Nuclear Energy, Essay Example

In the wake of the Three Mile Island (TMI-2) nuclear reactor incident in 1979, it was nearly a decade before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved a new nuclear power plan for development of a site in the State of Georgia.[i] In the interim, nuclear energy facilities underwent thorough-going review, as in-depth risk assessment protocol and stipulation to Superfund allocations were revised on the basis of such a major disaster. The after-math of TMI-2 also provided the springboard for an entire gateway analysis of all aspects of nuclear reactor risk mitigation, and set the stage for regulatory measures up to decommission, if another reactor disaster were to take place. As in all cases, federal legislation pertaining to nuclear power facilities, looked to new models of policy within pre-emptive international nuclear energy law, and subsequently crafted more responsive laws toward regulatory compliance in the United States.

Concomitantly to the development of the Georgia site, the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste and Materials (ACNW&M) was established by the Commission in June 1988 to provide the NRC with independent reviews, applications and recommendations to nuclear waste facilities holding a 10 CFR Parts 60 and 61 (disposal of high-level radioactive wastes in geologic repositories and land disposal of radioactive waste) subject to NRC regulations (10 CFR Part 7).[ii] New regulatory mandates in the form of policy legislation such as the Nuclear Waste Act, the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act and Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act were expanded with amendments to address the incursion of nuclear waste into the surrounding environment, with oversight of site decommission by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards. Innovation in risk based approaches to regulatory problems has been in conjunction with the EPA on deep geologic disposal of high-level radioactive waste (40 CFR Part 191). The National Research Council collaboration led to Section 301 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

In the nuclear power sector, multi-scale risks are part of the equation, and all risk is not hazardous. During the same period that transformations were taking place in the NRC and its related commissions, a host of energy investment matters were emerging in response to the shift in privatized options in the energy marketplace, and the simultaneous financial risk assessment of former government managed nuclear facilities. Nuclear power was no exception. As a 1999 Washington Post article reflection of the post TMI-2 industry suggested:

“State by state, the rules are being written that will transform the industry from a network of nearly 200 regional monopolies into a handful of national competitors that will vie for customers the way long-distance phone companies do. One of the most visible changes underway so far has been the sale of power plants by utility companies.”[iii]

With privatization comes complexity in administration, as profit is prioritized. While U.S. corporate management models may enhance fiscal practices and operational procedures, the conglomerate model also presents the challenge of “too many cooks in the kitchen.” At the international level, structural adjustment policies informed economic decision by energy corporations, and promoted the interests of those entities and their stakeholders in the development of everything from market based CDM (Clean Development Mechanisms) securities, to influence on lobbying of regulatory laws in those states where those nuclear power or other energy companies might be acquired.

In the context of globalization, there is an increase in the transactional exchange of energy resources. Since the 1990s, nuclear power has become increasingly contracted into the private sphere, and as seen in the case of post TMI-2 investment, stakeholder participation required extensive accountability toward operations of such ventures. What does this mean for nuclear power as a regulated industry? As the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) maintains, nuclear facilities were “originally conceived as providing power that would be “too cheap to meter.” What was once prided as the future of the electric industry within energy investment circles has now become a dystopic reality; “the largest managerial disaster in business history” which led to the two industry bailouts in the 1980s and 1990s.[iv]

One realm of consideration within the finance of nuclear power is the tax payer base for government contribution to such projects. According to UCS, “the industry has proposed building almost 30 new nuclear reactors, with some calling for 300 new plants by mid-century.” Such an expansion is unlikely. In the present scenario, only four new nuclear reactors already spurred by existing loan guarantees from the Department of Energy (DOE) and other incentives. Amidst the recent financial crises which foreshadowed 2009 and continues into the present, the instability of traditional investment on Wall Street has reinstated federal government partnership in nuclear power, with fiscal assistance in the form of subsidies, including federal loan guarantees and production tax credits. In spite of the resurgence of market interest in nuclear energy under the rubric of alt.energy or clean energy sources within an array of newer opportunities for growth in energy, the promise of what some have called a “Nuclear Renaissance” is still cautionary.[v]

Proponents of nuclear power claim that we should focus on the “cheap and efficient” logic of the energy source, and the especially in light of the new generation of reactors. Indeed, the world is searching for low to no GHG emissions power sources, and post the December 2009, Conference of the Parties (COP/15) in Copenhagen, the articulation of which types of energy sources might fall under the decision making of forthcoming cap-and-trade legislation is likely to include those recommendations.[vi] The International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) is focused on the promotion of policy in the area of fast reactor research toward cleaner nuclear technologies that might contribute to the market in low emissions power.[vii] The goal is not short sighted. With low life-cycle emissions, nuclear reactors emit little carbon into the atmosphere. If the nuclear energy industry is to take a lead as viable solution within cap-and-trade legislation, the initiative must also take significant financial, safety, security and waste mitigation steps.vii

San Onofre Nuclear Generator Station (SONGS), is located in the State of California, where emissions reductions legislation has surpassed U.S. Federal EPA rules in the State’s Assembly Bill: 32, Nunez. Air pollution: greenhouse gases: California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Prepared for the transition to an international cap-and-trade scheme that includes environmental responsibility of the corporate kind, the jointly owned municipal and private business cooperation practices “continuous environmental protection activities” and is “committed to safe, reliable operation[s]” in compliance with “all applicable federal, state and local standards and regulations.”[viii] Characteristic of what nuclear advocates argue is the most effective resource in energy, the SONGS nuclear facility service of 2,200 megawatts of power to 1.5 million energy California consumers may indeed be the future of alt.energy after all.

[i] Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island Accident. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved from: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

[ii] ACNW&M History. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Retrieved from: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acnw/history.html

[iii] Hamilton, M.M. Nuclear Plant Sale Shows Power Shift. Washington Post, Saturday, March 27, 1999, E1. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/tmi/stories/tmi032799.htm

[iv] Nuclear Loan Guarantees: Another Taxpayer Bailout Ahead?. Union of Concerned Scientists. March 3, 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-loan-guarantees.html

[v] Nuclear Power: A Resurgence We Cannot Afford. Union of Concerned Scientists. August, 1, 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/nuclear-power-resurgence.html

[vi] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Retrieved from: http://unfccc.int/2860.php

[vii] Cleaner Nuclear Technologies for a Better Future: IAEA International Conference Highlights Innovative Fast Reactor Research. International Atomic Energy Association. Retrieved from: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2009/fr09.html

[viii] San Onofre Nuclear Generator Station (SONGS). Retrieved from: http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/PowerGeneration/SanOnofreNuclearGeneratingStation/default.htm?goto=songs