Existing coal plants in the United States can be converted to nuclear facilities as part of the energy transition, according to a new report from the US Department of Energy (DOE) detailing how coal-to-nuclear (C2N) conversion might work.
The DOE says the move to nuclear energy in hundreds of coal-fired installations could increase the country’s nuclear capacity to 350 gigawatts (gW), nearly four times the current level of nuclear generation. The study, conducted jointly by Argonne National Laboratory, Idaho National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, identified operating and retired coal plants that could be used as an advanced nuclear site.
About 80% of the 394 installations can be considered for transition, according to the report. A case study included in the report offers a view of what this would mean in terms of conversion cost, job creation and overall regional economic impacts.
“Depending on the options and sizes of nuclear technology evaluated to replace a large coal plant (generating 1,200 megawatts of electricity), overnight capital costs could drop 15% to 35% compared to a greenfield construction project, for through the reuse of coal facility infrastructure,” the report says.
“Nuclear replacement projects can have smaller capacity sizes because nuclear power plants run at higher capacity factors than coal plants.”
For now only Wyoming
The idea is not entirely new, but it has yet to be implemented in the US, although a coal to nuclear power (C2N) project is underway in the western state of Wyoming. The DOE case study is based on the needs of the Midwest region of the country, with the model drawn from a composite of 12 retired plant facilities across the region. Along with the Midwest, the Southeast has the largest number of coal plants where C2N could operate.
“High construction costs have consistently plagued the nuclear power industry for years, but a C2N transition can help reduce those costs, especially for early development projects,” the DOE said in a statement released Tuesday.
“C2N projects can use existing land, grid connection and office buildings. Reusing coal plant electrical equipment (transmission connection, distribution yard, etc.) and civil infrastructure (roads, buildings, etc.) would also save millions of dollars upfront.”
The 127-page report compared the benefits of two types of nuclear facilities built by West Coast manufacturers: NuScale, a maker of small modular reactors (SMRs), and TerraPower, a Bill Gates-backed company that develops various next-generation nuclear technologies. .
Coal is the dirtiest fuel
Converting a coal-to-nuclear plant would also create more jobs in the long run, because more workers are needed to operate the nuclear plants, although the total depends on the type of reactor installed and other variables.
Above all, the DOE says the C2N concept would significantly reduce carbon emissions and advance the 2050 net zero target set in the US.
“According to the case study, greenhouse gas emissions in the region would be reduced by 86% when nuclear power plants replaced coal. That reduction equates to taking more than 500,000 gasoline-powered passenger vehicles off the road,” the DOE said.
“Improved air quality can lead to lower incidences of health problems associated with air pollution, such as asthma, lung cancer and heart disease.”
By Lauren Fagan Article in English