Nuclear microreactors in Alaska?
Bills being reviewed by the Legislature would make it simpler to deploy these devices for power and heat generation in the state
Alan Bailey for Petroleum News
Two bills, House Bill 299 and Senate Bill 177, introduced to the Alaska Legislature by Gov. Mike Dunleavy, would simplify the legal requirements for the implementation of nuclear microreactors in Alaska, thus potentially encouraging the use of these devices in the state. A microreactor is a small, self-contained nuclear reactor that can both generate electricity and produce heat. A microreactor would be constructed at a factory and then transported for installation at the site where it would be used. Typically, the device would only require refueling about every 10 years - in some cases, rather than being refueled on site, the device itself would be replace by the manufacturer by a new fully-fueled device, rather like replacing a battery.
Current state statutes and associated regulations are designed to deal with massive, traditional nuclear power stations. The idea behind the proposed legislation is to make the laws and regulations more appropriate for microreactors, thus making the use of this new technology more feasible. Essentially, the proposed changes to statutes would enable local decision making on the placement of microreactors by removing a requirement to situate microreactors on land designated by the Legislature. In the case of microreactors, state agencies would not have to conduct studies into changes in laws and regulations needed for the installation of nuclear power plants. And a microreactor would be defined as a nuclear power plant with a maximum output of 50 megawatts.
A clean source of energy? Proponents of the potential use of microreactors in Alaska argue that the devices could become a clean source of energy, with zero carbon emissions, potentially used in combination with renewable energy sources. During a Feb. 23 meeting of the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee Gwen Holdman, director of the Alaska Center for Energy and Power at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, suggested that micronuclear power could be used on the Railbelt, as an alternative to battery energy storage, for regulating variable renewable energy resources, in conjunction with a proposed renewable portfolio standard for the Railbelt.
During a March 11 meeting of the House Resources Committee Holdman commented that the power output from microreactors could be appropriate to the power needs of hub communities at several locations around the state, including Anchorage, Fairbanks, Bethel, Nome, Kotzebue, Dillingham, Naknek and Tok. However, microreactors are unlikely to prove economically viable in small, isolated rural communities. In addition to becoming a source of electrical power, the devices could provide heat for heating buildings, or for industrial processes. Figuring out the exact economics of this remains a work in progress.
Eielson Air Force Base Currently the U.S. Air Force plans to install a microreactor with a power rating of about 5 megawatts at Eielson Air Force Base, near Fairbanks, to supply some of the electricity and heat for the base. Installation of the system is anticipated to start in 2025, with commercial operation beginning in 2027, Holdman said.
Research into microreactors is focused on the Idaho National Lab’s National Reactor Innovation Center - ACEP is working with the Idaho National Lab and other parties to develop a roadmap for the potential use of microreactors in Alaska, Holdman said. ACEP has been studying the microreactor concept for several years.
Jess Gehin, associate laboratory director, Idaho National Laboratory, told the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee that Copper Valley Electric Association is working with a microreactor developer on a feasibility study for microreactor use.
Still under development Microreactor technology is still under development, with several companies working on various microreactor models. During the March 11 House Resources meeting, Christina Carpenter, director of the Division of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation, said that the expected timeframe for proven microreactors to enter the commercial marketplace is five to seven years. Carpenter commented that, while a conventional nuclear power station requires a surrounding 50-mile emergency planning zone, the emergency planning zone for a microreactor ends at the facility’s door - hence the possibility of local decision making for microreactor siting.
Holdman told House Resources that, regardless of the proposed legislation, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission would regulate the manufacture of microreactor power plants, and that any project involving the installation of a microreactor would require an NRC license.
“They have a very robust licensing process, both on the technology side and for site licensing,” Holdman said.
Part of the NRC’s role would be to ensure that microreactors meet required safety standards. Moreover, a microreactor installation would need the appropriate state permits, with DEC as the lead state agency, she said.
Holdman said that two features of microreactor designs would make the devices very safe. Firstly, the nuclear fuel comes in the form of small pellets, with the uranium used for the nuclear fission encased in layers of materials designed to withstand temperatures and pressures higher than those reached in the nuclear reactions. Secondly, the reactors have passive cooling systems that, in the event of a system malfunction, would cool the nuclear fuel without the need for operational intervention or a backup power supply.
Public comments In testimony to House Resources, Alaska Power Association, the Alaska trade association for electric utilities, expressed its support for the proposed legislation. Microreactors “are a viable source of power that have the potential to lower the cost of energy for Alaskans, decrease dependency on diesel, better position our state for economic development opportunities, and raise Alaska’s profile as a hub of energy innovation and energy independence,” wrote Crystal Enkvist, APA executive director.
However, some public comments on the bills expressed concerns about the safety of nuclear power, and the potential for nuclear contamination. Alaska Community Actions on Toxins argued that, rather than being clean energy, nuclear power is destructive throughout its life cycle, from uranium mining, predominantly on indigenous lands, through the enrichment process, to the problem of the disposal of radioactive waste.
And some people worry about the safety of operating a nuclear facility in Alaska, especially given the high frequency of earthquakes in the state. Another issue raised was the potential for a terrorist attack on a nuclear plant at a remote location.
Addressing concerns During the House Resources Committee meeting Dr. Ashley Finan, director of the Idaho National Laboratory, addressed some of these concerns. The NRC regulation ensures that a nuclear facility has a high level of safety, combined with an emergency planning zone that represents the maximum area that might be impacted by an accident, Finan said. And nuclear power plants do not explode, she said. Despite some high profile nuclear power station accidents over the years, the record of minimal contamination from nuclear energy has been very positive - most nuclear contamination originates from a time of nuclear weapon production. And reactor technology is being developed to be compatible with seismic activity, Finan said.
Waste from nuclear power plants is managed very closely. And, although the United States does not currently have a nuclear waste disposal site, the Department of Energy is seeking a site using a consent based process that has worked successfully in Finland and Sweden, Finan said. She said that she does not think that anyone is proposing a nuclear waste site in Alaska.
Click here to subscribe to Petroleum News for as low as $89 per year.
|
