Report makes case for nuclear plants, picks potential sites - Talk Business & Politics
Three central Arkansas sites, another near Camden, and the Arkansas Nuclear One power plant in Russellville (Pope County) are potential sites for new nuclear power facilities, according to a study. . .
Three central Arkansas sites, another near Camden, and the Arkansas Nuclear One power plant in Russellville (Pope County) are potential sites for new nuclear power facilities, according to a study commissioned by lawmakers. Brian Meadors, EXCEL Services Corporation’s general counsel and executive vice president of legislative initiatives, presented the study to the Joint Energy Committee Thursday (Aug. 6). Lawmakers commissioned the study through Act 707 of 2025. Meadors said the state should invest in nuclear power because it supplies more energy more efficiently than other forms of power generation. He said the state already has laws in place. The timing also is good with the current federal regulatory climate. Meadors told lawmakers that the state will need to generate more energy. Entergy projects power needs will grow more than 35% over the next five years, and long-term needs could double. The Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation is evaluating roughly 4,000 megawatts of prospective load requests. Meanwhile, coal plants are shutting down in the state in 2028 and 2030. He said nuclear energy is the best way to meet the state’s growing needs. A nuclear plant can produce at a 91% capacity factor whereas wind farms produce at 35% and solar power facilities at 25%. Nuclear plants operate in the dark and when there’s no wind. A nuclear plant requires 1. 3 square miles to generate 1,000 megawatts, compared to 75 square miles for a solar farm and 260 for a wind farm, he said. Nuclear plants produce no carbon dioxide during operation, and they can stockpile 18-24 months of uranium fuel. It’s also a safe way to generate energy, he said. “Nuclear fills the energy gap better than any other alternative,” said Meadors. EXCEL identified six geographic areas as potential locations for new nuclear facilities. The best two were one near Camden that could generate roughly 1,003 megawatts, and three sites south of Little Rock that could generate between 769 and 929 megawatts. The state’s only plant, Arkansas Nuclear One in Pope County, would be a good location for expansion, but transmission lines would have to be built. Three sites were weaker contenders. Two eastern Arkansas sites, one in Craighead and Mississippi counties and the other in Phillips County, had seismic issues. In addition, Flint Creek in Benton County did not meet water and transmission needs. Meadors said he has talked to officials in south Arkansas, Russellville and western Arkansas who are ready and willing to participate in nuclear energy. Many states have created a nuclear czar, but Arkansas since the 1950s has had an unfilled atomic coordinator position that the report recommends should be activated. The report recommends lawmakers pass the Arkansas Nuclear Competitiveness Act, which includes five changes. First, it would define nuclear energy as clean energy and align Arkansas law with federal programs. Second, it would expand the atomic coordinator’s duties and provide staff support. Third, it would create the Arkansas Nuclear Energy Development Fund for siting studies, license applications, workforce training, and other expenses. Fourth, it would require the state to prepare a low-level radioactive waste management plan. Finally, it would permit the state to license private, in-state, low-level waste disposal facilities. He suggested the state create public-private partnerships to identify sites and get them pre-permitted for new nuclear capabilities. Most utilities don’t want to be the first to build a new type of facility because it costs three times as much and takes twice as long as a later build. Georgia’s Vogtle Units 3 and 4, the first new large reactors built domestically, cost $35 billion instead of the projected $14 billion and were completed nearly seven years late. Instead, utilities want to be a “fast follower” who builds in the next wave of construction after new designs have been perfected. Federal support is stronger than it has been in the past, he said. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission traditionally has been so unhelpful that industry stakeholders have referred to its demands as “Bring me a rock. ” But the atmosphere has changed, and substantial federal funding is now available. Paul Murphy, managing director of Murphy Energy & Infrastructure Consulting, told lawmakers that government support is necessary. Investors don’t like investing in the development phase of nuclear power because they have to wait so long for a return. It helps when a nuclear facility is part of a larger project along with customers such as data centers and industrial users. He said the benefits of building a plant include job creation, tax revenues and decarbonization. “When you model that over 80 years, the numbers are staggering,” he said. In a recent Talk Business & Politics interview, Electric Cooperatives of Arkansas CEO Buddy Hasten spoke on the issue. Watch his full interview in the video below. Related