Georgia Power considering nuclear plant near Columbus

Georgia Power insists it’s not building a nuclear power plant near Columbus – yet.

The company could put the 7,000 acres of woodland it bought along the Chattahoochee River in Stewart County to some other use, such as a plant powered by natural gas, said Georgia Power spokesman Robert Watkins.

The land’s about 20 miles south of downtown Columbus, close to Fort Benning. The company just disclosed in its long-range plan that the property could be used for a nuclear power plant that if built would begin production in 2030 or 2033.

Watkins said Georgia Power is studying the prospect now because the work takes so long – seven years to get permission from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and eight to 10 years to build the plant.

“It not necessarily a nuclear plant,” he cautioned, noting natural gas remains an option. A coal-fired plant is unlikely, as environmental regulations now make coal less practical. Georgia Power has been shutting down coal-fired plants in a shift to what it calls “clean energy,” meaning nuclear and natural gas.

Critics don’t see it that way.

“Everybody’s shocked that anyone would go forward with another nuke,” said Mark Woodall of the Sierra Club, which is opposed to adding any more nuclear-power to the system.

Georgia Power has yet to finish expanding its Plant Vogtle near Augusta, and its parent Southern Company already has its Farley Nuclear Power Plant on the Chattahoochee River near Dothan and the Hatch Nuclear Plant near Baxley, Ga.

Farley supplies 19 percent of Alabama Power’s electricity, and the two Georgia plants provide about 20 percent of Georgia Power’s, according to Southern Nuclear, which runs the plants for the Southern Company.

Nuclear power is “not safe or affordable,” said Woodall, adding that the uranium used for fuel must be mined, and “uranium mining is a mess.”

Georgia would be better off with more solar power farms like the one outside Columbus in Butler, Ga., and with wind energy, Woodall said.

“Solar’s here. It’s cheap. It’s a lot of jobs,” he said.

Another consideration is water: Whether powered by uranium or natural gas, the plant needs river water to heat to steam to power its turbines. During extended droughts, the Chattahoochee’s flow drops precipitously, and such low flows previously have affected the Farley plant.

Columbus Mayor Teresa Tomlinson questioned whether a nuclear plant should be located so close to an active military training post. “I just don’t know if those uses are compatible,” she said.

The construction of a power plant would provide jobs, but that might not outweigh the negatives, she said, and Columbus would have “to weigh the total impact.”

City leaders will monitor the project’s progress and air their concerns when they’ve a clearer grasp of what Georgia Power plans to do, she said: “Clearly we’re going to have some input in that.”

Watkins said that because of new technology, such plants require less water than before, and though they cost a lot to build, they are less expensive to operate and less dependent on fluctuations in fuel prices.

The company still believes nuclear power is a valuable part of its integrated resource plan, he said.

For now geologists and other technicians are examining the site for soil composition and water availability, Watkins said. Determining how the power would be routed into the transmission system is another consideration, he said.

The land most recently was used primarily for hunting, he said, and the company had to cancel hunting leases so its workers wouldn’t be where people are firing guns.

So far nothing has been decided, except the company’s decision to reserve the option of building there, he said:

“What we’re trying to do is preserve the right to build a plant there one day.”

This story was originally published March 22, 2016 at 4:18 PM with the headline "Georgia Power considering nuclear plant near Columbus."