With as many as many as 26 new reactors in the planning stages, the construction industry could receive a much-needed long-term shot in the arm
By Kevin Doyle
As a life-long resident of northeastern Massachusetts, my entire adult life has been spent in the very substantial shadow of the Seabrook Station nuclear power plant located just over the border with New Hampshire. Two brothers-in-law and countless acquaintances worked on its buildout.
Back in the late ‘70s, when construction was in full swing, Seabrook Station became the poster child for all that was perceived to be wrong with or potentially could go wrong with a nuclear plant. Regular protests were held, drawing activists from far and wide who denounced the plant’s construction in such a densely populated area 40 miles north of Boston, and within the fragile ecosystem of Atlantic Ocean estuaries and marshland.
The meltdown of Three Mile Island (1979) – which coincided eerily with the release of The China Syndrome, a movie about a nuclear plant meltdown – and the tragedy of Chernobyl (1986) half a world away had not yet been visited upon us.
Lessons were learned and, one would presume, applied especially in light of the fact President Barack Obama makes no bones about the fact that nuclear energy must be part and parcel of the long-term plan to break the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels. In stark contrast to the Seabrook protests of 30-plus years ago, there now seems to be growing public acceptance of relatively clean nuclear energy as a means to combat global warming. In fact, a new Gallup Poll shows a record 59 percent of Americans favor nuclear energy
Several companies have taken significant steps that will likely lead to completion of four reactors by 2015 to 2018 and up to eight by 2020. All would be built next to existing nuclear plants. Southern Co. (SO) says it will begin digging an 86-foot-deep crater this June in Vogtle, GA to make way for two reactors after recently winning state approval, though it won't pour concrete until it gets a federal license, likely in 2011. At least five power companies have signed contracts with equipment vendors. And Florida and South Carolina residents this year began paying new utility fees to finance planned reactors.
Seventeen companies have sought US federal approval for 26 reactors since late 2007. All have enhanced safety features. "The resurgence of nuclear energy is under way," says Steve Kerekes of the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade group.
When, and how many reactors start construction, however, is a question that remains to be answered. Given the depth of the recession, financing looms as an issue since research shows nuclear reactor costs have doubled in the past three years to as much as about $8 billion, according to Moody's Investors Service. They're twice as expensive as coal-fired plants and triple the cost of natural-gas plants. Reactors also are far more complex, taking up to 10 years to license and build vs. a couple of years for gas-fired plants.
Yet, nuclear plants are far less costly to operate. The fuel, uranium, is cheaper than coal and natural gas. South Carolina Electric & Gas chose nuclear instead of natural gas to meet some of its power needs because it could produce electricity at retail rates of about 8 cents a kilowatt hour vs. about 10 cents with gas.
There is no doubt that the construction industry will receive a huge boost with new plants coming online. However, while approximately100,000 new workers would be needed to build and staff the 26 proposed reactors, 35 percent of the current workforce is eligible to retire in five years.
And what of Seabrook Station, which began commercial operations in 1990 and is now owned by Florida Power & Light? In 2002, the plant received ISO 14001 certification, an internationally recognized environmental management standard. Today it produces 46 percent of The Granite State’s electricity.
Sources: USA Today, www.fpl.com