Ken Silverstein EnergyBiz Insider Editor-in-Chief

The widespread desire by most developed countries to limit their greenhouse gas emissions thought to cause global warming, in combination with expected energy demand in growing economies such as China and India, would tend to work in favor of nuclear energy. But the industry in the United States is debating a determined opposition that raises legitimate concerns involving where nuclear waste should be permanently housed. That enmity has -- in the past -- led to cost overruns and construction delays, all of which makes potential investors wary of backing new nuclear development.

"We have to prove to Wall Street that nuclear works and that it operates as planned and that the financials look good," says Dan Keuter, vice president of nuclear business development for Entergy Nuclear. "If we are able to build the first few, there will definitely be a renaissance. There is more concern about greenhouse gases than nuclear power and a growing number of environmentalists are coming out in favor of it."

Keuter, who spoke to an audience at a conference sponsored by Marcus Evans Ltd. in Jacksonville, Fla., went on to say that Entergy's nuclear facilities provide 61 percent of the company's earnings. While operations and maintenance costs are competitive, he adds that construction costs would be high because of regulatory and political factors.

Future Possibilities

Several utilities are now identifying potential plant sites and are considering advanced-design nuclear power plants, leading the Nuclear Energy Institute to estimate that 12 to 15 new nuclear plants will get built by 2015. At the same time, existing nuclear facilities in the United States have increased production -- equating to the construction of 25 new power plants. This country derives 20 percent of its power from nuclear sources.

Right now, about 440 nuclear power plants exist worldwide while about 24 more are under construction with 113 additional ones under consideration, says the World Nuclear Association. France is the leader with 77 percent of its electricity coming from nuclear power. Sweden and Switzerland follow with 44 percent and 39 percent, respectively.

Without a permanent solution over how to store spent fuel, investors would be unwilling to commit and the global industry could remain in limbo. In France, it is buried underground in ventilated wells to control the temperature, although this is not the ultimate solution. In this country, it is stored on site but Yucca Mountain in Nevada might become the permanent storage site for all such radioactive waste - about 77,000 tons.

The concept of "reprocessing" spent fuel is now in the headlines. The Bush administration is researching new ways to re-use the radioactive waste -- something the White House says will mitigate future waste as well as limit weapons-grade plutonium for any nation trying to get their hands on a nuclear arsenal. Such a strategy, however, is 20 years away -- not soon enough to deal with current proliferation issues.

The U.S. Department of Energy is currently supporting research for several types of advanced reactors. Very-High-Temperature Reactors have the potential to economically and safely produce electricity and hydrogen at a high efficiency without emitting noxious gases -- and could be ready by 2015. Long-term, the objective is to graduate to fast-spectrum reactors that are able to burn recycled nuclear fuel, thereby increasing uranium fuel utilization while decreasing spent fuel.

Battle Lines Drawn

Clearly, the battle lines have been drawn. Opponents of nuclear power are strident, arguing that the market won't support new plants because previous cost overruns have made them uneconomical. Meantime, they say that the fuel source is not clean because fossil fuels are used to enrich the uranium that goes into the energy-intensive nuclear production process. Nuclear could only be viable with government subsidies, they emphasize -- money that could be used to support safer and cleaner options.

"The strongest environmental argument against taking the course of nuclear power is that people are fallible," says Michel Lee, who sits on the New York-based Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition and describes herself as a lifelong Republican. "Nuclear energy is arguably the most toxic pollutant on the planet."

The power of such arguments has kept nuclear development at bay for a couple of decades in the United States. And, those concerns may continue to resonate and deter any further development. But that won't minimize the overriding trends now taking place, namely the desire to become energy independent and to use more sustainable fuel sources.

Certainly, the dynamics bode well for wind and solar energy. But, those sources now constitute a fraction of the generation mix used in world markets -- hardly enough to displace fossil fuels that make up the bulk of power generation used around the globe.

Any discussion of nuclear energy ultimately centers on its safety. According to Keuter, no member of the public has ever been killed because of a nuclear plant in 40 years in the United States. The tragedy of Chernobyl, which occurred in the Ukraine in 1986, was the result of a Soviet-style design that had no containment structure, he says. That type of technology would not be permitted in this country. Finally, he says that it is a myth that nuclear plants cause cancer, adding that citizens receive more radiation from natural sources than nuclear generation.

"There is now a great deal of scientific evidence showing nuclear power to be an environmentally sound and safe choice," says Patrick Moore, chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit in Canada. "Given a choice between nuclear on the one hand and coal, oil and natural gas on the other, nuclear energy is by far the best option as it emits neither carbon dioxide nor any other air pollutants." His views are supported by the African American Environmental Association and James Lovelock, an expert on the greenhouse gas effect.

Underdeveloped nations are warming to nuclear energy. Developed countries might do so, too. But broader public acceptance is essential and will involve in depth discussions on the storage of spent nuclear fuel and the possibilities of future generation technologies. Any resolution to those matters would go a long way toward curbing costs and avoiding massive government subsidization. PR tactics aside, the debate needs to be open, honest and ongoing to collectively determine the best ways to meet an energy-starved world.

For far more extensive news on the energy/power visit:  http://www.energycentral.com .

Copyright © 1996-2005 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.