Nuclear Power Returns, But Big Obstacles Remain

Nuclear power is poised for a comeback, as consumers and electric utilities look for ways to meet the rising demand for energy in the U.S. According to the Department of Energy, Americans will use 41 percent more electricity in 2030 than they did in 2005, and hydrocarbons like coal and gas are not as attractive as they were a few years ago. Prices have increased, and Americans have become more concerned about global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. With even many environmentalists now favoring nuclear power as part of our energy strategy, it's clear the industry is headed for a revival.

National Journal gives a good all-around look at where things stand today. They report that federal regulators expect 3-5 applications for new nuclear facilities this year, and 8-10 next year. Assuming that this first swath of new generators moves ahead without major trouble, the number could increase after that. Major obstacles remain however, including financing, disposal of fuel, and environmental opposition.

With regard to financing, NJ says that lenders remain wary:

Before the utilities can put a shovel into the ground, they must persuade Wall Street to lend the millions of dollars they need to secure licenses and the billions they need to build. Industry officials say that the engineering, technical, and legal work required to pull together a license application can cost $100 million. The Energy Department, under a program aimed at encouraging companies to order new reactors, will share some of those initial expenses. After a company receives a license to build, the actual construction will probably cost $4 billion to $5 billion.

Most financial experts on Wall Street remain wary of making huge new investments in nuclear power. Bankers remember all too well the bad experiences of the 1970s and 1980s, when tangles of red tape, challenges from the public, and construction mistakes stretched out timetables for completing new plants and forced investors to write off billions. Some facilities were shut down without ever generating a single kilowatt of electricity.

Fortunately, the 'do-nothing Congress' that Democrats ran against in 2006 seems to have taken a major step toward solving the funding problem: The Energy Policy Act of 2005. That legislation offers both loan guarantees for new facilities--which increases the confidence of lenders in nuclear applications--and tax credits for energy generated by nuclear plants. While the licensing process was streamlined by Congress in 1992, no applications were made until after the Act was signed into law. Constellation Energy, for example, has submitted half of its application for a new nuclear generating plant at Calvert Cliffs, Maryland. Constellation's Senior VP says 'we had been interested in pursuing new nuclear... but it was really on the back burner until the Energy Policy Act was passed. The law provided the incentives needed for companies to look toward new nuclear as a source of emissions-free power.'

Nuclear waste disposal remains a more serious concern. Congress in 1982 ordered the Department of Energy to take possession of all the nation's spent nuclear fuel by 1998, with the goal of storing it at a single site, where proper disposal could be ensured. Over the vociferous opposition of the Nevada congressional delegation, Congress in 2002 passed legislation to create that storage facility at Yucca Mountain. The process continues to move forward in fits and starts; the facility might be licensed in the next 3-4 years. This poses a problem for some utilities, who now store spent fuel at the facility where it's generated. Further, Illinois, California, and some other states have adopted moratoriums on the construction of new plants until the question of permanent waste storage is settled. Some utilities regard this as a serious challenge, other aren't letting it stop expansion plans.

But a more serious challenge remains environmental opposition. Attitudes have clearly changed since the 1970s. The Nuclear Energy Institute, which lobbies for the industry in Washington, maintains a growing list of environmental advocates who back increased use of nuclear power, including Patrick Moore -- the co-founder of Greenpeace:

"[N]uclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change. … Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce [CO2 ] emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely."