Skip to main content

TVA and Crossing the T on Yucca Mountain

The other day, we listened to the hearings for the NRC commissioners - there are three open slots - but did not follow up with the TVA candidates later that afternoon. Maybe we should have:

During the hearing, each of the nominees gave a statement and was questioned by the committee members about their suitability for the role. Each nominee said that they backed TVA's use of nuclear energy.
You can read all the quotes - and who said them - at the links but here's a taster:

"In the short run, additional generation needs to come almost surely from new nuclear."
"I am pro-nuclear and I do think it needs to be part of the solution."

To support economic growth, I think we have to have low-cost power, and that additional power may have to be through nuclear."

"We've got some old dirty coal plants and, even if we were to miss the call for increased demand, I think nuclear must be part of our solution."

And that's a clean sweep of the four candidates - TVA has a nine member board.

---

The Tennessee Valley Authority is a depression-era creation. The article describes it this way:

TVA was set up by the US Congress in 1933, primarily to reduce flood damage, improve navigation on the Tennessee River, provide electric power, and promote "agricultural and industrial development" in the region. Today, TVA is a federal corporation and the country's largest public power company, supplying the electricity needs of about nine million people.
That's about right. We'd only add that there were meant to be other "valley authorities," but Congress back then balked, so TVA is unique as a federal entity.

---

To the credit of Environment and Public Works committee chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and member Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), these candidates were heard on Tuesday before Washington was snowed under (again!) that night and into Wednesday - they were scheduled for today, which wouldn't have happened. The Tennesseans are probably stuck in town for a bit, but at least they can watch cable TV and swim in the hotel pool now that they've got their hearings out of the way. Not a good time for sightseeing.

---
 
And how did the NRC Commission hearings go? No problems for the candidates that we could pick up. More on this later, but we thought you'd find this exchange interesting (our transcript):

Boxer: I have a question here for all three of you from Sen. [Harry] Reid (D-Nevada) and you could just answer it yes or no: If confirmed, would you second guess the Department of Energy's decision to wirthdraw the license application for Yucca Mountain from NRC's review?

William Ostendorff: No

Boxer: Good. Anyone else?

William Magwood: No

Gregory Apostolakis: No

Boxer: Thank you. I think he will very pleased with that.

We doubt NRC would second-guess this in any circumstance. Consider it a crossed "t."

From one of my favorite movies still not on DVD, Elia Kazan's Wild River (1961), about the early days of the TVA.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Harry Reid: pothole in the road to America's clean energy future.
Pete said…
I can only hope there were other questions directed to the nominees' qualifications... or was Yucca Mountain the only litmus test issue the senators cared about?
Anonymous said…
The question itself, asked by Boxer on behalf of Reid, was far more revealing than any of the answers.

In fact, it showed just how ignorant many of our elected officials are about the agencies they presumably oversee.

But then again, for a bunch of people who see the world through the lens of political influence and deal-making and quid pro quo, it makes sense that they would project their own worldview onto three men asked to run a neutral, independent regulatory agency.

What I found notable in the testimony was Magwood's repeated reminder that on-site storage was conceptualized and designed as a temporary measure, under the premise that permanent storage would someday be available, as promised in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

Now that was actually substantive (if oblique) commentary on Yucca Mountain and the consequences of the current administration's decision to scuttle it as a political favor.

Magwood was essentially saying that the subject of on-site storage, as it is currently designed, would have to be revisited by NRC, perhaps even beyond the ongoing waste confidence decision deliberations at the agency.
The TVA needs to sell all of its coal and gas electric power plants to regional utilities. This would allow them to fund more nuclear power plant construction.

The TVA needs to set a good example for other private and public utilities by completely getting out of the business of fossil fuel electricity generation.
gman said…
To Anon in comment #3 - I think you are spot on in your view of this. With people like these senators running the country, we are doomed.
Anonymous said…
Magwood was essentially saying that the subject of on-site storage, as it is currently designed, would have to be revisited by NRC, perhaps even beyond the ongoing waste confidence decision deliberations at the agency.

Where and how did you get this from his remarks at the hearing?

I heard Magwood say, in response to Boxer's question from Reid, that SNF is safe to store onsite or in dry casks for at least 50-100 years.

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

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...

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

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...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

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...