Pueblo Going Nuclear?
(Originally printed in PULP)
Everyones aglow about the prospect of nuclear power coming to southern Colorado. Given the ongoing plant disaster in Japan, it seems the timing for such a proposal could not be worse, though the plans for the 24,000-acre Clean Energy Park southeast of town were moving ahead well before then.
Lawyer and local resident Don Banner is at the helm of the proposal, which would develop in three phases. At present, hes seeking rezoning for the giant swath of land in eastern Pueblo County for a PUD, or Planned Unit Development.
As Banner himself noted, there are scores of factors that would have to fall into place for his plan to work, only one of which is local support. But he claims, too, that the only way to bring together other green energy components of the park. such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal, is to go nuclear, to the tune of a 1,000 megawatt plant, give or take a few watts.
Theres plenty of hyperbole around such an explosive issue, so lets set aside the Simpsons-like images of fish with three eyes long enough to get a little bit more perspective on whats at stake.
Its easy to hedge at plans for a nuclear power plant, reacting with a knee-jerk sense of fear. From Chernobyl to Three Mile Island, the fallout from a nuclear plant failure aint pretty. But Banner argues that the fears are generally overblown. Chernobyls substandard engineering doomed it from the start, and Three Mile Island the only nuclear plant to fail on US soil to date cannot be connected to any actual deaths, according to Banner.
The new plant would be far superior to either of the aforementioned plants, he says, and it would be located in a relatively remote area, buffered on all sides by thousands of acres of the Clean Energy Park. As for security, the storage facilities where the spent fuel rods are kept after use have been tested against the heartiest potential air attacks, standing firm in the face of fire.
On the upside, we would enjoy hundreds of Davis Bacon-wage jobs over the several years it would take to build the plant, followed by up to a hundred permanent jobs that pay well above average for power plant work. In addition, more than a dozen interest groups organized by Banner, from local schools to nonprofits, would share in hundreds of thousands of dollars donated back to the community.
The average Joe Consumer would stand to benefit from Banners proposal to contractually require the utility company that builds the plant to sell power generated to Pueblo residents, the price of which would be equal to the cheapest rate offered to any other community. Pueblo would benefit from the taxes the plant would push back into the local economy, and Banner suggests that the number of secondary jobs due to the new plant could grow into the hundreds.
Another big question is water. Were more or less in the middle of the desert here, and nuclear plants require water to keep the fission process under control. Though Mr. Banner points out that the volume of water needed will depend largely on what kind of plant a developer can place on the land, he projects that consumptive water use (the amount that cant be returned directly to the water system) could be as low as 125 acre-feet per year.
Its well and good to claim no lives lost during the Three Mile Island catastrophe, but some studies have projected that upwards of 5,000 will eventually die because of complications related to radiation exposure from the site. This is not to mention the risks to the livestock, land and other natural resources which could be affected for hundreds of years or more, should an accident happen.
So the silos where the radioactive spent fuel rods are stored (on-site, by law, for at least sixty years) may be sturdy, but are we inviting terrorist attacks by having such materials lying around? And, current US law requires that the uranium be removed from reactors and stored before it reaches weapons-grade level. This means it still has the potential to be converted to weapons-grade uranium, which seems to invite trouble.
Most of the construction work would be temporary, and yet wed be left to contend with nuclear waste for generations. And who is responsible for decommissioning the plant after its projected 60- to 80-year life? If history is an indicator, the plant operators will walk away and leave local taxpayers with the bill.
Pueblo is developing a reputation for being the dumping ground for power plants other folks need but dont want in their own back yards. How much of the power created will actually stay in Pueblo? And doesnt having the plant in our county warrant a little bit more of a homeboy discount?
Jobs are fine, but if folks dont have water to drink, what good is economic development? How many hundreds or thousands of acres of farmland will dry up as a result of water purchased for the power plant, and how many agricultural jobs will dry up as a result? Will the water that passes through the plant damage the streams into which it is released? Is nuclear power our last, best hope to stem the effects of global warming, or are we just passing on the problem in another, possibly more dangerous, form to future generations? Can we afford the water? Are we even sure the net to Pueblo is positive when all is told?
And the debate rages on.
Comparing the proposed plant to the one in Japan impacted by a 9.0 earthquake and subsequent tsunami really isnt fair. Neither is in the cards for Pueblo. And yes, modern plants have many more safeguards than those from decades past. But aside from moral, safety and security arguments, theres the question of what we want Pueblo to be.
Will we continue to produce for wealthier communities what they need, yet refuse to provide for themselves? And will we use our limited water resources to do so, for the promise of a fleeting handful of jobs and some negligibly cheaper power? Or are we something more?
Our bountiful sun and wind position us to be industry leaders in renewable energy, setting a standard that others around the world will long to follow. Do we want to invest in decades-old technology that may be at its apex, or should we focus on developing energy technologies that have more potential without the negative environmental impact?
Weve gotten a start with the likes of Vestas and the proposed solar arrays here and in the San Luis Valley. But we have to believe that were more than a repository for the rest of the states undesirable industries.
Finally, weve created this beat of need for power with our own unbridled consumption habits. If were really worried about what the risks of such power sources will be for any community not just ours, the only real solution is to reduce consumption.
Its been said that the two-fold path to happiness includes both making more and needing less. Only one is a path that leads anywhere. We have to choose our own path.