Skip to main content

Dollars and the Nuclear Waste Fund

The Nuclear Waste Fund was established in 1982 when Congress passed legislation that those who use electricity supplied by nuclear energy would pay for the used nuclear fuel disposal program. For every kilowatt-hour used, consumers of nuclear generated electricity contribute one-tenth of a cent into the waste fund -- about $750 million per year. For Fiscal Year 2005 Congress appropriated far less than that, allocating $572 million to the program. In previous years the program has received an average of $194 million annually.

As of March 31, 2005, the total revenue paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund amounted to $24.9 billion. Of that amount, only $8.9 billion has been spent on program costs, leaving a balance of $16.02 billion that has been collected, but not applied to the used nuclear fuel disposal program.

So what should Congress be doing with all that other money? Last month at the 2005 Nuclear Energy Assembly, NEI President and CEO Skip Bowman said:
We must ensure a dedicated, available funding program for the Yucca Mountain repository and other components of the integrated federal program.

The Congressional intent for establishing the fund was to use it to support the Yucca Mountain project. That'’s what consumers deserve. It's what we should do.
Illinois, the state that relies most heavily on nuclear generation for electricity, has contributed more to the fund than any other state: $3.1 billion. Next is Pennsylvania at $2.1 billion, followed by South Carolina at $1.7 billion. In all, 34 states contribute to the fund, averaging total contributions of $747 million each.

Originally, the fund began was a separate account in the federal treasury -- sort of like a "lock box". However, back in 1987, Congress amended the law so that the Fund is dependent on capping appropriations.

According to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Department of Energy was supposed to open a nuclear waste repository by 1998. That date got pushed back to 2010. More recently, the estimated time frame for opening the facility stands at 2012.

For more information go on used nuclear fuel management, click here.

EDITOR'S UPDATE: For more on the topic of used nuclear fuel and Yucca Mountain, click here for a story from the Los Angeles Times.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Matthew66 said…
Unfortunately, the contributions made by electricity consumers are effectively a tax. The "Nuclear Waste Fund" "invests" all contributions in US government debt securities. Effectively it is a means of improving the US government's cash flow position whilst maintaining the pretence of having a used fuel management strategy. If Congress were serious about managing used nuclear fuel, it would have offered serious incentives to a state or local community willing to host the used fuel storage facility, as the Korean government has done. It would also ensure that there are sufficient funds available for managing used fuel. The money involved is more than enough to establish a reprocessing plant to enable recycling of uranium and plutonium into the fuel cycle and immobilizing the unusable fission products in glasss or ceramic, thereby reducing waste volume by 97% and reducing the storage period required to about 500 years.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…