The nuclear energy debate in New Hampshire is a fascinating one, and it's an issue that demands a closer look. As the state grapples with rising electricity prices and the need for a stable, carbon-free energy source, the idea of expanding nuclear power is gaining traction. But is it a viable solution, or just another costly venture for ratepayers? Let's delve into the details and explore the complexities of this energy conundrum.
The Allure of Nuclear Power
New Hampshire's interest in nuclear energy is not without reason. The state has been home to Seabrook Station, a nuclear power plant that has been a reliable source of electricity since 1990. With a license to operate until 2050, Seabrook is a testament to the potential of nuclear power. But what makes nuclear energy particularly appealing is its ability to provide a consistent and reliable source of electricity, unlike intermittent renewable sources like wind and solar.
The Anti-CWIP Statute and Its Impact
However, the state's anti-CWIP (construction work in progress) statute has been a significant hurdle for nuclear energy development. This law, adopted in 1979, prevents utility projects from being included in rates until they are fully built and serving customers. Seabrook's notorious construction delays and cost overruns were a direct result of this statute, ultimately leading to the bankruptcy of Public Service Company of New Hampshire. The core issue here is the financial risk borne by investors versus captive utility customers.
Small Modular Reactors: A New Hope?
Enter small modular reactors (SMRs), a new and emerging technology that has sparked interest among policymakers and industry leaders. SMRs are designed to be more like building airplanes than airports, according to Rep. Keith Ammon. The idea is to roll out new reactors from assembly lines, offering a more efficient and potentially cost-effective solution. But the question remains: can SMRs truly save customers money?
Financial analysts are skeptical, and for good reason. The levelized cost of SMRs is estimated to be between $141 and $200 per megawatt-hour, which is significantly higher than the $55 to $85 per megawatt-hour for new natural gas generation. This raises a deeper question: is nuclear energy truly affordable, or is it just another costly venture for ratepayers?
The Role of Eversource and the Nuclear Innovation Alliance
Eversource, a major utility company in New Hampshire, has been silent on the issue of nuclear power. Their executives, when speaking at the nukefest, warned that any new nuclear contract would likely be more expensive than existing market-based power. This is a valid concern, but it doesn't address the broader question of nuclear energy's role in decarbonization and energy market stability.
The Nuclear Innovation Alliance, a nonprofit think tank, urges the audience to consider the long-term reduction in volatility that nuclear energy offers. This is a compelling argument, but it doesn't change the fact that nuclear energy is not a panacea for rising electricity prices. In fact, it may be just another costly venture for ratepayers.
The Bottom Line
New nuclear might be the right play for New Hampshire in pursuit of fuel diversity, decarbonization, and predictability. But ratepayers should keep an eye on their wallets. The allure of nuclear power is undeniable, but the reality is more complex. As the state contemplates its future energy needs, it must consider the broader implications and the potential impact on ratepayers. In my opinion, the jury is still out on whether nuclear energy is truly affordable and a viable solution for New Hampshire's energy needs.
