Santee Cooper

In February, workers used a giant crane to lower a containment vessel ring into place at the V.C. Summer nuclear plant in Fairfield County, S.C.
SCANA

A decade ago, nuclear power’s future looked bright. It offered a carbon-free energy alternative amid worries about greenhouse gases and climate change. But a lot has happened since then, like the 2011 meltdown at Fukushima and skyrocketing nuclear construction costs. Last month, two South Carolina utilities scrapped a multi-billion dollar nuclear project. Now, the future of nuclear is even cloudier. 

In February, workers used a giant crane to lower a containment vessel ring into place at the V.C. Summer nuclear plant in Fairfield County, S.C.
SCANA

Updated at 3:47 p.m. 

Some South Carolina Lawmakers have called for a special session to deal with the abandonment of two nuclear reactors announced earlier this week. $9 billion has already been spent building the V.C. Summer plant about 30 miles north of Columbia.

In February, workers used a giant crane to lower a containment vessel ring into place at the V.C. Summer nuclear plant in Fairfield County, S.C.
SCANA

Updated 5:15 p.m.
Two South Carolina utilities said Monday they are halting construction on an expansion of a nuclear plant about 30 miles north of Columbia. Now the question is who pays for the $9 billion dollars already spent.

While North Carolina is ramping up to close coal ash ponds around the state, removal is already underway in South Carolina, and—at one site—ahead of schedule.

South Carolina electric utility Santee Cooper entered a settlement with environmental groups in 2013, to get its coal ash—which can contain arsenic and lead—out of storage ponds near public waters.

South Carolina Office of Regulatory Service

Construction on some of the first nuclear plants in decades has suffered delays but is recovering ground, regulators of the project say.  The two new reactors at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station in Jenkinsville, South Carolina will take more than six months longer than projected, at a potential cost of $200 million. The regulators blame a new building process for the delays, but do not rule out ratepayers covering the cost.