The major utility Duke Energy is aiming to build a small nuclear reactor at an existing coal plant site in North Carolina, hoping that the new technology can help it meet the state’s clean energy targets while also keeping power flowing from the plant.
Duke Energy, headquartered in Charlotte, said last year in a plan filed with the state utility commission that it could have a small modular reactor, or SMR, plant online by 2035 at the site of the existing coal-burning Belews Creek Steam Station site in Stokes County, north of Winston-Salem and Greensboro, and that it is looking for a location for a second plant in the state.
The project is touted as a step toward fulfilling the state’s clean energy plan. Gov. Roy Cooper (D-NC) signed a law in 2021 requiring power companies to reduce carbon emissions by 70% from 2005 levels by the year 2030 and to reach zero emissions by 2050.
SMRs are roughly a quarter of the size of conventional nuclear plants, and unlike traditional nuclear plants, which are built from the ground up on-site, the reactors are portable and built off-site. The smaller footprint means they can be positioned in areas that could not accommodate larger nuclear power plants, meaning that one can be placed directly at the site of the existing coal plant with less disruption. Under the utility’s plan, the two existing coal-fired units would be shut down before 2035.
Advanced nuclear power is also eligible for subsidies under the 2022 Democratic Inflation Reduction Act, with bonuses for plants built on existing fossil fuel sites.
“Building these new technologies, that have the smaller footprints, can alleviate a lot of the environmental concerns, transmission concerns, permitting concerns that are present for other technologies,” said Niko McMurray, the Managing Director of International and Nuclear Policy at ClearPath, a right-of-center clean energy group.
The progress of SMRs hit a major roadblock last year when NuScale Power, the only company with a federally approved SMR design, canceled plans to build power plants to supply several Western states. The “Carbon-Free Power Project” was set to deliver six 77-megawatt reactors, coming online in 2029, to the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems. The reactors were to be built near Idaho Falls, on property used by the Idaho National Laboratory.
But several utility systems backed out after inflationary pressure, which increased the cost from $5.3 billion to $9.3 billion.
Critics say Duke Energy’s efforts in North Carolina risk a similar fate.
The Environmental Working Group, for instance, warned recently that “nuclear power is nothing more than a money pit,” citing the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems project’s failure.
NC WARN Executive Director Jim Warren told the Washington Examiner in an interview that Duke Energy, or any other power company, “will not assume the risk for such a gamble of trying to build experimental reactors” and instead “force the taxpayers and electric ratepayers to take nearly all the risk.” NC WARN is a North Carolina-based nonprofit group focused on climate change, acting as a watchdog for Duke Energy.
In filings with the state Utilities Commission this month, Duke Energy said that construction costs are expected to raise customers’ energy bills by a considerable amount. Duke Energy delivers electricity to about 2.8 million residents in the region.
“Duke Energy Carolinas customers could pay 73% more per month if this plan is approved,” Drew Ball, Southeast campaign manager at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a press release.
Jeff Brooks, a spokesman for Duke Energy, told WRAL last year that “we’re in a time period where we need to have infrastructure in order to meet those growing energy needs that we’re seeing all across the state.”
“We have a process that we can present some of these in a way that helps to avoid sharp spikes in rates,” Brooks said about alleviating electric bill shocks when the new plants are built out.
Opponents also cast doubt on the environmental benefits of nuclear. Nuclear has faced years of policy headwinds, especially after 2011, when an earthquake generated a tsunami that hit the eastern coast of Japan, causing the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power station to leak radiation.
Warren challenged the claim that nuclear is much less carbon-intensive than fossil fuel-fired power, saying while nuclear reactors don’t emit carbon dioxide when running, they are still fueled with uranium, which is extracted through a mining process that requires significant energy.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“There’s nothing special overall as far as we can tell with the technology,” Warren said, calling SMRs an “extremely elaborate and expensive way to boil water.”
But nuclear advocates like McMurray say updated nuclear technologies can “alleviate many concerns that have been traditionally placed on nuclear energy” regarding safety and the environment.
