More Nuclear Power in Virginia?

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

by James C. Sherlock

Where is Virginia going with nuclear power, the non-carbon energy source that works 24/7/365 to maintain grid stability for all those sources that do not?

Where we are. Virginia has four nuclear reactors producing electric power — two at Surry station in Surrey County (produces 14% of Virginia’s electricity) and two at North Anna in Louisa County (17% of Virginia’s electricity).

Surry has two Westinghouse pressurized water reactors that went on-line in 1972 and 1973 respectively. Surry’s licenses from the NRC have been renewed to 2052 and 2053 respectively. North Anna has two similar Westinghouse reactors which went on-line in 1978 and 1980, respectively. Dominion expects those licenses to be extended until 2058 and 2060.

In 2017, Dominion was issued a permit by the NRC to build a third, much more powerful and newer technology reactor at North Anna. The permit is good until 2037. It is not in Dominion’s current plans.

Under the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA), Virginia is legally required to retire all baseload generation, except for incumbent nuclear power plants, in favor of renewable generation by 2050.

In 2022, Governor Youngkin released an all-of-the-above energy plan which announced that Virginia would build a Small Modular Reactor (SMR) in southwest Virginia.

The goal is to have the SMR in operation by 2032.

For an explanation of SMR, see Dominion’s short essay starting on page 9 of its Integrated Resource Plan. Dominion has included SMRs as an available resource in all of its plan options beginning in 2032.

That initiative is welcome, but is fuzzy with regard to actual deployment plans, which are not yet formulated.

And fuzzy with regards to compliance with the VCEA, at least to me. If they are not compliant, then the law should be changed to accommodate them.

Background. According to the Biden Department of Energy, it would take over three million photovoltaic panels or 431 utility-scale wind turbines to replace the electrical output of one of Dominion’s nuclear reactors.

Scientist James Hansen and activist Michael Shellenberger led the rethinking of nuclear with a presentation at COP 23 in Bonn in 2017.

In California and overseas, greens are actively pushing for the nuclear option.

Gavin Newsome of all people is looking to extend the life of the Diablo Canyon plant that was scheduled to be shut down. Something about the vulnerability of California’s grid from renewables.

Rolling power outages have changed his mind. That and new funding for Diablo Canyon from the federal Department of Energy Civil Nuclear Credit Program in the second quarter of FY23.

Japan, a dozen years after Fukushima, is restarting idled nuclear plants and considering constructing new ones.

Germany is considering re-starting three nuclear plants it shut down prematurely  in the face of the shutdown of Nordstream I and II.

Anti-nuclear greens acknowledge that existing renewable energy and storage technologies are insufficient to achieve a carbon-free grid. But their “plans” depend on future breakthroughs and extremely optimistic trajectories to make that grid both real and reliable.

Nuclear energy requires no such faith.

Clean Virginia. SMR technology, developed to commercial scale by NuScale Power Reactors and whose benefits are celebrated by the federal Department of Energy, is about to be fielded in Idaho.

Michael Bill’s Clean Virginia, by virtue of its massive campaign contributions and public advertising, controls the clean energy policy of the Democratic party in Virginia.

I have both supported and disagreed with Clean Virginia.

I applaud its attacks on Dominion’s monopoly and its support for campaign finance reform. I disagree with its positions on gas pipelines and offshore wind.

I tried to find Clean Virginia’s policy on nuclear energy in general and Small Nuclear Reactors specifically on its website. I read 20 pages of press releases and all of the rest of the information there.

Not a hint.

So I asked Laura Gonzalez, Clean Virginia’s Energy Policy Manager that direct question in an email sent April 25th. I have not seen a response.

I find odd the unwillingness of Clean Virginia to express support — or even hopes for — a clean energy source that promises to be far more reliable for support of base loads and less stress on the grid than wind or solar, has design approval from the NRC, and can quickly be fielded.

The only reason I can think of is that perhaps Clean Virginia’s own green supporters are split on the issue and Mr. Bills does not want to take a position.

He has certainly not been reticent about anything else.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

120 responses to “More Nuclear Power in Virginia?”

  1. James Kiser Avatar
    James Kiser

    Fix this by requiring that private homes get FIRST priority over all other electrical users. State agencies and feds are next to last and last.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      You would put the military as the last priority?

      1. WayneS Avatar

        No, UVA.

        😉

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          But you know they’ve already got a reactor don’t you?

          1. WayneS Avatar

            Yes. So does Va. Tech. But as far as I know, those are research reactors, are quite small, and are not set up to produce electricity in any quantity.

          2. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            So, there’s a window for sipping bird generators in Charlottesville?

            Think of the wonderful graphics that could replace the crossed swords on UVa signage, and the expansion of DEI to be diverse, inclusive and equitable to sipping bears, possums and polecats.

      2. Nathan Avatar

        The important question is, will our enemies provide charging stations for our military?

        Ernst slams Biden administration plan to electrify military fleet: ‘You don’t fight a war that way’

        https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3980031-ernst-slams-biden-administration-plan-to-electrify-military-fleet-you-dont-fight-a-war-that-way/

  2. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Still got that waste problem. How big is your garage? Mind if we store a couple of barrels next to the freezer?

    1. Let Musk fly it into the sun……. by the way, any information on ecological/human devastation from stored nuclear waste?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Depends on in whose hands it finds its way.

      2. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        Spent fuel has been piling up on site at nuclear power plants. No devastation so far, but nobody seems to want centralized long term storage in their backyards. East Palestine would likely not be happy having it railroaded through town on the way to a central depository either.

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

        “…any information on ecological/human devastation from stored nuclear waste?”

        This is called “risk normalization”… a great example.

    2. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      Close to the classified documents? They’re radioactive too. Make it a super fund eligible hazardous waste site.

    3. WayneS Avatar

      In the 1970s, someone had a bit in their comedy routine about keeping nuclear waste in tupperware containers in the back of everyone’s fridges.

      I’m pretty sure it was either Robin Williams or Steve Martin, but I cannot remember which.

    4. WayneS Avatar

      In the 1970s, someone had a bit in their comedy routine about keeping nuclear waste in tupperware containers in the back of everyone’s fridges.

      I’m pretty sure it was either Robin Williams or Steve Martin, but I cannot remember which.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        “Right next to the meat cake.” I want to say Robin Williams. I think the joke was that Tupperware worked so well that the things in it became unidentifiable before stinking up the fridge. “you open it and can’t remember what it was. Is it cake, or meat?”

        Wasn’t the upshot of the gig about being buried in Tupperware?

        1. WayneS Avatar

          You are correct. Good memory. It was Robin Williams and your memory about the gist of the bit is accurate as well. It was bugging me, so I looked through my old LP collection last evening and found it on one of his albums (the only one of his I own).

          It’s a short, almost throwaway during another longer bit.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            It’s a curse, Wayne. Lucky men can forget, or with time, soften the things they’ve done.

            I fear that in my last, I won’t be replaying comedy skits in detail.

  3. William O'Keefe Avatar
    William O’Keefe

    VCEA is technology forcing by legislators who did not care to study the sorry history of past technology forcing initiatives. The best thing that could happen is for it to be repealed and replaced by a more sensible approach that is built on a foundation of nuclear, natural gas, and hydrogen.
    Nuclear waste is a problem and will be for years to come but that is no reason for banning nuclear.

    1. Nathan Avatar

      I’m with you for nuclear and natural gas. But what’s the attraction for hydrogen? It requires electrical energy or fossil fuels to produce.

      “Natural gas is currently the primary source of hydrogen production, accounting for around three quarters of the annual global dedicated hydrogen production.”

      Why not just use the natural gas?

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

        “But what’s the attraction for hydrogen? It requires electrical energy or fossil fuels to produce.”

        Storage for one thing…

        1. Nathan Avatar

          If Mr. O”Keefe had listed it as being for storage, I would not have questioned it.

      2. William O'Keefe Avatar
        William O’Keefe

        I refer you to the IEA report on hydrogen–https://www.iea.org/reports/global-hydrogen-review-2022/executive-summary. One near term breakthrough for power generation is a natural gas/hydrogen turbine. As the world has moved from fuels with more carbon to less, hydrogen has been identified as the future because it has no emissions and is more abundant than any other.

        1. Nathan Avatar

          Can’t get the link to work. Could you please put it on a separate line?

          1. William O'Keefe Avatar
            William O’Keefe

            Well, just go to the IEA website and look for it.

          2. Nathan Avatar

            What’s the point of a link if it doesn’t work? All that’s needed is to separate the link from the text. Simple edit.

            Anyway, saying “hydrogen has been identified as the future because it has no emissions” is like saying the same for electric vehicles. Both require an original source for the power.

            “…and is more abundant than any other.”

            That too is misleading. Yes, much of the world is covered with H2O, but extracting the hydrogen from water requires significantly more usable energy than is produced by the hydrogen when burned.

            Hydrogen is potentially practical for storing excess energy produced by other means, but it isn’t a source by itself.

          3. Nathan Avatar

            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

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      It is not waste. It can be reused, recycled to the point we have all the energy we’ll need for decades. It is being wasted.

      1. William O'Keefe Avatar
        William O’Keefe

        Point taken. But until reprocessing is cost competitive, it will be waste.

  4. DJRippert Avatar
    DJRippert

    If it were any other power company besides Dominion …

    Wasn’t North Anna built on a known fault line?

    How did that happen?

    Some years ago, we had a noticeable earthquake. At least one of the North Anna reactors successfully shut itself down. Lucky us. What happens if the next earthquake along that fault line is considerably worse?

    Watching our state government and Dominion plan nuclear power plants is like being tied to a chair while watching a toddler play with a loaded gun.

    While I strongly support nuclear power I have no faith in our state government or their overlords in Dominion to do anything with significant danger.

    After all, it was the state government and Dominion who decided to use sludge ponds right next to fragile waterways. Seems like we dodged a bullet there. North Carolina wasn’t so lucky.

    I’ll take my chances with the offshore wind farm rather than letting the unholy twins of Dominion and our state government build more reactors on fault lines.

    1. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      It was a long dormant fault, and there are few areas of the country without those. In the ’90s western Hanover/eastern Louisa was among prospective sites for long term spent fuel storage. Those long inactive faults, among other issues killed that.

      After TMI got VEPCO’s attention they went from being the most fined nuclear plant operator in the country to among the best.

      FWIW I lived within warning siren distance of North Anna for about 25 years. It was a better neighbor than a coal plant would have been.

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        “FWIW I lived within warning siren distance of North Anna for about 25 years. It was a better neighbor than a coal plant would have been.”

        The residents of Fukushima probably felt that way too, until the tsunami.

        The regulatory capture of our state government by Dominion makes me wonder if there are effective checks and balances between the utility’s desire to get something built soon and good judgement.

        Steve Haner has documented the emasculation of the SCC with regard to Dominion.

        That worries me.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          I hear you, and share your concerns about Dominion and its capture of state Govt.

          What I can tell you, and I was paying attention because I was living nearby, was that they shaped up the operations at North Anna and took safety seriously in operating those reactors after TMI.

          It is also pretty clear that Richmond and Tidewater are far too close to North Anna and Surrey if they do something stupid at those plants. There are a lot of people downwind.

          1. William Chambliss Avatar
            William Chambliss

            For a period during the early 90s DOM, then known as Vepco, got truly serious about resuscitating itself. They got some sober Navy guys in there to run the nukes and those guys made them among the top performing nuclear units in the US. Jim Rhodes was a serious guy when he was running the operation.

          2. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Yep, thanks for the detail. Before that the NRC found things like switches held closed with objects like pencils and rubber bands and the plant shut down one time by hooking on a shirttail. VEPCO really was the most fined nuclear operator in the country. But, that was all pre TMI.

            A bunch of submariners worked with Westinghouse in Lynchburg and I did some software work with them. They were an interesting bunch, bright and very earnest about what they were doing.

        2. Nathan Avatar

          “The residents of Fukushima probably felt that way too, until the tsunami.”

          First of all, the likelihood of a tsunami overwhelming North Anna is about zero. (The reactors survived the earthquake without significant damage)

          Secondly, North Anna’s emergency cooling system doesn’t require external power generation as was the case at Fukushima. That’s what caused the meltdown.

          1. WayneS Avatar

            Plus, any tsunami that forms on Lake Anna is likely to be very small – more like tsunamini.

    2. WayneS Avatar

      It was little publicized at the time because our news media wanted to panic as many people as possible, but the fault line and possible earthquake activity in Louisa County were taken into account in the design of both the North Anna plants.

      Also, the orderly emergency shutdown of both reactors (not just one) during the earthquake went exactly as designed.

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        There were no other locations in Virginia other than the Louisa County fault line where those nukes could be built?

        And yes, the shutdown worked this time.

        1. Diablo Canyon was built in 1985 in California, knowing it was near 4 fault lines, including the San Andreas. In 2008, another was discovered a mile away. It was upgraded to withstand a 7.5 quake. It’s up in the air if it will be relicensed or for how long. Ca rockhounds use to say the best way to locate a new fault line is to build a nuclear plant.

        2. WayneS Avatar

          There were no other locations in Virginia other than the Louisa County fault line where those nukes could be built?

          I don’t know, I was not part of the siting process.

          But I would guess that appropriately sized & shaped buildable land, located in relatively rural areas, where a good-sized stream/river can be dammed to form a lake to provide cooling water, are not particularly abundant in Virginia.

      2. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        Here’s a history. Both VEPCO and the NRC were involved in suppressing knowledge of the fault. That said, the fault had not moved for a long, long time, as in back to Pangea, roughly 250 million years ago,

        http://www.virginiaplaces.org/geology/faultnuclear.html

        The recent quake was centered about 10 miles southwest of North Anna and the faults close to the plant did not rupture. I know a fellow whose farm was at the epicenter. We call him shaky.

        1. WayneS Avatar

          I was at work about 60 miles north of the epicenter.

          There was an 500,000 gallon elevated water storage next to the office building I was working in. We all went outside when things started shaking, and you could clearly hear the water sloshing back and forth in that tank.

        2. WayneS Avatar

          They may have suppressed the knowledge to the public, but the geography of the entire area (including the faults) was taken into account during the design of the reactors.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Faults? Meh. This is the Right Coast. We build in flood zones instead.

  5. Why doesn’t VEPCO buy CVN-68 — the USS Nimitz will be decommissioned in 2026?

    1. WayneS Avatar

      Too bad it draws about 12 more feet of water than the depth of the James River navigation channel, otherwise we could sail it all the way to a new home in Hopewell.

      😉

      1. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        Use it as a dredge to dig up all that old Kepone lurking on the bottom at Hopewell.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Uh, gee, the fuel is kinda spent. Hence the plan to retire (can’t rip out the reactors for the THIRD time to refuel.) Different fuel, far more troublesome once removed than the fuel from North Anna or Surry.

      1. WayneS Avatar

        There goes my dream of driving the Nimitz.

        It’s on the west coast anyway, isn’t it?

      2. WayneS Avatar

        There goes my dream of driving the Nimitz.

        It’s on the west coast anyway, isn’t it?

      3. WayneS Avatar

        There goes my dream of driving the Nimitz…

        It’s on the west coast anyway, isn’t it?

  6. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    The integrated resource plan filed by Dominion yesterday advanced its proposed use of SMR technology by eight years, a move which drew applause from the Governor. It is also using it to supplant solar in a big way, which will infuriate Bills. More on all that to come. I’m going to spend some time with the IRP before writing and not just use the press release talking points, like the Times-Dispatch did….

    The idea of building such a plant far outside of Dominion’s territory, which is the wet dream of Southwest Virginia, is nothing short of nuts. DOA. But the promise will fill campaign brochures….

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      What do you think ought to be done to deploy SMRs in Virginia?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Put them in North Carolina.

        1. WayneS Avatar

          How about off-shore SMRs?

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            OK OBX

          2. WayneS Avatar

            The waters off the outer banks are perfect for what I have argued for years is our best bet for renewable energy. Hundreds of offshore platforms with giant “drinking bird” toys dipping their beaks into the ocean and swinging back-and-forth to create rotational energy. (This rotational energy, through the use of slipper clutches and carefully designed gear-reduction systems, will turn shafts on turbines at appropriate RPMs to generate electricity).

            You can even put the platforms within sight of the shore. Their delightful appearance, colorful plumage, and bright blue top hats, are sure to entertain the tourists as they lie sunning themselves on the beach. (we could even make some with red top hats).

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8017ad4cb47fce7714fe5225a339112e10c0d3e58c113a30254460e7c1ec261a.jpg

            😉

          3. WayneS Avatar

            The waters off the outer banks are perfect for what I have argued for years is our best bet for renewable energy. Hundreds of offshore platforms with giant “drinking bird” toys dipping their beaks into the ocean and swinging back-and-forth to create rotational energy. (This rotational energy, through the use of slipper clutches and carefully designed gear-reduction systems, will turn shafts on turbines at appropriate RPMs to generate electricity).

            You can even put the platforms within sight of the shore. Their delightful appearance, colorful plumage, and bright blue top hats, are sure to entertain the tourists as they lie sunning themselves on the beach. (we could even make some with red top hats).

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8017ad4cb47fce7714fe5225a339112e10c0d3e58c113a30254460e7c1ec261a.jpg

            😉

          4. WayneS Avatar

            The waters off the outer banks are perfect for what I have argued for years is our best bet for renewable energy. Hundreds of offshore platforms with giant “drinking bird” toys dipping their beaks into the ocean and swinging back-and-forth to create rotational energy. (This rotational energy, through the use of slipper clutches and carefully designed gear-reduction systems, will turn shafts on turbines at appropriate RPMs to generate electricity).

            You can even put the platforms within sight of the shore. The birds’ delightful appearance, colorful plumage, and bright blue top hats, are sure to entertain the tourists as they lie sunning themselves on the beach. (we could even make some with red top hats).

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8017ad4cb47fce7714fe5225a339112e10c0d3e58c113a30254460e7c1ec261a.jpg

            😉

          5. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Could that work? They got something like ‘em all over Texas. Not nearly as cute.

          6. WayneS Avatar

            It’s pretty much tongue-in-cheek. I’m sure you could build an upscaled version and find a way to have it generate electricity but I suspect ultra-low efficiencies would doom such a device from any large scale production.

            Of course, I have not done any serious calculations and I doubt I could do accurate modeling. But who knows, perhaps some future electro-mechanical genius will devise a way to incorporate the phenomenon which drives the birds into power production.

            By the way, they perform much better in dryer air than in higher humidity environments – and they require water to operate – so there ‘s another inefficiency built right in to the system.

          7. WayneS Avatar

            It’s pretty much tongue-in-cheek. I’m sure you could build an upscaled version and find a way to have it generate electricity but I suspect ultra-low efficiencies would doom such a device from any large scale production.

            Of course, I have not done any serious calculations and I doubt I could do accurate modeling. But who knows, perhaps some future electro-mechanical genius will devise a way to incorporate the phenomenon which drives the birds into power production.

            By the way, they perform much better in dryer air than in higher humidity environments – and they require water to operate – so there ‘s another inefficiency built right in to the system.

          8. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            There’s a marketing opportunity for these to the Germans to replace their lost Russian natural gas and the nuclear plants they’ve shut down.

            Site them inland and use big glasses of water to dip in that also work as pumped storage to drive generators and increase efficiency. Dasbirdusdippingvoltsmachinenundwattswaggons.

          9. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Use SMRs to drive the turbines when the wind isn’t blowing.

            Also co locate SMRs with solar farms to power them when the sun’s not shining. That would allow putting solar farms where the sun don’t shine.

          10. WayneS Avatar

            Yeah, the SNRs could power giant fans to turn the wind turbines when there is no wind.

            Incredibly inefficient?
            Yes. But it will allow politicians and pseudo-environmentalists to say, with more-or-less straight faces, that Virginia has made the switch to clean, natural, renewable, wind generated electricity.

      2. WayneS Avatar

        I think they should build in what amounts to my backyard. There’s an unoccupied 65 acre parcel immediately behind my property.

        Does that make me a BIMBY?

        😉

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Close. Oh not why.

        2. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
          energyNOW_Fan

          BIMBY? Love it! Sort of. In a former era I had coined PITBY: Put It in Their Back Yard. Well
          BIMBY is not always good, so it depends what you want to get out of it. Lots of times (re: Trash) BIMBY refers to localities that like to get cash, as in Your Trash is My Cash. But keep in mind money is the key ingredient for accepting risk and being complacent about doing things right.

          1. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            Build it where they planned North Anna 3. Both North Anna and Surry were laid out for added reactors. Surry, if the fault scares you….

          2. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            Build it where they planned North Anna 3. Both North Anna and Surry were laid out for added reactors. Surry, if the fault scares you….

          3. Stephen Haner Avatar
            Stephen Haner

            Build it where they planned North Anna 3. Both North Anna and Surry were laid out for added reactors. Surry, if the fault scares you….

          4. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Took my kids to look at the core components they had procured for #3. They were impressive, big stainless steel constructions.

          5. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
            energyNOW_Fan

            One time we ChE’s got a tour of South Jersey nuke plant before start-up so we were under the rxr where no man will ever be again.

          6. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            At North Anna it was all just sitting by the side of the road behind a chain link fence. It was a lot of stainless steel.

          7. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            There may be problems doing that. There are old faults there, although it has been millions of years since they ruptured.

            I thought it was a mistake they cancelled #3 30+ years ago and then again more recently.

          8. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            You are forgetting about the 2011 earthquake that was centered near Mineral. That shook buildings in Richmond, including the one that I was in, and cracked the Washington Monument. It shook the nuclear harder than it was designed to withstand, but we apparently lucked out with no major damage. It was the first nuclear plant to automatically shut down as the result of an earthquake in the U.S. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/va-nuclear-plant-experienced-strong-shaking-in-aug-23-quake/2011/09/08/gIQAuGOuCK_story.html

          9. WayneS Avatar

            It shook the nuclear harder than it was designed to withstand

            It shook it harder than what it was specified to withstand. And that is why margins off safety are used in such designs. The 2011 quake did not shake the plant harder than it could withstand – and good design, not luck, was the reason. Again, not well publicized at the time of the quake because it didn’t contribute to the narrative.

            As much as we (and I ) rag on Dominion on this site, they hired people who knew what they were doing to design their nuclear power plants.

          10. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            No I’m not, I lived not far from North Anna when that happened. It got my attention.

            The 250 million year old fault at the plant did not rupture. The epicenter was a little west of 522 and a little north of I64.

            I’d much rather have nuclear as a neighbor than coal.

          11. Nathan Avatar

            “I’d much rather have nuclear as a neighbor than coal.”

            Complete agreement there.

            Emissions from burning coal.

            Several principal emissions result from coal combustion:

            Sulfur dioxide (SO2), which contributes to acid rain and respiratory illnesses

            Nitrogen oxides (NOx), which contribute to smog and respiratory illnesses

            Particulates, which contribute to smog, haze, and respiratory illnesses and lung disease

            Mercury and other heavy metals, which have been linked to both neurological and developmental damage in humans and other animals

            Fly ash and bottom ash, which are residues created when power plants burn coal

            https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/coal-and-the-environment.php

          12. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Yep, I made my decision about living in the vicinity of a nuclear plant before I bought a farm in Louisa. There was some anxious time thereafter when it became clear that VEPCO was a slip and shod operator. Fortunately TMI, and I expect the NRC, got their attention before anything bad happened and they cleaned up their act.

            Less thrilling was the property tax exemption they got from Louisa county. Early on VEPCO was socially generous and Louisa benefited. As time wore on and VEPCO morphed into Dominion that declined. I argued unsuccessfully that Louisa needed to assess a small property tax and let Dominion do what it does best by spreading the cost across its rate base, collecting from its customers in monthly bills and paying Louisa.

          13. WayneS Avatar

            It shook the nuclear harder than it was designed to withstand

            It shook it harder than what it was specified to withstand. And that is why margins off safety are used in such designs. The 2011 quake did not shake the plant harder than it could withstand – and good design, not luck, was the reason. Again, not well publicized at the time of the quake because it didn’t contribute to the narrative.

            As much as we (and I ) rag on Dominion on this site, they hired people who knew what they were doing to design their nuclear power plants.

          14. WayneS Avatar

            It shook the nuclear harder than it was designed to withstand

            It shook it harder than what it was specified to withstand. And that is why margins off safety are used in such designs. The 2011 quake did not shake the plant harder than it could withstand – and good design, not luck, was the reason. Again, not well publicized at the time of the quake because it didn’t contribute to the narrative.

            As much as we (and I ) rag on Dominion on this site, they hired people who knew what they were doing to design their nuclear power plants.

          15. Nathan Avatar

            “It was the first nuclear plant to automatically shut down as the result of an earthquake in the U.S.”

            In other words, everything worked as designed.

            Additionally, Fukushima is sometimes used to justify fear of nuclear, but a close examination of what happened there shows that nuclear facilities can withstand even more powerful earthquakes if designed properly.

            “Eleven reactors at four nuclear power plants in the region were operating at the time and all shut down automatically when the earthquake hit. Subsequent inspection showed no significant damage to any from the earthquake.”

            That was after a magnitude 9.0 earthquake.

            The meltdown was a result of the tsunami that followed, and their reliance on power for cooling. Neither of those problems are relevant to North Anna.

            https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident.aspx#:~:text=Following%20a%20major%20earthquake%2C%20a,in%20the%20first%20three%20days

          16. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            The failure at Fukushima was in the design specs. The worst case tsunami they envisioned was something like 30 feet, and that was what they prepared for. They did not listen to one guy who asked what if something bigger happens. The waves over topped the dikes and it was all downhill from there.

          17. WayneS Avatar

            They even had the high-water marks to look at from previous tsunamis which were well over 30 feet.

          18. WayneS Avatar

            Build it where they planned North Anna 3.

            All joking aside, I agree with you. I think that is the appropriate site for the first SMR in Virginia.

    2. William Chambliss Avatar
      William Chambliss

      I don’t know about that last thought, Steve. Dom built its Virginia City coal/waste coal facility far outside its territory at the behest of the GA. The transmission facilities already exist at VCHEC and other retiring coal facilities to accommodate output from an SMR. Apco has a huge transmission network across much of Southwest Va, too.

      The thing I most doubt is whether these units will prove deployable as soon as their cheerleaders forecast or as economically. They are promising, though.

      1. Paul Sweet Avatar
        Paul Sweet

        I used to drive past the Virginia City plant, and noticed that there were very few power lines leaving that plant, nowhere near as many as I saw leaving other power plants. I have a feeling that plant was built to create jobs, get rid of gob coal, and help local loggers get rid of scrap wood, more than for serious power generation.

        APCO has shut down a few coal plants in SW Virginia, but some of them are on fairly tight sites.

        1. William Chambliss Avatar
          William Chambliss

          You are almost right on the nose here, Paul. They just should have named it the Wampler plant. However, it is connected via large enough transmission lines to host a SMR producing 300-500 MW.

      2. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        Virginia City needs to close, too. No wonder they want to bury that turkey in base rates. Tomorrow’s project….

        1. William Chambliss Avatar
          William Chambliss

          No argument there. It would perhaps be a feasible site for a SMR in Southwest, though.

  7. Teddy007 Avatar
    Teddy007

    Never going to happen. More people would live in the cold and dark rather than have a another nuclear power plant in Virginia.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Not “would.” “Will.”

      1. WayneS Avatar

        Well played, sir.

  8. Nathan Avatar

    I know there’s very little sympathy for power companies on this site, but there are significant factors impacting power companies ability to move forward with almost ANY plan – those being:

    Government support, permitting and regulation
    Government changes of administration and priorities
    Public support or lack thereof
    Litigation costs, delays, and obstacles

    Plans are formulated and projects initiated at great cost, only to be hampered at every stage, and then eventualy shot down somewhere along the way, long before they produce any energy or profit.

    We can’t agree on what the sources of energy should be, where facilities should be built, who should be hired build them, etc.

    I would absolutely love for Virginia to make a substantial commitment to nuclear, but would it be allowed to move forward to fruition? That’s doubtful. More likely it end up like Charlie Brown and Lucy with the football.

    1. Randy Huffman Avatar
      Randy Huffman

      Well there are the two current reactors which are significant and more than some states and countries have. Just keeping them going (and hopefully adding a SMR) would be successful until such time everyone opens their eyes that they are needed, along with I might add, continued use of some fossil fuel plants.

      1. Nathan Avatar

        Actually, the article says we have 4 reactors in two locations.

        By my count, we still have 5 coal plants in Virginia. Those could have been replaced with natural gas by now if we focused our efforts.

        I noticed a ray of hope for MVP today.

        U.S. energy company Equitrans Midstream Corp (ETRN.N) said on Tuesday it expects federal agencies to issue the required authorizations for its $6.6 billion Mountain Valley natural gas pipeline from West Virginia to Virginia by the early summer.

        That should allow the company to finish the long-delayed project by the end of 2023, however, Equitrans warned in its first quarter earnings that “there remains significant risk and uncertainty, including regarding current and likely litigation.”

        https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/equitrans-may-still-complete-mountain-valley-natural-gas-pipe-by-end-2023-2023-05-02/

        1. Randy Huffman Avatar
          Randy Huffman

          Yes, I should have said 4 reactors.

          Having worked for an energy company producing coal and gas for decades until sold over 15 years ago, I am distraught by the move to close all the coal plants, especially with all the coal plants in use and being built in China and other countries. My view is “all of the above”, coal and nuclear provide the best solution for base load generation, and gas plants have their place too (and certainly to fill gaps during peaks). But know I am in the minority, sigh.

          I have nothing against wind and solar, I put solar on my house last year.

          1. William Chambliss Avatar
            William Chambliss

            Dom still has a large coal unit operating at Mt. Storm W Va. Apco has ownership interests in coal units in W Va as well.

          2. Nathan Avatar

            Not a big fan of coal, as I think other options are cleaner, and better for our forests. Besides, it’s only about 4% of existing capacity at this point.

            I’m okay with solar, but don’t think it makes sense to use up valuable farmland or deforest huge tracts of land for it.

            Lots of thing can contribute on the margins, but I wouldn’t trust them to carry the bulk of the load.

          3. Randy Huffman Avatar
            Randy Huffman

            I get the argument to limit coal, but I totally against eliminating coal for a variety of reasons (China doesn’t care, they are building plants and telling everyone to stick it). It does produce CO2, which plant life needs…

            Personally I think were we (USA) are with it now is about right. With more and more demand for electricity, I don’t see how the country is going to produce it without some coal and more nuclear plants.

          4. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            With 4 reactors now prodicung around 1/3 of Virginia’s electricity, another 8 would power the entire state.

          5. Nathan Avatar

            My immediate priority would be to get rid of coal.

            According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, most of Virginia’s electricity is generated from natural gas (57%), nuclear (30%), and renewable (9%) sources. The remainder (4%) comes from coal.

            https://www.virginiaenergysense.org/energy-101/about-va-energy/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20U.S.%20Energy,4%25)%20comes%20from%20coal

          6. WayneS Avatar

            Thirty-percent is really only a few percentage points short of 1/3 (which would be 33.33%).

          7. Nathan Avatar

            For some inexplicable reason I thought Lefty665 was suggesting more coal. I totally misread that comment.

            I’ve edited my previous comment.

            Time for some coffee!

          8. WayneS Avatar

            No worries.

          9. Nathan Avatar

            I’m not as worried about the CO2. Coal burning produces sulfur emissions which have a very negative impact regionally because of acid rain.

            We won’t need coal if extremists stop preventing migration to natural gas and nuclear.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f0153830184083b37dda81d13c7d75cb1c101ff00bbdea57251891cc6a7acc4f.jpg

            Also, we can’t control what China does for power generation. Frankly, with respect to China, I’m far more concerned about their military and efforts to control raw materials worldwide.

          10. Nathan Avatar

            I’m not as worried about the CO2. Coal burning produces sulfur emissions which have a very negative impact regionally because of acid rain.

            We won’t need coal if extremists stop preventing migration to natural gas and nuclear.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f0153830184083b37dda81d13c7d75cb1c101ff00bbdea57251891cc6a7acc4f.jpg

            Also, we can’t control what China does for power generation. Frankly, with respect to China, I’m far more concerned about their military and efforts to control raw materials worldwide.

  9. Lefty665 Avatar
    Lefty665

    What is the size of the small nuclear plant compared to Dominion’s proposed offshore turbines? Could a SNR replace that boondoggle?

    Factory built SNRs that are trucked in and dropped in place where needed have prospects of revolutionizing power generation. Sodium cooling also seems to reduce the risks of cooling failures and the need to site near large bodies of water. On site storage of spent fuel continues to be an issue.

    I’ve been reading about SNR R&D for around a decade. Why is the development taking so long?

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      The SMR’s in Dom’s plan are about 285MW each, so it would take about 18 of them to replace the “nameplate” value of the 5.2 GW of offshore wind it plans. BUT, BUT, the nukes run steadily, 90%+ capacity factor, so maybe five or six would produce comparable power over a year. And of course the wind turbines will be lucky to last 20, 25 years while the nukes should go decades longer.

      1. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        Thank you!

  10. Nathan Avatar

    What would things be like if progressives had total control? Take a look at Germany.

    As of Sunday, April 16, Germany is no longer producing any electricity from nuclear power plants.

    A collection of esteemed scientists, including two Nobel laureates and professors from the likes of MIT and Columbia, made a last-minute plea in an open letter published on April 14 on the nuclear advocacy group’s website, RePlaneteers, to keep the reactors operating.

    “This is hugely disappointing, when a secure low carbon 24/7 source of energy such as nuclear was available and could have continued operation for another 40 years,” Henry Preston, spokesperson for the World Nuclear Association, told CNBC. “Germany’s nuclear industry has been world class. All three of those reactors shut down at the weekend performed extremely well.”

    https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/18/germany-shuts-down-last-nuclear-power-plants-some-scientists-aghast.html#:~:text=The%20era%20of%20commercial%20power,plants%20from%20the%20power%20grid.&text=As%20of%20Sunday%2C%20April%2016,electricity%20from%20nuclear%20power%20plants.

  11. energyNOW_Fan Avatar
    energyNOW_Fan

    My father was nuke engr for Westinghouse/Bettis, but he was small rxr oriented (Shippingport demo/atomic subs). He might have liked the SMR idea, not sure. My understanding is SMR is very very expensive. Thus I like the idea of federal joint funding for SMR, and maybe even the Fed runs it at the military bases.

    What’s happening is $$$$$$ dancing in everyone greedy eyes in Virginia, we are opting for super mega expensive options which Virginia elected officials like that, as well as Dominion. Onshore wind would be a more economic approach and maybe more roof top solar (but I am no huge supporter of mega subsidies). And maybe Nat Gas with carbon capture.

    If we keep on this path we might as well merge with New Jersey.

  12. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    “If they are not compliant, then the law should be changed to accommodate them.”

    Conservatism in a nutshell.

    1. WayneS Avatar

      Legislating the impossible and engaging in magical thinking.

      “Progressivism” in a nutshell.

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

        Yeah, like they did with CFCs, lead, and organochlorine pesticides…

        1. WayneS Avatar

          Those three items already had readily available, fully developed, alternative products available at the time they were “banned”. No new technology or improvements to existing technology had to be developed in order for us to more-or-less live without those items.

          Yet, it still took about 20 years to phase out CFCs, 20 years to phase out lead in gasoline, 30 years to phase out lead pipes, and more than 10 years to get rid of DDT.

          In the case of “renewable energy” we do not currently have the capability of meeting the requirements of the “Clean Economy Act”. New technology must be developed, and existing technology greatly improved in order to have a hope in hell of coming close to meeting the requirements of the Act.

          In 2020 the Virginia GA passed a bill, and Ralph Northam signed it into law, knowing that the deadlines could not be met.

          That is the very definition of legislating the impossible and engaging in magical thinking.

          CORRECTION: We have the technology to drastically reduce our carbon emissions (nuclear power plants), it’s just that we won’t be allowed to use it.

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

            Even today, there are people who argue there is no substitute for DDT.

            At the time of the CFC bans, industry warned it would take 8 years to develop alternatives (that they said were not then available). It took 2.

            Then there is this one:

            “A law that sets unrealistic compliance dates will
            increase the cost, risk the reliability of electric
            service, disrupt the long-range planning of utilities,
            frustrate the regulatory process and foreclose the
            use of clean coal technologies.”
            —Edward Addison, president of Southern Co.,
            speaking about the Acid Rain Program in 1989

            Ever hear of the Boy WHo Cried Wolf…?

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        CAFE — your leaf blower produces more pollution than your car. Nothing is impossible but doing nothing.

Leave a Reply