U.S. bets on small nuclear reactors to help fix climate problem
WAYNESBORO, GA. >> Towering over the Savannah River in Georgia, the first nuclear reactors built from scratch in the United States in more than 30 years illustrate the enormous promise of nuclear power — and its most glaring weakness.
The two new reactors at the Vogtle nuclear power plant will join two older units to create enough electricity to power 2 million homes, 24 hours a day, without emitting any of the carbon dioxide that is dangerously heating the planet.
But those colossal reactors cost $35 billion, more than double the original estimates, and arrived seven years behind schedule. That's why no one else is planning to build large reactors in the United States.
Instead, the great hope for the future of nuclear power is to go small.
Nearly a dozen companies are developing reactors that are a fraction of the size of those at Vogtle, betting that they will be quicker and cheaper to build. As the United States looks to transition away from fossil fuels that have underpinned its economy for 150 years, nuclear power is getting renewed interest, billions of dollars from the Biden administration and support from Republicans.
One reason is that nuclear plants can run at all hours, in any season. To those looking to replace coal and gas with wind and solar energy, nuclear power can provide a vital backstop when the air is calm or the sky is cloudy.
“The United States is now committed to trying to accelerate the deployment of nuclear energy,” John Kerry, President Joe Biden's climate envoy, said in September. “It's what we believe we absolutely need in order to win this battle.”
But the push to expand nuclear power, which today supplies 18% of electricity, faces enormous hurdles.
In a major setback last week, the first serious effort to build small reactors in the United States was abruptly canceled amid soaring costs. While other projects are moving forward, the industry has consistently struggled to build plants on time and on budget. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees the safety of the nation's nuclear fleet, is less experienced with novel reactor technologies. And the problem remains of how to dispose of radioactive waste.
The clock is ticking. Governments, companies and utilities want to slash their carbon emissions to nearzero within a few decades.
Anyone looking to build a reactor today has to keep costs under control, a problem that doomed past projects.
When most existing reactors were built in the 1960s and '70s, regulators frequently ratcheted up safety rules, creating expensive delays. Some projects were poorly managed, or faced legal challenges. By the 1980s, utilities had stopped ordering new reactors, scared off by ballooning costs.
“The economics just didn't work,” said Arnie Gundersen, chief engineer at Fairewinds Associates and a critic of nuclear power.
The reactors at Vogtle were supposed to be different. In 2008, utilities in Georgia and South Carolina sought approval to build two large reactors apiece, using a novel design with advanced safety features.
Nothing went as planned.
Construction began before designs were finalized and major changes had to be made partway through. Components arrived late. Workers installed 1,200 tons of rebar in a way that differed slightly from the design, triggering a 71/2 month regulatory delay. In 2017, South Carolina's utilities abandoned their project after spending $9 billion with nothing to show except higher consumer bills. One utility went bankrupt and two executives pleaded guilty to fraud.
Only Georgia pushed ahead. Southern Company, the project's largest owner, says the reactors will displace coal, which makes up one-fifth of its electricity mix.
To control costs, developers of next-generation reactors want to create smaller, standardized designs that require a lower upfront investment and can be easily duplicated.
“These nuclear megaprojects had just gotten way too complex,” said Jay Wileman, president of GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, which is designing a slimmeddown version of its boilingwater reactor that is only 300 megawatts — about one-quarter the size of the 1,117-megawatt units at Vogtle.
Ontario Power Generation plans to deploy four of them in Canada, hoping to bring down costs as it builds the same design again and again. The Tennessee Valley Authority is considering at least one.
Other companies are exploring radically new reactor designs that, in theory, can't melt down and don't require big containment domes or other expensive equipment. Some might be manufactured in factories and assembled on-site, potentially lowering costs.
Today, every American nuclear plant uses light water reactors, in which water is pumped into a reactor core and heated by atomic fission, producing steam to create electricity.
For nearly five decades, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has regulated large light-water reactors. Now it has to consider a dizzying array of new technologies and their safety characteristics.
The approval process can be slow. To date, the NRC has certified only one small reactor design, developed by NuScale Power. NuScale's light-water technology is similar to existing plants, but the company argued that smaller reactors required different safety rules, such as smaller evacuation zones in case of accidents. Securing approval took a decade and cost $500 million.