Skip to main content

The Return of Yucca Mountain

YuccaMountain1 Color us surprised. The House Appropriations Committee unveiled yesterday its version of the Fiscal Year 2012 budget for the Energy Department with an unexpected line item. We’ll have more on the nuclear energy-specific aspects of the House budget tomorrow or Monday – there’s a markup of the bill later today that might shift some of the numbers around. It’s worth waiting to see how that turns out.

Anyway, here’s the surprising part:

The subcommittee's bill would increase funding in one area that DOE did not request. The Obama administration has sought to kill the long-planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada, and proposed no funding for the project. But that move has been attacked by Republicans in Congress, and the subcommittee proposed $35 million to continue work on the project, and would forbid DOE from using funds to close the project.

$10 million of this would be used to continue the NRC review of the license for Yucca Mountain submitted to it by DOE – the committee did not explain what the other $25 million covered – that might be up to DOE.

---

But the decision to revive the used fuel repository might explain, at least in part, what occurred at a House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing yesterday :

Chu didn’t testify, but one of his top aides did -- Acting Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Peter Lyons -- and he got an earful from virtually every member who questioned him.

“Regardless of who the administration is, the abject failure to follow federal law here is most disturbing, and it’s unacceptable,” Representative Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) bellowed at an Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing. “It’s unacceptable by any administration of any party.”

“Bellowed” is rather colorful for a news story, but it’s certainly true that Inslee was far from pleased. Inslee’s view is that stopping work on Yucca Mountain broke a provision in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act that specifically charges DOE with developing the Nevada mound as a national used fuel repository. Most of the other committee numbers who quizzed Lyons on Yucca Mountain agreed with Inslee.

Are they right? Decide for yourself. You can read the entire Act here. The provisions about Yucca Mountain begin on page 13 (20 on your pdf page counter).

So, at least for now, Yucca Mountain is back. This is literally the first step in the budget process following the President’s presentation of his Fiscal Year 2012 budget proposal, so there’s much more to come.

---

We’ve had way too much fun scoring Germany for its ill-considered decision to shutter all its nuclear plants by 2022. Of course, that’s pretty much what you’d expect from any nuclear energy advocate – even if the case against closing the plants is very strong however you look at it. See, for example, the Washington Post:

The international Energy Agency reported on Monday that global energy-related carbon emissions last year were the highest ever, and that the world is far off track if it wants to keep temperatures from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius, after which the results could be very dangerous.

So what does Germany’s government decide to do? Shut down terawatts of low-carbon electric capacity in the middle of Europe. Bowing to misguided political pressure from Germany’s Green Party, Chancellor Angela Merkel endorsed a plan to close all of the country’s nuclear power plants by 2022.

The Post makes a list of why this is an awful outcome (I’ve adapted these – see the editorial for the full context):

  • Renewables would have to generate an incredible 42.4 percent of the country’s electricity in 2020 to displace nuclear
  • Germany’s move will result in about 400 million tons of extra carbon emissions by 2020, as the country relies more on fossil fuels
  • Germany will likely import more power from its neighbors
  • Germans will end up buying electricity generated in nuclear plants in nations such as France. [I guess we could call that the hypocrisy line item, but it would actually be helpful rather than hurtful.]

The conclusion:

Instead of providing a model for greening a post-industrial economy, Germany’s overreaching greens are showing the rest of the world just how difficult it is to contemplate big cuts in carbon emissions without keeping nuclear power on the table.

Indeed. The happiest face one can put on Germany’s decision is that cooler heads will prevail and keep at least some of the plants open – and that could happen - Germany has gone back and forth on this issue several times already. I wouldn’t be too surprised to see a few more hairpin turns in this story.

Ah, Yucca Mountain. It’s been awhile, hasn’t it? You look great!

Comments

DocForesight said…
Not to worry, Germany's PV output will surely fill the gap. Here's a link to the daily ouput:

http://www.sma.de/en/news-information/pv-electricity-produced-in-germany.html

Germans will rue the day they made this knee-jerk decision based on an event which has no parallel in their geographic region.
Steve said…
The House Appropriations Committee's proposal of $35 million to continue work on Yucca Mountain is all political grandstanding. It will never pass the Senate while Harry Reid is the majority leader. That explains the vagueness of the spending amounts. Nothing to see here, folks, except for more political theater.

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…