|
 |
|
|
|
Nuclear Power on the Rebound |
|
|
|
Written On: April 2006 |
|
|
|
Written By: by Paul Schlienz |
|
|
|
Twenty-five years ago, nuclear power's future looked grim. Today, however, as Washington faces new energy challenges, nuclear electrical generation is increasingly getting a second look.
Nuclear energy has a long history in Washington. In 1943, due in large part to the Northwest's tremendous hydroelectric capacity, the U.S. government selected Hanford as the site to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons in the top secret Manhattan Project. Both the July 1945 Trinity test and the August 1945 Nagasaki bomb were powered by Hanford plutonium.
Following World War II, Hanford's reactors continued producing plutonium as the Cold War threat increased. From the start, however, nuclear scientists realized that the incredible power of the atom could also be harnessed for much more than military applications.
In 1951, the EBR-I experimental fast breeder, in Idaho, first produced electric power from nuclear fission. Two years later, in 1953, nuclear energy was first used to power a U.S. Navy vessel. Then, in 1954, a Soviet nuclear power station became the first in the world to produce electricity for commercial use. Civilian nuclear power generation came to the United States three years later, in 1957, when Pennsylvania's Shippingport Reactor became operational.
With its abundant hydroelectric resources, the Northwest was, however, late in developing nuclear electrical generation capacity. Nevertheless, by the late 1960s and early 1970s, planners were projecting that the region’s demand for electricity would double every 10 years, outstripping even the capacity of the region’s great hydroelectric dams. As a result, nuclear energy began looking good to Northwest electrical utilities.
The region’s first nuclear generating station, Oregon's Trojan plant, began operating in 1976. Meanwhile, in Washington, a consortium of public utilities known as the Washington Public Power Supply System committed, in 1971, to an ambitious plan to build three power-generating reactors at Hanford and two at Satsop, in Grays Harbor County. The costs of these nuclear plants were to be covered by the sale of the power they were to produce.
Then everything fell apart.
After years of delays and cost overruns, design changes, problems with contractors, and generally poor management, WPPSS stopped construction on two of the plants in 1982. Construction on two other plants that were part of the project and backed by the Bonneville Power Administration, also ended.
As a result, WPPSS was forced to default on $2.25 billion in bonds. These costs fell on the shoulders of WPPSS’ member utilities and ultimately ratepayers. Even today, this debt is still being paid.
The WPPSS debacle occurred at the worst possible time for the nuclear industry. The bright prospect of clean, affordable nuclear power generation was being tarnished by incidents like the well-publicized Three Mile Island leak, in Pennsylvania; movies like The China Syndrome, which portrayed nuclear plants as unsafe and the nuclear industry as corrupt; and high-profile events, like 1979’s No Nukes concert, which brought an anti-nuclear power message to a mass audience. Indeed, protests at nuclear power plant construction sites from Diablo Canyon, Calif., to Seabrook, N.H., were common, and greatly contributed to the delays that inflated the costs of these projects.
Nuclear Power Survives and Thrives
Nevertheless, nuclear power did not die. Although no new U.S. nuclear generation station has been ordered without cancellation in the past 20 years, 103 commercial nuclear plants are currently operating in the United States. These plants provide 20 percent of the nation’s power — the largest amount of nuclear power generation in the world. Vermont, which gets 73.7 percent of its energy from nuclear power, is the most nuclear-dependent state.
Since 1992, when the Trojan plant was shut down due to a cracked steam tube, Hanford's Columbia Generating Station has been the Northwest's sole nuclear power plant.
Operating since 1984, the Columbia Generating Station is the only WPPPS plant that was completed. It is run by Energy Northwest, the successor to WPPSS. With uranium as its primary fuel source, the plant is a boiling water reactor that uses nuclear fission to produce heat.
For a single power plant, the Columbia Generating Station has major impact on the Northwest's power grid. Indeed, the plant supplies approximately 12 percent of BPA’s power supply, and around 5 percent of the power used in Washington.
Although its economy has had its ups and downs, the Northwest is a growing region with an ever increasing demand for electricity. During the 2000-2001 energy crisis, which saw the closure of most of the region's aluminum plants due to skyrocketing electric rates, enormous amounts of power became available to consumers due the smelters' closure. Nevertheless, the region's increasing demand for electricity remains so insatiable that this power surplus is rapidly being eaten away.
"We are very close to the point where our total supply and total demand aren't going to match up," said Energy Northwest's Brad Peck, who believes a power crunch may be on the way for the 2011-2012 timeframe.
Increasingly, expanding nuclear power generation capacity is being viewed as a realistic alternative for meeting the region’s new energy demands.
Nuclear power, indeed, has much to recommend it. Among its advantages:
• Uranium, the primary fuel of commercial power reactors, is very plentiful in the United States.
• Nuclear plants generate large amounts of power 24 hours per day, seven days a week, unlike some renewable sources, like wind or solar, which are dependent on weather conditions.
• Water that is captured in the reactor is never exposed to the fuel, and is exceedingly pure when it is discharged as steam and vapor.
• Unlike conventional coal burning plants and even the much cleaner gasified coal and natural gas plants, nuclear power does not create the carbon dioxide emissions many fear are contributing to global warming.
Even the environmental community is starting to reassess nuclear power.
"There is now a great deal of scientific evidence showing nuclear power to be an environmentally sound and safe choice," Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace and former nuclear power opponent, recently stated. "Given a choice between nuclear on the one hand and coal, oil and natural gas on the other, nuclear energy is by far the best option as it emits neither carbon dioxide nor any other air pollutants."
Washington's 2006 legislative session saw the introduction of the first bill in more than 20 years that called for an expansion of nuclear power generation. Sponsored by Rep. Larry Haler, R-Richland, HJM 4025 requested that Congress build a demonstration next generation nuclear power reactor at Hanford. Although the bill did not even make it to the House floor for a vote, it did not produce the massive outcry from environmental organizations that might have been expected even a few years ago.
Don't Waste — Recycle!
Although nuclear energy is attracting new interest, significant challenges remain that could slow its resurgence. Although the environmental community’s view of nuclear energy is evolving, nuclear power is still viewed with suspicion in many corners. Then there's the problem of what to do with spent, but still highly radioactive nuclear fuel.
While Congress authorized Yucca Mountain, Nev., as the national repository for nuclear waste, Nevada's Congressional delegation continues fighting tooth and nail to prevent any shipments of waste from reaching the site. In the meantime, utilities have been developing interim storage facilities as on-site cooling ponds fill up with spent fuel rods.
There is, however, another method for dealing with spent nuclear fuel: Recycle it.
In France, where 78 percent of all billed electrical energy is generated by 58 nuclear reactors — the highest percentage in the world — reprocessing spent nuclear fuel has long been standard operating procedure. Indeed, 95 percent of nuclear waste from power generating stations is recyclable either as fuel or as medical isotopes.
The reprocessing system, which was developed at Hanford, and is used in many other countries in addition to France, has the great benefit of producing far lower quantities of waste that must ultimately be stored in repositories.
"For us to bury our heads in the sand and say we don't know what to do with the nuclear waste is a false assumption and statement," Haler said. "Reprocessing is done worldwide. We’re the only country that doesn't do it."
Why the United States, which developed nuclear processing in the first place, doesn't use it, goes back to 1977, when President Jimmy Carter unilaterally banned its use via an executive order.
Plutonium can be extracted as a result of nuclear fuel reprocessing, although the refinement necessary to produce this essential component of many nuclear weapons is well beyond what is done for fuel. Carter saw that the process could be misused in the service of nuclear weapons proliferation and intended his executive order to display the United States as an example to other countries. Nevertheless, reprocessing has continued in other countries without regard to this executive order.
Recently, the Bush administration has begun to reconsider the wisdom of continuing the America’s self-imposed reprocessing ban.
"The genie is out of the bottle," Haler added. "Countries like India, Pakistan, North Korea and Iran are going nuclear anyway."
As nuclear power enters the 21st century, much has changed since the days when WPPSS' failure left nuclear energy with a tattered reputation in the Northwest.
Numerous custom designs added to the costs of building nuclear plants in the 1970s and to complications in maintaining them later on. Nevertheless, any new U.S. plants that are built in the future will have standardized "cookie cutter" designs as are used in France and other countries with extensive nuclear power generation.
Energy Northwest's approach to funding power-generation projects is also completely different from the methods that defaulted WPPSS in the 1980s.
"Energy Northwest doesn't build anything on speculation," Peck said. "All of the power from any future plants must be pre-sold. Ratepayers won't get soaked again like they did with WPPSS."
With the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the federal government is now providing incentives for building new reactors, including loan guarantees, production tax credits, and investment protection for delays beyond the builder's control. The bill also bolsters nuclear energy research and development. Already, a site in North Carolina is being eyed as the location for the first new American nuclear power plant since the 1980s.
"Personally, I believe there will be more nuclear plants," concluded Peck. "I don't see it happening in the near term. There will be at least a first round of plants built elsewhere in our country. In time; however, I think we will see an additional nuclear plant or more in Washington."
|
|
|
|
