Following the deactivation of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Manomet in 2019, we residents of Plymouth have particularly good cause to be concerned about nuclear power. The question of how to safely dispose of the approximately 900,000 gallons of decommissioning water still stored at the Pilgrim site remains unanswered. And, of course, those 62 large casks housing spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive materials in “interim” storage along Rocky Hill Road also loom large in our collective psyche.
In a recent Independent story, Fred Thys shared several local officials’ diverging opinions about hosting a small modular reactor (SMR) at that site. At the federal and state levels, however, advancing emerging nuclear technologies such as SMRs appears to be one of the few topics that administrations and legislators alike can agree upon.
In addition to its aggressive policies designed to increase wind and solar generation, the Biden administration introduced plans to triple the nation’s nuclear capacity by 2035. Congress backed this with billions of dollars in funding to support accelerated development while streamlining the licensing of small modular reactors and other advanced nuclear technologies.
The Trump administration is shifting support away from both wind and solar renewables and putting more focus on both fossil fuel generation and nuclear, including SMRs. Under the administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” federal efforts to fast-track third- and fourth-generation nuclear development will largely shift from direct funding to encouraging more private sector investment.
At the state level, governors and legislatures in “red” and “blue” states alike are reconsidering how new greenhouse gas-free nuclear generation could supplement existing fossil and renewable power generation on the electric grid. Much of this discussion and activity centers around SMRs for utility-scale power generation and to provide dedicated power for energy-intensive AI data centers.
Governor Healey recently introduced the Energy Affordability, Independence & Innovation Act to help bring more power into Massachusetts, increase reliability, and reduce costs to ratepayers while helping meet the state’s ambitious 2050 greenhouse gas reduction targets. Among other elements, passage would support development and deployment of advanced nuclear technology, including small modular reactors.
The decreasing costs for bringing wind and solar energy online and the increasing penetration of these “renewables” into our overall energy mix in recent years has been encouraging. But due in large part to the intermittent nature of most renewables, a significant gap remains between supply and demand. This is especially true during peak demand periods or when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.
The inherent variability of wind, photovoltaic solar, and even hydro means that we can’t depend on these renewables alone to provide adequate baseload power that can be readily dispatched onto the electric grid as needed to meet fluctuations in demand. Batteries and other emerging energy storage approaches can help, but despite the rapidly falling prices for lithium batteries these aren’t yet cost – or space – effective yet at grid scale and may never be.
Largely carbon-free, nuclear-generated electric power, in contrast, can be readily dispatched over the grid to help ensure both adequate supply and grid stability. Unlike the large, ponderous, outrageously expensive, and sometimes accident-prone nuclear power generating stations of the past, we’re told that – by design – SMRs will have a much smaller footprint, be quicker and less expensive to build, and consume far less nuclear fuel than conventional nuclear power stations. To be considered for NRC certification, SMRs must also be designed to be inherently safe with passive safety systems that don’t require human intervention or external power or water to quickly return to a safe state if needed.
But in addition to the usual (and valid) concerns about safety and nuclear waste, some experts have questioned the economic viability of SMRs. They will almost certainly be smaller and easier to site and permit than traditional nuclear power plants and should cost significantly less to build, but due to economies of scale it’s likely that the levelized cost per megawatt/hour (which includes both capital and operating costs) for SMRs will be higher than for full-scale nuclear plants. These costs will also likely be higher than for both renewables and fossil generation, but without their respective drawbacks. Organizations such as the National Resources Defense Council and Society of Concerned Scientists have also questioned the economic, environmental, and safety benefits touted by SMR developers.
At the local level, it doesn’t appear that the town has established a formal position one way or the other on SMRs at the former Pilgrim plant site, but as Thys reported, several town officials have expressed their personal opinions. A few expressed qualified openness to exploring the potential benefits of an SMR at the Pilgrim site. Others mentioned that they don’t think there should be any discussion at all on this until all the spent fuel from the decommissioned Pilgrim plant is removed from the town.
In an informal phone discussion, Planning Board member Steve Bolotin emphasized the need to objectively evaluate the pros and cons of a future SMR in town based on rigorous research and input from credible, well-informed experts before any hard decisions are made.
Holtec spokesperson and Plymouth resident Patrick O’Brien believes that while he’s encouraged that Governor Healey has signaled support for bringing nuclear back to Massachusetts, it’s not likely that Holtec – or any other reactor developer, for that matter – would be willing to make the necessary investment and then face the risk that a future administration change could change everything. He mentioned that this is especially the case since other states, including New York and Michigan, represent a far more friendly environment for nuclear development. Holtec is already moving ahead with plans to implement two of its SMR-300 pressurized water reactors at the previously shuttered Palisades Nuclear Power Station in Michigan.
That said, O’Brien acknowledged that with adequate space for up to four SMRs, the grid interconnections already in place, and other considerations, the former Pilgrim site would be “the prime location to bring nuclear back to Massachusetts.”
Ideally, as the costs continue to drop, more greenhouse gas-free renewable power (wind, PV solar, hydro, geothermal, and others), “green” hydrogen, and advanced energy storage technologies (batteries, pumped hydro, thermal reservoirs, and others) will be integrated into our overall energy mix. This should go a long way toward providing adequate power to meet the world’s rapidly growing appetite for electricity while minimizing the greenhouse gas emissions that are at least partially responsible for the extreme weather patterns and related floods, droughts, and wildfires that having been ravaging the earth’s populations in recent years.
But it’s also likely that we’re still going to need a reliable, non-intermittent, and readily dispatchable way to generate electricity to support the increased electrification of transportation, industry, and buildings; produce hydrogen; and power data centers. As I see it, we have two main options here. Increasing our reliance on natural gas is one. But unlike in other parts of the country, natural gas must travel a long way, either through compressor-driven pipelines or via large LNG carriers to make its way to us here in New England. Also, while natural gas electric generation is certainly cleaner than other fossil fuels, it still produces significant GHG emissions.
So, we have to at least be willing to consider the possibility that – while imperfect and not without its own risks – with appropriate oversight and a solid plan for dealing with spent nuclear fuel and other radioactive materials, moving ahead with SMRs and other advanced nuclear generation may make sense. This is particularly true here in Plymouth where an SMR at the Pilgrim plant site would once again provide skilled jobs and generate significant tax revenues thus lessening the increasing burden on us homeowners.
But even opponents of the idea don’t have to panic yet. Currently, only NuScale’s SMR design has received NRC certification and it’s not likely that any SMRs will be commissioned in the U.S. before the early 2030s. So, we have plenty of time to hash this out civilly.
– Paul Miller