Nuclear Power's Potential Outlined To House Panel
Nuclear power has the potential to significantly reduce Oklahoma's expanding energy burden in the future, experts today told the House Energy and Technology Committee. But some who spoke disagreed, citing the costs and time involved.
Oklahoma's energy needs are expected to increase by 40 percent over the next 25 years, and Rep. Doug Cox (pictured) said all energy options should be on the table to help meet that growing demand.
"We can't escape the fact that our energy demands are outpacing our capacity," said Cox, R-Grove. "It is perhaps easier in Oklahoma to just turn to natural gas and coal to meet our immediate demands and put off planning for the future. But if we don't even have a plan to at least meet our future minimum energy demands, then we can't possibly expect to attract and retain new business and sustain economic growth down the road."
Experts told the committee that regulatory approval and construction of a new, 1,600-megawatt plant could take as long as a decade and could cost more than $8 billion, not including the multi-million dollar application process and the risk that worldwide construction demand could drive materials costs up significantly over the next decade. Though the financial costs of applying for a permit and building a new plant are a significant obstacle, Cox believes the discussion should remain open, specifically because the state's current energy portfolio is incapable of meeting future demand.
Mike McGarey, a nuclear energy expert at the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), told the committee that the nation's electricity demand will increase by 41 percent over the next 25 years. If the nation's current energy supply mix of nuclear, coal and natural gas remains the same through 2030, the nation would need to build 50 new nuclear plants, 261 coal-fired plants and 279 natural gas plants to keep up with demand.
Currently, there are 104 operating nuclear power plants in the United States that supply 20 percent of the nation's energy capacity. In September, a Texas energy company submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the first complete application for a permit to build a new nuclear plant in nearly 30 years. Since the beginning of the year, at least 17 partial or complete applications have been filed with the NRC for permits to build 31 new nuclear power plants. Since 2000, the NRC has approved 48 license renewals for existing power plants that will allow those plants to continue operating for the next 20 years.
McGarey told the committee that nuclear energy continues to be the cleanest source of energy and remains the cheapest.
Cox said the state should begin to look at federal incentives currently being offered to build new plants and also at other states that are implementing creative ways to spur nuclear energy development.
"The fact is that these plants are vital for not only sustaining current energy demand, but also for attracting new jobs to a state," said Cox. "It is very tough to compete with states that get much of their power from nuclear energy because it is cheaper and cleaner, and that plays a significant role in a company's decision-making process when it is looking to relocate or expand. A new plant would employ more than 800 people to construct it and more than 600 skilled employees to operate it."
Cox said it will take the cooperation of the state and all of the state's utility operators to develop a plan to meet future energy demands, whether or not that includes nuclear energy.
"I get the sense that the Corporation Commission and our larger public utilities recognize the energy crisis we could experience in the coming years and that all are on board with coming up with a solution," said Cox. "Despite the high costs, I think nuclear power is the best solution for providing energy for our state in the future. We'll continue to study the issue and try to develop a viable plan that is safe for our citizens, cost effective and efficient." But some Oklahoma power producers say a nuclear power plant is too costly and would take too long to build to meet rising consumer demand in the state. Representatives of Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co., Public Service Co. of Oklahoma and other energy companies spoke at today's hearing. John Wendling of OG&E, Oklahoma's largest energy producer, said the company is too small to afford the estimated $6 billion cost of building a nuclear power plant. Wendling said OG&E needs additional generating capacity within the next five years. A nuclear plant would take 10 years or longer to build. Mike Kiefner of the Grand River Dam Authority said the financial resources of all of Oklahoma's energy providers may be needed to afford a nuclear plant.
Oklahoma's energy needs are expected to increase by 40 percent over the next 25 years, and Rep. Doug Cox (pictured) said all energy options should be on the table to help meet that growing demand.
"We can't escape the fact that our energy demands are outpacing our capacity," said Cox, R-Grove. "It is perhaps easier in Oklahoma to just turn to natural gas and coal to meet our immediate demands and put off planning for the future. But if we don't even have a plan to at least meet our future minimum energy demands, then we can't possibly expect to attract and retain new business and sustain economic growth down the road."
Experts told the committee that regulatory approval and construction of a new, 1,600-megawatt plant could take as long as a decade and could cost more than $8 billion, not including the multi-million dollar application process and the risk that worldwide construction demand could drive materials costs up significantly over the next decade. Though the financial costs of applying for a permit and building a new plant are a significant obstacle, Cox believes the discussion should remain open, specifically because the state's current energy portfolio is incapable of meeting future demand.
Mike McGarey, a nuclear energy expert at the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), told the committee that the nation's electricity demand will increase by 41 percent over the next 25 years. If the nation's current energy supply mix of nuclear, coal and natural gas remains the same through 2030, the nation would need to build 50 new nuclear plants, 261 coal-fired plants and 279 natural gas plants to keep up with demand.
Currently, there are 104 operating nuclear power plants in the United States that supply 20 percent of the nation's energy capacity. In September, a Texas energy company submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the first complete application for a permit to build a new nuclear plant in nearly 30 years. Since the beginning of the year, at least 17 partial or complete applications have been filed with the NRC for permits to build 31 new nuclear power plants. Since 2000, the NRC has approved 48 license renewals for existing power plants that will allow those plants to continue operating for the next 20 years.
McGarey told the committee that nuclear energy continues to be the cleanest source of energy and remains the cheapest.
Cox said the state should begin to look at federal incentives currently being offered to build new plants and also at other states that are implementing creative ways to spur nuclear energy development.
"The fact is that these plants are vital for not only sustaining current energy demand, but also for attracting new jobs to a state," said Cox. "It is very tough to compete with states that get much of their power from nuclear energy because it is cheaper and cleaner, and that plays a significant role in a company's decision-making process when it is looking to relocate or expand. A new plant would employ more than 800 people to construct it and more than 600 skilled employees to operate it."
Cox said it will take the cooperation of the state and all of the state's utility operators to develop a plan to meet future energy demands, whether or not that includes nuclear energy.
"I get the sense that the Corporation Commission and our larger public utilities recognize the energy crisis we could experience in the coming years and that all are on board with coming up with a solution," said Cox. "Despite the high costs, I think nuclear power is the best solution for providing energy for our state in the future. We'll continue to study the issue and try to develop a viable plan that is safe for our citizens, cost effective and efficient." But some Oklahoma power producers say a nuclear power plant is too costly and would take too long to build to meet rising consumer demand in the state. Representatives of Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co., Public Service Co. of Oklahoma and other energy companies spoke at today's hearing. John Wendling of OG&E, Oklahoma's largest energy producer, said the company is too small to afford the estimated $6 billion cost of building a nuclear power plant. Wendling said OG&E needs additional generating capacity within the next five years. A nuclear plant would take 10 years or longer to build. Mike Kiefner of the Grand River Dam Authority said the financial resources of all of Oklahoma's energy providers may be needed to afford a nuclear plant.
Labels: Doug Cox, Mike McGarey, Nuclear Energy
posted by Mike McCarville @ 5:24 PM
<< Home