|
Duke CEO: Nuclear is answer: Rogers says
Congress must address option with climate change
May 2 - McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - Christopher D. Kirkpatrick The Charlotte Observer, N.C. Duke Energy Corp. Chief Executive Jim Rogers said environmentalists and Congress should support nuclear energy or risk failure in battling global warming. It also comes at a time when the Democratically controlled Congress considers how to tax or otherwise regulate industrial carbon dioxide emissions. Coal-fired power plants are a major source of carbon dioxide, blamed by climate scientists as a cause of global warming, which threatens to melt polar ice and cause flooding, among other environmental disasters. Nuclear energy, on the other hand, has zero emissions, and the President Bush-backed Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides financial incentives for utilities to start building plants again. But where to store nuclear waste for the long term is unresolved and has been a sticking point in Congress for years. Environmentalists and Congress can't push for carbon dioxide regulations, which will be expensive, and also obstruct nuclear and hope to have enough electricity for the future, Rogers said at a recent energy industry forum. "For the Congress to address climate change and not address the future of nuclear will doom us to failure, in terms of achieving our climate objectives," he said. "Nuclear has to be thought of in the same breath as carbon." Charlotte-based Duke is the nation's third-largest consumer of coal as it provides power to 3.9 million customers in five states. About 52 percent of the electricity Duke produces in the Carolinas comes from burning coal, about the same percentage from all utilities nationwide. Duke operates three nuclear power plants in the Carolinas and derives 46 percent of its Carolina electricity from the technology, compared with 19 percent for all utilities across the country. The United States is behind much of the western world in relying on nuclear energy. But as concerns over global warming intensify, the technology is increasingly seen as an environmental solution. Most utilities abandoned projects and none have been licensed since the partial meltdown in 1979 at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant near Harrisburg, Pa. Some environmentalists say Rogers' scenario provides an artificial choice between nuclear energy and global warming. They believe nuclear energy and carbon dioxide are both unacceptable threats and that electricity needs can be met in other, safer ways. They say power companies and the country should focus investment on renewable energy sources and energy efficiency programs that reduce demand. Utilities and governments also should invest more money into perfecting clean-coal technologies that show promise in capturing carbon dioxide before it is released into the atmosphere. The gas might then be stored underground or pumped into gigantic greenhouses for plants, which breathe carbon dioxide. Michael Shore, a senior policy analyst with N.C. Environmental Defense, said an energy future with less carbon dioxide does not automatically mean more reliance on nuclear power. He said Duke is moving in the right direction by pledging an aggressive energy efficiency program. He said utilities could slash one-third of energy demand in North Carolina through efficiency programs. And if only the most cost-effective efficiency programs were implemented, demand could be reduced by 14 percent, Shore said. Renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power, also are becoming cheaper and don't give off greenhouse gases, he said. "Nuclear should bother everyone. It's expensive, and we have not figured out how to manage the waste. And there are security issues," he said. "It's quite possible that we can figure out a low-carbon future that is not dependent on nuclear energy." Nuclear's Uncertain Future Duke CEO Jim Rogers believes nuclear technology, once all-but abandoned as unsafe, is a necessary part of the nation's energy future. But plants will need to be re-licensed, and 26 new projects, including a Duke plant project in Cherokee County, S.C., are in the beginning stages and face uncertain futures, he said. Rising materials costs and the looming issue of where to store nuclear waste could slow or block the projects.Duke has three operating nuclear plants, and the spent nuclear fuel rods are stored on site in special pools of water and also in dry storage containers that resemble free-standing mausoleums. The federal government has spent $9 billion preparing a deep underground storage facility inside Nevada's Yucca Mountain. But politics has stalled the project, which is several years overdue. The government estimates the price tag for completing and operating the site until 2023 is nearly $27 billion. Nuclear's Troubled Past After the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979, interest in nuclear plants waned. About 60 plants across the country were scrapped, and billions of investment dollars were lost or passed on to consumers through rate increases. Duke scrapped six plants, and Raleigh-based Progress Energy canceled three. Duke lost hundreds of millions on the Cherokee County, S.C., site . The utility raised rates to recover $224.5 million of the roughly $600 million it spent on the previous project that was never completed. It now wants to build twin reactors on the same site for an estimated $4 billion to $6 billion. |