LIFE EXTENSION | WEIGHING UP ALTERNATIVES nuclear weighed up Alternatives to
An NRC staff assessment of alternatives to a licence extension at the North Anna nuclear power plant provides a useful window into the
organisation’s view on generation options. It seems that renewables lose out in comparison because of their extensive land requirements – even offshore
THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION HAS concluded there are no adverse environmental impacts that would preclude the renewal of North Anna’s operating licences for an additional 20 years. With the extension, the Virginia plant’s two Westinghouse reactors – originally commissioned in 1978 and 1980 – would see their lifetimes increase from 60 to 80 years. In doing so, the NRC also considered alternative options by which plant owner Dominion could supply power to North Anna’s customers during the proposed new licence period. It concluded that neither a mixed supply, nor an array of small modular reactors, offered any environmental advantages over the existing plant. The NRC staff’s assessment provides a useful window into decision making on power supply even when there is a diverse range of options that can be deployed as an alternative to a large nuclear plant.
Weighing up the options The ultimate decision on whether to continue to operate a nuclear station or follow alternative business plants falls to the nuclear plant owner (in this case Virginia Electric and Power Company, doing business as Dominion Energy Virginia). Before a new licence can be granted, the NRC is
required to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) and this includes comparing the environmental impact of renewing the licence with that of alternatives. In evaluating replacement energy alternatives, the NRC staff has to determine which replacements are likely to be available and commercially viable when current operating licences expire (at North Anna 1 and 2 their current 60-year lifetime licenses would expire in April 2038 and August 2040, respectively). Considering the licence extension for the North Anna
reactors, which are sited northwest of Richmond, Virginia, the NRC staff evaluated 16 different potential alternatives. It eliminated 14 and chose two – building five SMRs at the site or using mixed sources (including one SMR) – for in-depth study, after which it concluded that in at least four areas all the alternatives had greater adverse impact than licence renewal (in addition to the environmental impacts of new construction projects).
Off the table Some of the 14 alternatives eliminated from detailed study relied on a single form of renewable energy generation to replace North Anna’s baseload supply.
Above: Life extension of the North Anna nuclear power plant offers the lowest environmental impact when compared with alternatives
38 | September 2024 |
www.neimagazine.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49
