Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy Nuclear topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Local official reports on Colstrip presentation about small modular nuclear reactors and statewide energy shortfall
Summary
An attendee reported on a Colstrip presentation about small modular nuclear reactors, citing per-unit cost estimates (~$250 million), permitting timelines (6–7 years), possible earliest production around 2035, and a utility estimate that Montana could face a roughly 9,000-kilowatt shortfall in the coming years.
Unidentified Speaker 3, speaking at a Fergus County meeting, described a recent presentation in Colstrip about small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) and summarized technical and timeline details discussed at that event.
The speaker said the SMR design discussed uses about 15 fuel canisters per unit, replaces roughly five canisters every five years and that “it costs about $250,000,000 to build a unit, which is about the same as a coal plant.” The presenter also said permits would take “6 to 7 years” and estimated earliest production in Colstrip could be as soon as 2035. Unidentified Speaker 3 added that utility representatives suggested Montana may be about “9,000 kilowatts short” of needed capacity in the coming years.
Why it matters: the remarks frame a local workforce and site (Colstrip) as a potential location for SMR deployment, while attendees voiced environmental concerns about on-site waste storage and security responsibilities. Speaker 3 noted the community feedback included questions about waste handling and storage responsibility.
Details cited at the meeting included the cost comparison to coal plants, absence of operating units presently, and an observation that recycling programs are emerging for spent fuel once it is no longer hot enough to produce energy. The speaker also relayed that Wyoming was expected to be among the first to break ground on an SMR.
The meeting record does not show any formal action taken on SMRs or energy policy. The item was presented as a report from an attendee rather than a county decision or formal staff recommendation.
Next steps: no motions or votes on energy policy were recorded in the transcript; the comment was part of the meeting’s announcements and reports section.
