June 6, 2023
Hype and promises about the potential for Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) have garnered billions of federal taxpayers’ dollars and extensive, but superficial media coverage – despite the fact that technology has yet to be technically proven and even the first prototype won’t be built until 2029 at the earliest. We’ve seen this “hype cycle” with nuclear power numerous times in the past. But the facts are sobering and real.
- Maine electric customers can’t afford the staggering cost of uncompetitive SMRs: According to Lazard (April/2023), the world’s premier energy financial analytic firm, new nuclear reactors are 3.5 times (median case) more expensive than utility scale solar and wind power – good job-creating industries already thriving in the Pine Tree State. The leading SMR concept, being designed by NuScale of Oregon, is already seven (7) years behind schedule and last year doubled in its price estimate ($55/MWHr. to over $100/per MWHr.) when the federal subsidy is included.
- Maine’s unique natural heritage is at risk with new nuclear power: Stanford University research has concluded that, contrary to promises, SMRs will create even more highly dangerous radioactive waste per unit of electricity generated than existing reactors, like the now shuttered Maine Yankee at Wiscasset. Despite 60 years of industry assurances, there is still no proven method to permanently isolate and store these toxic isotopes, some of which remain poisonous for hundreds of thousands of years. Further, there is no guarantee that leaks during operation or other accidents, like Fukushima and Chernobyl, that could seriously harm the environment and public health won’t happen.
- SMRs won’t help Maine or the U.S. mitigate the rapidly escalating threat of climate change: The United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported this year that society is only roughly (8) years away from exceeding the global warming “tipping point.” In April the IPCC reported that renewable energy (like solar and wind, hydro which are abundant in Maine) is the (10) times more efficient than nuclear in mitigating CO2 in the atmosphere. Furthermore, we can fully meet our clean energy goals without new nuclear.
- Maine’s families and businesses can’t afford nuclear power’s notorious and consistent extensive delays and cost overruns. The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), a non-partisan, independent Wall Street and utility suites watchdog, has found that new eactors since the 1970s have, on average, cost three times more than the original estimates and taken twice as much time to bring on-line. Of the 30 new reactors ordered in 2000s, comprising the so-called “Nuclear Renaissance”, only 2 remain under construction – all others were canceled or permanently suspended. For example, South Carolina’s failed V.C. Sumner project left utility customers billions of dollars of debt when the project was scrapped in 2017. In Georgia, Vogtle Units 3 & 4 are seven years behind schedule and, unfathomably, at least $20 Billion over the original budget. As a result, Georgia ratepayers are facing sticker shock with looming 20% electric bill hikes.
- Mainers will appreciate and reward prudent legislators who protect their checkbooks from such ratepayer robbery: Historically, nuclear power has consumed nearly 50% of all federal energy research and development funds from the taxpayers as determined by the U.S. Congressional Research Service – despite providing only about 8% of our energy supply (19% of electricity).
If this mature, but deeply flawed technology is to be studied yet again, as proposed by LD 1549, let the industry foot the bill and do it themselves. As other utilities around the country have already determined, SMRs aren’t the panacea they’re promised to be.