Nuclear power ought to have a place in Montana's energy mix
To the Editor:
Montana needs more energy. It powers farm machinery, drives home appliances and moves information. For the sake of safety as well as security, increased energy supply should come from diverse sources - not from coal alone.
More than two-thirds of Montana's electricity is generated from coal, with hydro providing most of the balance. Though coal's share of our state's power supply is steadily increasing and should continue to do so, we would be remiss not to consider nuclear power.
Nuclear power is not a relic of the past. As many as 16 utilities are gearing up to build 27 new nuclear power plants in the United States. President Bush has called for greater use of nuclear power. And Congress has approved financial incentives and risk insurance for construction of the first few nuclear power plants.
Nationally, a striking thing about energy production is that it's cheaper to produce electricity from nuclear power than it is from coal, oil or natural gas - and the cost of nuclear power is much less than it was 15 years ago. In fact, the most efficient nuclear plants are now generating electricity at a cost of a penny per kilowatt-hour, compared to 1.8 cents per kWh for coal, 4.5 cents per kWh for oil and 6 cents for natural gas.
Recent improvements in the operation of nuclear plants brought those costs down substantially. And reductions continue.
Interest in nuclear power is growing for several reasons. The safety record of U.S. nuclear power plants is excellent - despite Three Mile Island, no member of the public has ever died or been injured as a result of an accident. Can coal make that claim?
Public support for nuclear power is strong. A Gallup poll shows that a majority of Americans favor nuclear power. Some environmental leaders who are concerned about climate change say they are rethinking nuclear power, and a few such as Stewart Brand, founder of the "Whole Earth Catalog," are backing nuclear power.
Because it produces no air pollution or greenhouse gases, nuclear power has the potential for dramatically improving atmospheric emissions. Coal, on the other hand, is the most carbon-rich fossil fuel, and the consensus of the scientific community is that it's a leading cause of global warming. Before not too long, Congress is likely to impose caps on carbon dioxide emissions from coal plants, requiring utilities to develop new technologies for controlling carbon releases or switch to other energy sources.
As Montana prepares to meet the growing demand for energy, coal's environmental liabilities are something we need to keep in mind. Coal gasification emits less carbon than conventional coal plants. But nuclear power plants emit none. Combined with solar, wind, biomass and hydro, nuclear power is the road to a sustainable energy future. Nuclear power is part of the energy mix in 31 states. And it ought to have a place here in Montana.
Robert Grimesey