Legislature Should Support Nuclear Power

By LARRY MILLER

It is a curious fact that nuclear energy is derided by national environmental groups. They treat it as if the technology is still unproven after a half-century of successful nuclear plant operation.

Today nuclear energy supplies electricity to one of every five homes and businesses in the United States. Safe and efficient, the 104 nuclear power plants in 31 states generated a record 807 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity last year, without polluting the air or emitting greenhouse gases. But environmental groups such as Greenpeace, the SierraClub and Ralph Nader’s Public Citizen are campaigning to from taking greater advantage of this technology.

Oklahoma still has no nuclear power plants, relying almost entirely on fossil fuels for its electricity. Consequently, our energy security is porous at best. Between volatile natural gas prices and environmental constraints on the use of coal, there is a serious risk that we could face the future without a dependable supply of energy — or worse, a shortage.

State Rep. Mike Reynolds of Oklahoma City has introduced legislation to empower the Oklahoma Corporation Commission to determine the benefits of nuclear power and the need for it in order to achieve energy diversity. His measure, the proposed “Nuclear Power Siting and Construction Act,” would provide incentives for utilities to come up with plans for nuclear plant construction before the end of 2011. Utilities would be able to recover some costs before and during construction.

The state Legislature would be remiss not to provide full support for nuclear power. By passing the bill, its action would encourage the commission to push for nuclear power as a follow- up to the recent cancellation of two coal plants in western Oklahoma.

Anyone who questions the wisdom of pursuing nuclear power should consider that nuclear plants last year were producing electricity more than 90 percent of the time. The average nuclear plant now runs uninterrupted for nearly two years before shutting down for refueling. As a result, the average production cost of nuclear-generated electricity was 1.68 cents per kilowatt- hour, compared to 2.3 cents for coal and more than 7 cents for natural gas. These levels of electricity production and efficiency could not be achieved if nuclear plants were not operating at superior levels of safety.

Significantly, almost half of the reactors in the country have now successfully applied for 20-year extensions of their operating licenses and many more are awaiting similar license renewals.

Some opponents of nuclear power maintain that no new plants should be built until the nuclear waste problem is resolved. But the long delay in building a central repository for spent-nuclear fuel has more to do with politics than anything else. Some Nevadans, in concert with anti-nuclear groups, have been stoking public fears of radiation by claiming that the cross-country shipment of spent fuel to a repository in power plant, we can put energy security under our own control. Nevada would endanger the health and safety of millions of Americans. Never mind that more than 2,500 shipments of spent fuel have taken place over the years in the United States without any harm to the public. We have the technology – and more importantly, the experience – to safely transport nuclear waste.

Oklahoma needs a balanced energy mix. Why not take some of the money we’re squandering on non-renewable energy sources and invest it in creating jobs and “base-load” energy capacity for the future? By reducing our risky reliance on foreign oil and launching the construction of a nuclear power plant, we can put energy security under our own control.

Larry Miller is a consultant to the nuclear industry and a lifelong Tulsan.

(c) 2008 Tulsa World. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.