NUKE IS CLEAN & FREE ENERGY (Read more by - Allison Gorman of Business Tennessee magazine)
Not so, says David Freeman, the former TVA chairman largely credited with putting the brakes on the utility's nuclear construction in the 1980s. "We had to shut them down, even though they were under construction, because they cost too much," he recalls. "We didn't shut those plants down on account of their being unsafe. That should have been a reason, but it was the economics."
Some 20 years later, as TVA still carries most of the debt from its first nuclear program, the nation's largest public utility is poised to incur further debt to launch a second wave of nuclear construction...
Not so, says David Freeman, the former TVA chairman largely credited with putting the brakes on the utility's nuclear construction in the 1980s. "We had to shut them down, even though they were under construction, because they cost too much," he recalls. "We didn't shut those plants down on account of their being unsafe. That should have been a reason, but it was the economics."Some 20 years later, as TVA still carries most of the debt from its first nuclear program, the nation's largest public utility is poised to incur further debt to launch a second wave of nuclear construction...
Nationwide, utilities that had invested in the promise of clean, relatively inexpensive nuclear energy instead faced spiraling cost overruns compounded by stricter federal regulation... The result was a $27.7 billion debt—most of which is still with TVA, and the cost of which has been shouldered entirely by the utility's ratepayers, who don't have stockholders to share the burden. Most utilities are heavily indebted, with an acceptable debt load averaging 50% to 60% of assets, says economist Dennis Logue. And while changes in TVA's reporting methods complicate a direct comparison of its 1997 and 2007 balance sheets, they indicate a decrease in the utility's debts-to-assets ratio from 80% to about 73% over the past decade.
But even the most ambitious initiatives won't fulfill TVA's future generation needs, Kilgore says. Its five working nuclear reactors operate near capacity, its hydroelectric potential is finite, and according to TVA, the high ratio of cost to output doesn't justify large-scale use of ultra-green solar and wind power. Clean-burning natural gas is currently triple the cost of coal, and Kilgore says clean coal gasification technology still needs to be refined. With 57% of its current generation from fossil fuel plants, TVA has spent $4.6 billion just to stay in line with the EPA's tightening air pollution controls requirements and almost certainly faces more restrictive legislation in the future. While retrofit technology will stretch the lifetime of some coal-burning units by decades, Kilgore says, about 10 of TVA's 59 coal units are candidates for decommissioning within the next 10 to 20 years. Already, TVA meets peak demand with $1 billion annually in purchased power, which in 2006 translated roughly to 1.26 million homes worth of power. (Kilgore says that cost necessitated its two most recent rate hikes.)
Assuming other generation sources remain constant, TVA could increase its percentage of nuclear generation from 29% to 41% of its energy portfolio within a decade. TVA's stated goal is to have the largest nuclear generation capacity of any utility in the United States.
Industry advocates point to heavily nuclear France and Japan as evidence that nuclear technologies can operate reliably and safely on a large scale. Currently, TVA's nuclear generation is highly reliable, operating at about 90% capacity. Twenty years ago, Pulsipher says, 60% was considered optimal.
"TVA will almost single-handedly have revived the nuclear industry in America if this works. If it doesn't, and we have another Three Mile Island, then the nuclear industry is dead in America for generations. So there is a tremendous amount at stake in Browns Ferry, and apparently soon at Watts Bar."
Freeman questions the wisdom of investing in "a second nuclear era that has no legs to it... The only thing new is the history we forgot."
But even the most ambitious initiatives won't fulfill TVA's future generation needs, Kilgore says. Its five working nuclear reactors operate near capacity, its hydroelectric potential is finite, and according to TVA, the high ratio of cost to output doesn't justify large-scale use of ultra-green solar and wind power. Clean-burning natural gas is currently triple the cost of coal, and Kilgore says clean coal gasification technology still needs to be refined. With 57% of its current generation from fossil fuel plants, TVA has spent $4.6 billion just to stay in line with the EPA's tightening air pollution controls requirements and almost certainly faces more restrictive legislation in the future. While retrofit technology will stretch the lifetime of some coal-burning units by decades, Kilgore says, about 10 of TVA's 59 coal units are candidates for decommissioning within the next 10 to 20 years. Already, TVA meets peak demand with $1 billion annually in purchased power, which in 2006 translated roughly to 1.26 million homes worth of power. (Kilgore says that cost necessitated its two most recent rate hikes.)
Assuming other generation sources remain constant, TVA could increase its percentage of nuclear generation from 29% to 41% of its energy portfolio within a decade. TVA's stated goal is to have the largest nuclear generation capacity of any utility in the United States.
Industry advocates point to heavily nuclear France and Japan as evidence that nuclear technologies can operate reliably and safely on a large scale. Currently, TVA's nuclear generation is highly reliable, operating at about 90% capacity. Twenty years ago, Pulsipher says, 60% was considered optimal.
"TVA will almost single-handedly have revived the nuclear industry in America if this works. If it doesn't, and we have another Three Mile Island, then the nuclear industry is dead in America for generations. So there is a tremendous amount at stake in Browns Ferry, and apparently soon at Watts Bar."
Freeman questions the wisdom of investing in "a second nuclear era that has no legs to it... The only thing new is the history we forgot."