Will Oregon See a Nuclear Comeback?
Posted on December 9, 2021 by Sudeshna Pal
Tags, Energy
photo/image by: Flickr user Tobin - flickr.com/photos/tobin/151732593, CC BY-SA 2.0 - creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode
Oregon’s experience with nuclear power plants has not been too positive. The state’s first nuclear plant, Trojan, was operated by Portland General Electric from 1976 to 1993. Its shutdown followed years of protests from environmental advocates and, eventually, mechanical defects with the plant itself. The plant had cost about $450 million to build and could generate up to 1300 MW of energy if run efficiently.
Almost two decades later, as Oregon works to replace fossil fuels with clean energy resources, Pacific Power is looking to nuclear plants to provide emissions-free power to its customers. A “small modular reactor” (SMR) nuclear plant, Natrium, is included as a future resource in the utility’s Integrated Resource Plan. This is a long-term resource plan that utilities serving Oregon customers must present to the Oregon Public Utility Commission for acknowledgement once every two years. The plan is a framework for the least-cost least-risk spread of energy resources (also called the preferred portfolio) that the utility plans to acquire over the next twenty years.
The plant has not been built yet. But it is projected to generate power starting in 2028 and will cost more than $4 billion to build. The plant would be a combination of a nuclear reactor and a salt storage system. The reactor can generate up to 345 MW of energy, and if combined with on-site storage, up to 500 MW total for about 5.5 hours. That is less than 5 percent of Pacific Power’s entire system load. The plant is being funded in part by the United States Department of Energy as well as Microsoft founder Bill Gates.
CUB is an active stakeholder in utility resource planning processes. We advocate for affordable, accessible, reliable, and clean electricity for Oregon residents. CUB reviewed Pacific Power’s plan and realized that the Natrium project comes with a host of uncertainties. The SMR plus salt storage technology is first-of-its-kind and not much is known about how it will perform.
CUB raised several questions around the project’s financing, fuel supply, provision of a long-term waste facility for highly radioactive wastes, and regulatory delays. Any one of these factors could send the project costs skyrocketing. Recent experiences with nuclear plants around the U.S. have shown that plant costs can be much higher than what the utilities initially predict and end up costing customers billions of dollars. For example, the Vogtle Nuclear Plant in the state of Georgia is costing utility customers $28 billion or more, more than double the initial projected costs, with no certainty on the completion date. These plants are much larger in capacity and size than Natrium - nonetheless, unforeseen costs and risks of this project are a major concern.
CUB believes utilities should allow various alternative resources to compete fairly in resource planning. The planning process should facilitate picking the best resources to serve customers, and that means accounting for all risks and costs. Pacific Power’s resource plan falls short in capturing all risks associated with the Natrium project. Oregon residents should not be burdened with costs and risks that could be avoided if the utility accounted for these appropriately in its analyses. CUB will keep pushing Pacific Power to look at alternative resources, including offshore wind, and compare these resources to the costs and risks of the Natrium plant.
To keep up with CUB, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter!
12/09/21 | 5 Comments | Will Oregon See a Nuclear Comeback?