Letters: Indiana should seriously evaluate nuclear risks

  • Comments
  • Print
  • Add Us on Google
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

I share George Gemelas’ commitment to abundant, reliable electricity while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But his enthusiasm for a “closed-loop” small modular reactor (or SMR) complex requires a more careful look (“George Gemelas: Indiana just leveled up as leader in nuclear power,” Forefront, Nov. 14). Indiana is being invited to take on risks for an industry whose promises are unproven.

First, the editorial highlights Fanco’s plan to reprocess spent nuclear fuel on-site. This is unprecedented in the USA. The closest analogue is a West Valley, New York, facility that reprocessed commercial spent fuel and operated for only six years. The site has been in cleanup for nearly half a century and remains one of the most complex nuclear remediation projects in the country. Indiana officials should visit West Valley before assuming reprocessing is straightforward or low impact.

Second, Gemelas endorses a strategy of burning more natural gas while hoping new reactors arrive in the 2030s. Natural gas emits about a pound of CO2-equivalent for every 2 kWh generated, worsening the climate crisis now while gambling on technology that may or may not be ready later. If SMRs fall behind schedule or fail to perform, what is Indiana’s Plan B?

Third, even with reprocessing, long-lived high-level nuclear waste remains. The United States has no deep geological repository, and none will be available for decades. That means any high-level waste created here will stay in Indiana indefinitely. Moreover, for the economics of reprocessing to pencil out, Indiana would likely need to import spent fuel from other states. Will this be acceptable to the host community and the state?

Fourth, the plan for six SMRs (enough to power 1.5 million homes) creates a significant resilience challenge. Concentrating so much generation in one location introduces a major point of failure. If the plant goes off-line, half the state could lose power.

Finally, large energy “parks” inevitably attract large consumers such as data centers, increasing demand and potentially requiring yet more power plants. If Indiana needs power, consider weatherization and solar first. If it really wants nuclear, why not consider proven, commercial-scale designs rather than experimental ones?

Indiana deserves a full, transparent evaluation of the benefits, risks and alternatives, not just optimistic projections.

Thomas Webler
senior research fellow, Social and Environmental Research Institute, Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Story Continues Below

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

One thought on “Letters: Indiana should seriously evaluate nuclear risks

  1. Thank you so much for this excellent commentary, Thomas Webler. Your letter truly gets at the heart of why First American Nuclear (FANCO) exists, and we are committed to being the transparent and forthcoming neighbor Indiana deserves.

    FANCO is a team of scientists and engineers with decades of experience designing, licensing, and operating advanced reactors globally. We founded the company based on our country’s need for a practical, cost effective, next-generation nuclear design rooted in proven science.

    Let’s address the closed fuel cycle. You’re right, reactors haven’t operated in a closed-fuel cycle in the U.S., but that’s not because the technology isn’t mature and proven to work. As a country, we deliberately chose to invest in oil and gas rather than nuclear energy. Other developed nations, however, have been safely reprocessing and recycling fuel for decades.

    Importantly, the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) in New York was designed and built in the 1960s, before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) existed. Without the worldwide gold standard of nuclear safety that the NRC now provides, the WVDP was pushed to work with materials that it wasn’t designed for.

    In stark contrast, FANCO designed its closed-fuel cycle technology specifically to work with the NRC’s stringent safety standards from the outset, and will involve transparent cooperation and extensive licensing and environmental review at the state and federal levels. By reprocessing and reusing its own waste onsite, the FANCO system aims to eliminate 95%+ of that waste. The small amount of material that does remain decays within a few years, dramatically simplifying the design and security requirements for storage. We don’t believe in changing the rules; we design to exceed them.

    Concerning our position on natural gas, we fully agree that the climate crisis demands immediate action. And while we strongly support renewable sources like wind and solar, these sources alone cannot supply the reliable baseload power that our communities need.

    In Indiana today, baseload power is largely and inefficiently met by coal. And strangely enough, coal power plants release more radioactive material into nature than nuclear power plants. A structured transition from coal to gas to nuclear energy is the most practical way to meet climate goals while ensuring a reliable, affordable power supply and providing an economic bridge for energy workers.

    When it comes to resiliency, an energy park of 240MW small modular reactors (SMRs) is quite the opposite of a single point of failure. Today in Indiana, many single large coal and natural gas sites have several times that power in single units, and these units routinely go down for maintenance without causing issue. Nuclear power plants are much more consistent than fossil fuel plants, operating at full capacity over 90% of the time, compared to coal and natural gas at just 40 to 70% capacity.

    As for attracting new industry, we consider that a feature, not a flaw. With new industry comes new jobs, and it’s not a question of if those jobs will be created, it’s a question of where they will be located, and we’d like them in Indiana.

    Our president, Bill Stokes, wrote more about the origins of our Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology and the heart and soul of our team here. We’re also happy to chat any time if you’d like to get to know each other better.

    Sincerely,

    Mike Reinboth, CEO, First American Nuclear (FANCO)

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In