Setbacks cloud hopes for 'nuclear spring'Jun 11 - McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - David R. Baker San Francisco ChronicleJust a few short years ago, nuclear power appeared poised for a comeback. Global warming had given the industry, stagnant since the 1980s, new hope. Advocates said a world determined to cut greenhouse gas emissions would need nuclear plants, which generate large amounts of electricity without spewing carbon dioxide into the air. Companies started planning new reactors across America, despite costs that can top $10 billion per plant. Nuclear proponents announced the arrival of a "nuclear spring." That spring still hasn't come. Last week's announcement that the San Onofre nuclear plant in San Diego County would close for good was just the latest in a series of setbacks for the U.S. nuclear industry. While a handful of new plants are under construction, others have been shelved. Some environmentalists and policy makers concerned about global warming have embraced nuclear power -- a change of heart chronicled in a new documentary film, "Pandora's Promise," that opens Friday. But many environmentalists and their political allies still reject nuclear energy. Their opposition only hardened after the 2011 Fukushima accident in Japan, when an earthquake and tsunami overwhelmed the safety systems of a seaside nuclear plant and caused three reactors to melt down. No cap and trade The U.S. government abandoned efforts to make companies pay for greenhouse gas emissions through a cap-and-trade system, which would have helped nuclear plants compete against facilities burning coal or natural gas. Banks proved reluctant to fund nuclear plant construction unless the government assumed much of the financial risk. Plunging natural gas prices, the result of hydraulic fracturing, made nuclear look even less competitive. "From the beginning, it was clear that nuclear power was not affordable without a lot of help," said Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group. "The capital cost of constructing reactors has turned out to be so enormous that it's not an investment that most utilities are willing to make, at least not without a large package of subsidies from the federal government and the ratepayers." Things could change The industry still hopes for a rebirth. Should the government establish a tax on carbon dioxide emissions or create an emissions trading system similar to California's, nuclear plants would become more financially attractive, advocates say. And nuclear plants, which can generate the same amount of electricity day and night, can provide valuable "baseload" power to back up the variable output from wind farms and solar power plants. "The ability to reliably produce low- or no-carbon electricity around the clock -- that's nuclear power," said Steven Kerekes, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's main lobbying group. "We think the long-term dynamics are good." With the closure of San Onofre, California now has just one operating nuclear plant -- Pacific Gas and Electric Co.'s Diablo Canyon facility near San Luis Obispo. California law forbids building more nuclear plants within the state until the federal government develops a permanent solution for handling the radioactive waste. Leaking tubes The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, which opened in 1968, shut down in January 2012 after recently installed tubes in one of its reactor units leaked a small amount of radioactive steam. The plant's operator and co-owner, Southern California Edison, decided last week that closing it for good would be cheaper than trying to reopen it, a move fought by environmentalists. San Onofre, however, is not the only U.S. nuclear plant shutting down. In February, for example, owners of the Crystal River power plant in Florida reported that it would remain closed, after workers in 2009 accidentally cracked the concrete containment building. The Kewaunee plant in Wisconsin shut down in May, after its owner concluded that the region's low wholesale electricity prices no longer justified keeping it open. According to the Nuclear Energy Institute, companies have announced the closure this year of enough nuclear reactors to generate 3,554 megawatts of electricity, roughly enough to power 2.7 million homes at any one time. Even as the nation's 65 nuclear plants age, some proposed plants have been put on hold. Last week MidAmerican Energy, a subsidiary of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, decided against building nuclear plants in Iowa in the near future, citing the lengthy regulatory process and the country's lack of greenhouse gas regulations. Five reactors are currently under construction in the United States: two in South Carolina, two in Georgia and one in Tennessee. Expensive projects The costs are substantial. The two reactors being built in Georgia -- both at the existing Vogtle Electric Generating Plant -- are expected to cost roughly $14 billion. Much of that will be backed by the federal government. In 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy awarded the project an $8.33 billion loan guarantee. The large up-front expense of building nuclear plants remains the biggest obstacle to the industry's renaissance. Natural gas plants tend to be smaller than nuclear facilities, producing less electricity per plant, but they can be built faster for far less money. "The market's telling us what's going on, and it's not investing in nukes," said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, an environmental group that sued to stop San Onofre's reopening. Like many environmentalists, he rejects the notion that the fight against global warming requires nuclear power. Solar and wind farms still cost more than natural gas plants, but their prices are falling. They can be built faster than nuclear plants, Pica said. And they can't melt down. "Who wants to spend $10 billion and wait 15 years to get something built when you can build renewables cheaper and faster?" he said. But nuclear industry spokesman Kerekes noted that solar and wind power are both highly variable, changing with the time of day as well as the weather. And natural gas prices may not always stay low. Nuclear, he insists, still has advantages. "There has historically been some volatility with natural gas prices," Kerekes said. "When they're low, that's terrific. And when they spike, people take a hit." David R. Baker is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: dbaker@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @DavidBakerSF http://www.energycentral.com/functional/news/news_detail.cfm?did=28912693 |