Slide presented in PSC’s workshop on nuclear power on Sept. 5, 2024. (Photo from Electric Power Research Institute)
Could an increase in nuclear power generation be a part of Florida’s energy future?
That possibility was discussed Thursday during a workshop held by the Florida Public Service Commission in Tallahassee under a legislative directive passed earlier this year about the possibility of using advanced nuclear technologies.
At present, natural gas fuels approximately 75% of all energy consumed in Florida, a larger proportion from one source than in any other state.
“You realize there’s no other region of the country that’s any more than 50% dependent on natural gas, so Florida sticks out like a sore thumb,” said Jacob Williams, chairman of the Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, representing an array of public and private generating companies.
“We are the most dependent on any basically single source of electricity,” he continued, noting that the price of natural gas has led to increased energy costs for most Floridians and adding that “anything that we can do to moderate that would be wise going forward.”
Enter nuclear power.
The state derives 13% of its energy portfolio from nuclear sources, according to a House analysis. Florida Power & Light operates the only two functioning nuclear power plants in the state — St. Lucie and Turkey Point. A third nuclear plant at Crystal River was shut down in 2013 by Duke Energy. All three of those sites could prove suitable for smaller nuclear options, experts said on Thursday.
Following the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979 in Pennsylvania and the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the old Soviet Union in 1986, construction of new nuclear power plants dropped dramatically in the U.S.
But with concerns about climate change growing, nuclear has again become an option in some states. That’s because nuclear power plants don’t produce greenhouse gas emissions that result in climate change.
Legislative directive
Thursday’s workshop was part of a directive from legislation (HB 1645) passed this year that called for the Public Service Commission to evaluate the technical and economic feasibility of using nuclear power technologies, including small modular reactors, and to research ways to encourage use of such technologies at military installations in partnership with public utilities.
Steve Swilley, vice president of the Electric Power Research Institute, said PSC members need to ask themselves some tough questions, such as what are they trying to do and why are they trying to do it.
“What is my mission? What am I trying to do? How big is my micro-grid? How many megawatts? What kind of loads are on that?” he asked, rhetorically.
Swilley added that that going nuclear won’t be quick — realistically, officials should think about getting something online by 2040. If they want more transmission earlier, he said, then it would “probably better off going back to some tried and true technology.”
Small modular reactors (SMRs) are advanced installations with generation capacities of up to 300 MW(e) per unit, which is about one-third of the generating capacity of traditional nuclear power reactors, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). (MW(e) means megawatts electric, a measure of output from power plants.)
Mary Lou Dunzik-Gougar, professor of nuclear engineering at Idaho State University, went through a slide presentation discussing not only small reactors but “micro” reactors, which she said could fit on the back of a truck, inside an airplane, or on a train.
When asked about “the elephant in the room” — how safe is such technology? — Dunzik-Gougar was emphatic in her response.
“There are so many data out there that shows that nuclear is already, and always has been, the safest type of power production,” she asserted.
Dunzik-Gougar acknowledged safety concerns are legitimate.
“It’s very emotional, but we already know nuclear is the safest and it’s not going to be changed by having a very small reactor on a truck. You can talk about transporting any sort of fuel, same idea, there’s risk but actually pretty much less with nuclear.”
There was less discussion about what to do with nuclear waste. At Florida’s two nuclear plants, the used fuel assemblies are removed from the reactor and kept in stainless steel-lined concrete pools of water on the plant site, in a process called “wet storage.” The water helps cool the fuel as it becomes less radioactive over time. That wet storage is then supplemented with “dry storage,” which FPL has said is a “safe, secure and well-proven technology, according to the Naples Daily News.
ADVANCE Act
Another factor is bipartisan legislation signed into law in June by President Joe Biden. The ADVANCE Act directs the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to reduce licensing application fees and authorizes increased staffing to expedite the process.
The measure directs the NRC to develop guidance to license and regulate microreactor designs within 18 months, and eliminates costs associated with pre-application activities and early permits at Department of Energy sites or other locations critical to national security.
The workshop ended after about 90 minutes, followed by comments from a couple of members of the public who gathered to hear the discussion at the agency’s Tallahassee headquarters.
While it is absolutely a fact that nuclear power seems a good alternative to those concerned about climate change, not all environmentalists have embraced the technology. A Gallup poll conducted in 2022 found that barely a third of Americans who worry a “great deal” about climate change — 34% — support the use of nuclear energy, while 62% oppose it. A 2021 paper from the Environment Working Group laid out its reasoning on why SMRs would not alleviate the climate crisis.
However, Schef Wright, an attorney representing the Orlando Utilities Commission and a self-acknowledged “card-carrying member of the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society,” said he supports the concept.
“Nuclear power is the only green solution,” he told the panel.
The legislation mandating the study requires the PSC to submit a report on potential legislative or administrative actions that could “enhance the use of nuclear technologies” to the governor, Senate president and speaker of the House by April 1, 2025.