Is the Future of Nuclear Power in the Wilds of Wyoming? – Watts Up With That?

From CFACT

By David Wojick

It is early days, but the nuclear future looms large for Wyoming and the world. To nuke or not to nuke; that is the question.

Many of my readers will have heard of Small Modular Reactors (SMR), which are the hoped-for future of nuclear power. The very first U.S. application for an SMR has been filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and it is in western Wyoming, about as far away from everybody as you can get and still be in America.

It is called the Natrium Plant near Kemmerer, Wyoming. By a wonderful coincidence, Kemmerer is named after a Pennsylvania coal baron and 70 years ago, was the world’s biggest open-pit coal mine. Maybe they can do for nuclear what they did for coal.

At 345 MW, the proposed plant is a normal SMR. Unfortunately, they have thrown in storage capacity which makes it complicated. In fact, there seems to be an important bit of confusion here. The applicant is Terrapower, and they say the nuke plus storage runs 500 MW. But NRC says it is an 850 MW project.

In either case, NRC seems to be going “outside the fence,” as they say. They are asking for comments on the scope of the coming environmental impact assessment.

See https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2024-0078-0006

It looks like the NRC are including the storage facility in their EIS. According to Terrapower: “The project features a 345 MW sodium-cooled fast reactor with a molten salt-based energy storage system.”

I have no idea what a molten salt-based energy storage system is, but neither does the NRC. The point is that this is none of their business. It should not be part of their environmental assessment, as I am sure it would take them ten years or more to get up to speed on this storage technology.

If Terrapower wanted to fill the surrounding rangeland area with truckload-sized Tesla battery packs to store the power for when the wind does not blow or the sun shine, that has nothing to do with the approval of this small nuke.

On the other hand Terrapower says this, “The energy storage capability allows the plant to integrate seamlessly with renewable resources and is the only advanced reactor design with this unique feature.”

So they say it is a design feature of the reactor! I do not see how, but they may have baited their own trap.

NRC is taking comments until August 12 on the scope of their environmental assessment. A nice local article that includes a link to the Federal Register page is here: https://wyofile.com/is-wyomings-first-ever-nuclear-reactor-a-good-idea-the-feds-want-your-input/

As of this writing, there have been just 28 comments, mostly saying we do or do not like nukes. The entire SMR industry seems to have missed the point here. Molten salt storage is not part of nuclear power.

Mind you, my understanding is that the NRC would really like to see a bunch of new nukes. I think their entire budget is funded by a tax on nuclear power. Given that the U.S. nuclear fleet is running on 50 years old, the end of the NRC road is within sight, as it were.

I have a hard time seeing storage as part of the reactor design, but if it is, I strongly suggest a revised design, one the NRC can quickly approve.

In closing I do have to mention that Terrapower is a Bill Gates company. Gates is working hard to make money out of climate change, and this is part of that, but just part. The issue here is nuclear power, not climate change.

But some of the public statements in opposition are hilarious because, to some people Bill Gates is the Devil or a close relative. I agree that nuclear power must be a bit more reliable than certain software that need not be named.

Has the Devil come down to Wyoming? Or is nuclear an Angel? Stay tuned.