Former Virginia politician Allen offers insight on energy crisis
By: Leah Scull, Proof Editor
Issue date: 10/2/08 Section: News
Illinois is the national leader in the production and use of nuclear energy, with 48% of their energy coming from nuclear sources. Do you see this as part of a national trend in a shift towards nuclear? What's been holding back other large states from embracing nuclear energy? Do you see other states, such as Virginia, going nuclear in the near future?
In the country, about 50% is coal, 20% is nuclear, 20% gas, 7% hydro, 3% solar wind oil. The cost of hydro is the least expensive, but fat chance there's going to be any more dams built. And that ends up being about 5 cents per kilowatt hour, coal ends up being, and there are states that use 98% coal, that ends up being about 6-7 cents per kilowatt hour, and the national average is around 10. Those that have a mix end up being 8-9 cents. Nuclear has clearly got to be a component of our base load electricity. For those that care about clean air, and all of us care about clean air, nuclear is great for it. The main impediment in why there hasn't been a nuclear power plant license issued in, well, over 30 years now, is because of two reasons. One, the long permitting process, and that a plant costs billions and billions of dollars, and a minimum of ten to fifteen years before you even get it online. So, for a power company, they really have to have good forward thinking to say, "Twenty years from now, here's the demand, and so we're going to go through all this investment, all this permitting, all the hearings, and all the opposition you usually get from it." And, because of all that, there hasn't been one. In the 2006 Energy Bill, some of this was streamlined, but John McCain believes, and I believe, that we need to get new reactors built. The reactors that will be built will most likely be built at existing sites where the people in those communities are familiar with nuclear power, and they end up with really low property tax rates. Those communities also get a lot of revenue from those power plants. Virginia has two plants, and in fact, Dominion [Virginia's power utility] is trying to get permitting to build another reactor at Lake Anna. The other impediment, besides the enormous cost of a nuclear power plant compared to coal or natural gas, is: What do you do with the spent fuel? Every nuclear power plant is a high-level nuclear waste repository. We do not have a national repository. There has been for years an effort to try to build it at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but the Senator from here, Durbin, he just rails against it, because he thinks we can just have all this nuclear waste driving through Illinois. At any rate, the approach should be not having every plant being a high-level nuclear waste site. We need to operate the way the French do it: they keep recycling, reprocessing the spent fuel rods until the radioactivity is minimal, and then they encase it in glass. It's a much more efficient, less dangerous, safer way of doing it, and once that's done, communities will feel a lot safer having a nuclear power plant. Low-level radioactive waste, states have compacts, and they move that out, and that is good. It's put into a safe place. So, two things, streamline the process, and allow for reprocessing and recycling of the waste. When that's done, that'll make it much safer. If the French can do it, so can we.
In the country, about 50% is coal, 20% is nuclear, 20% gas, 7% hydro, 3% solar wind oil. The cost of hydro is the least expensive, but fat chance there's going to be any more dams built. And that ends up being about 5 cents per kilowatt hour, coal ends up being, and there are states that use 98% coal, that ends up being about 6-7 cents per kilowatt hour, and the national average is around 10. Those that have a mix end up being 8-9 cents. Nuclear has clearly got to be a component of our base load electricity. For those that care about clean air, and all of us care about clean air, nuclear is great for it. The main impediment in why there hasn't been a nuclear power plant license issued in, well, over 30 years now, is because of two reasons. One, the long permitting process, and that a plant costs billions and billions of dollars, and a minimum of ten to fifteen years before you even get it online. So, for a power company, they really have to have good forward thinking to say, "Twenty years from now, here's the demand, and so we're going to go through all this investment, all this permitting, all the hearings, and all the opposition you usually get from it." And, because of all that, there hasn't been one. In the 2006 Energy Bill, some of this was streamlined, but John McCain believes, and I believe, that we need to get new reactors built. The reactors that will be built will most likely be built at existing sites where the people in those communities are familiar with nuclear power, and they end up with really low property tax rates. Those communities also get a lot of revenue from those power plants. Virginia has two plants, and in fact, Dominion [Virginia's power utility] is trying to get permitting to build another reactor at Lake Anna. The other impediment, besides the enormous cost of a nuclear power plant compared to coal or natural gas, is: What do you do with the spent fuel? Every nuclear power plant is a high-level nuclear waste repository. We do not have a national repository. There has been for years an effort to try to build it at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but the Senator from here, Durbin, he just rails against it, because he thinks we can just have all this nuclear waste driving through Illinois. At any rate, the approach should be not having every plant being a high-level nuclear waste site. We need to operate the way the French do it: they keep recycling, reprocessing the spent fuel rods until the radioactivity is minimal, and then they encase it in glass. It's a much more efficient, less dangerous, safer way of doing it, and once that's done, communities will feel a lot safer having a nuclear power plant. Low-level radioactive waste, states have compacts, and they move that out, and that is good. It's put into a safe place. So, two things, streamline the process, and allow for reprocessing and recycling of the waste. When that's done, that'll make it much safer. If the French can do it, so can we.
Be the first to comment on this story