If Iowa is a net exporter of electricity, why the push for new nuclear reactors?
I get it. Duane Arnold Energy Center has infrastructure to add/renew generating capacity: connections to the electrical grid, access to water for cooling, and transportation in and out. Compared to the new Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia, re-starting DAEC would be quicker and less expensive than building a new reactor. If an investor were to pick new nuclear capacity, they can do it on the relative cheap by re-starting old nuclear reactors.
When investors found Google, who was willing to enter a 25-year contract to buy electricity from the Palo plant to support a data center, it resolved a main issue with nuclear power: financial risk. While re-starting DAEC for a single large customer resolves one issue, it isn’t scalable. How many more deals like this are possible at DAEC given that specific infrastructure has a limit: grid capacity, and how much water for cooling can be drawn from the Cedar River?
The president has engaged in nuclear policy and changed priorities in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Even so, certain things still have to happen for real-world reasons to approve a new nuclear power plant. It takes time, despite entreaties to speed the project approval process. Why the president’s interest in nuclear power? It appears to be self-serving.
The parent company of Truth Social has announced a multibillion-dollar merger with fusion developer TAE Technologies, giving it a stake in this still-experimental form of nuclear energy. At the same time, the administration pushed to accelerate nuclear power licensing and reorganize the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as mentioned. Critics argue this overlap raises potential conflict-of-interest concerns, although no direct evidence has emerged that regulatory changes were made specifically to benefit the Trump family. In a March 27 article in CounterPunch, Karl Grossman and Harvey Wasserman detail Trump’s potential interest in the nuclear regulatory environment. Read it here. Is the Reynolds administration close enough to the president to be influenced by his self-serving interest in nuclear power? You know they are.
If electricity generation development proceeded on a logical basis, we wouldn’t be talking about new nuclear power. Not only is it very expensive, and subject to implementation delays, it doesn’t fit our state. The build out of wind generating capacity in Iowa makes baseload power like nuclear less desirable. Grid operators like MISO (Midcontinent Independent System Operator) value the flexibility found in natural gas, battery storage, and reduced usage when demand drops. That isn’t what nuclear does well.
Who would want nuclear power when the costs are so high? Each unit of electricity produced from the proposed new technology of small modular reactors would be far more expensive that the same unit from solar or wind power generation, even when the cost of storage technologies and other means of accounting for renewable energy’s variability are included. The answer to my question is no one would want it.
It is also important to note there are no commercial nuclear fusion or small modular reactors operating currently in the United States. The work the legislature (HSB 767/SSB 3181 both advanced this week) and Linn County are doing to promote nuclear power may be good in some respects. I remain unsure the “build it and they will come” philosophy will work here because grid operators need flexibility, not baseload.
There is a lot more to say about Iowa’s current infatuation with nuclear power. Watch this space for more.
Action alert from Progress Iowa:
Blog For Iowa 