives. We encourage Congress to direct the Commission to update its mission statement to drive more timely and efficient licensing reviews of U.S. advanced nuclear technologies. Doing so would not detract from NRC’s focus on safety. It is a false narrative to suggest that efficient regulation undermines safety as the two are not in tension. Rather, efficient NRC regulation can enhance safety by allowing the NRC to focus on the most safety significant issues. Although the NRC has taken some positive steps to increase efficiency, additional actions are necessary because the NRC’s persistent drive toward zero risk—rather than adequate protection of public health and safety—too often stands in the way of nuclear energy making the “maximum contribution to the general welfare.” For example, NRC’s reviews have become unnecessarily onerous, lengthy, and costly. Actions that previously have taken a reasonable amount of effort and time have doubled, tripled, and even quadrupled in cost and length, 8 not decreased as one would expect. Indeed, the NRC’s own data shows that the agency is applying 7 The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 grant the NRC the authority to regulate civilian use of commercial nuclear power. The Act establishes “adequate protection” of public health and safety as the measure that underpins NRC’s regulatory requirements. 42 U.S.C. § 2232(a). The Act also states that it is the policy of the United States that, “the development, use, and control of atomic energy shall be directed so as to make the maximum contribution to the general welfare.” 42 U.S.C. § 2011(a). 8 NEI, “Recommendations for Enhancing the Safety Focus of New Reactor Regulatory Reviews” (April 2018). 7 50 percent more resources for subsequent license renewals than it applied to initial license renewals, despite the fact that the scope of subsequent license renewal is only a fraction of the initial license renewal review. 9 And according to the NRC’s generic review schedule, 10 even the simplest licensing actions are given a review schedule of one to two years. The NRC’s extensive hearing process poses further risk of delays, insofar as it includes the opportunity for both a trial-type contested hearing on safety and environmental issues, and a mandatory uncontested hearing. Notably, the public can participate in the contested hearing. The mandatory uncontested hearing, which does not include public participation, was added as a requirement of the Atomic Energy Act in 1957 to address concerns over a lack of transparency in early licensing decisions. The mandatory hearing has outlived its useful purpose and adds 4-7 months11 and millions of dollars to the licensing process. The NRC’s licensing process and the surrounding legal landscape have changed dramatically since the mandatory hearing requirement was enacted in 1957. Subsequent legislation such as the Freedom of Information Act of 1966, the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the Government in Sunshine Act of 1976, and the opportunities for public participation provided through the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) address the concerns that prompted addition of the mandatory hearing requirement in the first instance. Today, the NRC’s licensing process is transparent—with the public having ready access to both the information provided by the applicant, as well as the NRC staff’s evaluation of that information, and members of the public can request hearings on contested issues. Eliminating the requirement to hold mandatory uncontested hearings would not impact the public’s ability to request contested hearings or otherwise alter the NRC’s transparency obligations established by all these other federal statutes but would significantly increase the efficiency of the licensing process. Additionally, the NRC’s implementation of NEPA requirements can be considerably more streamlined, efficient, and better resourced. Although the NRC has made some progress in this area, further action is needed to achieve prompt change on the scale necessary to support new plant deployment. To this end, we support the discussion draft of the Modernize Nuclear Reactor Environmental Reviews Act, which requires the NRC to report on actions to implement the amendments to NEPA made by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 and other measures to streamline environmental reviews, including the expanded use of categorical exclusions, environmental assessments, and environmental impact statements prepared by other federal agencies. The discussion draft also would further environmental modernization efforts by directing the consideration of authorizing the use of an applicant’s environmental report as the Commission’s draft environmental impact statement, consistent with newly enacted section 107(f) of NEPA. Using an applicant’s environmental report as the draft environmental impact statement could reduce NRC’s NEPA review schedule by 6-12 months as it would accelerate the public’s involvement in the process and eliminate the need for the NRC staff to re-write the detailed information already in the environmental report. The NRC would continue to be responsible for providing detailed guidance on the contents of environmental reports, considering public input, conducting its analysis of the proposed action, and producing the final 9 environmental impact statement. Thus, extensive NRC involvement in and ultimate responsibility for NEPA process would be ensured. It is now time for the NRC to update its mission statement, management philosophy, and operations, and emphasize agency efficiency. Otherwise, we risk that NRC’s processes will create roadblocks preventing newer, safe nuclear technologies from being deployed, impeding nuclear power from playing a key role in meeting our clean energy and energy security goal

Plan – protect fuel supply

Maria Korsnick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, July 18, 2023, Hearing Testimony, https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/07_18_23_Testimony_Korsnick_9af85b42f7.pdf

Russia dominates the global enrichment services market for low-enriched uranium, is the only supplier in the world for the high-assay low-enriched uranium required by most advanced reactor designs, and has a significant share of the uranium conversion market. Expanding domestic capabilities is critical to ensure the continued operation of U.S. existing reactors and the buildout of new reactors using innovative U.S. technology. Developing secure, reliable, competitive domestic nuclear fuel cycle capabilities is a national security imperative. The U.S. commercial nuclear industry is committed to eliminating the import of uranium and related conversion and enrichment services from the Russian Federation. However, reestablishing the necessary infrastructure will require billions of dollars and at least five years to sufficiently fill the gap currently served by Russia given years of atrophy. As it is imperative to act quickly, we will continue to work with the U.S. government to reestablish a secure and diverse supply of conversion and enrichment services so the industry can phase out Russian imports.

Plan – Providing tax and other supports critical to compete against Russia and China

Maria Korsnick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, July 18, 2023, Hearing Testimony, https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/07_18_23_Testimony_Korsnick_9af85b42f7.pdf

Commercializing the multiple innovative nuclear plant designs now in various stages of development will allow this country and our allies to take advantage of nuclear energy’s non- 10 emitting electricity as well as its ability to be used for many additional applications. Federal tax incentives, including the technology neutral clean electricity production and investment tax credits, will play a game-changing role in preserving our existing nuclear fleet and deploying innovative nuclear technologies. These incentives are vital to our success and must be preserved. In addition, to meet the growing demand for advanced technology, first-of-a-kind projects must overcome concerns regarding cost and estimated schedule accuracy. Additional government support would meaningfully accelerate domestic deployments by addressing the unique costs these projects face and offsetting risks that commonly come with new construction. Government cost-overrun support for the first commercial operation of multiple innovative advanced reactor designs would help make these plants cost competitive. That would provide certainty for project developers and investors, incentivizing purchase orders for these new technologies to speed deployments and help build supply chain capacity. Time is of the essence, as the governments of Russia and China have already heavily invested in new deployment, challenging American leadership and potentially destabilizing international security. To compete with Russia and China, the U.S. will need to rapidly bring multiple reactor designs to the market. Providing a range of reactor designs and sizes will enable advanced U.S. nuclear technologies to match the markets in which they will be deployed, both in terms of the energy demand and the financial investment. Global demand for advanced nuclear technologies is rapidly building, with cumulative capital expenditures estimated to reach $8.6 trillion for new nuclear.12

CONTINUES

For U.S. technologies to be seen as viable commercial options abroad, international customers will expect multiple units of the designs to be deployed at home. American power companies are making plans to deploy this next generation of nuclear power to meet their energy and decarbonization goals by 2050. Although the long-term expectations for U.S. advanced reactor deployments could exceed 200 GWe by mid-century,13 without a government accelerant the timing of these deployments may not be soon enough for those countries urgently seeking to avoid reliance on Russia or China Reactor exports allow the U.S. to form 100-year strategic relationships around the world that span the construction, operation and decommissioning of a plant. In the current global market, U.S. companies must compete against companies that have vast state-backed financial and political resources. Russia and China use nuclear exports as an instrument of foreign policy. The U.S. similarly should assign strategic value to nuclear energy exports and direct DOE and the State Department to streamline the cumbersome Part 810 authorization process for technologies of low proliferation risk.

Global nuclear power expansion now

Sanghamitra Saha, July 14, 2023, Uranium ETFs: Promising Picks as Nuclear Energy Resurges, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/uranium-etfs-promising-picks-nuclear-170000083.html

The sentiment among uranium is one of optimism, with expectations of a further recovery in uranium prices in 2023. This positive outlook is driven by the resurgence of nuclear energy, as several developed countries are extending the lifespan of existing nuclear power plants and investing in new constructions. In the face of the ongoing energy crisis and the need for reliable, low-carbon power sources, nuclear energy is gaining popularity once again. Changing Landscape of Nuclear Energy Countries such as Japan, France, South Korea, India, the UK, the United States, and Germany have recently announced plans to expand their nuclear power programs. Japan, in particular, has been a major catalyst for the increased demand for uranium. The restart of its 40 existing reactors would raise the structural demand for uranium, according to Rick Rule, CEO of Sprott US Holdings, as quoted on an article published on mining.com.

Increased uranium demand increases prices

Sanghamitra Saha, July 14, 2023, Uranium ETFs: Promising Picks as Nuclear Energy Resurges, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/uranium-etfs-promising-picks-nuclear-170000083.html

The demand for uranium is expected to increase significantly in the coming years, while the supply remains tight. Currently, approximately 190 million pounds of uranium are consumed annually, while only around 130 million pounds are extracted from the ground, creating a supply deficit. This supply-demand imbalance is contributing to the upward pressure on uranium prices. Bank of America’s Global Research projects uranium spot prices to rise by 34% by the end of 2025, as quoted on etf.com.

Integrated fuel management

Maria Korsnick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, July 18, 2023, Hearing Testimony, https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/07_18_23_Testimony_Korsnick_9af85b42f7.pdf

Establish an integrated approach to used fuel management To date, the safe management of used nuclear fuel at reactor sites has been an impressive but often untold success story. In 60 years of commercial nuclear electricity generation, there has never been a harmful radioactive release from used nuclear fuel. Significantly, the nation’s entire used fuel inventory would fit inside a single big box store distribution warehouse and an individual’s lifetime supply of nuclear energy would produce an amount of waste smaller than a soda can. The nuclear industry continues to do its part to maintain public health and safety, but the federal government has a continuing statutory and contractual obligation to remove used nuclear fuel from the 76 commercial sites at which it is currently stored. Accordingly, we support DOE’s recent effort to develop a consent-based process to site consolidated interim storage facilities. Because a permanent disposal repository is a necessary component of any credible used fuel management program, DOE’s efforts to partner with communities on storage are more likely to succeed if they are part of a fully integrated used fuel management program that includes progress on a disposal facility (as well as continued research and support for recycling). 14 Around the globe, other nations are moving forward with integrated used nuclear fuel management programs. Finland is constructing a repository, France has a long and successful history of recycling used nuclear fuel and is developing a repository in partnership with community leaders, and Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom are in various stages of repository siting and development. Much must be done to establish a program that will succeed in the U.S. NEI stands ready to work with the Congress and the public to develop durable solutions

Fusion doesn’t produce nuclear waste

Rogers & Ma, 7-13, 23, Stephanie Kelton is an economist and a professor of economics and public policy at Stony Brook University; Tammy Ma: lead for the Inertial Fusion Energy Initiative here at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; James Rogers, a Financial Columnist at MarketWatch, 7/13/2023 3:00:00 AMShare This Episode: Can nuclear power save the world?, https://www.marketwatch.com/podcasts/best-new-ideas-in-money/can-nuclear-power-save-the-world/241988d7-136f-4a9a-961b-77ac34821b86

James Rogers: And that’s not to mention the waste, but there are different types of nuclear energy and the nuclear energy of the future. That’s nuclear fusion doesn’t produce the kind of long-lived waste you might associate with nuclear power. Fusion is also much safer than fission, which is how we produce nuclear energy today. We’ll come back to the differences between fusion and fission later in the episode.

Tammy Ma: It is inherently safe. There’s no high-level nuclear waste. There is no carbon anywhere in the fusion process that we are generating. It is sustainable. We know how to obtain the fusion fuel that we need without damaging the environment.

Fusion power can power large cities

James Rogers: So that’s safe, clean, and sustainable. According to Ma.

Tammy Ma: Fusion power plants, most of the designs would have fusion power plants on the orders of hundreds of megawatt or gigawatt type scale, meaning they’re similar to coal-powered plants of today, and so you could help meet baseload and use that power to run large cities.

Enough isotopes for 30 million years of fusion energy

Tammy Ma: It is basically, sometimes you’ll hear we’ll say limitless. It is very, very abundant. The amount of deuterium we have in seawater is enough to feed, we think humans for another 30 million years and our growing energy needs. And so you’ll often hear that fusion is limitless.

James Rogers: Deuterium and tritium are hydrogen isotopes and in this case what you need to know is that they’re the fuel for fusion.

Fusion starts energy wars

Ma, 7-13, 23, Stephanie Kelton is an economist and a professor of economics and public policy at Stony Brook University; Tammy Ma: lead for the Inertial Fusion Energy Initiative here at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; James Rogers, a Financial Columnist at MarketWatch, 7/13/2023 3:00:00 AMShare This Episode: Can nuclear power save the world?, https://www.marketwatch.com/podcasts/best-new-ideas-in-money/can-nuclear-power-save-the-world/241988d7-136f-4a9a-961b-77ac34821b86

Tammy Ma: If we can make fusion work, it means energy security. If we can deploy fusion in a way that is equitable and just and out to societies worldwide, it could be a way to also meet energy sovereignty needs too. We can basically stop fighting wars over energy because it will completely change the paradigm of our relationship with energy.

How fusion works

Ma, Klton, Rogers, 7-13, 23, Stephanie Kelton is an economist and a professor of economics and public policy at Stony Brook University; Tammy Ma: lead for the Inertial Fusion Energy Initiative here at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; James Rogers, a Financial Columnist at MarketWatch, Rogers & Ma, 7-13, 23, Stephanie Kelton is an economist and a professor of economics and public policy at Stony Brook University; Tammy Ma: lead for the Inertial Fusion Energy Initiative here at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; James Rogers, a Financial Columnist at MarketWatch, 7/13/2023 3:00:00 AMShare This Episode: Can nuclear power save the world?, https://www.marketwatch.com/podcasts/best-new-ideas-in-money/can-nuclear-power-save-the-world/241988d7-136f-4a9a-961b-77ac34821b86

Tammy Ma: Fusion is the merging of two atoms under high enough densities, temperatures, pressures, and holding it together long enough that those two atoms fuse into a heavier element, and in that creation of the heavier elements, mass is liberated. And so with that comes out a huge amount of energy.

Stephanie Kelton: Fusion is what’s happening inside stars, including our own sun.

James Rogers: It’s not the same thing as the type of nuclear power most of us are familiar with. That’s called fission? Yes. The two are frustratingly similar names.

Tammy Ma: So fission means the breakdown of the heavy element like uranium or plutonium, and when you break down that heavy element into smaller constituent elements, you release energy that way. Fission is relatively easier. I mean, obviously, we already have many fission power plants. Fusion, we’re still in the very early stages of trying to develop the science enough that we can build the technology around it to actually demonstrate a fusion power plant.

We are on the threshold of major breakthroughs in fusion now

Ma & Roges, 7-13, 23, Rogers & Ma, 7-13, 23, Stephanie Kelton is an economist and a professor of economics and public policy at Stony Brook University; Tammy Ma: lead for the Inertial Fusion Energy Initiative here at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; James Rogers, a Financial Columnist at MarketWatch, 7/13/2023 3:00:00 AMShare This Episode: Can nuclear power save the world?, https://www.marketwatch.com/podcasts/best-new-ideas-in-money/can-nuclear-power-save-the-world/241988d7-136f-4a9a-961b-77ac34821b86

Tammy Ma: So we do know fusion works, right? Fusion powers the sun and the stars. So we know the principle of fusion works very well. Now what we’re trying to do is recreate fusion in the laboratory in a controlled way, and so this is how you can precisely control the amount of energy coming out and then also utilize it for good, rather than weapons. Where we are now is really in an inflection point, though, because the breakthrough that we had last December was a proof of principle. It was a demonstration that this can work in the laboratory. Of course, there’s still more work to do, but where we are now, the reason I say it’s an inflection point is, because we’re seeing advances in many different technologies that we would actually need to make a power plant really work.

Tammy Ma: So the holy grail of fusion research is to generate more energy out than you put in, and if you generate enough energy out, then you can actually harness that as an energy source. Now, we’re not violating any principles of physics here. We’re converting mass into energy because what we’re doing is taking two light elements, fusing them, and then the element that comes out, weighs a little bit less than your original two atoms in.

James Rogers: How does this actually work? Well, it’s complicated, but at Livermore, scientists use powerful lasers to force hydrogen atoms inside a small cylinder to combine and form helium, and that reaction is where the energy-generating magic happens.

Tammy Ma: Last December, we were able to generate three units of energy out for two units of energy in. So three over two is a gain of 1.5. Anything over one is basically ignition.

Fusion is a type of nuclear power

Ma, 7-13, 23, Rogers & Ma, 7-13, 23, Stephanie Kelton is an economist and a professor of economics and public policy at Stony Brook University; Tammy Ma: lead for the Inertial Fusion Energy Initiative here at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; James Rogers, a Financial Columnist at MarketWatch, 7/13/2023 3:00:00 AMShare This Episode: Can nuclear power save the world?, https://www.marketwatch.com/podcasts/best-new-ideas-in-money/can-nuclear-power-save-the-world/241988d7-136f-4a9a-961b-77ac34821b86

Fusion needs to be able to compete with the other energy sources out there, so the challenges are still quite momentous. And then on top of that, fusion is a type of nuclear energy, so there’s many public perception, and social issues.

Fusion breakthroughs need government investments

Tammy Ma: It very much depends on the support, the level of investment that goes in, and the will. And so I do, I’m biased because I work at a national lab, so I’m in the public sector, but this type of work is still a very long-term risk. It is rare for private companies to actually have the amount of capital, typically on the order of hundreds of millions to billions, in order to build large-scale experimental facilities, let alone full reactors. So there still needs to be significant public investment, I think, to make this happen. And so let’s say the US government were to get serious about fusion energy, like actually serious about fusion energy, and decided to do something like a Manhattan Project type of investment and go all in and pull scientists together from all across the US. It probably could be done as fast as a decade, but more likely it will be a bit longer than that.

US needs to increase support for fusion to continue as a leader

Ma & Kelton, 7-13, 23, Ma, 7-13, 23, Rogers & Ma, 7-13, 23, Stephanie Kelton is an economist and a professor of economics and public policy at Stony Brook University; Tammy Ma: lead for the Inertial Fusion Energy Initiative here at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; James Rogers, a Financial Columnist at MarketWatch, 7/13/2023 3:00:00 AMShare This Episode: Can nuclear power save the world?, https://www.marketwatch.com/podcasts/best-new-ideas-in-money/can-nuclear-power-save-the-world/241988d7-136f-4a9a-961b-77ac34821b86

Stephanie Kelton: On the other hand, that concentration of talent she mentioned is one big reason that Ma believes the United States should push into fusion.

Tammy Ma: One thing I want to emphasize is that the US right now is the undisputed leader in inertial fusion. We are the only ones that have achieved ignition. We are the only ones with the full-scale facility that can even achieve come close to the plasma conditions that you need for fusion. And we have a huge wealth of expertise in not only the physics but the simulation codes, the computational capabilities, advanced manufacturing, all the things you need to actually pull this together. And so we really need to capitalize on that lead that we have to make fusion energy a reality because other countries are getting interested too. And certainly, if we can make fusion work, we want it to be a solution that’s deployed worldwide. We don’t want to keep it to just the US, but what we’re seeing right now is an entirely new energy economy, and whoever gets there first sets the values and sets the real set. And so that’s why we need to really get behind and accelerate this technology so that we get there first.

Nuclear doesn’t compete with renewables

Buongiorno, 7-13, 23, Ma, 7-13, 23, Rogers & Ma, 7-13, 23, Stephanie Kelton is an economist and a professor of economics and public policy at Stony Brook University; Tammy Ma: lead for the Inertial Fusion Energy Initiative here at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; James Rogers, a Financial Columnist at MarketWatch, 7/13/2023 3:00:00 AMShare This Episode: Can nuclear power save the world?, https://www.marketwatch.com/podcasts/best-new-ideas-in-money/can-nuclear-power-save-the-world/241988d7-136f-4a9a-961b-77ac34821b86, Jacopo Buongiorno is a Nuclear Engineering Professor at MIT

Jacopo Buongiorno: Very often, nuclear is cast in opposition, or in contrast with renewables such as solar, wind, and hydro. That is absolutely a mistake. The characteristics of these different energy sources are such that actually nuclear works very well with renewables and vice versa. Let me explain why. Nuclear is what we call firm capacity. It’s essentially always on, 24/7, so it provides a nice base to meet the demand that the electric grid requires at any given time. On the other end, you have renewables such as solar and wind in particular that are intrinsically intermittent because, as we know, the sun doesn’t always shine, the wind doesn’t always blow. However, when sunshine is available and wind is available, power plants, solar and wind power plants, actually produce electricity at very, very low cost. The problem is that since they’re not doing it all the time, but you still need to meet demand when they’re not producing it. Because of this issue of intermittency, you would have to store the energy, the excess energy that is produced when the sun shines and the wind blows, and then deliver that energy at the time when solar and wind are not producing. That’s theoretically possible. It’s the question of energy storage, batteries, et cetera. But all the studies we have done, and at this point many other organizations perform, show that while it’s theoretically feasible, one, it would be much, much more costly than having something like nuclear in the mix. And number two, the overall grid, the overall energy system would be a lot less reliable because of all that intermittency and that sort of juggling generation and demand over long periods of time.

SMRs have passive safety features that will shut-down reactors

Jacopo Buongiorno: So SMR stands for small modular reactors. EUS is definitely a leader in the development of that technology. These are reactors that produce of the order of a hundred or a couple of hundred megawatts. James Rogers: That’s much smaller than the gigawatt capacity we talked about earlier. So what do these SMRs look like? Jacopo Buongiorno: They are essentially the same designs of the larger reactors that we’ve been operating for several decades, with some improvement. What they’ve done with these SMRs is to shrink them down in size, which is expected to simplify the construction, the delivery of these plants, and shrink or reduce the schedule so that they can be the deployed at a higher rate. And also importantly, the smaller size allows for an easier implementation of a safety approach, which we call passive safety. Stephanie Kelton: Passive safety means that in the case of an accident, a reactor will automatically shut down without intervention.

The impact of accidents has been exaggerated and we’ve learned from our mistakes

Jacopo Buongiorno: I think people understand that technology evolves. It is true that there have been accidents, including Fukushima, which was 12 years ago. These events, while not as catastrophic as they’ve been depicted in the media, have also been learning experiences for the industry. And so mistakes, errors, flaws in design, or practices that were identified in the analysis that followed these accidents have been used very productively and positively to basically improve the operation of existing plants. And the lessons learned have also been incorporated in the new designs that will have to be built from this point on.

US nuclear power shut-down process has been reversed

Kelton, Rogers, Buongiorno, 7-13, 23, Ma, 7-13, 23, Rogers & Ma, 7-13, 23, Stephanie Kelton is an economist and a professor of economics and public policy at Stony Brook University; Tammy Ma: lead for the Inertial Fusion Energy Initiative here at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; James Rogers, a Financial Columnist at MarketWatch, 7/13/2023 3:00:00 AMShare This Episode: Can nuclear power save the world?, https://www.marketwatch.com/podcasts/best-new-ideas-in-money/can-nuclear-power-save-the-world/241988d7-136f-4a9a-961b-77ac34821b86, Jacopo Buongiorno is a Nuclear Engineering Professor at MIT

Stephanie Kelton: In the United States, 12 nuclear reactors have permanently closed since 2012 with the most recent being New York’s Indian Point in 2021. Does that mean nuclear power is on the wane? Not according to Buongiorno.Jacopo Buongiorno: So that trend has actually been reversed already. At the moment. We actually do not expect any existing operating nuclear reactors in the US to shut down. The one question mark is Diablo Canyon, which is the last nuclear power plant in California. James Rogers: Although Diablo Canyon is California’s last nuclear plant, it provides 10% of the state’s electricity. Critics say the plant presents a grave risk to people and the environment, while supporters say it generates a huge amount of clean energy. Its fate remains uncert.

Without nuclear, natural gas has to back up renewables, causing climate change

Jacopo Buongiorno: Now, within the US everybody recognizes that the environmental value of these nuclear power plants is very, very high because when they shut down, they’re typically replaced with a mix of natural gas and renewables. We like the fact that there are renewables coming online, but renewables without nuclear means that they have to be backed up by natural gas. And with natural gas comes more CO2 emissions.

Nuclear power increasing in the US

Jacopo Buongiorno: We do have nuclear power plants now under construction in the United States and North America, and of course, many, many more worldwide. So things are changing. There is a lot of support, interestingly, in the United States, that support is bipartisan. There are some very clear economic incentives now, particularly through the Inflation Reduction Act, that can be leveraged to build new plants. And we do have companies that have stepped up and say, “Yes. Now it’s time to consider new investments.” So cautiously optimistic. The word cautious is very important every time we’re talking about the nuclear industry or nuclear technology because the uncertainties are always high. But I am optimistic.

Nuclear crowds-out renewables

Economist, 7-10, 23, https://www.livemint.com/industry/energy/japan-pivots-back-to-nuclear-power-11688982347896.html, Ther Mint, Japan pivots back to nuclear power, https://www.livemint.com/industry/energy/japan-pivots-back-to-nuclear-power-11688982347896.html The Economoist

Turning on well-regulated nuclear plants in order to phase out coal is sound policy. But there is a risk that the turn will also slow or reverse the recent momentum behind expanding renewables. “The real issue is how to aggressively and rapidly install more solar and wind,” says Iida Tetsunari of the Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies, a think-tank in Tokyo. “Japan is falling behind the global curve.” Japan generates about half as much electricity from renewable sources as its European peers. Experts who seek to explain this are divided into two camps. One focuses on geographical limitations: a lack of flat land for solar panels and deep ocean shelves that make it relatively hard to install offshore wind turbines.

AI solvers safety issues, their evidence doesn’t assume that

Terrence West, 7-2, 23, AI in Nuclear Power Management, https://www.energyportal.eu/news/ai-in-nuclear-power-management/4680/

AI in Nuclear Power Management: Enhancing Safety and Efficiency Artificial intelligence (AI) has been making waves in various industries, and the nuclear power sector is no exception. As the demand for clean and sustainable energy sources grows, the need for enhanced safety and efficiency in nuclear power management becomes increasingly crucial. AI, with its potential to revolutionize the way we approach nuclear power management, offers promising solutions to address these challenges. One of the primary concerns in the nuclear power industry is safety. Nuclear accidents, such as those at Chernobyl and Fukushima, have demonstrated the catastrophic consequences of human error and system failures. AI can help mitigate these risks by automating and optimizing various aspects of nuclear power plant operations. For instance, AI-driven predictive maintenance systems can analyze vast amounts of data from sensors and equipment to identify potential issues before they escalate into critical failures. This proactive approach to maintenance not only enhances safety but also reduces downtime and operational costs. Moreover, AI can play a vital role in improving the decision-making process during emergencies. In the event of an incident, AI-powered systems can quickly analyze the situation, taking into account multiple factors such as weather conditions, equipment status, and potential hazards. This enables operators to make informed decisions on the best course of action, minimizing the risk of further damage and ensuring the safety of personnel. In addition to safety, AI can also significantly boost the efficiency of nuclear power plants. One of the key challenges in nuclear power management is optimizing the fuel cycle, which involves the production, processing, and disposal of nuclear fuel. AI algorithms can analyze historical data and real-time information to optimize fuel usage, reducing waste and lowering costs. Furthermore, AI can help enhance the performance of nuclear reactors by continuously monitoring and adjusting their operating parameters, ensuring optimal efficiency and reducing the likelihood of unplanned shutdowns. Another area where AI can contribute to increased efficiency is in the design and construction of nuclear power plants. By leveraging AI-driven simulations and modeling, engineers can optimize plant layouts and identify potential bottlenecks in the construction process. This can lead to significant time and cost savings, as well as a more streamlined construction process.

AI can solve nuclear waste issues

Terrence West, 7-2, 23, AI in Nuclear Power Management, https://www.energyportal.eu/news/ai-in-nuclear-power-management/4680/

AI can also play a role in addressing the issue of nuclear waste management. The disposal of nuclear waste is a complex and highly regulated process, with long-term implications for the environment and public health. AI-powered systems can help optimize waste management strategies by analyzing the composition of waste materials, predicting their behavior over time, and identifying the most suitable disposal methods. This can lead to more effective and sustainable waste management practices, reducing the environmental impact of nuclear power generation.

AI supports SMR development

Terrence West, 7-2, 23, AI in Nuclear Power Management, https://www.energyportal.eu/news/ai-in-nuclear-power-management/4680/

Finally, AI can contribute to the development of advanced nuclear technologies, such as small modular reactors (SMRs) and fusion power. These next-generation technologies hold the promise of providing clean, safe, and abundant energy, but their development requires significant research and innovation. AI-driven simulations and modeling can accelerate the design and testing of these technologies, bringing us closer to realizing their full potential.

Nuclear power the only way to solve the climate crisis

Hewett, June 27, 2023, https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2023/06/27/nuclear-power-plants-climate-change-chernobyl-frederick-hewett, I’ve been against nuclear power for decades. Until now

The lifecycle carbon emissions of nuclear energy, including the mining and processing of uranium, are far less than those of fossil fuels, which release greenhouse gases when burned. If the goal was to cut carbon, the nuclear option had to be on the table. Renewable energy advocates viewed nuclear power as a competitor, and they marshaled some compelling arguments against it. Spent nuclear fuel remains toxic for millennia, the power plants are targets for terrorists, the capital costs make it uneconomic, and it can take 20 years to design, permit and build a power station. Renewables, especially wind and solar, have obvious advantages. There is no fuel cost and no toxic waste. The technologies have improved at a dazzling rate, driving down the bottom-line cost of electricity to less than that of fossil fuels in many cases. As I was drawn into climate activism 10 years ago, I wavered on the nuclear question. I eventually realized the weight of opinion from writers and leaders I respected was falling decisively on the side of “no nukes.” Until it was proven otherwise, renewables were the answer. Wind and solar were Red Sox. Nuclear was Yankees. John Maynard Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind — what do you do, sir?” And indeed, the facts about nuclear power have changed considerably. A recent article by Jonathan Rauch in The Atlantic details the work of several well-funded start-ups developing the next generation of nuclear reactors. The emerging technology — some of which could be on the grid in this decade — addresses many of the significant shortcomings that plagued conventional reactors over the past 50 years. New reactors are smaller and modular, allowing standardized units to be manufactured off-site at a lower cost. Most of these new reactor designs use molten salts for cooling rather than water, which is more heat efficient and removes the need for expensive and potentially dangerous high-pressure lines. While fuel waste remains a challenge, it is not an insurmountable one. Wind and solar were Red Sox. Nuclear was Yankees. Despite these advances, prominent critics of nuclear energy, notably Marc Z. Jacobsen at Stanford University, argue that the industry cannot produce safe and cost-effective electricity in time to have a meaningful impact on the climate crisis. But lately, I’m hearing a growing chorus of voices supporting a nuclear renaissance. James Hansen, the godfather of climate change advocacy, has long supported making nuclear power a weapon against global warming, as has former U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. And Bill Gates is just one of several deep-pocketed funders betting billions on the success of next-generation nuclear technology. The momentum behind the nascent nuclear comeback is widespread. At least 10 states have passed or are debating bills calling for the study of advanced reactors. A recent Gallup poll showed a solid majority of Americans support using nuclear power to generate electricity, the highest fraction since 2012. Even Bill McKibben, arguably the most respected voice in climate advocacy, envisions nuclear energy playing a role in fighting climate change. Given the gravity of the climate crisis, it makes sense to diversify the energy portfolio with multiple low-carbon sources that complement each other. If the nuclear industry can deliver advanced reactors that are reliable, affordable and secure, then it deserves government incentives and production tax credits, such as those it received in the Inflation Reduction Act. A doctrinaire ideology does not equip us to confront the epic task of decarbonizing our economy. And so, more than 46 years after the protesters occupying Seabrook set me on the anti-nuclear path, I’m ready to be a nuclear advocate. I won’t be sporting a “My Mission is Fission” t-shirt, but I believe it’s time to take another look at nuclear energy.

US must restore nuclear leadership

Jeff Duncan, a Republican, represents South Carolina’s Third District in the U.S. House of Representatives, 6-26, 23, Newsweek, Restoring America’s Nuclear Energy Leadership | Opinion

Since the advent of the Atomic Age, the United States has been the global leader in nuclear energy development. However, in recent years we have begun to fall behind our adversaries in the deployment of new nuclear generation. While Russia and China make strides in nuclear energy development, the United States falls behind. Although many factors play a role in our lagging nuclear development, if we are to restore leadership in nuclear advancement, we must improve America’s regulatory structure to foster innovation, investment, and deployment. In this new Congress, our priority is to unleash an all-of-the-above energy strategy through reforming and modernizing our nuclear regulatory structure to encourage deployment of innovative new nuclear technologies. As Energy, Climate, and Grid Security Subcommittee Chair, I recently convened a subcommittee hearing on “American Nuclear Energy Expansion: Powering a Clean and Secure Future” because I recognize the importance of nuclear energy development. A new era of nuclear technologies is on the horizon, and we need to identify the regulatory hurdles inhibiting nuclear energy expansion so we can accelerate nuclear deployment and innovation in the United States. Leadership in nuclear energy is essential for our global competitiveness, national defense, clean energy future, and scientific advancement. Nuclear energy is safe, affordable, reliable rain or shine 24/7/365, and is the number-one source of emission-free power in the United States, providing 55 percent of the country’s clean energy and 20 percent of the country’s total electricity. In my home state of South Carolina, the third-ranked state for nuclear power generation, nuclear energy provides over 90 percent of the state’s carbon-free electricity and more than 50 percent of our state’s total electricity, powering over four million households. From both an energy security and reliability perspective, nuclear energy is among the most resilient sources of power. Not only do our nuclear facilities provide clean energy for Americans, but they also play a crucial role in our national defense, bolstering the missions of the U.S. Navy and other parts of the U.S. Department of Defense, as well as the U.S. Department of Energy. In November, I released the Blueprint for Nuclear Innovation and Competitiveness, which lays out important steps to strengthen our national energy dominance and security through nuclear energy innovation. I hope my nuclear energy blueprint will serve as a guide for the 118th Congress to help facilitate conversations, direct energy policy, and ensure nuclear advancement is on the agenda, focusing on the realms of fuel, licensing and NRC modernization, financing, and spent nuclear fuel. It is important for the United States to lead the world in nuclear energy. We have the technological and engineering talent to do it, but unfortunately, other countries have been outpacing our development. China, for example, has brought 21 reactors online in the past few years and has two dozen additional plants under construction. That’s not to mention the 14 Chinese-designed reactors in various stages of development throughout the world. Russia is also gaining ground in the nuclear industry and had 16 Russian-designed reactors under construction around the world before the invasion of Ukraine. Energy security is national security, and it is imperative for the United States to lead the way as other countries make strides in nuclear energy. \ Pennsylvania nuclear power plant Power lines pass over the town of Goldsboro, Pennsylvania as steam rises out of the nuclear plant on Three Mile Island, with the operational plant run by Exelon Generation, across the Susquehanna river in Middletown, Pennsylvania on March 26, 2019. There is no doubt the United States has the capability to reclaim our position as a world leader in this area, but certain impediments are holding us back. The federal government must modernize its regulations to reassert the vision of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which declared the development of nuclear energy shall aim “to promote world peace, improve the general welfare, increase the standard of living, and strengthen free competition and private enterprise.” We must identify what makes sense for a modern regulator to function consistent with these goals, to assure efficient, predictable regulation that provides for a robust and growing nuclear industry. The advancement of nuclear technology is vital for electricity production, but other less-publicized benefits are at play as well. Advanced nuclear technology is vital for cutting-edge, life-saving cancer treatment, as well as the economic and carbon-free production of hydrogen to fuel cars and trucks. My nuclear energy blueprint identifies areas in the industry that must be reformed. From the front end of the nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear relicensing, to the back end of the fuel cycle and recycling nuclear waste, to the many benefits of nuclear advancement, the nuclear energy blueprint offers a roadmap for modernizing our nuclear approval and oversight systems both now and into the future. As our nation charts energy policy for the 21st century, nuclear must play a leading role to ensure global competitiveness and American energy dominance. Nuclear energy will no doubt play an essential role in the United States’ clean energy future, and we must pave the way. I believe we can do it with bipartisan cooperation. To unleash an all-of-the-above energy strategy and benefit from all the life-improving technologies nuclear offers, we must advance nuclear energy. The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.

Marvel reactors are safe and provide energy

Susan Philips, 6-26, 23, https://whyy.org/segments/will-climate-change-force-the-future-of-nuclear-energy-to-look-smaller-and-more-mobile/, Will climate change force the future of nuclear energy to look smaller and more mobile?

Fast forward 50 years and now engineers at the Idaho Labs are developing what they say will be a much smaller, safer, and portable nuclear reactor. They call it MARVEL or the Microreactor Applications Research Validation and EvaLuation. “The first few reactors are going to be very, very small. They’re going to be involved in learning how to do this again and demonstrating the technologies to provide confidence for future deployments,” Wagner said. Subscribe to The Pulse Stories about the people and places at the heart of health and science. Ways to Listen The MARVEL micronuclear reactor is the brainchild of 36-year-old Yasir Arafat, a nuclear engineer and chief designer. “We’re going to try to figure out how we extract heat and energy from a nuclear reactor and apply it and combine it with solar and wind and other energy sources,” Arafat said. Application, or using the reactor not simply for testing purposes, is key, Arafat said Standing inside the large windowless building known as the Transient Reactor Test Facility, Arafat describes the project as “small but mighty.” The reactor itself is tiny — at least in the world of nuclear power. It will be about the size of a sedan, small enough to fit onto the back of an 18-wheeler. Weighing about 2000 pounds it will be made up of 3800 parts and built from scratch here at the Idaho Labs. Unlike the massive nuclear projects of the past, the MARVEL is designed to provide carbon free energy to remote areas not attached to any power grid. Remote locations that often rely on dirty diesel engines. “When we turn on the light switch in our homes, it turns on right away,” Arafat said. “So, we take it for granted after a while, but it’s not the same for the remainder of the world. There’s about 7 billion people on this planet. And about two and a half billion out of seven do not have access to electricity.” Yasir Arafat, chief designer of MARVEL, in front of a prototype microreactor built to test the thermal behavior of the system. (Courtesy of Idaho National Laboratory U.S. Department of Energy) He says there are three key advantages to this new design. “We can build them in factories the way we make cars. We can transport them on standard roads. And the third, which is the most important one, they have to be self-regulating. They have to be so automated that we don’t require human interaction to actually ensure they can be run safely, and they can be run properly and reliably.” Safety, of course, is what comes to mind for most people at the thought of trucking a nuclear reactor down a highway or putting one in a small village in Alaska. Arafat says the fuel for the MARVEL is the same fuel used at about two dozen universities across the country that have had test reactors for decades. And because of the reactor’s size it doesn’t need a containment building. The radioactive fuel rods are protected with several layers of stainless steel. “Everything remains intact, no matter what the condition is, whether you have an earthquake, whether you have a pipe break or a major leak, whether you have loss of power, under any of these circumstances, the reactor remains as benign as a university research reactor.” But not everyone agrees. “It’s utterly insane and likely to go nowhere,” said Ed Lyman, a physicist and director of nuclear power safety for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Lyman, an expert in nuclear power safety and security, says it’s a “myth” that these microreactors could be safer than any other type of reactor, both from a meltdown, or from sabotage, and he says they’re cost prohibitive, so it’s just not worth it. “DOE really shouldn’t be doing this,” he said. The danger with nuclear power is overheating. Unlike a coal or natural gas plant, even if you turn off a nuclear plant the heat continues to get generated. That’s why large nuclear plants are located near a body of water, it’s a convenient coolant. But the primary coolant for the MARVEL reactor is a liquid metal that does not need mechanical parts but instead relies on natural circulation. Any excess heat is cooled by air. “Why is that important? Because air is everywhere,” Arafat said. “Basically, when you put this reactor anywhere, you turn it off. You don’t have to worry about providing active cooling. The air will naturally cool it down.” He says even if there is a meltdown, there would be no consequences.

49-Nuclear power reduces carbon emissions more than renewables

Qiang Wang, March 2023, School of Economics and Management, China University of Petroleum (East China), Qingdao, 266580, China, Environmental Research, March, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935123000828

Especially in Canada, Finland, Russia, Slovenia, South Korea, and The United Kingdom, nuclear energy reduces carbon emissions more significantly than renewable energy. Meanwhile, there is a positive relationship between increased nuclear energy, increased renewable energy, and economic growth, which means that nuclear energy and renewable energy could increase economic growth as well. There is a positive relationship between increased oil, increased natural gas, and economic growth, while there is a negative relationship between the increase in coal and economic growth. Meanwhile, there is a positive relationship between increased oil, increased coal, and increased carbon emissions, while the positive relationship between increased natural gas and increased carbon emissions is not significant. Thus, in the 22 countries with nuclear power, increased coal consumption does not drive economic growth but increases carbon emissions. Increased oil consumption increases economic growth, but it increases carbon emissions. Increased natural gas consumption boosts economic growth but adds little to carbon emissions. In the authors’ view, nuclear power and renewable energy are all options for these nuclear-power countries to pursue economic growth without increasing carbon emissions. Moreover, nuclear power has a better effect on curbing carbon emissions in some countries than renewable energy. Therefore, under the premise of safety, nuclear power should be seriously considered and re-developed.

48-Renewables cost competitive with nuclear power

Joseph Blatt, 6-20, 23, https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2023/06/the-future-of-nuclear-power-in-a-low-carbon-world, https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2023/06/the-future-of-nuclear-power-in-a-low-carbon-world

The Future of Nuclear Power in a Low-Carbon World,

For decades, large gigawatt-scale nuclear reactors have provided a significant portion of electricity in the United States. However, most of these reactors are at least 40 years old. As the nation moves to decarbonize the economy and transition to clean energy, a recent Climate Conversations webinar explored whether and how nuclear power could maintain a position in the future energy mix ― given environmental and safety concerns, as well as the high upfront capital costs associated with building reactors. The webinar featured two members of the committee that authored a recent National Academies report on the future of nuclear power and was moderated by Kara Colton, director of nuclear policy at Energy Communities Alliance.

“Traditionally nuclear power, these big plants, have been very expensive to build, and rather cheap to operate,” said committee member Ahmed Abdulla, an assistant professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at Carleton University. However, he said, many renewable energy resources are now “even cheaper to operate, because they have no fuel costs, [and] have changed the economic paradigm for the large nuclear reactors.”

47-Large government SMR order will boost the industry

Joseph Blatt, 6-20, 23, https://www.nationalacad

Europe shifting toward renewables, nuclear declining

Liao, 7-17, 23, Europe’s energy evolution: a tale of nuclear power and renewables, https://innovationorigins.com/en/europes-energy-evolution-a-tale-of-nuclear-power-and-renewables/E

Despite these divergent views on nuclear power and renewable energy, all countries within the EU are united in their commitment to transitioning towards a greener energy future. The European Green Deal, created in December 2019, aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55 percent in 2030 compared to 1990 and achieve climate neutrality by 2050.

In 2020, nuclear power generation in the EU dropped by 11 percent, while renewable energy technologies increased their output. The share of renewable power generation exceeded that of fossil fuels for the first time. This shift highlights the ongoing evolution of Europe’s energy landscape, with renewables playing an increasingly important role. The future of nuclear power in Europe remains uncertain, with plans for new nuclear plants in Eastern Europe, including in the Czech Republic and Hungary, still hanging in the balance. The fate of these initiatives will undoubtedly shape the future of the EU’s energy landscape, adding another layer to the intricate mosaic of Europe’s energy policies.

Europe shifting toward renewables, nuclear declining

Liao, 7-17, 23, Europe’s energy evolution: a tale of nuclear power and renewables, https://innovationorigins.com/en/europes-energy-evolution-a-tale-of-nuclear-power-and-renewables/E

China finishing the world’s first SMR

Ameya Paleja, 7-17, 23, China completes core module of world’s first commercial onshore small modular reactor, China completes core module of world’s first commercial onshore small modular reactor (interestingengineering.com)

China has completed a significant step toward establishing the world’s first commercial onshore small modular reactor. It has finished the installation of the core module of the reactor that it began building in 2021, the South China Morning Post reported. With a power generation capacity of not more than 300 MW, small modular reactors (SMR) are believed to be the future of nuclear fission reactors. The advanced nuclear reactor design allows the power plant to be scaled down and established in remote locations that cannot be connected to the grid. The technology is also considered a critical component of plans to move away from carbon-emitting fossil fuels. The promise of carbon-free power generation from nuclear plants has attracted the likes of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett to this industry, who are also building a plant in Wyoming by the end of the decade.

Fusion enables space travel

Web Desk., 7-17, 23, https://www.theweek.in/news/sci-tech/2023/07/17/fusion-rocket-engine-set-to-propel-spacecraft-at-unprecedented-s.html, Fusion rocket engine set to propel spacecraft at unprecedented speed,

Pulsar Fusion, a British aerospace startup, is making significant strides in the development of a groundbreaking fusion rocket engine that could revolutionise space travel. By harnessing the power of nuclear fusion, the same process that fuels the Sun, the company aims to propel spacecraft at unparalleled speeds, potentially reaching up to 800,000 km per hour. This ambitious project has the potential to cut travel time to Mars in half and open up unprecedented opportunities for human exploration of distant planets and celestial bodies. One of the key challenges in long-duration space missions is the detrimental impact of microgravity and cosmic radiation on astronaut health. To mitigate these risks, NASA has been striving to reduce mission durations to less than four years. However, with current rocket propulsion technology, it takes around seven months to reach Mars alone, leaving a significant portion of the mission dedicated to the arduous journey back to Earth. Pulsar Fusion’s fusion rocket presents a solution to this problem. By utilizing the immense energy released during fusion reactions, the company aims to create exhaust speeds capable of propelling spacecraft at an astounding 800,000 km per hour. For comparison, the fastest a crewed rocket has ever flown is 39,897 km per hour. This tremendous acceleration could potentially enable round trips to the outer planets and facilitate expeditions to witness the rings of Saturn or explore the moons of Jupiter. The concept of fusion, which occurs when two atoms merge, has long been pursued as a clean energy solution due to its ability to generate vast amounts of energy without harmful emissions. While scientists have successfully triggered fusion reactions briefly, sustaining them has proven to be a considerable challenge. Pulsar Fusion’s approach involves creating a fusion rocket that can sustain the fusion reaction. Interestingly, the vacuum of space might provide favorable conditions for maintaining the turbulent plasma at fusion temperatures. If successful, this fusion rocket could drastically reduce travel times within the solar system, potentially allowing trips to Mars and back in a matter of weeks rather than months or years. Pulsar Fusion has recently formed a partnership with aerospace R&D company Princeton Satellite Systems (PSS) to leverage artificial intelligence in modeling the behavior of hot plasma in a fusion rocket engine. Additionally, the company has commenced the construction of an eight-meter fusion reaction chamber in the UK, with plans to initiate firing tests by 2025 and achieve fusion temperatures by 2027. The ultimate goal is to conduct a test firing in orbit, demonstrating the viability of fusion-powered propulsion for future space exploration.

China finishing the world’s first SMR

Fusion enables space travel

Renewable intermittency means back-up goes to the grid

Nick O’Hara, 7-16, 23, https://www.salon.com/2023/07/16/abandoning-nuclear-power-was-a-mistake-germany-must-return-to-the-future-of-energy/, Salon, Abandoning nuclear power was a mistake. Germany must return to the future of energy,

Germany is generating 43 percent of its electricity from renewables, but it is paying a heavy price for this. The cost is felt through the volatility that intermittent renewables introduce to the network. Renewables may appear cost-effective when viewed in isolation on sunny or windy days when they produce a lot of energy. Advertisement: However, when the sun or wind disappears, there is no affordable battery technology system that can store unused surplus energy at the scale required to supply an entire grid, covering unproductive periods. Therefore, to plug the gaps at night, Germany – with its grid interconnected with the rest of continental Europe – either draws from neighbouring countries, or turns to its natural gas or coal-fired power plants to kick in. Firing those up adds considerable cost, in more ways than one, which ought to be added to any calculation of the true cost of renewables. So, the inevitable shortfall from renewables needs to come from a reliable source. If that reliable source is not clean nuclear, it will be a dirty fossil fuel. Bafflingly, Germany is choosing the dirty option. The Greens have unswervingly made scrapping nuclear energy a key demand in coalition negotiations, resulting in them holding sway on German energy policy Advertisement: This is because Germany’s political landscape is shaped by an electoral system of proportional representation. Federal elections consistently produce indecisive outcomes, which in turn require the establishment of cross-party coalitions to form a government. One of the main beneficiaries of this, down the years, has been Germany’s Green Party, which grew out of the 1970s anti-nuclear movement. The Greens have unswervingly made scrapping nuclear energy a key demand in coalition negotiations, resulting in them holding sway on German energy policy.

Popular support for nuclear

Addison Smith, 7-16, 2023, https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/poll-nuclear-energy-favored-among-most-us-voters-despite-bidens-renewable, Most Americans favor more nuclear energy, as Biden continues to tout renewables

More than 60% of likely U.S. voters favor nuclear power for America’s future, new polling shows, as the Biden administration continues to push for more renewable energy and decreasing the country’s use of fossil fuel. The findings are in a new Scott Rasmussen National Survey and show 63% of the respondents favor a plan to double nuclear energy generation over the next 10 years. The survey, with field work by RMG Research Inc., was conducted online July 10-11 among 1,000 registered voters. The margin of error was 3.1 percentage points. The survey asked respondents nine questions that center on nuclear energy, including whether their views about it change after having more information. The results showed that at beginning of the survey, 53% of Americans favored doubling the country’s nuclear capacity over the next 10 years, while 30% opposed it. However, after showing the upsides to it, those in favor climbed to 63%, while those not in favor dropped to just one in five. Overall, there was “little difference” between Democrat and Republican respondents throughout the survey. Similar recent polls have yielded similar results. A Gallup survey published in April showed Americans are more supportive of using nuclear energy as a source of electricity in the U.S. The 55% of U.S. adults in the survey who say they “strongly” or “somewhat” favor the use of nuclear energy marked a four-percentage-point increase from the previous year.

Even when you factor in the life cycle of the plant, nuclear reduces carbon

However, whether we look at safety, measured as deaths per unit (terawatt-hour) of electricity created, or look at emissions, measured as CO2 per gigawatt-hour of electricity over the cycle of a power plant, nuclear is as clean and safe an energy source as any alternative. The unit of one gigawatt-hour is equivalent to the annual electricity consumption of one hundred and fifty people in the European Union. Nuclear’s three tonnes per gigawatt-hour is cleaner than solar’s five tonnes. In a head-to-head comparison, including greenhouse gas emissions from the full lifecycle of the power plant (construction, operation, maintenance, fuel, decommissioning), nuclear is as low carbon as wind and much lower than solar, hydro, geothermal and bio renewables. A 2014 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group paper had nuclear on 13 tonnes per gigawatt-hour and solar on 53 tonnes per gigawatt-hour, measured on a life-cycle basis.

Government support for renewables now

However, it’s unclear what, if any, impact such public opinion surveys will have on related Biden administration policies, which include nuclear as one of its zero-emissions energy sources. Just in May, the administration announced a nearly $11 billion investment to help bring affordable clean energy to rural communities throughout the country. And part of the program will help finance renewable energy projects such as large-scale solar, wind, and geothermal projects. In addition, the Biden administration has an ambitious deadline to get more Americans to transition from gas-burning to electric vehicles. Tim Cavanaugh, senior editor for the conservative-leaning Mackinac Center for Public Policy, in an opinion story last year called Biden’s nuclear energy support “half-hearted,” but also argued the country’s nuclear industry can be saved from regulations with such changes as ending all energy subsidies, including those for nuclear power, keeping existing plants in operation, and either abolishing or overhauling the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. On Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency announced a $20 billion grant pool for a “National Clean Financing Network” and touted “over $500 billion in private sector manufacturing and clean energy investments” driven by Biden’s Investing in America initiative. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm suggested that only “through renewable energy” can a “zero-carbon future” in America be achieved. An estimated 20% of America’s energy grid is fueled by nuclear, while other countries around the world, like France, rely on it for the majority of their grid’s power, the Rasmussen survey also states. In 2022, it accounted for an estimated 47% of “carbon-free electricity.”

Popular support for nuclear

Government support for renewables now

AI-integrated micro reactors aff solves nuclear waste

Haley Zaremba – Jul 15, 2023, New Startup Looks To Blend AI And Nuclear Energy, New Startup Looks To Blend AI And Nuclear Energy | OilPrice.com

Altman is clearly serious about his hope for nuclear energy’s role in the future of the energy and technology sectors. Just this week, it was announced that Oklo, an AI-integrated startup specializing in “nuclear microreactors” will go public in 2024. Oklo is valued at around $850 million, according to the Wall Street Journal. The company expects that its innovative microreactors will be ideal for military applications where connection to an existing power grid isn’t possible, as well as for companies that are looking for alternative energy sources to help meet their decarbonization goals. Oklo has already secured $50 million in funding, $420,000 in grants from the Department of Energy (DOE), and a permit to build its first microreactor at the Idaho National Laboratory, the nation’s leading center for nuclear research. The pilot project is slated to come online by 2026 or 2027.

These micro-reactors are an important innovation in the nuclear energy sector because they run on spent nuclear fuel that would otherwise be a (radioactive) waste product. “Today’s reactors use about 5% of the energy content contained in their fuel, meaning nearly 95% of the energy content remains unused,” reports the company’s website. According to the firm’s calculations, there is enough existing spent nuclear fuel in the United States to power the country for 150 through fuel-recycling models such as the one that Oklo is proposing. Recycling used nuclear fuel would also potentially be a huge win-win for U.S. taxpayers, who are currently footing billions of dollars for the maintenance of nuclear waste.

Smaller reactors are not safety dangers

Schwartz, 7-9, 23, Alan Schwartz AO is a businessman, investor and philanthropist., Financial Review, Remove ban on nuclear power and let the market do its magic, https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/remove-ban-on-nuclear-power-and-let-the-market-do-its-magic-20230716-p5dol2

Second, while three large-scale nuclear plants have failed catastrophically, there is growing evidence that small modular reactors will be far safer. Nuclear power sceptics cannot ignore an emerging scientific consensus.

66-Solar batteries create toxic waste

Finally, we do not have a plan for safely disposing of many million tons of spent batteries and millions of hectares of expired solar panels. Burying a small volume of nuclear waste deep underground in stable geological formations could be a safer option.

63-Nuclear power plants can be built quickly and safely

62-Despite the June 2006-June 2003 comparison, there is a net decrease in Arctic ice, and it’s caused by CO2 emissions

61-Nuclear power expansion inevitable. Russia and China are dominating the markets. The US needs to act to catch-up

Maria Korsnick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, July 18, 2023, Hearing Testimony, https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/07_18_23_Testimony_Korsnick_9af85b42f7.pdf

60-Securing a domestic fuel supply is a key part of supporting nuclear power

Maria Korsnick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, July 18, 2023, Hearing Testimony, https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/07_18_23_Testimony_Korsnick_9af85b42f7.pdf

59-Nuclear plants are hardened and critical to grid reliability

Maria Korsnick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, July 18, 2023, Hearing Testimony, https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/07_18_23_Testimony_Korsnick_9af85b42f7.pdf

58-Nuclear supports rural America

Maria Korsnick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, July 18, 2023, Hearing Testimony, https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/07_18_23_Testimony_Korsnick_9af85b42f7.pdf

57-Jobs advantage

Maria Korsnick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, July 18, 2023, Hearing Testimony, https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/07_18_23_Testimony_Korsnick_9af85b42f7.pdf

56-Plan: Improve the licensing process

Maria Korsnick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, July 18, 2023, Hearing Testimony, https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/07_18_23_Testimony_Korsnick_9af85b42f7.pdf

55-Plan – protect fuel supply

Maria Korsnick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, July 18, 2023, Hearing Testimony, https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/07_18_23_Testimony_Korsnick_9af85b42f7.pdf

54-Plan – Providing tax and other supports critical to compete against Russia and China

Maria Korsnick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, July 18, 2023, Hearing Testimony, https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/07_18_23_Testimony_Korsnick_9af85b42f7.pdf

CONTINUES

53-Plan: Integrated fuel management

Maria Korsnick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy Institute, July 18, 2023, Hearing Testimony, https://d1dth6e84htgma.cloudfront.net/07_18_23_Testimony_Korsnick_9af85b42f7.pdf

52-Nuclear power the only way to solve the climate crisis

Hewett, June 27, 2023, https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2023/06/27/nuclear-power-plants-climate-change-chernobyl-frederick-hewett, I’ve been against nuclear power for decades. Until now

51-US must restore nuclear leadership

Jeff Duncan, a Republican, represents South Carolina’s Third District in the U.S. House of Representatives, 6-26, 23, Newsweek, Restoring America’s Nuclear Energy Leadership | Opinion

50-Marvel reactors are safe and provide energy

49-Nuclear power reduces carbon emissions more than renewables

48-Renewables cost competitive with nuclear power

The Future of Nuclear Power in a Low-Carbon World,

47-Large government SMR order will boost the industry

A new generation of advanced nuclear reactors using an array of coolants, designs, fuels, materials, and technologies ― some novel, some conventional ― offer a range of innovations, explained Abdulla. These make them potentially stronger candidates than larger traditional reactors for development and deployment in the coming decades. The advantages differ between reactor concepts, but can include an improved safety profile, smaller size, and modularity, with the ability to scale systems up or down to meet output needs. Some modular reactor designs could also be built in factories and assembled on site, potentially helping to rein in the high construction costs that have plagued larger reactors. “Before companies are going to build those factories, though, they need to have the incentive of having a large number of orders,” said Michael Ford, who also worked on the report and is the associate laboratory director for engineering at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, a U.S. Department of Energy national laboratory managed by Princeton University. Orders from the U.S. government would be a boon to the industry, according to Ford, but international demand could also spur development and manufacturing in the U.S., if modular reactors can be “quickly certified and made available for the international market.”

46-Government backing of small modular reactors crushes the renewables industry

Orders from the U.S. government would be a boon to the industry, according to Ford, but international demand could also spur development and manufacturing in the U.S., if modular reactors can be “quickly certified and made available for the international market.” If the U.S. decides to make advanced nuclear reactors part of its own decarbonization road map, innovations such as these open up the potential for these technologies to compete with and complement renewables, said Abdulla. Applications for advanced nuclear power can be grouped in four main buckets, with providing “firm power” (constant electricity supply) to the grid being “by far the dominant mission” for advanced nuclear, he noted. The other potential applications include powering energy-intensive industrial processes like steel and cement production, supplying energy for the production of hydrogen, which could replace fossil fuels, and supporting water desalination efforts.

45-Orders and production tax credits make small modular reactors cost competitive

Orders from the U.S. government would be a boon to the industry, according to Ford, but international demand could also spur development and manufacturing in the U.S., if modular reactors can be “quickly certified and made available for the international market.” If the U.S. decides to make advanced nuclear reactors part of its own decarbonization road map, innovations such as these open up the potential for these technologies to compete with and complement renewables, said Abdulla. Applications for advanced nuclear power can be grouped in four main buckets, with providing “firm power” (constant electricity supply) to the grid being “by far the dominant mission” for advanced nuclear, he noted. The other potential applications include powering energy-intensive industrial processes like steel and cement production, supplying energy for the production of hydrogen, which could replace fossil fuels, and supporting water desalination efforts. “Advanced nuclear could play a role, but economics and the use cases for how it might balance with renewables is still a bit uncertain,” said Ford. He noted that government incentives helped nurture advancements in solar and wind technologies, drastically bringing down the cost of deployment. “The government can also help here by continuing to do things to incentivize growth that they’ve done with other energy technologies. Production tax credits, investment tax credits, power purchase agreements that will incentivize development of these technologies — those things can be done today.” Adopting those policies now would keep the option of nuclear energy open for the U.S. in the decades to come.

44-Nuclear supports decarbonization through the production of synthetic fuels; SMRs can be deployed rapidly

Alex Kimani, Jun 19, 2023, ‘Nuclear Diesel’ Could Become A Gamechanger In Energy Markets, Oilprice.com, https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Nuclear-Diesel-Could-Become-A-Gamechanger-In-Energy-Markets.html

According to the IEA, synthetic fuels are vital in the decarbonization of transport and industry by 2050. Synthetic fuels can be blended in fossil fuels or can completely replace them in existing ships, airplanes or industrial technologies. Nuclear power could help to bring down the production costs of synthetic fuels. Back in February, a proposal by the EU to completely ban cars that run on fossil fuels by 2035 faced heavy opposition led by the bloc’s largest economy, Germany, as well as Poland and Italy. Although a strong clean energy player itself, Germany is also Europe’s ICE superpower, and feared that such a dramatic move could sound a death knell for its pivotal industry. The EU still managed to approve the proposal, but with a key concession: the sale of internal combustion vehicles would be allowed to continue after the 2035 ban only if they run on e-fuels. According to the IEA, synthetic fuels are vital in the decarbonization of transport and industry by 2050 especially in hard-to-electrify sectors such as aviation. Not to be confused with biofuels, or fuels produced from crops like sugar cane, corn, algae, soybeans, e-fuels or synthetic fuels are liquid fuels produced from natural gas, coal, peat, and oil shale, and include synthetic diesel, synthetic kerosene and e-methanol. Carbon-neutral synthetic fuels are manufactured in two ways. The first method uses captured carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide from the atmosphere or an industrial process such as steelmaking, and combines it with hydrogen obtained from water via electrolysis to make efuels in a process known as Fischer–Tropsch. The second category encompasses synthetic biofuels created from biomass that is gasified before being catalyzed with hydrogen using chemical means or through thermal processes. Synthetic fuels’ biggest draw is that unlike fossil fuels, the C02 they release into the atmosphere when burned in an engine is virtually equal to the amount taken out of the atmosphere to produce the fuel thus making them CO2-neutral overall. To sweeten the deal, ICE vehicles do not require any modifications to run on e-fuels, which can also be transported via existing fossil fuel logistics networks. Further, synthetic fuels can be blended in fossil fuels or can completely replace them in existing ships, airplanes or industrial technologies. German multinational engineering and technology company BOSCH is a strong supporter of synthetic fuels. According to the company, around half of petrol or diesel cars being sold now will still be on the roads by 2030. By using synthetic fuels (which BOSCH says are completely compatible with current fossil fuels) these legacy vehicles will be able to play a part in cutting CO2 emissions. Not surprisingly, Big Oil companies such as the U.S.’ ExxonMobil Corp. (NYSE:XOM) and Italy’s Eni S.p.A (NYSE:E) as well as global automakers such as Porsche and Audi are some of the biggest backers of e-fuels (Exxon and Eni are supporters of Europe’s eFuel Alliance). Related: Russia Downplays Possibility Of Curbing Gasoline Exports Currently, e-fuels are not produced on scale due to one major problem: high costs. The production of synthetic fuels is highly energy intensive, so much that a recent study by the International Council on Clean Transportation found that e-fuels could cost up to €2.80 per liter ($11.52 USD per gallon), or 3x the current cost of diesel in the U.S. Further, using e-fuels in an ICE car requires about 5x more renewable electricity than running an EV, lowering its value proposition as a clean energy fuel. The world’s first commercial e-fuel plant, backed by Porsche and aiming to produce 550 million liters per year, was opened in Chile in 2021. Other planned plants include Norway’s Norsk e-Fuel, due to begin production in 2024 with a major focus on aviation fuel. Luckily, Big Oil might just find its white knight in another controversial technology: nuclear energy. Nuclear Diesel Using nuclear energy to produce chemicals and liquid fuels is an idea that has long been mooted. Indeed, nuclear energy is strongly oriented towards processes that require high temperatures at affordable prices such as synthetic fuel production and coal gasification. High temperatures increase power generation efficiency of high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (∼50%) and open the possibility to use HTGRs for the process operations. Unfortunately, it’s really hard to deploy nuclear power at a fast enough clip to achieve our climate goals thanks to the harsh reality of nuclear power projects. Consider that it not only takes an average of eight years to build a nuclear power plant, but also the mean time between the decision and the commissioning typically ranges from 10 to 19 years. Additionally, major commercial hurdles, primarily the large upfront capital cost and huge cost overruns (nuclear plants have the greatest frequency of cost overruns of all utility-scale power projects), make this an even more onerous endeavor. Enter small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). SMRs are advanced nuclear reactors with power capacities that range from 50-300 MW(e) per unit, compared to 700+ MW(e) per unit for traditional nuclear power reactors. Their biggest attributes are: Modular – this makes it possible for SMR systems and components to be factory-assembled and transported as a unit to a location for installation. Small – SMRs are physically a fraction of the size of a conventional nuclear power reactor. Given their smaller footprint, SMRs can be sited on locations not suitable for larger nuclear power plants, such as retired coal plants. Prefabricated SMR units can be manufactured, shipped and then installed on site, making them more affordable to build than large power reactors. Additionally, SMRs offer significant savings in cost and construction time, and can also be deployed incrementally to match increasing power demand. Another key advantage: SMRs have reduced fuel requirements, and can be refueled every 3 to 7 years compared to between 1 and 2 years for conventional nuclear plants. Indeed, some SMRs are designed to operate for up to 30 years without refueling. Scores of governments, including the U.S. government, have begun incentivizing SMRs by making them more attractive for lenders and utilities. Back in 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce launched a Small Modular Reactor Working Group that looks to expedite SMR deployment in European markets in a bid to position U.S. companies to succeed in those markets. Meanwhile, Ghana and Kenya are also looking to develop SMRs to expand their power generation capacities. Luckily for Big Oil companies and proponents of synthetic fuels, SMRs might be just what they need to finally make e-fuels competitive with fossil fuels. Dr. Robert Hargraves, co-founder of ThorCon International, a nuclear engineering company, has proposed the development of ‘nuclear diesel’, dubbing it a game-changer in the clean energy transition. According to the nuclear expert: ‘‘Advanced nuclear source energy costs can be 3.5 cents/kWh for electricity or 2 cents/kWh for high-temperature heat. This raw, source energy input cost to manufacture nuclear diesel is less than $1 per gallon. Even after adding new refinery capital costs and operations costs I expect new refineries could produce nuclear diesel at current wholesale prices near $3 per gallon.’’ Although this thesis is yet to be tested in the oil and gas industry, it already has a clear precedent in the chemicals industry: Last year, materials science company Dow Inc. (NYSE:DOW) partnered with small modular nuclear technology expert, X-energy, to deploy X-energy’s Xe-100 high-temperature gas reactor technology at one of Dow’s U.S. Gulf Coast sites. The Xe-100 reactor plant will provide cost-competitive, carbon free process heat and power to the Dow facility. “Advanced small modular nuclear technology is going to be a critical tool for Dow’s path to zero-carbon emissions and our ability to drive growth by delivering low-carbon products to our customers,” said Jim Fitterling, Dow chairman and chief executive officer.

43-Government investment in nuclear spurs market confidence

Bill Walkey, 6-23, 23, Wyoming Public Radio | By Will Walke, https://www.kuer.org/business-economy/2023-06-21/as-nuclear-power-gains-steam-uranium-mining-and-its-impacts-may-grow-in-the-mountain-west

Energy security is national security,” said Monica Regalbuto, who heads a nuclear fuel cycle strategy initiative at the Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory. “Market confidence can be improved by the government doing some initial investments.” About half the carbon-free energy produced domestically comes from nuclear power. Multiple utility companies in the West also want to build small-scale nuclear reactors. One project supported by Bill Gates in southwest Wyoming has the small town of Kemmerer preparing for an influx of new workers. “As the needs of the country grow in terms of energy – and also to support our climate goals – we need to produce more clean electricity, and the way to do that is to use nuclear power,” Regalbuto said. The public may be warming up to that idea. One survey shows 55 percent of people now support nuclear energy, the highest level in a decade. But environmental advocates say communities, especially those in the West that could be near mining activity, need to pump the brakes. “All of this is just a repeat of the past, and we’re just kind of on this endless hype and speculation loop that goes on with uranium mining,” said Jennifer Thurston, executive director of the Information Network for Responsible Mining. “There’s just so many concerns with nuclear power.”

42-Mining threatens indigenous peoples

Bill Walkey, 6-23, 23, Wyoming Public Radio | By Will Walke, https://www.kuer.org/business-economy/2023-06-21/as-nuclear-power-gains-steam-uranium-mining-and-its-impacts-may-grow-in-the-mountain-west

Thurston said the industry is still not properly regulated and environmental health issues like radiation exposure and water contamination persist. She said tribal nations have been especially harmed by historic and existing operations, and thousands of abandoned mining sites remain contaminated. Controversy over a temporary nuclear waste dump in New Mexico foreshadows the potential issues at future disposal sites. [Jennifer Thurston, executive director of the Information Network for Responsible Mining]

41-US could convert coal plants to small nuclear plants, solving climate change

Robert Rapier, 6-17, 23, OilPrice.com, How Nuclear Power Can Dethrone King Coal, https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/How-Nuclear-Power-Can-Dethrone-King-Coal.html

Over the past 15 years, the United States has undergone a significant transition away from coal-fired power plants. This transition is being driven by several factors, including environmental regulations, competition from natural gas, and the declining cost of renewable energy. As coal-fired power plants are retired, there is a need for reliable and affordable zero-emission power replacements. To date, a large fraction of coal’s displacement has come from natural gas. Although it is cleaner than coal, natural gas is still a fossil fuel and therefore has associated greenhouse gas emissions. Renewables sources like wind and solar power are scaling rapidly, but there are several challenges in using them to displace coal-fired power. First, these sources tend to be decentralized, and require a lot of area for the power they produce. Second, these sources are intermittent, and therefore will require a lot more nameplate capacity to displace the same capacity from a coal-fired power plant. Certainly, these renewable sources will continue to grow in importance, but in the short-term, we can’t expect coal-fired power plants to be replaced with intermittent renewables. However, nuclear power is a viable option for meeting this need. Nuclear power is a clean, dispatchable source of energy that can provide baseload power to the grid. The report “Investigating Benefits and Challenges of Converting Retiring Coal Plants into Nuclear Plants” was released in 2022 by the U.S. Department of Energy. The report estimated that approximately 80% of retired or active coal plant sites in the United States are suitable to host advanced reactors smaller than the gigawatt scale. Related: Russia’s Year-Round Arctic Trade Route Initiative The authors noted that converting coal plants to nuclear power could save money and reduce emissions. The report estimates that converting a coal plant to nuclear power could save the plant owner up to $1 billion over the lifetime of the plant, and that converting a coal plant to nuclear power could reduce emissions by up to 90%. The International Energy Agency (IEA) published its own report on the potential for the displacement of coal-fired power in November 2022. The report, Coal in Net Zero Transitions, examines the role of coal in the global energy transition and identifies strategies for reducing coal-related emissions in a way that is rapid, secure, and people-centered. The IEA report finds that coal is the largest emitter of energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2), accounting for 15 billion metric tons in 2021. Coal is also the largest source of electricity generation, accounting for 36% in 2021. The report identifies three main pathways for reducing coal-related emissions: Rapid phase-out of unabated coal power: This pathway involves phasing out all coal power plants that do not capture and store their emissions by 2030. This pathway would require significant investment in clean energy technologies, but it would also deliver the largest emissions reductions in the shortest time. Gradual phase-out of unabated coal power: This pathway involves phasing out unabated coal power plants over a longer period, such as by 2040. This pathway would require less investment in clean energy technologies than the rapid phase-out pathway, but it would also deliver smaller emissions reductions. Continued use of coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS): This pathway involves using CCS technology to capture and store the emissions from coal power plants. CCS technology is still under development, but it has the potential to significantly reduce coal-related emissions. The report finds that the rapid phase-out of unabated coal power is the most effective way to reduce coal-related emissions. Nuclear power is expected to play a key role in replacing coal-fired electricity generation. In the IEA’s Announced Pledges Scenario (APS), over 30 countries have shown interest in expanding nuclear capacity, with global capacity additions expected to average 18 GW annually from 2026 to 2030 triple the recent average of 6 GW from 2017 to 2021. While China leads the market – accounting for almost 40% of all new nuclear capacity to 2030 — other countries such as France, India, Poland, the United Kingdom, and the United States have announced support or plans to invest in new nuclear projects. The APS expects an average of 20 GW of nuclear capacity to be added each year from 2030 through 2050, including small modular reactors that offer lower upfront costs and improved safety and waste management features. There are certainly challenges and opportunities associated with converting coal plants to nuclear power. The biggest challenge is the cost and time to build new nuclear power plants. Some regulatory hurdles need to be overcome to convert coal plants to nuclear power. However, converting coal plants to nuclear power could help retain work forces at coal plants, stabilize the economy, while helping the United States meet its climate goals.

40-Eliminating nuclear power increases COS emissions and death

Lyssa Freeze et al, 2023, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, Nature, Nuclear power generation phase-outs redistribute US air quality and climate-related mortality risk, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-023-01241-8

We explore how nuclear shut-downs in the United States could affect air pollution, climate and health with existing and alternative grid infrastructure. We develop a dispatch model to estimate emissions of CO2, NOx and SO2 from each electricity-generating unit, feeding these emissions into a chemical transport model to calculate effects on ground-level ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Our scenario of removing nuclear power results in compensation by coal, gas and oil, resulting in increases in PM2.5 and ozone that lead to an extra 5,200 annual mortalities. Changes in CO2 emissions lead to an order of magnitude higher mortalities throughout the twenty-first century, incurring US$11–180 billion of damages from 1 year of emissions. A scenario exploring simultaneous closures of nuclear and coal plants redistributes health impacts and a scenario with increased penetration of renewables reduces health impacts. Inequities in exposure to pollution are persistent across all scenarios—Black or African American people are exposed to the highest relative levels of pollution.

39-Nuclear power expanding globally

Umar Ifran, May 1, 2023, Vox, Smaller, cheaper, safer: The next generation of nuclear power, explained, https://www.vox.com/science/23702686/nuclear-power-small-modular-reactor-energy-climate-change,

“It’s an applications test reactor where we’re going to try to figure out how we extract heat and energy from a nuclear reactor and apply it — and combine it with wind and solar and other energy sources,” said Yasir Arafat, head of the MARVEL program. The project, however, comes at a time when nuclear power is getting pulled in wildly different directions. Germany just shut down its last nuclear reactors. The US just started up its first new reactor in 30 years. France, the country with the largest share of nuclear energy on its grid, saw its nuclear power output decline to the lowest levels since 1988 last year. Around the world, there are currently 60 nuclear reactors under construction, with 22 in China alone. But the world is hungrier than ever for energy.

38-Nuclear power critical to meet growing electricity demand

Umar Ifran, May 1, 2023, Vox, Smaller, cheaper, safer: The next generation of nuclear power, explained, https://www.vox.com/science/23702686/nuclear-power-small-modular-reactor-energy-climate-change,

Overall electricity demand is growing: Global electricity needs will increase nearly 70 percent by 2050 compared to today’s consumption, according to the Energy Information Administration. At the same time, the constraints are getting tighter. Most countries in the world, including the US, have now committed to zeroing out their net impact on the climate by the middle of the century. To meet this energy demand without worsening climate change, the US Energy Department’s report on advanced nuclear energy released in March said “the U.S. will need ~550–770 [gigawatts] of additional clean, firm capacity to reach net-zero; nuclear power is one of the few proven options that could deliver this at scale.” MARVEL program director Yasir Arafat, in front of a prototype microreactor, said the project will study how small nuclear reactors could function on a power grid. Idaho National Laboratory/US Department of Energy

37-US backing expanded nuclear power now

Umar Ifran, May 1, 2023, Vox, Smaller, cheaper, safer: The next generation of nuclear power, explained, https://www.vox.com/science/23702686/nuclear-power-small-modular-reactor-energy-climate-change,

The US government is now renewing its bets on nuclear power to produce a steady stream of electricity without emitting greenhouse gases. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included $6 billion to keep existing nuclear power plants running. The Inflation Reduction Act, the US government’s largest investment in countering climate change to date, includes a number of provisions to benefit nuclear power, including tax credits for zero-emissions energy. t’s a game changer,” said John Wagner, director of INL. The tech sector is jumping in, too. In 2021, venture capital firms poured $3.4 billion into nuclear energy startups. They’re also pouring money into even more far-out ideas, like nuclear fusion power. Public opinion has also started moving. An April Gallup poll found that 55 percent of Americans favor and 44 percent oppose using nuclear energy, the highest levels of support in 10 years.

36-PIC: Only use nuclear energy for carbon capture

Umar Ifran, May 1, 2023, Vox, Smaller, cheaper, safer: The next generation of nuclear power, explained, https://www.vox.com/science/23702686/nuclear-power-small-modular-reactor-energy-climate-change,

Electricity from nuclear power plants doesn’t necessarily have to feed into the power grid either, according to King. It can instead power dedicated processes like capturing carbon dioxide directly from the air. Capturing this carbon dioxide is a highly energy-intensive process, though, and nuclear could provide the requisite power without making the problem worse. That captured carbon could then serve as a building block for synthetic fuels, particularly for sectors that are hard to electrify, like aviation and shipping.

35- SMRS used globally

Umar Ifran, May 1, 2023, Vox, Smaller, cheaper, safer: The next generation of nuclear power, explained, https://www.vox.com/science/23702686/nuclear-power-small-modular-reactor-energy-climate-change,

This approach has already caught eyes around the world. The US Navy already operates more than 200 small nuclear reactors to power submarines and aircraft carriers. The test is to see whether the business case makes sense on land. China and Russia are already running SMRs, and 19 countries are developing them. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said in April that Canada is making “a return to nuclear, which we’re very very serious about, and investing in some of the small modular reactors.” One of NuScale’s first commercial SMR plants in the world is now planned in Romania in 2028.

34-Even with more renewables, removing nuclear will increase air pollution

Jennifer Chu, 4-10, 23, https://news.mit.edu/2023/study-shutting-down-nuclear-power-could-increase-air-pollution-0410, MIT News, Study: Shutting down nuclear power could increase air pollution, https://news.mit.edu/2023/study-shutting-down-nuclear-power-could-increase-air-pollution-0410

If, however, more renewable energy sources become available to supply the energy grid, as they are expected to by the year 2030, air pollution would be curtailed, though not entirely. The team found that even under this heartier renewable scenario, there is still a slight increase in air pollution in some parts of the country, resulting in a total of 260 pollution-related deaths over one year. When they looked at the populations directly affected by the increased pollution, they found that Black or African American communities — a disproportionate number of whom live near fossil-fuel plants — experienced the greatest exposure. “This adds one more layer to the environmental health and social impacts equation when you’re thinking about nuclear shutdowns, where the conversation often focuses on local risks due to accidents and mining or long-term climate impacts,” says lead author Lyssa Freese, a graduate student in MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences (EAPS). “In the debate over keeping nuclear power plants open, air quality has not been a focus of that discussion,” adds study author Noelle Selin, a professor in MIT’s Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS) and EAPS. “What we found was that air pollution from fossil fuel plants is so damaging, that anything that increases it, such as a nuclear shutdown, is going to have substantial impacts, and for some people more than others.” The study’s MIT-affiliated co-authors also include Principal Research Scientist Sebastian Eastham and Guillaume Chossière SM ’17, PhD ’20, along with Alan Jenn of the University of California at Davis. When nuclear power plants have closed in the past, fossil fuel use increased in response. In 1985, the closure of reactors in Tennessee Valley prompted a spike in coal use, while the 2012 shutdown of a plant in California led to an increase in natural gas. In Germany, where nuclear power has almost completely been phased out, coal-fired power increased initially to fill the gap. Noting these trends, the MIT team wondered how the U.S. energy grid would respond if nuclear power were completely phased out. “We wanted to think about what future changes were expected in the energy grid,” Freese says. “We knew that coal use was declining, and there was a lot of work already looking at the impact of what that would have on air quality. But no one had looked at air quality and nuclear power, which we also noticed was on the decline.” In the new study, the team used an energy grid dispatch model developed by Jenn to assess how the U.S. energy system would respond to a shutdown of nuclear power. The model simulates the production of every power plant in the country and runs continuously to estimate, hour by hour, the energy demands in 64 regions across the country. Much like the way the actual energy market operates, the model chooses to turn a plant’s production up or down based on cost: Plants producing the cheapest energy at any given time are given priority to supply the grid over more costly energy sources. The team fed the model available data on each plant’s changing emissions and energy costs throughout an entire year. They then ran the model under different scenarios, including: an energy grid with no nuclear power, a baseline grid similar to today’s that includes nuclear power, and a grid with no nuclear power that also incorporates the additional renewable sources that are expected to be added by 2030. They combined each simulation with an atmospheric chemistry model to simulate how each plant’s various emissions travel around the country and to overlay these tracks onto maps of population density. For populations in the path of pollution, they calculated the risk of premature death based on their degree of exposure. Their analysis showed a clear pattern: Without nuclear power, air pollution worsened in general, mainly affecting regions in the East Coast, where nuclear power plants are mostly concentrated. Without those plants, the team observed an uptick in production from coal and gas plants, resulting in 5,200 pollution-related deaths across the country, compared to the baseline scenario. They also calculated that more people are also likely to die prematurely due to climate impacts from the increase in carbon dioxide emissions, as the grid compensates for nuclear power’s absence. The climate-related effects from this additional influx of carbon dioxide could lead to 160,000 additional deaths over the next century. “We need to be thoughtful about how we’re retiring nuclear power plants if we are trying to think about them as part of an energy system,” Freese says. “Shutting down something that doesn’t have direct emissions itself can still lead to increases in emissions, because the grid system will respond.” “This might mean that we need to deploy even more renewables, in order to fill the hole left by nuclear, which is essentially a zero-emissions energy source,” Selin adds. “Otherwise we will have a reduction in air quality that we weren’t necessarily counting on.” This study was supported, in part, by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

33-Nuclear stops blackouts

US Department of Energy, March 2023, Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Advanced Nuclear, https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/20230320-Liftoff-Advanced-Nuclear-vPUB-0329-Update.pdf

Nuclear provides a firm resource (Figure 7) and system benefits that ensure reliability and stability across the grid.vi Nuclear power can help prevent blackouts in a future grid, which will be increasingly reliant on variable power sources. Firm power helps utilities provide a reasonable reserve margin through all hours of the year—especially during summer and winter peaks in demand—and across weather conditions. Access to reliable and resilient clean energy resources is not equitably distributed across the U.S.; increasing grid reliability and resilience for underserved, overburdened communities can support improved health outcomes, public safety, economic security, and overall quality of life… Nuclear power has lower transmission requirements than many other generation sources because of two factors: (1) it faces fewer technical limits for siting closer to demand;6 (2) it has higher power density coupled with a high-capacity factor. As a result, less transmission must be built out to deliver the same amount of energy. Location constraints are critical when considering regional deployment of clean energy technologies. Regions with low solar incidence or low sustained wind would require transmission to bring in power from outside of the region. Siting nuclear does not generally depend on technical geographic constraints to the same degree (though may depend on public acceptance, which is addressed separately in Section 3.e). This may mean that fewer miles of transmission infrastructure would have to be built out to link power from the area it is generated to where it is used. Nuclear power’s high-power density means that transmission lines connected to nuclear power plants can carry more total energy per mile. This results in lower transmission peak capacity required for nuclear power than for other lower capacity factor sources of power for a given amount of energy production. Thus, the inclusion of nuclear power in the grid reduces the amount of capital investment required in the inter-regional, regional, and local transmission infrastructure to supply and provide stability to the grid (a conclusion supported by system-level modeling).x This may support greater parity in access to clean, reliable energy for underserved, overburdened communities.

32-Nuclear power creates more jobs than renewables

US Department of Energy, March 2023, Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Advanced Nuclear, https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/20230320-Liftoff-Advanced-Nuclear-vPUB-0329-Update.pdf

Nuclear power has the highest economic impact of any power generation source.7 Nuclear power plants have ~300% of the jobs per GW when compared to wind power, and the pay of nuclear workers is ~50% higher than that in the wind or solar sectors (Figure 9).xii Nuclear is also one of few power generation sources that can preserve the volume of high-paying jobs from retiring coal plants

31-Coal plants can be converted to nuclear plants, protecting jobs

US Department of Energy, March 2023, Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Advanced Nuclear, https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/20230320-Liftoff-Advanced-Nuclear-vPUB-0329-Update.pdf

An effective energy transition is one that preserves the viability and livelihood of the communities impacted by the shift toclean energy sources. Up to 80% of existing coal power plant sites may be eligible for advanced nuclear plants, allowing utilities to invest in a new plant to repurpose the existing footprint—while preserving and expanding high-paying jobs in local communities.xiv Coal-to-nuclear transitions present critical opportunities to ensure an equitable transition to a decarbonized grid while increasing the domestic base and manufacturing capabilities. Nuclear power is also highly compatible with unionized labor; jobs tend to require more training and include both roles requiring college degrees and roles needing a wide variety of trade labor skills.xv Additionally, the manufacturing, construction, operation, and maintenance of power plants are a key enabler of both scale-up and reshoring the domestic industrial base (Figure 10).

30-SMRs can be deployed quickly and have lower costs

US Department of Energy, March 2023, Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Advanced Nuclear, https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/20230320-Liftoff-Advanced-Nuclear-vPUB-0329-Update.pdf

Three considerations contribute to the SMR value proposition for potential customers, regardless of economies of scale:1. SMRs provide smaller and less time-consuming investments Because each individual SMR project comes at a lower overall price tag and a shorter time to construct, deployment of SMRs involves less risk than large reactor construction. As an example, a $2B SMR with a 150% cost overrun would result in completed FOAK cost of $3B; a $10B large reactor with the same 150% cost overrun will result in a completed FOAK cost of $15B. Accordingly, with less time and less money, an SMR can complete FOAK construction and implement cost-saving learnings on the second-of-a-kind reactor. This shorter timeline and lower price should enable SMRs to move down the learning curve faster and with less risk. This accelerated de-risking for SMRs may make them more attractive to potential project owners who are skeptical of the quoted capital costs. These lower costs could also lower the barriers to entry for potential customers who are not able to easily make a $6B+ commitment. 2. SMRs provide more certainty of achieving a predicted cost with reduced risk of overrunWhile large and small reactors could result in similar median costs per kW, SMRs can provide greater certainty in achieving that median cost. The MIT NCET report demonstrates this effect as well (Figure 18). A shorter construction timeline and smaller number of individual tasks provide less room for error in a smaller project than a larger one. This increased cost certainty can lower barriers to entry for potential project owners who are wary of severe cost overruns.

29-Uranium mining and milling hurt poor communities, benefits extend to white communities

US Department of Energy, March 2023, Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Advanced Nuclear, https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/20230320-Liftoff-Advanced-Nuclear-vPUB-0329-Update.pdf

v Polling shows that communities surrounding reactor sites view nuclear more favorably than the general public,lv yet the benefits of these sites have not been equitably distributed, with the economic impact of reactors often benefitting whiter and wealthier communities. Nuclear fuel cycle facilities, such as uranium mining and milling, and the U.S. weapons program have disproportionately harmed low-income communities, communities of color, and tribes.lv

28-Four ways the government can support nuclear

US Department of Energy, March 2023, Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Advanced Nuclear, https://liftoff.energy.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/20230320-Liftoff-Advanced-Nuclear-vPUB-0329-Update.pdf

To break the current stalemate and generate demand for 5–10 nuclear reactors of the same design by 2025, different forms of government financial support could help de-risk early projects and accelerate private sector commitment. The following four mechanisms are intended to show the potential forms of support that could accelerate deployment and were informed by interviews with utilities, investors, and other stakeholders.

Cost overrun insurance: A third party (either government or non-government) could agree to cover certain costs of reactor construction above a certain cost threshold as a project insurer. For example, a project might establish a cost threshold that once exceeded, would result in partial coverage by a government or other entity that shares the risk (e.g., up to 50% of total cost overrun). This form of financial support would reduce the risk of unbounded cost overruns to the project owner and could accelerate orders from U.S. utilities and other customers. However, a direct statute would be necessary from Congress to allow the U.S. Government to fill this role.
Financial assistance, e.g., tiered grants: Tiered grants, starting at the highest dollar amount for the first reactor and decreasing with each subsequent deployment, could offer partial risk assurance and motivate customers to accelerate commitments to capture the maximum financial support. Tiered grants could start at amounts expected to result in a very competitive LCOE for nuclear power and scale back. Ensuring that first-movers receive the best deal could induce customers to commit earlier. Establishing right-sized tiered financial assistance would require predictive ranges of construction costs, which have been difficult to estimate with certainty.
Government ownership: Government could purchase nuclear plants directly. For example, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)—a federally-owned electric utility—recently entered an agreement with GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy to support planning and preliminary licensing for the deployment of the BWRX-300 SMR design. Additionally, SMRs and microreactors could be well-suited for providing resilient and reliable off-grid power directly to military installations and other national security infrastructure.
Government-enabled off-take certainty: Government entities could strengthen demand-certainty for asset owners through a combination of off-take agreements for nuclear power (e.g., direct power purchase agreements for up to 10 years 12). In areas with a utility service monopoly for the government site, a government entity could purchase power indirectly through the utility service monopoly if the service monopoly agreed to enter into a power purchase agreement with the project owner for the government.13 This support could scale back with each deployment, e.g., such that each reactor ordered represents the best deal, the second the next-best, and so on.1

27-Three new advanced reactor systems

Office of Nuclear Energy, 2021, 3 Advanced Reactor Systems to Watch by 2030, https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/3-advanced-reactor-systems-watch-2030

Move over millennials, there’s a new generation looking to debut by 2030. Generation IV nuclear reactors are being developed through an international cooperation of 14 countries—including the United States. The U.S. Department of Energy and its national labs are supporting research and development on a wide range of new advanced reactor technologies that could be a game-changer for the nuclear industry. These innovative systems are expected to be cleaner, safer and more efficient than previous generations. Intrigued?

Here are three designs we are currently working on with industry partners to help meet our future energy needs in a cost-competitive way.

Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor

A concept design of a sodium-cooled fast reactor SFRs are designed for management of high-level waste and, in particular, management of plutonium and other actinides. Idaho National Laboratory The sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR) uses liquid metal (sodium) as a coolant instead of water that is typically used in U.S. commercial power plants. This allows for the coolant to operate at higher temperatures and lower pressures than current reactors—improving the efficiency and safety of the system. The SFR also uses a fast neutron spectrum, meaning that neutrons can cause fission without having to be slowed down first as they are in current reactors. This could allow SFRs to use both fissile material and spent fuel from current reactors to produce electricity. Resource: Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactor Fact Sheet

Very High Temperature Reactor

A concept design for a very high temperature reactor VHTRs offer a broad range of process heat applications and an option for high efficiency electricity production. Idaho National Laboratory The very high temperature reactor is cooled by flowing gas and is designed to operate at high temperatures that can produce electricity extremely efficiently. The high temperature gas could also be used in energy-intensive processes that currently rely on fossil fuels, such as hydrogen production, desalination, district heating, petroleum refining, and ammonia production. Very high temperature reactors offer impressive safety features and can be easy to construct and affordable to maintain. Resource: Very High Temperature Reactor Fact Sheet

Molten Salt Reactor

A design concept of a molten salt reactor MSRs have a closed fuel cycle that can be tailored for the efficient burn up of plutonium and minor actinides. Idaho National Laboratory Stay Informed Get the latest news, blogs and videos from the Office of Nuclear Energy in your inbox. Molten salt reactors (MSR) use molten fluoride or chloride salts as a coolant. The coolant can flow over solid fuel like other reactors or fissile materials can be dissolved directly into the primary coolant so that the fission directly heats the salt. MSRs are designed to use less fuel and produce shorter-lived radioactive waste than other reactor types. They have the potential to significantly change the safety posture and economics of nuclear energy production by processing fuel online, removing waste products and adding fresh fuel without lengthy refueling outages. Their operation can be tailored for the efficient burn up of plutonium and minor actinides, which could allow MSRs to consume waste from other reactors. The system can also be used for electricity or hydrogen production.

26-Coal plants could serve as nuclear facilities, enabling the US to get to net-zero by 2050

US Department of Energy, 2022, DOE Report Finds Hundreds of Retiring Coal Plant Sites Could Convert to Nuclear, https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/doe-report-finds-hundreds-retiring-coal-plant-sites-could-convert-nuclear

WASHINGTON, D.C.— The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today released a report showing that hundreds of U.S. coal power plant sites could convert to nuclear power plant sites, adding new jobs, increasing economic benefit, and significantly improving environmental conditions. This coal-to-nuclear transition could add a substantial amount of clean electricity to the grid, helping the U.S. reach its net-zero emissions goals by 2050. The study investigated the benefits and challenges of converting retiring coal plant sites into nuclear plant sites. After screening recently retired and active coal plant sites, the study team identified 157 retired coal plant sites and 237 operating coal plant sites as potential candidates for a coal-to-nuclear transition. Of these sites, the team found that 80% are good candidates to host advanced reactors smaller than the gigawatt scale. A coal to nuclear transition could significantly improve air quality in communities around the country. The case study found that greenhouse gas emissions in a region could fall by 86% when nuclear power plants replace large coal plants, which is equivalent to taking more than 500,000 gasoline-powered passenger vehicles off the roads. It could lso increase employment and economic activity within those communities. When a large coal plant is replaced by a nuclear power plant of equivalent size, the study found that jobs in the region could increase by more than 650 permanent positions. Based the case study in the report, long-term job impacts could lead to additional annual economic activity of $275 million, implying an increase of 92% tax revenue for the local county when compared to the operating coal power. “This is an important opportunity to help communities around the country preserve jobs, increase tax revenue, and improve air quality,” said Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dr. Kathryn Huff. “As we move to a clean energy future, we need to deliver place-based solutions and ensure an equitable energy transition that does not leave communities behind.” The reuse of coal infrastructure for advanced nuclear reactors could also reduce costs for developing new nuclear technology, saving from 15% to 35% in construction costs. Coal-to-nuclear transitions could save millions of dollars by reusing the coal plant’s electrical equipment (e.g., transmission lines, switchyards), cooling ponds or towers, and civil infrastructure such as roads and office buildings. Argonne National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory conducted the study, sponsored by the Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy.

25-Military already runs hundreds of small reactors

World Nuclear Association, 2023, https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships.aspx

Nuclear power is particularly suitable for vessels which need to be at sea for long periods without refuelling, or for powerful submarine propulsion. Over 160 ships are powered by more than 200 small nuclear reactors. Most are submarines, but they range from icebreakers to aircraft carriers. In future, constraints on fossil fuel use in transport may bring marine nuclear propulsion into more widespread use. So far, exaggerated fears about safety have caused political restriction on port access. Work on nuclear marine propulsion started in the 1940s, and the first test reactor started up in USA in 1953. The first nuclear-powered submarine, USS Nautilus, put to sea in 1955.This marked the transition of submarines from slow underwater vessels to warships capable of sustaining 20-25 knots submerged for long periods, independent of needing air for diesel engines to charge batteries.Nautilus led to the parallel development of further (Skate-class) submarines, powered by single pressurised water reactors, and an aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise, powered by eight Westinghouse reactor units in 1960. A cruiser, USS Long Beach, followed in 1961 and was powered by two of these early units. Remarkably, the Enterprise remained in service to the end of 2012.By 1962 the US Navy had 26 nuclear submarines operational and 30 under construction. Nuclear power had revolutionised the Navy.The technology was shared with Britain, while French, Russian and Chinese developments proceeded separately.After the Skate-class vessels, reactor development proceeded and in the USA a single series of standardized designs was built by both Westinghouse and GE, one reactor powering each vessel. Rolls-Royce built Westinghouse-derived units for the UK Royal Navy submarines and then developed the design further to the PWR2.Russia developed both PWR and lead-bismuth cooled reactor designs, the latter not persisting. Eventually four generations* of submarine PWRs were utilised, the last entering service in 1995 in the Severodvinsk class.* 1955-66, 1963-92, 1976-2003, 1995 on, according to Bellona.The largest submarines are the 26,500 tonne (34,000 t submerged) Russian Typhoon class, powered by twin 190 MWt PWR reactors, though these were superseded by the 24,000 t Oscar-II class (eg Kursk) with the same power plant.The safety record of the US nuclear navy is excellent, this being attributed to a high level of standardisation in naval power plants and their maintenance, and the high quality of the Navy’s training program. However, early Soviet endeavours resulted in a number of serious accidents – five where the reactor was irreparably damaged, and more resulting in radiation leaks. There were more than 20 radiation fatalities.* Nevertheless, by Russia’s third generation of marine PWRs in the late 1970s safety and reliability had become a high priority. (Apart from reactor accidents, fires and accidents have resulted in the loss of two US and about four Soviet submarines, another four of which had fires resulting in loss of life.) In the US, UK and French navies there has never been a nuclear plant accident.* The K-19 accident at sea in 1961 due to cooling failure in an early PWR resulted in eight deaths from acute radiation syndrome (ARS) in repairing it (doses 7.5 to 54 Sv) and possibly more later as well as many high doses. The K-27 accident at sea in 1968 also involved coolant failure, this time in an experimental lead-bismuth cooled reactor, and nine deaths from ARS as well as high exposure by other crew. In 1985 the K-431 was being refuelled in Vladivostok when a criticality occurred causing a major steam explosion which killed ten workers. Over 200 PBq of fission products was released causing high radiation exposure of about 50 others, including ten with ARS.Lloyd’s Register shows about 200 nuclear reactors at sea, and that some 700 have been used at sea since the 1950s. Other sources quote 108 reactors in US naval vessels in mid-2019. More than 14,000 reactor years of nuclear marine operation have been accumulated, Russia claims 7000 of these, and the US Navy has 6200 rector-years to 2021, with 526 reactors.In 2021 the World Associationof Nuclear Operators (WANO) extended its peer-level pre-startup reviews – a normal procedure for power plants – to Russian icebreakers.

24-China and Russia already running SMRs

Nuclear Engineering International, July 20, 2023 https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featureiaea-ups-support-for-smrs-10528638/, IAEA ups support for SMRs

The first SMR units have already been deployed in Russia and China. Russia’s Akademik Lomonosov floating NPP is already supplying both power and heat to the Arctic town of Pevek in Chukotka. It was connected to the grid in December 2019, and at the end of May 2020 began commercial operation. The FNPP comprises a dedicated system of coastal infrastructure to support the Akademik Lomonosov floating power unit, which is equipped with two KLT-40S pressurised water reactors (PWRs), previously used to power icebreakers, with capacity of 35MWe each. The power capacity of the FNPP is 70MW, the heat capacity is 50 Gcal/h. Russian regulator Rostekhnadzor has issued a 10-year licence to nuclear utility Rosenergoatom to operate the Akademik Lomonosov until 2029. It was the lead project of a series of mobile transportable low power units to be sited in the Far North and the Far East to provide energy to remote industrial enterprises, port cities and gas and oil platforms. Subsequent units will have upgraded larger RITM-200 reactors each with a capacity of 50MWe. China (under contract to Russia) has begun laying the keel of the hull for the first of these upgraded FNPPs. It is due to be delivered to Russia by the end of 2023 for the completion and installation of the reactors and other equipment, which is already being manufactured by Russia’s Atomenergomash. This is the first of four planned FNPP units intended for operation in the waters of Cape Nagleingyn in Chukotka. Russia is also planning to construct a ground-based SMR in Yakutia using an adapted version of the RITM-200. The plant is scheduled to be launched in 2028. China’s first pebble-bed modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTR-PM) was connected to the grid in 2021 – as unit 1 of the two-unit pebble-bed modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor demonstration project at the Shidaowan plant in Shandong province. Both 250MWt reactors reactors have achieved criticality and will drive a single 210MWe turbine. High-temperature gas-cooled reactors use graphite as a moderator and helium as a coolant. The uranium fuel comprises 6 cm-diameter pebbles, each with an outer layer of graphite and containing some 12,000 four-layer ceramic-coated fuel particles dispersed in a matrix of graphite powder. The HTR-PM follows on from China’s HTR-10, a 10 MWt high-temperature gas-cooled experimental reactor at Tsinghua University’s Institute of Nuclear & New Energy Technology, which started up in 2000 and reached full power in 2003. A further 18 such HTR-PM units are proposed for the Shidaowan site. China is also constructing another SMR demonstration project at the Changjiang NPP using its ACP100 (Linglong One) PWR. China announced the launch of the project in 2019 – it had been under development since 2010. The ACP100 preliminary design was completed in 2014. The major components of integrated PWR’s primary coolant circuit are installed inside the reactor pressure vessel. In 2016, the design became the first SMR to pass a safety review by IAEA.

23-Advanced reactors can’t be deployed for decades

Committee on Laying the Foundation for New and Advanced Nuclear Reactors in the United States, 2023, Laying the Foundation for New and Advanced Nuclear Reactors in the United States, https://nap.nationalacademies.org/download/26630

To realize these scenarios, advanced reactors must succeed in many areas: completing demonstrations of new reactor technologies, verifying new business cases (e.g., non-electric applications), showing improved cost metrics that are competitive with other low-carbon power generation technologies, improving construction and project management compared to current LWR builds, obtaining timely regulatory approval, gaining societal acceptance in host communities, and responding to security and safeguard obligations. Because demonstrations of advanced nuclear designs are not expected until the late 2020s or early 2030s, it may be difficult for new nuclear technologies to contribute significantly until the next few decades. Nonetheless, there is a potential longer-term role for advanced reactors, and overlooking any of the above areas could compromise commercial viability. The race against climate change is both a marathon and a sprint.

22-Nuclear power incentives should be provided

The commercial deployment of low-carbon energy resources will require substantial investment. To obtain funds at this scale, each project investment must present sufficiently low risk that it can compete with other “ordinary” investments in the public equity and debt markets. Widespread commercial deployment of nuclear reactors will occur only if nuclear power projects can convincingly demonstrate that they can compete in a marketplace with alternatives. Recommendation 4-4: To enable a cost-competitive market environment for nuclear energy, federal and state governments should provide appropriately tailored financial incentives (extending and perhaps enhancing those provided recently in the Inflation Reduction Act) that industry can use as part of a commercialization plan, consistent with the successful incentives provided to renewables. These tools may vary by state, locality, and market type. Continued evaluation of the recently passed incentives will need assessment to determine their adequacy. The scale of these incentives needs to be sufficient not only to encourage nuclear projects but also the vendors and the supporting supply chains.

21-Continued operation of plants is key to solve climate change

Although this study acknowledges that expanded utilization of nuclear power presents formidable challenges, the important opportunities provided by advanced reactors warrant exploration. The current fleet of nuclear reactors already contributes significantly to low-carbon power generation, and many studies show that the continued operation of existing plants is essential for meeting near-term decarbonization targets (IEA 2022).3 Nuclear power can assuredly be expanded to provide reliable lowcarbon power and process heat if society should so choose. Given the growing recognition of the devastating impacts of climate change, the barriers to technologies that can contribute to a low-carbon future, including nuclear power, should be addressed and, if possible, overcome.

20-Electricity demand in the US will grow

NPPs in the United States have a combined capacity of 95.5 GWe generated at 54 NPPs (92 reactor units). All of these reactors are LWRs, and most of the later additions to the fleet are large (roughly 1 GWe). They use uranium oxide as fuel, enriched to about 5 percent 235U, and ordinary water as both a coolant and moderator, with traditional Rankine steam-cycle power conversion systems. The average age of the current fleet of reactors is about 40 years (the term allowed in their initial licenses), and nearly all the plants have had their operating licenses extended to 60 years.4 Over the past decade, some nuclear retirements (as well as many retirements of coal-fired generation) have occurred as a result of the low cost of natural-gas-fired electricity generation (EIA 2022). In the aftermath of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, however, global gas shortages and volatile gas prices are occurring and there is an increased focus on energy security. The continued expansion of electricity generation using natural gas is somewhat uncertain. At the same time, electricity demand is projected to grow 50 percent by 2050 (EIA 2019), raising the important question of what generation technologies will meet this expanded demand.

19-Renewables can’t reliably provide electricity

Decarbonizing our entire economy (including the electricity, industrial, transportation, agriculture, commercial and residential buildings sectors) will require increased electrification and concomitant expansion of the electricity system to meet a wider set of demands than today (e.g., electric vehicle charging), making low-carbon electricity generation sources a particular focus in the efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Various electricity generation technologies have differing life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as shown by Figure 1-1. Nuclear power generation has very low life cycle GHG emissions6 and the low-carbon character of nuclear power is a key factor that motivates this study. While variable generation, such as wind and solar, will likely become central to electricity systems, it does not provide a universal or assured solution. There is a need for firm capacity when variable renewable generation is unavailable or insufficient to meet grid needs. Moreover, there may be constraints on renewables as a result of land-use limitations,7 the availability of rare minerals needed for their manufacture, regional differences in renewable resource availability, and the formidable challenge of a significant expansion of our transmission system to bring power from remote renewable sites to load.8 Other technologies in addition to nuclear power that could play a role in this evolving system include energy storage;9 fossil plants with carbon capture, utilization, or sequestration (CCUS); and geothermal energy and non-traditional hydropower—all of which carry their own costs, risks, limitations, and uncertainties.

Nuclear can’t fully decarbonize the economy

Further complicating decarbonization efforts, electricity generation constitutes only about 30 percent of carbon emissions, and some sectors of the economy cannot be directly decarbonized by electrification. The strategy to achieve a low-carbon future must extend beyond electricity to consider the means by which to meet a much wider set of energy needs.

18-SMRs have multiple safety systems

Advanced reactor systems would rely more on inherent and passive5 design featuresthan current LWRs. For example, the NuScale small modular LWR design virtually eliminates the need for active systems to accomplish safety functions, relying instead on a combination of passive systems (e.g., safety relief valves driven by gas pressure or spring forces, gravity-driven water flow) and the inherent features of its design geometry and materials (e.g., large water inventory with high thermal capacity). Non-LWR advanced reactor systems have taken a similar approach, accomplishing key safety functions in the system design with a much greater emphasis on inherent and passive features, as noted in Table 2-3. These small modular reactors (SMRs) can also employ integral designs that can incorporate all key components in the primary vessel, thereby reducing the risk from pipe breaks, because the primary coolant remains in the vessel. This configuration is significantly larger than a traditional loop configuration and increases the thermal inertia of the system. The different fuels, coolants, and moderators (in thermal reactors) used in advanced reactor designs affect the inherent safety of the system through the basic material properties, neutronics designs, and chemical characteristics of system components. Non-LWR advanced reactor designs have the potential to improve safety by a combination of the following safety attributes that minimize the challenges to their systems for a wide range of transients and accidents (see Table 2-3):

Negative reactivity coefficient for helium-cooled thermal reactor systems and sodium-cooled fast reactor systems causes a reactor power decrease for a reactor temperature increase.
Single-phase coolants during normal operation with large margins to boiling for liquid coolants keep the reactor core cooling effective over a wide temperature range.
High thermal conductivity and high heat capacity for liquid coolants (e.g., sodium and molten salts) removes heat from the reactor more effectively and reduces the rate of temperature increase.
High heat capacity for the graphite moderator in gas-cooled and molten-salt thermal systems reduces the rate of temperature increase in the reactor core.
Low chemical reaction rates of single-phase coolants like helium and molten salts reduce the potential for materials degradation.
Fuel design with robust tristructural isotropic (TRISO) fuel kernels used in gas-cooled and some molten-salt thermal systems reduces fuel failure rates at high temperatures.
Strong fission product retention in sodium, molten salts, and graphite moderator reduces the amount of radioactive material release from the reactor system.

17-Sodium-cooled reactor and high temperature gas reactors are safe

The sodium-cooled fast reactor and the high-temperature gas-cooled reactor have well-developed designs and have confirmed many of their safety characteristics through actual integral testing in prototype reactor plants (Planchon et al. 1987; Kunitomi et al. 1990). In addition, these advanced reactor designs have incorporated passive safety systems that use natural circulation for decay heat removal and long-term core cooling. The overall plant design allows for fewer auxiliary components or systems that may also reduce reactor system costs. These designs have the potential to accomplish safety functions without the need for AC power and can allow for extended coping times during transients and accidents. For example, in a loss of coolant flow accident that may occur in a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor, the reactor temperature increase is much slower, rising over several hours, compared to seconds for current LWRs. Such design attributes also have the potential to significantly reduce the accident source term and may allow for more flexible siting of these reactor systems near population centers. Regardless of design specifics, the qualitative safety characteristics and design attributes are similar across many non-LWR advanced reactor types, including less mature concepts (e.g., molten-salt reactor). Nevertheless, there is a lack of operational experience with these designs, and trained operators for these new advanced reactor designs will have to be developed. Demonstration of these safety functions still needs to be validated with appropriate operating experience and collection of integral test data at appropriate scales to demonstrate capabilities and to confirm the satisfaction of safety requirements (see Table 2-3).

16-Advanced reactors still have safety risks

Despite these positive design characteristics, safety challenges remain for advanced reactors, particularly to ensure reliable operation and to cope with postulated accidents. These issues will need to be addressed for each specific design given their unique design features. Gas-cooled reactors must control and limit the level of air or water ingress into the reactor system to minimize the amount of graphite oxidation, thereby reducing radioactive releases from the reactor to the surrounding building and the environment. Molten-salt-cooled reactors will require careful chemistry and temperature controls to mitigate material corrosion and salt freezing in piping during operation. Sodium fast reactors must maintain an inert atmosphere and water-free conditions to preclude chemical reactions from sodium leaks. Such events have plagued some past versions of this design and have resulted in extended plant shutdowns. Beyond the typical design-basis accidents that need to be considered for reactor systems (e.g., loss of flow, loss of coolant, power transients), sodium fast reactors must consider the possibility of air or water ingress and the resultant effects of sodium fires, and the safety systems needed to mitigate these effects. Such unique design features for any of the advanced reactors must be considered and analyzed to ensure safe operation.

15-Nuclear power enables the US to set global safety standards

International markets. The global market for new electricity capacity could be substantial as countries develop economically and their needs for electricity grow. Many prospective countries currently do not have the regulatory or commercial infrastructure necessary for safe and secure operation of NPPs and that infrastructure must be developed. In order for a U.S. vendor to participate in a foreign market, there must be an agreement for cooperation (a “123 Agreement”) between the United States and the recipient country. Establishing such an agreement can take many years, and challenges arising from export requirements and financing must also be overcome. Chapter 10 explains that the United States will forgo economic opportunities if it does not seek to compete in the international market; indeed, international sales may prove essential for those U.S. vendors that seek to achieve cost targets through serial production of a large number of units. Moreover, the capacity of the United States to influence the international system for safety, security, and safeguards may wane if it does not pursue nuclear power at home or participate in the international market.14

14-LWRs are safe

In currently operating LWRs, key safety functions are accomplished by a diverse and redundant combination of backup systems (e.g., auxiliary diesel generators for AC-powered electrical systems, additional independent water pumping systems), alternative sources of water, and prescribed operator actions. These systems reduce the likelihood of safety system failure and mitigate the consequences if a failure were to occur. Specific design criteria are established so that system conditions that could drive possible radiological releases are mitigated and controlled for a range of postulated accidents that form the design basis for the specific engineering system: these are called design-basis accidents. This approach has proven successful, and LWRs operate with a high degree of reliability and safety.

13-Nuclear can’t compete with fossil fuels

To meet this new demand, most studies forecast or demonstrate potential for significant growth in wind, solar, storage, and transmission owing to falling technology cost projections for wind, solar, and batteries (DOE 2021; Cole et al. 2021b; NAS 2020; Clack et al. 2020; Larson et al. 2020). For example, DOE’s Solar Futures Study shows the potential for solar alone to meet more than 40 percent of electricity demand by 2050 as part of a 95 percent decarbonized grid (DOE 2021). This much solar is economically possible only because of the expected growth in diurnal storage—that is, <12 hours of discharge at rated capacity—which can shift the oversupply of daytime generation to serve evening load storage (Frazier et al. 2021). Growth in these technologies also require adequate sites, materials, manufacturing supply chains, workforce, and permitting, among other factors needed to sustain growth (DOE 2021). Low-cost natural gas—driven greatly by the increase in hydraulic fracking—has made the market penetration of alternative sources of energy generation difficult and may, in the absence of decarbonization policies, continue to pose a barrier to entry for advanced nuclear technologies. Without decarbonization policies or high fossil fuel prices, developing and deploying advanced nuclear reactors could remain difficult.

12-States can implement SMRs; federal regulations already permit

FERC has stressed in the NOPR that robust, well-planned transmission system is foundational to ensuring an affordable and reliable supply of electricity. FERC has also supported a joint state/federal board to address the broad array of issues surrounding cost allocation and siting issues. It is hoped that these two major initiatives will jumpstart the expansion of transmission to integrate advanced new nuclear and other evolving technologies. Despite the accomplishments of past legislation and regulation, the regulatory process is slow; it cannot respond to rapid changes in technology and changing customer expectations. Greater informal collaborations are needed to expedite and improve critical decision-making in areas of particular concern. The regulatory and economic environment needs to encourage innovation and seek to mitigate rather than expand risks that arise from uncertainty in the regulatory process. The structures of the electricity system in the United States limit what is achievable through action at the federal level, and thus the states are vital laboratories for experimentation and implementation. States with renewable mandates have changed their supply mix. Over the past 8 years, more than half of new electricity generation capacity was wind and solar. With these developments, the grid is becoming more transactive9 at both the wholesale and retail level. This direction is clear from a recent landmark FERC Order 2222, which allows distributed energy sources at the retail level to be aggregated and participate in wholesale electricity markets on the same basis as utility power plants (see Box 3-2 for additional details). FERC has stressed in the NOPR that robust, well-planned transmission system is foundational to ensuring an affordable and reliable supply of electricity. FERC has also supported a joint state/federal board to address the broad array of issues surrounding cost allocation and siting issues. It is hoped that these two major initiatives will jumpstart the expansion of transmission to integrate advanced new nuclear and other evolving technologies. Despite the accomplishments of past legislation and regulation, the regulatory process is slow; it cannot respond to rapid changes in technology and changing customer expectations. Greater informal collaborations are needed to expedite and improve critical decision-making in areas of particular concern. The regulatory and economic environment needs to encourage innovation and seek to mitigate rather than expand risks that arise from uncertainty in the regulatory process. The structures of the electricity system in the United States limit what is achievable through action at the federal level, and thus the states are vital laboratories for experimentation and implementation. States with renewable mandates have changed their supply mix. Over the past 8 years, more than half of new electricity generation capacity was wind and solar. With these developments, the grid is becoming more transactive9 at both the wholesale and retail level. This direction is clear from a recent landmark FERC Order 2222, which allows distributed energy sources at the retail level to be aggregated and participate in wholesale electricity markets on the same basis as utility power plants (see Box 3-2 for additional details).

11-Loan guarantees and other government supports are needed to revive nuclear power

Government Incentives There likely will be a need for government assistance in developing the finance structures and market incentives to help these emerging nuclear technologies make entry into the market. Some have argued that the federal government should refrain from establishing policies that influence the market. However, some targeted economic incentives may be necessary because the market does not always properly value certain important externalities such as climate change, system costs, and low emissions of other pollutants. As the advanced reactor technologies move beyond demonstrations, incentives may be necessary to enable advanced reactors to become an integral part of a carbon-free energy system in the United States. Such commercial incentives have allowed the penetration of renewables, and the same model should be followed for other low-carbon technologies, including advanced reactors. These incentives and structures would need to be tailored for specific markets, and some may be more or less viable than others depending on prevailing market parameters. Deployment mechanisms exist that could create a clear and durable market signal for the commercialization of advanced reactors, several of which are briefly described below. Loan Guarantees. Commercial lenders are often unwilling or unable to take on the risk of supporting the deployment of a new technology until it has a clear market demand and solid history of commercial operation. DOE is authorized to issue loan guarantees pursuant to Title 17 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (DOE n.d.).13 Eligible projects for the Title 17 program must use a new or improved technology located in the United States that avoids, reduces, or sequesters greenhouse gases. In addition, the project needs to be credit worthy with a reasonable chance of repayment. Once the technology is proven at commercial scale through the first few projects, DOE stops providing financing and lets the private market take over. This program is intended to back investments that have financial risk, and some projects supported by the program should be expected to fail. To date, the DOE loan program has not lost money because the successful projects have more than compensated for the losses. Updates to the Loan Guarantee program were included in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. This included $40 billion in new loan guarantee authority–- which is available for nuclear facilities—and another $250 billion in loan Government Incentives There likely will be a need for government assistance in developing the finance structures and market incentives to help these emerging nuclear technologies make entry into the market. Some have argued that the federal government should refrain from establishing policies that influence the market. However, some targeted economic incentives may be necessary because the market does not always properly value certain important externalities such as climate change, system costs, and low emissions of other pollutants. As the advanced reactor technologies move beyond demonstrations, incentives may be necessary to enable advanced reactors to become an integral part of a carbon-free energy system in the United States. Such commercial incentives have allowed the penetration of renewables, and the same model should be followed for other low-carbon technologies, including advanced reactors. These incentives and structures would need to be tailored for specific markets, and some may be more or less viable than others depending on prevailing market parameters. Deployment mechanisms exist that could create a clear and durable market signal for the commercialization of advanced reactors, several of which are briefly described below. Loan Guarantees. Commercial lenders are often unwilling or unable to take on the risk of supporting the deployment of a new technology until it has a clear market demand and solid history of commercial operation. DOE is authorized to issue loan guarantees pursuant to Title 17 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (DOE n.d.).13 Eligible projects for the Title 17 program must use a new or improved technology located in the United States that avoids, reduces, or sequesters greenhouse gases. In addition, the project needs to be credit worthy with a reasonable chance of repayment. Once the technology is proven at commercial scale through the first few projects, DOE stops providing financing and lets the private market take over. This program is intended to back investments that have financial risk, and some projects supported by the program should be expected to fail. To date, the DOE loan program has not lost money because the successful projects have more than compensated for the losses. Updates to the Loan Guarantee program were included in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. This included $40 billion in new loan guarantee authority–- which is available for nuclear facilities—and another $250 billion in loan with respect to existing nuclear plants for electricity produced and sold for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2023, and before December 31, 2032. The IRA also modified the U.S. tax code in a way that may allow advanced reactors to qualify for the technology-neutral clean electricity production tax credit (the Clean Electricity PTC). It does so by changing the definition of “qualified facility” to mean any plant that is placed into service after December 31, 2024, and produces zero greenhouse gas emissions. Because eligibility is based on emissions rates instead of generation technology, nuclear facilities may use the Clean Electricity PTC. Last, the IRA established a Clean Hydrogen PTC. The Act funded the development of a number of clean hydrogen hubs around the country and at least one of them must use nuclear power to produce clean hydrogen. Construction Work in Progress (CWIP). The recovery of the costs of an NPP in most regulated markets commences once the plant goes into operation. That is, the recovery of all the costs for constructing and operating the plant are recovered in the rates paid by rate payers during operations. These costs thus include the substantial interest costs that have been accrued over the many years of construction. If recovery of interest costs from ratepayers during the period before a plant goes into operation is allowed, the total cost of the plant is reduced (through the elimination of the interest on the interest) and some of the risk of the project is shifted from the investors to the ratepayers. CWIP has often proved unpopular with ratepayers because it serves to shift risk and results in increased rates before there is contemporaneous electricity production from the nuclear plant. Ratepayer education and buy-in is extremely important to utilize this financial tool. The Vogtle plant has the benefit of recovery of CWIP, subject to some limitations imposed by the Georgia Public Utility Commission. IRA Energy Communities. The Inflation Reduction Act provides a 10 percent enhancement of tax credits for clean-energy projects in an “energy community.” Among several criteria of eligibility for this bonus is a project be located in a census tract within which a coal power plant has closed since 2010. Several vendors of advanced reactors have examined the siting of new reactors at retired coal plants and these coal-to-nuclear projects may be eligible for this enhancement of tax credits. Carbon Tax or a Clean Energy Portfolio. In principle, equal treatment of a wide range of energy technologies could be implemented through a uniform carbon tax or through a requirement to deploy a portfolio of clean energy technologies. Various social costs have been associated with the production of CO2 (EPA 2021), and multiple proposals have been offered to either tax carbon emissions or otherwise provide incentives for technologies that do not emit CO2. 16 As noted above in the section on Production Tax Credits, the recent passage of the IRA finally placed nuclear on a level playing field with respect to other low carbon generators. Despite strong proponents, it has proven politically impossible to establish a carbon tax. And a carbon tax or a portfolio standard has the disadvantage that it favors established technologies, whereas a focused program of technology-related incentives creates new options. The IRA reflects a welcome signal by the Congress to facilitate a transition to a low carbon future by providing incentives for all low-carbon technologies while avoiding the political difficulties associated with a tax.

10-Use nuclear for thermal energy, not electricity

Decarbonizing the electric power sector is necessary to avert the worst consequences of climate change, but it is not sufficient: energy-related carbon dioxide emissions extend to the buildings, transportation, and industrial sectors as well. Some of these sectors cannot be electrified for technical reasons, or it might be cost-prohibitive to do so. New and advanced nuclear power technologies have the potential to provide a range of energy services other than electricity. For example, they produce large amounts of heat that can be leveraged for useful purposes: either nuclear electricity or nuclear heat can be used to desalinate water or produce synthetic fuels1 like hydrogen, ammonia, and gaseous and liquid hydrocarbons. If carbon constraints tighten, and as the energy system begins transitioning to one that better values some of these other services, nuclear reactors have the potential to decarbonize non-electric but carbon-intensive sectors of the economy. However, employing nuclear power for these novel applications raises serious technical, economic, and regulatory challenges that must be resolved for any expanded deployment to be realized. This chapter will briefly describe these non-electric applications, how the reactors discussed in this report could serve them, and the significant emergent challenges that must be resolved. APPLICATIONS BEYOND ELECTRICITY As shown by Figure 5-1, buildings, transportation, and industrial sectors all are substantial users of energy and emitters of greenhouse gases, and some of that demand is in the form of thermal energy, which could be produced without electricity. Because nuclear reactors produce substantial amounts of heat, their services could expand beyond the electricity sector. With advanced reactor output temperatures up to 800°C, a wide range of non-electric services is possible; some are listed in Table 5-1. Broadly, these services can be clustered into three categories: industrial products, district heating, and water desalination. Whether nuclear power can be used for a service beyond electricity, and which reactor type is most technically appropriate, depends mainly on the temperature required for the application. Figure 5-2 displays the temperature requirements for various uses of the heat from a reactor. Note that collocation of the reactor and the industrial/heat application is necessary as heat cannot be transported over long distances and siting restrictions could impede the deployment of a nuclear reactor to serve some applications. This requires thoughtful consideration and analysis because the reactor may impose risk on the adjacent facility using the heat, and there may be a risk to the nuclear plant arising from that facility which may involve hazardous materials itself. This confluence of risks introduces additional regulatory challenges when it comes to siting, the development of emergency planning zones, and emergency response. In principle, none of these potential industrial applications is novel: the Department of Energy had a Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative at the turn of the century, when climate change grew in prominence as a topic of public and political debate. A robust narrative was constructed around a “hydrogen economy” (Tseng et al. 2005; Scita et al. 2020); once interest in hydrogen dissipated, the interest in leveraging nuclear for hydrogen production also diminished. Moreover, some nuclear power plants (NPPs) already supply heat to district heating systems. What is new is the higher temperatures that some advanced nuclear systems could provide, the potential cost reductions that might be achieved through innovative design and manufacturing processes, and the growing interest in integrating non-electric energy services so that nuclear reactors might better compete in a power system that is increasingly served by variable renewable energy resources. Multiple paradigms are envisioned that integrate non-electric applications into future nuclear reactor deployments. Whenever nuclear reactors are combined into larger systems that are intended to produce products other than heat or electricity, the combined systems are called integrated energy systems (IES).2 NPPs could be deployed to exclusively provide energy services to industrial customers, instead of dispatching electricity to the grid. In this scenario, they could be dedicated to heat production (e.g., for petrochemical facilities), hydrogen generation (e.g., to serve petrochemical, the industrial, heating, or transportation sectors), or ammonia and synthetic fuels production. Alternatively, an NPP could be deployed to produce electricity to the grid as well as other products such as hydrogen. Insofar as electricity is concerned, these integrated energy systems would provide the flexibility to dispatch electricity to the grid while taking advantage of grid price signals by ramping up and down energy supplies to the industrial processes. These load following capabilities have the potential to enhance grid reliability and could allow reactors to gain an additional revenue stream in selling another product such as hydrogen. The economic viability of these grid-integrated systems will vary significantly by location and products. For these integrated energy system concepts to work, alignment and coordination is required among facilities, some of which might be owned and operated by different (or even competing) firms. Also, important to consider is that the investment and development cycles of different industrial facilities differ—refineries can last a century, chemical plants decades, and fuel cell stacks are short-lived— making coordinated and synergistic investment in NPPs to serve those facilities’ energy needs necessary and potentially challenging. This challenge is not insurmountable, but it is extremely serious, and efforts must be made to ensure that the interests of companies that ar

9-Nuclear supports water desalinization

Desalinated water is an essential commodity in arid regions of the world that have limited access to freshwater resources, such as the Middle East. Desalination can be achieved through any one of several proven technologies, such as reverse osmosis, which uses only electricity, or a variety of low temperature (75°C) heat-based processes that use distillation (Shatilla 2020). The current global market for desalinated water is relatively modest (Grand View Research 2022); however, water pollution, urbanization, and water scarcity are issues that could increase the market for desalinated water by the time advanced nuclear reactors begin to come online. The Middle East and North Africa have the greatest potential market for desalinated water owing to growing populations and existing water scarcity issues (Ahn et al. 2021). As shown in Figure 5-3, nuclear desalination plants today produce between 1,000 and 160,000 m3 of water per day. Two issues limit the likelihood of expanded deployment of nuclear power for water desalination. The first, highlighted throughout this report, is cost. A recent study (Rath 2020) compared hybrid systems that employ either SMRs or natural gas with carbon capture and storage to desalinate water. It found that the cost of carbon emissions would have to rise to $200/tCO2 for the SMR solution to clearly dominate the natural gas option. The second issue is water pricing: even in water-scarce regions, water is severely underpriced. Absent a change in policy governing the pricing of either water or carbon, this means that, outside of a very small subset of locations, like the Monterrey Peninsula or the Middle East, this market is unlikely to expand to a level that would enable the mass deployment of nuclear power, although any location that employs SMRs for other reasons could certainly opt to integrate water desalination into its plans. A 2019 review of the literature found the cost of water production using nuclear desalination was estimated to range from $0.4/m3 to $1.8/m3 depending on the type of reactor and the desalination process used (Al-Othman et al. 2019). The World Nuclear Association reports the cost of water production using nuclear desalination to be similar to fossil-fueled plants today, around $0.7/m3 to $0.9/m3 (WNA 2020). A study of California’s Diablo Canyon nuclear reactor found that if the reactor were reoriented around coordinated electricity generation, hydrogen production, and desalination, water would cost $0.79/m3 to $0.98/m3 (Aborn et al. 2021; see Table 5-3). Using Diablo Canyon as a power source for desalination could substantially augment fresh water supplies to the state as a whole and relieve withdrawal from critically over drafted basins regions such as the Central Valley, producing freshwater volumes equal to or substantially exceeding those of the proposed Delta Conveyance Project, but at significantly lower investment cost. Finding 5-3: Several proposed non-electric services, such as low-temperature heat and desalination, currently cost very little and likely would not be compensated at a level that encourages new nuclear deployment. Hydrogen provides perhaps the most credible non-electric revenue stream for nuclear reactors, because it is likely that hydrogen will have value across the industrial, power, and transportation sectors for deep decarbonization.

8-US leadership key to standard setting in nuclear power

Although U.S. reactor vendors are currently focused on successful completion of demonstration projects in the United States, many have plans to market their reactors internationally and may depend on significant international sales to justify the establishment of a manufacturing infrastructure. Expectations are that increased demand for new reactors will come from both existing and emerging nuclear power countries in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, a development of importance in global efforts to address climate change (Ford and Abdulla 2021; IAEA 2021). When advanced reactor deployments expand to address these worldwide energy needs, those Nations who emerge as dominant in these markets will have opportunities to establish long-term interactions with host countries and will likely have influence in establishing norms that govern civilian nuclear safety, security, and safeguards in those countries. For example, in the past, U.S. prominence in the nuclear energy field made it a leader in safety, security, and nonproliferation efforts worldwide. More recently, however, other Nations have developed and expanded their nuclear energy sectors including the Russian Federation, South Korea, and China, while the U.S. nuclear sector has waned (Bowen 2022; IEA 2022).

7-Many barriers to exports of US nuclear technology

However, a number of potential barriers exist for U.S. vendors in global markets, such as a complicated set of rules to market and sell nuclear products internationally, increased competition among nations, and potential expansion of nuclear reactors into newcomer countries that may lack effective government, industry, and societal frameworks to support the facilities. These potential barriers (some of which U.S. vendors have little control over) include development of regulatory oversight capabilities, financing mechanisms that provide market advantages to non-U.S. vendors, management of the fuel cycle, expanded transportation networks for nuclear materials, and education and outreach to local communities that may house reactors.1 This chapter provides background on these topics and identifies opportunities and barriers to U.S. vendor expansion into international markets.

6-US global influence in nuclear power has declined

This changing landscape in international leadership in nuclear development reflects a potential shift in national security influence. Because the United States still has a major role in the application of nuclear power owing to the composition of the current international fleet of reactors, and its position as a nuclear weapons state, it retains significant influence on the worldwide system for safety, security, and safeguards. Some have voiced concern that U.S. influence will wane if the United States does not pursue nuclear power at home and is not a major participant in the international market (Hamre 2015; Ichord and Oosterveld 2019; Kerr et al. 2014). There is little doubt that U.S. influence as a provider of choice for this technology continues to decrease. As more nations consider the use of nuclear power and as U.S. nuclear developers seek to take advantage of these new market opportunities, there is a critical question that the United States and western developers and governments must address if they are to regain their status as developers of choice for nuclear technology: Will the long-term interactions established through nuclear facility deployments/agreements by Russia and China to different countries—including newcomer countries—lead to long-term influences on the countries in which the reactors are deployed? And how can the United States and its allies ensure a long-term commitment to safety, security, and safeguards (especially in light of the Russian invasion of the Ukraine)? The answers to these questions likely center on two key factors: (1) reexamining the role of international partnerships; and (2) developing enhanced financing and government support options. The latter is most critical when considering the potential future vast need for sources of clean energy.

5-US cannot effectively export reactors until they are demonstrated to work in the US

Finding 10-4: For U.S. vendors to better compete with state-owned or state-financed vendors in the dynamic international energy market, a technically and economically viable product must be established that could then be supported by a robust and reliable source of export credit financing. Non-U.S. vendors have more options for financing the export and deployment of advanced reactors than U.S. vendors. This imbalance will eventually reduce the competitiveness of the United States’ advanced reactors in the international marketplace, which could limit the opportunities to build successful partnerships that the United States has used effectively to promote U.S. national security and global nuclear safety, security, and safeguards. Exploring non-standard financial mechanisms and ownership models, such as Build Own Operate (BOO) or Build Own Operate Transfer (BOOT), could be useful in non-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) markets. Finding 10-5: Most U.S. advanced reactor vendors will not be ready for international commercial deployment until after successful demonstrations in the United States and thus will be unlikely to tap export-import bank financing before a new authorization cycle is necessary. Given the political challenges that occurred from 2015 to 2019, vendors may not view this as a reliable source absent action by Congress to stabilize and expand funding further.

Civilian nuclear power supports military uses

Some have argued that the national security of the United States relies on regaining a leadership role in the future and worldwide expansion of nuclear energy (DOE 2020; Lovering et al 2020; Hamre 2013 and 2015). In addition, and as noted in Chapter 1, the U.S. Navy relies on nuclear-quality components and services provided by a robust commercial nuclear industry (Energy Futures Initiative 2017)

4-Improvements have made the grid more reliable

Argonne National Laboratory, April 21, 2023, https://www.anl.gov/article/how-argonne-makes-the-power-grid-more-reliable-and-resilient, How Argonne makes the power grid more reliable and resilient

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory plays a vital role in maintaining and developing a stable and secure grid. At the nation’s first national lab, located in southwest suburban Chicago, scientists and engineers bring to bear collective expertise in economics, threat assessment and mitigation, system vulnerability analysis, critical infrastructure interdependency modeling, proactive cybersecurity defense and emergency readiness and response support. The lab also leverages cutting-edge high performance computing hardware, mathematical software technologies, and artificial intelligence and machine learning resources. “What sets Argonne apart is that we are very good at looking at all these problems from a multidisciplinary perspective,” says Mark Petri, head of the lab’s Electric Power Grid Program, who leads security and resilience activities. Petri also serves as technical team lead for the Markets, Policies & Regulations pillar of DOE’s Grid Modernization Initiative. “We bring together engineers, infrastructure analysts, computer scientists and modelers, artificial intelligence experts, economists, battery researchers and others in a focused effort to tackle these critical national challenges. There are no research silos here.” Argonne also collaborates with local, state, regional, tribal and territorial stakeholders, as well as academia, utilities and other national laboratories. This helps Argonne develop and deploy innovative solutions and advanced technologies that enhance the grid’s ability to withstand and recover from threats. Argonne is a key contributor to the Grid Modernization Laboratory Consortium, a strategic partnership between DOE and the national labs to bring together leading experts, technologies and resources to collaborate on the goal of modernizing the nation’s grid. Specialized models and training help design and defend an evolving gri For more than two decades, Argonne has pioneered the analysis of grid infrastructure. That includes identifying natural and man-made external threats to the system — everything from hail to hackers — and honing in precisely on system vulnerabilities. “If I have flooding, high winds, ice — what are the things that are likely to break on the system?” Petri asks. “Are transmission towers going to go out? Are substations going to be under water? Am I going to lose power generation? Knowing the weak links in the chain is key.” Researchers are also interested in deeply examining the complex interdependencies that exist between electricity infrastructure and other energy systems such as natural gas. Understanding the interconnections, the ways the systems operate in concert and how disruption in one sector has the potential to cause cascading failures across the entire complex, allows researchers to anticipate potential disruptions, manage impacts and develop adaptation measures for the future. Argonne scientists have developed specialized computer modeling tools to enable decision makers to make informed, data-backed choices when proactively hardening the grid or responding to threats in real time. For instance, they developed one of the highest resolution climate models covering North America, which projects the impacts of climate change 50 years into the future. While most climate modeling is done at the scale of 100-kilometer grid blocks on a map, Argonne’s model behind its Climate Risk and Resilience Portal, driven by some of the nation’s most powerful supercomputers, zooms in to the level of 12 kilometers. (Argonne’s next climate models will have a resolution closer to four kilometers, which approaches the size of a large urban neighborhood or small rural town.) “Developing the hazard and climate risk models that leverage the latest in the science and the leadership class computational resources at Argonne and DOE has enabled us to work with a multitude of private and public sector utilities” said Rao Kotamarthi, science director of the Center for Climate Resilience and Decision Science and a senior scientist at Argonne’s Environmental Science division. Kotamarthi explained that the breakthrough offers more actionable hyperlocal information for leaders thinking through climate resiliency planning. Companies including AT&T and ComEd, as well as government agencies like the New York Power Authority, already see the model’s value. Looking to improve the resilience of their grid-level infrastructure and keep critical services up and running, they can see which pieces of valuable equipment sit in likely future climate-related danger zones. This helps them to identify locations that may need to be stabilized or relocated altogether. Argonne has also developed several other leading modeling tools, including the Hurricane Electric Assessment Damage Outage, which forecasts likely power outages after a storm. The EPfast tool examines power outage impacts on large electric grid systems. The Restore tool provides insights into repair times for outages at critical infrastructure facilities. And the Electric Grid Resilience Improvement Program models power system restoration after a major blackout. Moreover, to help system operators respond more quickly to grid failures, limit impacts on customers and speed recovery, Argonne supports system operator training so they can effectively respond to major grid disruptions. Stakeholders responsible for resilience are put through readiness exercises that replicate real-world threat, response and recovery scenarios — hurricanes, blizzards, earthquakes, cyberattacks — and hone their in-the-moment decision-making skills. New tools predict outcomes from emergent grid resources Adding yet another layer of complexity to the grid, distributed energy resources (DERs) like rooftop solar panels and generators have emerged as significant power generation sources. DERs contribute to a power system’s overall capacity, but operators must assess their impact and forecast their potential, especially during extreme weather events. That’s why Argonne created TDcoSim, a cutting-edge transmission and distribution co-simulation software tool that enables high-fidelity modeling of DERs. It’s the first model capable of simulating both transmission (the high-voltage network used to transfer power long distances) and distribution (the localized low-voltage network used by the utilities to deliver power to consumers). “This is a totally new paradigm in grid modeling. Nobody has done this before,” says Vladimir Koritarov, director of the lab’s Center for Energy, Environmental and Economic Systems Analysis. “At Argonne, we specialize in developing these kinds of new, advanced grid models, algorithms, optimization methods and approaches that are more efficient, faster and more accurate than previously available ones.”

3-Nuclear needed to protect grid reliability from solar variation

Argonne National Laboratory, April 21, 2023, https://www.anl.gov/article/how-argonne-makes-the-power-grid-more-reliable-and-resilient, How Argonne makes the power grid more reliable and resilient

As the U.S. aims to meet a goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, the grid’s energy mix will likely include far more renewables than today. But sources such as solar and wind are variable in their production and output may be reduced in extreme weather. Adapting to this variability interests Argonne energy systems engineer Neal Mann. At a time when long-term planning decisions are being made about which energy infrastructure technologies are invested in and built, and which will be retired, Mann focuses on the role nuclear power might play in the future grid. “If we rely too much on weather-driven generation, do we end up compromising reliability under stressed climate-related conditions?” he asks. “In those cases, having nuclear and other so-called dispatchable technologies available could be the difference between widespread outages or not.”

Grid-level energy storage is focus of materials and manufacturing R&D To compensate for the uncertainty of variable renewables and to capture excess generation, researchers across Argonne are focused on low-cost, high-efficiency energy storage. Those efforts include research into various novel battery technologies such as advanced sodium-ion cathodes and new flow cell chemistries; chemical and thermal storage; and pumped storage hydropower, a common type of hydroelectric energy storage that can provide power even during extended lulls in solar and wind generation. One project involves the development of a model based on the R&D 100 winning EverBatt model, called “EverGrid.” The free to use model will help determine the impacts of stationary energy storage technologies such as flow batteries and advanced lead acid batteries at end-of-life, including recycling. The model will help researchers make better decisions during the technology development process as well as help find hot spots in processing that can lead to optimization and scale up. “In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and hit U.S. climate goals, we’re going to be increasingly relying on renewable energy, which is not a constant source of energy,” says Chris Heckle, director of the Materials Manufacturing Innovation Center at Argonne. “We need to develop grid-level energy storage solutions, which will need to be large in scale. That will involve manufacturing challenges, transportation challenges and systems challenges, all of which Argonne is well positioned to meet.” For Petri, the growing complexity of the grid and the evolving threats against it make Argonne’s interdisciplinary approach more necessary than ever to help secure the nation’s energy future. “Our ability to understand how the grid’s complex systems behave, how they might be disrupted, and how operators can improve response is vitally important,” he says. “It’s important to people’s lives, it’s important to our economy, it’s important to our national security. And here at Argonne, we are right in the middle of improving these systems from a reliability and resilience perspective.”

2-Coal plants could serve as nuclear facilities, enabling the US to get to net-zero by 2050

1-Renewables and threaten grid resilience, putting military readiness at-risk

Mroz, 2023, Richard S. Mroz is an independent consultant and is an advisor to the Coalition for Advanced Reactor Energy Solutions (CARES). He is the former President of the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU), was Chair of the Critical Infrastructure Committee of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), served as NARUC liaison to the Electric Sector Coordinating Council, and was chairman of the Organization of PJM States, Inc.(OPSI). During his years at the NJBPU, he oversaw implementation of numerous resilience initiatives including post Superstorm Sandy investments in hardening and modernizing the New Jersey infrastructure in the electric, gas and water sectors. He also presided over the issuance of the NJBPU order requiring the regulated companies in the State to establish cybersecurity protocols, which order was the first such directive from a public utility commission in the country to require specific cybersecurity measures. Also, during his tenure at NJBPU, Mr. Mroz managed the negotiations for the State, the product of which ultimately resulted in legislation, regarding the Zero Emission Credit (ZEC) program supporting the existing nuclear generation fleet. Mr. Mroz is Senior Advisor at Protect Our Power, Inc, a Corporate Fellow with the Global Resilience Institute at Northeastern University, and an appointed member to the USDOE Electric Advisory Committee, Journal of Critical Infrastructure Policy • Volume 3, Number 2 • Fall / Winter 2023, https://www.jcip1.org/uploads/1/3/6/5/136597491/advanced_nuclear_generation_technologies.pdf

How Advanced Nuclear Generation Technologies

Support Electric Grid Resilience, y recognized consequence of the expanded use of renewable generation sources, such as solar and wind, is intermittent electricity production. When the sun shines, solar generates; at night or under cloudy conditions it does not. Wind generation, whether land based or offshore, generally operates during the day but less so at night, during heavy and in other localized meteorological conditions. Additionally, demand for electricity is often greater at certain times of the day, namely early morning and at night, when generation renewable resources are not producing the power needed to meet demand. The resulting mismatch of supply from renewable generation sources to meet demand for electricity load is regularly illustrated by the “California Duck Curve”. This mismatch is the consequence of the deployment of renewables and not having other resources such as energy storage or having zero or low carbon generation sources that can follow the demanded energy load (DOE 2017). Public policies which compel emissions reduction from electricity generation simultaneously accelerate the retirement of base load generation facilities that are powered by coal and even natural gas. While intermittent renewable resources are being deployed at an accelerated rate and load following resources are retiring, the resulting mismatch poses new reliability concerns. The emerging problem has been the subject of commentary in the Midwest (Utility Dive 2022). In California, with a policy history favoring expanded renewables, the legislature recently called for continuing operation, and suspension of the previously announced retirement, of the two-unit Diablo Canyon nuclear generation facility (San Luis Obispo Tribune 2022). The evolving grid and expanded deployment of renewable energy resources has led to another dynamic with two interrelated consequences. The increased deployment of distributed resources, most notably solar and wind, and parallel movement away from central station generation has amplified the need for expanded transmission resources. The expansion of transmission resources could allow grid-scale generation which is distant from current transmission hubs to be transported across the country. However, planning and siting of multi-state transmission projects, which typically require state and local government approvals, creating a significant challenges. Further, the financial investments needed for new transmission capacity are increasing at a rapid rate. At the same time, previously built transmission resources, particularly hubs at or near retiring fossil fuel generation locations and without replacement renewable generation, are being stranded literally and then figurately as financial assets. The consequence is that ratepayers are confronting new transmission costs while still paying the legacy costs for abandoned transmission assets. How Advanced Nuclear Generation Technologies Support Electric Grid Resilience 31 A second consequence, which is a corollary to new transmission planning, involves the distribution grid. As more resources such as solar are deployed on the distribution grid, localized circuits are challenged to accept the new distributed load. The additional challenges associated with expanded deployment of renewable resources is the inability of the existing grid to manage two-way power flow, voltage balance, and dispatch from net metered generation (ClenTechnica 2022). An additional consequence on grid operations involves the need to support defense critical infrastructure such as military bases. While the Department of Defense (DoD) has for many years focused on “mission assurance” of its facilities, military bases often receive electricity like commercial customers and could be placed at risk during large grid outages (Department of Defense 2012). At the same time, DoD has instituted expanded renewable energy policies similar to those mentioned. The consequence is that military facilities can experience the same intermittent energy supply challenges as the civilian grid if local electric or utility service is disrupted. This could impact critical military operations and cause mission assurance failure (USDOE, Stockton 2022). The consequences presented thus far are real, and current standards for grid reliability do not adequately address the full scope of reliability challenges. Moreover, with aggressive policies for decarbonization and a concerted drive to deploy intermittent distributed generation, there is real potential for stranded transmission investments. Concerns about the ability to keep electricity flowing during wide scale disruptive events are legitimate. For these reasons, it is essential to provide solutions capable of averting major adverse consequences by ensuring continued electricity supply. Adv Advanced nuclear power generation is poised to provide the adaptability needed.