Sue Lowden and the Return (?) of Yucca Mountain

Here’s something we didn’t expect to read:

At the meeting, Lowden said she is committed to amending and rewording the Nuclear Waste Policy Act so that it requires Yucca Mountain be prepared not only for the long-term storage of the nuclear waste, but also for reprocessing the waste into usable fuel.

A little context, perhaps? Well, the meeting was of the U.S. Nuclear Energy Foundation and Lowden is Nevada Senate candidate Sue Lowden. She leads in the Republican primary there and in poll-driven match-ups against Democrat Harry Reid, she also wins.

We’d warn, though, that it’s still too far out to count on such polls, which can change on a dime. Good example: Lowden herself – she’s the candidate who picked up considerable bad press after she suggested that bartering for medical care might help contain costs and that the barter might include chickens.

None-the-less, we were interested to see that opposition to Yucca Mountain is not an article of faith for politicians – that is, a local circumstance that trumps party loyalty.

Last month, GOP adviser Sig Rogich criticized Lowden’s stance on Yucca Mountain, saying that a single nuclear waste spill could destroy the Nevada economy. This echoes the stance of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, which cites concern for leaks of radioactive substances and accidents in transportation as two of its reasons for opposing the repository site.

These are non-starter arguments: used nuclear fuel already travels around the country, and has for a long time, without incident; and a “single nuclear waste spill” ruining the Nevada economy seems an out-of-the-hat argument that has no basis in any reality. Not sure the journalistic “balance” was really necessary here.

This is what makes sense:

“I don’t understand how someone could just willfully take out $500 million to $1 billion out of the economy of southern Nevada, and expect it to just flourish” he [Dr. Dennis Moltz, a nuclear scientist] said. “Because that’s what Yucca Mountain was bringing in for many years: $500 million to $1 billion.“

So if Lowden supports reopening Yucca Mountain, fine. That she may have to face down DOE Secretary Steven Chu and President Obama, also fine. There’s been a lot of doubt raised – and lawsuits filed – over Yucca Mountain, so she’s in good company.

---

We paid a visit to Lowden’s campaign site to see what, if anything, she had to say about nuclear energy. We got a bit of a surprise:

Sue Lowden has always been and remains opposed to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act – which calls for deep, geologic burial of high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. As a Nevada State Senator, Sue traveled to Washington, DC, in the 90s to testify before a congressional panel in opposition to this misguided policy.

That’s not exactly inconsistent – she says above she want to rethink the Nuclear Waste Act – but it does seem she does not support reopening Yucca Mountain.

Or does she?

Sue believes that if nuclear waste ends up being shipped to Nevada, we should ensure that Nevada can become the leader of a new, job-creating industry on reducing and ultimately, permanently eliminating the waste. She believes our Nevada Test Site could become the next major economic development, job-creating, high-tech nuclear laboratory – not just for the US, but throughout the world. Lawrence Livermore in California and Los Alamos in New Mexico are two of our nation’s leading national laboratories and many other states are competing for new, high-tech, job, career and industry-creating projects.

Hmm! Now, we’re really not sure what she has in mind. Here’s a little more from the meeting that may clarify her position a little better.

“There was a feeling that this was being shoved down Nevada’s throat by the federal government, and people don’t like it in Nevada when the federal government comes in and says ‘you will do this,’ without having any input from the people,” Lowden said. “And frankly, I didn’t like it when I was a state senator. I testified to them in Washington that I did not like the fact that Nevada was told ‘this is what we will do.’”

Lowden said, however, that she’s willing to learn more about nuclear energy, and its potential use for Nevada in the future.

So – an evolving stance. Especially if Lowden wins her primary on June 8, this will be an evolution well worth following. This may shape up to be a very consequential race.

Sue Lowden.

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog