Is Our Energy Grid At Risk?

Minnesota energy providers say being carbon free by 2040 won’t be easy

On Feb. 7, 2023, Gov. Tim Walz signed Senate File 4, also known as the Minnesota Clean Energy Acceleration Act, pledging to lower greenhouse gas emissions by mandating a carbon-free electricity standard by 2040. Technically, the new legislation is a revision to previous energy targets with an updated renewable energy standard of 55% by 2035. The law also adds new carbon-free benchmarks that also must be met: 80% by 2030, 90% by 2035 and 100% by 2040.

While the new legislation stresses the importance of reliable, affordable and safe energy resources, some energy experts have expressed concerns about the fragility of our energy grid including the North American Electric Reliability Corp. NERC is a not-for-profit international regulatory authority. In its December 2023 Long-Term Risk Assessment report, it placed this region in the highest risk category. It says the “high risk” label indicates that electricity supply resources may not be adequate to meet demand in extreme situations. One reason is the moratorium on nuclear plant construction that has been in place since 1994. Nuclear is one of the only carbon-free alternatives that can always meet demand.

Though there are many challenges on the road ahead. Energy suppliers have been ramping up for the future for a long time. This article seeks to bring a basic understanding of how our energy systems work, the severity of threats and what is being done to ensure a brighter future. 

Understanding the grid

Most people give very little thought to where our electricity originates. We flick a switch and the lights go on. We plug in appliances and electronic devices expecting them to power up. Here’s what we don’t see.

The United States is actually composed of three power grids. The largest runs from the Eastern Seaboard to the Rockies. With the exception of Texas, all of these states are running in sync, interconnected and operating on the same frequency. The Western Interconnect, hugging the Pacific Ocean, is on a separate grid. Texas has a grid of its own.

Within the grid there are Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs), non-profit agencies that manage the electrical markets, acting like a New York Stock Exchange for wholesale power bought and sold on a minute-by-minute basis in its territory. Minnesota is in the Midcontinent Independent System Operator(MISO) region. Spanning parts of 15 states, MISO has two major roles: It balances the load on the large transmission lines within its region and it operates the wholesale power markets. MISO owns no infrastructure.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) stands as the overarching regulatory authority governing the entire system, with a mission to achieve “reliable, efficient and sustainable energy for consumers.” In addition to overseeing interstate electricity distribution, the agency regulates pipelines for natural gas and oil, as well as some related facilities and hydropower projects.

The primary aim of energy providers and regulators is three-fold: reliable, affordable and safe energy. In fact, it’s mandatory. Each of these is essential; none can be neglected or compromised. This is one of the primary challenges with which energy providers concern themselves.

Co-ops and utilities

On the state level, energy is delivered through co-ops and utilities. According to Joe Miller, director of communications for the Minnesota Rural Electric Association (MREA), its electric co-ops serve 1.7 million Minnesotans through 44 distribution cooperatives in all 87 counties while operating the largest distribution network in the state with more than 135,000 miles of electric lines. A percentage of these, like East Central Energy and Great Lakes Energy, are member-owned cooperatives. A larger number, like the 3,000 electric customers in Proctor, are served by municipal co-ops. 

The co-ops do not create most of the electricity they deliver to homes and businesses. Rather, they resell power that comes from a multitude of companies that own and operate the power plants, solar arrays and wind farms. 

When it comes to meeting the ambitious net zero carbon targets by 2040, all three primary providers – Minnesota Power, Great River Energy and Xcel Energy-Minnesota – expressed confidence that they are well on their way toward meeting or exceeding the mileposts laid out by state government. 

Kevin Coss, senior media relations representative for Xcel Energy, noted “Xcel Energy was the first electric company in the nation to set a vision to deliver 100% carbon-free electricity. We supported the 2040 legislation and are committed to achieving a zero-carbon future as quickly as possible while also ensuring affordability and reliability. The electricity we currently provide to our Minnesota customers is nearly 70% carbon-free.” Two-thirds of this is from the Monticello and Prairie Island nuclear-powered plants.

John Brekke, vice president and chief power supply officer at Great River Energy (GRE), likewise affirmed that its Minnesota-based member co-ops “will be 90% carbon-free by 2035. We are aligned with that target.” 

Minnesota Power’s Communications Director Amy Ruttledge stated that the Duluth-based utility has been actively moving in this direction for nearly two decades. 

“We were 95% coal-based in 2005. We have since closed seven of our nine coal plants,” she said. Minnesota Power already delivers more than 60% renewable energy to their customers, Ruttledge added. “We’re not starting from scratch. We are actively carrying out objectives.” This includes eventually closing the Boswell 3 and 4 plants, putting out RFPs for  new solar (300 MW) and wind (400 MW) projects and making other investments in the grid. 

“Grid resilience is critical,” Ruttledge said. 

The role of nuclear

“Nuclear energy will play an important role in the clean energy future as a source of ‘always on,’ carbon-free electricity,” said Xcel’s Coss. “Our two nuclear plants have reliably provided Minnesotans with carbon-free energy for about 50 years and currently constitute 28% of the electricity we serve to customers. Neither of the nuclear plants have been scheduled for decommissioning; in fact, we are currently taking the steps needed to extend the operating license of our Monticello nuclear plant and will follow suit with our Prairie Island nuclear plant in an upcoming regulatory filing.” These extensions, after a full in-depth safety analysis that takes years to complete – will allow the Monticello and Prairie Island nuclear plants to remain online until 2053 and 2054, Coss explained. 

In early December, Justin Jahnz, president and CEO of East Central Energy, discussed with BusinessNorth some of the intricacies of this issue. 

“Energy is a complex conversation. At first it seems easy but is quite complicated. One hundred percent carbon free is different from 100% renewable. Wind, which is affordable and prevalent, can cover a lot. We also need capacity. In the next 60 to 90 days there will be cold weather and cold nights. There’s no solar at night and often not a lot of wind. We need to have dispatchable resources.” 

This is where peaking plants currently come in. Natural gas peaking plants are designed to meet temporary peaks in electricity demand. They operate only when the demand for electricity is high, typically for short periods in the heart of winter here or hot summer months in the South. This makes them different from baseload power plants, which run continuously to meet the constant minimum demand for electricity.

“Natural gas is affordable in summer, but expensive in the winter,” Jahntz said. “When needed, it can be dispatched. Reliability trumps everything, and should. But (we) should also be thinking about progress so we can reduce the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere.”

He currently has concerns, however, about meeting the 2040 targets without nuclear. 

“There’s a lot of development around SMRs (small modular reactors). Some organizations are making great progress, and I think there’s a lot of potential. The political appetite here is relatively low.” 

When the 70-year history of nuclear submarines was noted as an example of DMR safety, Jahntz said “a lot of those nuclear reactors were run by the federal government, which does not operate on a financial/economic basis.”

“The biggest misconception people have is this,” said Jahntz. “There is no realistic storage function of the grid. There is a lot of demand volatility. We may see situations where we have rolling blackouts. I don’t think people will put up with that very long.”

The problem, according to Miller, is that both wind and solar are intermittent sources. “And those sources are not controlled by the generation company like all our other sources. The generation company has to adapt to a continuous fluctuation in power generation.”

Additional concerns 

Lake Country Power, a Touchstone Energy Cooperative, serves parts of Aitkin, Carlton, Cass, Itasca, Koochiching, Lake, Pine and St. Louis counties. The co-op provides electricity and other energy related services to nearly 43,000 members in the rural parts of northern Minnesota. With more than 8,200 miles of distribution lines within 10,872 square miles of service territory, LCP is geographically Minnesota’s largest electric cooperative.

Lake Country Power receives and distributes power from its supplier, Great River Energy. GRE is a not-for-profit electricity provider owned by 28 distribution cooperatives in Minnesota and Wisconsin, including Lake Country Power. GRE generates and transmits electricity.

Mark Bakk, general manager at Lake Country Power, expressed concerns about meeting the renewables target in the governor’s energy bill. 

“To me, we’re going to have a problem. If they are really serious about being carbon free, we need nuclear. Right now, the target is 80% carbon-free by 2030.”  The biggest problem with nuclear, Bakk said, is the public’s perception. “We have to get over the fear.” After citing Three Mile Island and Fukushima, he added, “They don’t build nuclear plants that way anymore. There is new technology, including small modular reactors (SMRs) that have been effective for decades.”

Bakk stated that energy distribution is exceedingly complex. “Keeping everything going involves a lot of moving parts. It’s not as simple as people think.”

Storage

In the 15 years that Ruttledge has been with Minnesota Power, she’s found it quite striking how quickly things have changed. 

“This transformation of our industry is amazing,” she said. This applies to every facet, including the challenges.

“Storage is something that is evolving. We’re exploring storage technologies. It’s about being commercially viable and cost effective. Storage will definitely play an important part in this transformation,” Ruttledge said. “We’re continuously investigating these new forms of technology. This transition is happening fast, and storage plays an important part.”

Transmission lines

Transmission lines were another matter addressed in various ways by several energy spokespersons. The rollout of wind farms and solar arrays is taking place in areas not presently serviced by adequate power lines, if there are power lines at all. Even when the technology is ready, permitting can create delays. 

Bakk pointed out that “if you look at the state where we are, the lines are owned by GRE or Minnesota Power. They have open access, the two providers using each other’s lines. Working on a joint transmission project, permitting reform is needed to meet deadlines. Solar panel arrays and wind farms aren’t sited where the energy is used, so more transmission lines are needed, and it all costs money. There are going to have to be changes, common sense changes for reliability and affordability. A better-defined process and better-defined timelines are needed.”

The risk

Returning to the matter of risk, Philip Hult, development coordinator at Generation Atomic, helped explain the dilemma. The best way to understand it is to chart the trajectories of renewables and carbon-free energy, past, present and future. The renewables targets established in 2007 were a set of stairsteps up to the 25% by 2025 which Minnesota providers have done well to exceed by means of wind, solar, small hydro, biomass and trash.  

The new carbon-free standard signed into law in February 2023, which includes all the renewables above plus nuclear, is 100% by 2040 and 55% renewable by 2035. The climb to 55% renewable will be a challenge, but does not seem absurdly out of reach. The leap to 100% carbon-free, however, will be impossible without a lot of firm, dispatchable carbon-free power, many energy experts agree. With the technologies available currently, that means nuclear. There’s simply too great of a gap between the projected decarbonization trajectory and the targets of upcoming years, Bakk and other fear.

The Minnesota mandates appear incompatible. The 2023 mandate can’t be achieved. without carbon-free nuclear power. The 1994 mandate prohibits new nuclear.

Despite the concerns raised and challenges to address, there is a surprising amount of optimism about the future. Jahnz said, “We need to be pragmatic and have conversations about the future of energy in this country. I am confident the legislature will continue to listen and work toward better solutions. I believe our best years are ahead of us. I try to stay politically agnostic. We’re involved in politics but we’re working in the best interest of our customers.” 

--This article originally appeared in the February 2024 issue of Business North 

Small Reactors, Big Potential Impact: NANO Nuclear Microreactors Shaping the Future of Energy Infrastructure

One of the urgent and most important issues of our time is energy. Safe, reliable energy is essential for economic prosperity, infrastructure and quality of life. It powers our transportation systems, communications networks and water treatment facilities. Imagine our hospitals without electricity or our homes without power. In short, energy is the driver behind life as we know it today.

Here in the Northland, a reliable power grid is a must. I know people who would die were we to experience an extended mid-winter power outage. 

For this reason I've spent quite a bit of time thinking about the power grid that most of us take for granted. Here in the United States it seems the lights are always on. Having lived in Puerto Rico 40 years ago, I learned that much of the world lives under a very different set of circumstances. Brownouts and blackouts were a regular occurrence there.

As we attempt to move our world to a cleaner energy solution, many experts and scientists believe the only way for this to succeed is by the adoption of nuclear power solutions. 

One company striving to play a role in this nuclear revolution is NANO Nuclear Energy Inc. NANO Nuclear is an emerging, early-stage microreactor technology company seeking to become a commercially focused, diversified, vertically integrated technology-driven nuclear energy company. The work they are doing is cutting edge and timely. With 16+ years of capital markets experience, founder Jay Jiang Yu serves as executive chairman and president. In 2021, Mr. Yu was recognized as one of The Outstanding 50 Asian Americans in Business. NANO's CEO James Walker, a Nuclear Physicist with multiple degrees was, among other things, project lead and manager for constructing the new Rolls-Royce Chemical Plant. Together they are addressing several questions related to nuclear technology and the future of energy. 

Jay Jiang Yu, Serial Entrepreneur

EN: What first prompted you to take an interest in nuclear technology?

Jay Jiang Yu: My interest came together when I wanted to focus on investing in the next clean energy sector. Wind and Solar had very little innovation, but Nuclear Tech piqued my interest because of the baseload energy output and the advancement in material science to make Nuclear Small Cheaper and Safer. What reinforced my business thesis on creating NANO Nuclear Energy was what the Chairman & CEO of Blackrock, Larry Fink stated, “It is my belief that the next 1,000 unicorns — companies that have a market valuation over $1 billion dollars — won’t be a search engine, won’t be a media company, they’ll be businesses developing green hydrogen, green agriculture, green steel and green cement,” Fink wrote, using the tech-industry term “unicorns” to refer to start-ups valued at $1 billion.”

James Walker: Our initial energy assessment included the consideration of other energy sources, such as wind and solar. SMRs were initially examined, but it became apparent that the market with far larger potential was in more deployable energy systems that could service remote locations more readily; the only candidate that could satisfy this market was microreactors because of their high-capacity factors. The market has exceedingly large potential, with tens of thousands of mining operations running on diesel fuel, which could financially benefit from a steady source of clean and portable energy over a 20-year period.  We identified a large potential customer base for deployable mobile reactors, for remote industrial and manufacturing projects, current and previously uneconomic mining sites, oil, and gas projects, military bases, remote towns and communities, islands or emergency sites (post-earthquake, tsunami, hurricane etc.) to re-establish electrical power during the absence of electric grid availability. Additionally, tens of thousands of mine sites that are not currently economically viable could suddenly be made viable with inexpensive, clean energy, creating the potential to free up huge deposits of mineral wealth. This possibility can be applied most notably to Africa, where mineral wealth exists but is often inaccessible due to the power demands of modern mining operations. Similarly, all remote industrial projects could potentially benefit from our microreactors. Wherever diesel generators are deployed, our microreactors could provide a power source with fewer inherent logistical challenges, as they do not require daily refueling like diesel generators.

If countries are also serious about electrifying their transportation infrastructure, only microreactors would be able to service charging stations for electric vehicles throughout the country. Wind and solar can only be sited where they can generate sufficient output energy, and batteries cannot be shipped to charging stations on a daily basis, especially outside of cities, or between urban developments. Microreactors could make it possible to actually eliminate the need for fossil-fueled vehicles, which no other energy form can currently claim.  

We also believe the shipping industry is a major area of potential growth for our company. The U.S. Navy has already demonstrated decades of successfully powering large ocean-going ships with nuclear fuel without incident or any carbon emissions. Oil tankers, shipping container vessels and other large ships all use bunker fuel, which is incredibly polluting and bad for the environment.  Global focus will eventually shift to substituting this fuel as soon as a candidate is identified. We believe we will have that replacement technology in our nuclear microreactors. 

EN: Though the concept is not entirely new, there has been a lot of focus recently in small scale nuclear technology. What is the difference between solid core battery reactors like ZEUS, low-pressure coolant reactors like ODIN and the Thorium reactors we have been reading about?

JW: We are developing two advanced portable nuclear microreactors in technical design and development. The first, “ZEUS”, is a Solid Core Battery Reactor, designed by world-class engineers trained at the University of California--Berkeley, has a fully solid core, where heat is removed solely by thermal conduction. This requires the deployment of high conductivity, high melting materials, and careful materials design. The reactor will use uranium dioxide fuel, so no new fuel developments are necessary. Reactivity will be controlled with absorber drums outside of the central core. The generated heat will be conducted from the fuel to the outside of the core via thermal conduction through a thermally conductive material, allowing for the elimination of coolant, creating a far safer reactor than historically developed. Heat will be removed from the outside of the core by recirculated air or helium gas, which delivers the heat to the gas turbine to produce electricity. The gas turbine will be affixed to the top of the reactor to reduce piping and minimize the size of the plant. The benefit of not incorporating a primary liquid loop reduces the manufacturing costs, and enhances simplicity for modeling, testing, optimizing, and constructing. 

The secondary loop outside the monolith will be inert gas allowing to reach high temperatures and direct heating of a gas turbine which will be compact and small. Without coolant, typical reactor pumps and piping can be removed from the design, allowing for further compactness, with the aim being to construct a full core and electricity-generating gas turbine within a container meeting International Organization for Standardization (ISO) specifications. The smaller power core will also mean fewer neutrons are absorbed by the non-fissionable materials, allowing for longer operational life despite the small core.   

Our second reactor in development, “ODIN”, will be a Low-Pressure Coolant Reactor, which uses relatively simple uranium and zirconium HALEU hydride. The zirconium hydride densely packs hydrogen and so provides substantial moderation. Low pressure “solar” salt (sodium-potassium nitrate eutectic) coolant will be used to minimize the stress on structural components and improve the reliability and service life. The design will take advantage of the natural convection of the coolant for heat transfer to the power conversion cycle at full power, as well as for decay heat removal during reactor shutdown, operating transients, and off-normal conditions. A nitrogen or open-air Brayton cycle will be used for power conversion due to its simplicity, flexibility, and its wide use within the conventional power industry. Reactivity control system design will have high reliability and robustness by minimizing the number of moving parts.  

The U.S. has tried for 50 years to create thorium reactors, without success. Four commercial thorium reactors were constructed, all of which failed for a variety of reasons, and because of the complexity of the technical challenges, thorium reactors are far more expensive than uranium-fueled reactors.

Non-fissionable thorium must also be mixed with either fissionable plutonium or uranium-235. It captures a neutron and converts to uranium-233, which itself is fissionable.

Uranium-233 is a very efficient fuel for nuclear weapons. It takes about the same amount of uranium-233 as plutonium-239 – six kilos – to fuel a nuclear weapon. The U.S. Department of Energy created 96 kilograms of uranium-233 through their thorium experiments.

EN: There are many approaches to reducing dependence on carbon-based or clean tech energy. For decades the government has devoted its efforts to solar and wind projects through tax credits, loan guarantees, etc. Why has it taken so long for government to work harder to support nuclear solutions, since they are far more efficient?

JW: There was genuine hope that wind and solar would be able to provide an alternative solution to fossil fuels, especially when deployed at large scales. Unfortunately, low capacity factors, high storage costs, large land requirements, sparse suitable locations for siting, and degradation of equipment, all summated to an eventual conclusion that they would not be able to replace fossil fuels on any wide scale, and certainly not on any location without optimal climate conditions. This can be seen most evidently in Germany, which chose renewables such as wind and solar over nuclear, and ended up with more expensive power, and a higher carbon footprint, and now finally is returning to nuclear energy. All governments now realize that the data is in and there is only one form of energy that offers any way to replace fossil fuels at large scales and in any location. 

EN: What kinds of costs are associated with smaller-scale reactors? What is their service life and how safe are they?

JW: We cannot disclose our financial modeling analyses and findings as they are likely to change as we make further progress and introduce further refinements. However, we can share that our models show that the price of our reactors will come down by 70% with the introduction of mass manufacturing optimization. This would make our reactors less expensive than any alternative for remote operations.

Although “small" features in the SMR acronym (Small Modular Reactor), the most developed SMRs are still relatively large, requiring areas equivalent to many city blocks. Likewise, these SMRs will also require large-scale site preparation and long commissioning periods. Nano’s reactor will occupy under an acre of space and will not require the large-scale infrastructure that is necessary for the large reactors. 

A major benefit of Nano’s small reactor is the simple design, using very few working parts. Nano’s design prerogative was to use basic fuels, so no exotic engineering was required. The reactor was also designed to passively cool, which meant that even if all systems were to break or the reactor was damaged, the heat would naturally dissipate and be unable to melt the core, which is the most significant risk to any reactor. All the simplicity, when combined with the small size and few working parts, is expected to equate

EN: Some critics say that these small reactors will be vulnerable to terrorists who steal material for bombs or other deadly devices. I have read that this is a myth and that the small reactors do not use material that can be re-purposed like that. Can you elaborate on this?

JW: We’re not sure what a terrorist would do with a microreactor other than warm their house. In order to make any type of weapons, they would need a multi-billion dollar fuel chemical plant, then a deconversion facility, then an enrichment facility, and finally a fabrication facility. Very few countries in the world could complete this process. The fuel in a microreactor cannot blow up, the enrichment is far too low, hence why the above process would be required. Good luck to a terrorist trying to lug off a microreactor with any kind of stealth as well. 

EN: What is the current status of NANO Nuclear Energy?

JW: Nano is just closing its third round of funding, which was undertaken to fund the further development of Nano and its subsidiary businesses. We are making applications for sites to begin test work for our reactor designs, as well as scheduling reactor audits from external organizations to verify the conclusions and designs we have solidified in 2023. We have also started work on our new fuel fabrication facility, and are bringing in several big partnerships to work with us to ensure the success of this endeavor. We have also won awards which when announced, will disclose Nano’s international ambitions. 

EN: Has the U.S. then given up on a Thorium solution to the energy problem?  

JW: There are U.S. companies pursuing thorium as a solution, but none of the leaders in SMRs or microreactors, or any of the groups with the most developed new technologies, are using thorium. Thorium does theoretically work for nuclear power, and the idea receives additional support because of the abundance of thorium, but the thorium projects are not close to being as advanced as the next generation reactors currently being developed, which all use uranium.

EN: Is Thorium an untenable solution then?

JW: Nobody actually knows for sure, as no thorium reactor has been successfully developed to demonstrate positive economics that could rival uranium. There have been many attempts though, without success.

* * * 

Breaking: Jay Yu and James Walker will be speaking at POWERGEN International in New Orleans at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, January 23-25.

Related Links

Nano Nuclear Energy

NANO Nuclear Energy Chief Executive Officer James Walker to Present at the Upcoming 1st Annual Nuclear Energy Security Summit Held at the Ronald Reagan Building & International Trade Center on Nov. 9th 2023

Grid Fragility and a Book by Meredith Angwin

The Big Short and Shorting the Grid

An Honest and Sensible Conversation About Global Energy