Weekend Persepctives: Warming to nuclear power
Post-Kyoto, the U.S. can do its part with a safe, clean energy source
Pittsburg Post Gazette
Saturday, February 19, 2005
By Forest Remick
As a nuclear engineer who is concerned about global climate change, allegedly brought about by human activities, I am encouraged by President Bush's commitment to nuclear power. In his State of the Union address, President Bush called for more U.S. energy production, including "safe, clean nuclear energy."
Forest Remick is professor of nuclear engineering emeritus and associate vice president for research emeritus at Penn State University (fjr1@psu.edu).
He is also retired as a commissioner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
He said that, as part of a comprehensive energy strategy, we also need conservation and alternative energy sources, with which I agree. But of considerable significance is nuclear power: It's the only energy source that can make an important contribution to meeting the nation's energy needs without releasing carbon emissions.
Ironically, it's the United States -- and not Europe -- that could make the decisive difference in the battle against global warming. Although the United States has come under sharp criticism from European political leaders for not signing the Kyoto Treaty on climate change, which went into effect this week, the United States knows that what really matters are policies that are tough-minded enough to achieve lasting results. The United States isn't talking about climate change, but is acting.
Our nation is trying to address the climate-change problem systematically over the long term, in a way that really has a chance of working, emphasizing solutions that do not dictate dramatic lifestyle changes for citizens or significantly raise the price of electricity.
In the battle against climate change, watch what we do, not what we say. Single-mindedness is considered the key to success: An administration with a clear strategy can usually get what it wants. The Bush administration sees nuclear power as an effective way to reduce the escalation in global warming gases.
Recent developments reflect America's commitment to make more use of nuclear power:
Instead of shutting down nuclear plants after reaching their 40th anniversary, virtually all of the 103 currently operating U.S. nuclear power plants are expected to apply for 20-year license renewals.
To date, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has renewed the operating licenses of 30 plants.
In three states -- Virginia, Illinois and Mississippi -- nuclear plant operators have applied to the NRC for "early site approval," which would give them approval to build on previously reviewed and approved sites when they place an order for a new nuclear plant.
Reforms in the licensing process now enable companies to obtain a combined construction permit and operating license for new nuclear power plants, thereby preventing unnecessary delays and establishing consistency and predictability before companies commit substantial resources for new nuclear plants. The Department of Energy is sharing in the cost of obtaining regulatory approval of the first new plants.
Two leading reactor manufacturers -- General Electric and Westinghouse -- say they will share the financial risks of building new reactors with prospective nuclear plant owners.
The NRC has issued "design certifications" for three advanced next-generation nuclear power plants and another design is in the final certification process.
These plants will be simpler and cheaper to build, with some relying on gravity, rather than electric-driven pumps, for emergency cooling of the reactors.
Another reactor design uses helium as a cooling agent, instead of water, and would be capable of producing hydrogen. On the drawing board or under regulatory review are other innovative designs.
All this activity shows that as a nation, we're moving methodically toward the next round of nuclear plants, to meet our growing demand for power without adding to the volume of greenhouse gases released into the environment. But if nuclear power is to reach its potential, the government must continue to play an important role.
Because nuclear power has high up-front capital construction costs, policy incentives are needed to jump-start construction of the first few advanced nuclear plants. As an example, the government could enhance the prospects for a new plant and address the financing concerns by allowing recovery of part of the investment cost during the construction period or by providing credit for the plant's reduction in carbon releases to the atmosphere.
It is likely that a new nuclear power plant will be owned by a consortium of electrical companies. This joint ownership would reduce the financial risk of building the first plant, and the nuclear industry is taking steps to make this happen. In fact, three consortia are preparing to apply for new nuclear plant licenses, in part to demonstrate and refine the NRC's new reactor licensing process.
By itself, nuclear power cannot achieve the necessary reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions. We also need to stimulate the production of every carbon-free energy source -- wind turbines, photovoltaic solar arrays, hydro and geothermal power. And we must improve the energy efficiency of homes and office buildings, while raising the fuel-economy standards for automobiles and other vehicles.
But we can't rely on jawboning the public to sacrifice their lifestyle, or pipedreams about energy sources that can contribute only marginally to the vast amounts of energy our economy needs. The solution is one we're pursuing -- an emphasis on a proven, reliable technology that can provide massive amounts of electricity, affordably, with no greenhouse emissions.
There is a new mood in this country against the muddled thinking that's held back genuine progress in clean energy production.
Increasingly, there is evidence that we will meet the challenges head-on and meet them with a great deal of success. |
