Skip to main content

NEI Applauds DOE Budget Request

By
NEI said in a statment it was generally satisfied with the Energy Department's budget request for fiscal 2009 announced yesterday. The DOE request would increase funding by 79 percent next year for Nuclear Power 2010, a program aimed at helping companies build new nuclear power plants in the United States.

Nuclear Energy Institute President and Chief Executive Officer Frank L. (Skip) Bowman said the budget request properly recognizes the need for nuclear energy to remain a key element of the nation’s diverse electricity portfolio for generations to come.

“Nuclear energy enhances our energy independence, and new nuclear power plants are essential if the United States hopes to meet its energy and environmental challenges. The promise of nuclear energy technology extends beyond electricity production to include production of hydrogen and process heat for other applications,” Bowman said. “For these reasons, the administration’s investment in the Nuclear Power 2010 program, the used fuel management program and the loan guarantee program are welcome and warranted."

“The administration correctly anticipates a new era of nuclear plant construction as part of a diverse electricity production mix that meets the need for clean, affordable and reliable energy,” Bowman said.

However, the Nuclear Power 2010 funding was only a small part of DOE's $25 billion budget request.

Wired's online version said the request was "optimistic" but wondered whether it was "plausible."
Labels:

Comments

Alexandra Prokopenko said…
Nuclear no doubt is an issue of energy security for the USA as the largest economy in the world, and it needs mere budget financing for sure. However one mistake politicians often make when dealing with nuclear issues is considering only one or several stages of nuclear cycle while skipping others, like building new plants and uranium enrichment facilities, and forgetting about nuclear waste, in particular its storage and recycling. Are those considered in the budget as well?
February 7, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Anonymous said…
What about the loan guarantees? Did we get the entire $50 billion package?

(Which is not a subsidy as not a single dime will be payed out btw).
February 7, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Rod Adams said…
Alexandra:
Here is the answer to your question quoted from the DOE page regarding the budget specifics:

Office of Nuclear Energy ($1.4 billion)
The Office of Nuclear Energy FY 2009 budget requests $1.4 billion,
This request includes
$301.5 million for one of the key nuclear priorities, the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative which supports research and development activities focused on reducing the volume and toxicity of high-level waste and spent nuclear fuel through recycling. To address the immediate need for nuclear power expansion domestically, the
$241.6 million for Nuclear Power 2010 program to support industry cost-shared, near-term technology development and licensing demonstration activities.
$70 million to continue the development of next-generation nuclear energy systems known as “Generation IV” and will focus on long-term research and development of a gas-cooled very-high temperature reactor through the Next Generation Nuclear Plant project.
$487 million for the MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility, a key component of the nation’s nuclear nonproliferation efforts.

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management ($494.7 million)
$494.7 million, a $108 million increase over the FY 2008 appropriation, to further plans for the licensing and construction of a permanent nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain.

I compute $1.3 Billion for nuclear waste storage and recycling efforts and just $310 for fission reactor development efforts.

IMHO, at least $450 million of the waste storage efforts will go down the Yucca Mountain rat hole and not result in the storage of a single kilogram of used fuel.
February 8, 2008 at 4:09 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

By
Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...
4 comments
Read more