Navigant Research Blog

How Not to Build a Nuclear Plant

Richard Martin — January 27, 2012

The Utah state engineer, a man named Kent Jones, has approved the water rights for the proposed Blue Castle nuclear project in Green River, Utah.  The two-reactor plant would be the first nuclear power plant built in the West since the late 1980s.  Jones’ decision has caused outrage among environmental and anti-nuclear groups in the West, and justifiably so.  The Blue Castle project pretty much sums up everything that’s wrong with today’s nuclear power industry.

First, it’s huge: the twin reactors would produce up to 3,000 megawatts (MW) of power.  The future of nuclear power lies in small, modular reactors (SMRs) that are prefabricated, easy to transport, easy to assemble, and easier to win permits for than gargantuan reactors.  Recognizing this, the American Nuclear Society, among other groups, is campaigning for new licensing procedures for SMRs that could avoid the absurdly long lead times facing most nuclear-power projects in the United States (see below).

“Big” means “expensive,” and the Blue Castle project is nothing if not costly.  It will take on the order of $18 billion to complete the project, including $100 million just to shove it through the approval process.  Blue Castle Holdings, needless to say, does not have that kind of cash.  In its water-rights application, the company listed as a primary backer a Wall Street company called LeadDog Capital.  LeadDog, which Blue Castle said was putting up $30 million for the nuclear project, has been accused in a cease-and-desist petition filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission of running a scam operation.  Blue Castle CEO Aaron Tilton, a former Utah state legislator, says that he never “pulled the trigger” on the LeadDog financing and that his company no longer does business with the embattled funder; however Jones, the state engineer, listed the LeadDog funding as primary evidence that Blue Castle “has the financial ability to complete the proposed project.”  In interviews with the Salt Lake City Tribune, Jones admitted that he took Blue Castle’s word for that: “It was just a plan presented by them, and we didn’t do a lot of investigation into the plan, about the validity of the plan.”

Even if the money becomes available, Blue Castle is years, if not decades, away from actually producing power.  Tilton said his company is readying an Early Site Permit to be submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 2013.  The application could take three years to be approved.  Then a combined construction and operating license (COL) would be needed, which would add another four years to the process. “The earliest the project could break ground is 2020,” points out Dan Yurman on his nuclear blog, Idaho Samizdat.  Nuclear power that might come online sometime in the mid-2020s is not exactly going to help reduce carbon emissions from coal plants in the short term.

Inevitably, there’s the question of water.  The state specifically approved Blue Castle’s lease of water rights held by Utah’s San Juan and Kane counties.  As with all Western water rights, the San Juan and Kane rights are part of a complicated tangle of competing claims. They are set to expire in 2015 if not put to beneficial use. 

“At times, the Blue Castle proposal looks like a water right in search of a project,” remarked High Country News in a 2010 feature on the project.

The design for the reactors at Blue Castle has not been finalized, but they are most likely to be boiling water reactors, which are considered “Generation III+” designs – in other words, hardly a real advance over today’s uranium-fueled light water reactors.  There is no plan in place for where nuclear waste from the plant would go.

Finally, the Blue Castle plant would require the construction of massive transmission lines to carry the power to the coastal cities Southern California, the project’s ultimate customers.  Most of those lines would cross federal lands, requiring yet more permits – and more years to approval.  Yurman calls Blue Castle “a continuation of California’s ‘colonial’ strategy of banning new reactors within its borders while buying nuclear powered electricity from plants in other states.”

As I’ve noted elsewhere, the NRC should not be in the business of sitting for years on grandiose plant proposals, backed by speculative (if not fraudulent) investors, based on obsolete technology, requiring huge amounts of scare water resources and new investment in transmission and distribution facilities.  The U.S. nuclear power industry badly needs to move into the 21st century. With Blue Castle, it’s still pursuing the failed strategies of the 20th.

2 Responses to “How Not to Build a Nuclear Plant”

  1. Dan Yurman says:

    Even small modular reactors (SMRs) using light water designs in the range of 45-125 MW require water for cooling systems. These types of SMRs are the most likely to be licensed by the NRC with the first designs available probably around 2018. Sodium cooled fast reactors that are also SMRs, but which do not use water, are unlikely to be licensed in the same time frame.

    One option that hasn’t been explored is to bench mark the example of Palo Verde. The gray water system at Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) in Arizona is unique for its sheer size. PVNGS is a three-unit, pressurized water reactor facility with a total capacity of 3,875 MW. The station has been in operation since 1986 and uses gray water exclusively for cooling.

    For such a system to be built in Utah, it would have to be located within reasonable distance of the state’s urban centers to insure the economics of getting the gray water were within the realm of feasibility.

    Another possibility is for the reactor to power reverse osmosis units to produce its own cooling water from brackish underground or surface sources that are unfit for human or livestock use and therefore not allocated within water rights systems. This approach is being used in the development of four South Korean 1,400 MW units being built for the United Arab Emirates on the shores of the Persian Gulf.

    There are some technological pathways that haven’t yet been fully thought out in the public dialog. These ideas deserve some attention.

  2. Jimmy says:

    It seems that all these would be nuclear developers are simply scam artists, just like Alternate Energy Holdings. Nuclear power has always been based on lies and deceit from day one. It has never made sense, and makes even less sense today than ever.

Leave a Reply

Blog Articles

Most Recent

By Date

Tags

Alternative Fuel Vehicles, Clean Transportation, Electric Vehicles, Energy Storage, Policy & Regulation, Renewable Energy, Smart Energy Practice, Smart Grid Practice, Smart Transportation Practice, Utility Innovations

By Author


{"userID":"","pageName":"How Not to Build a Nuclear Plant","path":"\/blog\/how-not-to-build-a-nuclear-plant","date":"5\/22\/2013"}