Features

Craig Piercy
cpiercy@ans.org

This month’s issue of Nuclear News focuses on supply and demand. The “supply” part of the story highlights nuclear’s continued success in providing electricity to the grid more than 90 percent of the time, while the “demand” part explores the seemingly insatiable appetite of hyperscale data centers for steady, carbon-free energy.

Technically, we are in the second year of our AI epiphany, the collective realization that Big Tech’s energy demands are so large that they cannot be met without a historic build-out of new generation capacity. Yet the enormity of it all still seems hard to grasp.

or the better part of two decades, U.S. electricity demand has been flat. Sure, we’ve seen annual fluctuations that correlate with weather patterns and the overall domestic economic performance, but the gigawatt-hours of electricity America consumed in 2021 are almost identical to our 2007 numbers.

The State of Texas has not one but two ongoing federal court challenges to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that could, if successful, turn decades of NRC regulations, precedent, and case law on its head.

Some people are born leaders, and some people make themselves leaders. Take Natalie Cannon, a fourth-year doctoral candidate in the Department of Nuclear and Radiological Engineering and Medical Physics at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She has been driven to succeed since she was a teenager in Southern California, when she was inspired by NASA’s Mars Exploration Program.

In a bid to tackle the primary obstacle in nuclear deployment—construction costs—those in industry and government are moving away from traditional methods and embracing innovative construction technologies.

The use of nuclear fission power and its role in impacting climate change is hotly debated. Fission advocates argue that short-term solutions would involve the rapid deployment of Gen III+ nuclear reactors, like Vogtle-3 and -4, while long-term climate change impact would rely on the creation and implementation of Gen IV reactors, “inherently safe” reactors that use passive laws of physics and chemistry rather than active controls such as valves and pumps to operate safely. While Gen IV reactors vary in many ways, one thing unites nearly all of them: the use of exotic, high-temperature coolants. These fluids, like molten salts and liquid metals, can enable reactor engineers to design much safer nuclear reactors—ultimately because the boiling point of each fluid is extremely high. Fluids that remain liquid over large temperature ranges can provide good heat transfer through many demanding conditions, all with minimal pressurization. Although the most apparent use for these fluids is advanced fission power, they have the potential to be applied to other power generation sources such as fusion, thermal storage, solar, or high-temperature process heat.^1–3

Ensuring energy resilience for our nation is on the minds of leaders and citizens alike. Advances in nuclear power technologies are increasing needs within the nuclear industry supply chain. Savannah River National Laboratory’s decades of experience in nuclear materials processing makes the lab uniquely qualified to meet the current and future challenges of the nuclear fuel cycle.

In the late 1950s, the Swedish government decided to undertake a large-scale nuclear energy project. Situated about 75 miles southwest of Stockholm on the Baltic coast, Marviken was located on a peninsula, allowing for the cooling water intake and outlet to be located on either side of the peninsula. The coastal location also allowed the large reactor pressure vessel to be delivered by ship.

. . . and today.

Steve Rae in 1980 . . .

There I was at the promising age of 16 years old in 1973, standing before an audience of about 100 adults in Goldsboro, N.C., explaining what BWRs, breeder reactors, and PWRs were. The Goldsboro High Advanced Chemistry class teacher, Dr. Joseph Mitchener, had introduced his class of eight students to the topic of nuclear energy. I found the topic fascinating. So, when Dr. Mitchener looked for class volunteers to make public presentations like to the Goldsboro audience, I grabbed the topic of nuclear energy and ran with it. Little did I know that one action would lead to my future career.

Next up was North Carolina State University, starting in 1975, where seven out of the eight students from Dr. Mitchener’s class matriculated to the Wolfpack College of Engineering. There, I focused my interest on utility energy systems including nuclear energy.

Lisa Marshall
president@ans.org

There is much I could have written about for this month’s issue of Nuclear News, and I have decided to reflect on conversations with our greatest asset: students. When we consider what the industry needs, I think about what students need to thrive. The educational ecosystem requires both enthusiasm and resources in and out of the classroom.

To attract and retain students, we must pay attention to cocurricular programming. Scholarships, fellowships, travel grants, internships, and co-ops—as well as our time and efforts—make a difference. Whether at schools, meetups and student conferences, or national and international meetings, we must continue to pour into our students at all levels. We also need to create an environment that pays attention to external factors that impact academic performance. This lift is a mightier one but just as important.

Nuclear generation has inertia. Massive spinning turbines keep electricity flowing during grid disturbances. But nuclear generation also has a kind of inertia that isn’t governed by the laws of motion.

Starting—and then finishing—a power reactor construction project requires significant upfront effort and money, but once built a reactor can run for decades. Capacity factors of U.S. reactors have remained near 90 percent since the turn of the century, but it took more than a decade of improvements to reach that steady state. The payoff for nuclear investments is long-term and reliable.

Mike Rinehart

The nuclear industry is entering a period of renewed urgency, driven by the need for stable baseload power, heightened energy security concerns, and expanded defense infrastructure. Now more than ever, we must deliver new nuclear projects on time and on budget to maintain public trust and industry momentum.

The importance of execution certainty cannot be overstated—public trust, industry investment, and future deployment all hinge on our ability to deliver these projects successfully. However, history has shown that cost overruns and schedule delays have eroded confidence in the industry’s ability to deliver nuclear construction. As we embark on many first-of-a-kind (FOAK) reactor builds, fuel cycle infrastructure projects, and extensive defense-related nuclear projects, we must ensure that execution certainty is no longer an aspiration—it is an expectation.

Nuclear energy produces about 9 percent of the world’s electricity and 19 percent of the electricity in the United States, which has 94 operating commercial nuclear reactors with a capacity of just under 97 gigawatts-electric. Each reactor replaces a portion of its nuclear fuel every 18 to 24 months. Once removed from the reactor, this spent (or used) nuclear fuel (SNF or UNF) is stored in a spent fuel pool (SFP) for a few years then transferred to dry storage.

James Conca

Nuclear is—period. But don’t take my word for it: ask the United Nations. The 2021 report Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options, by the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), shows that nuclear has the lowest overall impacts on human health and the environment, by any measure and from any perspective.

In his 1938 article “Economics in Eight Words,” Walter Morrow really hit the nail on the head when he quipped, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” Although he was referring to the olden days when saloons offered free lunches only if you bought alcoholic drinks, it is perfectly suited to the energy industry.

For over a decade, the DOE’s Hanford Field Office (HFO) has been working with national laboratories, universities, and glass industry experts to establish capabilities and generate data to increase the confidence in a successful startup and transition to full-time operations at the WTP.

The Optimized Segmentation process patented by Orano Decommissioning Services was successfully implemented for the first time at the Crystal River Unit 3 (CR-3) decommissioning project in Florida [1]. Using this approach, Orano was able to avoid the time- and resource-intensive process of packaging components into numerous standardized waste containers and significantly reduced the required segmentation activities.

Mike Mlynarek believes in this expression: “In the end it will be OK; and if it’s not OK, it’s not the end.”

As the site vice president at Palisades nuclear power plant in Covert Township, Mich., Mlynarek is overseeing one of the most exciting projects in the United States nuclear power industry. If all goes according to plan, Holtec’s Palisades plant will be splitting atoms once again by the end of 2025 and become the first U.S. nuclear facility to restart after being slated for decommissioning.

Craig Piercy
cpiercy@ans.org

This month’s Nuclear News pays tribute to the people and projects that keep our nuclear power plants running.

In the nuclear industry, “life extension” is a venerable term that broadly describes the care required to sustain the safe and efficient operation of large, complex energy generation facilities for decades to come, some of which you will read about in these pages.

Of late, however, the general concept of life extension has also taken a firmer hold in our societal consciousness.

Whether we absorb it from Instagram videos about some Silicon Valley techie’s quest for immortality or sense it in one of the thousands of dryly written journal articles documenting our increasing ability to control and change life at the molecular level, the promise of extended life and health has universal appeal—and it’s never seemed more within reach than it does right now.

Lisa Marshall
president@ans.org

Global partnerships advance the nuclear enterprise, demonstrating commitment to energy security, supply chain buildout, and economic and human development. Collaborations remain imperative, keeping these things in mind:

Approximately half of the 400-GW reactor fleet will be retiring by 2040.¹

The forecasted need for new nuclear is 300–600 GW by 2050.

There is a need to counter the build-own-operate model.²

Appropriate funding and financing mechanisms are needed.

Host country regulatory oversight is paramount.

By 2050, there will be 4 million nuclear professionals supporting the industry.³

Savannah River National Laboratory researchers are building on the laboratory’s legacy of using cutting-edge science to effectively immobilize nuclear waste in innovative ways. As part of the Center for Hierarchical Waste Form Materials, SRNL is leveraging its depth of experience in radiological waste management to explore new frontiers in the industry.

James Conca

I think so. The near future for nuclear depends on both the cabinet picks for Energy, Defense, Interior, and Commerce, and how well the new secretaries stick to the Project 2025 plan, the Heritage Foundation’s conservative blueprint for the future.

Those who want to read the entire 900-­page Mandate for Leadership can find it easily online. The section relating to nuclear power and waste begins on page 363: “Department of Energy and Related Commissions,” by Bernard L. McNamee. The nuclear weapons–related portions are scattered throughout.

It is obvious from the beginning of the chapter that McNamee doesn’t really understand the Department of Energy. He can be forgiven, since most people don’t. For the several months following their appointments, new energy secretaries generally fail to understand what the DOE does—except for real nuclear folks like Ernest Moniz, who held the position from 2013 to 2017. Most think that the DOE is all about energy, when really it is mostly about weapons and waste.