Introduction
The development of the new power generation projects in New England is driven by the competitive wholesale and state policy-based incentives. State energy policies in New England have supported the development of solar and wind power plants. However, this intermittent generation cannot provide the given area with sufficient energy all year round, and the grid is increasingly dependent on natural gas and oil-fired plants to provide flexible and reliable capacity. Against the background of climate change concerns, these gas and oil burning facilities increase CO2 emissions. Furthermore, many existing solar and wind power plants are expected to reach the end of their life by the 2030s. This may support a shift back to nuclear power to provide clean, economical energy.
At present, the New England states, excluding New Hampshire, require voter and legislative approvals to allow a nuclear power plant to be built. Ideally, such facilities will not harm the environment, but the public does not welcome them because of implied danger. Consequently, the decline of public support for nuclear power has resulted in the decommissioning of the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant, although Connecticut has provided financial support for the Millstone Nuclear Plant. Thus, it is necessary to examine different examples of nuclear technology to determine its possible economic advantages. This paper examines the economies of repowering the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant with an advanced light water reactor (LWR) and a NuScale Small Modular Reactor (SMR), which is a smaller and simpler technology. The economics of these two cases are then analyzed to compare them to those of gas and oil as well as wind and solar power plants. Given that energy policy is driven by climate concerns, the cost per ton of CO2 avoided is becoming an important metric.
Findings and Recommendations
The results of this review demonstrate that the NuScale project offers significant benefits. Firstly, technology features one of the lowest costs per ton of CO2 avoided, which makes it the most financially advantageous source of power to use based on carbon reduction policy targets. Secondly, the timing of a new SMR plant may match up with the need for repowering much renewal capacity now in operation when it appears that nuclear plants are more cost-effective in displacing fossil fuels. This situation is useful since it means that the New England power grid may turn to more cost-effective power technologies. Thirdly, the NuScale technology offers more adaptive dispatch options, which denotes that this plant is flexible in operation. Finally, the SMR reactor implies a lower implementation risk because it is smaller and with less risky construction. Thus, the general public needs to reconsider its attitude towards the future use of nuclear power.
As for the public perception and legislation attitude toward the given issue, it should be accompanied by informed decisions. The advantages mentioned above can be achieved if significant policy obstacles are overcome. It is so because this fact will allow for the reintroduction of nuclear energy to the given area. Furthermore, the need for flexibility is presented and supported due to the projected load and pricing curves. It means that it is not reasonable to establish and follow strict guidelines from the beginning because of the mobile nature of the given industry. In addition to that, it is wise to consider the inclusion of public power agencies that can provide the lowest cost financing. It brings effective risk reduction in project planning and implementation. Thus, the present data demonstrate that advanced nuclear technology can result in significant benefits if it witnesses the reconsideration of its image.