The Shundahai Network :A Decade of Resistance

State might end nuclear plant ban
Bills would ease waste restrictions

By James Bruggers
jbruggers@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal

FRANKFORT, Ky. – Three state legislators are trying to overturn a nearly-quarter-century ban on nuclear power in Kentucky, as the nuclear industry vies for a comeback.

Two companion bills -- one in the Senate, the other in the House -- would remove a requirement stipulating that before any nuclear plant is built, there must be a permanent disposal facility to handle its radioactive waste.

The existing law effectively puts a moratorium on nuclear power in Kentucky, since there is no permanent disposal facility in the United States. The federal government has been studying locating one at Yucca Mountain in Nevada for more than two decades.

But the legislation by Sens. Bob Leeper, I-Paducah, and Charlie Borders, R-Russell, and Rep. Steven Rudy, R-West Paducah, would allow nuclear power plants in Kentucky as long as they have a waste-disposal plan that complies with federal law, such as securing the waste at the plants. The waste remains dangerous for thousands of years.

Leeper and Borders both acknowledged that the bill could help constituents involved in the nuclear fuel industry, but they also said they are looking to help the nation and Kentucky diversify their energy supplies.

Both said they know of no plan by any utility to propose a nuclear power plant in Kentucky.

Leeper's Western Kentucky district includes the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, the nation's only source of fuel for nuclear power plants. Some residents of Borders' northeastern Kentucky district work at the Paducah plant's sister facility in Piketon, Ohio, where a replacement to the aging Paducah plant is under construction.

"Given the national discussion on energy … there is some recognition that a certain portion of our (energy) production is going to be nuclear," Leeper said. "This bill is an attempt to relax that moratorium so rather than be a state that's marked off, anybody looking into this could keep us on a list."

A spokeswoman for USEC Inc., which operates the Paducah and Piketon facilities, welcomed introduction of the bills but said the company did not request them.

"We are pleased to see any activity that provides for the advancement of additional deployment of nuclear power in the United States," said USEC's Georgann Lookofsky. "While this legislation has no near-term impact on any activity or project involving USEC, we applaud the intent of Sens. Leeper and Borders to remove barriers to the expansion of Kentucky's role in nuclear power as an important part of the nation's energy mix."

One of the state's biggest utilities -- Louisville-based E.On U.S., which owns LG&E and Kentucky Utilities -- is neutral on the bill, said spokeswoman Chris Whelan, but she acknowledged that E.On advocates for more nuclear power in Europe.

Gov. Steve Beshear's press office would not say what the governor thinks of the two bills.

"All we can say right now is we will monitor the legislation's progress," said Beshear's spokesman, Dick Brown.

The Senate bill was assigned to the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday.

The bills were opposed last week by Tom FitzGerald and his Kentucky Resources Council, an environmental advocacy group.

FitzGerald said he welcomes a policy discussion concerning "what role if any" nuclear power should play in the state. But he said the council cannot support a revision of state law that would allow indefinite on-site storage of nuclear waste.

The General Assembly passed its moratorium in 1984. News reports in The Courier-Journal at the time said the legislation reflected growing anti-nuclear sentiment, in part because of controversies involving the recently canceled Marble Hill nuclear power plant near Madison, Ind., which was abandoned by the former Public Service Indiana after $2.8 billion was spent.

By taking that action, the legislature also was reflecting Kentucky's abundance of coal, said Bill Caylor, president of the Kentucky Coal Association.

The state is the third-largest producer of coal in the nation and gets more than 90 percent of its electricity from it.

But many scientists now identify coal as a major source of the pollution that's heating up the atmosphere. Congress is getting closer to mandating greenhouse gas cuts. All three leading presidential candidates are promising to do the same.

Some national environmental organizations now are bucking a long-held opposition to nuclear power and are willing to consider it as part of a solution to global warming. That's because nuclear plants don't emit carbon dioxide, one of the leading greenhouse gases.

"The scope of the problem requires us to look at all of the options," said Tony Kreindler, spokesman for the group Environmental Defense.

To prevent the worst anticipated problems of global warming, many scientists say the world will have to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by mid-century, he said.

Other environmentalists remain vehemently opposed to new nuclear power plants.

"We reject the false choice between nukes and dirty coal," said Sarah Lynn Cunningham, a steering committee member of the Louisville Climate Action Network. "The cheapest, cleanest and most available energy source is energy efficiency. Who do we think we are to impose the risks and expense of radioactive waste on future generations because we're too lazy to use electricity more efficiently?"

Caylor said that the coal industry won't oppose the two bills and that the nation needs both coal-fired and nuclear power plants.The nuclear power industry supplies the nation with about 20 percent of its electricity; several plants came online in the 1990s.

No licenses for a new nuclear plant have been secured since the late 1970s, but several companies filed for new licenses last year, and others plan to do so in the next few years, said Mitch Singer, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute.

The federal government has streamlined its licensing process and is moving toward standardized designs of nuclear reactors that should make them easier to build, operate and inspect, he said.

The nation's demand for electricity will increase 30 percent by 2030, he said, adding that the industry has proved it can safely manage the waste on-site while long-term options such as recycling and permanent storage are developed.

"We are going to need more coal, we are going to need more nuclear, we are going to need more renewables and we are going to need a healthy growth of conservation," Singer said.

Washington (Platts)--12Feb2008

UniStar officially told NRC that Nine Mile Point will be the site for a
potential new reactor in a combined construction permit-operating license, or
COL, application that the Constellation Energy-EDF Group joint venture plans
to submit in the fourth quarter of this year. 
     In the February 8 letter and a February 12 press release, UniStar Nuclear
Energy reaffirmed that the reactor, if built, would be a US Evolutionary Power
Reactor. The "reference" plant for that Areva design is Calvert Cliffs-3;
UniStar submitted part of the Calvert Cliffs COL application last year and
plans to turn in the rest next month, the press release said. 

'Renewable'label wrong for nuclear

Last year, our state Senate approved a bill that would classify a host of energies -- solar, wind, geothermal, biogas, hydrogen -- as "renewable." But the bill was amended to also include nuclear power, which does not make sense because uranium fuel comes from a finite source just like oil and coal does.

The House this week voted 114-0 to remove nuclear energy from the list of renewable resources and returned the bill to its original intent.

The classification of nuclear as "renewable" is more than just senseless. It diverts attention from the original intent of the Energy Efficiency Act, which was to promote South Carolina's emerging, homegrown energy economy. Furthermore, allowing power companies to boost their "renewable" power ratings with nuclear-generated power creates loopholes for future energy production standards and discourages serious investments in real energy conservation.

South Carolina already has a significant investment in nuclear and more than 50 percent of the power produced here comes from nuclear plants. Last year's Base Load Review Act eliminates virtually all financial risks for utilities associated with building nuclear power plants in South Carolina.

It guarantees that utilities may collect from rate-payers all costs, plus a profit margin, incurred in studying the need for new nuclear power plants, as well as all costs incurred for actually constructing the multibillion-dollar nuclear plants. S360 need not be a referendum on nuclear energy because the General Assembly has already provided a major subsidy to utilities.

The sad irony is that South Carolina has vast potential for energy conservation. South Carolina is one of the least energy-efficient states in the country, consuming per capita more electricity than all but a few states and twice the amount of California. If efficiency is low hanging fruit elsewhere in the country, it is a freshly baked apple pie sitting on the kitchen countertop in South Carolina. Are we going to let it rot?

Despite the diversionary tactics of the big utilities, efficiency and renewable programs work. Vermont and California, for example, have tax rebate programs that have saved consumers millions and reduced power consumption dramatically. With newly passed net metering laws, North Carolina, Georgia and Virginia all have the jump on South Carolina. Indeed, North Carolina has a renewable portfolio standard requiring that its utilities obtain a modest percentage of their electricity from renewables.

State government can be the catalyst for attracting new investments in wind, solar and other renewables. It can create programs for financing and incentives for increasing efficiency.

But the good news is that the private sector will provide the delivery system and the jobs.

Most conservationists are like most South Carolinians: They are waiting for a comprehensive national energy plan that weighs the true costs, both environmental and economic, of different energy options. Our position is that efficiency and renewables are not only the cleanest and cheapest means of meeting immediate demand, they buy us the time we need to develop technologies that will make our country energy independent and secure.

Any rush for South Carolina to nuclear, or especially to coal, is premature because literally billions of dollars of energy are leaking out of our windows and through our ceilings and floors every day.

Instead of letting big power companies run roughshod over strategies to boost energy efficiency and promote renewables, legislators should focus on the real point of the Energy Efficiency Act -- creating ways to meet demand, and save money for consumers, by being more efficient.