Nuclear Family

by Annie Scott
November 16, 2009

Here’s what’s going on in a land far away but not so far apart from the Mitten …

On a recent Sunday I found myself sitting in the sand at San Onofre State Beach, near the border of San Diego and Orange counties. Watching my friends surf, listening to the waves crash, enjoying the autumn sunshine — it was lovely. The only drawback was that I couldn’t quite forget I was sitting in front of a massive nuclear power plant.

Perched atop the coppery cliffs there is the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). One of California’s two operational nuclear power facilities, SONGS generates enough electricity to serve the needs of 2.75 million homes throughout Southern California.

Of course, it’s a gargantuan eyesore, interrupting the otherwise perfect view of the Pacific from the I-5 freeway. Plus, considering its proximity to not only the ocean but also seismic faults and the Camp Pendleton U.S. Marine Corps base, it’s a good thing that its containment structures are made of thick concrete and reinforced steel.

Ugly and unpleasant as it is, though, the facility and nuclear energy in general are critical to supporting Southern California’s increasingly energy-hungry lifestyle and economy. With the state’s population projected to reach 44 million by 2020, electricity demand is going nowhere but up.

California can’t even produce all of the electricity it consumes now. This is partially due to the state’s moratorium on siting any new nuclear facilities until there is a demonstrated, federally approved solution to dispose of nuclear waste. As part of this so-called “buy-not-build” strategy, California has had to look to its neighbor states to make up the difference.

Ever wary of repeating the PR nightmare of the Rolling Blackouts a few years ago (which helped turn out the lights on the former governor), the California Energy Commission (CEC) and California Public Utilities Commission focus on maintaining reliable generation and transmission. That means existing nuclear facilities are and will remain a vital component of its energy portfolio. And, the CEC notes, “continued operation of these plants will require substantial investments in replacement steam generators, turbines and other major pieces of equipment, ongoing recruitment and training to maintain an experienced nuclear work force, and accommodation of evolving federal policy regarding nuclear technology.”

Amazing to think that California today is leaning heavily on nuclear energy to help address its power issues. Especially considering its protest-laden history of anti-nuke celebs and a mainstream understandably suspicious of the technology.

It’s hard not to notice that nuclear energy has been making a comeback in recent years, extending far beyond the Golden State. Public opinion has begun to shift in its favor. It’s shedding some of its decades-old stigma. Plenty of lawmakers are talking it up. Even a number of prominent environmental leaders have divided the eco-community by championing nuclear as a green(er) alternative to fossil fuel-based energy. Pick your energy poison.

Pressure is mounting to address the looming threat of climate change in the most cost effective way. Carbon emissions are becoming an increasingly unwelcome and costly menace. Global energy demand is continuing its daunting climb. And so, the dusty, old promises of good ol’ “nucular” energy are beckoning us to take a second look. Nukes are getting another chance and a shot at redemption.

Yeah, we know, some mistakes were made but lessons have been learned! Now we have a litany of great new safeguards and snazzy containment structures in place! And we’re really working on that whole waste disposal issue, seriously. All that messy Three Mile Island stuff is ancient history, water under the bridge. Okay? Promise, it’ll be different this time. Friends again?

We certainly seem to be back on friendly terms. The International Atomic Energy Agency lists 53 new nuclear power reactors currently going up around the globe. Even the U.S., already home to 104 nuclear reactors, is considering a whopping 13 proposed new ones. That’s just a slice of the 295 total reactors under consideration in 36 different countries.

For all the talk of investing in new, renewable energy technologies, we sure do seem to be leaning hopefully on an old idea.

But that old idea may spell new opportunities for Michigan.

A recent Detroit News column by Daniel Howes delivered a strong pitch for Michigan to act now and grab a stake in this “nuclear renaissance” by signing on to manufacture nuclear components to support booming demand. His reasoning went as follows: Michigan’s ideal combination of engineering expertise, surplus industrial capacity and existing transportation infrastructure positions it to reap the benefits of this burgeoning market. In 2008 alone, Howes explains, $12.8 billion was spent worldwide to procure nuclear materials, services and fuels. Judging by the huge number of new plants under consideration and construction, that figure is going to grow. So, why allow other states and countries to be the only ones cashing in?

I may not be fully on board the Nuclear = Saving Grace Train at this point, but I agree it has some advantages, and Howes’ argument is compelling. Expansion of nuclear energy already seems a foregone conclusion. Why shouldn’t the Mitten grab an opportunity to help ensure its success, and snag a bunch of tech jobs and revenue in the process? Of course, when economic development dollars are scarce, it’s important to know the return on investment won’t blow up in your face, but let’s leave that aside for now.

California — already home to poorly disguised “oil islands” close to shore, power plants of all types, gigantic wind farms in the desert — appears to be headed toward more nuclear power. Maybe, just maybe, it would be easier for me to rationalize it all if the next facilities came with a “Made in Michigan” label.

Annie Scott lives and works in San Diego and sends dispatches back to her beloved Michigan.