Legislature(2019 - 2020)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/03/2020 03:30 PM Senate COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
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 | |
| SB194 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 194 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 3, 2020
3:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Chair
Senator Peter Micciche, Vice Chair
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Mike Shower
Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 194
"An Act relating to advanced nuclear reactors."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 194
SHORT TITLE: ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTORS
SPONSOR(s): COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS
02/17/20 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/17/20 (S) CRA, RES
03/03/20 (S) CRA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
WITNESS REGISTER
CODY GRUSSENDORF, Staff
Senator Click Bishop
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SB 194.
MARC NICHOL, Senior Director
New Reactor Deployment
Nuclear Energy Institute
Washington, DC
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of advanced nuclear
reactors.
COREY MCDANIEL, PhD, Chief Commercial Officer,
Nuclear Science and Technology
Idaho National Laboratory
Idaho Falls, Idaho
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of advanced nuclear
reactor safety and deployment.
GWEN HOLDMANN, Director
Alaska Center for Energy and Power
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of the potential for
micronuclear reactors in Alaska.
SPENCER NELSON, Professional Staff Member
U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski
U.S Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Washington, DC
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of federal policy on
nuclear energy.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:31:02 PM
CHAIR CLICK BISHOP called the Senate Community and Regional
Affairs Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:31 p.m. Present
at the call to order were Senators Gray-Jackson, Micciche,
Hoffman, and Chair Bishop. Senator Shower arrived soon
thereafter.
SB 194-ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTORS
3:31:47 PM
CHAIR BISHOP announced that the only order of business would be
SENATE BILL NO. 194, "An Act relating to advanced nuclear
reactors." He said the Senate Community and Regional Affairs
Committee is the sponsor of SB 194 and the committee will hear
invited testimony related to the bill.
3:32:43 PM
CODY GRUSSENDORF, Staff, Senator Click Bishop, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented SB 194 with a PowerPoint
that started with a description of advanced nuclear reactors.
3:32:51 PM
SENATOR SHOWER joined the committee meeting.
MR. GRUSSENDORF explained that advanced nuclear reactors are
small enough to transport easily; run for 10 or more years
without requiring refueling; can provide power for rural Alaska
villages, mining operations, and military installments. They can
also provide backup power to regional power grids such as the
Railbelt. Advanced nuclear reactors can provide clean, safe, and
reliable power which could bring rural Alaska out of energy
poverty. They can also be used in urban Alaska.
He said SB 194 would ensure that companies can make investments
with the knowledge that there is a market in Alaska once
advanced nuclear reactors come online.
3:33:44 PM
MR. GRUSSENDORF displayed slide 3 and explained that, under
current law, AS 18.45.025 requires the legislature to designate
in law each parcel of state land on which a nuclear facility may
be located. Each individual parcel with this designation must
also receive a permit from the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) and a license from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC).
MR. GRUSSENDORF said SB 194 would add "advanced nuclear reactor"
to the requirements in AS 18.45.025, define nuclear reactor, and
remove the requirement that the legislature pass a law
designating each parcel of land that would be used for an
advanced nuclear reactor. Other nuclear facilities listed in the
statute would not be exempt from this requirement. The bill
leaves in local control, DEC licensing, and federally required
licensing by the NRC. SB 192 would signal to industry that
"Alaska is Open for Business."
3:35:04 PM
MR. GRUSSENDORF said slide 4 lists many of the characteristics
of advanced nuclear energy. It is not a specific technology and
it can encompass many of attributes listed on the slide. He
noted that many companies are currently developing advanced
nuclear.
3:35:33 PM
MR. GRUSSENDORF said he broke the reasons that advanced nuclear
is a good fit in Alaska into three columns. First, advanced
nuclear technology is remote capable. Microreactors could be
easily integrated into the power baseload in the 300 small rural
communities that have independent grids. Advanced nuclear
reactors could also provide mines with access to reliable and
affordable energy, and possibly extend the operational life of a
mine by making lower grade ore more profitable. He said the
military is always looking for independent grids to supply
secure and resilient power. Advanced nuclear reactors
potentially have long term operations without refueling.
Advanced nuclear reactors are black-start capable, which means
they can be started without a significant power source.
Second, advanced nuclear reactors are cost effective. They would
reduce electricity and heating costs significantly and would
only need to be refueled every 10-plus years. The projected cost
is between $0.09 and $0.41 per KWH.
Third, microreactors are climate friendly. They would
significantly improve air quality for all of Alaska. Diesel and
coal account for 23 percent of the electricity currently
generated in Alaska. By contrast, advanced nuclear generation is
carbon free.
3:38:06 PM
MR. GRUSSENDORF turned to the chart on slide 6 that shows the
projected costs of energy generated from microreactors and
diesel fuel. He said the estimated cost for first generation
microreactors is between $0.14 and $0.41 per KWH, and future
generation estimates are between $0.09 and $0.33 per KWH. He
noted that the graph comes from the Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI) Cost Competitive Report. He deferred to Mr. Mark Nichol to
discuss the chart further.
MR. GRUSSENDORF explained that slide 7 lists some of the rural
Power Cost Equalization (PCE) communities and their electricity
rates before the PCE Program. He directed attention to the
following statement from the April 2019 PCE Fact Sheet:
The Power Cost Equalization (PCE) Program provides
economic assistance to communities and residents of
rural electric utilities where the cost of electricity
can be three to five times higher than for customers
in more urban areas of the state.
3:39:34 PM
MR. GRUSSENDORF said the next slide shows that the estimated
timeline to deploy a microreactor is lengthy. Once a contract is
signed, there is licensing, manufacturing, site preparation,
construction, training, and startup.
MR. GRUSSENDORF directed attention to the safety points listed
on slide 9. He said advanced microreactors are designed to
reduce the probability of an accident through the use of passive
or inherent safety features as opposed to traditional reactors
that require someone to activate electrical or mechanical safety
systems in the event of a malfunction. Advanced microreactors
are designed to use physics and natural forces to intervene.
They operate at atmospheric pressure, the cooling system uses
liquid metal or molten salt instead of water, and they operate
with minimal or no moving parts. The definition of "advanced
nuclear reactor" is the same in both NELA and SB 194.
3:42:08 PM
At ease.
3:42:22 PM
CHAIR BISHOP called the committee back to order.
3:42:55 PM
MARC NICHOL, Senior Director, New Reactor Deployment, Nuclear
Energy Institute (NEI), Washington, DC, said NEI members are the
owners, operators, developers, constructors, and supply chain
for the nuclear industry both in the U.S. and internationally.
MR. NICHOL said NEI supports SB 194 and commends the committee
in trying to reduce the burden to bring advanced nuclear
reactors to Alaska.
He explained that his overview would address why people are
interested in advanced nuclear reactors and their features,
including used fuel, safety, licensing, cost, and timelines.
MR. NICHOL commenced with his PowerPoint presentation stating
that there is a lot of interest currently in advanced reactors
and nuclear energy in general. He turned to slide 2 that lists
eight imperatives for nuclear energy; they are the reasons that
people are interested in the technology for generating
electricity and other energy products. Clean energy, meaning no
carbon emissions, is one of the most important attributes, but
others are interested in energy resiliency, reliability, jobs,
and enhancing U.S. national security and global influence.
3:45:00 PM
MR. NICHOL turned to the chart on slide 3 that illustrates the
estimated decarbonization trajectory of various U.S. utilities
from 2005 to 2050. He said some states previously had renewable
portfolio standards, but they recognized that to achieve 100
percent decarbonization of the electric sector would requires a
firm, clean energy source like nuclear energy.
He said utilities are also looking at decarbonizing their
portfolios. Several dozen utilities have made their own
commitments, some in states that do not have clean energy
policies. Generally, their goals are to achieve zero carbon
emissions by 2050 with interim milestones within that timeframe.
To achieve this goal, many utilities are taking a serious look
at advanced reactors to increase their nuclear energy
generation.
MR. NICHOL displayed the graphic on slide 4 and explained that
when NEI looks at the potential role of nuclear energy in a low
carbon electricity future, the first step is to look at what the
first fleet of nuclear reactors produces. On a national level,
that is currently about 20 percent.
He explained that over time, the current nuclear plants will
either retire or receive a second license renewal (SLR) from the
NRC for 20-40 years. However, when looking at what portion of
electricity could be derived from nuclear in the United States,
there are questions about the role of renewable energy, the role
of storage, and the role of other sources.
MR. NICHOL said the estimates of how much renewables can produce
range from 30-90 percent, but regardless of those estimates
there is a clear need for firm, clean electricity such as
nuclear. He pointed out that for the U.S. to achieve 20 percent
of its energy generation from nuclear would require 90 gigawatts
(GW) of new nuclear generation or double the current portfolio
of 100 reactors. To increase nuclear generation to 33 percent
would require another doubling of reactors. He reiterated that
there is a great need for additional nuclear in the U.S.
3:48:05 PM
MR. NICHOL explained that when NEI looks at technologies that
will be available in the future, they look at the continuum of
innovation illustrated on slide 5. The technologies that are
deployable today are large light-water reactors (LWR) like the
AP1000 that is being built in Georgia at Southern Company Plant
Vogtle units 3 & 4. NEI is also looking at advanced fuel
technologies for the current LWRs to help improve their
performance and economics.
MR. NICHOL said NEI expects microreactors and small modular
reactors (SMRs) to be deployed in the 2025-2030 timeframe.
Microreactors, like the Oklo Aurora plant shown on the slide,
have power levels of 1 to 10 megawatts (MW). SMRs are defined as
less than 300 MW in power and it is possible to have multiple
reactors at the same site. He noted that SMRs can be light-water
reactors or non-LWRs. The microreactor and SMR technologies
benefit from using the proven and existing technology in today's
operating reactors, making them smaller while adding additional
features. After 2030, NEI expects small or large advanced non-
LWRs that would be based on technologies that might use high
temperature gas, liquid metal, or molten salt instead of water
to keep the reactor cool.
3:50:01 PM
MR. NICHOL said innovation is the key for advanced technology in
reactor design, safety, fuel, and demand response. He explained
that smaller designed reactors are simpler and safer. For
example, the NuScale reactor operates on natural circulation
without pumps which allows for cooling during a power loss like
the one at Fukushima, Japan. Additional reactor advancements
would use molten salt that operates at atmospheric temperature
to avoid having to push pressures or forces outside of a reactor
vessel if there was an accident.
MR. NICHOL said fuel is also advanced. Many advanced reactor
designs use high assay low enriched uranium (HALEU). It is low
enriched uranium to 20 percent so it does not have proliferation
concerns. That is greater than the 5 percent that can be
produced commercially today, but the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) is working on programs to help encourage and provide HALEU
in the interim.
MR. NICHOL said advancements in digital technology and
automation will allow for microreactors to automatically control
power levels in response to demand. Also, companies designing
microreactors are looking at inherent features where the physics
itself would shut down the reactor. Some reactor designs are
basing the safety of a natural physics shutdown on a test
reactor at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) that tested the
concept.
3:53:11 PM
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked what countries are leading in advanced
reactor development.
MR. NICHOL answered that China and Russia are developing
advanced reactors and, in some respects, may be ahead of the US.
China is focused on high temperature gas reactors and Russia is
focused on fast reactors; both are close to commercialization.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked what country uses the most nuclear energy.
MR. NICHOL answered that the U.S. has the most nuclear power
plants, but France uses more nuclear power as a percentage of
power.
CHAIR BISHOP asked if a 1 MW plant brings a dropped load back up
immediately or incrementally.
MR. NICHOL replied the NuScale SMR has a feature to bring back
power quickly. It has full bypass capabilities for continuous
operation at 100 percent power. Then they can dump the steam and
go back to 100 percent power onto the electrical grid. The
NuScale reactor also has features for a longer-term outage to
slowly increase power. He said he did not know if microreactors
have the features to dump the energy and continue at 100 percent
power, but they can manipulate power quickly by coming up in
unison.
CHAIR BISHOP said he looks forward to a fieldtrip to INL next
summer.
3:55:58 PM
MR. NICHOL said the advanced reactor technologies result in
three key performance improvements: reduced cost in time to
market, enhanced safety, and flexibility to manipulate power to
match renewables or switch to other energy products instead of
electricity.
MR. NICHOL said the graphics on slide 7 show that advanced
nuclear reactors are being developed for a variety of different
markets.
3:56:35 PM
MR. NICOL reviewed the characteristics and management of used
fuel outlined on slide 8. He said some people call the radiation
and heat from used nuclear fuel waste, but less than 10 percent
of its potential energy has been consumed so it could be
recycled and used for another reactor. He noted that the U.S.
does not recycle fuel for economic reasons, but countries like
France do. He said another characteristic of used fuel is that
it is solid and compact. The light-water SMR and the Oklo Aurora
reactor are meant to illustrate this. The light-water reactor is
a new fuel assembly that looks like a used fuel assembly. It is
solid and very compact given its energy density. The Oklo Aurora
reactor shows the fuel inside the reactor to illustrate current
thinking about refueling a reactor by taking out the old reactor
with its fuel and putting in a new reactor with new fuel. He
suggested thinking about it as swapping out batteries. The
microreactor would not have used fuel onsite for extended
periods even though the storage of used fuel has been
demonstrated to be safe.
He said the Department of Energy (DOE) ultimately has the
responsibility to dispose of the fuel. They will have contracts
with companies that own and operate advanced reactors and they
will eventually move the used fuel to final disposal.
3:58:35 PM
MR. NICHOL said a lot of licensing work is ongoing and
anticipated with the NRC. The NuScale design is expecting its
NRC certification later in 2020 for the first advanced reactor.
NEI expects an NRC application to be submitted soon by the Oklo
Aurora microreactor. There are a number of advanced reactors
that are proceeding toward NRC licensing.
CHAIR BISHOP asked where NuScale is manufacturing its reactor.
MR. NICHOL answered that NuScale is working with the BWXT
Nuclear Operations Group in Virginia and Canada, and Doosan
Heavy Industries & Construction in South Korea.
SENATOR MICCICHE said he was pleased that the U.S. is forward-
looking on potential technology but wonders why advanced nuclear
reactors have yet to be developed.
MR. NICHOL answered that national laboratories have been
developing and testing advanced technologies for decades, and
some of the designs are operating commercially in other
countries. Until recently, the U.S. was focused on getting
large, 1000 MW LWRs to market. About 2010 people started to
realize the need for smaller reactors, and then started to focus
on non-light-water reactors.
4:01:50 PM
COREY MCDANIEL, PhD, Chief Commercial Officer, Nuclear Science
and Technology, Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Idaho Falls,
Idaho, said the INL tested, developed, and successfully deployed
the original LWRs in the 1950s. The INL developed many of the
technologies that Mr. Nichol mentioned, but they did not reach
the deployment stage.
DR. MCDANIEL said there is a new sense of urgency due to
decarbonization and the competitiveness with Russia and China
where there is now an imperative and the markets are more
accepting of advanced technologies. He said the INL is taking a
second shot at getting advanced reactors deployed from the U.S.
while watching other countries that have started deploying those
technologies.
4:02:33 PM
MR. NICHOL said demonstrations of advanced reactors take many
forms. It could be the first commercial reactor, which is
expected for light-water SMRs; it could be a non-commercial
reactor that demonstrates that the reactor works without
producing power to sell; or it could be smaller scale
demonstrations.
MR. NICHOL reported that the Department of Energy is working on
a Joint Use Modular Program at INL to demonstrate the NuScale
technology at a plant owned by the Utah Associated Municipal
Power Systems (UAMPS). DOE is also in the process of launching
the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program. Funding in its
FY2021 budget provided for two demonstration reactors within
five to seven years, and two to five additional demonstration
reactors in the longer term. The latter might be commercial.
MR. NICHOL said the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is
extremely interested in microreactors to provide both mobile
operational energy and stationary reactors for domestic base
installations. The commercial market is not interested in mobile
microreactors but the department plans to demonstrate the
mobility feature in 2024. DOD envisions piloting a microreactor
for a stationary reactor at a remote base by 2027, possibly in
locations within Alaska like Fort Greely Army Base, Eielson Air
Force Base, or Fort Wainwright Army Base.
He said there are several companies looking at private
demonstrations funded by private investors who would not depend
on government funding. INL expects private company
demonstrations to occur within the next few years.
4:05:41 PM
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if private companies are soliciting
communities for demonstrations.
MR. NICHOL replied he expects private demonstrations to first
occur at a national laboratory. Some private companies may go
straight to a commercial reactor so they would look for a
commercial location.
SENATOR HOFFMAN remarked that that would not include Japan.
MR. NICHOL agree that Japan is not looking at new and advanced
reactors due to their continued focus on restarting their shut
down reactors.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if certain regions of the state are more
interested than others.
MR. NICHOL replied it is more dependent on utilities than a
region. A number utilities have shown interest, but none have
made public announcements of their plans for advanced reactors.
4:07:09 PM
MR. NICHOL reviewed the financing options for design
development, plant construction, and operation of advanced
reactors. He said over $1 billion in private capital has gone to
advanced reactor companies. A few companies, such as municipal
utilities, are looking at self-financing. Some third-party
capital investors are looking at privately financing reactors,
but many other companies are looking for federal support for
their projects.
MR. NICHOL explained that the federal government has several
tools available to provide financial support. Production tax
credits is one tool where an operator receives tax credits for
the power they produce. Loan guarantees are a way for the
government to reduce the financing costs for investor-owned and
municipal utilities. The nuclear industry pays for these
guarantees so there is no cost to the taxpayer. The federal
government can also use power purchase agreements to assist with
financing, and there is some talk about mechanisms where the
government agency could pay for the value of the resilience they
are receiving.
He said there are also options for state support through tax
incentives to help reduce the financial burden in reactor
construction. He noted that policies related to carbon reduction
are also helpful to make a business case for some projects.
4:09:37 PM
MR. NICHOL turned to slide 12 that shows a graph of the
estimated costs of the first light-water SMR. He noted that this
work was done with SMR Start to estimate the cost of reactors of
less than 300 MW. The study looked at two 200 MW reactors with a
total plant size of 400 MW. They found that the capital cost for
the plant would be about $2 billion; the operating costs were
estimated to be $27 per MWH and the plant could be constructed
in about 36 months. The study also estimated a 10 to 20 percent
cost reduction through learnings and repetitive builds.
4:10:28 PM
MR. NICHOL turned to slide 13 and explained that the chart
reflects the results of the cost competitiveness assessment that
NEI performed for microreactors. It illustrates how the cost of
microreactors can be reduced through lessons learned and
deploying multiple reactors. The capital cost for the first 10-
MW reactor would be about $150 million or $15,000 per kilowatt
(KW). Those costs are expected to come down to $0.05/KWH and the
time to construct a microreactor would be less than 24 months,
with some designs taking less time.
4:12:17 PM
COREY MCDANIEL, PhD, Chief Commercial Officer, Nuclear Science
and Technology, Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Idaho Falls,
Idaho, started his testimony by reextending the invitation to
the committee and other legislators to visit the laboratory to
see its demonstration sites, equipment, and the test reactors
used to support advanced reactor technology.
4:13:43 PM
DR. MCDANIEL advised that his presentation would specifically
address deployment and demonstration activities that happen at
INL, and that he was available to address any technical
questions about reactor safety. He said there has been a strong
interest in clean energy, reliable energy, and national
security, particularly the geopolitical risk of not having
advanced nuclear technologies when countries like Russia and
China are developing and deploying the technologies. He noted
that Russia is in the process of deploying many large reactors
in almost 30 countries.
He highlighted that Congress has shown unprecedented bipartisan
support for advanced nuclear technology with increased
appropriations year over year and some new authorizing
legislation. He noted that U.S. Senator Murkowski, chair of the
Senate Energy Natural Resources Committee, oversaw many of the
pieces of legislation signed into law or reintroduced. This
includes NEICA that became law in 2018 and NELA that is part of
the energy bill senators are considering this week. He said his
presentation would also cover the National Reactor Innovation
Center (NRIC) that is expected to launch in August 2020.
DR. MCDANIEL detailed that one of the advanced nuclear
technology activities is from Terra Power, a company funded by
Bill Gates to address climate change and leadership development.
4:15:32 PM
DR. MCDANIEL turned to the graphic on slide 3 relating to
industry efforts to safely manage spent nuclear fuel despite
political inaction. He directed attention to the U.S. map
showing the location of the reactors, and assured the committee
that all the nuclear reactors in the U.S. are safely storing
spent fuel onsite and will continue to do so until there is a
political solution.
CHAIR BISHOP asked if storing spent fuel at Yucca Mountain is
open for conversation.
DR. MCDANIEL said Congress and the administration have debated
Yucca Mountain for a long time without reaching consensus. The
Secretary of Energy spoke with Senator Murkowski today during a
hearing about the federal budget for nuclear and said the
administration would continue to look for a better solution.
4:16:57 PM
DR. MCDANIEL turned to slide 4 and explained that the origin of
the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) came from the National
Reactor Testing Station after it was used as a gunning range
during World War II. The laboratory was set up in cooperation
with Argon National Laboratory in Chicago. That facility was
developing fission technologies using thermal and fast neutrons
and water and sodium coolants. They were developing technologies
both for the military for the naval reactors and for the
commercial use of nuclear power.
In 1974, the laboratory changed its name and the missions
changed to focus on energy and environmental management. In
2005, a combination with Argon National Lab-West (ANL-W) formed
INL. INL has been in operation for the last 15 years as the
nation's lead nuclear laboratory. INL works in cooperation with
other national laboratories on nuclear energy, including the
Argon National Laboratory, the Oakridge National Laboratory, and
more than a dozen other facilities within the national
laboratory system.
4:18:28 PM
DR. MCDANIEL explained that INL's strategic science and
technology initiatives address the sustained development of new
technologies in support of the existing reactor fleet, working
on fuel cycle issues to take care of waste. They focus on
advanced materials and manufacturing, and integrated energy
systems for things other than electricity such as heat,
desalination, and hydrogen production. INL also plays a strong
role with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to develop
secure and resilient cyber physical systems. This is relevant to
remote reactor operations where there is limited staffing.
4:19:46 PM
DR. MCDANIEL stated that the vision at INL is to take the tools
it has from new test reactors, advanced technologies, cyber
security, and human factors to support the development of
advanced reactor technology through a program called the Gateway
for Advanced Acceleration Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN). GAIN
focuses on working with the industry to develop the technologies
to get to demonstration.
4:20:27 PM
DR. MCDANIEL advised that the next few slides describe the
workforce at INL. When the committee visits they will meet and
visit the nuclear science and technology directorate, the
materials fuels complex where materials are tested, and the
advanced test reactor that is used for the commercial sector and
the U.S. Navy to test reactor fuels.
4:20:55 PM
DR. MCDANIEL stated that INL has been demonstrating and
deploying reactors since the 1950s for naval reactors for
submarines and ships, and for most commercial reactors around
the world. INL has demonstrated other technologies for the fast
reactor, high temperature gas-cooled reactor, and the molten
salt reactor, but they have not been deployed. The National
Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC) is now focused on deploying
those technologies with support from federal legislation and
appropriations.
He detailed that INL is working on microreactors that are less
than 10 MW, for commercial use as well as mobile applications
for DOD use. Commercial microreactors could be deployed in
remote locations for mines initially and eventually in
communities.
DR. MCDANIEL noted that the SMR, such as the NuScale reactor, is
going straight to deployment. Laboratories have already
demonstrated the SMR technology and the expectation is to
receive NRC design certification in the near future. The NuScale
reactor will be a commercial deployment in Idaho with the hope
for additional deployments both domestic and international.
4:23:04 PM
CHAIR BISHOP asked how many megawatts the SMRs will produce.
DR. MCDANIEL answered that the six modules will have a combined
load of over 600 MW, but each module will have just 50
megawatts.
CHAIR BISHOP recalled earlier testimony that the price for a 600
MW plant would be around $2 billion.
MR. NICHOL answered correct.
CHAIR BISHOP asked how a 600 MW SMR would be financed.
DR. MCDANIEL answered that the financing would be similar to
other nuclear power plants. The license is typically for 40
years and the financing would be for 40 years. He said the
financial outlook is better when the license is extended for a
second 40 years. Smaller microreactors may have a 10-year
lifetime specifically suited to provide 1-3 MW of power and heat
at a mine with just one fueling.
CHAIR BISHOP asked if the cost for a small reactor would be
approximately $150 million.
MR. NICHOL replied his presentation indicated that a 10-MW
reactor was $150 million.
CHAIR BISHOP asked if a 1 MW reactor was anticipated because a
lot of rural communities in Alaska do not need 10 MW.
MR. NICHOL answered that there are designs for microreactors as
small as 1 MW or less.
4:25:35 PM
DR. MCDANIEL returned attention to slide 10 and noted that the
Versatile Test Reactor (VTR) that is supported by the
administration and funded by Congress, could be operating at INL
by 2026. The VTR is an important tool that would offer the
ability to test and develop fuels for fast reactors, a
technology that INL developed. The only three countries that
operate fast reactors for experimental purposes for
commercialization are Russia, China, and India.
DR. MCDANIEL detailed that INL is hoping to demonstrate
advanced-advanced non-LWR technology by 2030. They would be
reactors with coolants other than water and with more exotic
designs that might be more efficient and cost effective.
CHAIR BISHOP asked if the non-LWR would be safer.
DR. MCDANIEL replied the safety of all the reactors is fairly
well established. The reactors that are low pressure, because
they are liquid metal cooled or have tri-structural isotropic
(TRISO) type fuel with particle protection, are using
technologies that have been well tested, but it is a matter of
getting them demonstrated and to the deployment stage.
4:27:23 PM
DR. MCDANIEL said slide 11 has more discussion of some of the
issues that Mr. Nichol mentioned. He explained that HALEU is not
being commercially produced but INL is providing it at the
laboratory and is working with industry groups to find ways to
make the fuel available for these reactors. He detailed that INL
will demonstrate real-time instrumentation via the joint use
module program with the NuScale reactor. He said INL is also
taking the lead on the back end of the fuel cycle.
4:28:13 PM
DR. MCDANIEL turned to slide 12 and noted that the National
Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC) came out of the legislation
Senator Murkowski sponsored. He said NRIC is the cornerstone of
how INL will use the tools at the laboratory, provide the
infrastructure to demonstrate the reactors, and have that lead
to deployment for the Department of Defense as well as industry
in the U.S. and internationally. The expectation is that the
reactors will be deployed in communities once the technology has
been demonstrated at a military base or a commercial site like a
mine.
DR. MCDANIEL turned to slide 13 and explained that the Gateway
for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN) was the foundation
on which NRIC was built. It is a tool for industry to be able to
access INL tests, technology, and expertise. It has been so
successful in the last few years that it is clear that there is
a need to demonstrate these reactors. He said demonstrations can
be anywhere, but INL is particularly suited because it has
already demonstrated 52 reactors, some of which have led to
commercial deployments. Other possible demonstration sites are
in Washington state and Oakridge, Tennessee, but INL has a track
record of demonstrations and is housing the NRIC and GAIN
programs that are not specific to Idaho.
4:30:17 PM
DR. MCDANIEL concluded his testimony saying the current
situation with nuclear energy is more positive than it has been
in the past. A combination of federal funding, bipartisan
political support, demonstrating new tools, focusing on the
NuScale module demonstration, the VTR program, microreactor
demonstrations, and legislation led primarily by Senator
Murkowski has put INL is a position to demonstrate advanced
reactors in the near term and have them ready for deployment in
places like Alaska as the market dictates.
4:31:07 PM
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked how much nuclear energy INL uses.
DR. MCDANIEL replied none at this time. Most of the power that
INL uses comes from hydro and some coal through Idaho Power.
CHAIR BISHOP asked if INL has an operational reactor.
DR. MCDANIEL replied INL has advanced test reactors but it does
not produce electricity. That will change when the NuScale
reactor is up and running. That electricity will go onto the
grid and serve 30 potential customer utilities around the
Mountain West.
CHAIR BISHOP observed that it will have to be load tested at
some point.
DR. MCDANIEL agreed. He noted that when the committee visits
they might see a demonstration from UAMPS to show how the
reactor could load-follow with the wind and be used in other
hybrid energy applications.
4:33:33 PM
GWEN HOLDMANN, Director, Alaska Center for Energy and Power
(ACEP), University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), Fairbanks, Alaska,
explained that ACEP focuses on applied energy research that is
relevant to the needs of Alaska residents and industries.
Because Alaska produces and uses power in unique ways, ACEP
focuses both on power generation and on broad usage that
includes heat and transportation.
4:34:22 PM
MS. HOLDMANN explained that ACEP first became interested in
small modular reactors (SMRs) and microreactors in 2010. At the
direction of the legislature, ACEP worked on a 200-page report
to identify whether this nuclear technology might have an
application in Alaska. The study sparked interest among ACEP
researchers, and the center has continued to track the
technology.
She said a big part of the initial report, which Senator Hoffman
supported due to his interest in SMR technology, was that this
technology had the potential to provide baseload power for
remote locations that depend on intermittent sources of
renewable energy. There was also interest in looking at options
to offset heating loads in these remote locations.
MS. HOLDMANN displayed a map showing the more than 70 Alaska
communities that have renewable energy powered microgrids. She
said Alaska has over 50 percent of the U.S. microgrids with
renewable power connections and 12 percent of the world's total
number of microgrids. The state is a national and international
leader in microgrid technology, but many renewable energy
sources have intermittent output which creates challenges.
4:36:08 PM
MS. HOLDMANN displayed a short video to illustrate the
difficulty associated with variable power demands. For example,
the power demands in Cordova increase markedly when fish
processing comes online. She pointed out that when renewable
resources and the loads are highly variable, it makes it very
difficult to make incorporating renewables as a meaningful
offset to diesel fuel.
She said the concern in rural Alaska about switching from diesel
fuel to nuclear microreactors is related to safety and the
potential for environmental contamination. However, there are
many examples where diesel fuel was the cause of environmental
contamination in communities in rural Alaska. She pointed out
that very little is done that has no environmental footprint so
it is important to think about what is acceptable risk and
balance that between what is done today and what the future
could potentially look like.
4:38:03 PM
MS. HOLDMANN displayed a map of the panarctic circumpolar region
and highlighted that there is no electrical grid on 20 percent
of the Arctic landmass. Power in this area is provided primarily
through diesel generation, so there is real opportunity for the
region to benefit from nuclear microreactor technology. This is
particularly important because of the high demand for heat in
the Arctic. She said Alaska should be tracking the evolution of
this technology to make sure that people and organizations like
the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) consider the unique
circumstances in Alaska.
MS. HOLDMANN restated that diesel fuel for space hearing is a
large concern from a cost standpoint in many places in Alaska.
Nuclear microreactor technology is an opportunity to address
both heat and electric power.
She directed attention to a photo of a fuel barge accompanied by
a Coast Guard cutter delivering fuel oil to Nome in January
because the fall storms prevented delivery of the fall shipment.
She said the limited need for microreactor refueling would
provide a different paradigm for energy security for remote
areas in Alaska.
4:40:03 PM
MS. HOLDMANN highlighted a 2010 report by the Alaska Center for
Energy and Power (ACEP) and the Institute for Social and
Economic Research (ISER) that looked at whether small modular
nuclear power was an option for Alaska. She said ACEP went
through the following steps that culminated in recommendations
and a roadmap for the state:
• Review history of nuclear technology utilization in Alaska
• Consider technical and economic feasibility of proposed SMR
technology
• Assess siting and permitting requirement/barriers to
implementation
• Host a workshop as a forum for discussion and knowledge
exchange
• Create recommendations and develop a roadmap for the State
of Alaska
She directed attention to the photo of the Fort Greely SM1
primary reactor facility that was commissioned in 1962 and
decommissioned in 1972. She pointed out that microreactors are a
very different technology that present much less risk. The
reactor at Fort Greely used 93-percent enriched uranium whereas
the proposed microreactors address safety by having fuel
enrichment levels below 20 percent.
4:41:22 PM
MS. HOLDMANN said even though ACEP did not look at smaller
reactors in the 2010 report, the center identified continued
research into smaller, less than 10 megawatt, reactors as a
priority. The ACEP report recommendations included: a site
feasibility study for two locations in Alaska; continued studies
of SMR economics and technology development; monitoring federal
legislation and support at the national level; and identifying a
technology lead for somebody in the state to keep an eye on
small reactor technology and interact with people on the
national level.
MS. HOLDMANN displayed a map that shows the 10 Alaskan
communities with sufficient heating and electric loads to match
small modular reactor capabilities that are currently under
development.
She said one of the limitations of the 2010 project was that the
smallest reactor technology at the time was 45 MW. She suggested
that the study is worth updating because microreactor technology
can accommodate much smaller loads.
4:43:07 PM
MS. HOLDMANN displayed a chart of the local price thresholds for
the 10 communities. She said the data is out of date, but the
size of the bars is relevant from an economic standpoint. It
shows that it makes the most sense to deploy one of these
systems in the Fairbanks area. The smaller communities were not
cost competitive when the only option was a 45 megawatt reactor,
but microreactors with 1-10 MW output is a game changer. She
said she envisions the potential for no diesel generators in
rural Alaska in 25 years.
MS. HOLDMANN displayed images of the Fort Wainwright Army Base
and the Red Dog Mine to illustrate that military installations
and mining operations are other potential locations for
microreactors. She posited that there could be a demonstration
project at a military base in Fairbanks or another permanent
installation within a few years.
She said SB 194 is an important step in making sure Alaska is
open for business and willing to actively consider microreactor
technology in the future. The nuclear industry and people at the
federal level are looking for partners who are actively
interested and willing to collaborate on issues related to
safety, nuclear equipment disposal, and the size range of
reactors. There will be benefits if Alaska is willing to step
forward and be an active partner.
4:45:03 PM
MS. HOLDMANN displayed the roadmap that ACEP developed in 2010.
She said it goes through a stage gate process that is
surprisingly relevant and accurate today. It says the first SMR
will be licensed in 2020; the previous speaker said that is on
target and a pilot project might happen sooner than 2030.
MS. HOLDMANN said the final three slides are historic and
illustrate how technology has developed over time. The first
image shows the export of whale oil from Alaska in the 1880s.
This was the major energy export at that time. The next image
shows horse-drawn wagons of cordwood. In the Interior there was
a lot of clearcutting to power paddle wheel boats, and Fairbanks
initially was powered with 100 percent biomass. She said the
images are a reminder that there can be no assumption that the
energy sources used today will be used tomorrow. Thus, it is
important for the state to be prepared and think about what the
future might look like. She suggested that is an important role
for the university that the legislature should be thinking
about.
4:47:15 PM
MS. HOLDMANN concluded her testimony pointing out that in 2019,
Bethel spent about $8 million for 3.2 million gallons of diesel
fuel for just power generation. That did not include space
heating. She estimated that about $15 million was spent on both
space heating and power generation. She noted that an earlier
slide showed that the average baseload power needs for Bethel is
about 7 MW. If a 10 MW microreactor were installed for $150
million, the payback would be 10 years. She said there are a lot
of other costs to consider but this does demonstrate that this
is a conversation worth having.
CHAIR BISHOP referred to the slide showing the heating and
electric loads for 10 communities in Alaska. It shows that the
Railbelt uses about 900 MW of energy. He asked Mr. Nichol if a
$2 billion, 600 MW reactor could be scaled to 900 MW for about
$2.2 billion. He also asked how long until a 600 MW plant would
need to be refueled.
4:49:45 PM
MR. NICHOL confirmed that the plant could be scaled up. The
NuScale design has 12 reactors that are each 60 MW. That is a
720 MW plant and the cost is in the ballpark of $3 billion. He
noted that there are also 300 MW plants that could be scaled up
to 900 MW.
CHAIR BISHOP asked how often a 300 MW plant would require
refueling.
MR. NICHOL answered that refueling for those reactors would be
every 1.5 years to 2 years. They would bring in about one-third
of the fuel so the fuel actually lasts 3 cycles for a total of
4.5 to 6 years.
4:50:46 PM
CHAIR BISHOP offered his understanding that reactor technology
is coming that combines both heat and power, like a combined
cycle gas plant where power comes from one end and heat comes
off the back end. For example, a major Fairbanks hospital burns
6,000 gallons of diesel fuel a day during cold weather so a
nuclear powerplant that produces heat could save a lot of diesel
fuel very quickly.
SENATOR HOFFMAN remarked that rural Alaska could use
microreactors, but so could the entire world. There would be
universal uses.
He noted that Alaska has $1 billion in the Power Cost
Equalization (PCE) Fund, and that money could be matched with
public/private partnerships and expended throughout Alaska to
make living more affordable throughout the state. He suggested
the legislature talk to Senator Murkowski to emphasize fast
forwarding small reactors in the next decade.
4:53:31 PM
CHAIR BISHOP agreed and pointed out the circumpolar map showed
multiple off-grid settlements.
SENATOR HOFFMAN remarked that 10 years ago it was "if" for
nuclear energy and now it is a matter of "when."
MS. HOLDMANN replied that is why updating the 2010 study should
be a priority.
She referenced Senator Hoffman's earlier question about
microreactors reacting to an unexpected fault in the system and
explained that SMR technology, like the NuScale reactor, is not
that much different from a coal plant where heat generates steam
and the back end is the same. She said it is about the
switchgear that the utility has and the inner connection to
handle faults in the system. Microreactors are more like a
nuclear battery with the reactor being replaced after 10 years
so there is no onsite refueling.
MS. HOLDMANN said she agrees that there is a lot of potential
for all Alaskans to benefit.
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked what the legislature spent on the 2010
ACEP study.
MS. HOLDMANN answered that the Alaska Energy Authority received
$200,000 for the study.
CHAIR BISHOP remarked that he was thinking about a committee
substitute for the bill.
4:55:40 PM
SPENCER NELSON, Professional Staff Member, U.S. Senator Lisa
Murkowski, U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
Washington, DC, said Senator Murkowski is chair of the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee and nuclear energy has
been a priority for her for a long time.
MR. NELSON said the focus of his overview would be on federal
policy regarding nuclear energy. He advised that he was unable
to attend the committee meeting in person due to a comprehensive
energy bill on the floor that included advanced nuclear.
He reiterated that Senator Murkowski has been relentlessly
focused on any kind of technology that would lower energy costs
for people who are either in Alaska Native villages or in
remote, rural communities that are spending a large percentage
of their annual income on electricity and heating. The current
option is diesel or nothing, whereas microreactors provide an
opportunity for an alternative to fossil fuels.
4:57:50 PM
MR. NELSON said different pieces of federal legislation on
advanced reactors, specifically smaller reactors, are uniquely
suited to the Alaskan market. One of the first pieces of
legislation enacted into law was the Nuclear Energy Innovation
Capabilities Act (NEICA). That law established a program for the
demonstration of privately funded advanced reactors at national
laboratories. It sets up research infrastructure for a lot of
advanced modeling and simulation. He noted that the bill passed
the Senate unanimously, demonstrating that there is bipartisan
support within Congress for advanced nuclear technologies.
MR. NELSON said the second bill that became law in late 2018 was
the Nuclear Energy Innovation Modernization Act (NEIMA). It
changed the way nuclear energy is regulated by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) to recognize that advanced reactors
are very different from light-water reactors (LWRs), especially
for not having the same safely and security issues and therefore
can be evaluated more quickly. As a result of NEIMA, the NRC is
accelerating a lot of its advanced reactor reviews and is also
looking for new ways to regulate. For example, the NRC just
released a position paper saying that small reactors under 10 MW
may be able to address environmental reviews on a generic basis.
That will save a lot time by not going through the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis.
He said there are a lot of interesting things that can happen on
the regulatory front with advanced reactors because they are so
much better suited for streamlined regulatory review than some
of the larger LWRs.
5:00:35 PM
MR. NELSON said Congress also enacted the 45 J Tax Credit, which
is an important modification to an advanced nuclear tax credit.
The credit is $18.00 per MWH for the first 6,000 MW of advanced
nuclear capacity that is built in the U.S. He said much of that
will likely go to Plant Vogtle in Georgia, but there will be
leftover capacity for projects like the NuScale pilot plant at
INL or the first microreactors.
He said Chair Murkowski's staff has been working on the Nuclear
Energy Leadership Act (NELA). It was first introduced in 2008
and again in 2019 and is a bi-partisan proposal with 22 co-
sponsors in the U.S. Senate. NELA authorizes federal power
purchase authority for advanced reactors for periods up to 40
years. This will take advantage of the fact that many advanced
reactors can run for much longer than the current 10-year
statutory limit. NELA will allow INL to purchase power for its
facilities from some of the advanced reactors they plan to
demonstrate on site.
MR. NELSON explained that NELA sets a two-tranche timeline: two
smaller reactors by 2025, and two to five reactors by 2035 that
could include bigger reactors like Bill Gates' reactor or
others. The NELA timelines are aggressive, especially to people
who are not working on nuclear. However, NELA raises the
ambition for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) as well as
slants things towards microreactors. He noted that several
microreactor design demonstrations are likely by the early
2020s.
5:04:32 PM
MR. NELSON noted that Congress created an important program for
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to provide an interim supply
of advanced nuclear fuel. Twenty percent enriched fuel that many
advanced reactors require for operation is not commercially
available in the U.S. The program either converts used DOE fuel
or supports new fuel facilities for the first demonstrations.
Once the commercial market establishes the fuel supply, the
program would end. DOE made an award to recycle used fuel for
one of the microreactor demonstrations that will likely be at
INL for the [Oklo Aurora Application]. DOE also contracted with
Centrus Energy Corporation to begin demonstrating their ability
to enrich fuel up to the 20 percent needed for advanced
reactors. The hope is that fuel technology and regulations
governing advanced nuclear fuel transportation will be ready for
the first reactors.
MR. NELSON aid NELA also addresses advanced nuclear workforce
needs in the U.S. by reauthorizing a nuclear engineering
scholarship program for industry, NRC, and the National Nuclear
Security Administration. He noted that NELA is just a bill and
not a law, but companies are going forward with their
demonstration plans with the hope that NELA will happen.
He noted that the federal budget included appropriations in
December 2019 for demonstration funding, which is similar to
what NELA calls for. The appropriation includes $230 million for
two advanced demonstration reactors within 5-7 years, and some
money for later staged reactors. Expectations are for companies
to apply for demonstration funding later in 2020. Corresponding
demonstration programs are going forward through the
appropriation process regardless of NELA.
5:07:57 PM
MR. NELSON said the intent is to get NELA through the Senate as
part of the American Energy Innovation Act (AEIA). AEIA is
broader than just nuclear energy. It includes all aspects of
energy innovation, cyber security, electrical grid security, and
workforce development. The U.S. House of Representatives has a
companion bill to NELA with corresponding measures. Regardless
of NELA enactment, there are expectations for microreactor
license applications to be submitted to NRC, maybe as soon as
next week, for demonstrations at INL. The hope is that the
microreactor submissions ultimately look at opportunities to
deploy in Alaska.
MR. NELSON said SB 194 is important because the bill addresses
the ambiguity in building advanced nuclear in Alaska because of
the current statutory requirement that the legislature pick
sites. Changing the statute would allow the decision to build an
advanced reactor between the community and the developer while
maintaining NRC oversite. Having the community onboard is
important as well as allowing the developer to pick specific
sites to provide power from an environmental and land use
perspective. Without SB 194, there would have to be a plan to
set sites because the sites that the legislature sets might not
be the most economic or most politically viable to develop
advanced nuclear.
5:11:21 PM
CHAIR BISHOP thanked Mr. Nelson for his comprehensive review. He
said the committee intends to bring SB 194 back next week with
possible amendments.
5:12:23 PM
At ease.
5:12:39 PM
CHAIR BISHOP called the committee back to order. He said the
committee will bring SB 194 back on March 10 for public
testimony with the intent to move the bill to the next committee
of referral.
[SB 194 was held in committee.]
5:13:02 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Bishop adjourned the Senate Community and Regional Affairs
Standing Committee meeting at 5:13 p.m.