Analysis: Why Whitman wants nuclear power

By BEN LANDO Former New Jersey governor and federal environmental chief Christine Todd Whitman is heading one of a growing number of coalitions urging the United States to keep -- and increase -- nuclear energy as part of its energy mix. She's touring the country with the new mantra that nuclear power is safer and more efficient than ever before -- and, thanks to federal subsidies and potential climate-change legislation, economically competitive.

"It's 20 percent of our energy now and I think we ought to make sure it stays at least at 20 percent if not 25," Whitman said during an interview with UPI. "It's not going to be the answer for everything and the be-all-end-all only form of power," she said. "But if you care about climate change and you care about air quality, nuclear power is really the only form of base power that doesn't produce some of the regulated emissions and doesn't contribute to global climate change." Fossil fuels are burned to mine, process and transport uranium to the plants. But they are also burned to build and dismantle plants, thus sending such emissions into the atmosphere. Opponents would rather see renewable energy and energy conservation become a bigger part of U.S. consumer culture, fearing the repercussions of a nuclear accident or an attack on a nuclear plant.

Whitman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator from 2001 to 2003 after serving seven years as New Jersey governor, is now co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, CASEnergy. The organization, also co-chaired by activist-turned-capitalist Patrick Moore -- co-founder and ex-member of Greenpeace -- has launched a public relations and education blitz to convince the nation "how nuclear power can contribute to America's energy security and economic growth," according to its Web site. The goal, Whitman said, is "getting people to start to talk about this and think about this ... try to build the public support for this kind of power." A UPI/Zogby Interactive poll taken in January found the support is there: 62.7 percent polled said it was safe and 61.8 percent said more nuclear plants should be built -- though only 63.1 percent of those supporters want a reactor in their community. The poll of 6,909 U.S. adults had a margin of error of 1.2 percentage points.

There are 103 operating nuclear reactors in the United States now -- more than any other country. Accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, cost overruns during the last buildup, and the once low and stable price of natural gas led to the three-decade freeze of the U.S. nuclear industry.

But energy legislation in the 1990s and two years ago streamlined the licensing process and gave the industry subsidies to grow. It costs between $3 billion and $4 billion to build a plant now.

The United States hasn't licensed a new nuclear plant since 1978, so coal and natural gas combined have a majority stake in electricity production. The growing clamor to address climate change has led some states, and possibly in the future the federal government, to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. That wouldn't affect nuclear's pricing but could make it more competitive with polluters like coal, a main target of such measures.

As the global industry prepares to increase the number of nuclear plants, supporters in this country have become more visible, and CASE is only one of the players.

"It seems like new and varied groups are coming out in support of nuclear energy just about every week," said Scott Peterson, vice president of communications for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry ' s trade arm in some form or name since 1953 and sole funder of the CASE Coalition. The latest, Third Way, a center-left think tank, endorsed nuclear power last week. "Others look at it from the lens of climate change, the lens of economic development in their communities ... and clean, reliable and low-cost electricity," Peterson said. Opponents aren't going to just step aside, though. Anti-nuclear and environmental groups alike want sources like wind, solar and other renewable energy to be given the government backing nuclear has received.

"Renewable energy coupled with energy efficiency and conservation is the energy source of the 21st century," said Paul Gunter, director of the reactor watchdog project at the Nuclear Information and Resource Service. Nuclear technology has advanced over the years, bolstering plants against accidents and attacks -- though not foolproof if the human hand either errs or seeks violence -- and enabling more efficient electricity production. And the United States is far from an answer for storing or disposing nuclear waste.

"None of the questions have been answered," Gunter said of the nuclear opposition ' s concerns. "It's fair to say: 'Let's take another look.' But when you look, nothing has really changed." Whitman says she thinks other energy sources are important -- though she doubts the role renewables can play and says coal needs to be cleaned up but is too big a player now to go away -- in weaning the country from the foreign oil that makes up 60 percent of U.S. consumption.

"Nuclear can certainly help us reduce that foreign dependence," she said. (e-mail: energy@upi.com)

WASHINGTON, April 30

More Energy (Environment) News click here