Yesterday I started blogging about SSB 5991, a new bill in the Washington State Legislature that is calling for consideration of nuclear power for future energy generation in the state. I called into question the opening assumptions of the bill that nuclear power is safe, reliable, cost-effective and carbon free. Today I am going to dig deeper into the text of the bill.
The bill calls for establishing a task force with eight members from the Washington State House and Senate that serve on standing committees involved with energy issues. The task force will consist of four Democrats and four Republicans. The task force is to hold no more than four meetings with two of those meetings taking place at Hanford. This is an interesting provision. No more than four meetings could mean two meetings and at least two meetings must be held at Hanford. Three of the bills seven senate sponsors are from the Legislative Districts around Hanford. It seems to me that this bill is intended to bring more jobs to the Hanford area. This is a reasonable goal for Senators and Representative with respect to their Districts but there are better ways to add jobs than nuclear power.
The bill says that "In its deliberations, the task force must consider the greatest amount of environmental benefit for each dollar spent based on the life-cycle cost of any nuclear power technology. Life-cycle costs must include the storage and disposal of any nuclear wastes." This is a laudable goal but in terms of the environment, Hanford is one of the most dangerously polluted places on the whole planet. They have been trying to clean up the waste left over from nuclear weapons development at Hanford for decades with no end in sight. Perhaps the best way to guarantee environment benefits is to spend the money on renewable forms of energy generation such as wind and solar.
Senator David Frockt, D-Seattle, raised the issue of the statement in the first section about nuclear power being safe, reliable, cost-effective and carbon-free. He said that these should be the findings of the task force and not assumptions taken for granted. I am surprised that this bill was passed by the Washington State House of Representative.
One of the main problems for a new Washington nuclear initiative is raising funds for construction of future reactors. As I have said before, financing new reactors is not easy in the current energy marketplace. The major player in power generation in Washington State is the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). The BPA is not particularly interested in exploring nuclear power in the near future. “We have no plans to build any more [nuclear power plants],” said Doug Johnson, spokesman for BPA recently
The only reason anyone is still talking about new nuclear reactors is because the price tag is in the billions and there are a lot of middlemen looking to make a profit. I wonder who the corporate interests are who are supporting this nuclear proposal.
Columbia Generating Station at Hanford
:
