As the United States’ energy sector faces increasing electricity demands from electrification efforts, data center growth, and population growth, the recent passage of the federal ADVANCE act in July aims to increase deployment of small modular or other advanced nuclear reactor technology.
For the upside of the new advanced reactors: As is true of the earlier models for nuclear power, advanced reactors provide 24/7 baseload power that is carbon-free. In addition, today’s advanced reactors provide the ability to scale plant sizes to generation needs. The technology ranges in size from small two-megawatt micro reactors to full-scale generation stations that rival existing coal plant outputs. The nature of their design allows for factory-built containment vessels and repeatable designs that lower costs and provide improved safety measures from their traditional large-plant cousins. These plants provide a wide range of uses beyond simple electricity generation, including providing heat for energy-intensive industries such as fertilizer production, metallurgy, and hydrogen production.
For the downside: The high cost of advanced reactors could add to customer’s energy bills as the cost of expensive plants are passed on to consumers. Advanced reactors will require large upfront capital investments from developers, utilities, and likely federal funding among other investors. One existing advanced reactor for example, the UAMPS project at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory, was cancelled after the cost of the project rose from $55 per megawatt-hour to $89 per megawatt-hour.
Although the latest round of federal funding bills announced $900 million in “fleet-level” advanced reactor deployment funding from the federal government, these multi-billion-dollar capital investments would eventually be recovered at some level from among a utility’s ratepayers.
Nuclear technology poses questions surrounding nuclear waste disposal. In 2018, the U.S. inventory of spent nuclear fuel exceeded 80,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU). This is projected to rise at a rate of approximately 1,800 MTU per year, resulting in an estimated 138,000 MTU by 2050. Because no long-term repository or consolidated storage facility for high-level nuclear waste has been licensed by NRC, newly discharged spent nuclear waste is currently stored onsite at nuclear plant locations.
The nuclear industry’s dependence on uranium mining is also a concern. Mining is not carbon-free. Plus, the United States is currently close to 100% dependent on foreign suppliers for uranium. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, only 0.4% of the U.S. uranium fuel requirement is mined domestically.
Additionally, due to the high cost and complexity of the federal siting process, the state will be forced to cede local control to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. My questions are as follows:
- Will Montana simply become a conduit, shipping power to other states when demand exceeds supply; and
- Will nearby states with more electoral votes and Washington D.C. representation get preference over Montanans for Montana-made energy when push comes to shove?
While advanced reactors provide significant benefits in the form of carbon-free, energy-dense generation, the question for Montanans is, do the benefits outweigh these legitimate concerns?
As a commissioner, I’m working to ensure the Montana Public Service Commission will continue to examine the public interests and weigh those benefits with the high costs and potential impacts of siting nuclear plants in the state.
My motto during my campaign for this elected office remains my motto for all Montanans: Let’s keep the lights on!
