Legislature(2023 - 2024)BUTROVICH 205
01/25/2023 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| Presentation: Introducing the Frontiers Collaboration | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
January 25, 2023
3:31 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel, Co-Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski, Vice Chair
Senator Scott Kawasaki
Senator James Kaufman
Senator Forrest Dunbar
Senator Matt Claman
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION: INTRODUCING THE FRONTIERS COLLABORATION
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
DR. STEVEN AUMEIER, Senior Advisor
Strategic Programs
Idaho National Laboratory
Idaho Falls, Idaho
POSITION STATEMENT: Delivered the presentation "Introducing the
Frontiers Collaboration."
PAUL KJELLANDER, Senior Advisor
Regulatory Policy
Idaho National Laboratory
Idaho Falls, Idaho
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the presentation
"Introducing the Frontiers Collaboration."
MARCIO PAES BARRETO, Director
Industrial Relations
Wyoming Energy Authority
Laramie, Wyoming
POSITION STATEMENT: Participated in the presentation
"Introducing the Frontiers Collaboration."
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:31:25 PM
CO-CHAIR CATHY GIESSEL called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:31 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Dunbar, Giessel, Kaufman, Kawasaki,
Wielechowski, Claman, and Co-Chair Giessel.
^PRESENTATION: Introducing the Frontiers Collaboration
PRESENTATION: INTRODUCING THE FRONTIERS COLLABORATION
3:32:12 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL announced the committee would hear a
presentation from the Idaho National Laboratory to introduce the
Frontiers Collaboration.
3:32:59 PM
DR. STEVEN AUMEIER, Senior Advisor, Strategic Programs, Idaho
National Laboratory (INL), Idaho Falls, Idaho, explained that
the use of the term frontier is referring to the new frontier of
economic opportunity in global markets. He relayed that he would
talk about what is shaping this new frontier, how to capitalize
on it, and how nuclear energy might be a key to a competitive
edge for the state and nation. He said he would introduce the
regional collaborations INL believes will be key to capturing
this opportunity, what's been done thus far, and what might be
done in the future. His colleagues would discuss how to prepare
for the competition, the collaboration that has been done, and
the partner states that can create the basis for the
collaboration with Alaska.
3:36:29 PM
DR. AUMEIER displayed slide 3 and made the following points:
- INL is the nation's and Alaska's lead nuclear energy
laboratory. It does not sell reactors or anything else; it
works in the national interest. As one of the seven national
labs in the US system, it has a unique role and approach to
regional outreach and collaboration.
- Over the last 70 years INL has been at the forefront of many
of the frontiers of nuclear energy. INL and its predecessors
were first in the following frontiers of the past:
- INL hosted of the country's first nuclear power plants.
- The first electricity from nuclear power was generated at
INL to power the first U.S city (Arco, Idaho) solely by
nuclear energy.
- The first submarine reactors were tested and demonstrated
at INL, and over 40,000 reactor operators have received
training over the years. This happened in the high desert
of Idaho because of the surprisingly strong Navy presence
in the area.
- INL demonstrated the first mobile nuclear power plant for
the US Army in the 1960s.
- In addition to the many other firsts in nuclear energy,
INL is now working on national security programs.
3:39:07 PM
DR. AUMEIER stated that the focus of nuclear energy technology
has shifted in recent years to look at where it will be applied,
in what context, and for what purpose. This is critically
important today because global markets for industrial materials
are being disrupted due to the CO2 emissions content of
products. This is beginning to be monetized and this will play
out in a number of ways. He noted that the captions on slide 4
reference several examples of policy decisions the European
Union has made about monetizing carbon emissions. This will
disrupt market competitors because companies with lower emission
footprints on their products will be in a preferred position.
3:40:51 PM
DR. AUMEIER turned to slide 5 to discuss the penalties
associated with carbon emissions and the incentives associated
with carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS). Embedded
in the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Act were
the carrots seen in the US markets. He described the new tax
provisions for low-emission industries and manufacturing as
stunning. Capital markets and Wall Street are talking about
lower emissions and financiers are incentivizing lower
emissions. INL sees this as a growing trend that will
fundamentally shape global competition in the future due to the
economic and national security implications.
3:42:17 PM
DR. AUMEIER stated that to see where nuclear energy fits into
the new frontier of global competition, INL believes it's
important to look at the history of nuclear technology and how
differently some of the new technologies are being applied. He
explained that the existing, large nuclear reactors are
typically individual construction projects that generate
gigawatt scale power and the typical customers for this size
reactor are large utilities. He noted that the picture on slide
6, which was taken about five years ago, shows the two new
reactors that are being built at the Vogtle nuclear plant in the
state of Georgia. When the photo was taken, this was the largest
construction project in the US. He relayed that reactors evolved
to this size to attain efficiencies of scale. The cost to
achieve this financial advantage includes the need for complex
engineered safety systems, complex planning and operations, and
a very large footprint that includes a safety exclusion area of
about 10 miles.
3:45:04 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked where the 95 reactors that the slide
mentions are located.
DR. AUMEIER said they're mostly located from the Midwest to the
East. A large nuclear plant in California was slated to shut
down early, but that decision was temporarily reversed in the
last year due to concerns about energy reliability. There is
also a large reactor operating in Washington state and several
in Arizona. These large grid-scale reactors account for 20
percent of the nation's electricity, and whether they should
continue to operate becomes a more significant question as the
nation moves toward more electrical use. They are complicated
and complex systems that are licensed for 40 years and some have
been extended for several more decades. When the lifetime cost
is considered, they are competitive. The 450 some commercial
reactors that are operating successfully represent a multi-
trillion-dollar business. Worldwide, there is still a market for
large reactors and they're being built every day, which is very
different from the US market.
3:47:47 PM
DR. AUMEIER discussed small modular reactors as outlined on
slide 7. He explained that these 77 megawatt modular reactors
are built in a factory and installed one at a time in a central
infrastructure. Some of the advantages include passive safety,
which means the safety of the system comes from the physics of
the plant. In the event of temperature increases and loss of
cooling, physics causes the plant to shut itself down.
3:49:58 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI pointed out that the concern with safety
stems from accidents like Three Mile Island, Fukashima, and
Chernobyl that devastated entire ecosystems. When those reactors
were built they were said to be safe, but they weren't. He asked
if these new designs were 100 percent fail proof such that there
would be no chance that they would significantly impact an
ecosystem and the people in nearby areas if a system failed.
DR. AUMEIER replied there is nothing that's engineered that can
be said to be fail proof, so the question is about the
consequences of the accident scenarios that cause the dispersal
of radioactive material and the loss of coolant and heat sink.
That is what happened in the most aggressive accidents, but
these reactors shut themselves down. The physics won't let them
run; they are passively safe. During the licensing process, the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) looks at failure
probabilities (that are on the order of one in hundreds of
millions) and the consequences of a failure. Passive safety
reduces the consequences of a failure by relying on physics to
shut the system down. Physics doesn't fail.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked what the worst case scenario would be
to nearby communities if a small modular reactor in midtown
Anchorage were to fail.
DR. AUMEIER replied that the failure radius is 50 acres, as
opposed to 10 miles for the large reactors, because failures
cannot have the same consequences as a gigawatt reactor.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI pointed out that the emergency extended far
beyond 10 miles for Chernobyl and the entire Pacific Ocean was
affected after the Fukushima nuclear disaster. He noted that
some of the reactors at Fukushima were still leaking.
DR. AUMEIER said the emergency planning areas on the large
reactors refer to the evacuation areas. But the real question
with the different reactor types is how to make the maximum
consequence smaller and smaller.
3:54:58 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN asked him to talk about 1) the inherent safety
features of pelletized and encapsulated fuel, and 2) the added
safety that comes from building modules in a controlled factory
environment.
DR. AUMEIER noted that he was talking about TRISO fuel which is
a significant safety feature. It went through a 20-year
certification process at INL. Each TRISO particle is a fuel
kernel that is encapsulated by three layers of carbon and
ceramic-based materials. When these fuel kernels heat up in a
gas reactor, the neutronic characteristics are that the reaction
dies away. This passive safety characteristic is found in TRISO
and the metallic fuel HALEU [high-assay, low-enriched uranium].
HALEU will be used in the reactors in Wyoming and Utah.
DR. AUMEIER highlighted that with a small modular reactor, there
is a smaller emergency exclusion zone because the maximum
consequence that can be postulated is smaller.
4:00:43 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if the emergency zones he mentioned refer
to the radius.
DR. AUMEIER answered yes.
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if he was saying that if there were an
accident at a large reactor, the impact would be within that 10
mile radius and not beyond.
DR. AUMEIER clarified that there must be an emergency evacuation
plan within that 10-mile radius but there could be impact beyond
that zone.
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether the evacuation plan for a small
reactor has a .2 mile radius.
DR. AUMEIER said yes; it's the maximum postulated distance of
the impact.
4:02:15 PM
DR. AUMEIER relayed that the first of these small modular
reactors are planned to be built in Idaho by 2029. The first
commercial project will be located on INL property and there are
plans to deploy them in Europe as well.
SENATOR GIESSEL said she assumes that the reactor that is
planned for Eielson Air Force Base will be a similar unit.
4:03:39 PM
DR. AUMEIER clarified that a microreactor is planned at Eielson
Air Force Base. The first reactor of this type is expected by
2025 and the size will be 50 megawatts or less. Microreactors
are a step smaller than small modular reactors. Their
application is barges for emergency power, industrial processes,
and military installations.
4:04:55 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked about how many homes can be powered with
one megawatt.
4:05:19 PM
PAUL KJELLANDER, Senior Advisor, Regulatory Policy, Idaho
National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho, answered that one
megawatt would electrify between 500 and 700 personal
residences.
SENATOR DUNBAR asked if there were microreactors that produce
one megawatt or less of power.
DR. AUMEIER answered yes; INL is building a 100 kilowatt
microreactor and commercial units are under design for near term
construction that will product between one and five megawatts.
Microreactors produce up to 50 megawatts, but they could be any
size within that range. He said he'd like to discuss what one
might do with reactors of that size.
SENATOR KAUFMAN asked him to speak to the possibilities for co-
generation.
DR. AUMEIER explained that microreactors have the potential to
produce either heat or power or heat and power in combination,
which is especially important for industrial applications. For
example, a remote mine might need two megawatts of electricity
and one megawatt of heat for processing. This changes the
economic calculation for the reactors.
4:08:21 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if microreactors were cold weather
tested to -60 F and whether an operator was needed 24/7.
DR. AUMEIER said these reactors are not temperature sensitive,
but they would probably be located in a building. The number of
operators the reactor needs is dependent on the vendor and the
application, but as a general rule they have semi-autonomous
operation and remote control in some cases. However, it is
likely that an operator would be onsite.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether a microreactor could be
installed in a remote area and monitored from a community
several hundred miles away, and whether the operator would need
to watch continuously and remain prepared for an emergency.
DR. AUMEIER answered that as technology advances they might be
operated remotely, but right now it's likely that a microreactor
in a remote location would have a couple of people at the
station.
SENATOR GIESSEL asked whether it was accurate to describe
microreactors as "plug and play."
DR. AUMEIER directed attention to the table on slide 9 that
lists the microreactors the Department of Energy (DoE) is aware
of, and the visuals on slide 10 of a microreactor in a "nuclear
battery" framework. The bullet points read as follows:
â?¢ Plug-and-play system producing 1-50 MW of heat
and/or electricity
â?¢ Carbon emissions free
â?¢ Dry cooling (no water needed)
â?¢ Standardized, factory fabricated
â?¢ Transportable in ISO containers
â?¢ Semi-autonomous operation
â?¢ Offsite refueling every 5-10 years
â?¢ No onsite storage of radioactive material
â?¢ Very small footprint
â?¢ US suppliers are in the lead (Westinghouse, BWXT,
X-energy)
DR. AUMEIER said the question is which of these designs are plug
and play and what opportunities do plug and play reactors open
versus other microreactors. It's an important point for the
economic development context. He explained that a microreactor
can be put in a nuclear battery format which is plug and play.
Importantly, not all microreactors are nuclear batteries, but
all nuclear batteries are microreactors. He said he assumes that
the companies talking about plug and play recognize the game
changing attributes of systems like that. He noted that
Westinghouse had been building reactors for decades and was one
of the US suppliers taking the lead in this area. He pointed to
the pictures of the 10 megawatt nuclear battery formats for a
community solar plant and the Vestas wind plant and commented
that this is sometimes the best choice and sometimes the best
choice might be a microreactor. But the point is that the notion
of nuclear batteries creates all kinds of opportunities, and INL
was working to find the right industrial applications.
4:14:46 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for the cost of energy per KWh, and
for an explanation of the bullet that says no onsite storage of
radioactive material.
DR. AUMEIER explained that a microreactor in the nuclear battery
configuration is taken to the site of application where it is
plugged in and used for 5-10 years. When a replacement is
needed, the power module is unplugged and replaced with a fresh
module. The old power module is then returned to the factory.
The only fuel that's on site is the fuel that is actively being
used.
He said he would discuss the question about cost in a subsequent
slide.
4:16:44 PM
DR. AUMEIER advanced to slide 11, Nuclear Battery + Advanced
Industrial Production = Major Disruptor. He stated that the
important point is that when nuclear batteries are configured as
a microreactor, for example in a mining application that needs
electricity for power and heat for processing, it moves up the
value chain and could be an economic game-changer. That is what
INL has been working on with both the reactor vendors and,
importantly, the end users of the technology.
DR. AUMEIER advanced to slide 12, This Approach Applies across
Every Sector of the Economy, Including Marine Platforms. The
slide depicts a number of applications including: military
bases, microgrids in remote communities, mining sites, indoor
farming, indoor aquaculture, data centers, desalination, and
portable pharma. He said one can postulate how these nuclear
batteries can be plugged into a range of industries,
particularly mining applications in Alaska, but the point is
that they're a game changer and a key that can unlock a door to
other types of manufacturing and industrial production
technology.
4:19:21 PM
DR. AUMEIER displayed slide 13, The March toward "Embedded,"
Localized Energy as a Competitive Advantage. The graphics
illustrate the movement from the very large reactors to small
modular reactors to embedded energy sources in the nuclear
battery format. He acknowledged that nothing in the nuclear
energy space is cheap, but the question is where can one extract
the competitive value from those types of systems and what does
the market bear.
4:19:22 PM
DR. AUMEIER advanced to slide 14, Accelerating advanced reactor
demonstration and deployment. He pointed out some of the nuclear
projects on the timeline that are slated to be constructed and
demonstrated in the near timeframe at INL and other locations.
The first is the microreactor Marvel that INL is building for
the Department of Energy (DoE) and will come on line late in
2024. It is being built so stakeholders can get comfortable with
the technology and test how it can be integrated with different
industry applications. One of the most important projects in the
near term is the reactor called Project Pele Microreactor. It is
being developed by the Department of Defense (DoD) and BWXT is
under contract to build it to provide mobile transportable power
to support US forces in action worldwide. It is being fabricated
and will be demonstrated at INL in 2024.
Other reactors include the one at Eielson that is defined as a
commercially offered NRC licensed reactor. The contract has not
been issued. The two larger reactors being deployed are the
Natrium reactor that's being deployed in Wyoming and the X-
energy high temperature gas reactor that will be deployed in the
state of Washington. He noted that X-energy signed an agreement
with Dow Chemical to look at ways to reduce its emissions
footprint. They found that the best way is through these small
reactor technologies and Dow signed an agreement with X-Energy
to embed those reactors in chemical processing plants in the
Southeast.
DR. AUMEIER stated that this is more activity than he'd seen in
his 33 year career as a nuclear engineer. It's similar to the
activity when power reactors were first being developed. He
described it as an exciting time.
4:22:51 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked whether any other countries were
using microreactors.
DR. AUMEIER said China, Russia, and the US are the principal
countries pursuing these reactors.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI expressed surprise that he didn't mention
any European countries, and asked if any countries had
prohibitions against microreactors.
DR. AUMEIER said there have been agreements and MOUs signed with
several European countries for small modular reactors and he
doubted there would be any prohibitions against microreactors.
SENATOR CLAMAN noted that one of the slides described 2025 as
the likely timeline to deploy a microreactor and 2029 to deploy
a small modular reactor. He asked if that was the timeline for
availability in the US and if the timeline would be similar for
other countries.
DR. AUMEIER clarified that these were demonstrations, not
commercial offerings. Commercial deployment for specific
commercial applications is anticipated in the next five years.
This is heavily dependent on NRC licensing but that agency is
actively planning on how it will address microreactors. The
paperwork he'd seen indicates they will be licensed within
existing authorities. He said NRC sees the very different nature
of those small systems so the licensing has to be treated
differently. If they're licensed in the US, offerings around the
world provide vastly larger markets.
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether the timeline were similar in
countries that aren't subject to NRC regulations.
DR. AUMEIER replied it depends on the country, but many of the
countries that INL deals with look to the NRC as a standard of
service. Also, there are export requirements, including a signed
123 agreement, so one would expect exports to those companies
that have already signed the agreement.
4:26:36 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there were security concerns about
individuals or organizations that might gain access to these
plants for nefarious purposes.
DR. AUMEIER replied that security is always planned for these
systems and the consequences of failure or breach is always part
of the calculation. NRC licensing also requires each licensee to
show it has an adequate plan to ensure the system is both safe
and secure.
4:28:11 PM
SENATOR KAUFMAN asked him to talk about the sodium-cooled
reactor that will be deployed in Wyoming, specifically the
concerns about the reactivity of sodium.
DR. AUMEIER explained that sodium burns when it contacts air,
similar to gas that comes into contact with flame. Nevertheless,
it is used throughout industry so there are procedures to handle
it safely. He described the safety features of passive reactors
as outstanding and pointed to the ABR 2 [anaerobic baffled
reactor] experience as an example. He offered to give a follow-
up talk with videos of the tests that have been done.
SENATOR GIESSEL highlighted safety and the cost per KWh as key
questions for the committee.
4:31:09 PM
DR. AUMEIER advanced to slide 20, Microreactor Cost Assessments
and Licensing. He directed attention to the green boxes in the
table on the top left that show the preliminary estimates of the
costs of electricity. The slide also had the following bullet
points:
â?¢ Capital cost estimates for MRs range from about
$6K/kWe - $30K/kWe.
â?¢ Costs are uncertain, and achievement of cost
targets critical for competitiveness in markets.
â?¢ Key is VALUE incremental provisioning,
reliability, zero carbon, security, etc
MIT Study Findings:
â?¢ Adding CHP (Combined heat and power) is key for
MRs competing against diesel and natural gas.
â?¢ Modest carbon emissions caps raise the capital
cost ceiling and make MRs viable beyond isolated
markets.
â?¢ Additional tax treatment, investment and credits
(e.g. IRA, BIL, DPA) being determined
NRC Assessing Licensing Strategies
â?¢ High degree of design and ops standardization
â?¢ Generic EIS streamlines site env. review
â?¢ Factory manufactured No spent fuel storage
DR. AUMEIER clarified that information about the cost of a
specific vendor's offering for a hypothetical application would
have to come from the vender. However, first of a kind units are
fairly expensive at 60 cents per KWh. The fairly dramatic drop
in costs after that is because microreactors are a manufacturing
project, not a construction project. This also has positive
quality assurance implications. Venders are saying the
preliminary cost estimates are acceptable. This conversation is
ongoing in Wyoming where there is a very specific application
He also pointed out the cost analysis that was done by the MIT
Sloan School of Management. It found surprisingly high ceilings
for two different markets that are Alaska-based, one of which
was remote application. They found that with a modest carbon
(emission) tax and with combined heat and power applications the
maximum price that can still be competitive is as high as
$30,000 per KWh. He offered to provide a copy of the published
paper
4:35:17 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if the cost to construct a microreactor was
on the order of $0.60/KWh.
DR. AUMEIER answered yes, and the capital cost of nuclear is
generally about 70 percent of the total cost of power
production.
SENATOR CLAMAN asked if that means that the cost of that power
would be $0.50 to $0.70 cents/KWh.
DR. AUMEIER answered yes; $0.60/KWh is the estimate for first of
a kind and novel applications, which makes sense in unique
applications. What that estimate doesn't include are the tax
credits that may be available.
SENATOR CLAMAN commented that the smart investor would wait for
somebody else to build the first 100 reactors so the price is in
the range of $0.20/KWh, but the timelines indicate that won't
happen in the 20-year horizon that's been discussed. Rather, the
investment starts looking attractive in the 40 to 50 year
timeframe. He asked if he was missing something.
4:38:23 PM
DR. AUMEIER noted that he was pointing to the difference between
first of a kind and 10,000 or more units. He said you're not
missing any of the fundamentals but what's important is the
price point where somebody is willing to bear the cost and the
supply chain starts to build for the unique application. He said
he believes that some industrial manufacturers would be willing
to place orders if the cost came down to the second green box on
the chart [<$0.50/KWh]. He noted that the same question has come
up with other game-changing technologies. Aircraft and
spacecraft are examples of first movers that are filling in that
cost timeline. The market ultimately will go from small to
comparatively large.
4:40:20 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI referenced the first green box on the chart
that estimates $0.60/KWh, and the statement that the capital
cost of nuclear is generally about 70 percent of the total cost
of power production. He calculated that it would add another
$0.18, which would bring the total cost for the 2020 to 2030
timeframe to about $0.78/KWh.
DR. AUMEIER said he generally agreed with the calculation.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI observed that none of the cost estimates on
the chart were economic for any Alaskan community on the road
system until 2040.
DR. AUMEIER said it's a good point and it gets to the question
of where the first mover market is located and what is
applicable for microreactors.
He continued to say that when he thinks about a bulk grid
application, he's not thinking about microreactors because the
threshold costs are higher. But if one is looking at bulk grid
applications, small modular reactors might make sense.
Nevertheless, the question is where do these reactors fit and
for what purposes. INL sees the niche markets leading into the
industrial applications which will carry a different price
threshold.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked where the largest holdup is that is
preventing microreactors from being built on a larger scale.
DR. AUMEIER said it's about priming the supply chain to get the
first 10-15 first-of-a-kind applications and joining that with a
market poll, which is what he and his team really came to talk
about. He noted that this was the way that the commercial energy
market for nuclear started and now it's producing 10 percent of
the world's electricity. It started with military applications
followed by incentivizing a commercial market that drew the
technology cost down. He called it a tried and true market
growth approach for deployment.
4:43:07 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR stated support for a community partnering with
DoD or somebody else to deploy a microreactor but wondered
whether any state laws would prevent deploying this technology,
or if it was market forces that were the impediment.
DR. AUMEIER suggested Marcio Paes Barreto talk about what the
Wyoming Energy Authority is learning about cost and what
different markets are willing to bear at the different levels
shown in the green boxes for the postulated applications.
SENATOR GIESSEL said that was one of the committee's predominant
questions.
4:45:13 PM
MARCIO PAES BARRETO, Director, Industrial Relations, Wyoming
Energy Authority (WEA), Laramie, Wyoming, stated that Pacificore
recently announced plans to deploy a nuclear power plant in the
state of Wyoming, and WEA is looking at the opportunities
nuclear energy will bring to the state. Developing a supply
chain in the state is the first such opportunity and another is
to use the heat and power the reactor will produce to add value
to existing industries. Mining and processing the mineral trona
is an example. Trona is a sodium carbonate compound that is
processed into soda ash or bicarbonate of soda and it represents
76 percent of Wyoming's international export trade. Leveraging
the heat from the planned microreactor will help to keep
Wyoming's trona competitive in the global marketplace. An added
benefit is that trona mined in Wyoming has lower emissions than
its largest competitor, which is China.
MR. PAES BARRETO concluded his comments stating that as the
largest producer of uranium in the US, Wyoming is looking
carefully at this fairly complex transition for nuclear and
taking small steps in order to consider the potential end users,
the developers, and the local ecosystem that can support the
construction and fabrication of these reactors, which includes
the fuel. He said it's one step at a time.
4:48:54 PM
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL observed that Wyoming has some remote
communities, just like Alaska, but it was looking at industrial
use, not residential.
MR. PAES BARRETO responded that Wyoming has rural communities
according to Lower 48 standards, but they are not remote as in
the Last Frontier. The current project is to provide grid-scale
electricity, but there are other opportunities associated with
microreactors and WEA is currently looking for inducer
applications.
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL noted that Senator Bishop cited $0.05/KWh power
costs in Wyoming. She asked if that was realistic.
MR. PAES BARRETO confirmed that was the cost for many end users
in Wyoming.
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL asked if that was now or once nuclear power is
added.
MR. PAES BARRETO deferred the question to Mr. Kjellander.
4:50:33 PM
MR. KJELLANDER relayed that in the Intermountain West, which is
typically Utah, Wyoming, and Idaho, the cost per kilowatt hour
ranges from $0.08 to $0.10/KWh.
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL asked for clarification that the source for
that electricity was not nuclear.
MR. KJELLANDER replied it varies by state and the utility. About
60 percent of the power for the Idaho Power utility comes from
hydro, whereas Pacificore that serves parts of Wyoming, Utah,
Idaho, as well as California, Oregon, and Washington is largely
coal-based and many of its generators are located within the
borders of Wyoming.
SENATOR KAUFMAN asked him to comment on the different decisions
that France and Germany made about energy production and the
outcomes of those choices.
DR. AUMEIER said energy security is once again a very real issue
and the principal point becomes one of cost and price versus
value and applicability. Grid-scale applications are one set of
considerations and another in places that have $0.10 to
$0.15/KWh costs for bulk electricity. The question of industrial
heat, the price, and what the market will bear for a number of
different security and economic competitive reasons is a
different question and that's the realm of microreactors. Bulk
generation from the larger reactors, wind, and solar can put
electricity directly onto a bulk grid. Security choices are
vitally important for the country, not just in choices on how to
power the grid but how industry will be powered.
4:54:04 PM
SENATOR CLAMAN asked whether the reactor that will be deployed
in Wyoming is a small reactor or a microreactor, and its
expected output.
MR. PAES BARRETO said the reactor under construction is a grid-
scale small reactor that will produce 345 megawatts with energy
storage up to 500 megawatts for several hours. WEA is also
working with industry to explore microreactors that could be
deployed in a cogeneration framework.
SENATOR CLAMAN asked what specific industrial applications were
under consideration.
MR. PAES BARRETO listed underground and surface mining,
processing minerals, and value added to mining products. He said
providing power for small communities has uncertain potential.
4:56:56 PM
SENATOR DUNBAR asked whether any of the presenters were aware of
any industrial users that might have reached out to the fish
processing and mining industries in Alaska to talk about the
commercial use of microreactors.
DR. AUMEIER stated that INL has been asked to help mining
companies engage with INL's network which includes the state of
Wyoming. He highlighted the value of partnering with the first
mover states in these advanced nuclear technologies to prepare
for the needed workforce. He emphasized that outreach and
networking is an important part of maintaining leadership in
this area. It is putting industries together with the vendors,
the operators, and the financiers. That is being done through
the Frontiers Collaboration between Wyoming, Idaho, and Alaska.
The idea is to create a competitive advantage for each to grow
the industry and fill those first-of-a-kind applications.
SENATOR KAUFMAN commented that with a reliable energy source, he
could picture the production and front-end processing of rare
earth minerals in Alaska.
CO-CHAIR GIESSEL thanked the presenters and highlighted the work
that's being done at the Alaska Center for Energy and Power
that's located at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
5:01:32 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Co-Chair Giessel adjourned the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting at 5:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Idaho National Laboratory - Frontiers Collaboration presentation (2) .pdf.pdf |
SRES 1/25/2023 3:30:00 PM |
|
| Idaho National Laboratory - A New Frontier of Economic Opportunity.pdf |
SRES 1/25/2023 3:30:00 PM |