NuScale–Idaho National Lab–UAMPS Small Modular Nuclear Reactor proposal
(UAMPS = Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems)	2020 Offramp Developments Salmon River Electric Co-op withdraws from risky nuclear project The Idaho utility walked away from this project because it does not need additional power; and it is not competitively priced compared to BPA and would necessitate retail price increases. January 2021 Los Alamos County, NM reduces its subscription by 43%, from 11.2 to 6.37 megawatts. November 9, 2020 Heber withdraws from risky nuclear project It was one of the largest remaining subscribers. KPCW radio news, November 2, 2020 Bountiful and Beaver withdraw from risky nuclear power project They are the 5th and 6th cities to withdraw. The Deseret News, October 28, 2020 Idaho Falls reduces its share by half, from 10 to 5 MW. The Idaho Falls Post Register, October 23, 2020 Murray City withdraws from risky nuclear power project See the city council's deliberation and unanimous decision, from 28:30 to 49:00 and 1:28:30 to 2:27:00 in this video. October 20, 2020 Kaysville withdraws from risky nuclear power project See the city council's deliberation and unanimous decision, at 12:54 to 20:31 in this video. September 17, 2020 Lehi withdraws from risky nuclear power project The Lehi City Council voted unanimously to withdraw from the UAMPS NuScale SMNR project, citing concerns over rising costs. The Daily Herald (Provo), August 26, 2020 Logan withdraws from risky nuclear power project Logan, Utah, which has already invested $400,000 into the UAMPS NuScale project, would have needed to put in another $654,000 for the initial licensing phase. The city council, which voted 4-1 to withdraw, was cautioned that staying with the project could lead to an obligation of over $21 million by 2025. Cache Valley Daily, August 19, 2020
Postscript: Failed nuclear projects let Utah down The cancellation of the UAMPS project was met in Utah with little surprise. By Lexi Tuddenham, Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, December 29, 2023 Small modular nuclear reactors: a history of failure Small modular reactors (SMRs) are defined as reactors with a capacity of 300 megawatts (MW) or less. The term ‘modular’ refers to serial factory production of reactor components, which could drive down costs. By that definition, no SMRs have ever been built and none are being built now. In all likelihood none will ever be built because of the prohibitive cost of setting up factories for mass production of reactor components. No SMRs have been built, but dozens of small (<300 MW) power reactors have been built in numerous countries, without factory production of reactor components. The history of small reactors is a history of failure. By Jim Green, Friends of the Earth Australia, November 28, 2023 NuScale must triple subscription level for small modular reactor in Idaho by early 2024, company says Failure to reach that level would require NuScale to reimburse Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) for costs incurred. Utility Dive, March 17, 2023 Modular nuclear plants may reshape coal country (or not) Whether small modular nuclear reactors can realistically be built all over the nation is very much in dispute. The nuclear industry has a record of overpromising and energy scholars warn this new technology is straining to show viability. Two demonstration projects expected to break ground, in Idaho and Wyoming, are behind schedule and struggling with spiraling costs. Washington Post, February 19, 2023 Small modular reactor project likely to end badly for Utah utilities UAMPS announced earlier this month that its projected cost has risen from by 53%, from $58 to $89 per megawatt hour. It's significant that a major Utah newspaper gave prominence to this report. By David Schlissel, Salt Lake Tribune, January 19, 2023 Geothermal resources offer an off-ramp from risky, costly nuclear project A Nevada geothermal project has the potential to be a less expensive, more certain, quicker option than the unproven small modular reactor with rising costs. Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, January 10, 2023 NuScale SMR costs rising Tucked within this article: NRC staff has identified "several challenging and/or significant issues" with the draft application for the reactor design. Those include containment and reactor vessel materials; seismic qualifications; and deficient technical analysis on safety-related systems. Beyond Nuclear, December 1, 2022 Rising steel prices, interest rates could push NuScale Utah project cost to $100/MWh Without recent federal tax credits, the cost could reach $120/MWh. That is twice the threshold of $58 at which participating utilities could abandon or renegotiate the terms of their involvement. Utility Dive, November 16, 2022 Carbon-Free Power Project: Don’t Continue To Delay The Inevitable Questions are raised about the continued involvement of Los Alamos County, NM, in this project. Among other concerns, the writer notes that Energy Northwest has withdrawn its interest in operating the plant - which does not seem to have been announced publicly. By George Chandler, Los Alamos Reporter, July 27, 2021 UAMPS Shrinks SMR Project. Energy Northwest Pulls Out Energy Northwest and UAMPS mutually parted. NewsData, July 23, 2021 Eastern Idaho nuclear reactor project downsized From 12 units (600 MW) to 6 units (462 MW). As of now, 28 participants have committed to a total of 103 MW. The Post-Register (Idaho Falls), July 16, 2021 UAMPS/NuScale Post-Offramp Summary Fact Sheet The project goal is to sell commitments for 720 MW before construction starts. Presently, the number is about 100 MW, and dropping. January 2021 New nuclear project makes no sense New nuclear isn't competing with fossil fuels; instead, it competes with low-carbon renewables, chiefly solar and wind. And it simply can’t compete. By Robert Davies, Utah State University physics professor, in the Deseret News, September 18, 2020 PacifiCorp study shows cost of renewables much lower than cost of SMNRs The utility projects the NuScale project to cost $6,229/kW, plus operation and maintenance costs of nearly $200/kW-year, which amounts to another $6,000/kW over 30 years. By contrast, the resource cost for solar plus batteries at Idaho Falls: about $1,600/kW plus only $30/kW-year for O&M. (See pages 12 and 8, respectively, of the PDF.) In other words, UAMPS utilities can decide to pay four times as much for nuclear as the resource literally falling on the ground around them, plus much higher operational costs They can wait a decade for the NuScale project to be completed, with likely cost increases (and delays) along the way; or they can have proven solar power within a year. PacifiCorp Integrated Resource Plan, September 17, 2020 Eyes Wide Shut Problems with the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) Proposal to Construct NuScale Small Modular Reactors. Among those problems is that Fluor, the majority stockholder in NuScale, is facing legal and financial difficulties and is reducing its investment in NuScale. A Credit Suisse financial analyst has recommended dumping the SMNR project altogether. Some private utilities that have considered NuScale have come up estimates of $100/MWh or more (and rising) for the cost of its electricity, compared to solar and wind at well under $50 (and falling). Meanwhile, in 2019 NuScale and UAMPS were still using a figure of $55, though increasing projections of construction costs are cause for skepticism. By M.V. Ramana, University of British Columbia, September 2020 Two years later, the $100/MWh estimate is confirmed by NuScale. A cost of over $58/MWh could allow participating utilities to abandon or renegotiate the terms of their participation. Startup schedule of Idaho SMNR delayed to 2029 from 2027 Utah Taxpayer Association's vice president said Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) members currently committed to the project should withdraw from it because of the risks. He said the project relies on "unproven technology that continues to be less and less competitive than other clean energy alternatives. Former NRC commissioner Peter Bradford said, "The development of untried new designs is no place for small utilities with no nuclear construction experience to risk their customers' money." August 13, 2020 Utah group voices SMNR concerns The Utah Taxpayers Association claims ratepayers in 34 municipalities could be on the hook for billions of dollars if they don't pull out of UAMPS nuclear plans by September 14, 2020. The group claims NuScale has repeatedly delayed and increased costs of its small reactor projects. Further, the UTA says that no participating municipality has conducted its own financial evaluation of the project and is relying on NuScale's own evaluation. KID Radio (Idaho Falls), August 12, 2020 Questions to be asked about nuclear proposal Small Utah municipalities are cautioned about the risks of investing in the Small Modular Nuclear Reactor proposed for Idaho. By Kurt Hamaan, in the Salt Lake Tribune, July 27, 2020 Utah cities should beware of nuclear plant costs Over the past several years, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) has been working on a project to build a small modular nuclear reactor project to provide some of its power needs. Later this summer, the cities involved will be voting to increase their financial commitment to cover the entire cost of the federal licensing process. It is vital that they are accurate and transparent about the costs to their ratepayers over the next half century. Three outside sources estimate that the costs will be much higher than they would be from other means of energy production. By Ray Ward, Utah State Representative (Republican), in the Salt Lake Tribune, July 7, 2020 A cautionary tale for UAMPS The municipal utility of Jacksonville, Florida, found itself locked into a power-purchase contract from the Vogtle nuclear power plants presently under construction. Though the construction cost of the plants has at least doubled, and Westinghouse, the original contractor, went bankrupt as a result, a federal court ruled that Jacksonville is still obligated to buy the contracted electricity. Meanwhile, the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) is preparing to contract for some of the output of a speculative Small Modular Nuclear Reactor to be built in Idaho. See the next article below (items 1 through 3) for a guide to the pricing. And guess why UAMPS should be especially hesitant: the Idaho project will be managed by WPPSS/Energy Northwest, which 40 years ago nearly bankrupted the State of Washington. [Energy Northwest withdrew in 2021.] Let's hope UAMPS is paying attention to Jacksonville and is wise enough not to get locked into the same catastrophic result. Otherwise, check this space in five years, and we'll say we told you so. World Nuclear News, June 19, 2020 Analyzing the Cost of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors and Alternative Power Portfolios Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS) members are considering the purchase of a portion of a 600 MW Small Modular Nuclear Reactor (SMNR) power generation facility under development by NuScale Power at the Idaho National Laboratory near Idaho Falls, Idaho. The Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah (HEAL) commissioned Energy Strategies to conduct an independent, high-level assessment of the cost competitiveness of delivered power from the SMNR plant relative to the costs of power from comparable alternative low- or non-carbon emitting resource portfolios that include wind, solar, and energy storage. The alternative portfolios were constructed in a manner such that they would provide the same energy and capacity value as the SMNR resource being considered by UAMPS members. The study shows that emissions-free alternative energy portfolios would be about 40% less costly than SMNR generation. Key Findings (brief summary), May 2019

 

An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics:	On the other hand, a practical reactor plant can be distinguished by the following characteristics:
(1) It is simple. (2) It is small. (3) It is cheap (4) It is light. (5) It can be built very quickly. (6) It is very flexible in purpose (’omnibus reactor’). (7) Very little development is required. It will use mostly off-the-shelf components. (8) The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now.	(1) It is being built now. (2) It is behind schedule. (3) It is requiring an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. Corrosion, in particular, is a problem. (4) It is very expensive. (5) It takes a long time to build because of the engineering development problems. (6) It is large. (7) It is heavy. (8) It is complicated.
Admiral Hyman Rickover, June 1953