Nuclear nonproliferation panel warns Utah leaders to tread lightly
That was one cautionary tale detailed in a panel discussion hosted Monday in Salt Lake City by the Non Proliferation Education Center, a think tank based in Washington, D.C.
Scott Kemp, an associate professor of nuclear science and engineering and director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Laboratory for Nuclear Security and Policy, said what is old has become 'new' again.
'There's a really deep history here that you may not know about. The fact that they're small is not in and of itself actually that new. This is where we started in the nuclear industry back in the '50s and '60s,' he said. 'But the industry, as it stretched forward, the reactors kept getting bigger and bigger. So why did we abandon these small reactors? Because they weren't capital efficient, they were too expensive. We needed to make nuclear power more affordable, and we did that by pulling more watts out of a single reactor, and that's still true today.'
For small nuclear reactors to compete on a cost scale to other baseload energy and even renewables, there would be millions — many millions — of the unites that would need to be built, he asserted.
In terms of costs and accountability, many pointed to the Carbon Free Power Project pursued by the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems, which was shelved because not enough independent power producers took interest, and as the project progressed, the cost of energy became too high.
Scott Williams, a former director of HEAL Utah that opposed the project, said one of the most troubling aspects of the the UAMPS process was its reliability on municipal investors and their lack of knowledge on the ramifications of embracing nuclear. In addition, UAMPS is not subject to Utah's open meetings law and could pursue the small modular reactor plant at Idaho National Laboratory without scrutiny, Williams said.
UAMPS did have to get municipal buy-in from its participating entities, all subject to city council meetings and a vote open to the public. The project had 'off ramps' for cities that wanted to bow out because of costs, and many ultimately opted to get off the nuclear highway.
Others expressed doubt over President Donald Trump's commitment to nuclear energy, especially with his 'drill baby drill' agenda.
Ken Maize, proprietor of the Quad Report, a platform dedicated to in-depth analysis of energy policy and political developments, said he hasn't heard a word about nuclear from Trump.
Although his newly-nominated Energy Secretary Chris Wright listed nuclear as one of his top priorities — it was down on the list as No. 7 out of a list of nine goals.
Although Maize said Wright was an investor in a small modular reactor company, he does not hold out much hope for any revolutionary change in the field of nuclear energy since energy dominates the conversation when it comes to how much someone pays at the pump.
'So that leaves my bottom line, which is I don't see much coming out of Washington that will have a significant impact on nuclear energy around the rest of the country, at least not until after the 2026 midterm elections.'
When pressed about Operation Gigawatt and its commitment to funding nuclear, Tim Kowalchik, an emerging technology strategist at the Utah Office of Energy Development, said Utah Gov. Spencer Cox's Operation Gigawatt is a long-range plan eying Utah's energy future down the road.
The governor's budget plan aims to set aside $20 million for nuclear and a Utah lawmaker is seeking to establish a nuclear energy consortium made up of experts.
Kowalchik stressed it is up to Utah lawmakers to decide how that money is spent and the consortium is meant to get the ball rolling. That is part of a bill, HB249, sponsored by Rep. Carl Albrecht, R-Richfield.
'These are exploratory steps. It's worth looking at, and at the very least, gauging the temperature.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Yahoo
AFN Launches First New FM Radio Station In Japan In 70 Years
The American Forces Network launched its first new FM radio station in Japan in over 70 years last week, AFN Sasebo FM 93.1. This comes after a decade-long effort to restore broadcasting capabilities to the southern Japanese port city. The milestone marks a significant communications upgrade for U.S. military personnel and Japanese locals who have relied on streaming services since 2017. The new frequency represents an engineering feat in Japan's challenging mountainous terrain. AFN-Pacific deputy director Scott Williams noted that 'standing up a new FM frequency had not been done before by AFN-Pacific anywhere in the Pacific region.' The push for FM capability began in 2014 when Sasebo's AM tower faced severe maintenance issues. Three years later, AFN dismantled the deteriorating structure entirely. 'Our AFN station in Sasebo has a long history of service in that community and has always been one of our most popular stations,' Williams said. 'Since losing their AM tower, the AFN Sasebo station had to rely on AFN's streaming radio service, AFN Go, to keep its audiences informed.' Initial attempts to restore service proved frustrating. AFN-Pacific sourced 1.5-watt mini-antennas from the United States and placed them around the base, but building structures blocked the signals. The technical team then embarked on months of testing with Japanese regulators. Kenneth Burton, who leads AFN-Pacific's technical services, described the unique partnership: 'Working with the Japanese government on getting this frequency has been a unique experience. Nothing like this has been done in the past 70 years.' Japan's Ministry of Internal Communications conducted monthly inspections as AFN gradually increased broadcasting power. The team started at 50 watts and reached 300 watts by March 2025. 'Every step of the way required thorough planning and testing,' Burton said. 'We drove all over the area while testing and despite the mountainous terrain were able to establish a clear signal with a new FM transmitter.' The station's popularity extends well beyond the base fence. Williams recounted how one Japanese listener drove nearly 100 kilometers from Fukuoka just to tune in during testing phases. 'We have a huge shadow audience of local Japanese listeners at each of our stations,' Williams said. 'The Japanese people really value AFN and love listening to our local broadcasts.' Local military leadership championed the project throughout its development. Fleet Activities Sasebo commander Capt. Michael Fontaine emphasized the practical benefits beyond entertainment value. 'AFN programming has long been an important source of news, entertainment, and emergency information for listeners both on and off the base,' Fontaine said. 'The ability to reach the entire Sasebo area during an emergency will improve our readiness and response capability.' Still, the achievement represents just the beginning. Williams revealed plans to expand FM capabilities to other installations across Japan. 'Our work is not ending here in Sasebo,' he said. 'We are looking to bring this great FM broadcast capability to other bases in Japan, and we've begun scouting sites at MCAS Iwakuni and Misawa Air Base.' The new station will broadcast music, news, command information, and emergency alerts covering typhoons and safety issues. For a network whose motto is 'We Bring You Home,' the FM launch delivers on a long-awaited promise to reconnect with audiences in southern Japan.
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- Yahoo
NRC approves NuScale's small modular reactor plant design
This story was originally published on Utility Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Utility Dive newsletter. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved NuScale Power's design for a 462-MW small modular reactor power plant, the U.S. nuclear regulator said on Thursday. NRC completed its technical review of NuScale's US460 in less than two years, ahead of schedule and under budget, it said. The US460 is based on NuScale's 12-module, 600-MW US600 design, which NRC approved in 2020 after more than three and a half years of review. The newly-approved design's larger modules will help NuScale power plants more effectively serve hyperscale data center customers, CEO John Hopkins told investors in November. Data centers represent a key segment for the company as it looks to lock down its first U.S. customer this year. The NRC approval came earlier than expected, according to estimated completion timelines provided by NRC and reiterated by Hopkins on several recent investor calls. NuScale had anticipated a final decision by July, Hopkins said on May 12. The approval could be crucial as NuScale moves through 'advanced commercial dialogue with major technology and industrial companies, utilities and national and local governments,' Hopkins said in March. 'Once we get finalization' for the 77-MWe design, 'we're off to the races,' Hopkins said. NuScale has not announced a binding customer deal. But in its first-quarter investor presentation, the company said it expected a 'firm customer order' by the end of this year. NuScale manufacturing partner Doosan has 12 modules in production now at its South Korea foundry and could deliver up to 20 per year in the near term, Hopkins said on May 12. Its first power plant could be operational by the end of 2030 if it gets a finalized deal soon, he added. For now, NuScale is acting as the nuclear technology subcontractor to Fluor Corp. on a 462-MW power plant project in Romania that could reach a final investment decision early next year. Though it has decreased its stake over time and has said it will continue to do so, Fluor remains a major shareholder in NuScale. NuScale previously had an agreement with Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems for a 462-MW commercial power plant at Idaho National Laboratory. Known as the Carbon Free Power Project, that plant — like the design NRC approved on Thursday — would have used six 77-MW modules. But it was canceled in November 2023 as NuScale's target power price rose toward $90/MWh and interest from UAMPS members failed to materialize. Thursday's approval means the US460 meets 'applicable agency safety requirements' and can be referenced in future reactor construction permit, operating license or combined license applications, NRC said. But before building and operating a US460 plant, NuScale, its development partner ENTRA1 Energy or another entity would still have to apply for one or more of those permits or licenses. That process can take 30 months or longer at present, NRC says. Still, NRC's approval positions its technology as 'the most near-term American SMR power solution,' NuScale said on Thursday. In addition to being the only SMR with NRC design approval, NuScale's SMR technology is one of the few that runs on conventional low-enriched uranium rather than more scarce high-assay, low-enriched uranium. The approval boosts NuScale amid broader momentum for U.S. advanced nuclear companies. On May 23, the Trump administration issued four executive orders to expand reactor deployments, ease regulation and shore up domestic fuel and equipment supply chains. One order would require NRC to review new reactor applications within 18 months, significantly shorter than current timelines. Another would expand the roles of the departments of Energy and Defense in reactor licensing and deployment, potentially creating new pathways for design approvals and expedited siting of power plants on federal land. The GOP budget proposal that passed the House on May 22 gutted most clean energy tax credits while sparing the nuclear industry. Though the Senate is likely to change the bill before it comes up for a final vote, the House-passed version allows reactor projects that begin construction by 2028 to qualify for the full value of the Inflation Reduction Act's technology-neutral investment and production tax credits.
Yahoo
26-04-2025
- Yahoo
Opinion: Utahns must think carefully about becoming the nation's nuclear hub
Utah's Legislature has put hope in nuclear energy as a key component of our state's future energy mix. At the start of the 2025 legislative session, Senate President Stuart Adams proclaimed that he wants Utah to be the 'nation's nuclear hub.' Governor Spencer Cox, likewise, included nuclear energy in Operation Gigawatt, an initiative aimed at doubling the state's energy production over the next 10 years. With the passage of HB249, the state created the Nuclear Energy Consortium to advise nuclear energy development in Utah. Now we must consider whether nuclear energy is right for our state. To ensure decisions about how we will power Utah's future are as democratic as possible, all Utahns should be part of the deliberation. We call on Utahns, including our Legislature, governor and the Nuclear Energy Consortium, to evaluate nuclear energy's cost, timeline and environmental impacts. We have already seen how costly nuclear development can be here in Utah. In 2015, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) partnered with NuScale on a small modular reactor (SMR) project, planned to be at Idaho National Labs and provide power to several towns in Utah by 2030. The project was canceled in November 2023 after cost estimates increased from $3 billion to $9 billion. This failed project reveals the risk of investing millions of taxpayer dollars in technology that's yet to be implemented on a large scale. The investment required to develop nuclear power plants is massive. The state has lauded microreactors and SMRs as the stuff of the future. They claim new technology will make nuclear energy safer, easier to produce and cheaper. However, the electricity produced by UAMPS/NuScale project would have been more expensive than that produced by the most recent traditional nuclear power plant to come online in the U.S. That project was not an exception. A 2013 Union of Concerned Scientists report shows that SMRs will be more expensive than traditional nuclear plants. Developing nuclear power is costly and time-intensive. A 2014 study by Dr. Benjamin Sovacool and colleagues demonstrated that a sample of 175 nuclear reactors took on average 64% longer than projected. Dr. Arjun Makhijani argues that nuclear power is too slow and too costly to meaningfully reduce emissions, especially when renewables like solar and wind are ready now and cheaper than ever. The state's call to become a nuclear powerhouse is another iteration of the nuclear renaissance we saw in the early 2000s. However, calls for nuclear development in response to climate change then did not result in an increase in nuclear power. Nuclear consistently provides about 20% of electricity for the U.S. Skeptical public opinion, accidents at TMI and Chernobyl, cost, and long construction times have meant that only three new reactors have come online since the 1990s. Now we're seeing a new version of a call for a nuclear renaissance. In Utah, Adams said we need nuclear energy to meet the energy demand of Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI requires massive amounts of power and water; experts expect power demand to skyrocket with the computing power needed for AI. Because tech companies have committed to reducing greenhouse gases, they are looking to nuclear power to supply the increased demand because, proponents argue, it can supply stable electricity that intermittent solar and wind energy cannot. However, there are other ways to provide baseload or surgable electricity, including battery storage and geothermal. Whether or not nuclear energy ends up powering AI, we should be asking ourselves if it is worth the cost and if Utah, already threatened by drought, should be seeking out such a water and energy-intensive industry. Our communities and our environment will continue to pay the price with our tax dollars, our water and our power. There is no one energy source that is inherently good. Each requires resources and has an impact on its surrounding communities and environments. If Utah is going to consider nuclear power, we call for state leaders and Utahns to engage in a nuanced and research-based analysis of its benefits and risks. Our own analysis makes us skeptical that it's the right energy source for Utah. And we're not alone — a former nuclear engineer also recently made the case against nuclear power for Utah.
