Pacific Power Now Considering Six Risky Nuclear Power Plants
Posted on November 10, 2022 by Bob Jenks
Tags, Energy
CUB’s advocacy is possible because of our members! Consider donating to CUB to support our work on this issue and more. Donate today!
Late last year, CUB raised concerns about Pacific Power plans to spend billions on a new untested nuclear technology without seriously examining alternatives. Now, the utility is considering not one but six new nuclear power plants.
Pacific Power Considers Untested Nuclear Technology
Pacific Power still hasn’t studied alternatives, and the technology is still untested. The design has not been approved by nuclear regulators. There is currently no source of fuel for the plant. The company has not said how the significant financial risk associated with the project will be allocated between customers and investors.
But Pacific Power has recently announced that they are studying an additional five of these nuclear plants. They expect the now six plants to come online between 2028 and 2035. The cost of the first plant is expected to be at least $4 billion. And while the cost might come down with more reactors, this is a multi-billion proposal. And it is risky.
“It’s extremely risky. It’s crazy, in fact. This is an unproven technology. It hasn’t been licensed by the NRC. It doesn’t know where it’s going to get its fuel from.”
- Bob Jenks, CUB Executive Director, in Scientific American
Untested.
The plant they are proposing is a new design called a sodium fast reactor coupled with a molten salt-based storage system. Natrium to be built in conjunction with Bill Gates’ TerraPower. It combines nuclear power with molten salt which can store energy. The plant would generate 345 Megawatts (MW) of electricity. But by storing some of the energy, they can produce up to 500 MW of electricity for 5.5 hours. (An average Pacific Power household in Oregon consumes about 11 MW per year.)
This technology is new. The first one Pacific Power expects to bring online in 2028 will be the demonstration project. It is only after a few years of this demonstration that there will be real evidence of the technology and its economics.
Not Approved.
Nuclear power plant designs must be approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and specific plants must be licensed by this commission. The Natrium nuclear plant is not approved.
No Fuel Source.
The plant would use a different type of fuel than existing plants. The fuel—called high-assay, low-enriched uranium—is currently only available from Russia. TerraPower believes that a US enrichment facility can be developed to supply fuel for the plant.
No Financial Certainty (and a Lot of Risk).
There is a significant financial risk associated with developing nuclear reactors, as there is with developing brand new technology. The first new US nuclear power plant in 30 years is expected to come on-line in 2023. This is years behind schedule and $16 billion over projected cost.
While there have been suggestions that TerraPower will cover cost overruns, no details have been provided. In addition, cost overruns are a small part of the financial risk.
If production is below projections, it raises the costs significantly. If the cost of producing the fuel in the US is more expensive than projected, this raises the cost. If the plant has reliability issues, this will raise costs. If there are significant delays in approval of design, or in the construction, this will raise costs to customers.
There is a large financial risk with rushing ahead to build five addition plants before the first one has operated for enough years to fully understand its performance, its costs, and its risks.
Pacific Power is Betting Big on a Risky Technology
Proposing 6 nuclear power plants over 7 years is betting a great deal on a single technology. If it turns out to be the wrong technology – the Betamax of nukes – it could do serious harm to customers. There are other new nuclear technologies being proposed.
There are proposals for developing off-shore wind and hydrogen fuel electric generators. Pacific Power seems to be rushing ahead, betting on a single solution: nuclear. And it is doing so without exploring and analyzing its many other options.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”
This is not the first time in the Northwest that an entity has proposed building multiple nuclear power plants at one time.
In the 1970’s with the region no longer able to expand its hydro resources, the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS, appropriately pronounced “Whoops”) decided to build 5 nuclear power plants financed by $2.5 billion in municipal bonds.
In 1983, WPPSS had what at the time the largest municipal bond default in US history after the project had several years of cost overruns. It would have needed $24 billion in addition funding to complete construction of the plants. WPPSS eventually had to recognize that estimates of electricity demand were inflated. Today, only one of the original nuclear plants is operating.
CUB Will Continue Fighting for Customers Interests
Pacific Power’s nuclear plan is not finalized. CUB will continue digging into the numbers and asking tough questions from the utility. Our policy experts will continue to advocate for what is in customers’ best interests. From what we see now? This proposal misses the mark by miles and it needs to be compared to alternatives.
Sign up for the CUB newsletter to receive the latest on this and other utility issues in your email inbox!
To keep up with CUB, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter!
11/10/22 | 0 Comments | Pacific Power Now Considering Six Risky Nuclear Power Plants