FACEOFF QUESTION:
Would you support development of a nuclear power plant in West Virginia?
Kent Moreno:
Being born in 1963, I remember very clearly the narrowly averted disaster at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. I also remember the very real disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant where more than 600,000 people were exposed to high levels of nuclear fallout when the plant had a melt down. As a result of these experiences, when the subject of nuclear
power plants comes up, my immediate reaction is quite negative.
Were it not for the issue of global warming, I doubt I would be reviewing my opinion on nuclear power plants. The advantage of nuclear power plants, with regard to global warming, is that they do not generate greenhouse gasses. This fact has spurred a renewed look at nuclear power especially when compared against the large amounts of greenhouse gases generated by coal-fired plants. I remember learning in 1984 that West Virginia was the only state in the country without a nuclear power plant. Of course the reason West Virginia has no nuclear power plants has to do with the role coal plays in our state identity and economy. Back in 1984, I saw the rejection of nuclear power plants in favor of coal-fired ones as being indicative of the wisdom
of West Virginians.
Although it's been over 22 years since Chernobyl, it occurs to me that while things may or may have not changed with regard to nuclear power plants, my opinion on the subject is based on the events of my childhood rather than the facts circa 2009. I have a prejudice against nuclear
power. Justified or not, nuclear power scares me. Should there be nuclear power plants in West Virginia? Before anyone is building a nuclear power plant in my backyard, I want to know it's safe.
On the International Atomic Energy Association's web site is a list of every nuclear accident or radiation leak at a nuclear power plant. Since Chernobyl, I find that while there have been a few minor incidents resulting in some employee fatalities, nuclear power plants have an excellent safety record, one of the best of any industry. I am also concerned about the nuclear waste generated by the power plant? How do we store it? Can it be done safely? Currently, we have almost 700 million pounds of nuclear waste stored at multiple locations across the U.S. The casks in which nuclear waste is stored are described as being "virtually indestructible." Every cask undergoes a 30 foot drop test, a puncture test and is heated to at least 15,000 degrees to ascertain its ability to withstand extreme heat. One problem that has not been fully resolved pertains to the long-term storage of nuclear waste. Having nuclear waste in multiple storage locations even if the casks are "virtually indestructible" is not a long-term solution and it creates potential security risks. In the U.S. a long-term storage facility has been built at Yucca Mountain in Nevada but protests have delayed its use. In France where 70% of the electricity generated comes from nuclear power, much of the nuclear waste is recycled. The advantage of recycling is obvious, less radioactive uranium needs to be mined, less waste must be placed in long-term storage, and the recycled nuclear material is used to generate electricity. The U.S. is exploring the possibility of recycling nuclear waste but it would not replace our need for a long-term storage facility.
If we build a nuclear power plant in West Virginia, what does that say about the future of coal? How does it effect the economy of our state and our people? The demand for electricity continues to grow. A nuclear power plant built in West Virginia most likely would not replace a
coal-fired power plant but rather supplement our current ability to generate electricity. Hypothetically, as a result of the nuclear power plant, we should see the creation of new jobs both for the construction of the plant and to run the plant once it is operational. We would not see a loss of jobs due to a decreased demand for coal. Would I support the construction of a nuclear power plant in West Virginia? I have to say that researching this column has dramatically changed how I view nuclear power as a means of generating electricity. My concerns with regard to safety seem to be appropriately addressed by the technology and the regulations currently in effect. Nuclear power plants don't generate greenhouse gases and the construction of a nuclear power plant in West Virginia should create jobs without costing any.
Would I support the construction of a nuclear power plant in West Virginia? At this time, I can't quite bring myself to say "yes" but I am aware that my "no" in part reflects a lingering prejudice rather than a preponderance of the facts. Ask me the same question in two weeks and I might even answer "yes."
Stephen Smoot:
This was a tough one. When it comes to nuclear power, I share the same word association with most of the rest of the world, "Chernobyl." This disaster (more accurate word than "accident") horrified the world. A reactor exploded, spewing tons of radioactive debris into theair. Fifty six people died from direct exposure, although the Soviet Union tried to minimize this number as much as possible. Uncounted thousands died from cancer that may have resulted from living in the path of the radioactive cloud or working at the site itself. Farmland remains contaminated to
this day.
So what about placing a plant in Mineral County? With the prevailing winds moving over Mineral County towards major cities on the eastern seaboard, can we afford to take the risk? Answering that question means getting first at the heart of Chernobyl. First of all it was a Soviet designed and built facility. Communism is known for many things, but high quality workmanship is rarely
one of them. Chernobyl contained a serious design flaw that helped contribute to its explosion. Second, the Soviet authorities ran tests on the reactor that intentionally destabilized it and also turned off the emergency shutdown mechanisms. We will never know the full extent of the
radiation or health problems because of the secrecy and manipulation practiced by the Communist dominated state. However, Chernobyl is the exception that proves that nuclear power is safe. Only under extreme conditions and operator stupidity did the plant fail. This source of energy confers benefits that many others do not. Nuclear power itself is not only a low polluter, but also has proven to be very cost efficient. France derives 75 percent of its power from nuclear sources and is the world's largest net exporter of electricity. In 1974, after the first oil crisis, that country decided to wean itself as much as possible from dependence upon foreign oil. To the French, energy security and national security worked hand in hand.
But what about Mineral County, West Virginia? Should we have a facility here? Public opinion across the country endorses more plant construction, just not in their backyard. In August 2007, a survey showed that 65 percent of Americans opposed the construction of a nuclear power plant near their homes, compared to 58 percent against a coal or oil fired plant. Over 75 percent favored wind turbines. The more telling survey was one performed with residents living within 10 miles of a current nuclear facility who had no other direct connection. Ninety percent favored nuclear power in general and 71% would not mind a new plant built near their home. Building a facility requires public support. With the opposition to even wind turbines threatening to derail that project, a nuclear plant might be impossible. Certainly security remains an issue. Intellectuals sold US nuclear secrets to the Russians; it might not be far-fetched to imagine one helping a terror group.
Public support could come from the promise of investment and jobs in the region. We would gain large numbers of high paying technical and managerial jobs that would expand Mineral County's middle class. The potential partnerships with Potomac State would help that college grow into a regional economic anchor as well.
The big picture offers a mixed answer to the question of whether or not to build in Mineral County. First and foremost, would a facility here be cost effective? Most of the fuel originates in mines located in New Mexico, Wyoming, and surrounding states. Although we have uranium processing plants in Paducah, KY and Portsmouth, OH, a consortium plans to place the new National Enrichment facility in Eunice, New Mexico. Another major question involves disposal of waste. Congress several years ago approved the construction of a disposal site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada that will open for a little over a century starting in 2020.
So the key question of whether or not to construct a nuclear plant here is this. Can we enjoy this source of power without the costs outstripping the benefits? West Virginia lies across the country from these important areas, then again so do all the plants in the Northeast. France imports its uranium from Canada and Niger, yet boasts of extremely low costs in energy
production. Our region also provides a geographic plus in that we will probably not see a major earthquake or volcano occur anywhere near us.
In terms of safety, cost effectiveness, and benefits to the region and state, nuclear power deserves consideration. In all honesty when we first discussed this issue, I leaned toward no. Images of Chernobyl certainly affected my first thoughts of a nuclear plant here. However, after looking at the low costs, low pollution, and high levels of satisfaction among people that live near them, constructing a nuclear power plant in Mineral County looked not only feasible, but beneficial as well.
