NuScale, UAMPS terminate small modular reactor project in Idaho

Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
Is this an ominous sign for nuclear power as an answer to future energy needs? Will Bill Gates' TerraPower be able to avoid Nuscale's problems?
 
  • #3
My understanding is that the utility group determined that the capital costs for construction materials, e.g., steel and concrete, had increased quite a lot (inflation) and the cost of financing (interest rates) had increased as well. So, it's not economic.

Same thing happened with the cost of Gen3+ LWRs, which were promoted at about $1 billion each (around year 2000), then $5 billion, then $7 billion, and finally, about $14 billion per unit (Vogtle 3 & 4, AP1000s). This despite the reduction in piping, steel and concrete as compared to older NPP designs.

gleem said:
Will Bill Gates' TerraPower be able to avoid Nuscale's problems?
All nuclear projects will face the same economic and supply chain issues.
 
  • Like
Likes gleem
  • #4
Astronuc said:
My understanding is that the utility group determined that the capital costs for construction materials, e.g., steel and concrete, had increased quite a lot (inflation) and the cost of financing (interest rates) had increased as well. So, it's not economic.

So are municipalities not going to develop anything anymore? This is a problem for all future constructions and not just nuclear power which must be faced. Interest rates will come down.
 
  • #5
gleem said:
So are municipalities not going to develop anything anymore?
One would have to look at the statements from the individual utilities.

Lots of utilities are doing wind projects and solar. Each state and program is different in terms of subsidies and tax credits, on top of capital costs and debt.

UAMPS is a political subdivision of the State of Utah that provides comprehensive wholesale electric-energy, transmission, and other energy services, on a nonprofit basis, to 50 community-owned power systems throughout the Intermountain West, including in Utah, California, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wyoming. The CFPP was a major project for UAMPS. At one point in time, it was envisioned to be a 720-MWe power plant comprised of 12 NuScale SMR power modules (60 MWe per unit). As time progressed and member subscriptions for plant production lagged expectations, the project was scaled back to six modules with a combined capacity of 462 MWe (77 MWe per unit).
https://www.powermag.com/uamps-and-nuscale-power-terminate-smr-nuclear-project/

In October, Standard Power, a provider of infrastructure as a service to advanced data processing companies, announced it had chosen NuScale Power’s SMR technology to power two facilities it plans to develop in Ohio and Pennsylvania. NuScale also has a memorandum of understanding with Nucor Corporation to explore co-locating SMR power plants to provide baseload electricity to Nucor’s scrap-based electric arc furnace (EAF) steel mills. The companies said they will also explore an expanded manufacturing partnership through which Nucor, the largest steel producer and recycler of any type of material in North America, would supply Econiq, its net-zero steel products, for NuScale projects.

Each nuclear project/program will have some unique issues, and it's not clear how many programs will come to fruition. I know people/colleagues in several of the projects, and I've worked with a couple on the fuel side.

Edit/Update: NuScale statement
https://www.nuscalepower.com/en/new...ee-to-terminate-the-carbon-free-power-project

UAMPS (they seem about a month behind in updates)
https://www.uamps.com/Carbon-Free
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes hutchphd
  • #6
Westinghouse has announced a downsized model of their popular AP1000. the AP300 (300Mw) with a price of $1B as of 5/23. Does this seems cheaper than the Nuscale?
 
  • #7
gleem said:
Westinghouse has announced a downsized model of their popular AP1000. the AP300 (300Mw) with a price of $1B as of 5/23. Does this seems cheaper than the Nuscale?
This is an interesting read.

https://www.powermag.com/westinghou...turized-ap1000-small-modular-nuclear-reactor/

It quotes WEC CEO Fragman: 3400$/kw. At 300 MWe that would be 1.02B$. In another paragraph it quotes Energy Services President Durham: “We’re talking single, low-billion versus double-digit billions for a big project.” So who knows just what total cost they're projecting.
 
  • #8
It will be hard to compete with solar at a cost of $1M Per Mw and much smaller operating costs.
 
  • #9
gleem said:
It will be hard to compete with solar at a cost of $1M Per Mw and much smaller operating costs.
No doubt. But, they're not apples to apples. Just two examples: the nuclear plant (should) operate for 60 to 80 years, and the power is dispatchable. Sad that these kinds of considerations get short shrift in today's world.
 
  • #10
gmax137 said:
No doubt. But, they're not apples to apples. Just two examples: the nuclear plant (should) operate for 60 to 80 years, and the power is dispatchable. Sad that these kinds of considerations get short shrift in today's world.
Yes, this is the capital cost AP300 core costs $1B and a comparable solar installation would cost $300M. The supporting facilities of a rector are high. the solar supporting facility is negligible. The operating cost of the reactor including maintenance waste storage or disposal is high, The operating cost of a solar farm is low. Ok, you have to replace the solar farm three times but it seems after 60 years solar is still cheaper. Right now the only equalizer is storage for solar to make it comparable to a nuclear reactor.
 
  • #11
gleem said:
Right now the only equalizer is storage for solar to make it comparable to a nuclear reactor.
"Only"? Until we have "batteries" that can provide the 300 MW for the twilight/overnite hours, that seems a big sticking point, no?
 
  • Like
Likes gleem
  • #12
One more thought, if you do have the "battery," you also need one or two extra 300 MW solar arrays so that you can simultaneously charge up and provide the power during the day. So the solar route would be $300M times say 2.5, or $750M, plus the $??? for a 4,800 MW-hr "battery."
 
  • Like
Likes gleem
  • #13
gmax137 said:
Until we have "batteries" that can provide the 300 MW for the twilight/overnite hours, that seems a big sticking point, no?
Maybe not if all of the homes and businesses served by the power plant have their own Tesla Powerwalls (local battery storage)... :wink:

https://www.tesla.com/powerwall
 
  • #15
Too many customers took the off-ramps - insufficient demands, increased costs and rising interest rates.
 
  • #16
Yes. I was really looking forward to getting my juice from the UAMPS SMRs. The western Nevada towns that were in on it all bailed.
 

1. Why was the small modular reactor project in Idaho terminated?

The project was terminated primarily due to financial challenges and escalating costs. The initial budget estimates increased significantly, making it difficult for the project to remain economically viable without imposing a financial burden on the stakeholders, including municipalities involved with the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS).

2. What is a small modular reactor (SMR)?

A small modular reactor (SMR) is a type of nuclear reactor that is smaller than conventional nuclear reactors and is designed to be built in a factory and shipped to a site for installation. SMRs are considered to be safer and more cost-effective, and they have the potential to be integrated into smaller electrical grids and even off-grid applications.

3. Who were the key players involved in the Idaho SMR project?

The key players in the Idaho SMR project were NuScale Power, an Oregon-based company that designs SMRs, and the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), a consortium of municipal utilities in Utah and other states. The project was also supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, which provided funding and support.

4. What were the projected benefits of the SMR project in Idaho?

The projected benefits of the SMR project included providing a reliable and carbon-free source of energy, supporting local economies through job creation, and contributing to the diversification of the energy portfolio of the participating utilities. Additionally, the SMR was seen as a potential model for future deployments of nuclear technology in a smaller, more flexible format.

5. What are the implications of the project's termination for the future of SMR technology?

The termination of the project is a setback for the deployment of SMR technology in the United States, particularly in terms of public and investor confidence. However, it also provides valuable lessons regarding the economic challenges and regulatory hurdles that need to be addressed for future projects. Despite this project’s termination, interest in SMR technology continues globally, and other projects are still being developed and pursued in different regions.

Similar threads

NuScale Modular Reactor gets NRC certification
    • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
1
Views
1K
Small Modular Naval Reactors
    • Nuclear Engineering
2
Replies
45
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top