Legislature(2009 - 2010)Anch LIO Room 670
06/05/2009 03:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview(s): Toshiba/westinghouse 4-s, 10mwe Design Unit for Production in Alaska | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
Anchorage, Alaska
June 5, 2009
3:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Craig Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton (via teleconference)
Representative Peggy Wilson (via teleconference)
Representative David Guttenberg (via teleconference)
Representative Scott Kawasaki (via teleconference)
Representative Chris Tuck
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Kurt Olson
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Wes Keller
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW(S): TOSHIBA/WESTINGHOUSE 4-S, 10MWE DESIGN UNIT FOR
ENERGY PRODUCTION IN ALASKA
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
MARVIN YODER
MY:T Solutions LLC
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an introduction to the 4S Reactor.
TONY GRENCI
Westinghouse Electric Company LLC
(no address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation about
the 4S Reactor.
KAZUO ARIE, Senior Manager
Plant Project Engineering Department
Nuclear Energy Systems & Services Division
Power Systems Company
Toshiba Corporation
Japan
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation about
the 4S Reactor.
STEVE STRAIGHT
(no address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Posed a question in regard to 4S Reactors.
ALEX GIMARC, Secretary
Board of Directors
Chugach Electric Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in support of considering nuclear
energy as a type of alternative energy.
DONALD ANDERSON, Ph.D.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in favor of nuclear power and
provided copies of various papers he has written on this topic.
MICHAEL HARPER, Deputy Director
Rural Energy
Alaska Energy Authority (AEA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions in regard AEA's
involvement in looking at nuclear power.
MEERA KOHLER, President, Chief Executive Officer
Alaska Village Electric Cooperative, Incorporated
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported continuing the interrogatory
process for nuclear power generation.
MARILYN LELAND, Executive Director
Alaska Power Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Suggested having a consortium of Alaska
utilities join together for nuclear power.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:04:21 PM
CO-CHAIR CRAIG JOHNSON called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:04 p.m. Representatives Seaton
(via teleconference), Kawasaki (via teleconference), Guttenberg
(via teleconference), and Johnson were present at the call to
order. Representatives Wilson (via teleconference), Tuck, and
Neuman arrived as the meeting was in progress. Also present
were Representatives Lynn and Keller.
^OVERVIEW(S): TOSHIBA/WESTINGHOUSE 4-S, 10MWE DESIGN UNIT FOR
PRODUCTION IN ALASKA
3:05:06 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON announced that the only order of business is
the presentation regarding the Toshiba/Westinghouse 4S, 10MWe
Design Unit for energy production in Alaska.
3:06:19 PM
MARVIN YODER, MY:T Solutions LLC, Palmer, Alaska, offered his
appreciation for [Co-Chair Johnson's] introduction of HB 191
during the 2009 legislative session and said the bill would
allow people to have another option when looking at what they
want to do for power in their local communities. Toshiba first
visited Galena, Alaska, in August 2003 to talk about this 10
megawatt [nuclear] reactor. This reactor has a 30-year life,
does not require a lot of technology on site, and would be very
competitive with other types of alternative energy. The 10
megawatt reactor is especially appropriate for rural areas and
the 50 megawatt for others.
3:09:37 PM
TONY GRENCI, Westinghouse Electric Company LLC, in response to
Representative Seaton, explained that the initial design
configuration being presented to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is 30 megawatts thermal, which relates to 10
megawatts electric output (10MWe) [slide 3].
3:11:00 PM
KAZUO ARIE, Senior Manager, Plant Project Engineering
Department, Nuclear Energy Systems & Services Division, Power
Systems Company, Toshiba Corporation, began his presentation by
stating that the main goal is to provide safe, clean, reliable,
grid-appropriate power that is applicable to small, remote areas
[slide 3]. Toshiba pays attention to high security and
proliferation risks, he continued, as well as minimizing
infrastructure, operation, and maintenance requirements. This
sodium-cooled fast reactor was co-developed with Central
Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI), a
Japanese utility research organization. Developing partners now
include Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) and Westinghouse.
MR. ARIE noted that the main features for both versions of the
4S include passive safety, long refueling intervals, low
maintenance, and high inherent security. The plant's
arrangement [slide 4] provides seismic isolation for the reactor
building and places the reactor building underground.
3:14:53 PM
MR. ARIE outlined the advantages of the 4S Reactor [slides 5-8],
the first being the long refueling interval of 10-30 years.
This contributes to the economy of the reactor, especially given
high and unpredictable diesel fuel prices. Other advantages are
the reactor's simple operations, low maintenance passive safety
systems, and pumps that have no moving parts, all of which
contribute to low maintenance requirements.
3:17:49 PM
MR GRENCI, in response to Representative Seaton, explained that
automatic burnup compensation [slide 6] occurs as the reactor's
fuel is used up over the course of the core life. The reactor
automatically compensates for burnup by moving the control
mechanisms at a very slow incremental rate to properly position
the reflector on the core, thus maintaining the reactor at 100
percent power. In further response, he said "Rx" is the
abbreviation for reactor [slide 9].
3:19:03 PM
MR. GRENCI began his presentation by describing the three heat-
exchanger loops in the 4S Reactor design [slide 10]. The first
loop, depicted with a circle around it, is the sodium cooled
reactor vessel which contains the fuel and pumps that move the
sodium in that loop. A heat exchanger, also sodium cooled,
transfers the heat to the intermediate heat transport system
[the second loop], which in turn pumps the heat to a steam
generator [the third loop]. The steam generator produces steam,
which in this configuration is used to turn the turbine and
produce electricity. There is also a version of the 4S Reactor
which does not produce electricity and only generates steam for
processed heat.
3:20:51 PM
MR. GRENCI advised that if the reactor is used to produce heat
rather than electricity, the 10MWe version is 30 megawatts
thermal and the 50MWe version is 135 megawatts thermal [slide
11]. Some of the components in the two different versions are
identical in size - for example, the reactor building and the
reactor vessel. The difference in the power output stems from
the specific design of the fuel and how hard the fuel is run.
Additionally, the heat exchanger components are sized
differently for the two different outputs and the piping
configuration is slightly different. In response to
Representative Tuck, Mr. Grenci said electromagnetic [EM] pumps
are being used to extend the life of the plant. One EM pump is
located in the intermediate loop and one is in the reactor
vessel itself.
3:22:32 PM
MR. GRENCI, in response to Co-Chair Johnson, related that
nothing used in the 4S design is brand new technology;
everything being used has some kind of experience somewhere in
the world. For example, there are pumps that have been run in
sodium test reactors in Idaho for 20 years. The various options
being used in the 4S have not necessarily been used all together
at the same time or in the same way, but they have all been used
somewhere before in many countries around the world. In further
response, he said Toshiba/Westinghouse is careful in design to
not do anything that re-invents the wheel; rather the best
features already developed somewhere in the world are applied.
3:24:23 PM
MR. GRENCI, in response to Representative Seaton, explained that
the pathways depicted going out the top of the schematic [on
slide 11] are the vent stacks for air passage. In response to
Representative Keller, Mr. Grenci said the same size reactor
vessel is used [for both the 10 and 50 megawatt versions]. The
difference in the fuel life between the two versions is because
taking out only 10 megawatts at a time makes the fuel last that
much longer than in the 50 megawatt version. The 10-year number
on the 50 megawatt version is somewhat of an approximation
because, by varying the design, that number can be tweaked to
perhaps 12 years.
3:26:42 PM
MR. GRENCI called attention to the top two lines on slide 12
which show the size of the core that is inside the reactor. He
said the core is about three feet wide and eight feet tall, so
the reactor vessel is tall and narrow. There are two fuel
enrichment ranges - 17 and 19 percent. The important point in
this regard is that the threshold for proliferation-grade fuel
accepted around the world is 20 percent, so the enrichment used
in the 4S is below that proliferation grade. In response to Co-
Chair Johnson, he explained that proliferation-grade fuel is
attractive to terrorist organizations and others. In further
response, Mr. Grenci confirmed this means the fuel is below bomb
grade. In addition to its other security factors, this makes
the 4S a very unattractive target to someone wanting fuel. He
further explained that the benefit of using sodium for heat
transfer is that it remains liquid at high temperature and low
pressure. Until now, the standard nuclear reactor used in the
U.S. has had a design pressure of up to 2500 pounds per square
inch (psi), but the design pressure for the 4S is 44 psi.
3:29:02 PM
MR. GRENCI discussed the core design depicted on slide 13. He
noted that the schematic is a view from the top of the core, the
reflector, and the 18 fuel subassemblies. He explained that the
core is surrounded by the reflector, which is composed of six
segments. Neutrons escape from the fission of the uranium and
the reflector bounces those neutrons back into the core, which
increases or stabilizes the power of the reactor. As the
uranium is gradually depleted over the core life, the reflector
is raised up from the bottom of the reactor so it overlaps more
and more of the fuel and therefore bounces more and more
neutrons back into fuel.
3:31:02 PM
MR. GRENCI, in response to Representative Kawasaki, stated that
availability of fuel is not necessarily related to the size of
the reactor. The raw material is procured on the worldwide
uranium market, then processed into the configuration and type
of fuel that is desired. Right now there is no real crunch on
the availability of uranium for fuel. Because the 4S is a small
and efficient reactor, it uses a lot less uranium and only needs
to be refueled every 10 or 30 years, while a typical reactor
requires refueling every 18 or 24 months.
3:32:33 PM
MR. GRENCI related that slide 14 is a side view of the previous
schematic. He said there are two mechanisms for shutting down
the reactor depending on whether it is a normal shutdown or a
shutdown due to problems. The shutdown rod is a redundant
shutdown system to the reflector - either the shutdown rod or
the reflector can completely and independently shut down the
reactor. Scram [slide 15] is the same thing as a shutdown, he
continued. Burnup compensation is accomplished by the reflector
as well as the fixed absorber. Located in the center of the
reactor, the fixed absorber is pulled out halfway through core
life to introduce positive reactivity to the core, which allows
performance of the burnup compensation with the reflector over
30 years.
3:35:38 PM
MR. GRENCI specified that the primary EM pumps operate without
any moving parts by using a moving magnetic field and the
natural conductivity of the liquid sodium [slide 16]. Forming a
cylinder are two EM pumps, one on top of the other, and an
intermediate heat exchanger on top of them. This cylinder is a
component that fits down into the reactor vessel and rests on
the top shelf of the reactor vessel. The EM pumps move the
sodium down around the outside of the reactor vessel. When it
reaches the bottom of the reactor vessel the sodium changes
direction and goes up through the core, picking up the heat.
Once at the top of the reactor vessel the sodium is redirected
down through the intermediate heat exchanger and the heat
exchanger sends the heat off to the intermediate sodium loop and
hence off to the steam generator to make steam. He reiterated
that these EM pumps have been in use for decades in similar
applications. A full-size EM pump for the 4S design is being
fabricated in Japan for the testing facility, he continued, and
a lot of the components that will be used in the plant are being
tested right now.
MR. GRENCI noted that the name of the 4S is Super-Safe, Small
and Simple. Part of the super-safe has to do with features like
the two independent and redundant systems that remove the decay
heat from the reactor [slide 17], he said. Even after the
reactor is shut down, there is the heat that has already been
placed in the reactor as well as heat that is still generated
for a time as the fission products run their course and the
fission winds down. There needs to be a means for removing that
heat so the reactor does not heat up and damage itself. Either
one of these two systems is capable of removing all of the
residual heat from the reactor. He explained that the reactor
vessel auxiliary cooling system takes air in from outside the
reactor, moves the air past the reactor using natural
convection, and takes the heat away by sending it out a stack.
The reactor vessel auxiliary cooling system (RVACS) works
somewhat similarly, he continued, by using an air cooler that is
in line with the piping in the intermediate sodium loop. Two
fail-safe dampers open at plant shutdown, causing air to move on
a flow path past the air cooler which sets up natural
circulation when power is lost.
3:40:22 PM
MR. GRENCI said another design feature for safety is a double
wall tube steam generator [slide 18]. Sodium and water must be
kept separate because a sodium-water reaction is very violent,
he explained. This double wall system provides a void between
the two heat transfer surfaces. Water and steam are on the
inside of the tube, sodium is on the outside of the tube, and a
helium-filled void is between them. Thus, a failure of one of
the barriers will be detected before the other barrier fails.
3:41:58 PM
MR. GRENCI next described the 4S containment building,
explaining that two steel pieces closely surround the reactor
vessel and its associated equipment [slide 19]. The bottom
piece is called the guard vessel and the upper piece is called
the top dome. The top dome is much wider than the guard vessel
because it must encompass all the drive mechanisms for the
reflector and other control rods. The guard vessel very closely
follows the outline of the reactor vessel. Thus, even if the
void between the guard vessel and the reactor vessel fills up
entirely due to a leak of the reactor vessel, the cooling will
be maintained because the sodium level cannot go down enough to
uncover the fuel in the core.
3:43:28 PM
MR. GRENCI pointed out that because this is a low power reactor,
it has low a low fission product inventory. Therefore, the
amount of radioactive materials that could potentially be
released in an accident is smaller than that of a typical large
1000 megawatt base load reactor. Also, sodium has a high
affinity for these fission products so these products tend to be
retained rather than released into the air. In addition, with a
low pressure system there is less tendency to eject the fission
products if there is a failure. Furthermore, the reactor vessel
is sealed, there is a small number of penetrations and
isolation, and there is no potential light water hazard such as
direct containment heating, steam explosion, hydrogen burning,
or missiles.
3:45:38 PM
MR. GRENCI explained that when presenting safety analysis
results to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), it must be
shown what doses will accrue to the public in a hypothetical
accident [slide 21]. When conducting the analysis, the
assumption is that the worst possible accident has occurred even
though it may not be plausible with this type of design. The
analysis determines how far away from the reactor the security
fence must be placed and how far away from the reactor that
emergency planning must be in place, such as evacuation of the
surrounding populace. The safety analysis for the 4S showed
that with a fence distance of 50 meters, the roentgen equivalent
in man (REM) for the exclusion area boundary would be 0.004 and
for the low population zone it would be 0.2 REM, both of which
are well below the acceptance dose criteria of 25 REM. Thus, he
said there should be no emergency planning requirements beyond
the fence for the 4S Reactor, which is in contrast to what would
have to be done for a large light water reactor.
3:49:27 PM
MR. GRENCI, in response to Representative Seaton, said the
dotted line depicted around the reactor [on slide 21] is
equivalent to the protective fence being 50 meters distance from
the reactor and, in the aforementioned analysis, both the
exclusion area boundary (EAB) and the low population zone were
included within this 50 meter boundary.
MR. GRENCI noted that a test facility was completed in December
2008 in Yokohama [Japan] and functional testing began in January
2009 [slide 22]. A full-size EM pump is currently being
fabricated for installation and testing in the facility. Other
testing will include verification of the leak detection systems
for the steam generator, and testing of the modeling for the
codes that are used to evaluate the flow of the sodium through
the fuel and the reactor. He said he is pointing this out to
show Toshiba's commitment to furthering its work and getting
closer to receiving certification from the NRC.
3:52:01 PM
MR. GRENCI reviewed the current licensing schedule for preparing
to build the 4S Reactor [slide 23]. To date, the Phase 1
meetings with the NRC have been completed, at which NRC was
presented with the design and safety analysis. The Phase 2
technical reports have also been submitted to the NRC for
review. The actual design will be submitted to NRC in late 2010
as part of Phase 3. He said the actual builder/owner/operator
of the 4S Reactor will then have to prepare a separate combined
operating license (COL) application and this application will
reference the design approval that will have hopefully already
been achieved. Physical construction of the plant would begin
after the COL is received at the end of 2014. He anticipated a
construction time of about two years for the 4S, which would
mean completion of the plant by the end of 2016.
MR. GRENCI concluded his presentation by stating that the 4S
Reactor is a mature technology ready for regulatory review and
commercialization [slide 24]. Preliminary systems design has
been completed and work on the detailed design is now in
progress. A large body of test data for sodium reactors has
been accumulated over the decades and the U.S. licensing process
has begun.
3:55:32 PM
MR. GRENCI, in response to Representative Wilson, explained that
the 18 fuel subassemblies are brought to the site in a cask.
They are taken out of the cask with fuel handling equipment and
placed into the core. At the end of 30 years the uranium in
those subassemblies is expended to the point where it is no
longer efficient to produce power. The reactor is then opened
up and the 18 fuel subassemblies removed, put back into a cask,
and transported to a disposal location. He added that while the
subassemblies could no longer be used in the 4S, the remaining
uranium could be reprocessed and reformulated into fuel for
another 4S Reactor or some other reactor that uses lower
enrichment.
MR. GRENCI, in response to further questions from Representative
Wilson, stated there is no other waste generated from the fuel
itself during that 30 years. Some paper waste or chemistry
sampling waste may be generated from maintenance, but he said he
thinks that would be low level waste in small volumes that is
much easier to address than high level waste like the nuclear
fuel. He added that nothing is released offsite that would have
to be collected. In response to Co-Chair Johnson, Mr. Grenci
clarified that it would be low level radioactive waste that is
typically baled up and shipped somewhere.
MR. ARIE interjected that the reactor is sealed so nothing comes
out of it for 30 years.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked what kind of water supply is needed.
MR. GRENCI said he forgets the answer; however, once the water
is processed, it is just a matter of dealing with whatever the
small losses are because the steam water system recycles its
water around [slide 11]. The closed loop between the cooling
tower and the condenser will have evaporative losses [slide 21].
In further response, he said the water needs to be processed to
some extent - for example, the water in the steam loop must be
purified - but it can be raw water between the condenser and the
cooling tower. He offered to get further information to
members.
4:03:05 PM
MR. GRENCI, in response to Representative Wilson, related that
the dump tank [slide 22] is part of the intermediate sodium loop
system and serves as another safety feature. Should there be a
leak somewhere, all of the sodium from the steam generator in
the intermediate loop can be released directly to the tank via
piping.
MR. ARIE pointed out that the dump tank [shown on slide 22] is
for the test facility in Yokohama, not the 4S Reactor itself.
MR. GRENCI explained that the dump tank for the 4S Reactor is
shown on slide 17. He said it works the same way and is a
standard design feature for a sodium system. In response to Co-
Chair Johnson, Mr. Grenci confirmed that the sodium is liquid
and does not have to be replaced because it is sealed inside the
system for the life of the plant.
4:05:02 PM
MR. GRENCI, in response to Representative Lynn, confirmed that
the 4S Reactor would be ready for market by 2017, provided a
customer appeared now.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether any analysis has been done in
regard to getting construction materials to a rural site in
Alaska, given the large amount of concrete associated with the
reactor.
MR. GRENCI replied that specific sites have not been evaluated
because the sites are unknown. The intention is to be able to
install this reactor in remote locations because that is a good
application for it, he continued, and it has been looked at from
this aspect. He said he thinks the heaviest piece that has to
be moved is the reactor vessel which weighs about 100 tons.
Construction of a large portion of the reactor and the
intermediate sodium loop is done ahead of time so they can be
taken to the site already assembled, thereby minimizing the
amount of welding that has to be done onsite. In further
response, he confirmed that the reactor vessel is the heaviest
piece at 100 tons. He said it could be brought up in two or
more pieces and welded together onsite, but the preference would
be to weld it in the shop.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said issues the state is looking at include
safety, transportability, dependability, and "install-ability".
He added that he is intrigued by the technology.
4:11:56 PM
MR. GRENCI, in response to Representative Seaton, said one
advantage in using sodium is that it is very compatible with
stainless steels, so the rate of degradation of the stainless
steel is extremely small. It is actually much more compatible
than using stainless steel and water in a light water reactor.
While the design lifetimes of the 10 and 50 megawatt plants is
30 years, he said he did not see any reason why the plants would
not be able to be run for 60 years. In further response, he
said the neutrons do not degrade the type 304 stainless steel.
This is something that must be looked at very carefully, he
continued, because neutron embrittlement can change the
properties of the stainless steel over time, but at this time it
is not thought to be a problem. He pointed out that HT-9 steel
is used as the cladding on the fuel [slide 12], and that HT-9
was developed by General Electric in the 1960s to specifically
resist neutron irradiation. In response to a further question
from Representative Seaton, he said the HT-9 steel is bonded to
the fuel so it comes out with the fuel and is therefore replaced
at refueling.
4:15:00 PM
STEVE STRAIGHT inquired what personnel would be needed for
security and maintenance once the 4S is on line.
MR. GRENCI responded the final answer is unknown until it is
hashed out with the NRC during the licensing process. He said
he thinks a small reactor with a small number of simple,
automatic systems should not have to have the same staffing as a
large reactor, so perhaps three operators at a time and several
security personnel at the same time.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON surmised there would be people onsite all the
time for safety and security purposes.
MR. GRENCI added that he thinks most of the saving in personnel
will, proportionally, be reaped in the security area. A large
nuclear plant has approximately five people in the control room
and some operators out in the plant, and this number would not
be reduced proportionally with the 4S plant.
4:18:42 PM
ALEX GIMARC, Secretary, Board of Directors, Chugach Electric
Association, related that in November 2008, Chugach Electric
Association passed a resolution supporting alternative renewable
energy. He said this resolution states the association's
commitment to move from a 90 percent reliance on Cook Inlet
natural gas to 10 percent reliance over the next decade or so.
The resolution asks that all forms of generation be considered
on the same economic basis; all forms including "geo, hydro,
wind, coal liquids, biomass, and nuclear". Currently, he
continued, state law does not allow consideration of nuclear
energy, although in the Lower 48 it produces almost 20 percent
of all energy...(indisc.). The resolution also requests the
legislature remove impediments for consideration of nuclear
energy, something that was included in HB 191. The association
does not know today what the best mix of future energy
generation will be, it only knows that everything must be on the
table at the start of the process and the association believes
that reactors need to be part of that starting mix.
4:20:43 PM
DONALD ANDERSON, Ph.D., noted that while his small software
company is unrelated to this topic, he has a long-time interest
in nuclear power. He provided members with a paper he wrote
about nuclear waste.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON interjected that Dr. Anderson's paper is
entitled "High Level Nuclear Waste" and can be found on the
website for HB 191, a bill for which he is the prime sponsor.
DR. ANDERSON continued, saying he supports HB 191 because
correcting state law is way overdue. He said the Alaska Energy
Authority (AEA) is dealing with practically everything but
nuclear. Most of the technology AEA is using is impractical, he
contended, while nuclear is one of the most practical. He
provided a copy of a letter he wrote the governor, also
available on the HB 191 website, that mentions the locations he
thinks would benefit from small reactors. Additionally, he
provided a paper that he prepared at Mr. Gimarc's suggestion for
the board of the Chugach Electric Association to bring them up
to speed on nuclear power, available as well on the website for
HB 191.
4:25:17 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON remarked that he thinks this audience is
probably pro nuclear power, but others may not be.
DR. ANDERSON added that a poll done late last year shows 66
percent of the U.S. population wants to increase the use of
nuclear power for electricity.
4:26:15 PM
MICHAEL HARPER, Deputy Director, Rural Energy, Alaska Energy
Authority (AEA), said the governor has asked Mr. Steven
Haagenson [AEA's Executive Director] to look at energy policies
and alternatives diesel, especially in rural Alaska where power
is now at $1 per kilowatt hour. He agreed that nuclear seems to
be another technology AEA should look at. In response to Co-
Chair Johnson, he said AEA is not presently looking at nuclear
power and does not have any special nuclear project at this
point. However, he said AEA feels it should be viewed as an
option for Alaska, especially for rural Alaska, and that AEA has
been contacted by the Galena folks.
4:27:53 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired what size population base is needed in
order to utilize the 4S Reactor, provided the costs are similar.
MR. GRENCI said he is unfamiliar with the sizes of Alaska's
different communities, but that the 10 megawatt reactor would
generally be appropriate for remote communities not connected to
the grid and big enough to use 10 megawatts, whether for
electrical load or some other process. A small mini-grid could
be used to connect several remote communities if they are close
enough to each other. A 50 megawatt plant is more appropriate
for an area connected to the state's larger grid. He said he
thinks it will be found that both versions will be competitive
in those particular applications.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON stated he is hoping Mr. Harper has a list of
energy requirements for communities and might be able to
determine which communities are capable of using the [4S
Reactor] and the size needed. He understood AEA had conducted
an energy assessment of some communities and asked which
communities would be suitable for the volume of power that is be
generated by a 4S, whether or not the source of that amount of
generation is a 4S.
MR. HARPER responded it would be the hub communities like Nome,
Bethel, and Dillingham. Galena, with only about 600 people,
would have to be hooked up to two or three other communities to
make it work, even using a 10 megawatt unit. There are also the
remote mining locations like the Donlin Creek Mine, he added.
Nuclear might be preferable to the huge volumes of diesel that
must currently be brought into communities.
4:32:59 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON warned that future "cap and trade" legislation
could hamstring diesel generation. He asked whether waste heat
from the 4S could be used to heat buildings.
MR. GRENCI said absolutely. The reactor for the 10 megawatt
electric version generates 30 megawatts thermal, so the 20
megawatts of rejected heat would be available for heating while
the plant is generating the 10 megawatts of electric. In
further response, he said he is unsure how far the waste heat
could be transported, but it would be miles.
MR. GIMARC pointed out that greenhouses would be an additional
application for the [waste] heat.
4:34:02 PM
MR. YODER, in response to Co-Chair Johnson, said using the waste
heat would be very feasible because Galena is currently
transporting jacket heat off the diesels over a distance of 1500
feet to heat the school. He further pointed out that the entire
U.S. Air Force base taken over by Galena was heated by
underground steam heat from one source.
MR. HARPER added that in the nearly 40 power plants built by AEA
with Denali Commission funds, hot water jackets were used and
heat is being transported up to 1200 feet.
4:35:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired how hard it would be to
disassemble the 4S Reactor after 30 years of use.
MR. GRENCI replied it is not really any different than any other
kind of industrial site remediation, with the exception that the
fuel must be removed and some components, like the reactor
vessel, will be radioactive so will need to be placed in a cask
and shipped offsite. Basically, it would be taking down or
burying the concrete structure, taking down the metal building
that the turbine is installed in, and disassembling the
equipment in the building.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to Co-Chair Johnson's
recognition that Representative Seaton's community [Homer] is
nuclear-free, noted that Seward, the second-largest community in
his district, is considering being a test location for this type
of thing.
4:37:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI said he was a young child when "Three
Mile Island" and "Chernobyl" happened, so he does not remember
them. He likes the prospect of having nuclear options available
in Alaska. However, he commented that it is fairly untested and
the presentation did not address whether Alaska's extreme
environment has been considered.
MR. GRENCI, in response to Representative Keller, said the 10
megawatt reactor's 30-year lifespan could not be increased to 60
years by pulling less power off of it.
4:40:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON expressed interest in obtaining costs,
even if they are rough estimates of the gross cost, in order to
determine economic feasibility.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON related that Toshiba has agreed to provide
estimates as it goes through the process. He reminded members
that the cost of the gas pipeline is currently unknown, yet lots
of time is being expended on that. This is a bit of "tire
kicking", he continued, and getting everything on the table
allows for informed decisions.
4:42:18 PM
MR. GIMARC pointed out that excess hydrogen can be produced with
a reactor like this, which might be of interest to the Bush. He
said there is a workup that is looking at using small plants in
the Bush to convert biomass to liquid to produce synthetic
diesel. Additional hydrogen would make those plants operate
more efficiently and this could enhance the ability of rural
Alaskans to produce their own diesel because most everything in
rural Alaska runs on diesel.
4:43:51 PM
MEERA KOHLER, President, Chief Executive Officer, Alaska Village
Electric Cooperative, Incorporated, said the cooperative has a
great interest in potential solutions for rural Alaska energy
issues. She has followed this project since it first emerged
several years ago and she supports continuing the interrogatory
process.
4:44:26 PM
MARILYN LELAND, Executive Director, Alaska Power Association,
related her observation that no one really wants to go first.
As a solution, she suggested having a consortium of utilities
from Alaska join together to do this.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON noted that federal dollars - unrelated to
renewable energy - might be available as the project proceeds
further down the road.
4:46:02 PM
CO-CHAIR NEUMAN encouraged people to contact Mr. Yoder for
further information.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON added that there is more knowledge in Alaska on
this issue than he had envisioned.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:46 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Toshiba Westinghouse Presentation.pdf |
HRES 6/5/2009 3:00:00 PM |