Dive Brief:
- Repowering retired coal power plants with advanced nuclear reactors, including small modular reactors, could be a significant economic boon for host communities, the National Association of State Energy Officials and the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners said in a joint report released Wednesday.
- The report cited a 2022 U.S. Department of Energy study that found about 80% of retired and operational coal plants were suitable for coal-to-nuclear conversions, and further noted that key coal plant infrastructure could be repurposed for nuclear power generation, including transmission lines, switchyards, office buildings, heat sink infrastructure and steam cycle components.
- While coal site repowering is “not quite as simple” as replacing a coal-fired boiler with a nuclear reactor, the case for coal-to-nuclear transition “is extremely compelling in comparison to greenfield development,” Nuclear Innovation Alliance Research Director Patrick White said.
Dive Insight:
The NASEO-NARUC report follows a Bipartisan Policy Center report last year that found repurposing coal plants could reduce SMR construction costs by 17% to 35%.
The Bipartisan Policy Center noted that approximately 25% of the U.S. coal fleet is scheduled to retire by 2029, opening up transition opportunities across the country. NASEO/NARUC’s report identified the top 25 coal-dependent regions that stand to benefit most from the transition, including southern West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, southwestern Virginia, southern Illinois, eastern and western Wyoming, central Utah and western North Dakota.
Coal-dependent metropolitan areas identified by NASEO and NARUC included California-Lexington Park, Maryland; Bremerton-Silverdale, Washington; Greeley, Colorado; and College Station-Bryan, Texas.
These coal communities could lose millions in tax revenue amid broader declines in coal-related economic activity, NASEO and NARUC found. A 2023 Maryland study published by X-energy found that the closure of a coal power plant there could result in the affected community “losing as much as $122 million of its local economic output,” the report said.
Repowering a retiring coal plant with a 600-MWe nuclear facility could offset that loss by generating $10 million in state and local taxes and $40 million in federal taxes annually, the report said.
The NASEO-NARUC report highlighted the role state policy can play in supporting coal-to-nuclear repowering projects through funding appropriations for nuclear power and/or technology-agnostic clean energy projects, detailed feasibility studies, permanent nuclear working groups and workforce development initiatives.
Among the recent state initiatives it called out were Tennessee’s financial support for Type One Energy’s prototype reactor at the retired Tennessee Valley Authority Bull Run Fossil Plant and Virginia’s detailed SMR location study focusing on former coal mining and power generation sites, part of the state’s nuclear-friendly “all of the above” energy policy.
Despite the opportunity, challenges remain for coal-to-nuclear conversions, NASEO and NARUC said. Cost is among the most significant, with “overnight capital costs for [a first-of-its-kind] advanced nuclear [deployment] expected to range from around $6,000 to $10,000/kW,” the report said. But those costs could decline up to 40% for subsequent deployments and by a further 15% to 35% for coal-site repowering, it added.
Another challenge is the repowering timeline, which involves substantial site analysis, community outreach, environmental remediation, multiple permit applications and a multiyear construction process, the report said.
“We are really interested in being clear on the timeline for these projects,” White said, noting that the transitional period could cause economic challenges for individual workers and their communities. For former coal workers interested in finding jobs at a future nuclear plant, direct financial assistance may be needed on top of formal retraining programs, he added.
Keeping the coal plant online while the replacement reactor is under development could theoretically mitigate the economic impact, but might not be feasible, White said.
“That’s something the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would need to address when reviewing the construction permit or combined license” for the nuclear plant, he said.
