The current Palisades plan is risky and expensive, and it is an incredibly inappropriate replacement for the Campbell:
- Its plan to restart the old Palisades reactor involves the first restart of a decommissioned reactor in US history. The old reactor had problems when it was shut down, and now has even more problems. (https://savethecampbell.com/former-lead-engineer-at-palisades-plant-says-it-is-unfit-for-quick-restart/ )
- Its plan to build SMRs (small modular reactors) involves a technology that has not yet been commercially successful. In recent years NuScale failed in its attempt. If SMRs make so much sense for the Palisades site at taxpayer and customer expense, then why is NuScale’s stock doing so badly after its failed attempts? Here is the economic reality of SMRs: “This suggests that true commercialization is still quite distant in the future.” (https://seekingalpha.com/article/4771471-nuscale-power-the-bottom-isnt-in-yet-technical-analysis)
- “A new report from consultancy ICF found a nuclear renaissance was “far from certain”, citing doubts over economic viability, technological scalability and long timelines. The report found that restarting nuclear plants could cost between $356/kW a year to $407/kW a year, while small modular reactor (SMR) costs could be as high as $863/ kW a year, 50 per cent more than gas-fired power plants and those with carbon capture.” (https://www.ft.com/content/82d77aa5-c4cc-47b6-833a-0a1f2c188b0c )
- The current owner of Palisades, Holtec, is quite unqualified for these tasks. ( https://savethecampbell.com/here-is-the-record-of-the-company-holtec-being-entrusted-to-re-commission-the-old-palisades-plant-in-what-would-be-a-first-in-us-history/ )
Realism is needed regarding the Palisades nuclear project, including its SMR component; Michigan customers should stick with tried and true gas and coal combo for our baseload electric. Nuclear is still too risky and expensive for West Michigan customers. s.