Skip to main content

Nobody Trips Over a Mountain

yucca-drawing The used fuel repository at Yucca Mountain has found itself in a bit of a corner. The Obama administration intends to withdraw all funds for it except what is necessary to allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to evaluate its license application. Obama had stated a preference for intermediate storage at the plant sites while trying to figure something out, as expressed here:

I believe a better short-term solution is to store nuclear waste on-site at the reactors where it is produced, or at a designated facility in the state where it is produced, until we find a safe, long-term disposal solution that is based on sound science.

Which is pretty much what has been happening anyway. Yucca Mountain is based on sound science, so Obama presumably means sounder science.

---

The scaling back of the project at least allows the politics around it to recede as well. While Senate majority leader Harry Reid generally supports expanding the use of nuclear energy, he never liked Yucca Mountain – it’s in his state - and opposition to it is a given in Nevada. Reid’s lately pretty happy:

Make no mistake: this represents a significant and lasting victory in our battle to protect Nevada from becoming the country’s toxic wasteland. I have worked for over two decades with help from our state’s leaders and thousands of Nevadans to stop Yucca Mountain.

And it certainly doesn’t hurt going into the the 2010 midterms, when Reid’s up for re-election. (And that’s not being snotty – Reid’s been very consistent both on nuclear energy and Yucca Mountain, whether the Democrats were in or out or power at a given moment.)

---

But let’s assume Yucca Mountain does present too big a NIMBY target – it can be pretty tough to site windmills much less a used fuel repository.

NEI’s President and CEO Marv Fertel, offered an op-ed at Energy Daily that does a good job laying out, shall we call it, the plagues and pleasures of moving forward with a reduced, or perhaps more accurate to say, an altered focus on Yucca Mountain. How about recycling?

Given the clear need for expansion of nuclear energy programs in the United States and worldwide, the nuclear industry proposed two years ago that our nation should revisit the decision to use a once-through fuel cycle and instead pursue a closed fuel cycle that includes recycling. This integrated approach includes at-reactor storage, private sector or government-owned centralized storage, research and development on recycling technology and continued development and licensing of a federal repository.

And long term storage?

Even with a closed fuel cycle, a geologic repository will be needed for the ultimate disposal of the waste byproducts. Licensing of the Yucca Mountain repository should continue, but the characteristics of the waste form requiring disposal will influence the design of the repository.

Did we mention plagues above? Plagues there may be:

If the administration unilaterally decides to abandon the Yucca Mountain project without enacting new legislation to modify or replace existing law, it should expect a new wave of lawsuits seeking further damage payments as well as likely requests for refunding of at least $22 billion already collected from consumers that has not been spent on the program from the Nuclear Waste Fund.

But read the rest yourself at the NEI site. Lots of good content and realistic about – well, how does the rest of that saying go? "Nobody trips over mountains. It is the small pebble that causes you to stumble. Pass all the pebbles in your path and you will find you have crossed the mountain.” May sound a bit Kung-Fu, but say it as Keye Luke would have, and it’s wise enough. It moves us forward.

Yucca Mountain. What might have been, what might still be.

Comments

The Federal government has already received billions of dollars from regional utilities that operate commercial nuclear power facilities for the disposal of spent fuel.

The Federal government needs to utilize this money to set up Federal Nuplexes in every spent fuel producing State to serve as central repositories and reprocessing centers for spent fuel.

Additionally, Federal Nuplexes should utilize the reprocessed fuel through on site nuclear reactors at each Nuplex for the production of base-load electricity, industrial chemicals, and hydrocarbon synfuels for transportation and clean carbon neutral peak-load energy production.

Marcel F. Williams
The Nuplex Solution
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/1999/02/nuplex-solution.html
Anonymous said…
The Obama administration has made a commitment to review U.S. nuclear waste policy. It no longer makes any sense to rush to stick a large amount of spent fuel into Yucca Mountain, so there is no real technical impact from stopping the work toward construction of the site, while the licensing effort to provide independent NRC review of Yucca Mountain's suitability continues (although there is a rapidly growing taxpayer liability).

I really hope that this policy review ends up being successful in identifying a solution that can gain sufficient votes from the representatives of the 39 states that now host temporary storage of spent fuel and high level waste. Such a solution likely does exist, and fixing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act would be a major accomplishment.

If this effort fails, then our default policy is already well known. The default policy is written in the current statute--construct Yucca Mountain and stuff it full of spent fuel as quickly as possible. Hopefully we can do better than this.

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin