Should we head back to nuclear?

Some say nuclear power is preferable to carbon-spewing coal plants such as Boardman

By Steve Law

Pamplin Media Group, Dec 10, 2009

It’s been years since protesters’ chants of “no nukes” have been heard in Portland. That’s because Portland General Electric pulled the plug on its oft-troubled Trojan Nuclear Plant 16 years ago, ending Trojan’s short and controversial spell as Oregon’s lone nuclear plant. Then in 2006, PGE dynamited Trojan’s 500-foot cooling tower in the Columbia County community of Rainier, providing a spectacular end for a plant that brought the utility one headache after another.

But now the idea of nuclear power in Oregon is gaining new currency, and from some surprising quarters.

Many people now say coal plants constitute a bigger environmental threat because they spew a large volume of greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. Some prominent environmentalists, regional energy planners and PGE’s new CEO say it’s time to rethink nuclear power, given the potential global problems from climate change.

Angus Duncan, chairman of the Oregon Global Warming Commission and president of Portland-based Bonneville Environmental Foundation, is periodically asked his views on nuclear power plants.

“My answer is, ‘carbon reduction trumps nuclear waste,’ ” Duncan says.

He’s quick to point out that cheaper remedies for greenhouse gas pollution should be pursued first, such as energy-efficiency measures and renewable energy. But Duncan stresses that Oregon can’t meet its ambitious greenhouse gas reduction goals if PGE’s Boardman coal plant continues operating.

Boardman emits about one-tenth of all Oregon’s greenhouse gas emissions, while nuclear power plants emit none.

Steve Novick, a progressive Portland activist and ex-federal environmental attorney, says he’s conflicted on the issue. Many people Novick respects say the country can’t simply rely on renewable energy and natural gas-fired plants to fill the gap if all coal plants are closed.

“We can’t dismiss nuclear until we are willing to explain where the power will come from,” Novick says. “We’re not there yet.”

Novick concedes that nuclear-plant accidents or contamination from nuclear waste could devastate regions of the country. But he says that’s preferable to the perils of global warming, which could mar the entire planet.

PGE expects nuclear comeback

PGE spent millions to defeat multiple ballot measures aimed at forcing Trojan’s closure. And the utility’s reputation was sullied by repeated safety problems at the nuclear plant.

But in recent comments to the Portland Tribune editorial board, PGE Chief Executive Officer Jim Piro suggested nuclear power is inevitable as a replacement for coal power.

If the region wants to meet its carbon-reduction goals and replace coal plants such as Boardman, Piro says, nuclear power will be an essential replacement in future years.

“You can’t do it all with (natural) gas,” Piro says.

He points out that a 1980 voter-approved ballot measure bars new nuclear plants in Oregon unless there is a vote of the people, and until there is a licensed repository for nuclear waste.

Plans for a national nuclear waste repository at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain have been largely ditched, so nuclear waste from Trojan and other plants remains on site.

Piro says modern nuclear plants cost $5 billion to $6 billion – well beyond PGE’s financial capabilities. The utility would have to partner with other utilities when the time arrives, he says.

Piro and other experts say the resurgence of nuclear power development in the United States will start with Southern or East Coast utilities. Most of the 27 new plants proposed to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are in those areas, suggested by utilities that operate older-model nuclear plants.

“You’ve got an area that for the most part is comfortable with nuclear power,” says Ken Niles, assistant director for nuclear safety at the Oregon Department of Energy.

Still too costly

Because of concerns about climate change, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council recently analyzed the need for nuclear power for the first time in 20 to 25 years, says Jeff King, a senior resource analyst for the federal agency.

“You can’t dismiss nuclear energy because some people consider it the evil resource,” King says.

The power council prepares energy plans for the Northwest every five years. In its latest proposed plan, it calculates that new nuclear power plants would cost roughly 11 cents for a kilowatt hour of electricity, compared with about nine cents to 10.5 cents for wind power and natural gas, says John Harrison, council spokesman. New large solar plants would cost more than 20 cents, though that price likely will come down in future years.

Those prices assume a surcharge for natural gas to account for its carbon emissions, as expected under a cap-and-trade bill before Congress.

Though the ticket price for nuclear plants isn’t that far off from the price of new natural gas plants and wind turbines, nuclear plants take much longer to license and build – about 10 years, King says. Much can happen in that time span, making a $5 billion to $6 billion investment incredibly risky, he says.

Given the abundance of hydro power and the availability of wind and natural gas in the Northwest, those are better options for the current period than nuclear plants, King says. “From our perspective, it doesn’t look like it will play well for the next 20 years.”

Most greenies not budging

Most environmental groups say the perils of global warming are no reason to reconsider nuclear power.

The Sierra Club, which is leading a national Beyond Coal campaign to shut down coal plants, is adamantly opposed to nuclear power, says Cesia Kearns, one of that campaign’s two fulltime organizers in Portland.

Nuclear energy is “incredibly carbon intensive,” Kearns says, if you factor the impact of mining for the fuel, transporting the fuel, and shipping and storing the nuclear waste.

To counter global warming, she says, “we need silver buckshot, not a silver bullet” like nuclear power.

Portland and Multnomah County’s new Climate Action Plan lists nuclear power among the worst options when it comes to new energy sources, lumped with coal and oil.

Lloyd Marbet, a local activist who battled PGE for years to shut down Trojan, concedes that nuclear power has a lower carbon footprint than coal or gas-fired plants, and agrees global warming is a huge threat. However, Marbet says it’s a fallacy to say nuclear energy poses a localized environmental threat, while climate change is a global threat.

Every new nuclear plant is a potential new target for terrorists, he says, and can lead to nuclear weapons proliferation. “I think nuclear power is also a global problem,” he says.

PGE likes to promote big power plants so it can control the flow of electricity to customers, Marbet says, so it tends to downplay renewable energy as a remedy for climate change. People or businesses with rooftop solar or other locally produced energy can bypass the utility.

“They’re the greatest naysayers on Earth,” Marbet says of PGE. “They don’t think they’re going to make the kind of money they make with the old model.”

Other Northwest prospects

There’s only one nuclear power plant remaining in the Northwest, at Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington. None of the 27 proposed plants are in the Northwest.

However, MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. explored a possible nuclear plant in Idaho in the past few years. Alternate Energy Holdings Inc. is still exploring possible sites for a nuclear plant in Idaho.

MidAmerican, like Portland-based Pacific Power, is part of billionaire Warren Buffett’s corporate empire.

Closer to home, nuclear engineers at Oregon State University could play a pivotal role in the industry’s resurgence. Several of the proposed U.S. nuclear plants, plus one proposed in China, use a design that OSU scientists helped develop.

OSU scientists also are working on designs for a small-scale, modular nuclear plant. The idea is that utilities could use the design to build a cluster of small units, which would take a shorter period to develop and be easier to finance.

That technology is still 10 to 15 years from being ready, but it’s very promising, King says. “I think there’s a pretty good probability that that will eventually become commercial.”

stevelaw@portlandtribune.com