Former Gov. Martin: Increasing nuclear power is key in NC’s carbon plan | Opinion

Editor’s note: On Dec. 30, 2022, the North Carolina Utilities Commission issued its long-awaited carbon reduction plan, one of its most important rulings in the last decade. We published op-eds Jan. 30 from plan opponents. Today, we’re giving voice to two writers who support it, former N.C. Gov. Jim Martin and John Gaertner.

On Jan. 30, representatives of the North Carolina Climate Justice Collective wrote that a carbon free future can be achieved, in part, with electric power generated by wind turbines and photovoltaic solar cells, and that the N.C. Utilities Commission’s carbon reduction plan for Duke Energy is too timid about this.

The view from the John Locke Foundation CEO was that wind turbines and solar cells can’t replace more than 2,350 megawatts of lost coal-fired generation, if that, and that the state’s carbon plan is too timid about more reliable alternatives, like nuclear and natural gas.

Both sides contemplate major reduction in carbon-based fuels for future electricity generation. They differ on what to do about it.

One critical difference is whether to build any nuclear generating capacity to replace lost coal-fired electricity. Both acknowledge that electricity will cost a lot more under North Carolina’s carbon reduction plan. It’s the cost of protecting planet Earth.

In 2015, Pew Research found that 87% of American scientists (versus 50% of the American public) believed climate warming is mostly due to human use of fossil fuels, and that 77% of scientists (46% of the public) considered it a very serious problem.

On whether we need more nuclear generation of electricity, 65% of American scientists favored more nuclear. Scientists have no exclusive authority on policy, but if you aren’t a science-denier, their consensus might seem relevant.

In 2021, Pew Research found growing concern, as 61% of the American public said climate change was affecting them locally, with warmer seasonal temperatures, rising sea levels, more severe weather episodes, and more frequent power outages.

As a former Director of Duke Energy (1994-2005), I’ve followed closely the progress of nuclear technology. There are 99 large nuclear facilities in America, generating 1,000-1,300 megawatts per reactor. With two reactors, our McGuire Nuclear Station is rated at 2,250 megawatts. Most people have been frightened by nuclear publicity, and don’t want any new nuclear plants built near them. Consequently, of 53 nuclear power plants currently under construction worldwide only two are in the U.S. That also includes 15 in China, eight in India and four each in Russia and South Korea.

Fortunately, the U.S. Department of Energy supports research to improve nuclear power generation. One solution, the Natrium Reactor, using liquid sodium as coolant, was developed by a partnership between GE Hitachi and TerraPower, founded by Bill Gates. Construction of their first 345 megawatt facility is scheduled for Wyoming this year under contract with PacifiCorp, a six-state subsidiary of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire-Hathaway. That’s serious power!

The North Carolina carbon plan for Duke Energy allows another technology, the Small Modular Reactor. Standing 65-feet tall and 10-feet in diameter, these 60-75MW SMRs are comparable to nuclear reactors driving modern warships and submarines. Less vulnerable to earthquakes or war, they can be factory-built and delivered by truck for installation.

One manufacturer, NuScale, offers SMR packages of 4, 6, or 12 SMRs approved for use in the U.S. NuScale claims its generating cost is $0.089 per kilowatt hour, compared with the average national price of $0.1315 per kWh. North Carolina’s current average price is $0.1138 per kWh.

Some object to any nuclear power being part of the solution. In my view, we should commit to “all of the above,” with electric generating capacity from wind, solar, bio-waste and nuclear. Omit any of these resources, especially nuclear, and we can’t be serious about climate change.