opinion: rejecting nuclear power would be 'sheer...

Opinion: Rejecting nuclear power would be 'sheer folly' - CNN.com

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/03/31/nuclear.power.grimston.opinion/index.html[4/5/2010 6:23:49 PM]

Malcolm Grimston is an associate fellow atChatham House, a UK-based NGOanalyzing international affairs and issues.Here he give the case for nuclear energy.

London, England (CNN) -- We needthree things from global energy andelectricity supplies. They should be aseconomic as possible, as reliable as possible-- power cuts are very expensive -- and doas little damage to the environment aspossible.

The challenge for energy policy, of course, isthat often these three requirements pull us in different directions.The 1990s (especially in the UK) was extremely unusual in that asingle policy -- the "dash for gas" -- was delivering on the economic,security and environmental fronts. Gas was cheap and plentiful anda lot of new generating capacity was built.

Now, however, the world is in trouble on all three fronts. Oil ishovering at around $80 a barrel dragging gas, coal and electricityprices up with it.

Security of supply is threatened in two ways. The main gas (and oil)reserves are in the Middle East and countries of the former SovietUnion -- not necessarily the most reliable suppliers for the longterm. Many countries are also becoming alarmingly short ofelectricity generating capacity.

Meanwhile, despite growing fears of climate change the world isusing a lot more energy and getting more of it from the mainsources of greenhouse gas emissions -- oil, gas and coal -- than itdid at the time of the supposedly groundbreaking Rio Conference in1992.

Janet Jackson opens upabout Michael's death

Activists go topless toprove their point

U.S. seeks $16.4 millionfine against Toyota

Woods 'much betterperson' after rehab

Obama kicks off Nationals'season

NewsPulseMost popular stories right now

Explore the news with NewsPulse »

Opinion: Rejecting nuclear powerwould be 'sheer folly'By Malcolm Grimston, for CNNApril 1, 2010 3:31 a.m. EDT

Home Video U.S. World Politics Justice Entertainment Tech Health Living Travel Opinion iReport

EDITION: U.S. INTERNATIONAL Sign up Log in

NewsPulse Money Sports

Future energy source: Malcolm Grimston makes thecase for nuclear power.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Problems with nuclear powerare "minor compared to energyshortages and climate change"

Nuclear power can providereliable baseload energy thatrenewables currently cannot

More renewable energy neededbut only if it is "technicallyfeasible"

Dozens of miners are believed trapped after an explosion in amine in Raleigh County, W.Va., CNN affiliate WCHS reports.

Part of complete coverage on

Earth's Frontiers

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/02/janet.jackson.oprah/index.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/02/janet.jackson.oprah/index.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/04/05/topless.womens.march.wcshhttp://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/04/05/topless.womens.march.wcshhttp://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/04/05/topless.womens.march.wcshhttp://money.cnn.com/2010/04/05/autos/toyota_nhtsa_fine/http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/05/autos/toyota_nhtsa_fine/http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/04/05/tiger.woods.masters.presser.cnnhttp://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/04/05/tiger.woods.masters.presser.cnnhttp://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/04/05/tiger.woods.masters.presser.cnnhttp://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/sports/2010/04/05/obama.throws.first.pitch.cnnhttp://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/sports/2010/04/05/obama.throws.first.pitch.cnnhttp://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/sports/2010/04/05/obama.throws.first.pitch.cnnhttp://newspulse.cnn.com/http://newspulse.cnn.com/http://newspulse.cnn.com/http://www.cnn.com/http://www.cnn.com/http://www.cnn.com/video/http://www.cnn.com/video/http://www.cnn.com/US/http://www.cnn.com/US/http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/http://www.cnn.com/JUSTICE/http://www.cnn.com/JUSTICE/http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/http://www.cnn.com/TECH/http://www.cnn.com/TECH/http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/http://www.cnn.com/LIVING/http://www.cnn.com/LIVING/http://www.cnn.com/TRAVEL/http://www.cnn.com/TRAVEL/http://www.cnn.com/OPINION/http://www.cnn.com/OPINION/http://www.ireport.com/http://www.ireport.com/http://www.cnn.com/TECH/http://www.cnn.com/http://edition.cnn.com/?cnn_shwEDDH=1javascript: void(0)javascript: void(0);http://newspulse.cnn.com/http://newspulse.cnn.com/http://newspulse.cnn.com/http://money.cnn.com/http://money.cnn.com/http://money.cnn.com/http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/?xid=cnnnavhttp://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/?xid=cnnnavhttp://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/?xid=cnnnavhttp://www.cnn.com/CNNI/Programs/earths.frontiers/javascript:cnn_stryichgP();javascript:cnn_stryichgS(1);javascript:cnn_stryichgS(2);javascript:cnn_stryichgN();javascript:cnn_clsbnbnnr(1270505630);http://www.cnn.com/CNNI/Programs/earths.frontiers/http://www.mixx.com/submit/story?page_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2010%2FTECH%2F03%2F31%2Fnuclear.power.grimston.opinion%2Findex.html&title=Opinion%3A%20Rejecting%20nuclear%20power%20would%20be%20'sheer%20folly'&description=We%20need%20three%20things%20from%20global%20energy%20and%20electricity%20supplies.%20They%20should%20be%20as%20economic%20as%20possible%2C%20as%20reliable%20as%20possible%20--%20power%20cuts%20are%20very%20expensive%20--%20and%20do%20as%20little%20damage%20to%20the%20environment%20as%20possible.&partner=CNNhttp://www.mixx.com/submit/story?page_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2010%2FTECH%2F03%2F31%2Fnuclear.power.grimston.opinion%2Findex.html&title=Opinion%3A%20Rejecting%20nuclear%20power%20would%20be%20'sheer%20folly'&description=We%20need%20three%20things%20from%20global%20energy%20and%20electricity%20supplies.%20They%20should%20be%20as%20economic%20as%20possible%2C%20as%20reliable%20as%20possible%20--%20power%20cuts%20are%20very%20expensive%20--%20and%20do%20as%20little%20damage%20to%20the%20environment%20as%20possible.&partner=CNNhttp://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2010%2FTECH%2F03%2F31%2Fnuclear.power.grimston.opinion%2Findex.htmlhttp://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2010%2FTECH%2F03%2F31%2Fnuclear.power.grimston.opinion%2Findex.htmlhttp://cnntweet.appspot.com/articles/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2010%2FTECH%2F03%2F31%2Fnuclear.power.grimston.opinion%2Findex.html/Opinion%3A%20Rejecting%20nuclear%20power%20would%20be%20'sheer%20folly'/tweet/http://cnntweet.appspot.com/articles/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2010%2FTECH%2F03%2F31%2Fnuclear.power.grimston.opinion%2Findex.html/Opinion%3A%20Rejecting%20nuclear%20power%20would%20be%20'sheer%20folly'/tweet/javascript:cnnShowOverlay('cnnShareThisStory123');javascript:cnnShowOverlay('cnnShareThisStory123');javascript:cnn_stryInitSaveS();javascript:cnn_stryInitSaveS();



As countries like China and India develop their economies worldenergy use is expected to double by 2050. Yet we have to cutreleases of "greenhouse gases" like carbon dioxide by perhaps four-fifths over the same period if we are to stand a chance of managingthe consequences.

It's impossible to believe there is a single simple solutionto all of this. We need to use energy as efficiently aspossible. We need to look for ways of capturing thecarbon dioxide from coal and gas-fired power stations.We also need to use more renewables where they aretechnically feasible.

So why nuclear?

Its economics are probably favorable against any realisticassumption about fossil fuel prices in the future.

It does depend on the industry being able to deliver newstations to time and cost -- the experience in Finland andFrance, where the world's first nuclear reactors of thedesign known as the EPR are being built, is typical of the

first-of-a-kind of any major technology, running seriously late and atmuch higher cost than first claimed, but that does not imply thatfuture plants will follow the same pattern, assuming a sensibleregulatory regime can be established.

But that of course is a matter for the commercial companies that willconsider building them.

The fuel, uranium, is widespread -- countries like Canada andAustralia are major producers. Unlike renewables, it does notdepend on the wind blowing at the right speed, or the tide being inor the sun being out.

Indeed, for "baseload" -- the reliable electricity that we need fortransportation, pumping water, keeping us warm (or cool) and so on-- nuclear energy does not compete with renewables but with coaland gas.

And nuclear energy doesn't add to serious releases of carbondioxide.

What do you think? Is nuclear power a good option? Send yourcomments using the "Sound off" box at the bottom of the page.

Is it perfect? No. Are its problems (notably radioactive waste) minorcompared to energy shortages and climate change? In my view,resoundingly yes.

Nuclear energy should either be included in mechanisms forsupporting low-carbon energy, such as the European renewablestargets, or such measures should be abolished.

Only then would decisions on how most efficiently we can cutcarbon emissions be taken on rational grounds rather than indeference to the hobby-horses of pressure groups.

Latest polls suggest that only 26 percent of people in the UK areconvinced that climate change is real and caused by human activity.

Yet some self-styled environmentalists would rather divert theircampaigning efforts to attack nuclear energy, which in reality has

Apple iPad (16GB)Check prices

Apple iPad (64GB)Check prices

Apple iPad (16GB, 3G)Check prices

Most recent reviews

CNET.com ratings » | Read more CNET reviews »

'New'renewablesmake very littlecontribution.Nuclear (andhydro) areproven low-carbon energysources.--Malcolm Grimston

RELATED TOPICS

Nuclear EnergyNuclear Engineering

http://cnn-cnet.com.com/tablets/apple-ipad-16gb/4505-3126_7-33958447.html?part=cnn-cnethttp://cnn-cnet.com.com/tablets/apple-ipad-16gb/4014-3126_9-33958447.html?part=cnn-cnethttp://cnn-cnet.com.com/tablets/apple-ipad-64gb/4505-3126_7-33958448.html?part=cnn-cnethttp://cnn-cnet.com.com/tablets/apple-ipad-64gb/4014-3126_9-33958448.html?part=cnn-cnethttp://cnn-cnet.com.com/tablets/apple-ipad-16gb-3g/4505-3126_7-33960934.html?part=cnn-cnethttp://cnn-cnet.com.com/tablets/apple-ipad-16gb-3g/4014-3126_9-33960934.html?part=cnn-cnethttp://www.cnet.com/1991-13403_1-6722494-4.htmlhttp://cnn-cnet.com.com/http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Nuclear_Energyhttp://topics.cnn.com/topics/Nuclear_Engineeringhttp://clk.atdmt.com/goiframe/112146292/193903414/direct;wi.180;hi.150/01



We recommendOpinion: Nuclear is 'a spanner in the works'Bill Gates and the 'nuclear Renaissance'Opinion: Rejecting nuclear power would be'sheer folly'

More TechWhy games will take over our livesSpace shuttle Discovery launchesFirst iPad buyers excited, curious

Log in or sign up to

comment

been very environmentally benign over the last 55 years when the"what-ifs" are ignored, than to establishing a public basis for actionagainst what is in reality the greatest environmental threat we haveever faced or are likely to face. It is a warped sense of priorities ofthe most irresponsible kind.

At present we get about seven eighths of the world's traded energyfrom oil, coal and gas. The rest is almost evenly divided betweennuclear and hydro. "New" renewables make very little contribution.

According to some commentators, mankind perversely chose to useall the bad sources of energy first, and kept the nice easy ones tilllast. It might be true but it almost certainly isn't. Nuclear (and hydro)are proven non-fossil low-carbon energy sources. To turn our backson them now is sheer folly.

Coming soon: The case against nuclear energy. In themeantime let us know your thoughts in the "Sound off" box,below.

FOLLOW THIS TOPIC

soundoff (55 Comments)Show: Newest | Oldest | Most liked

owenknottI think there is no easy answer to this energy problem because everyone has their opinion on what would bethe best energy alternative. well, to the ones who have posted to this comment about alternative energy, whatwould you suggest?........we have coal ( which will run out one day ) wind power? y ...more

1 day ago | Like (1) | Report abuse

Kevin100363I wish people did their homework themselves to find out the facts before having unfounded opinions.Speaking as a person with a degree in Nuclear Engineering. a Senior Reactor Operator license on multiplenuclear plants and nearly 30 years of experience, here's the facts:Three Mile Island - 31 years ...more

3 days ago | Like (11) | Report abuse

BillmosbyLooks like ThinkWinWin is determined to keep asking a question that I showed him has beenalready answered by the Integral Fast Reactor project. Waste need not have a hazard lifetime ofmore than 300 years if such a system is used. And that's not just theory, all the characteristics ofboth the reac ...more

2 days ago | Like | Report abuse

Sponsored links

EnergyWe manufacture wind turbines withour own technologywww.acciona.es/energy

Install Solar PanelsEnter Your Zip Code & Connect ToPre-Screened Solar Panel Installerswww.ServiceMagic.com

Power MonitorsPwr Monitors for all applicationsEnergy Management softwarewww.Measurlogic.com

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/01/nuclear.power.greenpeace.opinion/index.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/17/bill.gates.nuclear/index.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/TECH/http://www.cnn.com/TECH/http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/05/games.schell/index.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/space/04/05/shuttle.discovery.launch/index.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/ptech/04/03/apple.ipad.sale/index.htmljavascript:cnn_stryInitftopic();javascript:cnn_stryInitftopic();http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=l&ai=BZU1A0GK6S87-M9ad6Qbt-bGfCbmjx6EBtY6E4wnAjbcBsKdBEAEYASD8hM4JKAM4AFC_gsTpBWDJ_reKpKScEbIBC3d3dy5jbm4uY29tyAEB2gFCaHR0cDovL3d3dy5jbm4uY29tLzIwMTAvVEVDSC8wMy8zMS9udWNsZWFyLnBvd2VyLmdyaW1zdG9uLm9waW5pb24vgAIBqQJolpHkfKS2PsgC0birEKgDAegDkQXoA1LoA5IF6AOTBfUDAAQABPUDAAAAEA&num=1&sig=AGiWqtxUnA2deClWn1kT-NUWY57QQe4llQ&client=ca-cnn-articleonly_js&adurl=http://www.acciona.es/business-divisions/energyhttp://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=l&ai=Bpfmf0GK6S87-M9ad6Qbt-bGfCfONirYBr8fJkQzAjbcBkKJiEAIYAiD8hM4JKAM4AFCFkenR-f____8BYMn-t4qkpJwRoAH3sYzuA7IBC3d3dy5jbm4uY29tyAEB2gFCaHR0cDovL3d3dy5jbm4uY29tLzIwMTAvVEVDSC8wMy8zMS9udWNsZWFyLnBvd2VyLmdyaW1zdG9uLm9waW5pb24vyAL5lZILqAMB6AORBegDUugDkgXoA5MF9QMABAAE9QMAAAAQ&num=2&sig=AGiWqtwo5cp7eAM-y2LpwjqRsP0FJdFo3g&client=ca-cnn-articleonly_js&adurl=http://www.servicemagic.com/ext/4651591http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/aclk?sa=l&ai=BBzku0GK6S87-M9ad6Qbt-bGfCaKC2QeI76LEAsCNtwHw75EBEAMYAyD8hM4JKAM4AFCKwOC1-_____8BYMn-t4qkpJwRsgELd3d3LmNubi5jb23IAQHaAUJodHRwOi8vd3d3LmNubi5jb20vMjAxMC9URUNILzAzLzMxL251Y2xlYXIucG93ZXIuZ3JpbXN0b24ub3Bpbmlvbi-AAgGoAwHoA5EF6ANS6AOSBegDkwX1AwAEAAT1AwAAABA&num=3&sig=AGiWqtxkEu554EgrJsc-aoPulNBmPx1Elg&client=ca-cnn-articleonly_js&adurl=http://www.measurlogic.com/Instrumentation/powermonitors.htmlhttp://www.mixx.com/submit/story?page_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2010%2FTECH%2F03%2F31%2Fnuclear.power.grimston.opinion%2Findex.html&title=Opinion%3A%20Rejecting%20nuclear%20power%20would%20be%20'sheer%20folly'&description=We%20need%20three%20things%20from%20global%20energy%20and%20electricity%20supplies.%20They%20should%20be%20as%20economic%20as%20possible%2C%20as%20reliable%20as%20possible%20--%20power%20cuts%20are%20very%20expensive%20--%20and%20do%20as%20little%20damage%20to%20the%20environment%20as%20possible.&partner=CNNhttp://www.mixx.com/submit/story?page_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2010%2FTECH%2F03%2F31%2Fnuclear.power.grimston.opinion%2Findex.html&title=Opinion%3A%20Rejecting%20nuclear%20power%20would%20be%20'sheer%20folly'&description=We%20need%20three%20things%20from%20global%20energy%20and%20electricity%20supplies.%20They%20should%20be%20as%20economic%20as%20possible%2C%20as%20reliable%20as%20possible%20--%20power%20cuts%20are%20very%20expensive%20--%20and%20do%20as%20little%20damage%20to%20the%20environment%20as%20possible.&partner=CNNhttp://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2010%2FTECH%2F03%2F31%2Fnuclear.power.grimston.opinion%2Findex.htmlhttp://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2010%2FTECH%2F03%2F31%2Fnuclear.power.grimston.opinion%2Findex.htmlhttp://cnntweet.appspot.com/articles/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2010%2FTECH%2F03%2F31%2Fnuclear.power.grimston.opinion%2Findex.html/Opinion%3A%20Rejecting%20nuclear%20power%20would%20be%20'sheer%20folly'/tweet/http://cnntweet.appspot.com/articles/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2010%2FTECH%2F03%2F31%2Fnuclear.power.grimston.opinion%2Findex.html/Opinion%3A%20Rejecting%20nuclear%20power%20would%20be%20'sheer%20folly'/tweet/javascript:cnnShowOverlay('cnnShareThisStory456');javascript:cnnShowOverlay('cnnShareThisStory456');javascript:cnn_stryInitSaveS();javascript:cnn_stryInitSaveS();

Current Events

Nuclear Power Primed for Comeback

Washington Post Go Back Print

Nuclear Power Primed for Comeback Demand, Subsidies Spur U.S. Utilities

By Steven Mufson Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, October 8, 2007; A01

CHEROKEE COUNTY, S.C. -- Two decades ago, after Duke Energy abandoned its partly built nuclear power reactors here, the site was sold and turned into a movie set. Director James Cameron used it to film "The Abyss," a 1989 movie about civilian divers who encounter aliens while trying to rescue a stricken nuclear submarine. Cameron filled the unused nuclear containment building with water and hauled a section of an oil rig, a tiny submarine and fiberglass rocks inside to make convincing underwater scenes.

Now there's a new twist in the plot: The nuclear power industry is trying to come back from its own abyss. With natural gas prices volatile and people anxious about climate change, the nuclear power industry is touting its technology as a way to meet the nation's growing energy needs without emitting more greenhouse gases. Over the next two years, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects applications to build as many as 32 new nuclear reactors.

Duke Energy could be among them. It reacquired the Cherokee County site and has been tearing down old buildings so it can ask the NRC to let it start all over again. On a hot mid-September afternoon, a giant wrecking hammer was prying huge chunks of concrete from the walls of the old containment facility. They dangled from steel reinforcing rods like stones tottering from the ruins of an ancient coliseum. Inside, the props for "The Abyss" lay covered with dust.

Other utilities and independent power companies are also laying the groundwork for a new wave of U.S. nuclear plants. On Sept. 24, NRG Energy filed the first full application for a new nuclear unit since the partial meltdown of Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island plant in 1979. Then the Tennessee Valley Authority approved plans to build two new reactors in northern Alabama, where it abandoned two mostly finished units in 1988 when electricity demand failed to meet forecasts. Earlier, Constellation Energy Group filed a partial license application to add a nuclear unit to its existing site in Calvert Cliffs, Md.

NRG Energy chief executive David W. Crane proclaimed "a new day for energy in America."

But there is still a lot of worry about the economics of nuclear power. Nuclear plants

Page 1 of 5Article

10/15/2007http://www.izzit.org/events/print_source.php?ID=473

are hugely expensive to build; they have long lead times and a history of cost overruns. Bottlenecks loom for key components if more than a few plants are built. The price of uranium has soared in recent years. So has the cost of construction materials and skilled labor, which is in short supply. Politicians, environmentalists and business still can't decide how to dispose of radioactive waste.

"If I were an investor, I'd be squeamish," said Jim Harding, a consultant and former director of power-supply planning at Seattle City Light.

To ease financial concerns, the nuclear power industry has turned to Congress. Among the biggest reasons for renewed interest in nuclear power are the tax breaks, loan guarantees and other subsidies in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

Those benefits were "the whole reason we started down this path," Crane said after filing NRG Energy's license application. "If it were not for the nuclear provisions in there, we would not have even started developing this plan two years ago."

For each nuclear plant seeking federal approval before the end of 2008, the act provides tax credits of up to $125 million for eight years, loan guarantees for up to 80 percent of a plant's cost, shared application costs and insurance that would cover the costs of regulatory delay.

Nuclear plants also receive other subsidies, including local tax breaks and limits on liability for catastrophic accidents.

Many utility executives, however, say they need more.

Designed for a variety of "innovative new energy technologies," the loan guarantee program was initially limited to $2 billion, less than the cost of a single reactor. The nuclear industry has been lobbying Congress to expand it to $50 billion or more. A Senate appropriations bill would remove the ceiling altogether.

The guarantees and subsidies may be too small for would-be nuclear plant builders, but they're too big for many budget experts.

"I don't take the position that there should be no nuclear power, but I believe that the price of the energy they produce should be reflective of their actual cost structure and they should not be shifting their risk of cost overruns and poor performance to us, the taxpayers," said Doug Koplow, a Cambridge, Mass., researcher whose Earth Track consultancy monitors government energy subsidies.

Many environmental groups, torn between concern about climate and long-standing antipathy toward nuclear power, are seizing on the cost issue. "We're not an anti-nuclear group," says Jeremy Symons, executive director of the global warming program at the National Wildlife Federation. "But it doesn't make sense for the government to be investing in nuclear when the money could be put into renewables and energy efficiency."

A study by a Keystone Center group -- which included academics, investment bankers

Page 2 of 5Article


and nuclear industry experts -- said that when capital costs are included, the price of nuclear power is 8 to 11 cents a kilowatt hour, about the same as natural gas. If Congress adopts a carbon tax or pricing scheme to curb greenhouse gases, it could give nuclear an edge.

Even with government incentives, many utility executives are cautious about building new nuclear plants. James K. Asselstine, a former managing director and utility analyst at Lehman Brothers and a former member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said that while companies must apply for licenses by the end of 2008 to qualify for federal subsidies, they can decide later whether to proceed after learning more about climate-related legislation, construction costs, competing technologies and electricity demand. "There are a lot of moving pieces," he said.

James E. Rogers, chief executive of Duke Energy, said a new nuclear power plant would cost as much as a quarter of his company's value on the stock market. In his first top executive stint, at PSI Energy, he spent much of his time cleaning up the financial fallout from an abandoned nuclear project that cost that company $2.7 billion. That's why he says that in this wave of new plants, Duke Energy won't be "the first person on the beach."

"Having started my career fixing a company that was almost knocked out of the game because of its investment in nuclear and the change in public opinion . . . I'm very optimistic about the role nuclear can play in the future, but I'm cautiously optimistic," Rogers said.

For President Bush, getting new nuclear plants built has been a priority since his first months in office. "America should also expand a clean and unlimited source of energy: nuclear power," Bush said in May 2001. In a Gallup poll in March 2007, 53 percent of Americans surveyed favored the use of nuclear energy, little changed from the 57 percent who favored it when Gallup first asked the question in 1994.

There are 104 nuclear plants operating in 31 states now, and they provide about 20 percent of the nation's electricity. France, in contrast, relies on nuclear energy for 80 percent of its electricity. But no new U.S. plant has been completed since 1996. (The Tennessee Valley Authority this year reopened one it had closed in 1985.)

With plant construction frozen, U.S. nuclear facilities have boosted output by becoming more efficient. Utilization rates that once lagged around 70 percent now routinely exceed 90 percent. But proponents of nuclear power say that with electricity use rising, the country needs to build 30 or so more plants by 2025 for nuclear to provide the same share of the country's power.

Scientists studying climate change have tossed around even more ambitious figures. To solve one-seventh of the global greenhouse gas problem, Princeton University professors Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala estimate that the world would need to triple current nuclear capacity. The U.S. share of that expansion (including replacement of aging plants) would require building about five nuclear reactors a year for 50 years.

Page 3 of 5Article


The loan guarantees have become a major battlefront. As the industry points out that current limits on the program make the guarantees meaningless, and higher amounts alarm budget officials, the Office of Management and Budget needs to calculate the risk of default to account for the cost of the guarantees. Based on past performance of nuclear plants, that cost might be awfully steep.

"From a myopic American point of view, it is not a good record," said Crane, NRG Energy's chief executive. "But the record is 20 or 30 years old. I don't know a business today that wants to be judged on what it was doing in the '70s." Even if every plant could get loan guarantees for 80 percent of its cost, Crane said, projects would each require more than $1 billion in equity. "That's a lot of money at risk," he said.

Industry executives say new technology makes better performance more likely. For example, to reduce the chance of an uncontrolled accident, Westinghouse's new nuclear plants use a passive design, rather than electronic or manual devices, for pumps that release cooling water in an emergency.

Nuclear reactor builders also say that they could cut costs and reduce licensing delays by using standard designs rather than tailoring plants to each customer. Four Westinghouse reactors are being built in China, which U.S. firms hope will resolve design difficulties. Plants built recently in Japan have been cheaper than those built in the United States 20 or 30 years ago.

Finland's experience, however, suggests that it remains difficult to build a nuclear plant on budget. The plant, the first of a kind designed by the French company Areva, is running two years behind schedule and $2.1 billion over budget. One problem is that concrete provided by an Indian firm included too much water, raising safety concerns among Finnish regulators. Constellation Energy is considering using this design.

"While it is a disappointment because it is over the original schedule, by the standards of U.S. plant construction in the 1980s, it is a world record," said Thomas A. Christopher, chief executive of Areva's U.S. subsidiary.

Another issue is bottlenecks. At least nine nuclear power plant components such as giant pressure vessels and steam generators can be made in only one place, a Japan Steel Works facility, according to nuclear consultants. Some parts have a six-year lead time, the Keystone Center report said.

Uncertainties about energy demand are another factor. The drop in U.S. license applications began before the Three Mile Island accident, to 1973, when energy demand fell. If new building codes, new light bulbs and more efficient appliances offset increasing population, economic output and bigger homes, power companies could be in the same position Duke Energy was when it wrote off more than $600 million that it spent on structures in Cherokee County.

The site here is a monument to that miscalculation. Near the containment building, a rusty old reactor head -- as big as the head of the Statue of Liberty -- lay in the dirt. Wrecking crews had started cutting it into 2-by-3-foot blocks, each weighing more than 1,500 pounds.

Page 4 of 5Article


Rogers, the Duke Energy chief executive, said that when he toured the abandoned site, he got an "eerie feeling" that reminded him of the end of the film "Planet of the Apes." The lesson, he said, is: "If I build a nuclear plant, I want to walk hand in hand with regulators and consumers. I don't make big enough returns to take this risk on my own."

Page 5 of 5Article


• home | my page | my e

. Searc

news home | top | world | intl | natl | op | pol | govt | business | tech | sci | entertain | sports | health | odd | sources | local AP • New York Times • CBS • USA TODAY • FOX News • Photos

Tenn. Nuclear Fuel Problems Kept Secret Email this Story

Aug 20, 4:37 PM (ET)

By DUNCAN MANSFIELD

(AP) Map locates Erwin, Tenn., site of nuclear pollution since 2005; 1c x 2 1/2 inches; 46.5 mm x 63.5... Full Image

Google sponsored links

Nuclear Power Plant - Nuclear Power Plant Wall Maps published by Nuclear News www.ans.org Invest in Uranium - Learn How This $13 Stock Could Soar to $57! www.taipanfinancialnews.com

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - A three-year veil of secrecy in the name of national security was used to keep the public in the dark about the handling of highly enriched uranium at a nuclear fuel processing plant - including a leak that could have caused a deadly, uncontrolled nuclear reaction.

The leak turned out to be one of nine violations or test failures since 2005 at privately owned Nuclear Fuel Services Inc., a longtime supplier of fuel to the U.S. Navy's nuclear fleet.

The public was never told about the problems when they happened. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission revealed them for the first time last month when it released an order demanding improvements at the company, but no fine.

In 2004, the government became so concerned about releasing nuclear secrets that the commission removed more than 1,740 documents from its public archive - even some that apparently involved basic safety violations at the company, which operates a 65-acre gated complex in tiny Erwin, about 120 miles north of Knoxville.

Congressmen and environmental groups have criticized the policy, and now the commission staff is drafting recommendations that may ease its restrictions.

But environmental activists are still suspicious of the belated revelations and may challenge the commission's decision not to fine Nuclear Fuel Services for the safety violations.

"That party is not over - the full story of what is going on up there," said Ann Harris, a member of the Sierra Club's national nuclear task force.

Nuclear Fuel Services has been supplying fuel to the Navy since the 1960s. More recently, it has also been converting the government's stockpile of weapons-grade uranium into commercial reactor fuel.

While reviewing the commission's public Web page in 2004, the Department of Energy's Office of Naval Reactors found what it considered protected information about Nuclear Fuel Service's work for the Navy.

The commission responded by sealing every document related to Nuclear Fuel Services and BWX Technologies in Lynchburg, Va., the only two companies licensed by the agency to manufacture, possess and store highly enriched uranium.

BWX Technologies has not experienced any problems as serious as the uranium spill at Nuclear Fuel Services, commission spokesman David McIntyre said. But its operations were included in the order to seal documents because it produces nuclear fuel for the Navy, too.

Under the policy, all the documents were stamped "Official Use Only," including papers about the policy itself and more than 1,740 documents from the commission's public archive.

The Associated Press first reported the policy in May after the commission briefly mentioned in its annual report to Congress a March 6, 2006, uranium leak at Nuclear Fuel Services. The leak was

page took 0.32 seconds

Page 1 of 4My Way News - Tenn. Nuclear Fuel Problems Kept Secret

8/22/2007http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070820/D8R4VNS01.html

one of three "abnormal occurrences" of license holders cited during the year.

Agency commissioners, apparently struck by the significance of the event, took a special vote to skirt the "Official Use Only" rule so that Nuclear Fuel Services would be identified in the report as the site of the uranium leak.

Some 35 liters, or just over 9 gallons, of highly enriched uranium solution leaked from a transfer line into a protected glovebox and spilled onto the floor. The leak was discovered when a supervisor saw a yellow liquid "running into a hallway" from under a door, according to one document.

The commission said there were two areas, the glovebox and an old elevator shaft, where the solution potentially could have collected in such a way to cause an uncontrolled nuclear reaction.

"It is likely that at least one worker would have received an exposure high enough to cause acute health effects or death," the agency wrote.

"We don't want any security information out there that's going to help a terrorist," agency Commissioner Edward McGaffigan Jr. said in a newly released transcript from a closed commission meeting May 30. But "that's entirely separate" from dealing with an event that could have killed a worker at the plant.

"The pendulum maybe swung too far," agreed Luis Reyes, the commission's executive director for operations. "We want to make sure we don't go the other way, but we need to come back to some reasonable middle point."

Agency spokesman David McIntyre said it may be difficult to separate Nuclear Fuel Service's secret work for the Navy from its public work converting bomb-grade uranium to commercial reactor fuel. The leak happened on the commercial reactor side.

In a stinging letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission chairman in July, two Democratic congressman from Michigan also blasted the policy.

"We agree that NRC should withhold from public view any sensitive security information of this nature. However, NRC went far beyond this narrow objective," read the letter from John Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Bart Stupak, chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.

McIntyre defended the commission's decision not to fine Nuclear Fuel Services, even though the agency rated the uranium leak last year as its second most-serious violation.

Instead, the agency ordered Nuclear Fuel Services to conduct a full review of its "safety culture" and make changes using outside experts.

"If we can get long-term permanent changes and improvements in their process it is better than slapping them with a fine every time something goes wrong," McIntyre said.

Nuclear Fuel Services Executive Vice President Timothy Lindstrom, a Navy veteran who joined the company in September, said the company had already made "significant progress."

"I think it is important that the public recognize that we do have a very robust safety program at NFS. We live in this community and take our stewardship very seriously," he said.

"I think if we were to have an event like this again, we would push to make it public," he added. "Clearly it would have been better to have this discussion 18 months ago than it is to have it now."

Meanwhile, NFS told its 700 employees this past week it will be "exploring the possibility of a sale" over the next 12 months - not because of the commission's disclosure, but because of the company's increasing value to a booming nuclear power industry.

"We are in a position of strength," company spokesman Tony Treadway said.

Page 2 of 4My Way News - Tenn. Nuclear Fuel Problems Kept Secret

8/22/2007http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070820/D8R4VNS01.html

CNN_Nuclear_Power_4_1_10.pdfcnn.comOpinion: Rejecting nuclear power would be 'sheer folly' - CNN.com

9uLm9waW5pb24vaW5kZXguaHRtbAA=: form1: query: input0:

opinion: rejecting nuclear power would be 'sheer...

Documents