Take another look

Star-Telegram
If it's difficult to convince North Texas residents that nuclear power is worth a fresh look, that's understandable.
The original cost estimate for the region's only nuke plant -- TXU's twin-reactor Comanche Peak facility southwest of Fort Worth near Glen Rose -- was "just under $800 million," said company spokesman Chris Schein.
The final cost, however, was about $11 billion, or more than 13 times the initial estimate. That makes it one of the most expensive U.S. nuclear plants ever built.
Comanche Peak's stratospheric price tag was magnified by construction delays and federal regulatory changes imposed after the partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania in 1979.
That was followed by the far-worse Chernobyl plant disaster in the Soviet Union in 1986, which has been blamed for causing or contributing to thousands of radiation-related deaths and dramatically escalating fears about nuclear power.
Many U.S. nuclear projects were beset with cost overrruns and delays, or cancelled outright. By the time Comanche Peak's second reactor went on line in 1993, U.S. utilities no longer were contemplating building more nuke plants. Only the Watts Bar plant in Tennessee, which fired up a decade ago, is newer than Comanche Peak.
So why would anyone suggest that America take a fresh look at nuclear power? Here's why:
Oil and natural gas prices have hit all-time highs in recent years. Meanwhile, nuclear plants have achieved substantially higher operating efficiencies than in earlier decades, sharply reducing down time for maintenance and refueling and making them a more cost-competitive energy source.
With the world gulping 85 million barrels of oil per day, and demand expected to continue growing as a result of population growth and spiraling energy consumption by developing nations, there's a growing fear that Earth's higher-quality, lower-cost petroleum supplies are diminishing quickly. If so, that accelerates the need to develop other energy sources, including solar, wind, biofuels, hydrogen fuel cells ... and nuclear.
The threat of global warming has raised grave concerns about emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from coal-fired electric generating plants. Nuclear plants don't emit these gases, making them increasingly attractive from an environmental standpoint.
Although the Chernobyl disaster was horrendous, it occurred two decades ago. No such disasters have occurred since. Chernobyl was an exceptionally poorly designed, built and operated facility.
U.S. nuclear plants, including Comanche Peak, generally have had solid safety records. That's also true for plants in countries that rely heavily on nuclear power such as France and Japan.
The process of designing, licensing and constructing nuke plants in the United States has been streamlined in comparison to earlier decades. Reactor designs have improved and are more standardized, making nuclear power more reliable and affordable.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 includes strong financial incentives for constructing "next-generation" reactors, and especially for the first six built.
Texas has an exceptionally high reliance on natural gas-fired power plants.
Although natural gas fueled only 18.6 percent of electric power generation nationally in 2005, it was burned for 50.7 percent of Texas' power generation, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), the chief policy group for the nuclear power industry.
With natural gas prices shooting to record highs, electricity bills have soared. Texas consumers' vulnerability to high gas prices illustrates the need to diversify the state's power generation, thus making nuclear an increasingly attractive option.
Nuclear power quickly has become a much more alluring U.S. energy option and appears to be on the comeback trail.
Ten companies or consortiums are preparing 12 federal license applications for the construction of as many as 22 nuclear reactors in the United States, NEI spokesman Mitch Singer said. Twenty-seven nuclear units are under construction in other countries, including seven in India.
NRG Energy, a Princeton, N.J.-based company, wants to build two more reactors at the South Texas Project, the nuclear plant at Bay City that has two generating units. The new reactors would cost an estimated $2.6 billion per unit.
TXU officials haven't ruled out building more nuclear facilities, but they have concerns about the high capital cost and long lead time -- perhaps eight to 10 years -- for getting a plant up and running.
Instead, the company plans to build 11 coal-fired generating units. That has raised concerns about potential negative effects on air quality in North Texas, even though TXU claims that the new plants would be much cleaner than older units.
In terms of diversifying its power supply, Texas certainly has room for more nuclear energy. Although nuclear power accounted for 19.4 percent of electric generation nationwide in 2005, Texas' two nuke plants generated only about 6 percent of the state's electricity.
Nuclear power still has many critics, including Public Citizen, a liberal public interest group. On its Web site, Public Citizen lists "Nuclear's Fatal Flaws," a quintet of concerns about nuclear proliferation, radioactive waste, safe operation of power plants, security (including the threat of terrorist attacks on plants) and cost.
Public Citizen's exhortations are exaggerated. U.S. nuclear plants generally have a solid safety record, and reactors are well-fortified against terrorist threats.
The waste problem should be dealt with in part by establishing a remote, high-level waste disposal facility in Nevada. The proliferation threat can be managed through regulatory controls and diligent oversight, aided by international cooperation.
In terms of cost, nuclear plants are quickly becoming more attractive, and their lack of emissions will add to their appeal, particularly if added environmental controls are imposed on coal plants.
Some countries generate much larger percentages of their electricity from nuclear power than does the United States.
France leads at nearly 80 percent. But despite America's prolonged nuke rebuke since Three Mile Island, it has 103 of the world's 440 reactors and still is the world's No. 1 nuclear generator.
There are legitimate concerns about nuclear power. But other energy sources also have their drawbacks.
It's time for America to give nuclear power a second chance, with the focus on doing it much better this time around.
IN THE KNOW