The Nuclear Renaissance: A New Hampshire Story, or Why We Shouldn’t Get Too Excited About Lower Bills
There’s something undeniably captivating about the idea of a nuclear renaissance, especially in a state like New Hampshire, where the Seabrook Station has been a silent giant on the seacoast since 1990. With its 1,200 megawatts, Seabrook is more than just a power plant—it’s a symbol of reliability in an era of rising electricity prices and growing demand. But as Governor Kelly Ayotte pushes for a ‘preliminary roadmap’ to expand nuclear generation, I can’t help but wonder: are we setting ourselves up for a repeat of history, or is this truly the dawn of a new era?
The Allure of Nuclear: Clean, Reliable, But Not Necessarily Cheap
What makes nuclear power particularly fascinating is its dual promise: it’s carbon-free and operates 24/7, unlike solar or wind. Personally, I think this reliability is its biggest selling point, especially in a region like New England, where winters are harsh and energy demand spikes. But here’s the catch—and it’s a big one—nuclear power has never been cheap. Seabrook itself is a cautionary tale, with its notorious construction delays and cost overruns that nearly bankrupted the Public Service Company of New Hampshire in the 1980s.
From my perspective, the financial risks of nuclear power are often overlooked in the current enthusiasm. The state’s anti-CWIP statute, which prevents utilities from passing construction costs to ratepayers until a project is fully operational, was a direct response to that crisis. It’s a reminder that while nuclear power might be clean and reliable, it’s also a gamble—one that investors, not consumers, should be taking. Yet, Ayotte’s push to revisit this law feels like we’re flirting with old mistakes.
Small Modular Reactors: The New Kid on the Block
One thing that immediately stands out in this debate is the hype around small modular reactors (SMRs). Proponents like Rep. Keith Ammon paint a compelling picture of these reactors rolling off assembly lines like airplanes, promising efficiency and scalability. But what many people don’t realize is that SMRs are still largely unproven. Michael Cembalest of J.P. Morgan put it bluntly: there’s no economic proof of concept yet. While SMRs can be built, the question is whether they’ll be affordable.
If you take a step back and think about it, the levelized cost estimates for SMRs—ranging from $141 to $200 per megawatt-hour—are significantly higher than natural gas ($55 to $85). Even the Nuclear Innovation Alliance, a think tank advocating for nuclear energy, admits that the focus should be on ‘long-term reduction in volatility’ rather than immediate cost savings. But let’s be honest: volatility is a nice way of saying that electricity prices will remain high, if not higher.
Eversource’s Silence Speaks Volumes
A detail that I find especially interesting is the stance of Eversource, one of New England’s largest utilities. At the recent ‘nukefest’ in Pease International Tradeport, Eversource executives were notably silent on their interest in nuclear power. Instead, their slides warned that new nuclear contracts would likely be more expensive than existing market-based power. This raises a deeper question: if utilities themselves are hesitant, why are policymakers so gung-ho?
What this really suggests is that the push for nuclear power is less about lowering rates and more about achieving policy goals like decarbonization and energy independence. And there’s nothing wrong with that—New Hampshire could certainly benefit from diversifying its energy mix. But ratepayers should keep their wallets close. New nuclear, like offshore wind or solar, will likely require subsidies, and those costs will trickle down to consumers.
The Bigger Picture: Nuclear Power in a Changing Energy Landscape
If we zoom out, the nuclear debate in New Hampshire is part of a larger global conversation about the future of energy. Nuclear power is experiencing a resurgence, driven by climate concerns and advancements in technology. But what’s often missing from this narrative is the human factor: the financial burden on everyday people. In my opinion, we need to be honest about the trade-offs. Nuclear power might help us meet our climate goals, but it won’t make electricity cheaper—at least not anytime soon.
Final Thoughts: A Balanced Approach
Personally, I think new nuclear facilities could be a good play for New Hampshire, but only if we approach it with caution. We need to ensure that the financial risks are borne by investors, not ratepayers, and that any expansion is part of a broader, balanced energy strategy. The last thing we want is another Seabrook-style debacle.
What this conversation really highlights is the tension between ambition and reality. Nuclear power is a powerful tool, but it’s not a silver bullet. As we navigate this nuclear renaissance, let’s keep our eyes on the prize—a sustainable, affordable energy future—and not get distracted by the hype.
