State report weighs advanced nuclear options to meet future climate goals

New York State is eyeing a suite of "advanced" nuclear-energy options to help bolster a future electric grid that will be increasingly reliant on intermittent energy sources such as wind and solar power. But the move is already generating strong opposition.

In a paper to be released during a state energy summit Thursday, the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, in a commissioned report, said the need for emission-free energy sources will grow as the state moves toward a 2050 goal of a carbon-neutral economy.

"Advanced nuclear technologies could offer attractive possibilities for New York," the report, prepared by the Brattle Group, stated, citing the technology’s ability to be expanded after an initial plant opens, its ability to boost the economy and uses less space than, say, a solar farm. Nuclear "may represent an opportunity for additional grid capacity to support an electrifying economy that can complement New York’s buildout of renewables."

NYSERDA stressed that the report's opinions "do not necessarily reflect those of NYSERDA, or the state."

The report presents the long view of options to help address the state's plan to transition away from fossil-fuel based energy systems to those powered by carbon-free resources such as wind, solar and other green energies. The state Public Service Commission, in a prior proceeding, has characterized existing nuclear power generation as "a zero-emission technology."

While the report mentions up-and-coming technologies such as geothermal, long-duration storage and hydrogen-powered plants as future options, it pointed to a group of "advanced nuclear technologies" as having potential for carbon-free power that can be "dispatched" when the grid needs it. Those include light water reactors, which use boiling or pressurized water as the coolant.

But energy activist groups are already mounting campaigns in opposition to any effort to expand nuclear beyond its current profile in the farther reaches of upstate. Consumer and green-energy groups released a letter calling on Gov. Kathy Hochul to focus on green-energy sources and "drop any consideration of dangerous, wasteful nuclear power."

"It’s upsetting to see a resurgence of nuclear when its failures have been clear," said Ryan Madden, climate and energy campaigns director of the Long Island Progressive Coalition, an activist group that was one of the early opponents of the mothballed Shoreham nuclear plant. He called consideration of a nuclear power option "dangerous and reckless."

Long Island and the state have a long history with nuclear power. Long Islanders, as Newsday recently reported, are still paying for the decommissioned Shoreham nuclear power plant, which was shut down following protests before it ever generated power. The more than $6 billion in costs for the plant and a subsequent acquisition of the Long Island Lighting Co., are two years away from being paid off.

LIPA still holds LILCO’s former interest in Nine Mile Point 2, in upstate New York.

Madden cited long-term nuclear waste-storage issues, health impacts on women, children and indigenous populations, and massive cost overruns of past projects as the chief drawbacks. "We have tools in our toolbox" to meet future baseload energy needs, including the prospect of long-duration energy storage, he said.

But the state’s report, citing federal sources, said there’s potential for "new" nuclear energy to help fill important and widening gaps in the state’s energy need as older fossil fuel plants are retired over the next two decades in line with state climate-law mandates. Nuclear needs to be considered, the report suggests, as the need for baseload energy grows in the face of intermittent green-energy sources such as wind, which produces less energy in summer, and solar, which is impacted by cloudy weather and darkness.

The report noted that so-called advanced nuclear power resources are significantly different than existing and former nuke plants characterized during the Three Mile Island era. Newer plants "substantially improve on current operating reactors," the report said, with greater safety and "versatility."

For instance, the new plants can operate with lower pressures even at higher operating temperatures, while using alternatives to traditional water-cooled systems such as graphite and sodium/molten salts, which can improve efficiency. Some advanced nuclear plants use high-temperature gas reactors.

The state is also eyeing possible future developments in fusion reactors, which release large amounts of atomic energy by fusing two atoms into a larger, nonradioactive atom. Fusion energy isn’t commercially feasible, or commercially proven, as yet, the report noted, but "could become a viable option for New York’s energy supply" when the process shows "net positive power" from such reactions at a competitive cost, the report notes. Several companies are pursuing it.

The report noted that "public concern about nuclear safety remains high" particularly after high-profile accidents such as Three Mile Island 45 years ago, Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima, 13 years ago. The report also cited siting challenges and the fact that nuclear energy projects have a "long history of substantial cost overruns." 

By Mark Harrington

mark.harrington@newsday.comMHarringtonNews

Mark Harrington, a Newsday reporter since 1999, covers energy, wineries, Indian affairs and fisheries.