• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Environmental Aspects of Nuclear Power Re-Examined

Posted on: Sunday, 4 June 2006, 06:00 CDT

By Adam Wilmoth, The Daily Oklahoman

Jun. 4--More than two decades after nuclear power plant construction stalled, Tulsa-based Enercon Services Inc. is helping lead the effort to reenergize one of the world's most powerful -- and controversial -- forms of energy.

Enercon is working with three utilities to prepare combined construction and permit-operating licenses for proposed new nuclear reactors in Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina.

"It's a tremendous honor for the company, and it certainly means a lot of recognition in the industry," Enercon President John Richardson said. "It helps us recruit some of the best people in the industry because of the recognition of this project. Everybody in the industry would like to be working on those types of projects."

Interest in nuclear power construction waned in the mid-1980s as energy prices collapsed and concern grew about nuclear accidents and weapons.

Now, however, energy prices are soaring and many environmentalists are focusing more on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses.

"All of a sudden people are starting to realize that from an environmental impact and electrical generation aspect, the best option is nuclear power," Richardson said. "It's economical. It's reliable. It's clean. It has no impact to the environment. Certainly it doesn't produce any greenhouse gases."

While many environmental groups still fear nuclear accidents and weapons, others have changed their thinking about nuclear power.

"Nuclear power is the only energy source that is capable of allowing us to reduce fossil fuel consumption for electric generation by a considerable margin," said Patrick Moore, Greenpeace co-founder turned nuclear power advocate.

Chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd., Moore recently was named co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, a new industry-funded initiative that supports increased use of nuclear energy.

Natural gas prices are too volatile to be a viable baseload electricity generator in the future, said Moore, who spoke to the Oklahoma City Rotary Club in November. The only other viable options are hydro, coal and nuclear. The country is effectively at or near capacity for hydro, and some states are tearing down existing dams.

Coal plants are responsible for about two-thirds of the country's carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide emissions, as well as a large amount of mercury and other emissions, Moore said.

"From a climate change perspective, there is no doubt that nuclear is an answer to reducing greenhouse gas emissions," he said.

Not all environmentalists, however, are embracing nuclear power. Moore's former organization and other environmental groups still strongly oppose all forms of nuclear energy.

"Nuclear power is inherently highly dangerous, and despite claims of improvements in safety, scientists agree that another catastrophe on the scale of Chernobyl could still happen any time, anywhere," Gerd Leipold, Greenpeace International executive director said last month on the 20th anniversary of the worst accident in nuclear power history.

More locally, the nuclear effort has gained at least partial support from Oklahoma Energy Secretary David Fleischaker, who nearly three decades ago fought the industry as an environmental attorney in Washington.

"When I was involved in the process in the '70s, the industry was caught in a web of lies," Fleischaker said. "They were misrepresenting the costs and benefits. They were building plants with horrible quality assurance. But the industry really learned a lesson on safety."

Improved technology and an improved emphasis on safety has resolved the issue of potential accidents and meltdowns, he said.

"I think the nuclear option is one we need to explore," Fleischaker said. "But there are two important issues that remain to be resolved. The first is waste disposal. No one wants another state's waste buried in their back yard. The second issue relates to national security."

American nuclear plants currently store most of their spent fuel in temporary locations not designed for long-term disposal. The Bush Administration wants the fuel disposed in Nevada's Yucca Mountain disposal site, but the state adamantly has fought the issue.

France and other countries that rely on a large percentage of nuclear-generated electricity recycle much of their spent fuel. Recycling was banned in the United States under an executive order by the Carter Administration because of fears that the plutonium created by the recycling process could be smuggled and used to create nuclear weapons.

"The more plutonium we have in the economy, the higher the risk it will be diverted into the hands of terrorists," Fleischaker said. "There are countries out there that know how to build bombs. The technology is understood by many. The thing that stands between those people who wish us ill and nuclear bombs is bomb-grade plutonium."

Moore, however, said that Japanese scientists recently discovered a way to recycle the fuel without separating the plutonium from the uranium.

"Just because a technology can be used for evil purposes doesn't mean you ban its good uses," Moore said.

But rather than turn to nuclear power, Tom Libby, chairman of the Oklahoma chapter of The Sierra Club, said the best answer is increased conservation.

"We need to be more efficient with the fuel we have," Libby said. "That includes everything from setting thermostats higher in the summer to using less light."

While renewables are part of the picture, Richardson said other forms of electrical generation also are required.The country should invest in conservation, but a growing economy requires increased electrical generation, he said.

The debate promises to rage on in the near future as permitting and construction progress on the newly proposed reactors.

"I don't think we've seen the end of the opposition," Richardson said. "We're still in the beginning phases of this process. When we really start to see a potential for more opposition is when somebody finally begins to build a plant."

-----

Copyright (c) 2006, The Daily Oklahoman

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News.

For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

Source: The Daily Oklahoman

More News in this Category