Powering up nuclear
Uranium industry still has its supporters, opponents

A group of protesters in Crownpoint carry signs with anti-uranium mining slogans. More than 30 protestors showed up at a potential mine site to voice their concerns to officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Hydro Resources Incorporated. [Photo by Brian Leddy/Independent]

By Kevin Killough
Staff writer

The Escalante Generating Station in Prewitt, a coal fired power plant. [Photo by Brian Leddy/Independent]

GALLUP — At the beginning of 1979, America’s nuclear energy industry was on a path to overtaking carbon-based energy. The technology was growing rapidly and nuclear plants were becoming more efficient. New Mexico was enjoying thousands of jobs created by the uranium mining industry around Gallup. And it seemed the industry had a bright future.

In March of that year, the nuclear and uranium mining industry got a one-two punch that changed the course of energy policy in America ever since. The blockbuster movie “The China Syndrome” came out, which showed Jack Lemmon and Jane Fonda faced with global disaster as a nuclear plant faced a meltdown. Then, as if right on cue, the reactor at Three Mile Island did just that, resulting in partial yet well-publicized evacuations of the area.

The entire industry tanked as public hysteria turned against it. Plans for new plants were canceled and the demand for uranium evaporated. The uranium mines in New Mexico closed, and not a single nuclear power plant has been built since.

Today, more than 600 coal-fired plants dump nearly 2 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere every year. This is in addition to 64 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxide emissions, and 33 percent of mercury emissions. Meanwhile 103 nuclear power plants supply America with 20 percent of its electricity today without contributing any greenhouse gasses to the air.

This year, NRG Energy Inc. applied for approval of the first nuclear power plant in nearly 30 years. Three Mile Island was the only major nuclear accident in the United States.

Not a single person died in the incident, and according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulation Commission, the people in the surrounding area received a dose of radiation about one-sixth that of a typical X-ray. It’s taken the country nearly 30 years to get over their fears of nuclear energy, even though Three Mile Island demonstrated that even a rare event like a meltdown could be effectively contained with the proper systems in place to handle it. Like most fears of nuclear energy, supporters insist the threat of a meltdown is no reason to abandon the benefits nuclear energy could bring.

In New Mexico, nearly 89 percent of electricity comes from coal. In the United States, nuclear power reduces power plant CO2 emissions by 35 percent, which is the equivalent of 100 million automobiles. There would be significant improvements to air quality if 20 percent of New Mexico’s energy came from nuclear.

In addition, according to CASEnergy Coalition, a grassroots umbrella for nuclear energy proponents, a single nuclear power plant in New Mexico would provide 1,400 to 1,800 construction jobs at the plant site, and more than 1,000 long-term jobs for the community. The plant would also pump $500 million a year into the economy.

Can it work?
Despite all this, nuclear energy has its detractors. The concerns for safety, waste disposal, and the environmental impact of uranium mining continue to stir opponents.
Among those is Betsy Windisch of Gallup Solar. The organization is pushing for a solar plant near Gallup with the goal of reducing the use of coal-fired plants for electricity.

“When I was in college,” says Windisch, “we were talking about solar. We tout ourselves as such a high-tech society. But look at Europe and what they’re doing with solar. This country is so far behind the times.”

But it’s not just solar. Compared to America’s 20 percent, France gets 78 percent of its electricity from nuclear. Belgium gets nearly 56 percent, Sweden about 50 percent, and Switzerland nearly 40 percent.

Solar can cost many times more than nuclear and coal-fired to produce, making it not economically feasible to produce the baseload required to satisfy all of the state’s energy needs.

“So what if it costs more now?” Windisch asks. She says that the technology is improving and will be much more efficient in the future.

Though, arguably, because of waste created by nuclear operations, it is not cleaner than solar and wind sources. And for many, that radioactive stuff that comes out of a reactor is a major concern.

“Why build something that has such a dirty end product?” Windisch asks.

“Here in New Mexico, we don’t have enough water for our people,” Windisch points out.

Nuclear energy does take a lot of this scarce resource.

“The range of water usage, which is measured in megawatt hour, ranges from 400 per megawatt hour on the low end to 720 gallons per megawatt hour,” John Keely, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said.

Using a pond cooling water system for a nuclear plant, which has the least amount of water drain, the entire state of New Mexico would use about 13 billion gallons of water a year to supply all the state’s energy needs. Chances are this is not much different from coal-fired, natural gas, or solar thermal plants. They all heat water to create steam, which turns turbines.

Photovoltaic solar and wind energy are the only sources currently available that do not use significant amounts of water. Though, the plants do take up a significant amount of space, which means they do have their environmental impact. According to figures provided by CASEnergy, a 1,000-megawatt solar farm consumes 35,000 acres of land. A comparable wind farm takes up more than 4 times that amount. A comparable nuclear plant does the same thing in less than 1,000 acres without hitting people with unaffordable electric bills.

Clean mines?
“In New Mexico, we’re especially against nuclear energy because we’re living near Churchrock and the reservations,” Windisch explains. “The companies have not cleaned up the water. Why build something that costs millions of dollars when the mining costs need to be considered?”

Nuclear energy, which depends on uranium mines, lost a lot of friends when mines poisoned ground water and failed to protect miners from radiation. Cleanup operations continue, and those people who have waited so long to have the damage repaired have legitimate reasons to complain.

But just as with nuclear power plants, increases in miner safety, environmental protections, and technological innovation make mining operations safer and cleaner than they were 30 years ago when the uranium mining industry was still booming in New Mexico.

“Mining operations have been entirely revamped,” Rick Van Horn, executive vice president and COO of Uranium Resources Inc., said.

He pointed out that uranium mining used to be as primitive as any other type of mining. It was deadly, dangerous work. There was no Environmental Protection Agency and no Mine Safety and Health Administration. There were no regulations whatsoever. Today, mining is a highly regulated industry that answers to a host of government entities.

Van Horn recalls the time when uranium mine workers took their clothes home, washed them with their whole family’s clothes, and effectively contaminated entire families.

“You could even smoke inside the mines. Today, you can’t even bring smoking products into the mine,” he said.

The lack of these and other safety rules, he says, contributed to the cancer and other health problems mine workers continue to face today.

“It’s a learning process as with any industry,” Van Horn said. “There’s no doubt people got cancer from radiation exposure. We understand the legacy of uranium mining.”
Van Horn insists that the same innovations and regulations that protect miners can protect aquifers.

Likewise, he says, mining companies can only perform the process in areas of the aquifer that can’t be used for potable water.

“We can’t inject into a drinking source,” he said.
The application process is lengthy today, says Van Horn, with a wide range of requirements that must be met before mining can begin. And strict monitoring regulations continue throughout the process.

Not convinced
Besides the Navajo Nation government, there are others that still aren’t convinced. In July, a group calling itself the South Texas Opposes Pollution came from Kingsville to the area when URI began seeking leases for mining operations in Churchrock and Crownpoint. While many in the area of Kingsville have no complaints against the company, the group claims the company left their groundwater poisoned with uranium. Van Horn dismisses their accusations as baseless.

“It is untrue. We tested (the water) before 1986. It was high in uranium then. It’s high in uranium now,” he explains. “It wasn’t the mining. If we had done this, we would be shut down.”

Voices on both sides are quite adamant about their claims. But the truth is uranium mining will have some impact.