Skip to main content

DOE to Send Proposed Yucca Mountain Legislation to Congress

By Eric McErlain
From a Department of Energy press release:
Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman announced today he will send to the U.S. Congress a legislative proposal to enhance the nation’s ability to manage and dispose of commercial spent nuclear fuel and Defense high-level radioactive waste.

“This legislative proposal reflects the Administration’s strong commitment to advancing the development of the Yucca Mountain repository, while seeking to provide stability, clarity and predictability in moving the project forward,” Secretary Bodman said. “Nuclear power is a clean, reliable domestic source of energy that currently represents approximately 20 percent of the nation’s energy supply. The Yucca Mountain repository is critical to the nation’s current and future energy and national security needs, and I look forward to working with the Congress on developing a bill that can be passed by Congress and signed by the President.”
And in a related story:
Duke Energy Carolinas and the U.S. Department of Justice have reached a settlement resolving Duke Energy’s used nuclear fuel litigation against the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The agreement provides for an initial payment to Duke Energy of approximately $56 million for certain storage costs incurred through July 31, 2005, with additional amounts reimbursed annually for future storage costs.

In 1983, Duke Energy entered into a contract with the DOE which provided for the removal of used fuel from nuclear power reactor sites beginning in 1998. Because the federal government did not begin used fuel removal in 1998, Duke Energy has incurred higher used fuel storage costs at the Duke Energy-operated Oconee, McGuire and Catawba nuclear stations. Under this settlement, the government will reimburse Duke Energy for qualifying storage costs from the U.S. Treasury’s Judgment Fund.

“This agreement is an important positive step for our company and the federal government,” said Brew Barron, Duke Energy chief nuclear officer. “It clarifies specific costs the DOE will pay associated with the delay in meeting its obligation for used fuel disposal. This ensures our ratepayers and shareholders do not bear the full financial burden of these delays.”
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more