Features

The reports of the death of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant may be greatly exaggerated. While Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) announced as early as 2016 that it would be closing California’s last operating nuclear power plant at the end of its current operating license, there has been growing political pressure to keep the plant, and its 2,200 MWe of carbon-free energy, running.

George Shampy

Across the country, supply chain issues continue making the news: price escalation, inflation, logistical delays, scarcity of products and services, obsolescence, risk associated with just-­in-­time inventory, equipment and service quality, and—especially in nuclear—the financial pressures to reduce costs while maintaining our focus on safe, secure, and reliable plant operations.

Unfortunately, these are not new challenges for nuclear supply chain professionals.

In fact, in 2001, the Nuclear Energy Institute formed the Nuclear Supply Chain Strategic Leaders Group (NSCSL) in conjunction with the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) and Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) after an American Nuclear Society Utility Working Conference networking event. The NSCSL is composed of utility supply chain managers and directors and serves as the “community of practice” for these subject matter experts. I am privileged to be an NSCSL participant and an Entergy team member. The NSCSL was designed to be the industry go-­to group for materials and service collaborations and needed supply chain solutions.

Delivery of electricity from fusion is considered by the National Academies of Engineering to be one of the grand challenges of the 21st century. The tremendous progress in fusion science and technology is underpinning efforts by nuclear experts and advocates to tackle many of the key challenges that must be addressed to construct a fusion pilot plant and make practical fusion possible.

Aboveground atomic bomb test at the Nevada Test Site while troops look on. These clouds of material often wafted over to Utah during the 1950s. (Photo: NNSA)

In 1953, the United States detonated above­ground nuclear weapons during tests at the Nevada Test Site. In 2011, the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown occurred in Japan. Both events spread radioactive material over many miles and over population centers. Neither event resulted in any adverse health effects from that radiation.

But the response to the Fukushima event was disastrous because of the irrational and misinformed fear of radiation. That fear—not radiation—killed at least 1,600 people and destroyed the lives of at least another 200,000. That fear seriously harmed the entire economy of Japan, stopped cold the fishing industry and other agriculture in that area, and, overnight, reversed the country’s progress in addressing climate change.

The U.S. tests spread two to three times more radiation than did the events of Fukushima over the people of Utah, particularly the town of St. George. Like with Fukushima, no one was hurt, there was never any increase in cancer rates, and no one died as a result. But in Utah, the economy and people’s lives were unaffected. Why was there such a different result?

Can nuclear power plants prosper in the grid of 2030 or 2035, when new wind and solar farms will make electricity prices even more volatile? Can plants install energy storage that will help them keep running at full power, 24/7, to ride out times of surplus and sell their energy only when prices are high?

All 92 U.S. power reactors operating today need water—in the right place and at the right time. But extreme weather events, including floods, droughts, hurricanes, and heat waves, upend expectations and demand resilience: the ability to anticipate, accommodate, and recover from adverse impacts.

Resilience was built into today’s nuclear power plants decades ago. Weather data and climate forecasts not available then can be factored into risk analysis now to ensure the plants remain resilient in a changing climate.

In recent years, the rate of building new nuclear power plants has slowed internationally except in some rapidly developing countries. In Western countries that have considerable experience with nuclear power, completion of new projects on time and on budget has become more difficult. Shipyard-fabricated plants may offer a new direction for meeting international needs and responding to requirements for better cost control and safety. In this article we offer an overview of the floating nuclear power plant concept, including experience with it to date and its key engineering and strategic features, along with related uncertainties and needed conditions for future projects to be successful.

While the construction of two additional reactors at Slovakia’s Mochovce nuclear plant (Units 3 and 4) may get most of the attention, it isn’t the only major project underway there. In October of last year, plant owner Slovenské Elektrárne commenced the first phase of an effort to revitalize two of the four 125-meter-tall, Iterson-type cooling towers that serve the facility’s two operating reactors—both of which began generating electricity in the late 1990s. Towers #11 and #21 had been refurbished in 2011 and 2012, respectively. The other two, however, towers #12 and #22, had never undergone refurbishment.

In the western part of Michigan, where I grew up and spent the early part of my career, water availability was rarely a concern or a topic that might appear in the news. Lake Michigan was a plentiful source of water, and Mother Nature always provided plenty of precipitation to keep things green. If anything, sometimes folks wished it would stop raining! So it was quite a big change in environment when in 2008 my career took me to the desert of Arizona and the Palo Verde Generating Station, with annual regional rainfall totals of three inches in a good year.

The electric utility industry has set ambitious environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals, with most aiming to achieve carbon neutrality by midcentury by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear power can be a key technology in the clean energy portfolio to reach this goal, and small modular reactors can aid the industry’s efforts in meeting ESG goals through protection and conservation of water resources.

Steven Arndt began his one-year term last month as president of the American Nuclear Society, bringing the same high level of energy, investment, and action he has exhibited throughout his career. Reflecting on a life spent improving nuclear safety and technology, he notes that it’s not just the work; it’s also about the people and building connections and relationships. Arndt fondly recalls Peter Lyons, former NRC commissioner, assistant secretary of energy for nuclear energy, and ANS board member who passed away in April 2021. “I have been incredibly lucky to know and work with some great people in our field, and almost to a person they have been like Pete Lyons,” Arndt said. “They have been gregarious, outgoing, and supportive.”

Statement from American Nuclear Society President Steven Arndt and Executive Director/CEO Craig Piercy:

"The American Nuclear Society applauds the California State Legislature for passing legislation that, among other things, would support the option of continued operations of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. We thank Gov. Newsom for his support and reconsideration of the state’s decision to prematurely shutter California’s largest clean energy resource. We look forward to the signing ceremony.

On the road to achieving net-zero by midcentury, low- or no-carbon energy sources that slash carbon dioxide emissions are critical weapons. Nevertheless, the role of nuclear energy—the single largest source of carbon-free electricity—remains uncertain.

Nuclear energy, which provides 20 percent of the electricity in the United States, has been a constant, reliable, carbon-free source for nearly 50 years. But our fleet of nuclear reactors is aging, with more than half of the 92 operating reactors across 29 states at or over 40 years old—the length of the original operating licenses issued to the power plants. While some reactors have been retired prematurely, there are two options for those that remain: retire them or renew their license.

President Biden signed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) into law in November 2021. Commonly known as the “bipartisan infrastructure bill,” this legislation included significant investments in civilian nuclear energy in the U.S. along with a range of other spending initiatives. The law directs funding to preserve the operation of nuclear plants facing the prospect of early closure, demonstrate new advanced reactors, and explore the ability of nuclear energy to produce hydrogen for other energy applications. Additional incentives to retain and expand the use of nuclear energy are still being considered in Congress, but the IIJA is law, and the Department of Energy is beginning the process of implementing its key provisions.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are helping scientists, engineers, regulators, and plant decision makers in their research and development of clean energy production to achieve a net-zero carbon footprint. While this science is new in terms of actual applications, it is fostering innovation in a variety of domains, from material discovery and qualification to advanced reactor design to supporting efficiencies in current power plants and transforming the usability of nuclear power plant control rooms.

The world needs scientists, engineers, and technologists to ensure the safe, secure, and sustainable use of nuclear energy to meet global energy demands and environmental challenges. Yet, in many countries there are concerns about the potential loss of nuclear expertise and knowledge because of changes in workforce demographics. Much of the tacit knowledge in the sector was generated during the pioneering years of nuclear power. During this period, R&D projects and innovative construction projects were ramping up, and many nuclear power plants were being built. As a result, personnel in the industry were confronted with challenging and groundbreaking projects, as well as the risk of failure. It is this knowledge that is most difficult to harvest and is generally transferred via hands-on experience. In the current nuclear power landscape, where R&D spending is decreasing and innovation slows down as a general trend, this knowledge risks being lost if there are fewer opportunities to acquire hands-on experience work on challenging projects.

Fusion energy is attracting significant interest from governments and private capital markets. The deployment of fusion energy on a timeline that will affect climate change and offer another tool for energy security will require support from stakeholders, regulators, and policymakers around the world. Without broad support, fusion may fail to reach its potential as a “game-­changing” technology to make a meaningful difference in addressing the twin challenges of climate change and geopolitical energy security.

The process of developing the necessary policy and regulatory support is already underway around the world. Leaders in the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, China, and elsewhere are engaging with the key issues and will lead the way in setting the foundation for a global fusion industry.

Interest in reducing carbon emissions around the world continues to climb. As a complement to the increasing deployment of variably generating renewables, advanced nuclear is commonly shown in net-zero grid modeling for 2050 because it represents firm electricity production that can flex in output with load demands.¹ However, these projections are challenged by the high levelized cost of electricity associated with legacy nuclear construction, which is often more than double that of modern combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) plants.

The United States has just 93 operating power reactors at this writing. The fleet last numbered 93 in 1985, when nuclear generation topped out at 383.69 TWh, less than half of the 778.2 TWh produced in 2021.

While the 93 reactors operating today have more capacity, on average, than in 1985, most of that increased productivity is down to operational improvements that pushed the fleet’s average capacity factor from just 57.5 percent in the three-year period 1984–1986 to near 90 percent by the early 2000s.

Part one of this article, published in the May 2019 issue of Nuclear News[1] and last Friday on Nuclear Newswire, presented insights from the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island-­2 and addressed several issues raised by a previous Nuclear News piece on the accident[2]. Part two discusses safety improvements that have been made by both the industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission over the past 40 years.