Response to article Central WA eying nuclear power again – but at a smaller scale

By Roger Lippman
September 19, 2022

Editor, Crosscut:

The article Central WA eying nuclear power again – but at a smaller scale , by John Stang, dutifully recycles the puff pieces of the nuclear power industry. The writer has been doing that for at least four years, repeating the optimistic and unfounded claims of NuScale about the cost and schedule of notional “small modular nuclear reactors.”

In 2018, Stang wrote that NuScale hoped to build such a power plant by the mid-2020s. Now he says 2030. So the goal has not gotten any closer.

NuScale’s cost projection per kilowatt started at $1700 in 2003. In 2020 it was $4200. At that time, its customer’s projection was twice that, at $8500. Meanwhile, the actual cost of completed projects has been $10,500 (Russia) and $22,000 (Argentina).

Cost predictions and scheduling are imaginary for an unproven technology. What’s real is the history of nuclear technology: the “negative learning curve.” The more the technology advances, the more expensive it gets and the longer it takes to build. This is a virtually unique experience in the history of technology. The only nuclear power station now under construction in the United States, years behind schedule, is estimated to cost double its original $10 billion budget.

Stang repeats the promoter’s claims that the NuScale project is “carbon free.” This is true only at the moment of the nuclear reaction, ignoring uranium mining and refining, as well as plant construction. Furthermore, like the nuclear industry, he has nothing to say about how the project’s high-level nuclear waste will be disposed of. All we really know is that it will be dangerous to humans for longer than our species has existed on this earth, and that, per kilowatt of plant capacity, it is likely to be more than what is produced in existing nuclear reactors.

NuScale’s sole customer, in Utah, is leaking support for the project. Of its initial subscribers, about 10 have reduced their commitments or pulled out altogether. That just leaves the rubes, who have signed up for less than one quarter of the Idaho Falls project output, 103 out of 462 megawatts.

Forward thinkers about energy and climate are looking at the cheapest, cleanest, and quickest substitutes for fossil fuels. Fortunately, our region is rich in them, especially solar and wind energy. These are available now, in large quantities, at low cost, using technology that is well developed.

For deep background on the subject of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, please see the website of Nuclear Free Northwest, at http://nuclearfreenw.org/modular.htm .