Nuclear power remains the cornerstone of N.J.'s energy strategy

By James McGovern

How can we best provide energy for New Jersey’s economic expansion? The answer is nuclear power — and building a new plant to capitalize on nuclear power’s economic and environmental benefits. Such a plant can supply large amounts of affordable power from a small amount of fuel all day, every day, without polluting the air or loading the atmosphere with greenhouse gases.

A quick look at the mid-Atlantic region and around the country shows that the revival of nuclear power is picking up steam and public support. Operating licenses for two-thirds of the 104 U.S. nuclear plants have been renewed for another 20 years, and many other plants are also expected to have their licenses renewed.

Meanwhile, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received applications from power companies to build and operate nearly 20 additional nuclear plants, and PSEG Nuclear is seeking an early site permit that could lead to construction of a new plant in Salem County. In Georgia and South Carolina, ground has been broken for Westinghouse AP1000 nuclear plants, which use the most advanced reactors in the world, and construction has resumed on partially built plants in Alabama and Tennessee.

But as important as a new generation of nuclear plants is to job creation and the country’s energy security, President Obama made no specific mention of nuclear power in his State of the Union address last month. Instead of talking about the critical need for more baseload energy (continuous, 24/7 supply of large amounts of electricity) from nuclear power and the potential for jobs and revenue, Obama trotted out his well-worn clichés about an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy development and incentives for wind and solar power.

Why didn’t he talk about maintaining U.S. leadership in nuclear technology? Why didn’t he propose establishing a quasi-government bank to provide loan guarantees for construction of new nuclear plants and other energy facilities? Obama’s decision to abandon the Yucca Mountain project should tell us all we need to know about his failed energy policies.

Nuclear power is the only proven technology that can provide affordable baseload electricity for New Jersey’s economic growth. Nuclear plants actually deliver power more than 90 percent of the time. Reactors such as Salem 1 or Salem 2 or Hope Creek that are rated at about 1,200 megawatts deliver a full 1,000 megawatts or more onto the grid. By contrast, the changeable nature of sunlight and wind mean that a solar plant delivers less than 20 percent of its rated peak capacity even if it is in the sunny Southwest, and a wind farm delivers less than 30 percent of its potential.

Current renewable energy production technologies also require vast land areas for deployment. For example, a solar energy farm would require several square miles of land area to replace the Oyster Creek power plant. Also, with no available method to store large amounts of energy, utilities must add fossil-fuel generators, usually turbines that burn natural gas, as backup for every solar and wind facility. Those turbines must be available all the time, adding to the cost of electricity.

Nuclear power’s economic advantages make it an increasingly attractive option. New Jersey has experienced an average growth in gross state product of 1.4 percent over the past five years. Because the Oyster Creek plant is scheduled to close in 2019, 10 years ahead of schedule, new sources of electricity will be needed to take its place and meet increasing demand for power. Relying heavily on renewable energy sources would be very costly and unrealistic.

Because uranium fuel is relatively cheap and the performance of the Salem and Hope Creek units have improved significantly over the years, the average cost of producing electricity is cheaper than power from plants that burn coal or natural gas. Consumer benefits increase over a nuclear plant’s lifetime. This may come as a surprise to some people, many of whom have been barraged with criticism against nuclear power.

In the wake of the Fukushima disaster in Japan last March, it’s obvious that U.S. nuclear plants are operated at a level of safety not required in many other countries. Over the past two decades, there has been a steady drop in the number of significant events at U.S. nuclear plants, as well as a plunging workplace accident rate and scarcely any unplanned automatic shutdowns. The fact is, no member of the public has ever been killed or injured in a radiation-related nuclear power plant accident in the U.S. No other major energy source or heavy industry in the country can match that stellar record.

Because nuclear power is so important to New Jersey’s economic and environmental well-being, in that it accounts for the generation of more than 55 percent of the state’s electricity, it ought to retain a central role in our energy future. It should be the cornerstone of our state’s energy strategy.