26-04-2025
New nuclear power plants don't make sense for South Carolina
Nuclear reactor assemblies pictured Sept. 12, 2024, in storage at V.C. Summer nuclear site near Fairfield. (Provided by S.C. Nuclear Advisory Council)
Gov. Henry McMaster called for a 'nuclear power renaissance' in his recent State of the State address. Our governor urged lawmakers to support a revival of our state's failed nuclear plant.
That's a mistake given the inconvenient facts surrounding our state's recent history with the V.C. Summer nuclear debacle.
I researched the future prospects for new nuclear power projects in the United States. While small modular reactors, or SMRs, have long-term potential for U.S. nuclear power, SMR's are still on the drawing board.
There currently are no new nuclear plants under construction in the U.S.
The Deloitte Research Center for Energy & Industrials did an analysis as to whether new nuclear power plants could meet the projected need for future energy generation. The extensive analysis presumed robust deployment for the design, manufacture and projected costs of new nuclear power over the next decade. Even then, nuclear power could only meet 10% of the projected increase just for new data center demand by 2035.
The National Electrical Manufacturers Association has projected that data center growth coupled with transportation electrification will drive a 50% increase in U.S. electricity demand through 2050.
The industry points to the reliability of nuclear power along with its lower emissions. But what about the construction delays and the resulting cost overruns? And what about the creation of more radioactive waste? High-level radioactive waste is currently being stored on site, but that waste will remain radioactive for thousands of years.
The U.S. doesn't have a long-term repository for high-level radioactive waste.
Let's look at Georgia's recent experience with their Vogtle nuclear power plant. Vogtle was approved in 2009. Yet the project wasn't completed until 2024, seven years behind schedule. To make matters worse, Vogtle's projected costs ballooned from its initial estimate of $14 billion to roughly $35 billion.
As a result, Georgia's ratepayers have seen six rate increases since 2023. Do we want rapid increases in our electric bills in South Carolina?
When it comes to building new nuclear power plants, the real problem comes down to excessive costs. Nuclear construction costs range from $6,417 per kilowatt to $12,681 per kW. Compare that to $1,290 per kW for new gas-fired plants. This vast difference in construction costs will result in much higher electric bills.
S.C. ratepayers would be on the hook for all nuclear construction costs. But it doesn't end there. Add the costs of nuclear fuel, ongoing maintenance, and the storage of the nuclear waste, and the costs are astronomical.
S.C. ratepayers are already paying for the failed V.C. Summer nuclear plant after it was abandoned in 2017. That failed nuclear project ultimately bankrupted SCE&G and Westinghouse. Several utility executives were convicted and served prison or home detention sentences for their role in covering up those cost overruns.
Remember too that those same utility executives hid the independent Bechtel report from the Public Service Commission and the public. Why? So they could continue to get their millions in cash bonuses by covering up their crimes. If not for a mid-level whistleblower, this cover up would have cost our residents, small businesses and large industries even more damage.
Santee Cooper, our state-owned utility, is soliciting proposals to see if others might be interested in buying the partially built nuclear reactors. It seems inconceivable that any entity would want to invest in that failed project, though many companies have shown initial interest. Formal proposals are due May 5.
The experts interviewed by Utility Dive wouldn't hazard a guess about how much it would cost to complete V.C. Summer Units 2 and 3.
Santee Cooper and Dominion Energy have already made it clear that they have no interest in trying to revive V.C. Summer, even though they still own the site.
When all is said and done, neither should South Carolina. We would be foolish to risk repeating those same mistakes again. The bottom line: New nuclear power plants are not a viable option. There's too much risk.
Our state's future power generation needs are best met with a mix of existing nuclear plants, existing gas plants, new solar coupled with battery storage, hydro dams and pump storage. Currently, solar panels with storage are the lowest cost option for our state's electricity generation.
During an earnings call Wednesday, NextEra Energy CEO John Ketchum said the U.S. must remain realistic and pragmatic about its energy policies.
'We need to be practical about when technologies will be available at scale and how much they'll cost when they show up — all of which factors into how much Americans pay on their electric bill each month,' he said.
Low-cost renewables and battery storage should be used as a 'critical bridge,' he said. 'We cannot isolate ourselves to just a couple of technologies, like gas and nuclear, which are much more expensive than they've ever been and take far longer to build.'
Small modular nuclear reactors are 'still 10 years away at scale in the best of scenarios,' he added.
South Carolina should think twice about building more nuclear power plants.
Nuclear power plants are just too expensive to build. And the small modular nuclear reactors are a decade away from being a viable alternative.
