FNPPs are meant to be centrally manufactured and easily transported to operation sites, combining advanced nuclear technology with shipyard efficiency. Westinghouse argues its eVinci microreactor is suited for this type of deployment, given its size and the company’s claim that it can operate at eight years at full power without refueling. The concept is meant to reduce the need for building permanent infrastructure, allowing the use of nuclear power in areas where it would otherwise be difficult.

“There’s no net-zero without nuclear. A long series of identical turnkey power plants using multiple installations of the Westinghouse eVinci microreactor delivered by sea, creates a real opportunity to scale nuclear as the perfect solution to meet the rapidly growing demand for clean, flexible and reliable electricity delivered on time and on budget,” said Mikal Bøe, CEO of CORE POWER. “Our unique partnership with Westinghouse is a game changer for how customers buy nuclear energy.”

Under the agreement, Westinghouse and CORE POWER will aim to advance the design of a FNPP using the eVinci microreactor and its heat pipe technology. Heat pipe technology is meant to improve reliability while providing a non-pressurized method of passively transferring heat. Heat pipes in the eVinci microreactor transfer heat from the nuclear core to a power conversion system, which Westinghouse says eliminates the need for water cooling and the associated recirculation systems. In addition, the companies will collaborate to develop a regulatory approach to licensing FNPP systems.

The eVinci microreactor builds on decades of industry-leading Westinghouse innovation to bring carbon-free, safe and scalable energy wherever it is needed for a variety of applications, including providing reliable electricity and heating for remote communities, universities, mining operations, industrial centers, data centers and defense facilities, and soon the lunar surface and beyond. The resilient eVinci microreactor has very few moving parts, working essentially as a battery, providing the versatility for power systems ranging from several kilowatts to 5 megawatts of electricity, delivered 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for eight-plus years without refueling. It can also produce high temperature heat suitable for industrial applications, including alternative fuel production such as hydrogen, and has the flexibility to balance renewable output. The technology is factory-built and assembled before it is shipped in a container.

The idea of FNPP hasn’t quite caught on in North America yet, but Russia seems to be ahead of the curve. In 2020, the FNPP “Akademic Lomonosov” was fully commissioned in Pevek, the Chukotka region in far east Russia – marking the deployment of the world’s first FNPP. The FNPP started providing electricity to the isolated grid of the Chaun-Bilibino energy center of Chukotka on December 19, 2019. The plant has already generated over 47.3 million kWh of electricity between being connected to the grid and the commissioning.

Earlier this year, Westinghouse announced it was collaborating with Prodigy on a transportable nuclear power plant (TNPP) that will feature one of Westinghouse’s eVinci microreactors, meant to serve power needs in remote or harsh climates like the Arctic. The two companies, which have been collaborating since 2019 to evaluate deployment models for the eVinci microreactor, are still in the design stages of the project. Next steps include completing the development of a nuclear oversight model for TNPP manufacturing, outfitting and transport, and progressing licensing and site assessments to support a first project in Canada by 2030.

In a 2019-2020 study, Prodigy assessed the eVinci microreactor for deployment in a TNPP setting. The company then undertook the development of TNPP civil structures standardized for deployment at a range of sites. Prodigy’s Microreactor Power Station TNPP, which is intended to be able to integrate one or multiple 5MWe factory-built and fueled eVinci microreactors, would be prefabricated and transported to a site for installation at the shoreline or on land.

The core design of eVinci is built around a graphite core, with channels both for heat pipes and TRISO fuel pellets. Hundreds of passive in-core heat pipes, filled with liquid sodium, are intended to increase system reliability and safety. Pipes embedded in the core transfer heat from one end to the other, where it is captured in a heat exchanger. For cooling, each heat pipe contains a small amount of sodium liquid as the working fluid to move heat from the core and is fully encapsulated in a sealed pipe

Westinghouse engineers laud the microreactor’s passive cooling design. There are no pumps to circulate water or gas. The reactor’s heat pipes replace the reactor coolant pump, reactor coolant system, primary coolant chemistry control, and all associated auxiliary systems. It has few moving parts while operating, and Westinghouse says it can operate for eight-plus years without refueling.

The microreactor can generate 5 MW of electricity or 13 MW of heat from a 15 MW thermal core. Exhaust heat from the power conversion system can be used for district heating applications or low-temperature steam. eVinci could also be used in hydrogen production, maritime, or industrial heat applications.

Westinghouse looks to off-grid applications like remote communities and mine sites as the entry market for eVinci. But the microreactor could also serve industrial sites or data centers. In remote locations, it could replace diesel as a power-generating fuel, which is expensive to transport often hundreds of miles.

The Texas A&M University System Board of Regents agreed to notify regulators at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that it has potential sites available at Texas A&M-RELLIS in Bryan for multiple companies to test and construct the next generation of nuclear reactors.

The test bed for the reactors will support multiple reactors from various companies, said John Sharp, chancellor of the Texas A&M System, and the reactors at the site also could put additional power into the state’s energy grid at a time of high demand.

“The Texas A&M System is the missing piece of the puzzle,” Sharp said. “States on the west coast and east coast would never attempt what we are doing. Under the leadership of Gov. Greg Abbott, only Texans – particularly those at the Texas A&M System – have the courage to take on such a weighty and ambitious responsibility.”

The submission of the letter of intent to the regulators marks the beginning of a licensing process for the A&M System. The Texas A&M System recently concluded the process of gathering proposals from nuclear reactor companies that hope to construct reactors at Texas A&M-RELLIS. Negotiations are expected to begin soon, the Texas A&M System said. After negotiations are complete, the A&M System will announce which companies will conduct testing and other work at Texas A&M-RELLIS.

UECI’s management and operational teams will join Aecon upon closing of the transaction, which is subject to customary adjustments and closing conditions, including obtaining all necessary regulatory approvals.

Founded in 1905, United provides end-to-end engineering, planning and program and construction management services to nuclear and conventional power clients in the United States and Canada. UECI maintains a strategic focus on nuclear plant life extensions and developing small modular reactor (SMR) and power generation projects. The majority of UECI’s revenues are conducted under master service agreements and are recurring in nature.

Aecon and United are already joint venture partners in executing steam generator replacement work and fuel channel and feeder replacements on six units at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station in Ontario.

“United strengthens our relationships with existing clients, provides opportunities to develop new clients, adds engineering capability and capacity, and accelerates our ability to harness the robust nuclear opportunities across North America while driving continued growth in the U.S. and priority markets,” said Jean-Louis Servranckx, President and Chief Executive Officer, Aecon Group Inc. “United’s strong technical expertise in digital instrumentation, control engineering and specialized construction will extend our self-perform offering and advance our continued diversification and growth with a strategic focus on the energy transition.”

In January 2023 GE Hitachi (GEH), Ontario Power Generation (OPG), SNC-Lavalin and Aecon inked a commercial contract for a 300 MW SMR at OPG’s Darlington new nuclear site. The reactor would be Canada’s first SMR. The project is expected to come online by the end of the decade, partners have said.

DOE plans to use this funding to spur the deployment of advanced reactor technologies across the country and encourage follow-on reactor projects. The funding is meant to assist the private sector in establishing a “credible and sustainable” pathway to deploying a fleet of Gen III+ SMRs across the country.

“Revitalizing America’s nuclear sector is key to adding more carbon free energy to the grid and meeting the needs of our growing economy—from AI and data centers to manufacturing and healthcare,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm. “Thanks to the President and Vice President’s Investing in America agenda, the nation’s nuclear industry is poised to lead the world in innovative advanced reactor technologies, which will create high-paying jobs while providing the flexible and reliable clean energy we need to support a thriving clean energy future.” 

Created by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024 and utilizing funds from President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, DOE anticipates offering funding in two tiers: 

• Tier 1: First Mover Team Support, managed by the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED), will provide up to $800M for milestone-based awards to support up to two first mover teams of utility, reactor vendor, constructor, and end-users/off-takers committed to deploying a first plant while facilitating a multi-reactor, Gen III+ SMR orderbook and the opportunity to work with the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to incorporate safeguards and security by design into the projects. 
• Tier 2: Fast Follower Deployment Support, managed by the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), will provide up to $100M to spur additional Gen III+ SMR deployments by addressing key gaps that have hindered the domestic nuclear industry in areas such as design, licensing, supplier development, and site preparation. 

For Tier 1, teams must include a U.S. utility, reactor technology vendor, and engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) company with the lead applicant being the utility, end-user/off-taker, a development company, or incorporated consortium. Tier 2 funding is sorted into three different categories, for which applicants must be either planned project owners or utilities, or entities looking to improve the capability, capacity, or cost competitiveness of the domestic supply chain for Gen III+ SMRs. 

DOE estimates the U.S. will need approximately 700-900 GW of additional clean, firm power generation capacity to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Nuclear power is a proven option that could be deployed to meet this growing demand. In 2023, nuclear energy provided nearly half of America’s carbon-free electricity.

Utilities are looking to extend the lifespan of current nuclear reactors, planning to uprate reactor capacity, reversing plans to close reactors, and even restarting formerly closed reactors, DOE said. At the same time, they are earnestly exploring building new reactors to meet the fast-growing demand for carbon-free energy.

Applications are due on January 17, 2025, at 5pm ET. For more information, visit the Gen III+ SMR engagement webpage here.

The company is the latest to strike deals for nuclear energy to power the growing demands from its data centers.

“Nuclear is a safe source of carbon-free energy that can help power our operations and meet the growing demands of our customers, while helping us progress toward our Climate Pledge commitment to be net-zero carbon across our operations by 2040,” said Matt Garman, CEO of Amazon Web Services (AWS).

In Washington, Amazon’s agreement with Energy Northwest, a consortium of state public utilities, will enable the development of four advanced SMRs. The reactors will be constructed, owned and operated by Energy Northwest, and are expected to generate roughly 320 megawatts (MW) of capacity for the first phase of the project, with the option to increase to 960 MW total.

Amazon is also making an investment in X-energy, a developer of next-generation SMR reactors and fuel, and X-energy’s advanced nuclear reactor design will be used in the Energy Northwest project. The investment includes manufacturing capacity to develop the SMR equipment to support more than five gigawatts of new nuclear energy projects utilizing X-energy’s technology.

In Virginia, Amazon signed an agreement with utility company Dominion Energy to explore the development of an SMR project near Dominion’s existing North Anna nuclear power station. This will bring at least 300 MW of power to the Virginia region, where Dominion projects that power demands will increase by 85% over the next 15 years.

“One of the fastest ways to address climate change is by transitioning our society to carbon-free energy sources, and nuclear energy is both carbon-free and able to scale—which is why it’s an important area of investment for Amazon,” said Garman. “Our agreements will encourage the construction of new nuclear technologies that will generate energy for decades to come.”

Amazon has previously signed an agreement to co-locate a data center facility next to the Talen Energy’s nuclear facility in Pennsylvania, which will directly power its data centers. As Amazon Web Services (AWS) develops the data center, Talen will supply carbon-free power directly from the Susquehanna plant through a power purchase agreement (PPA). Amazon’s cloud platform plans to expand the data center campus to up to 960 MW of power consumption.

Powering artificial intelligence (AI) through rapidly expanding data center operations is an ambitious endeavor. According to a study published by EPRI in May, data centers could consume up to 9% of U.S. electricity generation by 2030 — more than double the amount currently used.

Technology giants like Microsoft, Google and Amazon are driving significant electricity demand through this data center growth. Data centers are essential for supporting cloud services, AI development and other digital operations. The facilities require vast amounts of power to run servers, cooling systems and other infrastructure needed to store and process massive amounts of data.

While these hyperscalers continue to invest in intermittent renewable energy to narrow the power supply-demand gap, they increasingly view around-the-clock nuclear power as a good match for their similarly around-the-clock needs.

This week Kairos Power and Google signed an agreement aimed at deploying a U.S. fleet of advanced nuclear power projects totaling 500 MW by 2035.   

Under the agreement, advanced nuclear startup Kairos Power would develop, construct and operate a series of advanced nuclear plants, selling energy and ancillary services to Google under Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs).

Google said the plants will be sited in relevant service territories to supply clean power to its data centers. The first deployment is targeted by 2030 to support the tech giant’s 24/7 carbon-free goals. The additional power from this agreement will complement Google’s existing use of renewables, like solar and wind.

Microsoft is helping Pennsylvania’s retired Three Mile Island Unit 1 get a new lease on life. Last month plant owner Constellation Energy announced the signing of a 20-year power purchase agreement with Microsoft that will pave the way for the launch of the Crane Clean Energy Center (CCEC) and restart of the 835 MW nuclear unit.

Under the agreement, Microsoft plans to purchase energy from the re-opened plant as part of its goal to help match the power its data centers in PJM use with carbon-free energy.

Three Mile Island was shut down in 2019. Owner Exelon decided to end operations after a financial rescue package did not come from Pennsylvania legislators.

Under the agreement, Kairos Power will develop, construct and operate a series of advanced nuclear plants, selling energy and ancillary services to Google under Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs).

Google said the plants will be sited in relevant service territories to supply clean power to its data centers. The first deployment is targeted by 2030 to support the tech giant’s 24/7 carbon-free goals. The additional power from this agreement will complement Google’s existing use of renewables, like solar and wind.

The deal represents the first corporate agreement for multiple deployments of a single advanced reactor design in the United States. 

“Our partnership with Google will enable Kairos Power to quickly advance down the learning curve as we drive toward cost and schedule certainty for our commercial product,” said Mike Laufer, Kairos Power CEO and co-founder.

California-based Kairos Power is working on fluoride salt-cooled, high-temperature reactor technology. The company’s 35 MW thermal reactor will test the concept of using molten salt as a coolant and test the type of nuclear fuel.

Last December, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a construction permit to Kairos for its Hermes test reactor in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This was the first construction permit NRC has issued for a reactor that uses something other than water to cool the reactor core.

In July of this year, Kairos Power began construction on the Hermes reactor. The project aims to be operational in 2027. Hermes’ primary objective will be to demonstrate Kairos Power’s ability to produce affordable nuclear heat. Hermes will not produce electricity.

Kairos Power aims to develop a larger version for commercial electricity that could be used in the early 2030s.

Technology giants like Microsoft, Google and Amazon are driving significant electricity demand, primarily through rapidly expanding data center operations. These data centers are essential for supporting cloud services, AI development and other digital operations. The facilities require vast amounts of power to run servers, cooling systems and other infrastructure needed to store and process massive amounts of data.

According to a study published by EPRI in May, data centers could consume up to 9% of U.S. electricity generation by 2030 — more than double the amount currently used.

This story was originally published by Floodlight.

A shuttered Michigan nuclear plant is poised to start up again, buoyed by $3.1 billion in public subsidies.

In Pennsylvania, tech giant Microsoft said its need for more electricity led it to strike an unprecedented deal to buy all of the power for the next 20 years from one of the reactors at Three Mile Island — the site of the worst nuclear disaster in the United States.

And the nation’s largest public power utility, Tennessee Valley Authority, continues to march towards building a small modular reactor (SMR), making it the first utility to do so in the United States.

“There’s never been more activity and excitement for advanced nuclear in the United States,” said Costa Samaras, a former senior White House policy leader in the Biden Administration and Carnegie Mellon University’s director of the Scott Institute for Energy Innovation.

Indeed, the federal government is pouring billions into keeping the nation’s current nuclear fleet operating and getting next-generation technologies ready for commercial use. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law included $6 billion to prevent older reactors from shutting down prematurely, and the Biden Administration’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, includes tax breaks, loan guarantees and other incentives for new reactors.

And in July, the president signed the Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy or Advance Act, designed to streamline the siting and approval process for next-generation reactors.

Lawmakers in at least four states — Connecticut, Illinois, West Virginia and Wisconsin — have in recent years at least partially removed moratoriums on future reactors. Other states have included various tax breaks and other financial incentives for nuclear power in wide-ranging laws to boost clean energy.

The U.S. Department of Energy has identified 85 sites in 28 states where nuclear reactors would be suitable to replace closing coal plants. Montana and Wyoming are among those considering placing reactors on the sites of shuttered coal plants.

The agency added urgency to the need in a newly released report. It said the United States could triple the amount of nuclear energy by 2050 by building more large and small reactors and boosting the generating capacity of existing reactors, a process known as “uprating.”

The highly ambitious goal has a stark caveat: The country would need 275,000 skilled workers, tens of millions more tons of uranium, a large supply of critical components, “significant resources” added to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and additional sites for nuclear waste storage and disposal. That work, the report said, needs to start now.

A new landscape for nuclear

From Bill Gates to the Energy Department, momentum is building behind nuclear again after a failed resurgence 20 years ago. Dozens of questions over cost, reactor design and the regulatory approval process remain, but a key difference stands out this time: the nation’s extreme need for more electricity.

The United States and its electric companies have been running off of a stagnant demand for more power for roughly two decades. A combination of a recession, as well as LED light bulbs and more efficient appliances, shrank the need for more power generation sources. Just as the pendulum was about to swing the other way, the COVID-19 pandemic ground nearly everything to a halt.

But now, a plethora of planned data centers needed to support AI have sent many of the nation’s largest electric companies back to the drawing boards after projections for electricity demand as recent as last year are sorely inaccurate. The Biden Administration, among others, also is pushing the nation’s heavy industry to be powered by electricity instead of natural gas to nudge the United States toward a carbon-neutral economy.

“(The) significant load growth that I think exceeded any one’s projections across the United States,” said Scott Hunnewell, vice president of TVA’s new nuclear program.

Most utilities are turning to building natural gas power plants, arguing they are the quickest and cheapest way to meet the burgeoning power demand. During this “very critical period,” Samaras warned, utilities shouldn’t default to the old way of doing business but instead insist on clean energy, such as geothermal and new, less expensive nuclear technology.

“I think it’s the role of the public utility commissions and the public to say, ‘Are you sure that’s the only thing you can do?’ ” Samaras said. “The public has an interest in ensuring that new load from all of these new sources doesn’t raise their bills and doesn’t hurt their lungs.”

Is building new nuclear plants possible?

The chief question is: Can it be done in time and at a cost consumers can afford? History says, “no.”

Currently, less than 20% of U.S. electric demand is met by nuclear power, yet it makes up slightly more than half of the nation’s clean electricity. The stringent safety requirements built into the permitting and construction process are part of what makes the reactors the most expensive type of power plant to build.

The most recent expansion of nuclear generation, at Georgia Power’s Plant Vogtle, southeast of Augusta, cost more than twice its original budget at nearly $35 billion and took 15 years to build. What’s more, the project’s original contractors, Westinghouse Electric Co., went bankrupt when the costs on Vogtle and a similar project in South Carolina skyrocketed.

“My instinct is it’s too heavy of a lift,” said Ed Lyman, nuclear power safety director at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “The fundamentals are still not there to support a massive expansion of nuclear energy in a short amount of time frame. It’s just not there … Too many difficult questions are just waved away.”

TVA, led by CEO Jeff Lyash, has been bullish on building small modular reactors and wants to submit a permit application to federal nuclear regulators during the first half of next year, Hunnewell said. The public utility, which serves 10 million customers across seven southeastern states, also is looking at sites where coal plants once stood.

TVA’s board recently approved another $150 million towards its proposed SMR, currently named Clinch River I. Hunnewell said SMRs cost “a fraction” of the billions of dollars it takes to build the larger reactors, but there are a range of price tags depending upon the size of the reactor.

The rising costs of what was supposed to be the first commercial SMR in the United States led startup NuScale and Utah Municipal Power Systems to squash its project roughly a year ago. Estimated costs went from $5.3 billion to $9.3 billion after construction costs jumped 75% from their original price tag.

“I think this is the most pro-nuclear administration in history, and I think that commitment is based on theology, if you will, rather than sound analysis,” said Armory Lovins, an adjunct professor who teaches on climate solutions and energy efficiency at Stanford University. “I don’t quite know what will change that other than market reality intruding after large amounts of money and time have been wasted,” said Lovins, one of four nuclear skeptics on an Oct. 3 panel who said the industry revival is “much hyped” and “already doomed.”

Small modular reactors eyed

Meanwhile the Bill Gates-led TerraPower has broken ground on the site that is hoped to host a small, so-called Natrium reactor demonstration project in Wyoming. Gates has said the reactor will cost $4 billion, with half of that coming from the DOE.

TVA stands out because it currently is the only large electric provider in the United States that is pressing forward on building the smaller reactors, which have never been used commercially in the U.S. power sector. None of the others has committed to building SMRs or any of the other advanced reactor technologies, sometimes referred to as “Generation IV” designs.

Hunnewell likens it to a group of people standing on a cliff above a lake: “Whoever jumps first, everyone else will be comfortable in going. We’re willing to be that person that jumps first.”

TVA knows a lot of people are watching, “We’ve got to be able to complete the project on time and on budget. That’s what everybody is looking for: can it be done in nuclear.”

Achieving that would make history in the United States, as cost overruns have dogged the industry for decades. According to 2008 Energy Department report, the actual costs of 75 of the nuclear power plants exceeded their initial estimates by 200%. That leaves plenty of room for skeptics to say that restarting dormant reactors will suffer the same fate. Hennewell said TVA, a federal agency, will apply for a $900 million competitive grant from an IRA program run by the Energy Department.

But “even if we were going to get all of that money, that’s not enough” to finish the Clinch River project, and more “assistance” will be needed in the future, Hunnewell said.

And there’s another caveat: the SMR designs aren’t finished. Hunnewell said that’s likely two years away.

“And when the designs aren’t done, that increases your risk,” he said.

An industry meltdown

Just three nuclear reactors have started producing electricity since the 1990s.

A combination of regulatory red tape, safety-driven delays and mounting costs after a partial meltdown in 1979 at one of the reactors at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island ground the industry to a halt in the 1980s.

There were no deaths, injuries or health effects from the incident, but the public lost its trust in nuclear technology and safety. The accident led to broad changes across the industry, led by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission implementing tighter regulations in how reactors are designed and built as well as increased training in safety, emergency preparedness and operations — all of which sharply drove up the cost to build and run these power plants.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 paved the way for the nation’s utilities to start building more large reactors again, kicking off a high-profile, highly anticipated industry restart. The nuclear industry and electric companies promised significant changes to the processes to approve, finance and build the multi-billion dollar reactors, and electric utilities, mostly in the Southeast, planned roughly three dozen reactors over the next three decades.

The restart was more of a false start because Vogtle Units 3 and 4 remain the only reactors built from the ground up in the last three decades. A third reactor, TVA’s Watts Bar II, opened in 2016 after the utility resumed construction in 2007. It had been sitting unfinished since 1985.

Meanwhile, the number of reactors currently operating has fallen to 94, with seven shut down for economic reasons. Operators deemed them too expensive to maintain and run compared to natural gas and renewables, particularly wind power.

Yet, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm stood at Plant Vogtle in mid-August and declared that the United States should build 98 more reactors just like the ones that are helping to power the state of Georgia. Samaras is among those who agree, at least in principle, arguing that the industry now has the workforce, supply chain and know-how to do this again.

“And so the question is, you know, for the industry right now is: will cost fall as more of these get built?” he said.

Restarting nuclear plants not easy — or cheap

That’s not the only challenge.

A recent inspection of the shuttered Palisades Nuclear Power plant in southwest Michigan revealed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in repairs may be needed before its owner, Holtec International Inc., can restart the plant, which has been closed for two and a half years. Its cooling towers must be rebuilt, and many of the steam generators must be repaired.

Constellation Energy, owner of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant, is pursuing a $1.6 billion taxpayer-backed loan guarantee from the Energy Department to help finance restarting one of the two reactors, the Washington Post reported.

Samaras has hope for the future of nuclear, pointing to the flurry of announcements — and money — coming from the government and private sector over the past three years. Engineers also are designing smaller, sleeker reactors that are safer, less expensive and easier to build, officials say.

In the meantime, some utilities have asked federal nuclear regulators for approval to keep running their reactors another 20 years — leaving them on the power grid for a total of 80.

But Lyman expects officials to find delayed maintenance that made those closed reactors uneconomic to run in the first place, and that is on top of whatever other costly repairs that need to be done.

“They aren’t going to be miraculously any cheaper than when they were shut down for financial reasons,” he said.

Floodlight is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates the powerful interests stalling climate action.

The rulemaking would codify the generic findings of the NRC’s draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors, or NR GEIS. The draft statement uses a technology-neutral framework and a set of plant and site parameters to determine which potential environmental impacts would be common to the construction, operation and decommissioning of many new nuclear reactors.

The idea would be to save time and money by avoiding repeated reviews for each project. Assuming 20 applications over the next decade, fully utilized NR GEIS could result in total net savings of up to $40.1 million, or $2 million per application, according to NRC’s analysis.

NRC said other benefits include “greater regulatory stability, predictability and clarity to the licensing process.”

The proposed rule would reduce the cost to industry of preparing environmental reports for new reactor applications by focusing resources on project-specific analyses, according to NRC. Unique issues would still get specific attention, the regulator said.

This follows an NRC vote in April on an earlier GEIS framework for advanced nuclear reactor applications. At that time, the Commission directed NRC staff to change the applicability of the GEIS and rule from “advanced nuclear reactors” to any new nuclear reactor application that meets the values and assumptions of the plant parameter envelopes and the site parameter envelopes used to develop the GEIS.

The NRC is asking for public feedback and will hold several public meetings in November 2024. Public comments are due by December 18, 2024.

The NR GEIS could potentially be used for microreactors, but the NRC said its staff currently does not have enough information to determine whether the proposed rule could potentially affect any small entities under NRC size standards. NRC staff is requesting public comment on the potential impact of the proposed rule on these small entities.

“Fight over West Texas nuclear waste plan to hit U.S. Supreme Court” was first published by The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them — about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up a yearslong dispute over a plan to ship highly radioactive nuclear waste to rural West Texas, a case that could have sweeping implications for how the nation deals with a growing stockpile of waste generated by nuclear power plants.

A company called Interim Storage Partners has long pursued the plan to move “high-level” nuclear waste from power plants across the nation to an existing nuclear waste storage facility in Andrews County, on the Texas-New Mexico border.

Last year, in a Texas-led lawsuit, a federal court blocked the plan and threw out Interim Storage Partners’s federal license to handle the waste. A federal appeals court upheld the decision earlier this year, but the company and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission urged the Supreme Court to reconsider the ruling.

The high court agreed to take up the case on Friday, Oct. 4., allotting one hour for oral arguments at a later date. The court also consolidated a related challenge from the waste company into the Texas case.

For years, this dispute has been percolating in lower courts, the Texas Legislature and among potentially impacted rural communities. Texas lawmakers passed a law that effectively banned the nuclear waste plan in 2021, cheered on by Gov. Greg Abbott and an unlikely alliance of oil, ranching and environmental interests.

Still, the waste company and the federal government – most recently under the Biden administration – have fought to keep the plan alive.

“We are confident we have a strong position for the Solicitor General to argue before the court,” NRC spokesperson David McIntyre said.

The fundamental question now before the Supreme Court is whether federal regulators have the authority to approve plans for privately operated, high-level nuclear waste storage sites that are located far away from where the waste is generated. A ruling in the Texas case would almost certainly have implications for a nearly identical proposal just over the state line in New Mexico that’s also still being fought over in a lower federal court.

While multiple federal courts have now ruled federal law does not allow for the licensing of such facilities, supporters of the Texas and New Mexico plans – including the nuclear energy industry – insist the courts are wrong.

“The Atomic Energy Act provides a comprehensive framework for regulating nuclear generation and the related fuel cycle, granting the NRC broad authority over both at-reactor and away-from-reactor used fuel storage,” Ellen Ginsberg, an advocate and attorney with the trade group Nuclear Energy Institute, said in a statement.

Ginsberg said a Supreme Court ruling in favor of Texas “would further delay progress in advancing a safe, environmentally sustainable, and well-managed used fuel management system.”

The West Texas company Fasken Oil and Ranch is among the entities that have fought the nuclear waste plan for years. Monica Perales, an attorney for the firm, said the plan’s opponents remain confident in their legal arguments.

“Oil and gas interests are concerned because it’s a threat to our industry, to the people who work in the industry, it’s a threat to the Permian Basin, and we’re the most productive oil and gas region in the United States,” she told Marfa Public Radio.

The question of what to do with nuclear waste from power plants – among the most dangerous types of such waste – has vexed U.S. administrations from both political parties for decades.

As NPR has reported, Congress attempted to solve the quandary in the 1980s, but political roadblocks to finding a permanent home for toxic waste soon developed.

The proposed waste facilities in Texas and New Mexico are essentially aimed at being stopgap measures to provide a “temporary” home for the waste – though that could amount to decades – while the U.S. continues its search for a permanent disposal solution.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2024/10/09/us-supreme-court-west-texas-nuclear-waste-plan/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

Last month, Constellation Energy announced a 20-year power purchase agreement (PPA) to provide electricity to Microsoft data centers from the Unit 1 reactor at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. In March, Amazon Web Services (AWS) signed a contract for 960 MW of capacity from Talen Energy’s Susquehanna nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. Both plants are in the PJM transmission organization’s territory.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) conducted an analysis of the relationship between data centers and nuclear power plants, examining why the power source seems particularly enticing to data centers.

Although historically costly to build, nuclear power plants usually generate power at relatively low operating costs, with a single reactor generally having a capacity of 800 MW or more. Nuclear power plants also produce electricity without directly emitting carbon dioxide, a consideration for technology firms investing in energy-intensive data centers that are trying to meet self-imposed emissions reduction goals.

Additionally, data center electricity demand doesn’t fluctuate during the day in the same way as demand from residences or many other businesses. Instead, data center operators typically require a consistent and steady supply of electricity at all hours. Likewise, nuclear power plants operate continuously, as they have difficulty ramping up and down to match variable demand.

The consistent generation from nuclear power plants will ensure that a data center has access to sufficient electricity around-the-clock, while also providing access to a large source of CO2 emission-free power, EIA said.

However, EIA cautioned about reading too much into the recent power purchase agreements. Although the two agreements may underscore that data center operators are in search of large sources of emissions-free electricity, future electricity demand from data centers is subject to several uncertainties, including how much data center capacity will be built, how long it will take each data center to reach its peak demand capacity, and how energy efficiency will improve as data center technology and design evolve, EIA said.

EIA argues the PPA between Talen and AWS partly reflects this uncertainty. Rather than immediately taking on the fully contracted 960 MW from the Susquehanna plant, AWS will increase its share of capacity in 120-MW increments over multiple years. The company also has a one-time option to cap its commitment at 480 MW.

Typically, requests for electricity capacity by data center owners do not obligate the owner to use the full capacity. The PPAs signed by generators and purchasers often specify the amount of potential peak demand capacity required but not the total energy to be used.

When a data center is directly connected to a generating source, as has been proposed in the agreement between AWS and Susquehanna, it can receive electricity directly from the power plant instead of through the larger transmission network. Proponents of co-locating a data center at the site of a power plant argue doing so can lower overall grid costs by having increases in demand directly offset by generation sources. At the same time, concerns have been raised, especially by electric distribution companies, about co-location of demand and generation potentially avoiding fees to cover costs to maintain the electric grid.

Susquehanna Unit 1 has been in operation since 1983 and delivers about 1,257 MW. Unit 2, which has the same power capacity, was commissioned two years later.

Three Mile Island was shut down in 2019. Owner Exelon decided to end operations after a financial rescue package did not come from Pennsylvania legislators.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), electricity consumption from data centers, artificial intelligence (AI) and the cryptocurrency sector could double by 2026. Data centers project to be significant drivers of growth in electricity demand in many regions.

In the U.S. alone, data center demand is expected to reach 35 GW by 2030, up from 17 GW in 2022, McKinsey & Company projects.