Bill Cosby found guilty in sexual assault trial
Record-setting temperatures possible! Get your personal forecast in our free app

State to study benefits of placing modular nuclear reactor at Hanford

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

RICHLAND — The Hanford Nuclear Reservation could become a new hub for manufacturing or assembling small commercial modular nuclear reactors, according to the Tri-City Herald.

hanfordThe Tri-City Development Council is currently seeking bids study the potential benefits of building a small modular reactor system at Hanford.

The Herald reports the Department of Energy has announced $452 million in matching funds for two proposals to design and license modular nuclear reactors. The DOE grants have not yet designated a site which gives the development council time to make the case that Hanford is the best place for an operating small modular reactor.

A new modular reactor would cost between $500 million and $1 billion and would create several hundred construction jobs along with 100 permanent jobs, the Herald reported.

The DOE plans to have the first small reactors in operation within a decade.

Other DOE sites in Tennessee and South Carolina are also being considered for a modular reactor, according to the Herald.

Back in August, Governor Inslee wrote to Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz asking the department to consider placing a small modular reactor at Hanford to help with growing power requirements for environmental cleanup.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


  • Joe Schmo

    The DOE never intends to "designate a site", it isn't that they haven't done it "yet". The siting is a business decision by a utility and the selection of a technology is between the utility and the reactor vendor. The first solicitation indicated the award would be given to teams that included a vendor and a utility partner – the teams themselves "designated a site". The second solicitation did not include the requirement for a utility partner and a site.