But not Senator Alexander, who is now chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy & Water Development. Last week, in his first hearing on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s budget, Alexander repeated his call, “I have proposed that we build 100 new reactors, which may seem excessive, but not if about 20 percent of our current capacity from coal goes offline by 2020 as projected by the Energy Information Administration. If this capacity were replaced entirely by nuclear power it would require building another 48 new, 1,250-megawatt reactors – which, by the way, would reduce our carbon emissions from electricity by another 14 percent. Add the reactors we may need to replace in the coming decades due to aging and other factors, and my proposal for 100 may not seem so high.”
Actually, 100 new reactors not only seems high, it’s pure fantasy. With the experience of Vogtle, and the similar experience at two reactors under construction at the Summer site in South Carolina, no one is lining up to build new reactors. At this point, it’s unlikely even the four under construction will be online by 2020, much less 96 more new ones.
If, by Alexander’s logic, that 20% of coal plants going offline by 2020 needs to be replaced (and we certainly hope he’s right that at least 20% of coal will be shut down by then), then nuclear reactors aren’t going to replace it. For that matter, it’s entirely possible 10-20% of our dangerous, aging and uneconomic reactors will close by then too.
So what’s left? Perhaps some natural gas, but mostly the energy sources Alexander hates: solar and wind power. Alexander has been the Senate leader in trying to get rid of the production tax credits for renewables, especially for wind. Why? Because wind is cheaper than nuclear power, faster to install, and is pushing nuclear aside. As solar continues its rapid growth, you can be sure Alexander will go after it with the same passion. Both would reduce carbon emissions even more than nuclear power.
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed last May, Alexander made his position clear: he opposes wind power’s tax credit because “The wind subsidy undercuts reliable “baseload” electricity such as nuclear and coal.” Yep, wouldn’t want to displace dirty energy with clean energy, would we now, Senator?
Alexander’s nuclear fantasyland is not limited to new reactors, however. He also is the Senate leader in pushing for opening of the scientifically-discredited Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. And his key question for the NRC is: why is the commission not asking for money in its budget to license Yucca Mountain?
Here’s a hint, Senator: the NRC staff has recommended against any further licensing action on Yucca Mountain. That’s because the Department of Energy does not have the necessary land and water rights to enable the project to move forward. Not to mention, of course, that President Obama ended the project in 2009 and that the State of Nevada continues to effectively oppose the project in every way possible. Welcome to reality, Senator.
Still, neither Nevada nor Yucca opponents are sitting back on their laurels. As the Las Vegas Sun reported last week, they (I could make that “we”) are mobilizing to keep Yucca Mountain nuclear-free. On a personal note, the Sun also published a very kind article about me and the Michael Mariotte Legacy Fund NIRS has created.
Senator Alexander got another hard dose of reality last week too–this time from the nuclear industry itself. Alexander apparently believes reactors should run essentially forever, and probably would if it weren’t for all those pesky safety regulations. So he asked nuclear utilities if they wanted more license extensions for their reactors, to allow them to operate 80 years. The answer he got probably wasn’t what he wanted to hear: most nuclear utilities told him it wouldn’t be economic to try to keep their reactors running that long (although a few may try to get a piece of paper allowing them to do so).
It is, of course, disconcerting to have someone so disconnected from reality on nuclear power issues possessing such great power over the NRC’s budget and energy policy generally, in the same way that it is disconcerting to have an absolute climate change and science denier like Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) in charge of the Senate Environment Committee.
But, in a way, it’s almost reassuring. A powerful nuclear advocate who isn’t living in fantasyland might be able to consider small steps that might actually help the nuclear industry. Small steps aren’t part of the fantasy, however. Alexander’s dream may be America’s nightmare, but it is just fantasy. And in the world we actually live in, reality trumps fantasy every time.
This article was cross-posted on GreenWorld.