The project would nearly eliminate the emissions associated with power and steam generation at the Dow plant in Seadrift, Texas. Getty Images

Dow, a major producer of chemicals and plastics, wants to use next-generation nuclear reactors for clean power and steam at a Texas manufacturing complex instead of natural gas.

Dow's subsidiary, Long Mott Energy, applied Monday to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a construction permit. It said the project with X-energy, an advanced nuclear reactor and fuel company, would nearly eliminate the emissions associated with power and steam generation at its plant in Seadrift, Texas, avoiding roughly 500,000 metric tons of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions annually.

If built and operated as planned, it would be the first U.S. commercial advanced nuclear power plant for an industrial site, according to the NRC.

For many, nuclear power is emerging as an answer to meet a soaring demand for electricity nationwide, driven by the expansion of data centers and artificial intelligence, manufacturing and electrification, and to stave off the worst effects of a warming planet. However, there are safety and security concerns, the Union of Concerned Scientists cautions. The question of how to store hazardous nuclear waste in the U.S. is unresolved, too.

Dow wants four of X-energy's advanced small modular reactors, the Xe-100. Combined, those could supply up to 320 megawatts of electricity or 800 megawatts of thermal power. X-energy CEO J. Clay Sell said the project would demonstrate how new nuclear technology can meet the massive growth in electricity demand.

The Seadrift manufacturing complex, at about 4,700 acres, has eight production plants owned by Dow and one owned by Braskem. There, Dow makes plastics for a variety of uses including food and beverage packaging and wire and cable insulation, as well as glycols for antifreeze, polyester fabrics and bottles, and oxide derivatives for health and beauty products.

Edward Stones, the business vice president of energy and climate at Dow, said submitting the permit application is an important next step in expanding access to safe, clean, reliable, cost-competitive nuclear energy in the United States. The project is supported by the Department of Energy’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program.

The NRC expects the review to take three years or less. If a permit is issued, construction could begin at the end of this decade, so the reactors would be ready early in the 2030s, as the natural gas-fired equipment is retired.

A total of four applicants have asked the NRC for construction permits for advanced nuclear reactors. The NRC issued a permit to Abilene Christian University for a research reactor and to Kairos Power for one reactor and two reactor test versions of that company's design. It's reviewing an application by Bill Gates and his energy company, TerraPower, to build an advanced reactor in Wyoming.

X-energy is also collaborating with Amazon to bring more than 5 gigawatts of new nuclear power projects online across the United States by 2039, beginning in Washington state. Amazon and other tech giants have committed to using renewable energy to meet the surging demand from data centers and artificial intelligence and address climate change.

Texas leaders discussed the opportunity for nuclear energy. Photo via htxenergytransition.org

5 reasons Texas energy leaders are excited about sustainable nuclear energy

the view from heti

The University of Texas at Austin Cockrell School of Engineering hosted an event on August 16th called Advanced Nuclear Technology in Texas, where Dow and X-Energy CEOs joined Texas Governor Greg Abbott for a discussion about why the Texas Gulf Coast is quickly becoming the epicenter for nuclear with the recent announcement about Dow and X-Energy. Dow and X-energy are combining efforts to deploy the first advanced small modular nuclear reactor at industrial site under DOE’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program

“Texas is the energy capital of the world, but more important is what we are doing with that energy and what it means for our future in the state of Texas,” said Abbott. “Very important to our state is how we use energy to generate power for our grid. For a state that continues to grow massively, we are at the height of our production during the day, and we generate more power than California and New York combined. But we need more dispatchable power generation. One thing we are looking at with a keen eye is the ability to expand our capabilities with regard to nuclear generated power.”

The Governor announced a directive to the Public Utilities Commission of Texas to formulate a workgroup that will make recommendations that aim to propel Texas as a national leader in advanced nuclear energy.

According to the directive, to maximize power grid reliability, the group will work to understand Texas’s role in deploying and using advanced reactors, consider potential financial incentives available, determine nuclear-specific changes needed in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) market, identify any federal or state regulatory hurdles to development, and analyze how Texas can streamline and speed up advanced reactor construction permitting.

Below are five key takeaways about the project and why energy experts are excited about advanced nuclear energy:

  • Advanced SMR Nuclear Project for Carbon-Free Energy: Dow, a global materials science leader, has partnered with X-energy to establish an advanced small modular reactor (SMR) nuclear project at its Seadrift Operations site in Texas. The project aims to provide safe, reliable, and zero carbon emissions power and steam to replace aging energy assets.
  • Decarbonization and Emission Reduction: This collaboration is set to significantly reduce the Seadrift site’s emissions by approximately 440,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year. By adopting advanced nuclear technology, Dow is making a notable contribution to decarbonizing its manufacturing processes and improving environmental sustainability.
  • Grid Stability and Reliability: The advanced nuclear technology offers enhanced power and steam reliability, ensuring a stable energy supply for Dow’s Seadrift site. This is crucial for maintaining uninterrupted manufacturing operations and contributing to overall electric grid stability.
  • Texas Gulf Coast Energy Hub: Texas, as the energy capital of the world, has been chosen as the location for this groundbreaking project. This selection underscores Texas’ exceptional business climate, innovation history, and commitment to leading the energy transition. The project builds upon Texas’ position as a global energy leader.
  • Economic Growth and Job Opportunities: The SMR nuclear project promises to bring economic growth to the Texas Gulf Coast. It is expected to create new jobs, provide economic opportunities, and strengthen the local economy. By embracing innovative and sustainable energy solutions, Dow and X-energy are driving both industrial advancement and community prosperity.
———

This article originally ran on the Greater Houston Partnership's Houston Energy Transition Initiative blog. HETI exists to support Houston's future as an energy leader. For more information about the Houston Energy Transition Initiative, EnergyCapitalHTX's presenting sponsor, visit htxenergytransition.org.

"The world has two complementary challenges: decarbonization to deal with climate change and ensuring that there is a steady, safe, and reliable supply of energy. Nuclear can help with both." Photo via Getty Images

Houston expert: Why we need to talk about nuclear power

guest column

A magnitude 9.0 earthquake and resulting tsunami devastated Japan’s Fukushima province in 2011 and flooded the nearby nuclear power plant. This damaged the reactor cores and released radiation. How many people died as a result of radiation exposure?

A. More than 10,000

B. More than 5,000

C. More than 1,000

D. More than 100

E. 1

The correct answer: E.

Yes, I was surprised, too.

No question: Fukushima was a tragedy. The earthquake and tsunami; about 18,000 people died. The evacuation of 150,000 people due to fears about possible radiation was traumatic and cost lives due to stress and interrupted medical care, particularly among the elderly. Fukushima a disaster — but it was a natural disaster, not a nuclear one.

In 2018, Japan confirmed the first death of a worker at the plant as a result of radiation exposure, and there has been none since. But surely, this is just a matter of time; there will be more cancers and premature deaths. Not so, according to the UN’s Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. In 2021, it found that “no adverse health effects among Fukushima residents have been documented that could be directly attributed to radiation exposure from the accident, nor are expected to be detectable in the future.” The World Health Organization came to a similar conclusion, as did the US Centers for Disease Control.

Fukushima is widely regarded as the second-worst nuclear-power accident in history (after Chernobyl which was much, much worse). As a result of it, Japan shut down or suspended all of its nuclear operations, which generated about 30 percent of its power at the time. Many have stayed shut. Germany pledged to phase out nuclear power by the end of 2022, and Spain, Belgium and Switzerland announced the same, but a bit more slowly.

And so, to my point: While I know there are difficulties, I think more countries, particularly in the West, need to get serious about nuclear. Even though people with impeccable green and/or progressive credentials like George Monbiot of The Guardian, James Hansen (sometimes known as the “father of global warming”), Stewart Brand (of Whole Earth Catalog fame), Steven Pinker, and yes, Sting believe that nuclear must play a bigger role in order to achieve deep and last decarbonization, I get the impression that the topic is often seen not fit for discussion in polite green society. It’s striking how few of the country submissions about meeting their climate goals under the Paris accords mention nuclear.

There are two major objections.

It’s dangerous. No, it’s not, and nuclear plants are not run by legions of Homer Simpsons. In fact, nuclear has proved incredibly safe over its 60-plus year history. Here is the OECD in 2010: “Even though nuclear power is perceived as a high risk, comparison with other energy sources shows far fewer fatalities.” Since releases of radioactivity were so rare — and none in OECD countries prior to Fukushima — the OECD noted that “reliance on statistics of events is not possible.” Instead, it had to do a theoretical exercise. An analysis of deaths per terawatt-hour (TWh) of electricity estimated nuclear’s toll at 0.03 per TWh. That figure includes Chernobyl as well as things like workplace accidents. That is less than wind (0.04), and a bit more than solar (0.02).

And of course, since we live in the real world, it’s important to remember that any particular source is part of a larger system. Nuclear power is markedly less dangerous than fossil fuels, which are deadlier in terms of production, and also carry risks in the form of respiratory disease and other problems related to air pollution. James Hansen estimated in 2013 that, by displacing fossil fuels, nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatons of GHG emissions.

It’s expensive. Upfront costs are high, and operating a plant isn’t cheap. By any measure, renewables, gas, and coal are all cheaper and that will probably be the case for the foreseeable future. In addition, renewables and gas can continue to innovate and their costs could continue to fall without the big capital expenditures that nuclear requires. It’s fair to say that under today’s conditions, the economics of nuclear are against it.

But, what if conditions change? For one thing, a big chunk of the expense comes in the form of time. In places where it takes a decade or more just to get through the regulations and litigation — and the United States is one — that drives up costs enormously. McKinsey has estimated that If nuclear costs could be lowered 20 to 40 percent, it would be competitive with other forms of generation. (It’s worth noting that in the years when renewables were very expensive, there were still many voices in support of them, for reasons of health, energy security, and diversity of supply. All these apply to nuclear.) To be clear: I am not against nuclear regulation: safety first and last. But it is possible to foster both safety and efficiency, and to drive down costs in the process.

Moreover, renewables are dependent on the weather; they cannot keep the lights on 24/7 without storage, which at the moment is both limited and expensive. The relative economics compared to nuclear change a lot if storage is added to the equation.

As for the positive case for nuclear, there are several elements. One has to do with innovation. A new generation of advanced water-cooled and small modular reactors (SMRs) are even safer than existing ones and generate less waste. (The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission certified NuScale’s SMR design in July.) These new designs might also change the economics. The capital and construction costs of SMRs are much less, although still big, an estimated $3 billion for NuScale, for example. The idea is that they could be mass-manufactured, generating economies of scale, then shipped to markets that could never afford the kind of massive plants that are the norm now. But that can only happen if it is allowed to happen, which is a kind of Catch-22. As an MIT study noted: “Policies that foreclose a role for nuclear energy discourage investment in nuclear technology.” And that guarantees that costs will stay high.

An important advantage of nuclear is that, acre for acre, it produces more power than solar or wind. Indeed, it’s not even close. The late British physicist and climate scientist David Mackay estimated that wind has a power density — power per unit of land area—of two watts per square meter (2W/m2); for solar farms, the figure is 10W/m2 — and for nuclear 1,000W/m2. To visualize what that means, to deliver the same amount of power, wind would require 500 acres, or almost three-fifths of New York’s Central Park, or all of Disneyland; nuclear would need less than a football field. And Earth is not growing massive amounts of new land.

Finally, it is hard to see how the world gets to deep decarbonization without it. Right now, nuclear provides more than half of all carbon-free US emissions and 30 percent globally. That cannot be replaced quickly or cost-effectively, particularly given that demand will continue to rise. It’s interesting, too, that to some extent, nuclear is assumed to be part of the climate solution. Indeed, in all three of the pathways it describes that limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (see page 28) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sees substantial increases in nuclear power.

There are itty-bitty signs that the mood may be changing, even in democratic places with active anti-nuclear campaigns. With Europe’s energy system struggling, Germany is slowing down its nuclear phase-out, by extending the life of two of its reactors. Japan, which has to import almost all its energy, is considering investing in a new generation of nuclear power plants. Britain is building its first new plant in decades — although the process has been troubled with delays and cost overruns. France is accelerating deployment and President Macron has said the country could build as many as 14 more — a reversal of the country’s previous plan to reduce its reliance on nuclear, which generates more than two-thirds of its power.

Closer to home, in September, California decided to extend the life of its Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, which is the state’s largest single source of electricity (see image). The Biden Administration has allocated $2.5 billion for research into new nuclear technologies, and supported existing ones to stay open.

But the fact remains that the United States has just two plants under construction, both in Georgia, and costs are ballooning. Only one nuclear plant has started up since 1996, while almost a dozen have been retired. And it’s not just the US: there are only two under construction in the EU. Most new plants are rising in Asia, particularly China, India, and Korea.

Here’s the thing: I have been what passes for a nuclear optimist for decades — and been wrong for that long. I am tempted, yet again, to say that nuclear is having its moment. I won’t go that far, because in the West, I don’t think it is.

But I think that, just maybe, that moment is edging closer, out of necessity. The world has two complementary challenges: decarbonization to deal with climate change and ensuring that there is a steady, safe, and reliable supply of energy. Nuclear can help with both.

------

Scott Nyquist is a senior advisor at McKinsey & Company and vice chairman, Houston Energy Transition Initiative of the Greater Houston Partnership. The views expressed herein are Nyquist's own and not those of McKinsey & Company or of the Greater Houston Partnership. This article originally ran on LinkedIn.

Radioactive waste is an obstacle to nuclear energy adoption potential. This research team from the University of Houston has discovered a potential solution. Photo via uh.edu

Houston research team discovers new application for crystals in nuclear energy

cleaning up nuclear energy

Researchers at the University of Houston have unlocked a new way to use crystals to safely dispose of radioactive waste.

The team of UH researchers published a paper in Cell Reports Physical Science this month detailing their discovery of how to use molecular crystals to capture large quantities of iodine, one of the most common products of radioactive fission, which is used to create nuclear energy.

According to a statement from UH, these molecular crystals are based on cyclotetrabenzil hydrazones. Ognjen Miljanic, professor of chemistry and author of the paper, and his team have created the organic molecules containing only carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms, which create ring-like crystals with eight smaller offshoots, earning them the nickname "The Octopus."

The discovery was made by Alexandra Robles, the first author of the study and a former doctoral student in Miljanic’s lab.

The crystals have an uptake capacity similar to that of porous metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) and covalent organic frameworks (COFs), which traditionally have been considered the “pinnacle of iodine capture materials," according to UH. They allow iodine to be moved from one area to another, are reusable and can be produced using commercially available chemicals for about $1 per gram in an academic lab.

“They are quite easy to make and can be produced at a large scale from relatively inexpensive materials without any special protective atmosphere,” Miljanic said in a statement.

The team also believes the crystals can be used to capture additional elements like carbon dioxide.

“This is a type of simple molecule that can do all sorts of different things depending on how we integrate it with the rest of any given system,” Miljanic continued. “So, we’re pursuing all those applications as well.”

Next up, Miljanic is looking to find a partner that will help the team explore practical applications and commercial aspects.

UH has been making net-zero news lately. A team of students from UH placed in the top three teams in a national competition for the Department of Energy earlier this summer. The college also shared details about its forthcoming innovation hub, which will house UH's Energy Transition Institute, as well as other centers and programs.

Joseph Powell, founding director of UH's Energy Transition Institute, sat down with EnergyCapitalHTX last week to talk about UH's vision for the organization.

Ognjen Miljanic is a University of Houston professor of chemistry and author of the paper. Photo via UH.edu

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Houston's Rhythm Energy expands nationally with clean power acquisition

power deal

Houston-based Rhythm Energy Inc. has acquired Inspire Clean Energy for an undisclosed amount. The deal allows Rhythm to immediately scale outside of Texas and into the Northeast, Midwest and mid-Atlantic regions, according to a release from the company.

Inspire offers subscription-based renewable electricity plans to customers in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Ohio, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, and Washington, D.C. By combining forces, Rhythm will now be one of the largest independent green-energy retailers in the country.

“Adding Inspire to the Rhythm family gives us the geographic reach to serve millions of new customers with the highly rated customer experience Texans already enjoy,” PJ Popovic, CEO of Rhythm, said in the release. “Together we become one of the largest independent green-energy retailers in the country and can roll out innovations like our PowerShift Time-of-Use plan and device-enabled demand-response programs that put customers fully in control of their energy costs.”

Rhythm was founded by Popovic in 2020 and offers 100 percent renewable energy plans using solar power, wind power and other renewable power sources.

In addition to scaling geographically, the acquisition will "(marry) Rhythm's data-driven technology with Inspire's successful subscription model." Rhythm also plans to upgrade its digital tools and provide more advanced services to help lower clean energy costs, according to the release.

Popovic spoke with EnergyCapital in 2023 about where he thinks renewables fit into Texas’s energy consumption. Read more here.

Fervo Energy lands $200 million in capital for new geothermal project

fresh funding

Houston-based Fervo Energy, a producer of geothermal power, has secured $205.6 million in capital to help finance its geothermal project in southern Utah.

The money will go toward the first and second phases of Cape Station, a geothermal energy plant being developed in Beaver County, Utah. Beaver County is roughly an equal distance between Salt Lake City and Las Vegas.

The $205.6 million in capital came from three sources:

  • $100 million in equity from Breakthrough Energy Catalyst, a Kirkland, Washington-based platform that invests in emissions-reducing projects.
  • $60 million addition to Fervo’s existing loan from Mercuria, a Swiss energy and commodities trader. The revolving loan now totals $100 million.
  • $45.6 million in additional bridge debt financing from XRL-ALC, an affiliate of Irvington, New York-based X-Caliber Rural Capital. X-Caliber is a USDA-approved lender. The initial bridge loan was $100 million.

The first phase of Cape Station will supply 100 megawatts of carbon-free electricity to the power grid starting next year. Another 400 megawatts of capacity is supposed to go online by 2028. Fervo has permission to expand Cape Station’s capacity to as much as 2 gigawatts. On an annual basis, 2 gigawatts can supply enough electricity to power about 1.4 million homes.

“These investments demonstrate what we’ve known all along: Fervo’s combination of technical excellence, commercial readiness, and market opportunity makes us a natural partner for serious energy capital. The confidence our investors have in Fervo and in the Cape asset affirms that next-generation geothermal is ready to play a defining role in America’s energy future,” David Ulrey, Fervo’s CFO, said in a news release.