FULTON, MO. ? Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Scott Burnell promptly returned a phone call to a reporter who was seeking comment on plans to build a new nuclear power plant near Fulton.

“Hey, no problem,” he said when thanked for the speedy response. “It’s good to have something to do on a Friday.”

Burnell’s comment summarized the past 30 years in a dormant nuclear power industry that appears to be coming out of hibernation to compete with coal, natural gas and wind power to turn the turbines that generate electricity.

“It’s interesting how the tide turns,” said Roger Clark, chief executive officer of Boone Electric Cooperative. “Ten years ago you wouldn’t mention it.”

Ameren Corp. CEO Gary Rainwater said the company was “seriously considering” a second reactor unit at the Callaway Nuclear Plant.

“On paper, nuclear is clearly the right choice,” Rainwater said. “I want to emphasize the ‘on paper’ part.”

More jobs

A new reactor at the Callaway plant, operated by the company’s AmerenUE subsidiary, means about 2,000 construction jobs during the five years it would take to build the $2 billion second unit. It also means a staff of 300 to operate the plant, which could be online by 2017.

The possibility of another reactor unit at Callaway is “very speculative,” said Paul Sloca, spokesman for Missouri’s Department of Economic Development, but he said the benefits could be positive for the state.

“Anytime there’s a project of that magnitude with jobs and economic activity, it’s a good thing,” he said. The additional electric power generation also would help attract industry to the area, he said.

Pros and cons

Industry proponents say the technology is better and safer than it was 30 years ago when the most-recent plant construction license was issued, and it doesn’t pollute the air as does burning fossil fuels, such as coal. Opponents say it’s costly and dangerous and fraught with waste-disposal and security issues.

One local expert says it’s time that nuclear energy gets a second chance.

“I’m pleased to see the industry start moving forward,” said Bill Miller, University of Missouri-Columbia professor of nuclear engineering. “There’s a lot of advantages to nuclear power. It’s extremely safe technically. Fossil fuels are finite and are going to run out, and there’s the global warming issue.”

Forty years ago, nuclear power seemed the ideal solution for generating electricity, and utilities jumped on the bandwagon to build the costly plants. Today, 104 commercial plants operate around the country.

In 1979, a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island plant near Middletown, Pa., spooked the nation, and several partially completed plants were mothballed. In 1986, the explosion and fire at the Chernobyl plant in the former Soviet Union further squashed most remaining optimism.

Nuclear power plants use heat from atomic chain reactions to boil water and produce steam, which turns turbines that generate electricity. The chain reaction splits uranium atoms, which attach to long fuel rods as radioactive waste.

Location and money

Chris Hayday, a spokesman for the Osage Group of the Sierra Club, agrees there is a renewed interest to build nuclear power plants, but he said the industry still has two major problems: Where to build plants and how to pay for them.

“Nobody wants to be near a nuclear power plant,” Hayday said, but added that expanding a plant, such as building a second unit at Callaway, might be a different story. “They might have less opposition.”

Energy analysts, however, predict a constantly growing need for energy generation. An energy report from the Missouri Economic Research and Information Center released four years ago predicted that over the next 20 years, the nation’s electricity demand would increase by 45 percent.

With a lead-time of some 10 to 15 years to build a nuclear power plant, industry planners are taking the first steps away from fossil fuels and toward nuclear.

More than 85 percent of electricity generated by AmerenUE for its 2.3 million electric customers in Missouri and Illinois comes from coal-fired plants, a process that’s becoming increasingly unpalatable for clean-air advocates and regulatory agencies.

It’s also becoming expensive for private industry. Rainwater estimates that Ameren could spend $1.9 billion or more for smokestack scrubbers and other equipment to deal with the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions and meet Environmental Protection Agency standards.

AmerenUE is not alone in working an analysis between fossil fuels and nuclear power to meet future energy demand.

NRC spokesman Burnell said six utilities and a consortium – made up of eight utilities, the Tennessee Valley Authority, General Electric and Westinghouse – have been talking to the NRC “at some length” about soon applying for combined construction and operating licenses for new nuclear power plants.

One of these is Southern Nuclear, a subsidiary of Atlanta-based Southern Co., which serves some 4.2 million electrical customers throughout the south.

“It’s the most reliable and best-cost alternative for additional generating capacity,” said Steve Higginbottom, corporate communications director for Southern Nuclear. “For nearly 30 years it has been a safe and reliable source of electricity generation with low environmental impact.”

Higginbottom says nuclear power compares “favorably” when stacked up against the cost of environmental retrofits and upgrades for coal-fired plants to meet clean air standards. He says the company expects the “typical anti-nuclear backlash,” but is pushing forward.

And Burnell said it’s important to keep in mind the actual safety record of the nation’s nuclear power plants.

“Evidence is out there that no member of the public was ever harmed from radiation coming from a nuclear power plant,” he said. “There is a benefit to be gained through nuclear fission, and our job is to ensure that the benefit is obtained safely.”