House: Nuclear energy not “renewable”

By SAMMY FRETWELL
sfretwell@thestate.com

The S.C. House defeated a plan today to define nuclear power as a “renewable” form of energy after conservationists complained that it could set back efforts to develop solar, wind and other alternative energy sources.

A compromise presented by Rep. Ben Hagood, R-Charleston, avoided a potentially lengthy floor debate between proponents of nuclear energy and those who oppose it.

Many lawmakers favor nuclear power as a way to limit pollution that adds to global warming. But by a 114-0 vote, the House agreed it wasn’t worth including nuclear in the definition of renewable energy.

Had nuclear been included, conservationists say South Carolina could have had more difficulty getting federal or state support for entrepreneurs in solar, wind, biofuels or other types of businesses. Some people advocate research and development of alternative forms of energy to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil. Among those is Columbia businessman Erik Lensch, who sells solar products.

“Pitting my business against an established industry such as nuclear either makes no sense or bad sense,” Lensch wrote in a Letter to the Editor of The State newspaper this week.

Critics of the bill also speculated that including nuclear in a definition of renewable energy could have helped power companies meet future federal requirements that certain percentages of their energy be renewable.

In taking nuclear out of the renewable definition, the compromise says South Carolina will encourage the development and use of both renewable and nuclear power. Existing state energy policy mentions the development of renewable energy but not nuclear.

“The worst part of this bill, defining nuclear energy as renewable, was averted, so that is quite a positive thing for the state of South Carolina,” said Tom Clements, a representative of the environmental group Friends of the Earth.

But Clements said it is “not a wise thing” for the House to add nuclear as a desirable form of energy. Critics note that nuclear power creates deadly waste that is becoming harder to find disposal sites for.

This week, conservation groups had lobbied lawmakers about their concerns for the bill. They said it is wrong to define nuclear as renewable because atomic power relies on uranium, a natural resource that is mined and will one day run out.

Rep. Skipper Perry, R-Aiken, said there is plenty of uranium to fuel nuclear power for years. A supporter of nuclear power, he suggested the compromise was not necessary. He said South Carolina needs nuclear power, which is more realistic and efficient than solar power.

Even “the crazy French use it,” Perry said of nuclear power. “Don’t knock it. Don’t be afraid of it.”
Hagood said the compromise was not intended to set back any efforts to build a coal-fired power plant near Florence. The plant has been a target of environmentalists because of pollution that will come from its stacks.

Comments

[Reindeargirl]

Our legislators and leaders have been completely misled into thinking nuclear power is CO2 free. Every step in the long chain of events leading up to the building and operating of a nuclear plant creates enormous amounts of CO2. Beginning with the nasty process of uranium mining, maintaining the slurry and radioactive tailings ponds, crushing the rock, the neutralization of the ore,creating the ammonium - di-uranate or yellowcake, roasting it and converting it to Uranium oxide, transporting that to a fluoridation plant to turn it into UF6,transporting that to an enrichment facility and then to a fuel fabrication facility, all of these processes SO FAR emit large amounts of CO2, not to mention the need for Zirconium for the fuel cladding, a by-product of sand mining, an energy intensive and environmentally damaging process. . .the building of a nuclear plant is also CO2 intensive, since large quantities of steel and cement are used, both of which are produced by processes that emit huge amounts of CO2. The back end of the process is not much better, with the waste which must be transported somewhere, and facilities built to contain it. Every step of the nuclear power cycle involves the expenditure of energy derived from fossil fuels, which nuclear-generated electricity cannot replace. All the factories, all the transport, all the materials are made using fossil fuels Thus it is untrue to say that nuclear energy is greenhouse friendly. The nuclear industry are well aware of this, and tell disgraceful lies about it. For low quality ores (less than 0.02% of U3O8 per tonne of ore), the CO2 produced by the full nuclear life cycle is EQUAL TO that produced by the equivalent gas-fired power station. So the next time someone tells you nuclear power doesn't emit CO2, you know they don't know what they're talking about - or , they work for the industry.

[Frank]

Unfortunately South Carolina has little to none renewable energy options. Southern Company and Georgia Tech did a off shore wind study last year and decided that no offshore wind turbines would be economical due to the insurance problem of the turbines. All it takes is one hurricane and your multi-hundred million dollar wind farm is gone. Solar panels have a terrible capacity factor but could be used to offset (some) peak power (natural gas).

Poor Reindeargirl is correct but yet misguided. The anti-nuclear establishment (mostly 50+ year old oldies) tells you all about how bad nuclear is but gives an apples to oranges comparison. To say nuclear power isn't greenhouse gas free is true, but neither is any other form of energy. If you want to look into it that much, solar panels are made of silicon and silicon production has a lot of emissions. Wind turbines have lots of emissions from manufacturing, etc. etc.

nuclear competes with coal and coal alone due to the nature of base load power. most anti-nukes don't understand what base load power is and that nuclear power does not compete against renewables which only offset use of natural gas/oil for peak loads. No matter how you fudge the stats, nuclear is infinitely more "green" than coal plants.

Over the last 20 years or so the country has only been building peak power plants which were almost natural gas fired. Now base load power is needed and its important that coal power is limited. With coal you not only get carbon but SOx, NOx and Mercury.

[Pluto Boy]

New nuclear power plants could be coming in at a huge price ranging towards $10 billion per reactor. SCE&G has postponed a decision on new reactors due to cost increases of the AP-1000 design. As investment in conservation and efficiency yields much more in energy savings than investing in a nuclear reactor, I assume that fiscal conservatives in South Carolina will demand that conservation and efficiency be the first place that we invest in, and call for Duke to halt plans for new rate-payer-financed reactors in Cherokee County? Or, have fiscal conservatives vanished in the state?

[Frank]

That is a good idea on paper, but unfortunately one state trashed that strategy...California. Efficiency measures have caused them to use way less juice per person than Southern states. BUT, They also have had blackouts, and are projected to have more blackouts in the near future (along with Texas who is on the brink of a nuke building frenzy).

As far as plant costs, I seriously doubt anyone really knows how much the things cost until they are built. The big boys will be building first so SCE&G can wait and see how they screw up before deciding.

Sucks that the power companies waited until the world economy drove up the commodity prices to build power plants.

[mountaingirl]

I agree with Pluto Boy. Efficiency and conservation should be the first things to invest in. Both are completely carbon neutral. And by reducing our demand for electricity, we will need to supply less. Currently, SC is the 3rd highest consumer of electricity per capita. (think about how many folks probably leave home with appliances, TVs, radios, lamps on....all day long.....compound this across the state and that's a TON of energy wasted) Now waiting for this cultural shift in consciousness could take a long time or a little time, but it all depends on each person. One person telling another, telling another. Like a chain reaction.

Concerning nuclear power, there are always better options to consider. It is too risky to sink that much money into something, and then have to deal with the radiative wastes for hundreds of thousands of years. Not to mention the amount of water it uses (last time I checked we were in a severe drought) and while the water is "put back" into the natural environment, it is many degrees warmer and drives fish populations away. This could have severe economic consequences for our state, which relies heavily on eco-tourism, hunting and fishing. There is also the environmental injustices of nuclear power (from the mining to the disposal, indigenous peoples, groups of color and low income communities are disproportionately affected by this industry). Invest in efficiency, conservation, solar and wind. Invest in novel technologies we haven't even begun to fathom! Global warming is my generations greatest challenge, but it is also our greatest opportunity!

[Frank]

The state politicians will not gamble the state's economy on the fact that they hope people will conserve energy. Sure you could do energy-star tax breaks and raise taxes. You could also raise electric rates to reduce demand.

The population of South Carolina increased by about 15% from 1990-2000. I would think efficiency gains at the most would be 10-15%. These power plants would be coming online in about 10 years so if you do the math I think we would run out of electricity if we didn't build plants. Add in carbon cap and trading policies if the democrats get elected and South Carolina would be in big trouble.

If you look at energy use per capita, all the highest users are in climates where the air conditioning is used the most. I seriously doubt the people of South Carolina are going to drastically cut AC use.

[Steammontana]

I would like to see all the people who are so against nuclear power get together and not use anything but solar and wind etc. When thier lights go out on a dark and windless night they can live with the concequences of thier choice.

[Michael S. Molder]

I dare any of you to get a Home Owner's Insurance policy that covers a Nuclear accident!
The beauty of Wind and Solar, is it's a Distributed System. (A lot of power sources in a lot of places.) In case of an accident or calamity, we won't loose every power source.
Why don't we have wind turbines in most farm fields and cow pastures? We could do away with Farm Subsidies!
Why don't we have Solar power on the roof of every "flat-top" big-box store, school, fire station and government building? Places we could use a little energy in case of an emergency.

[Pluto Boy]

Mountain girl has hit on something important. If there was a conservative 15% reduction in energy use due to conservation and efficiency, that eliminates any need for new plants. Conservation and efficiency could come "on line" way sooner than the time it would take to construct new plats. A proceeding is now before the SC Public Service Commission on Duke & its energy efficiency plan. Thankfully, a number of environmental groups are intervening. (At PSC web site, search for 2007-358-E,
at http://dms.psc.sc.gov/dockets/)

[Frank]

Huh? Is the bottom of the SC SAT scores showing up on this page? We won't lose wind and solar because of an accident. hahahahahahaha. Thats because we almost always lose wind and solar every night. We don't need an accident, we would be already blacked out. South Carolina is a Class 1 wind source (nothing, nada, zip, see the Southern Company/Georgia Tech Wind Study) And where I live in South Carolina, the sun doesn't shine at night...not sure about the rest of you.

I'd love for the "conservationists" to say how they are going to save energy. Renewables and Conservation have turned into these buzz words that people can talk about how great they are but don't mention how much they cost or actually help.

Could one person tell me exactly how they are going to save 15% on their power bill? In order to stave off economic disaster you better be saving off way more than 15% because there will be a lot of people who do nothing. Even if you were right, if plug-in hybrids became reality South Carolina would be toast with your strategy.

The US had a worst case nuclear accident at 3 Mile Island and how many people died?...zero, how many people were injured?...zero. The new plants are more than a hundred times safer. Check the CDFs on the nrc.gov website.

There will be two kinds of states in the future. One who uses a good bit of nuclear power for electricity, and states who buy power from nuclear states at a premium. Its the future, get over it.

[Reta]

The question of nuclear power as one of the solutions to slowing global warming and to supplying the great and growing demands worldwide for energy is a critical one for longrange planning. Here is a recent statement from the Union of Concerned Scientists from its website:

Global Warming Solutions
UCS Position on Nuclear Power and Global Warming
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related Links
Position Paper: Nuclear Power and Global Warming (PDF)To address global warming, we need a profound transformation of the ways in which we generate and consume energy. The urgency of this situation demands that we be willing to consider all possible options for coping with climate change. In examining each option we must take into account its impact on public health, safety, and security, the time required for large scale deployment, and its costs.

While there are currently some global warming emissions associated with the nuclear fuel cycle and plant construction, when nuclear plants operate they do not produce carbon dioxide. This fact is used to support proposals for a large-scale expansion of nuclear power both in the United States and around the world.

It must be borne in mind that a large-scale expansion of nuclear power in the United States or worldwide under existing conditions would be accompanied by an increased risk of catastrophic events—a risk not associated with any of the non-nuclear means for reducing global warming. These catastrophic events include a massive release of radiation due to a power plant meltdown or terrorist attack, or the death of tens of thousands due to the detonation of a nuclear weapon made with materials obtained from a civilian—most likely non-U.S.—nuclear power system. Expansion of nuclear power would also produce large amounts of radioactive waste that would pose a serious hazard as long as there remain no facilities for safe long-term disposal.

In this context, the Union of Concerned Scientists contends that:

1. Prudence dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria.

2. Nuclear power is not the silver bullet for "solving" the global warming problem. Many other technologies will be needed to address global warming even if a major expansion of nuclear power were to occur.

3. A major expansion of nuclear power in the United States is not feasible in the near term. Even under an ambitious deployment scenario, new plants could not make a substantial contribution to reducing U.S. global warming emissions for at least two decades.

4. Until long-standing problems regarding the security of nuclear plants—from accidents and acts of terrorism—are fixed, the potential of nuclear power to play a significant role in addressing global warming will be held hostage to the industry's worst performers.

5. An expansion of nuclear power under effective regulations and an appropriate level of oversight should be considered as a longer-term option if other climate-neutral means for producing electricity prove inadequate. Nuclear energy research and development (R&D) should therefore continue, with a focus on enhancing safety, security, and waste disposal.

[Pluto Boy]

Do the people who are supporting new reactors believe in the free market or not? Wall Street won't touch new nukes and the feds have to prop up utility investment in new reactors with $20.5 billion in loan guarantees (FY 2009 Omnibus spending bill) because private money is staying away from new reactors. People who call themselves fiscal conservatives but who support big-government bailouts for nuclear utilities (and perhaps to fund their own self-interests) need to choose between being conservatives or remaining closet socialists.

[Jeff]

There is no magic bullet that will solve all of our energy needs. There are several things that can be done that will help.

First, limit your own energy consumption at home. Use energy efficient appliances. Turn off anything not actively being used.

Tangent: fuel consumption of vehicles, why the hell are people still driving those big gas guzzlers, especially those who have no real need for one. To haul your kids to school? Why the hell are we paying for school buses for then?

Second, no one said that solar or wind generated energy will replace other forms of energy generation but it can supplement them. The next best thing to no electric bill is a lower electric bill.

Third, if new nuclear power plants are built just remember, no matter how well designed or safe they may be, they're still a human creation, flawed, and can fail.

[Frank]

Bailouts for nuclear utilities? The profits on nuclear plants are better than any other kind of electricity production. Check the quarterly reports for Exelon and Entergy, or even the yearly DOE reports.

To the "free market economist," there are no handouts or bailouts to the nuclear industry. A loan guarantee is obviously a loan. Try going to the bank and asking for $5 billion, thats why the loans are needed. Exxon, GE, and other conglomerates can afford this type of capital project but they aren't utilities. You can't have a free market electric industry, because the country can not afford to not have electricity, even for a few days. Without government intervention, the only power plants built in the next 30 years would be natural gas, which by the way is flirting with $9/million BTU today.

The real argument against nuclear is that a utility CEO will tell you, these nuclear plants make us the most money, BUT the CEOs who built them were fired for cost overruns. These companies are fundamentaly opposed to risk with the risk being construction delays and cost overruns. If the price of coal or oil skyrockets, the CEO can pass the buck but if there are cost overruns he or she is SOL.

Nuclear waste and safety should be a non-issue. With nuclear waste you get a small amount of solid waste that will one day be buried in a desert. With coal waste you get a gas that contains sulfer, radon, carbon, mercury, and nitrous oxides. We are all breathing this stuff in every day. It statistically "kills" thousands of people every year.

With regard to the safety go to the NRC.gov website and read the probabilistic risk assessments for the reactor nearest you and compare that to risks of getting killed in a plane crash, car, boat, etc. A terrorist has much easier and effective ways of terrorizing this country. Just imagine if someone drove a LNG freighter into a large city harbor and blew it up. Those boats have minimal security while a nuclear plant has a small army with fortified positions.