LIFE EXTENSION | WEIGHING UP ALTERNATIVES A single unit, 400 MWe SMR power plant would be


installed at North Anna. Although some infrastructure upgrades may be required in association with the SMR, existing transmission line infrastructure would be adequate. Energy conservation and efficiency programs (broadly referred to as demand-side management) would be used to replace approximately 200 MWe of capacity. NRC staff said estimates demand response involve considerable uncertainty, but replacing 200 MWe of North Anna “would be a reasonable assumption for the combination alternative”.


Environmental footprints considered In making the comparison between the alternatives and agreeing a renewed licence for North Anna, the NRC staff found that the effect in most environmental categories was small for all three options. For the SMR and mixed solution some impacts – such as specific wildlife or historical sites – could not be assessed unless a site was chosen. SMRs had a more favourable outcome than the mixed use option, with potential effects only in land use (small effects based on the use of an area next to the North Anna plant that had previously been considered as part of the site, but with potential for moderate effects elsewhere depending on uranium fuel cycle requirements ) and visual resources (small to moderate, mainly because of the potential for condensation plumes from cooling in some weather conditions). The adverse effects of the mixed option were most often


based around the large area required. Specifically on land use the impact of the eight solar farms would be ‘moderate to large’, requiring around 20,000 acres (8,000 Ha) of land, sited with access to Dominion transmission systems. This could be on industrial or agricultural land, but the NRC staff assumes they cannot be co-located with other land uses (such as agriculture). For the offshore wind capacity (a large


component of the total), land would be needed for onshore support facilities, which may affect tourism and recreation. However, Dominion would limit onshore construction to previously disturbed areas on the State Military Reservation, so land use impact would be ‘small to moderate’. In contrast, a single SMR would have small impact as it requires only 35 acres (14 Ha), most likely on land already zoned for industrial use. For ‘terrestrial resources’ (ie animal and bird habitats) the


effect of the mixed development would be ‘small to large’, based on the need to clear land for large solar farms and the potential for wind farms to cause bat or bird collisions. For ‘aquatic resources’ there would be a ‘moderate


to large’ effect from constructing offshore wind farms. That included turbidity, noise, vibration and physical disturbances from piledriving, turbine construction, and submarine power cable installation. Cable installation could disturb large spans of aquatic habitat with dredging in some areas. For both alternatives to licence renewal the


socioeconomics and transportation effects were ‘moderate to large’. Both options would require large numbers of staff during construction, which will generate income but also increase traffic. But on the demand side management and energy efficiency components of the mixed replacement, the NRC staff says, personnel would be needed long term and this could generate additional employment, depending on the nature of the conservation and energy efficiency programmes and the need for direct measure installations in homes and office buildings. But “Jobs would likely be few and scattered throughout the region and would not have a noticeable effect on the local economy.” The NRC assessment thus concludes that both


renewables and a mixed portfolio of low/zero carbon generation result in more environmental impacts than licence extension at North Anna. ■


Above: Given NRC capacity factor assumptions, replacing North Anna would require 7,600 MWe of solar capacity covering 47,000 acres (19,000 ha) of land


40 | 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