Part 2 of 5 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
     The nuclear industry is turning away from conventional gigawatt plus reactors. Instead, they are now interested in new nuclear technologies that developers say are safer and more efficient. Both of these factors will drive down costs. In other cases, electric companies which own nuclear power plants, are asking federal regulators to extend the operating license lifespans of their large reactors so they can operate longer.
     As a result of this situation, money in the bipartisan federal infrastructure law is aimed at two key areas: First, keeping economically struggling reactors alive. Second, pushing new Generation IV technologies out the door so they can be ready for electric companies to connect to the grid by the next decade.
     There is one billion two hundred million dollars in the infrastructure package for existing, but troubled, reactors. More than twenty billion dollars has been set aside for the Energy Department to aid clear energy demonstration technologies, including advanced nuclear.
     That means that the industry is again banking its future on technologies that have yet to be built or proven at scale. In spite all of the promises that new reactors will be cheaper because of their smaller size and more efficient technology, there is no track record to prove it either way.
     The new Generation IV reactors include thermal, molten salt, and fast reactors. Developers are billing them as smaller, safer, more efficient and able to operate longer without refueling that large baseload reactors. Only two states, Idaho and Tennessee, are considering construction of Generation IV reactors right now, but it is expected that others will follow soon.
     These smaller reactors are also more agile. This enables them to be paired with renewables to stabilize the grid. Improved safety and efficiency mean that they should also be cheaper which would eliminate one of the nuclear industry’s biggest problem.
      NEI, a nuclear industry trade group, sees “great opportunities for progress” in Generation IV nuclear projects as opposed to older, traditional ones, according to Marc Nichol who is the NEI senior director for new reactors. Nichol said “Already we are seeing significant customer interest in SMRs (small modular reactors)”. Yet it is unclear whether SMRs will face some of the same cost challenges as traditional gigawatt plus nuclear reactors.
     In the past, the higher price tag for nuclear power plants in comparison to expectations was connected to safety regulation. These are the most stringent of regulations for any type of power plants. In addition, if any work needs to be redone in order to meet the strict codes, that extends the deadline for completion of the plant.
     Glenrock’s Patterson said that “There are so many concerns about radioactive material, etc., so that’s what drives much of the cost. You don’t have the same issues associated with regulations for other power plants, understandably so.”  With SMRs, federal nuclear regulators must still sign off on stringent safety regulation. Proponents argue that the reactors are inherently safer because they are smaller than convention nuclear power reactors.
Please read Part 3 next