Alternative fuels: Is nuclear power the answer to rising energy demands?

Tuesday, 26 June 2007

Page 2 of 2 South Carolina’s nuclear profile According to a January 2005 EIA report, South Carolina is ranked third among 31 states with nuclear capabilities, and South Carolina has the most nuclear capacity in the Southeast. Duke Energy operates two reactors at its Catawba plant on Lake Wylie and three at its Oconee facility near Seneca. Carolina Power & Light operates the H.B. Robinson reactor near Hartsville, and South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. operates the Virgil C. Summer plant in Fairfield County. These seven reactors generate a total of 53,136 million kilowatt hours of electricity annually, according to the EIA. South Carolina is also home to the Chem-Nuclear Systems Barnwell Waste Management Facility, one of two low-level, waste-storage facilities in the country. The Barnwell facility has been in operation since 1971 and houses more than 28 million cubic feet of low-level nuclear waste. Low-level nuclear waste is essentially clothing, tools, rags and any refuse that has become radioactive through exposure. The Barnwell site is licensed federally by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and by the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control. Nuclear concerns Nuclear power still carries a heavy load of radioactive baggage. Environmentalists argue that without a viable long-term storage plan, nuclear waste will put communities at risk of exposure. The national solution to long-term nuclear waste storage appears to be Yucca Mountain. Located about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, the U.S. Department of Energy began looking at Yucca Mountain as a spent-fuel, high-level radioactive waste repository in 1978, based on suggestions that the best and safest way to store the material would be deep underground. Long-term nuclear waste storage became a national issue when Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982. In 1983, the DOE selected nine sites in six states as possible repositories. President Ronald Reagan eventually narrowed this list to three locations: Hanford, Wash.; Deaf Smith County, Texas; and Yucca Mountain in Nye County, Nev. In 1987, Congress settled on Yucca Mountain and the facility was scheduled to open in 1998. However, political opposition delayed the project. In 2002, President George W. Bush signed a House-Senate joint resolution that allowed the DOE to move forward on the Yucca Mountain facility. According to the EIA, the DOE is working on the license application and plans to submit the materials to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2008. But that doesn’t mean the controversial project is settled. When the Democrats took control of the Senate in the November 2006 elections and Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada became Senate Majority Leader, opposition to the Yucca Mountain plan grew stronger. Without the Yucca Mountain facility, the pressure would increase for local waste storage facilities in South Carolina and the rest of the country. Waste stored in these temporary facilities can potentially leak into water sources and expose communities to harmful radioactive waste. Nuclear defense waste stored at the Savannah River Site near Aiken is a prime example. The storage containers could become compromised, causing tritium, the radioactive form of hydrogen used in weapons, to leak into the Savannah River, which supplies drinking water to thousands of people in Beaufort and Jasper counties. “This stuff is so deadly that citizens need to be concerned,” said Joe Whetstone, a Bluffton resident and member of the Sierra Club’s S.C.  Chapter Conservation Committee. Other concerns with increasing nuclear power capabilities include the proliferation of nuclear weapons beyond U.S. borders and the potential for a repeat of the partial core meltdown on Three Mile Island. And, because nuclear power relies on uranium, which is not a renewable resource, environmentalists argue that conservation and renewable energy are safer options. “We haven’t even tried to conserve,” said Whetstone. “Energy efficiency has declined rather than improved, and as a society we seem to be excusing ourselves and saying we need more energy.” South Carolina’s nuclear future Finucane expects that between five and 20 new nuclear reactors will be ordered in the next 20 years in the United States because of technological advances that make the energy source more viable. Duke Energy, the state’s largest nuclear power producer, is currently working on an application for licensing of a new Westinghouse AP 1000 reactor in Cherokee County, and expects to complete the paperwork late this year. If it decides to submit the application, the review process will take two or three years, said Duke Energy spokeswoman Rita Sipe. “We’re evaluating many things, and it’s about meeting our customers’ needs now and in the future,” said Sipe. Duke Energy estimates that power demand increases by 40,000 to 60,000 customers annually in its North and South Carolina markets combined. “A new nuclear power plant is one option we’re exploring.” Duke is also investigating coal, renewable energy sources and natural gas options, Sipe said. According to the EIA, Santee Cooper and South Carolina Electric & Gas have also expressed an interest in applying for a license to build one or two additional reactors at the Summer site. As for the waste-disposal issue, the federal government has a legal obligation to take the waste and store it in a permanent location, Singer said. “It’s long overdue. Political, not scientific, issues have slowed the process,” he said. The potential for recycling used fuel is also a possibility in the future. When spent fuel is put in the ground, only 4% of the energy has been extracted, Finucane said. “It is currently not economical to reprocess fuel, but 96% of the energy content is still there,” he said. “Technological advances may allow them to go back and get more out of it.” Although nuclear power has great potential for serving South Carolina, the rest of the nation and the world, the risks are also staggering and difficult to ignore. And the knowledge of these risks may make nuclear power’s rise to the top a long and arduous process. “Everyone says, ‘Not in my backyard,’” Finucane said. “Finding a site for any new facility is going to be a challenge.” << Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>