Transitioning Coal Power Plants to Nuclear Power

Abstract

Across the United States, communities and the energy industry are working to decarbonize their energy generation and consumption and are implementing actions to achieve zero-carbon-emission goals. This is a reflection of the Nation's commitment to carbon reduction and supporting the policies of the Federal and State governments. An increasing number of coal power plant (CPP) retirements has been seen across the Nation to support lower carbon plans. Transitions from coal to gas fuel have dominated the Nation's energy landscape over the past decade and allowed the Nation to reduce its carbon emissions, there is a continued desire to further reduce carbon emission from energy portfolios as the Nation works to decarbonize its electricity and energy generation. As more CPPs are retired, a reliable and affordable zero-emission power replacement is needed. Nuclear power is a viable dispatchable and clean source of energy that can replace a CPP.Beyond the functional replacement of the power being provided to the grid, a nuclear power plant (NPP) approximates the staffing and economic benefits of a retired CPP. A new NPP will employ similar numbers of professional employees. The operating NPP will also provide the benefits of a long-term continuing tax base to support the local community.There is a large near-term potential to transition recently retired and operating CPPs with NPPs. Decommissioning coal plants is ongoing and accelerating for last decade when almost half of the nation's 400 CPPs were retired. Going forward, retirements of larger and newer plants are to be expected. Retaining the intrinsic power-producing value of the site should provide increased incentive to use these former CPPs.There are many options for replacing coal power generation with different technical and socioeconomic considerations at each CPP. The power plant function can be replaced; however, the significant technical differences between coal and NPP make nuclear repowering a CPP challenging. Fully removing the coal plant and replacing it with a nuclear plant is the most understood path forward in terms of being able to meet zero-carbon goals. Each coal site would require assessment to determine the viability of the coal-to-nuclear transition. The type and number of any equipment retained will depend on the particulars of the retired coal plant and the design features of the new nuclear plant. Repowering a site by replacing the heat producing coal boiler with a heat producing nuclear reactor and retaining the existing power-producing technologies would require specialized equipment and analysis.Given the new generation of highly capable, safe, and economic NPPs being developed, transitioning CPPs to zero-carbon production is ever more promising. The purpose of this report is to provide information to utilities and other stakeholders in their consideration of replacing CPP with NPP. Near-term issues that should be considered and are discussed include energy generating basics, factors in replacing a CPP with a NPP, matching a NPP with the CP...

Investigating Benefits and Challenges of Converting Retiring Coal Plants into Nuclear Plants

“…The SG would generally need to be replaced because it will be the reactor coolant pressure boundary and thus would need to be qualified as a nuclear safety component. Griffith concluded in regard to the prospect of directly connecting VHTR core to a CPP SG that "using an high-temperature gas reactor (HTGR) to replace combustion processes in a CPP boiler will require significant changes to the boiler design" (Griffith, 2021). Even though unlikely, such a scenario will not be disregarded in this report.…”

“…8. Griffith (2021) focuses on presenting near-term issues that need to be considered by utilities and stakeholders in replacing a CPP with an NPP. Some of the presented and discussed issues include decommissioning efforts of a CPP, siting conditions, the basics of generating energy, NPP and CPP matching, and other factors in replacing a CPP with an NPP.…”

“…Still, the cooling through dedicated lake or rivers could be theoretically reused by NPP, avoiding some new investment costs but also resulting in reduced system efficiency. Some older heat-sink systems used in remaining CPPs may not be usable moving forward due to changes in regulations and requirements of use of "best technology available to minimize adverse environment impact" (Griffith, 2021). See also the FederalRegister (2022).…”

“…Major compatibility and licensing challenges exist in reusing some of these components, and the decision of reusing components is technology-specific and site-dependent (depending on the estimated value remaining from the aged CPP steam-cycle component), as further discussed in (Griffith, 2021). Technology-specific compatibility is based on the steam-cycle types used in the CPP and NPP, as described in Table 4-3.…”

“…In this case, the steam-cycle components may not need to be qualified as nuclear safety component, which may allow use of existing non-nuclear stamped SGs and steam-cycle components for all Sub, SC, and USC. As discussed in (Griffith, 2021), "[a] high-temperature reactor and heat storage system could enable reuse of the existing high-pressure secondary plant. Separation of nuclear-and coal-related equipment may also help in terms of licensing and design options.…”