Climate Change Goals Bring New Embrace of Nuclear Power (and Gas in EU)

'Lawmakers in the European Union voted to include nuclear power and natural gas in the bloc's list of investments deemed sustainable,' reports the Wall Street Journal, in a move the EU hopes leads to greater funding for a transition away from coal:

Burning natural gas produces about half the carbon dioxide that is generated by coal, and nuclear-power plants don't produce carbon dioxide when they are operating. But environmentalists, lawmakers and some investors have argued the plan risks diluting investments in other projects such as renewable energy.

More U.S. political leaders are also warming to nuclear power, reports the New York Times, 'driven by the difficulty of meeting clean energy goals and by surging electricity demands.'

The Biden administration has established a $6 billion fund to help troubled nuclear plant operators keep their reactors running and make them more economically competitive against cheaper resources like solar and wind power.... In addition to the $6 billion fund, the administration is providing $2.5 billion for two projects meant to demonstrate new nuclear technology, in Washington State and Wyoming. A separate bipartisan measure introduced last year is aimed at preserving and expanding nuclear energy in the United States. The bill, whose backers include Senators Shelley Moore Capito, Republican of West Virginia, and Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, would provide financial assistance like tax credits, according to the Tax Foundation, a nonprofit tax policy organization....

The rising costs of other sources of power have made nuclear energy more competitive around the world, including in the United States, which has the largest fleet of nuclear plants of any country. They produce about 20 percent of the nation's electricity and 50 percent of the clean energy. The United States maintains 92 reactors, though a dozen have closed over the last decade — including, a month ago, the Palisades Nuclear Generating Station in Michigan, about 55 miles southwest of Grand Rapids.... Industry leaders recognize that the age of new large-scale nuclear plants in the United States has passed, chiefly because of runaway costs... But many in the industry say smaller reactors that can be expanded over time offer promise of avoiding long delays and high cost. These reactors, they say, can be built in factories and delivered to approved sites. And the reactors' high-temperature steam could also yield significant amounts of hydrogen, a carbon-free alternative fuel to natural gas.

The project locations can plan for as many as a dozen units but start with just one. But a plant with 12 units would produce half the electricity or even a little less than many other large nuclear facilities.
None of the smaller reactors have been certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which approves licenses and operations of the nation's nuclear power plants. But NuScale Power, a company that designs and markets small reactors in Oregon, expects to receive certification of its design by the end of the summer. A developer then would need approval for a license to build and operate the unit. Thomas Mundy, chief commercial officer for NuScale Power, said his company's product could be built and put into use in about three years, a fraction of the time it takes to build larger reactor units. And the cost, Mr. Mundy said, is competitive with new natural gas facilities at a levelized cost — the electricity price needed to break even at the end of the plant's life — of $45 to $65 a megawatt-hour.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.