- Long Shot Restart Efforts Aired for Duane Arnold and TMI 1
- EDF NuWard SMR Goes Back to the Drawing Board
- Philippines MERALCO’s SMR Deployment Delayed To 2030
- Growing Interest in Nuclear Power via SMRs for Cargo Shipping
- Turkey, US in Talks on Nuclear Plant Projects, SMRs
Long Shot Restart Efforts Aired for Duane Arnold and TMI 1
The Duane Arnold Energy Center (DAEC) was Iowa’s only nuclear power plant. It is located on a 500-acre site on the west bank of the Cedar River, eight miles northwest of Cedar Rapids.
DAEC entered operation in February 1975. On August 10, 2020, the plant cooling towers were damaged during a strong storm, and repairs were deemed uneconomical, as the plant had already been scheduled for decommissioning in October 2020.
In Iowa NextERA CEO John Ketchum, said recently that the firm will consider reopening the plant to meet the demand for power from data centers. Ketchum told Bloomberg on June 12the he had inquiries from potential data center customers interested in the 600 MW of power that could be provided by the reactor.
“I would consider it, if it could be done safely and on budget.”
According to the Bloomberg report, Google is considering whether to build a $576 million data center in the Big Cedar Industrial Center in Cedar Rapids, less than 20 miles south of the Duane Arnold plant. Meta (Facebook) has proposed an $800 million data center in Davenport. These proposals are in addition to other large data centers in Council Bluffs, Altoona, Waukee and West Des Moines.
Ketchum told Bloomberg that tech companies have asked NextEra to find locations that can accommodate 5 gigawatts of demand.
“Think about that. That’s the size of powering the city of Miami,” Ketchum said. He declined to name the companies.
The request for 5 GW of electricity matches a proposal aired by Microsoft last April for a data center that would require that amount of power. Since then the Redmond, WA, software giant has been mum about it.
It isn’t clear how much thinking has gone into the concept of restarting DAEC. NextERA spokesman Bill Orlove said in an email to an Iowa newspaper, “The company has not performed a formal study of the feasibility of restarting operations at Duane Arnold.”
TMI 1 Restart?
With regard to Constellation restarting TMI 1, Reuters reports Constellation Energy is in talks with the Pennsylvania governor’s office and state lawmakers to help fund a possible restart of part of its Three Mile Island power facility TMI 1. The wire service reported that the talks are “beyond preliminary.” TMI 1 was commissioned in May 1968 and shut down for decommissioning in September 2019.
Constellation spokesperson Dave Snyder said in an email to Reuters, “Though we have determined it would be technically feasible to restart the unit, we have not made any decision on a restart as there are many economic, commercial, operational and regulatory considerations remaining.”
Last month, Constellation told Reuters that it completed an engineering study of TMI 1, though it was unknown if company would move forward with plans to reopen the site.
Constellation also said that given the current premium placed on nuclear energy, acquiring other sites was generally off the table and the company would instead look to expand its existing fleet.
How Feasible is It To Restart a Closed Nuclear Power Plant?
Here’s a short list of issues that have to be addressed in considering whether to invest in restarting a closed nuclear power plant. Overall, it could take a minimum of three years to reopen a closed reactor.
First, the utility, assuming its stock is publicly traded, has to convince investors and state regulators that it is a “prudent” course of action. Capital funding is needed to pay for the restart, e.g., equipment, fuel, overall mechanical and electrical readiness, especially addressing deferred repairs and maintenance.
Second, the utility must submit an application to the NRC for a license to operate the plant. The NRC is already working with the restart of Palisades Plant which may ease the way for similar efforts that follow its progress.
Other actions include contracting for nuclear fuel for the reactor and scheduling future outages.
In addition to getting the reactor ready for operations, the non-nuclear elements of each of the facilities need to be addressed including the turbines, switchyards, and grid connections.
Staff, including former employees, must be hired which for DAEC could be a minimum of about 240 people and for TM1 hiring would be about 320 people. Initial staffing could be much higher given the backlog at both plants of required repairs and maintenance issues. Some of the hiring could come from current D&D contractors already on site.
For data center customers, power purchase agreements, including options for private lines and premium rates, would have to be negotiated with each of them. If the data centers don’t sign up for all the power from either reactor, the rates and business cases for other customers would need to be addressed.
Also, since Palisades got a big government loan to restart, NextERA Energy and Constellation might ask for similar support from the DOE. Given the LPO’s generous loan authority, and DOE Secretary Granholm’s interest in restarting closed NPP, credible applications from the utilities might have good prospects.
& & &
EDF NuWard SMR Goes Back to the Drawing Board
- EDF Confirms Shift Away From Own Small Modular Reactor Design To ‘Proven Technology Only’
In an emailed statement to NucNet on July 2nd, EDF said that “considering the evolving SMR market dynamics and the learnings drawn from the development of the Nuward plant”, the EDF Group has decided on a change of strategy.
“To address the needs expressed by the market timely and competitively, the EDF Group has decided to shift its product strategy towards the development of a design based on proven technologies only. This orientation will provide better conditions for success by facilitating technical feasibility.”
EDF and its SMR developer subsidiary Nuward, are now “preparing the conditions for a product development leveraging the extensive technical, industrial and commercial experience cumulated so far.”
It added that EDF will rely on its experience in nuclear and pressurized water reactor (PWR) technology.
A source at Nuward told Reuters the decision to go back to the drawing board on SMR development came after talks with prospective utility clients such as Sweden’s Vattenfall, the Czech Republic’s CEZ, and Finland’s Fortum, who are examining investments in both Generation III full-size nuclear plants and SMRs. The key issues revolve around the cost of electricity that would be provided by the SMR based on its construction costs.
EDF gave no details of the technology it might use for an SMR. EDF said the Nuward SMR has reached the basic design phase, during which engineering teams made progress on the layout, systems and equipment of the power plant. The current design calls for twin 170 MW SMRs driving a single turbine.
Nuward as a project also involves the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission, French industrial group Naval Group, reactor design and maintenance company TechnicAtome, nuclear company Framatome and engineering company Tractebel.
& & &
Philippines MERALCO’s SMR Deployment Delayed To 2030
Manila Electric Company’s (MERALCO) plans to deploy small modular reactors (SMRs) or micro nuclear power plants may be pushed back from its initial 2028 target to 2030 or later, according to Chairman and CEO Manny Pangilinan.
In a news media report, Pangilinan said that the timeline might be extended based on the talks with potential partners. Although the specific reasons for the delay were not disclosed, MERALCO’s CEO said that the four-year timeframe that was initially planned may be too ambitious and there are too many unresolved uncertainties.
MERALCO is also in talks with American companies to support its nuclear ambitions. Pangilinan mentioned the possibility of starting with a smaller nuclear reactor, even as small as 1 MW or 2 MW, to build and operate one in the Philippines as a proof of concept. This would allow the local labor force to gain experience and prepare for larger-scale nuclear power deployment in the future.
He also stressed the need for diverse energy sources, noting that nuclear power plants of various sizes could be a viable option for the archipelago, especially for island provinces requiring independent power solutions not connected to a regional or national grid.
Prior Coverage on This Blog
& & &
Growing Interest in Nuclear Power for Cargo Shipping
- Maritime Nuclear Propulsion seen as ‘A Transformational Technology’
- New generation of large, efficient reactor-powered cargo ships could sail at higher speeds with zero emissions
The report says nuclear power holds immense potential for revolutionizing the maritime industry, offering a path towards sustainable and efficient shipping solutions. The widespread adoption of nuclear power in commercial shipping is on the horizon, driven by advancements in technology and a growing recognition of its benefits.
Part of the transformation would be safer, more reliable, emissions free, longer-lived, and more productive ships. Another part of the transformation will be in the ship operator’s structure, including technical management, procurement, approach to quality, and an elevated safety culture.
The report also addresses the complexities of regulation of nuclear powered shipping on a global scale where multiple countries both cooperate in some areas and pursue specific requirements in others. The issue of port calls by nuclear powered ships is one of the key topics.
The report says nuclear propulsion has been used for seven decades by the military services of several nations and a few state-owned cargo ships and icebreakers, with a;; having an unparalleled safety record.
Commercial use has yet to be realized, but advanced nuclear technology is being developed that will be suitable for safe deployment on a new generation of large, efficient cargo ships that can sail at higher speeds with zero emissions.
Interest in the use of nuclear power for shipping is driven by its emissions reductions, the report concludes. Nuclear power offers a path to the end goal of emissions reduction in shipping – zero emissions operation – and does so without the uncertainty of fossil fuel and related infrastructure development at ports.
Interest in nuclear propulsion is split between those looking to have assets in the water in the shortest time frame using current technologies – around 2030 – and those working on a longer horizon for deployment of around 20 years who will have a wider range of technologies to consider.
The reports estimates the cost of a maritime reactor at $500 million (€461M) for those delivered in the early 2030s, dropping off rapidly when production rates increase. But it warns that this is a simplistic example and does not include elements such as the regulatory journey for first-of-kind reactors.
Another option would be for a ship to use the power of a reactor owned by a third party, paying for “power by the hour” where megawatt hours are bought by the ship’s operator from the reactor owner on a contracted basis.
This would be a well-established cost as reactors are sealed units, hence total cost of life operation can be established with confidence before an asset is built.
Refueling is an area where nuclear power presents the potential for significant operational changes for the maritime industry, but the high energy density of nuclear fuel creates the opportunity for reactors that will operate for multiple years before they need refueling or replacing.
Modelling the impact of introducing nuclear power into a typical Asia-Europe service, UK-based nuclear engineering company Core Power found that for a fleet of eight vessels, the average cost of each advanced reactor, along with its operational and insurance costs, cannot exceed $3.8 billion in current dollars over the course of 25 years to remain economically favorable compared to traditionally-fueled vessels.
That works out to about $150 million/year. The lifecycle cost of a new container ship can vary from $100M to $300M or more and much depends on size, the shipyard where it is built, and operating costs over time including maintenance.
# # #
Turkey, US in Talks on Nuclear Plant Projects, SMRs
(Turkish English language wire services) Türkiye is holding talks with the United States on the construction of large-scale nuclear power plants and small modular reactors (SMRs), according to a senior Turkish Energy Ministry official.
“The U.S. is showing serious interest in Türkiye’s goal of increasing its nuclear energy capacity and building new power plants,” the official of the energy ministry Yusuf Ceylan told Reuters at a conference on nuclear power plants.
Asked about the projects under discussion, he said: “We can consider the areas of existing power plants or new power plants. We are negotiating with the U.S. for both large-scale power plants and small modular reactors. This is a statement of intent,” he said.
Jeffry Flake, the U.S. ambassador to Türkiye, told Reuters last month that Ankara “talked to us and others about (building) small modular reactors. We’re working with them to try to lessen their dependency (on Russia) in whatever ways we can.”
Ceylan said negotiations continued with South Korea and Russia for a second nuclear power plant planned to be built in the Black Sea region of Sinop and with China’s SPIC for a third nuclear power plant in northwest Türkiye’s Thrace region.
The construction of Türkiye’s first 4,800 megawatt (MW) nuclear power plant by Russia’s state atomic energy company Rosatom is meanwhile continuing at Akkuyu in the Mediterranean region.
Türkiye and Russia signed an intergovernmental agreement in 2010 to build the plant. The foundation of the first reactor was laid in April 2018, while the construction of the second, third and fourth units started in June 2020, March 2021 and June 2022, respectively. Once when fully operational, the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant (NPP) is expected to meet 10% of the country’s electricity needs.
# # #