Former EPA chief makes case for more nuclear energy

After serving as the Republican governor of New Jersey and Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Christine Todd Whitman has become a voice for nuclear power.

The co-chair of the nuclear advocacy group Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, she promoting nuclear as clean, safe energy that meets power needs in ways that renewable sources cannot.

Michigan generates 23% of its power from nuclear energy, more than the nation, which is at 19%, and earlier this year, federal regulators approved construction of new nuclear reactor near Monroe. DTE Energy, which applied for the license, said it has no immediate plans to build a new plant.

Here's the interview, which has been edited for brevity and clarity:

Question: What role should nuclear play in Michigan?

Answer: Right now, the four reactors that you've got are extraordinarily important. They are providing an enormous amount of energy to homeowners and employers, and the nuclear industry counts for some 2,900 in-state, full-time jobs direct and secondary and contributes some $478 million to the local economy. It provides a huge amount of your low-carbon energy. I've never said to people they should make the decision on nuclear power as part of their portfolio solely because of the economic impact and jobs. But, for a new reactor, the construction jobs are anywhere from 3,500 to 5,000 and permanent full time jobs depending on how many reactors you have are 300 to 500 are jobs that aren't going anywhere.

Q: So you're advocating more nuclear?

A: At least keeping it where it is today. One of the problems you see is you have a number of reactors that are close to closing down or might close down because the regulatory environment is not always conducive to making the investment. I try to get away from the climate change discussion because it's so politicized. But, clear air we all agree on. While natural gas is great. It's less polluting than coal and right now it's cheap. But, we've been there before where we've seen natural gas prices low, only to rise again, and you want to be careful putting all your eggs in one basket.

Q: So you're suggesting more nuclear, as opposed to natural gas, to replace dirty coal plants?

A: Nuclear is not a silver bullet. We just stay to people, this is the role it's playing today.

Q: You talked about the trade offs of power sources. What is nuclear's downside?

A: The concerns people have. People should be asking: Is it safe? And when you point to the safety record in this country and it's extraordinary. Our nuclear regulatory commission is considered the gold standard worldwide. Our nuclear industry is probably the most highly regulated in the country. We have a good record. We had a partial meltdown in the 70's. It was a wake up call. But, those operators were never exposed to inordinately high levels of radiation. If they were safe, the protections should give people in the community some level of comfort.

Q: What about waste? What do we do with waste? Is that a concern?

A: It's always a concern. If you took all the nuclear waste from the over 400 reactors we've had operating for better than 50 years now, and stacked it end to end, you'd fill one football field to the height of the goal post. Most people are thinking about something the size of the state of Maine.

Q: One drawback that we haven't talked about seems to be the upfront cost of nuclear.

A: That's a challenge, no question about it. They are expensive to build. It's about $7 billion a unit to bring on. There's investment being made in small modular reactors which will be less expensive. But, having said that, once up and running, nuclear is still about the least most expensive source of power.