CASEnergy > Nuclear resurrection on horizon

After a long lapse in growth, the U.S. nuclear power industry seems ripe for revival, particularly as the simmering climate-change debate reaches a boil.

More than 30 nuclear power plant proposals are in the approval process, and in early March the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorized the first new site in 30 years that could potentially host a nuclear power reactor.

Amid the controversy of capping carbon emissions, many of the technology's proponents push nuclear as the only viable alternative to fossil fuels, especially when faced with the increasing demand for energy.

In the past three decades the U.S. population grew 40 percent, while energy demand surged 47 percent. Within the next 25 years experts predict energy consumption will increase 34 percent, while production grows 27 percent.

"When you look at projected growth and where we are today, you get the feeling we need to be do something besides standing still," Christine Todd Whitman, co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition and former New Jersey governor, said at a CASEnergy-sponsored event Tuesday. "Conservation alone will not supply the energy needed."

Neither will renewable energy sources, such as hydroelectric, wind, solar or geothermal, others say.

"Renewables have to be a big part of the picture, but in our world today, with the exception of hydroelectric, only half a percent of our nation's energy is coming from renewables," said Patrick Moore, CASEnergy co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace. "If we're really going to make a serious dent in fossil fuel consumption, nuclear has to be part of the mix. ... Otherwise there's no hope of decreasing fossil fuel consumption."

Currently, fossil fuels provide 85 percent of the world's energy, nuclear power constitutes 7 percent, hydroelectric power another 7 percent and the remaining 1 percent comes from a mix of renewable energy sources, according to most estimates. Despite hydroelectricity's relatively high contribution to the mix, Moore and others argue it has nearly reached its potential in most countries and cannot provide the large-scale energy production needed to replace coal.

While the initial cost of a nuclear power plant exceeds that of a coal plant, if the current energy dichotomy stays stagnant and fossil-fuel prices continue to rise, American businesses may find nuclear power more economically attractive.

"As the prices of natural gas rise, so do the costs of doing business in the U.S.," said Keith McCoy, vice president of energy and resource policy at the National Association of Manufacturers.

Soaring energy costs have driven companies to set up shop elsewhere, causing 3 million lost jobs in the country, NAM estimates.

And while a carbon tax or cap on emissions might be environmentally counteractive if it increases the business emigration rate, encouraging nuclear power development could entice companies to stay and clean up the atmosphere at the same time.

"The nuclear power industry needs a victory in the United States," McCoy said.

Although the U.S. nuclear rebirth is progressing slowly, officials have responded on several levels with pro-nuclear policies.

Under President Bush's fiscal 2008 budget, the Office of Nuclear Energy receives a 38-percent boost in spending, or an extra $875 million. Several legislators have nudged the nation to catch up with the liberal nuclear power policies in many other countries and advocate its use.

One appealing aspect of the technology to Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., is its potential to decrease dependence on foreign oil.

"(Our energy supply) aught to be homegrown and American-owned," said Clyburn, majority whip.

Another legislative proponent of nuclear power, Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., actually published a book on the subject, "A Brighter Tomorrow: Fulfilling the Promise of Nuclear Energy." Domenici sponsored the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that established several incentives to invest in nuclear power, including $500 million of risk insurance for the first two power plants.

"We now have 30 new power plant applications at one stage or another and before this act we had none -- zero -- for a period of 27 years," Domenici told United Press International. What we're doing right now is watching the process unfold."

The technology has gained greater acceptability in many circles. For instance, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change pointed to nuclear power as a possible path toward decreasing greenhouse-gas emissions in a report released earlier this month.

"It's less controversial now than it was," said Matthew Letourneau, Domenici's spokesman. "But that doesn't mean everyone likes it."

Nuclear waste raises concerns for many, including Mark Brownstein, managing director of business partnerships for Environmental Defense, a non-profit environmental organization.

"It's foolish to move forward with a nuclear reactor if you haven't addressed what to do with the waste that's left over," Brownstein said at Tuesday's conference.

Safety has also been an issue, particularly as power plants pop up around the globe.

"What happens as this technology becomes more common in the rest of the world?" Brownstein asked. "We have to be really concerned about how this technology gets commercialized in the developing world."