POWER May 2017 - 6

SPEAKING OF POWER
Can the U.S. Nuclear Power
Industry Survive?
T
he recent announcement by Westinghouse
Electric Co. that it had
filed for bankruptcy sent a shockwave
through the nuclear power industry.
It wasn't a secret that the company was
struggling financially as a result of cost
overruns and schedule delays at the two
nuclear construction projects that are underway
in Georgia and South Carolina, but
when rumors become facts, the stakes are
substantially elevated.
The news raised questions about whether
or not the four AP1000 reactor projects-Plant
Vogtle Units 3 and 4 and V.C.
Summer Units 2 and 3-would be completed.
Anti-nuclear groups quickly lobbied
for the units to be abandoned. The
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy held
a telephone press conference the following
day with four panelists who presented
cases against project continuation.
Predictable?
One of the speakers was Peter Bradford-
an adjunct law professor, former commissioner
with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, and former chair of the Maine
and New York Public Utility Commissions.
Bradford posed questions about whether
or not nuclear cost overruns, construction
delays, and bankruptcy should have been
foreseeable. He then gave evidence suggesting
the answer was yes.
He noted that Vogtle Units 1 and 2 overran
original cost estimates by billions of
dollars three decades ago. Furthermore, he
said many northeastern states and every
state in a crescent from the Carolinas to
Washington state had at least one, ninefigure
nuclear cost overrun in the 1970s or
1980s. Likewise, all of those plants were
delayed by at least a year, and some by
more than a decade.
By the mid-1980s, Bradford said nuclear
power was already considered by many
people to be the greatest disaster in business
history. More than half of all units
ever planned in the U.S. were canceled
outright. In fact, Vogtle became the U.S.'s
reference AP1000 plant by default after
Bellefonte Units 3 and 4 were delayed to
the point of cancelation. (It should be
noted that Bellefonte Units 1 and 2 were
6
never completed either.) Bradford suggested
that the AP1000 projects should
only be allowed to continue if costs to
complete the units are determined to be
less than obtaining the same energy in alternative
ways.
" Incredibly enough, it's at least possible
that those alternatives may still be
cheaper than these plants despite the
amount of money already spent on them, "
he said. " Customers have lost billions of
dollars on these plants, but they shouldn't
be tossing good money after bad. "
Some Optimism Exists
But not everyone is as cynical about
the future of nuclear power. Bryan Hanson,
president and chief nuclear officer
for Exelon Nuclear, gave the keynote address-focused
on the future of nuclear
energy-during the 2017 ELECTRIC POWER
Conference & Exhibition on April 11 in
Chicago. Exelon, of course, operates the
largest nuclear fleet in the country. The
company has 23 reactors spread across 14
locations in Illinois, Pennsylvania, New
Jersey, New York, and Maryland.
Hanson acknowledged that the industry
has seen its share of challenges in recent
years including rising costs, falling energy
prices, increased regulation, market inequities,
and a lack of federal and state
energy policies that value the critical infrastructure
that nuclear power plants provide.
Nonetheless, he is still " passionate "
about the future of nuclear energy.
Although Hanson suggested that Exelon
isn't really considering any new units
at this time, the company is participating
in working groups to help develop nextgeneration
nuclear designs in an effort to
keep the U.S. nuclear industry relevant.
He also believes finishing the AP1000
projects is important.
" I think it's vital to show the American
public ... that we know how to construct
nuclear power plants, " Hanson told POWER
during an exclusive interview. " I think
it's important that we as an industry rally
around Westinghouse and those two projects
that are being constructed to ensure
they do go forward. "
Yet, saving current facilities is clearly
www.powermag.com
Correction
There was a significant error made in
the April 2017 Speaking of Power article
titled " Whether Man-Made or Not, Global
Warming Is a Problem. " At the current
rate of sea level increase in southwestern
Florida (2.85 millimeters per year, according
to the U.S. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration), it would
take about 1,272 years for sea level to
rise 11.9 feet, not about 100 years as
was incorrectly noted in the commentary.
I am actually very relieved by the revelation.
Thank you, Richard in Florida, for
being the first to point out the mistake.
Exelon's priority. " We need to make sure
we preserve our existing U.S. nuclear
plants. They're so important to the critical
infrastructure of this nation that we
must do everything that we can to protect
those, " Hanson said.
One thing that has provided a lifeline is
subsidies. Both New York and Illinois have
enacted policies that reward nuclear power
plants for their zero-carbon emissions. Other
states-such as Ohio, Connecticut, and New
Jersey-are considering similar options.
However, calls to " Save the Nukes "
are likely to fall on deaf ears in Georgia
and South Carolina. Electricity rates have
already increased for SCANA Corp. and
Southern Co. customers as a result of the
nuclear construction projects, and both
companies must evaluate their options.
" If continuing the construction is not
determined to be the most prudent path
forward for either or both of the units,
we will look to exercise the abandonment
clause under the provisions of the Base
Load Review Act, " said Kevin Marsh, CEO
of SCANA Corp., during a March 29 conference
call.
If both AP1000 projects were to be
abandoned, it would take a game-changing
development for any U.S. power company
to seriously consider a new nuclear
construction project ever again. ■
-Aaron Larson is POWER's
executive editor.
POWER | May 2017
http://www.powermag.com
POWER May 2017

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of POWER May 2017
