Letters to the Editor

Letter: Nuclear power possibilities

I read with considerable interest the article published in ADN about nuclear power for rural Alaska.

This idea is not new. In 2004, there was interest in developing a nuclear reactor for rural Alaska, with Toshiba providing a “free reactor” for Galena. In 2011, working in conjunction with the Alaska Center for Energy and Power at UAF, I was tasked with evaluating small-scale nuclear power plants for rural Alaska. I reviewed technologies from across the globe, trying to find a match between the needs of rural Alaska and technologies being developed both here in the U.S., and in other places. The report can still be found using a google search for “ACEP Small Scale Nuclear Power.” The conclusions are still valid, though the executive summary may be dated.

Here are the conclusions of that study in a nutshell:

1. Small-scale nuclear power had been tried already in Alaska, namely in a small reactor deployed at Fort Greely near Delta in the early 1970s. This reactor failed due to poor choices of materials for the reactor construction (ordinary stainless steel rather than more expensive alloys). Also, the reactor required a large number of personnel to guard it, which resulted in a high cost of power, even if fuel costs were low. In other words, at that time, diesel-generated power was still far cheaper.

2. Current federal regulations for nuclear power plants have been developed only for large-scale plants, that is, sized to provide more power than the entire “urban” Alaska grid uses. These regulations mean that only power plants that employ hundreds of personnel are allowed; small-scale reactors in remote communities cannot be permitted under current regulations, eliminating any permit application for small communities. Changing these regulations is not impossible, but it is not trivial.

3. Many of the new reactor designs use “fast reactor” technology, which used to be called “breeder reactors” back in the Carter administration. The proposed reactor for Galena was of this type. While this type of reactor does not violate the laws of chemistry or physics, there are a large number of engineering issues associated with their deployment, especially long-term safety concerns. Conducting the necessary testing of these new reactor designs will require billions of dollars and decades of effort.

But let me be clear: I support the effort to develop these new forms of nuclear power, and applaud Sen. Murkowski for her efforts. Given the clear threat to the Arctic from climate change, developing energy sources that do not involve the burning of fossil fuels is critical. We should invest the billions of dollars necessary to develop these new power sources. But we should not be blind to how costly or time intensive these efforts will be.

ADVERTISEMENT

— Dennis Witmer

Spokane, Washington

Have something on your mind? Send to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Letters under 200 words have the best chance of being published. Writers should disclose any personal or professional connections with the subjects of their letters. Letters are edited for accuracy, clarity and length.

ADVERTISEMENT