Massachusetts is looking to increase the amount of nuclear power to help run the state’s electricity grid.
Within that effort is a bill filed by state Rep. Jeffrey Roy, D-Franklin, that would add nuclear powertothe state’s definition of clean energy generation.
Roy explained the definition change is needed so nuclear power can count toward the state’s emissions reduction goals. By 2030, Massachusetts aims to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50%, and by at least 85% by 2050.
Many experts agree that nuclear reactors don't emit greenhouse gases.
Passage of Roy's bill also means nuclear is lumped in with other clean energy sources like wind, solar and hydroelectricity when Massachusetts looks to sign long-term contracts with energy suppliers to power that state’s electricity grid.
Ratepayers would fund those contracts.
“We’re looking at a range of options for clean energy for Massachusetts,” said Roy, co-chair of the state’s Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy.
Buildingmorenuclear plants is not called for in Roy's bill. It's focused on tapping into energy currently produced by New England’s two nuclear plants, Millstone in Connecticut and Seabrook in New Hampshire.
State Sen. Michael Barrett, D-Lexington, and co-chairman of the state’s Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy, supports Roy’s bill.
“We need more non-emitting sources,” said Barrett.
'Serious long-term issues'
While Barrett noted “serious long-term issues” with the storage of nuclear waste, he said Massachusetts must include nuclear in the updated definition to make its power grid cleaner.“No decarbonization strategy to deal with climate change computes unless green electricity goes into heat pumps, houses and into electric cars.”
Roy said his research shows the power generated at Millstone and Seabrook is relatively cheap and available.
Currently, Massachusetts gets 23% of its electricity from nuclear sources, trailing only 55% from natural gas, according to preliminary numbers from ISO New England.
If Roy’s bill is approved, then the Gov. Maura Healey's administration, not the Legislature, would have the authority to procure energy from New England’s two nuclear plants.
Enough power?
Charles Agosta, a physics professor at Clark University, questions Roy’s effort. He said Millstone and Seabrook are already running at 98% capacity, and wonders where more supply will come from as the New England states battle over a finite amount of nuclear energy produced by the two plants.
“If the overall goal is to cut the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, you’re not changing anything,” said Agosta. "All you’re doing is changing one person’s balance sheet to another.”
That’s not so, said Roy.
Capacity may be maxed-out today, but Roy said it’s likely morepower becomesavailable down the road.Two of Millstone’s three reactors are currently operating, said Roy, and Millstone representatives told him they could ramp up operations if there’s more demand for energy.
It would take a couple of years to meet increased demand, according to Roy’s discussions with Millstone, and small modular reactors could come into play. Those reactors would be stacked together to provide the same amount of power as Millstone’s Unit 1 reactor that was decommissioned in 1998.
There's another issue to consider, said WPI professor Derren Rosbach. It's a challenge for nuclear power prices to compete against the government-subsidized oil and gas industries. So market conditions and the length of contracts with nuclear companies must be careful considerations given what is traditionally a lower price for oil and gas, compared to nuclear.
Microreactors: 'advantage over large nuclear plants'
Small reactors are a research focus atWPI. Rosbach and his team arestudyingmicroreactors in the final design stage for research and power production.
A microreactor can power a building by producing 100 kilowatts of thermal heat and 20 kilowatts of electricity, said Rosbach. Meanwhile, a larger reactor could power a small college campus by producing five megawatts of electricity and 15 megawatts of thermal heat.
Rosbach would like to see the state Legislature support research and development of microreactors to help move this technology along that can boost economic development.
“(Microreactors) have an advantage over larger nuclear plants,” said Rosbach. They’re a thousand times smaller than the typical energy-producing reactor, he said, and they pack a powerful punch for their size.
Roy’s bill doesn’t specifically target state funds to support research and development of small reactors. He noted the House proposed a fiscal 2025 budget that earmarks $35 million for the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center, a state economic development agency that could could award grants for microreactor research.
Nuclear fusion
Barrett not only supports small reactors as a non-emitting energy source; he’s also a proponent of nuclear fusion. The technology involves the process of combining two light atomic nuclei to form a single heavier one while releasing massive amounts of energy.
While Barrett said Roy’s bill would open the door for power purchase agreements with Millstone and Seabrook, he’s excited about the future possibilities from nuclear fusion.
“I am more interested to make sure fusion reclaims some positioning as a focus for Massachusetts state government research,” said Barrett.
A pending bill filed in January by state Sen. Susan Moran, D-Falmouth,would create incentives to develop fusion through tax credits and a council that oversees the credits.
Barrett mentioned Commonwealth Fusion Systems in Devens, which opened last year to develop commercial fusion energy. Commonwealth is partnering with MIT to build the world's first net-zero fusion machine that produces more energy than it uses.
Also last year, Barrett said, the state amended laws that now regard fusion as a non-emitting energy source. That creates grant funding opportunities for companies that apply to the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center.
Safety concerns
Any discussion of nuclear energy includes safety concerns.
Depending on your age, you may remember the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, which resulted in the partial meltdown of a nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania. It was the worst nuclear accident in U.S. history and triggered enhanced regulatory measures to boost safety.
There was also the 1986 Chernobyl reactor explosion,and the 2011 f*ckushimareactor meltdowns caused by an earthquake that triggered a tsunami.
Despite those events that captured the world’s attention, nuclear power has a “terrific safety record,” said Keith Seitter, a distinguished visiting professor at the College of the Holy Cross whose résumé includes serving as the former executive director at the American Meteorological Society. “But if something goes wrong, it can be a pretty big issue to deal with.”
The threat ofcyberattacks and artificial intelligence advances make security an issue when considering nuclear power, said state Sen. Michael Moore, D-Millbury. He’s also concerned about radioactive waste and its impact on the environment.
Before he can support Roy’s bill, Moore said he needs to feel his concerns are addressed.
Positives and negatives
Seitter noted nuclear power's advantages.It doesn’t emit greenhouse gases, and it’s “dispatchable," so unlike solar and wind power, it’s always available.
Seitter didn’t shy away from the negatives, including the mining of uranium to power nuclear plants that is harmful to the environment. It's also an expensive form of power, compared to solar and wind.
From a grass roots perspective, Janet Cason, an environmental activist and president of 350 Central Mass,hasconcerns about nuclear power. They includewaste that can remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years and is expensive to store. There are also harmful emissions from mining, processing and transporting of uranium.
While Barrett and Roy see possibilities with nuclear fusion, Cason isn't so sure it's the way to go.
“Some people are hopeful about a different process called Nuclear Fusion that doesn’t create radioactive waste," said Cason's email, "but it doesn’t produce much energy either, even after decades of experimenting with ways to increase energy production."
Contact Henry Schwan at henry.schwan@telegram.com. Follow him on X:@henrytelegram.
This article originally appeared on Telegram & Gazette: Can nuclear power help Massachusetts reach its climate goals?
