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 (7 Reader comments)

Tribune File Photo

PGE leveled the cooling tower at its controversial Trojan Nuclear Plant near Ranier in 2006, in a spectacular implosion.

ADVERTISEMENTS

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.

1 | 2 Next Page >>