Critics: Plan for 50 nuke plants a myth

WASHINGTON -- Nuclear-power industry executives, meeting in the nation's capital at an annual conference last month, were flushed with unprecedented optimism.

President Bush had included them in his National Energy Policy. They were earning endorsements from noted environmentalist Bruce Babbitt and Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., a leader on energy issues. Vice President Dick Cheney even stopped by to assure the executives that they were a "very important part" of the solution to energy shortages.

It all led up to a striking announcement by the industry's top trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute, which unveiled a "bold" new goal: Roughly 50 nuclear power reactors should be built in America by 2020.

But realistically, can it be done?

Critics say no. Construction costs are too high, public fear too widespread and government red tape too thick, they say.

"Because there is such a long lead time in building plants and such a high capital cost -- as the past has told us -- (50 plants) really is mythical," said Jill Lancelot, co-founder of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group.

Another obstacle: The plan would increase by 50 percent the number of nuclear plants in America, currently 103, which means 50 percent more nuclear waste.

That has Nevada officials worried because Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is the proposed -- and yet unapproved -- site of the nation's nuclear waste dump. Current law says Yucca could hold 77,000 tons of waste, which is what the 103 plants will have produced by the time Yucca closes later this century.

If 50 plants were built, Congress would either have to expand Yucca or look for a second site.

"They would have to face this all over again," said Brian O'Connell, nuclear waste office director for the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.

As the nuclear industry gathered in Washington, critics also closed ranks. NEI chief Joe Colvin had said the plan was "doable." But one activist likened the industry's goal to "science fiction."

Even more critical than the waste issue, the cost of constructing, permitting and licensing a plant is simply too high, said David Lochbaum, nuclear engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists. He doubts the industry will build even one plant.

"This industry has a very difficult time going from blueprint to back yard," Lochbaum said.

Tom Clements, director of the Nuclear Control Institute, said he doubts whether many nuclear executives believe their own rhetoric.

"They know that the costs are prohibitive," Clements said.

No new nuclear plants have been ordered in America since before the 1979 Three Mile Island accident. Public fears are still high, critics say.

"People are very concerned about nuclear waste transportation, and they are even more concerned about nuclear power plants in their back yard," said Kevin Kamps, an activist with Nuclear Information & Resource Service.

If a plant were to be built today, it would cost about $1.5 billion to $2 billion, and construction would take about six years, Mitchell Singer, NEI spokesman, said. That's substantially more money than a coal or gas plant.

NEI has a task force that is looking at ways to lessen the cost, Singer said.

"These are economic decisions that will have to play out," he said.

So far, only one company, Exelon Corp., is realistically considering building a plant soon. The Chicago-based company is a $7.5 million partner in a test-model reactor in South Africa, touted as "meltdown-proof."

The plant relies on new "pebble bed" technology that fuels a reactor with tennis-ball sized uranium granule canisters. The South Africa plant could be operational by 2005, and Exelon officials say America could be the technology's next home.

But industry watchers are skeptical. David Jermain, a principal with Andersen LLP consulting firm, said he would be "quite surprised" to see a new nuclear plant in America in the next 10 years. It's a hard sell to convince investors that accident and waste-transportation risk factors are minimal, that nuclear power can compete economically with coal and natural gas, and that the public will embrace new plants.

"Public opinion about nuclear power is going to take a long time to change, if ever," Jermain said.

Industry officials outside Exelon said their companies are not planning new plants.

"That goal (50 new plants) would be what I would call very optimistic, or very aggressive," said David Christian, senior vice president for nuclear operations at Dominion Energy, which operates six reactors.

The 50-plants plan is more of an incentive to industry leaders to maintain safe, efficient plants, Christian said.

"Realistically, I don't think companies are even taking steps toward that goal," he said.

Building new plants is just too expensive, Christian said. The company's two Surry reactors in Virginia cost a combined $420 million by the time they opened in the early 1970s. Dominion's two North Anna reactors in Virginia cost a combined $1.3 billion by completion in 1980.

Christian noted that Dominion Chief Executive Thomas Ferrell warned that "irrational exuberance" may be at play. The waste issue is just one of several obstacles for new plants, Ferrell told the industry executives last month.

"If that (waste) stalemate persists, I just can't imagine more nuclear plants in the United States," Christian said.

Entergy Corp., which owns eight reactors, is focused on re-licensing its current plants, not building new ones, Entergy spokesman Larry Gottlieb said. The unresolved waste issue is a major obstacle, he said.

But given Bush's pro-nuclear stance and congressional desire to loosen federal regulations on the industry, it's no wonder tongues are wagging, Gottlieb said.

"Now is the time to do it," he said. "If everything falls into place, I can see plans being fast-tracked."

But independent experts also warn the nation isn't ready for more nuclear plants.

Five factors aside from the waste issue have to be addressed before utilities seriously consider new reactors, James Asselstine, managing director of Lehman Bros. Inc., told a Senate panel last month:

The public must accept the plant.

Producing nuclear power has to be cheaper than coal and gas.

Investors have to be guaranteed that plant construction will be on time and on budget.

Financing has to be solid.

The uranium fuel that feeds the plants must remain affordable.

Finding investors who are willing to finance new plants is the overriding concern, said Eileen Supko, a nuclear industry consultant with Energy Resources International Inc.

"They need to be able to secure funding and assure shareholders that they are making a prudent decision, and to do that, having a predictable process and predictable costs is the bottom line," Supko said.

Still, if utility companies can figure out how to build plants economically, new plants could spring up this decade, said James Lake, president of the American Nuclear Society, an 11,000-member association of engineers and scientists.

"That's a challenge to put 50 nuclear plants on line by 2020, but it is not infeasible," Lake said. "Remember: It's a goal."

archive