NuScale, UAMPS terminate small modular reactor project in Idaho

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the termination of the small modular reactor project in Idaho by NuScale and UAMPS, exploring the implications for nuclear power, economic factors affecting project viability, and comparisons with alternative energy sources like solar power.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern that the termination of the NuScale project may signal broader challenges for nuclear power as a solution to future energy needs.
  • Others highlight that rising capital costs for construction materials and financing are significant factors in the project's economic feasibility.
  • There are discussions about whether Bill Gates' TerraPower can avoid similar issues faced by NuScale, with some suggesting that all nuclear projects will encounter comparable economic and supply chain challenges.
  • Participants note that municipalities may struggle to develop new projects due to economic pressures, although some utilities are pursuing renewable energy projects like wind and solar.
  • Comparisons are made between the costs of the AP300 reactor and NuScale's offerings, with varying interpretations of the projected costs and economic viability.
  • Some argue that while solar power has lower initial costs, nuclear power offers longer operational lifespans and dispatchable energy, which are important considerations.
  • There is a discussion about the role of energy storage solutions in making solar power comparable to nuclear energy, with some participants questioning the feasibility of current battery technology.
  • Concerns are raised about the impact of rising interest rates and insufficient demand on the viability of nuclear projects, with specific references to the withdrawal of certain municipalities from the UAMPS project.
  • NuScale is mentioned as receiving support from the US State Department for a project in Ghana, which some hope may encourage further engagement in nuclear projects.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the implications of the project termination, with no clear consensus on the future of nuclear power or the economic viability of alternative energy sources. Disagreements persist regarding the comparative costs and benefits of nuclear versus solar energy.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion is influenced by fluctuating economic conditions, including inflation and interest rates, which complicate the assessment of project feasibility. The conversation also reflects varying assumptions about the future of energy technology and market dynamics.

Engineering news on Phys.org
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?
 
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.
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gleem
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.
 
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:
Reply
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: hutchphd
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?
 
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.
 
It will be hard to compete with solar at a cost of $1M Per Mw and much smaller operating costs.
 
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?
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 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."
 
Reply
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 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.
 

Similar threads

NuScale Modular Reactor gets NRC certification
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Can Small Modular Reactors Revitalize Nuclear-Powered Surface Combatants?
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K