[ad_1]
The U.S. nuclear industry produces less electricity as reactors retire, but now plant operators hope to nearly double their output over the next three decades, according to the industry’s trade association.
The massive scale-up envisioned by utilities depends on the functionality of a new type of nuclear reactor that is much smaller than conventional reactors. About two dozen U.S. companies are developing advanced reactors, and some could be operational by the end of a decade if the technology is successful and federal regulators approve.
Utilities that are members of the Nuclear Energy Institute project could add 90 gigawatts of combined nuclear power to the US grid by 2050, most of it online, according to the association. That would mean around 300 new small modular reactors, according to Maria Korsnick, the institute’s president and CEO.
“We have the innovation, we have the talent, we have the American creativity,” he said. “There’s no reason why we shouldn’t launch these products.”
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, U.S. nuclear electricity generation capacity reached 102 gigawatts in 2012, with 104 nuclear reactors operating. The country’s current 92 operating reactors have a capacity of about 95 gigawatts.
The information administration said their production totaled 778 million megawatt hours in 2021, which is 1.5% over the previous year and 19% of the country’s electricity. That’s enough to power more than 70 million homes.
Building large conventional nuclear power plants is costly and time consuming. A project in Georgia, the only nuclear power plant under construction in the United States, is now expected to cost owners more than $30 billion. When approved in 2012, it was estimated that the first new nuclear reactors to be built in decades would cost $14 billion.
Korsnick will talk about the possibility of doubling US nuclear production during his address to industry leaders and policymakers for the NEI’s Nuclear Energy Assembly conference in Washington on Tuesday. Kathryn Huff, the deputy secretary for nuclear energy, will talk about the US priorities for nuclear energy and the goals for a low carbon economy.
Speaking privately with The Associated Press before the conference, Korsnick said it was not wishful thinking; There is so much demand for nuclear power as companies strive to meet customer expectations and deliver on their commitments to cut carbon, there is significant federal and state interest, and unlike conventional reactors, small reactors can be built largely in a factory environment.
He acknowledged challenges such as a regulatory process that needs to be accelerated to license reactors, the supply chain that needs to be improved, and the need for more financial incentives, as the federal government has done to scale up renewable projects. the past ten years.
The Tennessee Valley Authority, the largest public utility company in the United States, launched a program in February to develop and finance new small modular nuclear reactors as part of its strategy to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The Biden administration has embraced nuclear power to help reduce greenhouse gases in the United States. to combat climate change. Most US nuclear power plants were built between 1970 and 1990, and it costs more to operate an aging fleet.
When the U.S. Department of Energy requested $1.7 billion in its fiscal 2023 budget for the Office of Nuclear Energy in April, it said it was one of the highest ever requests for nuclear power. The department is investing in advanced reactors.
And an AP survey of energy policies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia says a strong majority — about two-thirds — say nuclear will help replace fossil fuels in one way or another.
Korsnick said that the more people worry about carbon-free electricity, the better off “nuclear power.”
The Union of Concerned Scientists has warned that nuclear technology comes with significant risks that other low-carbon energy sources don’t, including the danger of accidents or targeted attacks, both for radioactive waste and reactors, and the unresolved question of how to do it. Storing hazardous nuclear waste. The group is not against the use of nuclear energy, but wants to make sure it is safe.
The Environmental Working Group said the small reactors would be a “complete financial failure” because the cost of nuclear power has never fallen and the costs and risks will be shifted to taxpayers.
The Ohio-based Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis analyzed a small modular nuclear reactor developed by NuScale Power in Oregon, concluding that it was “too expensive, too risky, and too uncertain.” The company said the report mischaracterized NuScale’s costs, didn’t accurately reflect or review program timeframes, and didn’t even understand the output.
Korsnick said that when companies show that test reactors can be built on budget and on time, they will “sell like sausages.” He pointed to Wyoming, where communities competed to get the show project by Bill Gates’ company. TerraPower has chosen the Kemmerer, which has been based on coal for over a century.
Korsnick said he is optimistic about future opportunities for nuclear power.
“Every way you slice and dice, it goes back to nuclear, which is a big part of the solution,” he said.
[ad_2]
Source link