By Paula C. Squires
There are plenty of lessons to be learned from the near meltdown of Japan’s tsunami-wrecked nuclear power plant, but abandoning nuclear power should not be one of them. As Japan continued to struggle to gain control over its plant at Fukushima Daiichi that has been the reaction in Virginia from the halls of Congress, the Virginia governor’s office, the state’s largest utility and academia.
“It is irrational to rush to judgment and blame the effect of a major natural disaster on an industry which is actually so beneficial to this country and the whole world,” said Alireza Haghighat, a professor in Virginia Tech’s nuclear engineering program, referring to the catastrophic earthquake and tsunami that stuck northeastern Japan on March 9. Instead, he added, the nuclear industry should assist Japan and learn from its experience.
Particularly in a state like Virginia where the nuclear industry has a strong presence, “It is important that the industry maintains its momentum in design, licensing and operation of a new generation of nuclear reactors,” said Haghighat, a fellow of the American Nuclear Society and chairman of the board of the Southeast Universities Nuclear Reactors Institute for Science and Education, a nonprofit that supports the advancement of nuclear education in the southeastern U.S. “Areva NP and B&W should learn from Japanese experience, and if necessary consider changes in their designs.”
Paris-based Areva and Charlotte, N.C.-based Babcock & Wilcox have nuclear operations in Lynchburg. Both companies have responded to the crisis with offers to provide technical assistance, and Arveva has sent supplies, including radiation detection equipment. Virginia also has two nuclear plants in Louisa and Surry counties. Dominion Virginia Power, which operates the two nuclear plants, has applied to build a third nuclear reactor at its Lake Anna Power Station in Louisa. However, the company needs a partner to help finance the project. “We don’t have an equity partner yet. We want to keep the option open to meet future demand,” said company spokesman Jim Norvelle.
Dominion expects the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to rule on its application in 2013. “Then it becomes a business decision, and we’ll have to decide if we want to go through with it,” Norvelle said.
Frank Settle, a chemistry professor at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, expects the Japanese crisis to weaken funding for new U S. nuclear plants. “Nuclear power plants are very expensive to build — about $10 billion a pop. The utilities don’t have that kind of capital. So they have to go to the investment community, and the investment community was already a little bit squirrelly about taking risks with nuclear power. I think this will make partners hard to come by in this environment.”
Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell doesn’t want the state to abandon the construction of new nuclear reactors. McDonnell has pushed to make Virginia the energy capital of the East coast and supports nuclear as a part of the state’s overall mix. In an interview with the Washington Post on March 18, he said: “I believe it would be most unwise to let this unprecedented tragedy lead to the retraction or abandonment of the American nuclear energy industry. Nuclear energy is clean, reliable, affordable and critical to generating the volume of electricity we need to power our homes and businesses and grow our economy.”
The state’s two nuclear plants generate about one third of Virginia’s electricity. “They have multiple redundant systems to provide backup electrical power,” McDonnell said. “The stations were also analyzed against worst-case acts of nature, such as earthquakes, floods and hurricanes, and modified as necessary to protect them. There are 19 emergency drills scheduled for this year.”
President Barack Obama also isn’t backing away from his support of nuclear power. However, in response to what happened in Japan with explosions, fires and radiation now being found in the country’s food and water supplies, he is asking the NRC to conduct a comprehensive review of the safety of the America’s 104 domestic nuclear plants.
House Majority leader Eric Cantor, R-7th, whose district includes Louisa, supports the president’s position. “At this point, we don’t know all the facts in Japan … My commitment is to see what lessons we can learn from the experience in Japan but at the same time recognize that nuclear power is an integral part of the energy mix in this country.”
While officials debate the safety of nuclear power, some Virginia businesses are assessing what ripple effects might flow from Japan’s disaster. In Richmond, specialty insurer Markel Corp. was trying to calculate its earthquake insurance exposure in Japan. Richard R. Whitt III, the company’s president and co-chief operating officer, noted that the areas affected were typically rural and residential. “We mostly write commercial insurance,” he said. “Obviously we are talking to our brokers and they are talking to the insureds where they can.” While information is limited at this time, Whitt has heard projections of insured losses ranging from $15 billion to $35 billion.
It’s been a busy year for Markel. The insurer had exposure to the Australian floods as well as the earthquake in New Zealand. “Last year was a similar year,” Whitt says. “In the first quarter, we had the Chilean earthquake and the earthquake in Haiti. There has been a high frequency of earthquakes in the last year causing large losses of life and economic damage.” Four of the five costliest earthquakes and tsunamis in the last 30 years have occurred within the past 13 months, according to the Insurance Information Institute. Before the Japanese earthquake, insured earthquake losses worldwide dating back to February 2010 totaled an estimated $23 billion.
In another part of the state, Patrick Wales, project manager for Virginia Uranium Inc. in Pittsylvania County, doesn’t foresee an immediate impact on the company’s plans to mine the undeveloped uranium deposits at Coles Hill near Chatham. The company is awaiting the results of two studies on uranium mining, which will be used by the General Assembly in deciding whether to lift a 29-year mining ban. The studies, one regarding health and safety and the other studying the socio-economic impact, are expected to be completed by Dec. 1. “The next session [of the General Assembly] is the earliest something could happen,” said Wales.
The Coles Hill uranium deposit — the largest undeveloped uranium deposit in the U.S. — could be a source for uranium used by nuclear plants. Wales says there is currently a need to increase the mine supply of uranium. “The world currently operates in a 50-million pound deficit; a 180-million pound demand and a 130 million pound primary mine supply. There already exists a need to close that gap regardless if any more nuclear plants are built.”
Five groups opposed to lifting the uranium mining ban want Japan’s nuclear problems to considered in one of the studies being conducted by the National Academy of Sciences. In a filing with the NAS, opponents said study committee members should examine whether the nuclear power crisis will depress uranium prices, making the proposed Pittsylvania operation unsustainable after mining has begun.
Virginia Uranium dismissed the filing as a delaying tactic.
Jessica Sabbath and Joan Tupponce contributed to this report.
Of course business entities are still pursuing their plans, but this article does not address how residents of the Commonwealth feel about the nuclear industry. It does not address the fact many residents of Pittsylvania County still have valid numerous concerns about VUI’s plans to mine and mill uranium in Virginia. Even well before study results are due, VUI has already announced its intentions to have legislation ready that would give the nod to state government to design regulations for uranium mining. Before you can write a headline like the one on this story, it is crucial to talk to ALL stakeholders (not just those affiliated with business).
--Native Virginian
Mar. 22, 2011 at 07:23 AM
All power sources have environmental impacts. Current information seems to indicate that the contaminantion released from the Japanese plants will cause significantly less human health impact than a similar sized coal or oil fired plant would have in normal operation. It is also straightforward to build new plants to be more resistant to this type of event.
Most people understand nuclear provides clean, safe, and reliable energy. Those who live closest to them report the greatest support, because they know it from personal experience. The only real impediment to new nuclear construction is the huge and unnecessary cost imposed by our outdated regulatory system. That is the main reason Asian countries can build them in half the time and at half the cost. They don’t spend decades with very high paid people doing make-work reviews that have no real effect on safety.
--Energy PE of Cumberland Countty
Mar. 22, 2011 at 11:22 AM
Can one really say nuclear energy is “affordable” when you take into consideration the millions it takes to build reactors, mine & mill uranium, store tailings and nuclear waste, conduct ongoing monitoring for contamination, etc.?? What about the millions it costs in federal tax dollars to remediate a SuperFund site, such as former uranium mills?
How can tailings and nuclear waste - which can’t be exposed anywhere near humans or anything else living (ever) - truly be considered “clean”?? No one wants nuclear waste in their state - especially not buried under their communities.
Nuclear may be deemed “safe” when everything goes according to plan. Just like BP. Just like Exxon. Just like Three Mile Island. Disasters aren’t scripted. However, it would be easy to imagine worst-case scenarios in Virginia given the history of severe weather (such as flash flooding, high wind warnings, tornadoes, etc.). One only has to look back at what flooding did in the Madison area in 1995, or in Roanoke in 1985. What would a flood like those do to an open pit or underground uranium mine and nearby uranium mill??
--Native Virginian
Mar. 22, 2011 at 04:59 PM
Of course nuclear energy is affordable. Every electrical system operator uses the existing nuclear plants whenever they are available (which is most of the time) because they are the cheapest source available after hydro. Fuel cycle expenses are a very small part of total costs for nuclear. They are huge for fossil plants.
Of course eating or breathing dust and dirt is not recommended. There are lots of toxic materials in practically all soils, including arsenic and other poisons. Dust control has to be part of every modern mining plan.
Nuclear power plant wastes are safer than those from other power sources precisely because they are mostly solid and small, so they can be isolated from the environment. Fossil fueled plants discharge their waste into the air.
Severe weather also has to be accounted for in a modern mining plan. The coming feasibility study should point out if there is any basic reason why that would be difficult or impossible here. The detailed design should flesh out the details.
We have to remember that perfect safety is only available at infinite cost. Any power source looks bad when compared to a fictitious free and perfectly safe one. The correct method is to compare it to the available alternative, which is coal. Uranium looks very good on that basis.
--Energy PE of Cumberland County
Mar. 23, 2011 at 02:14 PM
Where is our real-time radiation monitoring? Can’t our weather services display some kind of visual representation?
Or is that the point? Censor the data, hide the full consequence to protect the Corporate masters who have corrupted these politicians to speak NOT in the best interest of this Commonwealth, but in the best interests of the Corporations who wish to profit and pillage our beautiful lands for the profit of selling THEIR solutions.
There are OTHER solutions.
Virginia should focus on home- and business-based solutions for the “Common Weal”. Implemented throughout as much of Virginia as possible: Geothermal, small-scale solar, small-scale wind, bio-fuels, and highly efficient on-demand usage. End the inherent inefficiencies of “the Grid”.
Concurrent environmental filtration (especially in regards to food production and water purification) shall be in our best economic/environmental/etc. interests.
Imagine if we could catch one of these particles, like catching a firefly…could we then keep it in a jar and let it act as a power source for the next 10,000 years?
Enough damage has been done on account of this corruption of Greed. I feel certain that since Switzerland and Germany, etc. have stopped their nuclear endeavors, it bears considerable weight that Virginia should consider a policy change in these regards.
Isn’t energy INDEPENDENCE in the best common interests of each and every household and business in the Commonwealth of Virginia?
--Kringle of Rocky Mount, Virginia
Mar. 29, 2011 at 09:56 AM
What no one mentions here is there has not been a nuclear power plant built in this country for over 30 years…..and there will never be another one built…..why? The cost is so prohibitive that no power company could ever again afford it…. unless the governement helps, and that is a thing of the past,(along with nuclear power). We are using OLD REACTORS, and a disaster WILL happen, IF IT HASN’T ALREADY HAPPENED…. AT NORTH ANNA… what is going on there? We are not being told anything. You can promote nuclear power all you want, but the facts are the facts. The sun is free…..we should be going in that direction.
--Nell Wall of Rincon, Georgia, USA
Sep. 27, 2011 at 02:01 PM