Skip to main content

The Washington Post on Yucca Mountain

washington_post_logo The editorial board takes a look at the Obama administration’s decision to reduce funding for Yucca Mountain:

If the president's vision for a clean energy future is to be believed or is to come to fruition, nuclear energy must be a part of the mix, and the safe disposal of its radioactive waste must be given more serious consideration.

They see the politics:

The president keeps a campaign promise to shut the site down. By doing so, he pleases Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). And he potentially secures the swing state's place in the blue column; the Silver State hadn't voted for the Democratic presidential nominee since 1996 until it went to Mr. Obama in 2008.

And they acknowledge how President Obama might proceed:

He also called for redirecting resources to improve the safety and security at plants around the country until a long-term solution is found. Those alternatives, however unlikely the first one is, are more than he offered when he cut off Yucca Mountain's funding.

Which is true, although likely how he’ll proceed. Obama has shown himself to be a remarkably consistent thinker.

The Post does not acknowledge that the Yucca Mountain license is still in progress – there’s enough funding to allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to proceed with its review – and thus the repository is not precisely dead. But their response is judicious – and, we should note, influential. It will be interesting to see how much Yucca Mountain percolates through the next few news cycles. If the decision comes to seem a triumph of politics over science – a big no-no for the administration – then some further explanation may be forthcoming.

Comments

Rod Adams said…
Given the challenges that the NRC faces with regard to adequate resources to review licenses for new plants, especially under the continuing resolution funding that has existed for all of FY2009, I strongly oppose wasting precious regulator hours on a project that is not going to be constructed.

My interpretation of the current politics of the situation is that there are organizations strongly opposed to new plant development who recognize that the NRC is a bottleneck that can be used to slow that development. Slowing down that development adds cost and uncertainty and enables continued sales of coal and natural gas while the licensing processes are delayed.

I think that a proper position for the NEI is to advocate for the license application to be suspended and shelved. If at some time in the future, the politics change and Yucca for some odd reason gets reintroduced as an option, then the process can be restored. For now, though, there are much higher priority items that need to be handled by our limited pool of regulatory resources.
Anonymous said…
Congress should restore the funding. The NWPA is still in effect. The feds are obliged to follow the law.

If they don't, at minimum they should refund all of the contributions put into the waste fund since the requirements to pay into it were set. What's another 10 or 20 billion to an Administration already squandering trillions?

On this point:

"Obama has shown himself to be a remarkably consistent thinker."

The only times he is "remarkably consistent" is when he has a teleprompter in front of him so he can read the words someone else is feeding him. Thinker? I doubt it, unless it's thinking about another campaign.
Anonymous said…
"If they don't, at minimum they should refund all of the contributions put into the waste fund since the requirements to pay into it were set."

I assume you mean they should refund it to the ratepayers, to whom the NWPA waste fee was passed on in electric bills. Otherwise it would be an unearned windfall for utilities on the backs of taxpayers.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

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…