Where will the next nuclear plant be built?

By STEVE BRAWNER

If you’ve ever driven on I-40 near Russellville, then you’ve no doubt seen the two Arkansas Nuclear One reactors. 

You will probably see more in the coming years, the big questions being where and when.

The subject arises in this column for the second time this year. The first was in May after Entergy Corporation Chairman and CEO Drew Marsh told the Arkansas Economic Development Foundation that the amount of electricity sold in the region would triple or quadruple by 2050. 

There’s too much demand between data centers, electric vehicles and the other ways we use electricity. Other energy sources including natural gas and solar won’t provide enough by themselves. Already, Arkansas Nuclear One supplies roughly 56% of Entergy Arkansas’ customer demand.

“You’re going to need nuclear, and so we believe that new nuclear is going to be part of the future here in Arkansas,” he said.

Now comes a report on nuclear energy’s feasibility that was presented Aug. 6 to legislators, who had commissioned it. 

Brian Meadors, EXCEL Services Corporation’s general counsel and executive vice president of legislative initiatives, told lawmakers that nuclear power supplies more energy more efficiently than other generation forms. Unlike solar, nuclear produces when it’s dark, and unlike windmills, it produces when the air is still. Nuclear plants can stockpile 18-24 months of uranium fuel. 

There is the reality that nuclear reactors produce radioactive waste lasting thousands of years. The Nuclear Energy Institute says that as of 2021’s end, 88,545 metric tons of uranium were stored at sites across the country, including 1,725 metric tons at Arkansas Nuclear One. There’s also the fact that almost all of the uranium used by U.S. nuclear generators is imported.

But given rising global energy demand and nuclear power’s ability to produce so much energy, humanity probably doesn’t have a choice but to invest in an “all of the above” energy strategy, of which nuclear will be a major part. Other states are investing in nuclear. Texas created a fund with an initial $350 million investment. 

Meadors also addressed the “where” and “when” questions.

The leading sites described in the study were in central Arkansas at Sheridan, Keo and Hot Spring County, and in southwest Arkansas near Camden. Those four sites have adequate water and transmission capabilities.

Arkansas Nuclear One is another obvious potential location for new nuclear facilities, although it would require the construction of new transmission capabilities. Another advantage is that constructing new facilities there would reduce the local impact when Entergy retires the current reactors, which were built in 1974 and 1980. The company has applied to extend the licenses another 20 years beyond 2034 and 2038, when they expire.

Meanwhile, earthquake concerns were too big of a hurdle in Phillips County near Helena-West Helena. They were also a major concern at a site in Craighead and Mississippi Counties in northeast Arkansas. Another site in Benton County in Arkansas’ northwest corner didn’t meet water and transmission needs.

As for “when,” the study says it takes 10-20 years to build a large plant and 6-12 for a smaller one. A project entering site selection in 2027 could be operating in the mid-2030s.

Much would depend on financing. Nuclear power plants are expensive. Georgia’s Vogtle Units 3 and 4, the first new large reactors built in the United States in many years, cost $35 billion instead of the projected $14 billion. They were completed in 2023 and 2024, nearly seven years later than expected.

The private sector tends to avoid investing in nuclear construction because it takes so long to recoup an investment. Paul Murphy, managing director of Murphy Energy & Infrastructure Consulting, told legislators it takes government support. 

Construction becomes cheaper as the nuclear industry gains experience with a new kind of plant. As a result, many utilities typically want to be what Meadors called a “fast follower.” 

The report suggests the state work with counties to pre-permit sites and help industries obtain certifications needed to enter the nuclear supply chain. 

Finally, EXCEL is encouraging lawmakers to pass what it calls the Arkansas Nuclear Competitiveness Act. It would create the Arkansas Nuclear Energy Development Fund for location studies, workforce training, and other expenses. It also would activate the state’s atomic coordinator, a position created decades ago that’s never been filled, and give that official expanded duties and a staff. 

To sum it up, it’s not a question of whether more nuclear power is coming to Arkansas, but where and when. If you live long enough and travel the state enough, you’ll probably pass a new plant somewhere. 

If not several.

Steve Brawner’s column is syndicated to 24 news outlets in Arkansas. Email him at brawnersteve@mac.com.