Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

Clean Virginia’s Views on Small Modular (Nuclear) Reactors

—

by

sherlockj
in

By James C. Sherlock

VOYGR™ SMR plants powered by NuScale Power Module™, the first and only small modular reactor (SMR) to receive design approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

I wrote in an earlier article that I had reached out to Clean Virginia on its policy on Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) and had not received a response.

Laura Gonzalez Guerrero, Clean Virginia’s energy policy lead, has been kind enough to contact me with that answer.  She was out of the office on April 25th when I inquired.

Ms. Guerrero’s response today:

“Clean Virginia recognizes SMRs as a nascent technology that has neither been fully tested nor proven to be cost-competitive.

Thus, it is our view that this technology warrants further study by the state.

Specifically, we hope state agencies lead a process with stakeholder input to understand and research SMRs and other technologies like hydrogen to determine their viability and the pathways to deploy these technologies in the safest and most cost-effective way possible.”

I fully expect that Clean Virginia, understanding that the Commonwealth has no equivalent state government expertise in next generation nuclear power, will also consider the decisions of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

I sincerely thank Ms. Guerrero for her response.

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

48 responses to “Clean Virginia’s Views on Small Modular (Nuclear) Reactors”

  1. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Let industry prove it. Maybe Elon?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      China will build ten before the U.S. completes one. The technology will work. The green left and fear mongers will delay and drive up the costs here. I count you among them, with Clean VA.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Oh yeah. They’re gonna eat our lunch. Been hearing that since 1990s. And before them, it was Japan in the 70s and 80s who was going to overtake us. How’d that go?

        I’d rather have our difficulties than theirs.

        1. Nathan Avatar
          Nathan

          In terms of energy, our adversaries are being much more strategic than the US.

          The U.S. has minimal uranium mining. But it gets worse.

          However, uranium mining is just one piece of the nuclear process. Raw uranium is not suitable as fuel for nuclear plants. It needs to be refined into uranium concentrate, converted into gas, and then enriched. And this is where Russia excels.

          In 2020, there were just four conversion plants operating commercially — in Canada, China, France, and Russia. Russia was the largest player, with almost 40 percent of the total uranium conversion infrastructure in the world, and therefore produced the largest share of uranium in gaseous form (called uranium hexafluoride).

          “Russia’s Stranglehold On The World’s Nuclear Power Cycle”

          https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-nuclear-power-industry-graphics/32014247.html

          1. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            Again, we could solve that first by focusing on reactors that can use recycled/reprocessed fuel removed from the current plants. And if and when DOD decides it needs it, believe me, the Pittsylvania stash will be mined. It’s just sitting there until needed.

          2. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Shhh! Don’t tell Biden about the Pittsylvania stash. Look what he did to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve:

            https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_ending_stocks_of_crude_oil_in_the_strategic_petroleum_reserve#:~:text=US%20Crude%20Oil%20in%20the%20Strategic%20Petroleum%20Reserve%20Stocks%20is,34.02%25%20from%20one%20year%20ago.

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Along with coal.

          4. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Shhh! Don’t tell Biden about the Pittsylvania stash. Look what he did to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve:

            https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_ending_stocks_of_crude_oil_in_the_strategic_petroleum_reserve#:~:text=US%20Crude%20Oil%20in%20the%20Strategic%20Petroleum%20Reserve%20Stocks%20is,34.02%25%20from%20one%20year%20ago.

          5. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Yeah, and they’ve limited regulatory and licensing… so, why haven’t they built one?

        2. Nathan Avatar
          Nathan

          In terms of energy, our adversaries are being much more strategic than the US.

          The U.S. has minimal uranium mining. But it gets worse.

          However, uranium mining is just one piece of the nuclear process. Raw uranium is not suitable as fuel for nuclear plants. It needs to be refined into uranium concentrate, converted into gas, and then enriched. And this is where Russia excels.

          In 2020, there were just four conversion plants operating commercially — in Canada, China, France, and Russia. Russia was the largest player, with almost 40 percent of the total uranium conversion infrastructure in the world, and therefore produced the largest share of uranium in gaseous form (called uranium hexafluoride).

          “Russia’s Stranglehold On The World’s Nuclear Power Cycle”

          https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-nuclear-power-industry-graphics/32014247.html

      2. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        And when we do build them, where will we get the fuel? Russia?

        “In 2021, the United States purchased 14 percent of its uranium from Russia.”

        https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/01/21/uranium-imports-russia-nuclear/

      3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        If China builds ten before we build one, clearly the cost will go down, not up. Have you learned nothing from the recent history of PVs?

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Yes, their slaves are very cost effective. Maybe they’ll build our SMRs too.

        2. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Yes, their slaves are very cost effective. Maybe they’ll build our SMRs too.

        3. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Yes, their slaves are very cost effective. Maybe they’ll build our SMRs too.

        4. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          There’s a couple of disconnects in their “China gonna beat us” argument.
          1) They insist China had no problems exposing their people to COV-2, so radiation shouldn’t be a problem,
          2) Licensing and regulation. See 1.
          3) The technology has been in existence since 1957 when we built the first one, so they’ve had 70 years to build one, at least one, and they haven’t.

          1. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Right now, China is focused on its military. China already has nuclear submarines. The next step is nuclear aircraft carriers.

            “China’s nuclear supercarrier vision coming into view”

            https://asiatimes.com/2023/04/chinas-nuclear-supercarrier-vision-coming-into-view/

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Yes, ‘cause they can’t walk and chew gum…

          3. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Maybe China is waiting for us to refine the technology for them, so they can steal it.

            That’s what they have been doing since the Clinton Administration.

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Well, it’s been 70 years and we ain’t done it. How long are they supposed to wait for us?

  2. Nathan Avatar
    Nathan

    I noticed that Ms. Guerrero mentions hydrogen. As I commented yesterday, hydrogen is not a source of energy. Usable energy from other sources is required to produce it.

    From the IEA website:

    Hydrogen is almost entirely supplied from natural gas and coal today. Hydrogen is already with us at industrial scale all around the world, but its production is responsible for annual CO2 emissions equivalent to those of Indonesia and the United Kingdom combined.

    https://www.iea.org/reports/the-future-of-hydrogen

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Plus, H & He are “escape gases”. Let ‘em go and they leave the planet.

      1. WayneS Avatar
        WayneS

        And if that new-fangled “Space Force” would do a better job of guarding the exosphere, such rogue gases would not be able to get away so easily…

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Build the Wall takes on a higher connotation.

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      That statement, the first ever by Clean Virginia, is unlikely to have come from Ms. Guerrero alone. Ii suspect the reply took a week because Mr. Bills had to sign off.

      I can imagine there was more than one draft and she words were tortured, but at the end they agreed to discuss deploying SMRs.

      1. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but my take is that no serious readjustment will take place with Clean Virginia/Democrats until we start to experience rolling blackouts.

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          You could be right, but I still contend it is a step that, as he is aware, might cost Mr. Bills some of his most passionate supporters.

    3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      That is like saying gasoline, diesel, and fuel oil are not sources of energy. In a way that is true but is really not salient. Based on your definition, SMRs would not be considered “sources of energy” either. She probably should have specifically referenced “green hydrogen” or something similar but her point is sound. SMRs are probably equivalent (in terms of commercial development potential and status) to green hydrogen. If green hydrogen wins, there is likely not as much of a driver for nuclear, btw. It solves the energy storage issues often cited as a negative for solar and wind and avoids the nuclear waste problem and the international security/competition issues you cite elsewhere.

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        You still need massive energy to make “green” hydrogen. But you are right, SMR’s are technology to unleash the energy of the atom. Get into the physics and it is all (wind, solar, fossil fuels) from the sun and thus energy of the atom.

        1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
          Eric the half a troll

          As with nuclear, technology is changing…

          https://news.umich.edu/cheap-sustainable-hydrogen-through-solar-power/

          https://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2022/efficiency-and-stability-best-practices-proposed-for-solar-water-splitting-to-make-hydrogen.html

          1. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            When it’s ready, I’m all for it, but that’s nowhere near production stage. This is decades away at best. Not at all comparable to nuclear, in my estimation.

            Virginia needs to enhance it’s capacity now. Conventional nuclear, natural gas, and SMRs if possible.

          2. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            From your first link:

            Michigan News:
            “A new kind of solar panel, developed at the University of Michigan, has achieved 9% efficiency in converting water into hydrogen and oxygen.”

            Given the small and finite amount of solar energy per square foot, and the 9% efficiency of this method, how many thousands of acres should be dedicated to this endeavor and how much energy will be produced?

            Keep in mind, Virginia only has about 27 million acres altogether.

            Assuming they are ready for production, but of course they are not.

        2. Nathan Avatar
          Nathan

          What the greenies will not talk about is power density. There’s a small finite amount of energy per square foot with solar, and that’s only for a portion of the day. Without massive deforestation, we won’t be able to produce enough energy to meet future needs.

      2. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        “That is like saying gasoline, diesel, and fuel oil are not sources of energy.”

        Not true at all. The production of hydrogen currently requires more fuel energy than the resulting hydrogen produced. Fossil fuels are a huge net gain. To suggest otherwise is lunacy.

        Green hydrogen is fine, but if hydrogen is produced from solar panels or wind turbines, that’s where the power is produced. Hydrogen is then just a storage and transport medium.

        Nuclear technology is a present reality and has been for many years. The first nuclear submarine was commissioned in 1954.

  3. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    Just a double-talk non answer. And why do I care what they say? They won’t waver from the wind-solar-battery will save us theology. They buy politicians for that industry as blatantly as the robber barons of old bought politicians for their favored business interests, and as Dominion does still. No difference.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      How quixotic.

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      I read:

      “Specifically, we hope state agencies lead a process with stakeholder input to understand and research SMRs and other technologies like hydrogen to determine their viability and the pathways to deploy these technologies in the safest and most cost-effective way possible.” as a breakthrough.

      Take the win, Steve. Bills will be criticized by some of his most passionate supporters for agreeing to join a process leading to SMR deployment.

      That is not only Clean Virginia’s first acceptance of discussions to deploy SMR, but also as far as my research shows the first public reference to nuclear power ever by that organization.

      Do I think some radical greens will try to slow the deployment? Absolutely.

      But having Michael Bills at the table discussing such a deployment is a good thing. It literally puts it on the table.

      1. Nathan Avatar
        Nathan

        Democrats might talk about it, but that’s as far as it will go with them.

        And make no mistake, Clean Virginia is wholly aligned with the Democrat Party.

        https://twitter.com/bluevirginia/status/1640752219686305792?cxt=HHwWgICwrezcj8UtAAAA

        1. Stephen Haner Avatar
          Stephen Haner

          Don’t argue with him. He’s the expert. He got us “a win!”

        2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          No, the Democratic Party is wholly aligned with Clean Virginia.

          1. Nathan Avatar
            Nathan

            Okay. I stand corrected.

  4. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    As long as we’re on the subject of SciFi, here’s something to consider.

    Remember, CRT? And it’s premise that race is a social construct and not a biological one as it pertains to systemic racism?

    Given the advent of AI, and its worming its way into our systems, race may one day be a data construct. On which side of the racial line will your data say you are? Where will you fall when the Black Box algorithms and training data decide your fate within the government and commercial systems?

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      Ok, I’ll play. What pronouns are applied to AI?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Oh c’mon. That’s easy. IT.

        (Caps, like God)

        But as long as we’re playing. Currently, AI could be used to “read” the entire Federal Codes and all appeals to eliminate contradictions, ambiguities, and redundancies. Technically, the first people are judges.

    2. WayneS Avatar
      WayneS

      Are you saying “Skynet” is about to become self-aware?

      Wow. Just like the old gypsy woman said…

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        I was thinking more “Forbin Project”.

        1. WayneS Avatar
          WayneS

          Wow. I have never before heard of that movie or book.

          I was very young when both were released, but given my tendencies & pursuits in movies and reading material I should have run across one or the other of them at some point. You just plugged a good sized hole in my Sci-Fi knowledge. Thank you.

          By the way, is the movie worth watching and/or book worth reading?

  5. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    Whenever I see that “VOYGR” trademark I’m back watching the first Star Trek movie…and remembering I’m a carbon-based unit that AI wants to wipe out. 🙂 Great foresight in that script!

Leave a Reply

Read More