A New Look at Nukes
Energy firms push to build reactors as natural gas prices soar
Deliberate speed. Yet it's tough to find executives willing to publicly commit to building a new reactor as soon as possible, even those who are part of the NuStart consortium. "What we have said is that we want to have the option to have one on line by 2015," says Lou Long, technical support chief for the nuclear subsidiary of Southern Co., which operates nuclear plants in Alabama and Georgia. "When you have to invest 3 or 4 billion dollars, you want to delay as long as possible." Even Entergy's Keuter, who describes his company as "leading the pack" in getting a new reactor built, says it will take until 2010 to get all the necessary federal approvals, and then "we'll see what market conditions are and what money the feds have appropriated." If things look like a go, it will still be another four or five years before a reactor is operating.
Wall Street is worried about protests. If a company moves to build a new reactor, investors fear that environmental groups will quickly launch an aggressive campaign against it. "With nuclear, the main opposition point is going to be the disposal of nuclear fuel," says Paul Fremont, an analyst at Jeffries & Co. "I would guess that politics on nuclear will get very ugly." At the center of the waste dispute is the federal government's controversial plan to transport spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste across the country and permanently store it at its repository in Yucca Mountain, Nev. Exelon's Rowe says the waste disposal issue, which is still before regulators and the courts, must pass what he calls the "cocktail test." "Unless I can tell a neighbor where the nuclear fuel is going to go," he says, "I am reluctant to build a new generation of nuclear plants."
Yet, ironically, environmental concerns may also help nuclear companies get new reactors approved. Nuclear plants produce no greenhouse gases, which many scientists believe are warming the lower atmosphere. "I definitely think of nuclear power as a hedge against concerns about global warming and possible carbon restrictions," says Keuter. "I don't have a crystal ball, but two things I know for sure are that oil and gas are only going to get more expensive and environmental regulations are only going to get stricter and stricter--and neither is very positive."
One possible regulatory outcome is a "carbon tax" on energy sources that emit carbon dioxide, like coal, oil, and natural gas. Indeed, some nuclear executives raise the possibility of a "grand compromise" between environmentalists and the nuclear industry where, in exchange for perhaps a carbon tax, the environmental groups would drop their opposition to nuclear power.
Some environmentalists say nuclear power may have a place in the nation's future energy mix. "Climate change has a chance of overwhelming a lot of other systems, and we have to be open to every low-carbon approach," says Steve Cochran, director of strategic communications at Environmental Defense. One test of the grand-compromise scenario came this summer when the U.S. Senate voted on a bill sponsored by Arizona Republican John McCain and Connecticut Democrat Joe Lieberman to curb carbon dioxide emissions. In 2003, the proposal was defeated by a 55-to-43 vote. This summer, the bill resurfaced with an amendment including subsidies for the nuclear power industry in an attempt to garner conservative support for limits on greenhouse gas emissions. But with the new pro-nuclear amendment, many green groups withdrew their support, as did several Democratic senators. The result: an even more lopsided 60-to-38 defeat. "This was a real practical test for the grand compromise, but it was a complete failure," Cochran says.
Still, any future nuclear protest might be undercut by a lack of public support. There's polling evidence that the average American is growing more accepting of nuclear power. A pre-Katrina poll last month by Rasmussen Reports found that 55 percent of those surveyed supported building new nuclear power plants vs. 24 percent against. If energy prices stay high, future chants of "no nukes" might someday be overwhelmed by shouts of "go nukes."
advertisement
