Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
03/18/2022 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB304 | |
| HB299 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 304 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 299 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 18, 2022
1:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Josiah Patkotak, Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins, Vice Chair
Representative Zack Fields
Representative Calvin Schrage
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Ronald Gillham
Representative Tom McKay
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 304
"An Act modifying the boundary of Chugach State Park; directing
the sale of land to the Eagle River Lions Club; and providing
for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 304 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 299
"An Act relating to microreactors."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 304
SHORT TITLE: CHUGACH STATE PARK/EAGLE RIVER LIONS CLUB
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MERRICK
02/04/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/04/22 (H) RES
03/16/22 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/16/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/16/22 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/18/22 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 299
SHORT TITLE: MICROREACTORS
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
02/04/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/04/22 (H) ENE, RES
02/08/22 (H) ENE AT 10:15 AM ADAMS 519
02/08/22 (H) Heard & Held
02/08/22 (H) MINUTE(ENE)
02/10/22 (H) ENE AT 10:15 AM ADAMS 519
02/10/22 (H) Heard & Held
02/10/22 (H) MINUTE(ENE)
02/15/22 (H) ENE AT 10:15 AM ADAMS 519
02/15/22 (H) Heard & Held
02/15/22 (H) MINUTE(ENE)
03/01/22 (H) ENE AT 10:15 AM ADAMS 519
03/01/22 (H) Moved HB 299 Out of Committee
03/01/22 (H) MINUTE(ENE)
03/02/22 (H) ENE RPT 4DP 2NR
03/02/22 (H) DP: KAUFMAN, TUCK, RAUSCHER, SCHRAGE
03/02/22 (H) NR: ZULKOSKY, CLAMAN
03/11/22 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/11/22 (H) Heard & Held
03/11/22 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/14/22 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/14/22 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/18/22 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JAYME JONES, Staff
Representative Kelly Merrick
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 304, answered a
question on behalf of Representative Merrick, prime sponsor of
the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY MERRICK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 304, provided
final comments as prime sponsor of the bill.
MARCUS NICHOL, Senior Director
New Reactors
Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 299, provided a
PowerPoint titled Microreactors Rural Use Considerations.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:15:54 PM
CHAIR JOSIAH PATKOTAK called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:15 p.m. Representatives McKay,
Fields, Cronk, Hopkins, Schrage, Rauscher, Gillham, and Patkotak
were present at the call to order. Representatives Hannan
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 304-CHUGACH STATE PARK/EAGLE RIVER LIONS CLUB
1:16:36 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 304, "An Act modifying the boundary of Chugach
State Park; directing the sale of land to the Eagle River Lions
Club; and providing for an effective date."
1:16:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM offered his understanding that should the
Eagle River Lions Club give up Lions Club Park it would revert
to Chugach State Park. He asked where this is stated in the
bill.
1:17:20 PM
JAYME JONES, Staff, Representative Kelly Merrick, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Merrick, prime sponsor
of HB 304, replied that it is stated in the memorandum of
understanding (MOU) between the Eagle River Lions Club and the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
1:17:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY MERRICK, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HB 304, thanked the committee for hearing the bill.
She said the people of Eagle River as well as all Alaskans will
be excited to see this happen.
1:18:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to report HB 304 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying [zero]
fiscal note. There being no objection, HB 304 was moved out of
the House Resources Standing Committee.
1:18:34 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:18 p.m. to 1:21 p.m.
HB 299-MICROREACTORS
1:21:13 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 299, "An Act relating to microreactors."
1:21:35 PM
MARCUS NICHOL, Senior Director, New Reactors, Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI), provided a PowerPoint presentation titled
Microreactors Rural Use Considerations. He said NEI is a
trade association whose members include utilities that own
nuclear power plants and technology companies that develop these
microreactors.
MR. NICHOL said he will be discussing microreactors for rural
use cases. He pointed out that the microreactor technology is
designed upfront to replace diesel generators like those used in
rural areas. He displayed slide 2, "Micro Reactor Technology,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided with some
formatting changes]:
square4 Very small size
Site as small as 0.1 acres, building ~size of a
house
Reactor is road shippable, minimal site work
square4 Resilience withstand, mitigate or quickly recover
from
Extreme natural events
Man-made physical and cyber threats
square4 Operations
Automatic operations, island mode and black-start
Flexible hybrid energy and renewables
integration
Other Designs (not all inclusive)
? BWXT
? General Atomics
? HolosGen
? Hydromine
? NuGen
? NuScale
? X-energy
MR. NICHOL explained that the very small size of microreactors
is what makes them suitable for replacing diesel generators.
They must be the right size power output but take up a very
small footprint to be able to fit into areas where diesel
generators are located. They must be resilient whether alone or
paired with renewables and energy storage systems. In
operations they must perform like a diesel generator with
automatic operations and flexible to match the demand and
integrate with other sources.
1:24:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN noted that Alaskas remote, generator-
dependent locations are not road connected. She asked whether
microreactors have been shipped into locations using large
aircraft or large water vessels.
MR. NICHOL replied that "road shippable" means the units are of
a size and weight that can fit on the back of a semi-trailer or
be shipped by barge. The Department of Defense (DoD) is working
on demonstrating that microreactors can be shipped by aircraft,
such as a C-40, so probably not the type of airfields that are
in rural areas. If a diesel generator can be brought into a
location, then a microreactor can be brought in because its size
and weight are similar.
1:26:02 PM
MR. NICHOL moved to slide 3, "Market Opportunities." He related
that the two types of market opportunities for microreactors are
stationary and mobile. Mobile means that they can be used for
rapid response and set up very quickly. Mobility is more of an
interest to DoD which needs to stand them up within three days
and remove them from site within seven days, which is the
definition of mobility. Stationary microreactors are what are
being considered in Alaska for remote villages, mining, defense
installations, and microgrids in urban areas. Stationary means
the microreactor is intended to remain there for the entirety of
its life. Some microreactors will be refueled every 10 years
and some will be refueled every 20 years. When refueling, the
building would be reusable; replacing one reactor vessel and
fuel with another is almost like batteries one is pulled out
and another is put in.
MR. NICHOL displayed slide 4, "Topics," and stated he will be
discussing four topics: costs and workforce, safety and
security, used fuel and decommissioning, and deployment plans
and policies.
MR. NICHOL skipped slide 5 and reviewed slide 6, "Cost
Comparison," which included a graphic and which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Full cost of micro-reactor vs only diesel fuel cost
? Diesel generator costs
Primarily fuel costs
Fuel from $2.86/gallon to $4.89/gallon
? Micro-reactor costs
Include used fuel disposal and decommissioning
10 year fuel life
40 year plant life
95% capacity factor
MR. NICHOL drew attention to the graphic depicting a comparison
of electricity generation cost in dollars per kilowatt hour
between microreactors and diesel generators. He specified that
the cost depicted for diesel generators is primarily the fuel
cost; a cost range was used of $2.86/gallon to $4.89/gallon,
which includes the transportation surcharge . Because the focus
is on fuel to see if microreactors are competitive, the graphic
does not incorporate the capital cost nor the operation and
maintenance (O&M) cost. The cost depicted for microreactors
includes all the costs: used fuel, decommissioning cost, capital
cost, operating cost, fuel cost. The assumptions used for
microreactors include that the microreactor would be refueled
once every 10 years, a 40-year plant life, and operation at a
high-capacity factor. Mr. Nichol noted that if the microreactor
needed to be flexible, then it would not produce 95 percent of
the time. He further noted that the impact is a minimal
increase when going down to 50-60 percent capacity factor.
1:30:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired about the existence of commercial
operators that handle the spent fuel. Given that the locations
in Alaska would be remote, she further asked whether there would
be secured storage and transport of the spent fuel to a disposal
location, where those are located, and whether the rate charged
would be dependent on the market demand or included in the
purchase price of a 40-year reactor.
MR. NICHOL responded that microreactors use a different model
for addressing used fuel than current reactors. Until a final
disposal repository is available, most of the microreactor
companies he has talked to are planning to take back the used
fuel. They would take it to a refurbishment facility because
the reactor vessel can be re-used. The used fuel would be
removed and stored on site at the refurbishment facility; it
would not stay in the microreactor location. Used fuel
management costs are very small compared to the other costs of a
microreactor and the used fuel management costs would be
included in this analysis.
1:32:18 PM
MR. NICHOL addressed the graph on slide 7, "Micro-Reactor Cost
Competitiveness," subtitled, "Cost of generation is lower than
cost to consumer." He explained that the graph shows the range
of microreactor costs that were assumed for remote Arctic
communities, remote defense installations, island communities
and remote mining, the Alaska Railbelt, and the U.S. grid. The
range includes higher, moderate, and lower costs, with the
middle [moderate] cost being the best estimate and the lower
cost being the most optimistic. Each of the ranges assumed a
different amount of cost reduction as [the number of
microreactors continued to be deployed]. The costs of energy
generation in each of the five depicted markets do not include
the transmission overhead and are primarily the fuel cost. The
biggest takeaway is that even the first microreactor at the
highest expected cost is cost competitive in some of the remote
Arctic communities. At the most optimistic costs microreactors
are competitive in almost all the markets, including the Alaska
Railbelt. As reduction of costs continues, microreactors become
more and more competitive in those markets.
MR. NICHOL noted that nuclear is a high capital cost technology
with very low fuel and operating cost. He reviewed slide 8,
"Financing Microreactors," which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Capital Costs of 5 MWe [megawatt electrical] plant =
$50M to $100M*
square4 Conventional business model
Local utility finances capital costs
Financing typically by debt at low rates,
amortized
square4 New business models
Developer owns and operates plant, uses a Power
Purchase Agreement
Local utility does not finance capital costs,
only pays for power
square4 Similarities and differences
In both: customers only pay as levelized cost of
capital
New business model: developer bears bulk of
financial risk of project
MR. NICHOL said this new business model with microreactors is
unique in that some of the developers are offering to bear the
bulk of the financial risk of the project. This insulates the
utility from risk since it is not financing the capital project.
MR. NICHOL addressed slide 9, "Micro-Reactor Workforce," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided with some
formatting changes]:
Target <10 employees to power rural areas
Technology enablers
Safety and simplicity in design
Automatic operations
Remote operations
Security by design
NRC [Nuclear Regulatory Commission] considering for
microreactors
Minimal worker training and qualifications
Operators allowed additional duties (e.g.,
maintenance, administrative)
No operator needed on site
No armed security guards needed
square4 Hub areas: population sizes that can supply workers
Direct use of electricity and heat with existing
grid and district heating
square4 Spoke areas: population sizes that cannot supply
workers
Electric transmission from hub region (if close
by); OR
Use hydrogen or ammonia from hub region (low-cost
due to economics of microreactors and short
transport distances)
MR. NICHOL noted that a nuclear power plant of today has many
more [than 10 workers] and has workers on site 24 hours a day.
He said it is likely that the first microreactors will have
workers on site 24 hours a day with four or five shifts of two
to three workers. Getting to these smaller workforce numbers is
through technology enablers and the NRC, the regulator, will
need to sign off on those. The safety and simplicity in design
comes from using natural physics in the operations. The
operations are automatic - gravity, natural circulation, and
things of nature are built into the design to keep it in a safe
condition should anything go wrong. This means human actions
dont have to be relied upon to maintain safety, although there
will always be a person watching it. This also reduces the
training and qualification requirements for workers to high
school level, unlike the nuclear power plants of today which
require some workers to have college degrees. The automatic
operations allow for operators to have additional duties because
they dont have to be at the controls all the time. If approved
by the NRC, remote operations will be possible with someone
operating the microreactor from a central facility far away
rather than having an operator on site. Someone in a central
facility could operate many microreactors spread across the U.S.
The security by design means no reliance on dedicated armed
responders to protect the plant, or at least not as many. All
of this means that locations can be a hub area which has a
population size that can supply workers, or a spoke area which
does not have a population size that can supply workers. A town
with a population size of 1,000 people could easily supply 10
workers for a microreactor.
1:42:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked how microreactors produce hydrogen
and ammonia, and what the distribution of this energy looks like
to a spoke area.
MR. NICHOL answered that hydrogen is burned in a hydrogen burner
as an alternative to diesel fuel and electricity or heat is
produced from burning. Hydrogen can be made by electrolysis -
electricity is sent through water which makes the hydrogen and
oxygen separate and the hydrogen is then captured. Hydrogen can
also be made by heat-assisted electrolysis - the water is boiled
and not as much electricity is needed to separate the hydrogen
and oxygen. The captured hydrogen is then compressed into very
small volumes for transportation in the same manner that any
other goods would be transported.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether the microreactor is the
source of the hydrogen.
MR. NICHOL replied that it is a secondary process. The
microreactor provides the power and then the power is used in a
separate process for the hydrogen, so the hydrogen generation
piece would have to be built. Hydrogen can be made with a
diesel generator, renewables, or natural gas.
1:45:05 PM
MR. NICHOL skipped slide 10 and discussed slide 11, "Micro-
Reactor Safety," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided with some formatting changes]:
Building upon a strong safety record
square4 Operating fleet: one of the safest industrial
working environments
Strong-Independent Regulator, Built tough,
Operational Performance
square4 Enhancing safety for advanced reactors*
Safety profile fundamentally differ from other
power reactors
Inherent Safety Features
? Robust hardened structures
? Rely on physics
Natural circulation
Gravity
? Fail-safe, shuts itself off
Operational simplicity: very few instruments and
controls
Reduce Risks
Much smaller radionuclide inventory
Minimize potential for accidents
Mitigate consequences
Proliferation resistant fuel and enrichments below
20% U-235
Emergency Response
No credible event that could result in unacceptable
off-site doses
? Maintain safety without the need for
Power
Additional coolant
Human actions
? Emergency planning
MR. NICHOL stated that existing operating nuclear reactors have
one of the lowest rates of working environment injuries and
deaths. The zero radiological incidents in the U.S. are because
the NRC has the highest standards in the world. The safety of
microreactors is different than existing reactors because the
designs are so different, especially the size. Regarding
inherent safety features, Mr. Nichol pointed out the reliance on
physics. Regarding reduced risks, he said micronuclear reactors
are generally 1-10 megawatts in size whereas current reactors
are 1,000 or more megawatts, meaning a microreactor has one one-
thousandth of radioactive material than a current reactor. A
benefit of this is that much less decayed heat is generated
after shutdown; it is called decayed heat because as the
material decays it produces radiation and heat. Regarding
emergency response, he specified that safety can be maintained
for a very long time or indefinitely without the need for power,
additional coolant, or human actions, the three things needed
but not had in Fukushima.
1:51:27 PM
MR. NICHOL presented slide 12, "U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Regulatory Reviews are Rigorous
1
square4 Information Reviewed
Applications are thousands of pages (NuScale was
12,000 pages)
NRC reviews and audits supporting information
(NuScale was 2 million pages)
1
Schedule for typical design review is 3 to 4
years
Fees for typical design review are $45M to $68M
(~ 200,000 person-hours)
square4 Coordination with Other Agencies
DHS [Department of Homeland Security] and other
agencies involved in defining the design basis
threat
FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency]
2
involved in Emergency Planning
square4 Public Involvement
Public can file contentions on the application
Hearing opportunities before licenses are granted
1)
These are historical for grid-scale reactors,
microreactors are expected to be less due to enhanced
safety and simplicity
2)
NRC rulemaking is considering whether FEMA would be
involved in review when the EPZ [emergency planning
zone] does not extend beyond the site boundary
MR. NICHOL explained that the NRC must review and approve all
these designs and must approve those designs to be used at a
specific site. After that, the NRC continues to provide
oversight and inspection. Regarding the review, he said the NRC
looks at the design and its capabilities, the site, the sites
features such as earthquakes or flooding, and does an
environmental review. He qualified that slide 12 relates to a
large reactor, so a microreactor is likely to be less than what
is depicted on the slide. Mr. Nichol said NEI thinks there are
opportunities for efficiency in these robust reviews and is
working with the NRC in this regard. It is expected that the
review for microreactors will be less than what is outlined on
slide 12. Regarding coordination with other agencies, he stated
that the design basis threat is the characteristics of the bad
guys that might attack a nuclear power plant or try to steal
material. He further noted that state agencies will be involved
with the proposed projects.
1:55:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired about the expected design review
fees for microreactors, given the fee for current reactors is
[$45-$68 million].
MR. NICHOL responded that it is unknown right now, but less than
half of that seems reasonable. He pointed out that once the NRC
approves the design, every time the NRC reviews the same design
at a new site it will be a lot less cost, so this overhead
cost will subsequently be made up for in volume.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired about a ballpark figure on what
the cost might be to bring a microreactor from design, through
the NRC process and permitting, and to deployment. Excluding
remote mines, she speculated that few communities in Alaska
would be able to amortize over 50 years a project that is in the
$100 million range.
MR. NICHOL answered that the NRC licensing fees were included in
the capital cost projections that he provided earlier in the
presentation. He said his best guess is that microreactors
could get down to a two-year review and $10 million. While that
might not be the case for the first microreactor, once the NRC
approves that design, called design certification, the NRC does
not have to review the design over and over, and would then just
look at the site characteristics. So, each site license
application could be far less, plus the NRC is working on
streamlining the processes.
1:58:52 PM
MR. NICHOL continued to slide 13, "U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
What NRC Approval Means
square4 Safety
Risks from nuclear plant to public are much lower
than other societal risks (less than 0.1%)
1
Dose to public is less than 100 mrem/yr[milli
roentgen equivalent man]
square4 Security
Protected against radiological sabotage
Protected against theft and diversion
square4 Emergency Planning
Worst case dose at Emergency Planning Zone
expected to be less than 1 rem
Microreactors expected to have EPZ at site
boundary
square4 Environmental
Plant and site meet all NEPA [National
Environmental Policy Act] and other Environmental
Laws (e.g., Water, Air)
1)
Average dose from food and water (e.g., banana,
beans, meat, carrots) is 30 mrem per year; from living
near a nuclear plant is less than 1 mrem
MR. NICHOL said NRC approval means that the safety, security,
emergency planning, and environmental standards have been met or
exceeded. He noted that other societal risks are things like
cancer, car accidents, falling, or drowning. Regarding the
chart on slide 13, he explained that millirem is the measurement
unit for radiation dose to the body. Regarding security,
including security during transportation of the material, he
stated that the NRC looks at things like the [terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001], current terrorism capabilities, and
other things. Regarding emergency planning, he specified that
the site size and EPZ for a microreactor is about 1/4th an acre.
2:05:40 PM
MR. NICHOL displayed slide 14, Used Fuel and Decommissioning.
He then reviewed slide 15, "Addressing Waste," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
All Energy Sources Have Waste, and All Must Do Three
Things to Address it
square4 Must be able to manage it safely
Used fuel is solid, compact and there is proven
technology to store it safely
Over 1,300 used fuel shipments safely completed
in U.S.
square4 Must be able to pay for it
U.S. law requires nuclear plants to fund used
fuel management and decommissioning activities
Over $40 billion in Nuclear Waste Fund
square4 Must have a place to put it
Department of Energy required dispose of used
fuel
Most micro-reactor companies will take back used
fuel soon after refueling
MR. NICHOL said the nuclear industry calls waste used fuel
rather than nuclear waste because 95 percent of the potential
energy is still in it, so it could be re-used in the future.
Used fuel emits radiation and is radioactive material, so the
technology to address that includes steel canisters or concrete
for storage and safe transportation. Regarding a place to put
nuclear waste, he related that Yucca Mountain was designated by
law as the location. Yucca Mountain has been studied and found
technically suitable for used fuel disposal, which has been
confirmed by the NRC. There is discussion about whether Yucca
Mountain should still be the location or whether a different
location should be chosen using a consent-based process, which
means the community has decided it wants to be a location for
used fuel. This discussion about location is why used fuel is
still at reactor sites.
2:09:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK asked where the spent fuel is stored.
MR. NICHOL replied that currently all used fuel is stored at the
nuclear reactor where it was produced, which includes several
places that have been shut down and decommissioned. Work is
being done to develop a consolidated interim storage (CIS)
facility, a central location to which the used fuel could be
sent and stored, but it is not underway yet. There are some
communities in New Mexico and Texas that are supporting of
having a CIS facility.
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK asked how much fuel is in a spent micro-
reactor.
MR. NICHOL responded that the fuel doesnt change in its
physical characteristics, it is the same size and shape because
it is solid, but there are changes in the atoms inside. So, it
would be the same size as the reactor that it came in, which
would fit on the back of a truck or other conveyance that was
used to get it there. The fuel could be taken out and probably
put into a smaller container because the reactor is built with
other features in it, but most of the microreactor companies are
planning to do that back in a refurbishing center.
2:12:30 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK asked whether it is correct that the fuel cell
itself is wrapped in a bigger ceramic [vessel] that is about the
size of a big kitchen trash can.
MR. NICHOL confirmed that the size of a kitchen trash can is a
fair assessment.
2:13:10 PM
MR. NICHOL discussed slide 16, "Final Disposal," which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
square4 Nations making progress on spent nuclear fuel
disposal
Finland repository licensed and under
construction
Sweden repository approved for constructing
France site identified, in public consultation
toward pilot phase
Canada List of 22 candidate sites narrowed down
to 2, geologic investigations under way
Switzerland geologic investigations supporting
siting process under way
U.S. Yucca Mountain designated by law,
alternatives being considered
square4 Consolidated Interim Storage
France, Sweden, and Switzerland all have deployed
CIS
U.S. companies pursuing CIS solutions
MR. NICHOL noted that nations are moving forward, and many are
moving forward with consent-based siting processes, meaning that
the communities being considered want to be selected. There are
communities that would like to have a disposal facility, he
stated, because it will be operated safely and has benefits.
2:14:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK submitted it would be safe to say that most
Alaskans would not want the [used] fuel stored in Alaska.
MR. NICHOL replied that having a microreactor in Alaska does not
mean there would be a repository in the state or that Alaska
would even be considered for a repository. A community would
have to stand up and say it wants a repository, as would the
state; without that the state would not be considered.
2:15:36 PM
MR. NICHOL reviewed slide 17, "Optimizing the value of nuclear
feedstock," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
square4 Future reactors may economically recycle used
nuclear fuel to extract even more energy from
uranium already mined
? Initial new reactor startups will be on new fuel
? Between 6 and 9 advanced reactor suppliers may be
able to power their machines with used fuel
? Most envisioned recycling strategies would not
separate out pure plutonium
MR. NICHOL reiterated that most of what remains in the used fuel
still has potential energy value. Fuel is not recycled today
largely because it is cheaper to mine new uranium than it is to
recycle used fuel. Somewhere in the future it will be cheaper
to recycle than it is to get new uranium, although some advanced
reactor companies are pursuing recycling now.
MR. NICHOL displayed slide 18 and said he will next discuss
Deployment Plans and Policies section of his presentation. He
moved to slide 19, "Government Deployment Support," which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
square4 Valuing all carbon-free sources of energy
square4 Federal Programs
Demonstrations
Tax Credits (e.g., Production)
Loan Guarantees
Federal Power Purchase Agreements
square4 State Programs
Tax incentives (e.g., property)
Advanced cost recovery
Infrastructure
MR. NICHOL pointed out the many policies for federal and state
government support for getting advanced nuclear reactors into
the market. Regarding state programs, he said some are looking
at study bills and some are repealing moratoriums like what this
committee is considering [in HB 299], which would repeal the
requirement for legislative approval.
2:18:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired about the size of a chunk of
uranium that would be needed for a 2025-megawatt reactor, a
reactor representing a happy medium for todays discussion.
MR. NICHOL responded that he would get back to the committee
with an answer, but said it is a small amount.
2:19:35 PM
MR. NICHOL addressed slide 20, "Advanced Nuclear Deployment
Plans," which displayed a map highlighting the states that have
passed state policies to support advanced reactors [Washington,
Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Indiana, Kentucky,
West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina]. He said 20
advanced nuclear projects in the U.S. and Canada, including
microreactors, are being looked at and have been discussed in
the public domain [depicted by black dots].
MR. NICHOL proceeded to slide 21, "Micro-Reactor Deployment
Projects," which listed the 11 microreactor projects planned by
various developers and that were included on the map on slide 20
and have been discussed in public. He said Oklo is looking at
deploying a 1.5 megawatt (MW) microreactor at the Idaho National
Laboratory with a target on-line date of [2025]. Also, Oklo has
an agreement with Compass Mining for providing up to 150 MW in
yet to be determined locations and target on-line dates. Ultra
Safe Nuclear has projects in Canada [5 MW, target on-line date
2025], in Illinois [5 MW, target on-line target date 2027], and
in Alaska with Copper Valley Electric Association (CVEA) [target
on-line date yet to be determined]. He noted that Canada is
interested in microreactors in rural areas for largely the same
reason Alaska is interested to replace diesel generators in
remote locations that are difficult to get to except for a
couple times a year. Westinghouse is doing work in the U.S. [5
MW, target on-line date 2027] and Canada [5 MW, target on-line
date 2027]. Radiant has plans in Idaho [1.2 MW, target on-line
date 2026]. The U.S. Air Force has interest in a microreactor
at Eielson Air Force Base (AFB) [1-10 MW, target on-line date
2027]. The Department of Defense is working on a mobile version
of microreactor [1.5 MW, target on-line date 2025], and more
information is expected soon on DoDs technology selection.
2:23:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said she is surprised to see a project in
Copper Valley as her understanding was that Eielson AFB was the
only active project in Alaska. She asked which of the two is
closer to completion, decision-making, or needing approval.
MR. NICHOL replied that the Eielson AFB project is closer to
making a decision. The plan is to issue a request for proposal
soon, with the goal of selecting a vendor by the end of the
year. About a month ago CVEA issued a press release that it had
entered a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Ultra Safe
Nuclear to explore the feasibility, so it is not yet a decision
to build, only an exploratory phase.
2:25:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY offered his understanding that in a
microreactor the uranium in the cylinder creates enough heat to
make steam, which turns some type of turbine, which in turn
turns the electric generator part that provides electricity. He
asked how things are set up within the container and what is
different than a diesel generator. He asked how the power is
created from the cylinder of uranium.
MR. NICHOL drew attention to the farthest right photograph on
slide 2 showing the inside of a Radiant Kaleidos container. He
explained that the nuclear reactor core produces the fission,
the fission produces lots of heat. Several different processes
can be used to transport that heat from the source to the
generator or other method of spinning to make electricity. One
such process is heat pipes that can transfer lots of heat very
quickly to the other side, and another process uses helium to
transfer the heat. Some technologies may produce steam to drive
the turbine, some may use the heat directly, or some might use
carbon dioxide.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY pointed out that the moving parts in these
processes can break and need repair. He observed on slide 21
that the design of the Eielson microreactor has not yet been
determined. He asked which of the four brands depicted on slide
2 might be the one going to Eielson.
MR. NICHOL replied that it is unknown which one will go to
Eielson as no selection has yet been made. A request for
proposal is expected to be issued soon, he said, and if things
go well the design may be chosen by years end.
2:30:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK inquired about the amount of excess heat
that would be produced and available to use in addition to
producing electricity.
MR. NICHOL responded that it depends on the heat process that is
used. In a very high temperature intensive heat process like
metal reforming or chemical processing, most of the heat may be
needed for that so there couldnt be heat and electricity
exactly at the same time. In a low heat requirement process
like district heating, electricity could be produced and then
the cooler gas that is coming out and returning to the heat
source could still be at a high enough temperature to power
district heating.
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that HB 299 was held over.
2:32:36 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:32 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 299 Presentation NEI State of Micro-Reactors 3.16.2022.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 299 |
| HB 304 Letter of Support Eagle River Elks Club 3.18.2022.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 304 |
| HB 299 Testimony Received as of 3.17.2022.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 299 |
| HB 299 Letter of Support Dept. of the Air Force 3.18.2022.pdf |
HRES 3/18/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 299 |