Printable version

Email story

Exclusive Reports
	From the March 30, 2001 print edition

New nuclear plant possible in Georgia

Though it has been almost three decades since the federal government licensed a new nuclear power plant, Southern Co. may seek permission to build one in Georgia or Alabama.

Southern Co. is considering applying for a federal license to build a new plant on the site of one of its existing nuclear power plants, said Lou Long, vice president of technical services for Southern Nuclear Operating Co. The Atlanta-based utility is one of a handful of power companies contemplating building nuclear plants in the midst of the California energy crisis and a new round of pro-nuclear legislation in Washington, D.C.

The move marks a major shift in the energy industry, since no licenses to build nuclear power plants in the United States have been granted by the federal government since 1975. More than 100 nuclear power plants have been built in the United States, but the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania -- which was a near-meltdown -- squelched the momentum of the industry.

Now, soaring fossil fuel prices and a new political climate in the nation's capital appear to be resuscitating the nuclear industry.

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., has introduced legislation to spend $240 million over the next five years to promote developing more nuclear power plants and dealing with increasing levels of nuclear waste from the nation's existing power plants. Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Ala., also has introduced legislation to promote nuclear energy through research and tax incentives.

Meanwhile, Vice President Dick Cheney has said his energy policy team is studying the future of nuclear energy.

Yet while politicians are touting nuclear power as a remedy for the nation's energy woes, the problem of dealing with mounting levels of highly toxic nuclear waste remains unresolved -- a prospect that worries many industry watchdog groups and environmentalists.

Process streamlined

Adding to the political momentum, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which regulates everything from nuclear power plants to nuclear waste, has streamlined the licensing process for new nuclear power plants. Requests from utility companies are evaluated individually and are not awarded through competitive bidding.

The commission now allows companies to get early approval of a possible site for a nuclear power plant and to apply for pre-approved designs for nuclear reactors. The new processes will be more efficient for companies seeking to build nuclear power plants, said Thelma Wiggins, spokesperson for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's trade association.

In addition to several pre-approved designs, another new type of reactor is being tested in South Africa by Chicago-based Exelon Corp. (NYSE: EXC).

Southern growth

If Southern Co. were to apply for a license to build a new plant, it would use one of the pre-approved designs, Long said. Nonetheless, developing the required documentation and going through the federal review process for a new plant could take several years and cost as much as $6 million, Long said.

In order for a new nuclear plant to be competitive, it would have to cost about $1,000 per kilowatt, or $1 billion for a 1,000 megawatt plant, said Michael Jones, spokesperson for Southern Nuclear Operating Co.

Southern Co. (NYSE: SO) operates two nuclear power plants in Georgia and one in Alabama, each of which has two nuclear reactors. Industry-watchers predict that Southern Co. would be most likely to apply for a license to build a new nuclear reactor at Plant Vogtle near Augusta, since that plant was originally licensed for four reactors, although only two were built.

"There's ample room at Plant Vogtle for some additional units, but all our sites are very big in terms of land area," Long said, noting that many other issues such as water supply would be factors in the decision.

Nuclear energy currently generates more than 20 percent of the electricity used in Georgia and Alabama, but Long said the company is cautiously examining whether nuclear energy could play a bigger role at Southern Co.

"The price of [natural] gas has doubled and tripled and it's susceptible to periods of volatility when the demand is high. And coal plants bring along some environmental issues," Long said. "Nuclear's big advantage these days is that its fuel prices are low and stable and there are no greenhouse gases and emissions."

Southern Co. has a representative on the committee that is studying options for new nuclear power plants at the Nuclear Energy Institute. The Nuclear Energy Institute believes that nuclear power could satisfy the nation's growing appetite for electricity, which it expects to grow 50 percent by 2020.

The institute also believes that nuclear production could help meet electricity demand in California. The increase in nuclear generation over the past two years would have been enough to meet the power needs of all the residential consumers in California, according to a report from U.S. Department of Energy.

Waste woes

But while utilities are contemplating building more nuclear plants, so-called "high-level" nuclear waste from existing nuclear plants is piling up.

Nationwide, there were 42,900 metric tons of nuclear waste from power plants -- or "spent" nuclear fuel, as it is called -- at the end of 2000.

These spent nuclear fuel rods, if stacked end to end about five yards deep, would more than cover a football field, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute. Some parts of this nuclear waste, which is thermally hot and highly radioactive, are so hazardous they will have to be kept in isolation for at least 10,000 years.

By the end of the decade, the amount of spent nuclear fuel is expected to grow to 64,300 metric tons and there is still no consensus on where this waste will be stored long term. Critics of new nuclear plants argue that the nuclear waste issue should be resolved before building more waste-producing plants.

"It's irresponsible to push for a new generation of nuclear plants when we haven't cleaned up from the past generation of nuclear plants," said Glenn Carroll of Georgians Against Nuclear Energy (GANE).

Southern Co.'s Long contends that the company is handling its own waste responsibly.

Carroll believes that Southern Co.'s efforts would be better spent on managing existing nuclear waste and researching other forms of energy.

"The progressive and positive leadership role we vitally need Southern Co. to play is to develop energy conservation and efficiency in tandem with using natural Southern renewable energies -- wind, solar and biomass," Carroll said. "The future of the nuclear industry is in figuring out how to deal with the waste. Until we deal with nuclear waste, it's just wrong to propose for new nuclear plants to be built."

Many environmental groups, such as Georgians for Clean Energy, agree that investing in alternative forms of energy, rather than new nuclear power plants, would be a safer and more environmentally sound alternative.

"It's the only form of energy that if there's a major meltdown of a plant it will cause between 700 to 100,000 immediate deaths and between 4,000 to 610,000 injuries per reactor," said Pamela Blockey-O'Brien, a Douglasville resident who closely follows the nuclear industry and has served as a delegate to the United Nations' special sessions on nuclear disarmament. "We have the equivalent of a nuclear bomb with a slow burning fuse in our back yards that is constantly releasing radioactivity to air, water and soil."

Long-term problem

The nuclear waste dilemma dates back at least to 1982 when the government established a fee for nuclear utilities, and in return, promised that the U.S. Department of Energy would begin disposing of their nuclear waste by 1998.

However, the government has not yet assumed this responsibility because its chosen site for a national storage facility, Yucca Mountain, Nev., has faced fierce opposition and has been tied up for a decade in research, as well as political, legal and environmental battles. The government's national repository is not expected to open until at least 2010.

With no immediate resolution in sight, some environmentalists fear that the nuclear industry -- especially with the gleam of new nuclear plants in its eyes -- could bury the nation in a nuclear waste problem that may never be resolved.

"It's all about money for utility companies," Blockey-O'Brien said. "They don't care because they're going to die before the waste issue is taken care of and it will passed on to generations and generations and generations."

Copyright 2001 American City Business Journals Inc. Click for permission to reprint (PRC# 1.1670.412426)

Printable version

Email story