FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Contact: State Rep. Doug Cox
Capitol: (405) 557-7415
Grove: (918) 786-5381

OKLAHOMA CITY- (November 27, 2007) –Nuclear power has the potential to significantly reduce Oklahoma’s expanding energy burden in the future, experts today told the House Energy and Technology Committee during an interim study.

Oklahoma’s energy needs are expected to increase by 40 percent over the next 25 years, and state Rep. Doug Cox said all energy options should be on the table to help meet that growing demand.

"We can’t escape the fact that our energy demands are outpacing our capacity," said Cox, R-Grove. "It is perhaps easier in Oklahoma to just turn to natural gas and coal to meet our immediate demands and put off planning for the future. But if we don’t even have a plan to at least meet our future minimum energy demands, then we can’t possibly expect to attract and retain new business and sustain economic growth down the road."

Experts told the committee that regulatory approval and construction of a new, 1,600-megawatt plant could take as long as a decade and could cost more than $8 billion, not including the multi-million dollar application process and the risk that worldwide construction demand could drive materials costs up significantly over the next decade.

Though the financial costs of applying for a permit and building a new plant are a significant obstacle, Cox believes the discussion should remain open, specifically because the state’s current energy portfolio is incapable of meeting future demand.

Mike McGarey, a nuclear energy expert at the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), told the committee that the nation’s electricity demand will increase by 41 percent over the next 25 years.

If the nation’s current energy supply mix of nuclear, coal and natural gas remains the same through 2030, the nation would need to build 50 new nuclear plants, 261 coal-fired plants and 279 natural gas plants to keep up with demand. Currently, there are 104 operating nuclear power plants in the United States that supply 20 percent of the nation’s energy capacity.

In September, a Texas energy company submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission the first complete application for a permit to build a new nuclear plant in nearly 30 years. Since the beginning of the year, at least 17 partial or complete applications have been filed with the NRC for permits to build 31 new nuclear power plants. Since 2000, the NRC has approved 48 license renewals for existing power plants that will allow those plants to continue operating for the next 20 years.

The resurgence of nuclear power in the United States comes as companies seek new generating capacity from energy sources that do not emit carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas blamed for global warming.

McGarey told the committee that nuclear energy continues to be the cleanest source of energy and remains the cheapest. He also told the committee that fears about nuclear waste have been exaggerated. The Yucca Mountain Repository in Nevada was to begin accepting spent fuel rods for permanent storage in 1998, but delays have pushed back the possibility of the site opening for at least another decade. However, McGarey said most plants have enough storage on site to dispose of waste for another century.

Addressing concerns of transporting spent uranium fuel rods across the country to Nevada, McGarey said the military has continuously transported radioactive waste across the country for decades via highway and railroads. In that time, there have been eight accidents and none resulted in a leak of radioactive material.

Citing a 2003 study by the Electric Power Research Institute, McGarey noted that because of the strength of a power plant’s structure and core design, plants are considered "hard targets" by terrorists and are very unlikely to be targeted in an attack. Even if such an attack occurred, McGarey stated the core of a power plant could withstand the impact of a jumbo jet without any substantial risk of releasing radioactive materials.

He also noted that nuclear power plants pump more than $500 million annually into their local economies and spur job growth.

Cox said the state should begin to look at federal incentives currently being offered to build new plants and also at other states that are implementing creative ways to spur nuclear energy development.

"The fact is that these plants are vital for not only sustaining current energy demand, but also for attracting new jobs to a state," said Cox. "It is very tough to compete with states that get much of their power from nuclear energy because it is cheaper and cleaner, and that plays a significant role in a company’s decision-making process when it is looking to relocate or expand. A new plant would employ more than 800 people to construct it and more than 600 skilled employees to operate it."

Cox said it will take the cooperation of the state and all of the state’s utility operators to develop a plan to meet future energy demands, whether or not that includes nuclear energy.

"I get the sense that the Corporation Commission and our larger public utilities recognize the energy crisis we could experience in the coming years and that all are on board with coming up with a solution," said Cox. "Despite the high costs, I think nuclear power is the best solution for providing energy for our state in the future. We’ll continue to study the issue and try to develop a viable plan that is safe for our citizens, cost effective and efficient."