Sunday, July 06, 2008
Editorial: A power shift for energy
Americans are waking up to the fact that clean coal is an oxymoron. It also won't remain 'cheap' for long. The search for alternatives leads to nuclear.
From the RoundTable blog
Read the latest entries
Dominion Virginia Power's chairman, Thomas F. Farrell, last week announced the company was "trying very hard" to build a third nuclear reactor at its North Anna Plant northwest of Richmond. Since the 2005 energy bill offered incentives for investing in nuclear plants, Dominion has been exploring such a possibility. But the tremendous price tag for nuclear plants placed it out of reach. Until Farrell's announcement on CNBC's "Squawk Box," the company appeared interested but not committed.
The dynamics have shifted, making nuclear much more attractive than continued reliance on coal. The cost remains high -- estimated to be between $2 billion and $3 billion for another reactor -- but not that much higher than what Dominion is spending to build a $1.8 billion "clean" coal plant in Wise.
Generating electricity with coal is no longer cheap. Equipment to minimize toxic emissions has driven up the cost of new plants and has added to the expense of refitting older ones. And that's just the start.
Coal plants are a major contributor to global warming. About a third of U.S. greenhouse emissions are attributed to electric power generation, with fossil-fuel plants contributing the most. Congress plans to require power companies to develop and install expensive carbon sequestration systems and to pay for their emissions. The price will be passed on to consumers already pinched by rapidly escalating electric bills.
Coal plants' problems are piling up faster than their gob piles and are winning converts to the viability of increasing the capacity of nuclear power plants.
Compared to coal, nuclear power's impact on the environment is minimal. Solar and wind, from an environmental stance, are even more attractive and should be fully developed. But both have limitations -- mainly in the hours of operation and in generating capacity -- that nuclear does not. Dominion expects a third reactor would generate enough electricity to supply 375,000 homes. Today, 104 reactors in the U.S. supply one-fifth the country's electricity.
That output dwarfs wind and solar, but there is potential for these clean, renewable sources to grow tremendously. Ideally, the federal government should offer incentives for wind and solar on the scale it is prepared to offer nuclear expansion.
Nuclear isn't the only answer to the country's energy problems and it may not prove to be the best answer. A palatable solution to storing waste has yet to be found, and it takes many years to gain regulatory clearance to build a plant. Dominion, which is first in line for approval, doesn't expect that it would come any sooner than late 2010. At the earliest, it will be 2016 before North Anna 3 would come on line.
Much can happen in that span to develop alternatives as well, if the time is used wisely.
