Clean Skies News – Discussion of Senate Committee Hearing on Small, Modular Reactors
Yesterday the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee held a hearing on the potential for small, modular nuclear power plants that I really wanted to attend, but could not due to schedule conflicts. A loyal reader, however, sent me a link to a video summary of the hearing produced by Dan Goldstein and Tyler Suiter of Clean Skies News that provided some useful insights and reactions to the discussion. The report makes a point of discussing the bipartisan support for the initiative and also describes the logic behind Alaska’s strong interest in the technology. That state has a large number of widely dispersed towns and villages that are not connected to any grid where the current source of electricity can cost as much as 60 cents per kilowatt hour.
The fact that electricity can cost as much as 60 cents per kilowatt hour in an Alaskan village might surprise people who know that Alaska is a state that is rich in natural resources. The difficulty is that diesel generators do not burn crude oil; they burn distillate fuel. The oil that gets extracted in Alaska is transported to the lower forty eight for refining and then expensively transported back to Alaska as refined diesel fuel. The distribution leg – the last hundred or last thousand miles – of the journey can be significantly restricted by weather and a lack of good roads. That round trip can multiply the cost of the fuel by many times its original extraction; it leads to some very expensive electricity.
One comment about Dan’s explanation – the idea that small reactors can operate for decades without new fuel is not new. Our newest submarines are designed with lifetime fuel supplies that never need to be replaced. That model turns fuel into a purely capital cost rather than being considered a consumable. Under federal budget rules, that is actually quite a disadvantage because some government financial types like the idea of paying for something gradually rather than having to come up with all of the money up front.
Fortunately, there are models in the non-federal government world that allow for bonds or some other kind of long term financing for capital projects, with the money borrowed up front and paid back over time. I would bet that most of you who know just how much money our federal government has borrowed did not realize that its borrowing is never focused on any particular project whose finances can be isolated to show how the revenue or savings generated can pay back the loan.
(Note: there may be some exceptions to that financial model, please help me learn more by providing examples in the comment section if you know some of the details.)
Additional reading
“I would bet that most of you who know just how much money our federal government has borrowed did not realize that its borrowing is never focused on any particular project whose finances can be isolated to show how the revenue or savings generated can pay back the loan.”
The Obama Admin and the liberal Dems – trillions of dollars in debt to the Red Chinese.
Puts Bush’s billions into perspective, doesn’t it?
BTW, Bush was pro-nuke and Obama is anti-nuke. Don’t care what kind of obfuscation or confusion you offer. That’s the way it is and everyone of us who actually WORKS in commercial nuke power knows it. Not like a Navy sub sailor who hasn’t spent day 1 getting his hands dirty in a real commercial reactor instead of a trash can reactor.
BTW, the reason why subs and carriers last 20+ without refueling is because they are weapons grade enriched and because they hardly ever operate above 30% power. Commercial nukes operate at 99.99% power everytime they come up to the grid. But a navy nuke sailor “engineer” wouldn’t necessarily know that.
Did you see this? http://www.nei.org/newsandevents/newsreleases/publicprivate-partnership-for-small-reactors-will-promote-clean-energy-job-creation/
“Large nuclear energy facilities will provide the bulk of additional electricity in the near future, but small, modular reactors will act as a complement to these large-scale projects and expand the applications for carbon-free nuclear energy,” Pietrangelo said.”
I worked with Tony Pietrangelo years ago and if he could manage to get some of these complex nuclear engineering concepts through my thick skull, even a Senator ought to be able to learn something.
@Anon…once again, the whole issue here is that I vote a Democratic ticket because of issues that come far closer to the heart than nuclear power. I trust that the overwhelming advantage of the technology, the engineering, the network effects, and the economics will eventually solve – or at least will overwhelm – the “human factors issues” that we suffer with certain politicians, some of whom may be Democrats.
That doesn’t mean that I’m not swayable about certain things: for instance, I wouldn’t vote for Markey, were he my CongressCritter, just because of his rabid fanaticism in opposition to nuclear power. That much is certain. That also means I’ll work within my political corner to educate and encourage Democrats and liberals to recognize the virtues of nuclear energy.
The Democratic Party is by far the best match for me, as I support public support for and development of science, technology, and engineering, including in energy and general sciences; a social safety net and social benefits like social security and universal health care; an economy that properly balances the proper needs of business and the proper needs of workers, including reforming our tax system to end tax havens for tax cheats, while decreasing the tax burden on families and small business, while increasing it bad actors in the economy, like tax evaders, the idle rich, and bankster bailees (GoldmanHacks), as well as the profits of bailout recipients; a foreign policy that stays out of wars in which we have no interest, while maintaining a strong and respectful American voice for greater human security and democracy, and maintaining a strong military deterrent against the threats of the 21st century, while always putting our veterans first; an “America first” trade policy that focuses on eliminating trade deficits and American dependencies on foreign nations, including tariffs, if necessary; a withdrawal of government from entanglement in matters of private conscience, religion, and non-universal morality, while encouraging moral community and respect and decency towards one another; and volunteerism, engagement, community service, pride in our history, civics education, civic engagement, and civic virtue within and throughout America.
This being the case, I strongly support nuclear power, and I believe the overall agenda of Democrats and Republicans alike is aided and brought closer to completion – in the sense that the Republic gains as a whole – when we fully utilize our national abilities, agilities, competencies, and skills in the development and advancement of nuclear power as an American industry and as a national resource, for it is something that we are uniquely skilled in as a nation.
@Anon – as far as your comment about the nuclear industry being wall-to-wall Republicans, I hope that being a registered Republican isn’t an employment qualification…lol.
As far as those “trash-can reactors”, they’ve worked pretty well, don’t you think? Millions of miles around the world – no accidents with hundreds of ships and boats throughout 55+ years of service. Attention to duty, performance, design, discipline, ethics, and engineering works marvels, I’d say.
@Anon – It is a little sad that you feel the need to make poorly supported ad hominem attacks against the Blog host. You have to overlook allot of dedication, strength, and excellence to rip the pride of the record of Navy Nukes and the program inspired by Admiral Rickover and the continuing tradition of excellence of nuclear sailors. All US commercial nuclear power technology has directly evolved from Navy technology.
Rod: the video of the hearing is available at
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.LiveStream&Hearing_id=13aa26de-92f1-f718-a2c3-ef684bdf4da4 (Coverage starts at 19 mins)
List of witnesses at: http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=13aa26de-92f1-f718-a2c3-ef684bdf4da4