Controversy surrounds future investments in nuclear power

Controversy surrounds future investments in nuclear power

By ANN KEIL
6 News Reporter

KNOXVILLE (WATE) -- Tennessee Valley Authority officials claim they're leading the industry in terms of nuclear power production. In recent years, reactors have gone online, and they have plans to keep building.

As the country moves toward becoming a more electric-centric environment, TVA wants to be ready.

The utility is building the only new nuclear reactor in the United States at Watts Bar, so there will be a unit two.

The utility expects to bring it online in 2012 and spend $2.5 billion.

"About 1,170 or 1,180 megawatts will be added to the system basically doubling the capacity of the plant," says TVA spokesperson Terry Johnson.

That means the plant will be capable of powering the equivalent of more than 1 million homes in the Tennessee Valley.

Nuclear power already represents 30 percent of TVA's capacity, and the utility wants to raise that number.

Johnson says nuclear is more reliable than the alternatives.

"When you compare it to renewables, for example, you can only get electricity from the wind when the wind is blowing and sun when the sun is shining," he says.

"Nuclear power has a role to play. It's a base-load reliable production source," says Dr. Dana Christensen with Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Christensen also characterizes nuclear power as cost-effective.

The problem, however, is few if any utilities have had the overhead to build a new plant from the ground up, according to Christensen. 

"Without some type of incentive, industries will simply not invest the type of capital required to improve the technology," he says.

Still Dr. Christensen says the investment is necessary. The country has been living off money spent 30 or 40 years ago.

But many environmentalists take issue with investing too much additional money into nuclear considering it has had a checkered past.

"TVA, back in the (19)70s, wanted to build 17 nuclear power plants. They ran up the largest nuclear power debt of any utility in the country, and we as ratepayers continue to carry that burden of $25 billion," says Dr. Stephen Smith, Director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.

Dr. Smith calls nuclear investments risky.

He also responds to claims that further dependence on nuclear will allow utilities to move away from carbon emitting sources, like coal fired power plants, reducing their environmental impact.

"When they say they want to have nuclear power be a solution to global warming, the reality is that we're not going to let a lot of countries build nuclear power plants. We don't want Iran building nuclear power plants," Smith says.

He also says it would be better to move towards a more energy efficient society, one that invests in clean, renewable power like solar, wind or hydro-electric and natural gas.

Despite ORNL's deeply rooted history in nuclear, Dr. Christensen sees the importance of these sources as well.

They're working on a variety of technologies.

"We need, first and foremost, energy efficiency. We can make bigger gains in the near term by being more efficient with the power we use today with homes and transportation," says Christensen. "Nuclear plays an important role, but it is not the answer."

Johnson agrees that nuclear is not the only answer. He points to the utility's diverse portfolio. "TVA uses nuclear, coal, hydro, renewable and natural gas."

TVA officials wouldn't say how much the utility spends on nuclear. They did say, aside from hydro electric power, nuclear is their most cost-effective method of generating power.

TVA has another project in motion. It is called Bellefonte. It's a 1,600 acre site located along the Tennessee River in Northeast Alabama.

The utility began building a nuclear power plant there and spent $4.5 billion in the process. However, work stopped in 1988 when power demand growth slowed.

Officials are now deciding whether they want to complete the unit or build a new nuclear reactor with a different design.