Nuclear Power Regaining Its Luster
TOPEKA — Kansas State University nuclear engineer Ken Shultis began studying nuclear power more than 40 years ago. Since then, he saw nuclear’s once-bright promise dim.
Three Mile Island. "The China Syndrome." Chernobyl.
Now, with the nation concerned about coal and climate change and with renewable energy so far unable to meet America’s thirst for energy, Shultis has reason to be optimistic.
"Presently, there’s a resurgence," Shultis told Kansas lawmakers at a recent hearing.
China plans to build two new nuclear plants every year for 15 years, Shultis said. Nations like France continue to derive most of their energy from nuclear power, even recycling old nuclear fuel for future use.
Meanwhile, aging U.S. plants — like Kansas’ own Wolf Creek — are seeking federal permission to operate into the middle of the century.
And for the first time in years, utility companies want to build new plants, or expand old ones.
In Missouri, AmerenUE is considering adding a second reactor to its Callaway Nuclear Generating Station, the state’s only nuclear plant.
"Times change. Politics change. Right now, the trend is toward reducing carbon emissions, so that gives a big advantage to nuclear," said AmerenUE spokesman Mike Cleary.
Across the U.S., utility companies requested permits for four new or expanded plants last year; 15 additional applications are expected this year.
Cleary said the utility hasn’t decided yet whether to build a second reactor but is completing an application with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Those applications, which require detailed feasibility reports, can cost tens of millions of dollars, Cleary said, an indication of just how seriously the utility is considering a new reactor.
"The reason for that is all the concern about carbon emissions," he said.
Many Kansas lawmakers say it’s time the state begins encouraging construction of a second nuclear plant. They’re pushing a bill this year to allow utility companies to recoup the cost of feasibility studies for a new plant.
Last year, lawmakers passed a 10-year property tax exemption for any power company that builds a second plant near the Wolf Creek Generating Station, near Burlington, Kan.
Nuclear plants aren’t cheap. It takes as long as 15 years to conduct studies, get permits and build one. And they cost $6 billion to $9 billion.
But once they’re built, nuclear plants come without the carbon emissions that make coal and natural gas unpalatable to many. And they’re cheap to operate, producing electricity at almost half the price of the next most affordable and practical source, coal.
"We can’t wait any longer," said Sen. Roger Reitz, a Manhattan Republican. "We’ve lost so much time already. Energy is going to cost us a fortune in the future, and nuclear must be on the table."
But nuclear power’s opponents haven’t gone away. Critics like the Sierra Club note that while nuclear plants themselves emit very little pollution, there’s always the risk of a meltdown, a terrorist incident or the accidental radioactive leak.
And despite years of wrangling, there’s still no approved plan for the permanent storage of high-grade radioactive nuclear waste. Plants like Callaway and Wolf Creek store it on premises.
Federal authorities had hoped to bury waste at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain starting in 1998, but the proposal has been delayed repeatedly. It could be 2020 before the facility receives its first shipment, if ever.
Instead of passing incentives for nuclear power, Kansas Sierra Club lobbyist Tom Thompson said, lawmakers should do more to promote conservation and power from wind, solar and other renewable sources.
"The money would be better spent developing clean, renewable sources of energy," he said.
Utility companies say they welcome incentives to make nuclear power more feasible. Kansas City Power & Light, Westar and other utilities say that they have no plans to build a second nuclear plant currently, but it’s an option they’ll be looking at.
KCP&L receives about 47 percent of the power generated at Wolf Creek, which is seeking a 20-year extension of its federal operating license. Wolf Creek began operations in 1985 after eight years of construction that cost $3 billion.
A new license could extend the plant’s life to 2045. A decision from federal regulators could come by the end of the year. Wolf Creek is one of 35 plants seeking such extensions; an additional 23 are expected to apply for extensions soon.
Renewed interest in nuclear power in Kansas prompted the state’s Corporation Commission to call a roundtable discussion today on the future of nuclear power. The meeting brings together top state and government regulators and industry experts.
The enthusiasm echoes the "Atoms for Peace" initiative of President Dwight Eisenhower from 50 years ago, when the potential of nuclear power seemed limitless.
"There’s no doubt to me that nuclear power is the power of the future," said Rep. Don Myers, a Derby Republican and chairman of a new committee that’s studying Kansas’ energy future. "It’s coming. It’s just a matter of time."
——
OUR ENERGY CHOICES
With concerns mounting about fossil fuels and climate change, leaders in Kansas and many other states are reviewing their options. Finding the right mix of sources is critical to figuring out how we’ll turn on the lights in 20 years.
Wind
Uses one of Kansas’ most plentiful resources to turn turbines, which create electricity. New projects are planned; wind now generates about 3.6 percent of Kansas’ electricity and even less in Missouri.
Pros: Renewable and emission-free. Studies indicate widespread wind power could create thousands of jobs and give rural areas a boost.
Cons: An unreliable primary power source, requiring another source as backup. More turbines would require more transmission lines.
Production cost per kilowatt hour: 3-6 cents, varies by area.
Coal
The U.S. has more than 200 years of coal supplies left. Right now, coal generates more than 70 percent of Kansas’ electricity and 83 percent in Missouri.
Pros: Cheap, efficient and (relatively) plentiful. New coal-burning plants are cleaner than older ones.
Cons: Coal plants are big sources of greenhouse gases, and there’s no such thing as totally "clean" coal. Congress may consider new rules that could make coal much more expensive.
Production cost per kilowatt hour: 2.3 cents
Natural gas
Used primarily for home heating, natural gas also backs up other sources of electricity. Gas supplies 4 percent of Kansas’ electricity and 1.6 percent in Missouri.
Pros: It’s a good fit for wind power, as gas plants can kick into service when the wind dies down. Gas plants are cleaner than coal.
Cons: Dwindling supplies and rising costs could force the U.S. to look overseas for a ready supply. It’s a fossil fuel, so there’s pollution.
Production cost per kilowatt hour: 6.5 cents.
Nuclear
Uses radioactive fuel to produce a controlled reaction and create energy. Kansas gets 19 percent of its electricity from nuclear power; in Missouri, it’s 13 percent.
Pros: Hardly any emissions. It’s the cheapest power source once the plant is built.
Cons: Plant construction takes 15 years and up to $9 billion. There’s no approved plan for the permanent storage of high-grade nuclear waste. Threats of meltdowns, radioactive leaks or terrorism make some nervous, and decommissioning plants can be costly.
Production cost per kilowatt hour: 1.7 cents
Other
Hydroelectric, geothermal, hydrogen, solar and some ideas the Jetsons never heard of. Missouri already gets 3 percent of its electricity from hydroelectric. Plans to expand a Kansas coal plant call for an experimental algae reactor that would use plant emissions to grow algae to create energy.
Pros: Research brings jobs, and could supply the state and the world with the next big thing.
Cons: Not all areas are suited to geothermal and hydroelectric; experimental sources are untested, expensive and small-scale. Anyone remember cold fusion?
Sources: Federal Energy Information Administration; Kansas Corporation Commission, Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources and legislative testimony.