Nuclear foes ready for battle

Questioning need, cost are keys for critics of new reactor

The arguments against nuclear power used to be pretty simple, even if not universally convincing: The plants are inherently dangerous and doomed to fail.

But in an era of higher energy costs, nuclear foes hope they can make a case that has broader public appeal, based on cost and need.

Opponents are preparing to challenge Progress Energy's proposal to add a second reactor at the Shearon Harris plant in Wake County. They will argue that there are cheaper options and that growing demand for electricity can be met with conservation and other efforts.

The Raleigh utility, which submitted a 4,000-plus page application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Tuesday, disagrees, saying it will need the new reactor to generate electricity in about a decade.

The cost of a new power plant is not a theoretical debate but a matter of pocketbook economics. The cost will be covered using utility customers' monthly payments. And recent cost estimates for power plants are staggering.

"We think that nuclear will sink under its own weight," said Molly Diggins, North Carolina director of the Sierra Club in Raleigh. "Nuclear is the least likely option to be built, due to the financial risk."

Florida Power & Light, which is proposing using the same Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear plant as Progress Energy, said recently that a single reactor would cost $6 billion to $9 billion to finance and build. That's three times more than industry estimates provided several years ago. Soaring labor and materials costs have driven up costs.

Progress Energy, still negotiating with Westinghouse, won't publicly disclose estimates for a new reactor at Shearon Harris until it signs a contract in about two years. But the company will offer a glimpse of its budget when it provides Florida regulators an estimate next month for a proposed Westinghouse reactor in that state.

"It could be the mistake that puts the company out of business," said Jim Warren, director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network. The Durham group will oppose the proposed expansion at Shearon Harris.

Progress Energy has applied to the NRC for two new nuclear reactors at Shearon Harris and would build the first reactor by 2020. The company has not said when or whether it might build a third reactor at the Wake County site, where one reactor has been in operation since 1987.

The NRC review will focus primarily on safety systems, emergency preparedness and other compliance. The N.C. Utilities Commission will review the utility's need for the power plant, as well as its cost.

Progress Energy has said customers' electricity use is growing by about 2 percent a year and will require the construction of a large power plant to meet demand. The company is looking at expanding conservation programs and buying power from independent generators of solar power and other renewable energy sources to curb demand. But it predicts an increasing appetite for electricity.

"Power plants are not discretionary," said Progress spokesman Rick Kimble. "You're not reducing the number of children in schools. You're not reducing the number of homes going up."

But environmental organizations for years have contended that North Carolina could meet its energy needs without building more large power plants. They point to California, where electricity consumption remained flat over the past 12 years as that state embraced conservation and renewables.

But California's electricity costs are 50 percent higher on average than consumers pay in North Carolina, giving alternatives an edge that they don't enjoy in this state. The outlook is changing. Global-warming concerns and rising energy costs resulted in a new state law requiring that 12.5 percent of electricity come from renewables and efficiency programs by 2021.

Critics dismiss Progress Energy's growth projections as exaggerations designed to justify the construction of power plants. They point to projections in the 1970s that four nuclear reactors would be needed at Shearon Harris. Only one was built.

Last year, the Utilities Commission agreed with opponents and rejected Duke Energy's bid to build two coal-burning units at the Cliffside Steam Station, west of Charlotte. The agency permitted the addition of one power plant, with a ballooning price of $2.4 billion.

Because the cost of concrete, steel and labor are not expected to drop, escalating estimates for power plants are a boon for advocates of efficiency.

"The conservation effort potential is so large that getting just a part of it will eliminate the demand growth of electricity," said John Blackburn, a retired Duke University economics professor who testifies as an expert witness in utility cases for environmental groups. "If we do all the efficiency stuff and then start bringing on renewable resources, we'll see a decline in the demand for existing power plants."