Lawmakers portray nuclear as key part of future U. S. energy

At House hearing, question isn’t whether plants will be built, but how much government will contribute

By David Whitney

WASHINGTON --

WASHINGTON — Expansion of nuclear power was viewed as an opportunity Wednesday at a House Science and Technology Committee hearing.

Gone are the days when lawmakers questioned the safety of reactor technology. Even among those for whom waste is an issue, there is a high comfort level with storing used fuel in dry casks for decades at the reactor sites such as Diablo

Canyon nuclear power plant while a more comprehensive solution is studied.

The only question that seemed to bother some committee members, mostly Democrats, was whether the billions of dollars in subsidies to revive nuclear plant construction was a wise use of taxpayer money.

Among some Republicans who think nuclear power needs to be a bigger part of the country’s answer to global warming, concern was raised about California’s long-standing law prohibiting any new plants until an underground waste repository in Nevada is opened.

“California is confronted with the reality that its blanket prohibition on nuclear power has to be revisited,” said Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Carlsbad. “The alternatives are unacceptable.”

Nuclear power is gaining new momentum because of global warming worries. Unlike power plants that burn coal or natural gas, nuclear plants do not emit any of the gases that most scientists believe are causing global warming.

Even some environmentalists who once railed against nuclear energy now believe it will play an important part in the country’s energy future, if legislation to dramatically lower greenhouse gas emissions is approved by Congress. The Senate is expected to take up such legislation in June.

“Nuclear power is in the mix,” said Thomas Cochran, a senior nuclear scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It’s a mature industry. When it can compete, we should let it. The problem is that new nuclear plants are not economic.”

The last time a nuclear plant was ordered was 1973. But the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expecting as many as 30 applications for new plants to be filed by the end of 2009, and subsidies provided under a 2005 energy bill are a major reason. The package of loan guarantees, operating subsidies and other assistance totals nearly $30 billion over eight years.

But witnesses said the funding is necessary because no new plants have been built for several decades and costs are uncertain. Much of the materials, such as high-strength steel, now have to be imported because there no longer is a U. S. manufacturer.

In addition, witnesses said, the industry is working to standardize design and streamline the licensing process. If it works, the first few new plants would shoulder most of disproportionately high costs.

Under questioning by Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, James Asselstine, a former managing director of Lehman Bros. concentrating on the electricity business, predicted that the cost of new nuclear plants “will be in line with coal generation.”

About 14 percent of California’s power comes from the two nuclear plants it has in operation: Diablo Canyon and the San Onofre plant near San Diego.Officials with Pacific Gas and Electric Co., which owns the Diablo Canyon plant, have said they are interested in more nuclear power but are not proposing to add new reactors to Diablo.