NEI Nuclear Notes

1. The 60th anniversary of Atoms for Peace (and NEI, too) – President Dwight Eisenhower gave the Atoms for Peace speech before the United Nations General Assembly on December 8, 1953. I’ve heard different thoughts about how to date the beginning of the domestic nuclear energy industry – the four light bulbs illuminated by Experimental Breeder Reactor I on December 20, 1951, the first successful use of nuclear energy to generate electricity, is a good candidate – but Atoms for Peace seems correct because the speech makes the moral and ethical, not just a technical, case for nuclear energy. That’s important and it makes 2013 the 60th anniversary of the industry. Atoms for Peace came about as a response to the rising tide of the cold war and Eisenhower’s perception that the world could embrace “the hopeless finality of a belief that two atomic colossi are doomed malevolently to eye each other indefinitely across a trembling world.” Against this nihilistic view, Eisenhower propose...

The nuclear waste fee, established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, pays for the building of a permanent repository for used nuclear fuel. When the government settled on Nevada’s Yucca Mountain for the repository site, Congress in 1987 amended the act to include it. All that made sense – the industry paid for a repository and the government would take charge of used fuel and put it there. But when President Barack Obama ended the Yucca Mountain project in 2009 with no alternative site envisioned, numerous unresolved problems developed: first, the law stipulates Yucca Mountain and no place else as the repository. And second, how much money should the industry’s ratepayers pay into the nuclear waste fund without an actual repository to fund. Is $29 billion enough? Because that’s how much has been collected. Should the industry keep paying about $750 million per year when the government has no designated repository site to spend it on. The U.S. Court of Appeals in Was...

I'm a Washington policy professional but also a Washington native, and so over the better part of four decades I've developed a distinct appreciation for how policy in this city is covered by the fourth estate. To cut to the chase: I'm pretty much underwhelmed/infuriated by a wide swath of the Washington press corps on pretty much a daily basis. But not today. For the better part of the past month I've worked closely and in most rewarding fashion with the producer-reporter tandem of David Fitzpatrick and Drew Griffin of CNN. Tonight of course that outlet is airing the magnificent documentary ' Pandora's Promise .' In support of the documentary CNN has devoted extraordinary resources this fall to informing the public about nuclear energy. In sprawling digital and broadcast news and commentary this week, CNN has covered nuclear's voices pro and con, academic and activist, political and wonkish. Nuclear power in the United States has known both triumph a...

Rep. John Shimkus You can't find a more passionate supporter of the Yucca Mountain repository on Capitol Hill than Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.). For years, Shimkus has been a champion of electricity rate payers who have been dutifully contributing to the Nuclear Waste Fund only to see the Federal government continually fail to fullfill its obligations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act . Earlier today, the Chicago Tribune published an op-ed by the dogged Rep. Shimkus entitled, " Nuclear waster: The name is Yucca Mountain ." Though the full text of the article is behind one of those dreaded paywalls, we've excerpted a few choice passages for your reading pleasure. After spending $15 billion analyzing it [Yucca Mountain], the Department of Energy in 2008 finally filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission an application for a license to build and operate the project. Numbering nearly 10,000 pages, the application addressed every imaginable question of safe...

Today at the National Journal 's Energy Experts Blog , the magazine is taking a closer look at how the nation will have to confront the issue of long-term storage of used nuclear fuel : What safety, environmental, and economic factors should Washington consider as it debates the future of its nuclear-waste policy? Should Yucca Mountain be revived, or should Congress stop debating that repository site once and for all? How does the uncertain future over spent fuel affect the nation's dependence on nuclear power, which provides the nation with 20 percent of its electricity? Marv Fertel, NEI's President and Chief Executive Office, has posted a response . Here's an excerpt: The nuclear energy industry agrees with many of the common-sense recommendations in the Blue Ribbon Commission’s final report, which was developed after nearly two years of fact-finding, public interaction and intense study. In particular, three proposals should be given high priority: prompt effo...

As you may have heard, DOE is attempting to withdraw the license application for the Yucca Mountain used nuclear fuel repository from consideration by the NRC. This was a decision that remains controversial and may get a further hearing in the next Congress. Regardless, Yucca Mountain continues its retirement. Yet it is still being paid for via the Nuclear Waste Fund , described as: [A] 1 mill (one-tenth of a cent) fee for every kWh of nuclear-generated electricity sold. Congress established the fee and Nuclear Waste Fund, a federal trust, in 1982 to bankroll the DOE repository program. That may not sound like a lot, but it comes to about $750 million per year and has contributed to a fund that now stands at $25 billion. While one could say that the utilities are paying this. it is actually ratepayers that are doing so. The Nuclear Waste Act of 1982 set Yucca Mountain as the used fuel repository (through an amendment in 1987) and set the initial fee for the Nuclear Waste F...

Over the past couple of weeks we’ve updated a large number of stats on our website for the curious public as we normally do every April and May. After updating our stats for a number of years, it’s always been interesting to analyze and see how the latest numbers have changed. For instance, US nuclear plants generated slightly less electricity in 2009 than in 2008 , yet nuclear’s fuel share increased from 19.6% in 2008 to 20.2% in 2009. That’s simply because electricity generation declined by four percent in the US due to that major economic setback we’re finally coming out of. FERC’s latest state of the markets report noted the following (pdf): This [2009] was the greatest decline in a single year in at least 60 years and, with 2008, the only time electricity demand has fallen in consecutive years since 1949. Below are a few summaries of our latest updates as well as links to new stats that you may be interested in. 2009 Production Costs for Coal and Nuclear Tick Up, Gas a...

The National Journal's energy blog is asking " How Should America Handle Its Commercial Nuclear Waste? " So far, four experts have weighed in: Chuck Gray from the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners , David Kreutzer from the Heritage Foundation , Thomas Gibson from the American Iron and Steel Institute , and NEI's new CEO Marv Fertel . Here's what Marv had to say: Since Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982, our nation has been pursuing a path for the ultimate disposal of used nuclear fuel using a once-through fuel cycle. Given the clear need for expansion of nuclear energy programs in the United States and worldwide, the nuclear industry proposed two years ago that our nation should revisit the decision to use a once-through fuel cycle. Instead, we should pursue a closed fuel cycle that includes recycling. This integrated approach includes at-reactor storage, private sector or government-owned centralized storage, research a...

Last week we told you about how anti-nuclear campaigner Kevin Kamps was masquerading as a "nuclear waste expert" during a trip to Australia . But thanks in part to Nuclear Australia , the jig is up .

That's according to The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics : The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics's March quarter Australian Commodities report, released yesterday, said despite a substantial increase in global uranium mine production this year, the spot uranium price was expected to keep appreciating, averaging more than $US94.20 ($A121.69) per pound in 2007, compared with $US85 now. "In 2008, the spot uranium price is forecast to increase by a further 10 per cent to average $US103 per pound," ABARE said. ... However prices will start to decline after next year ABARE says, as the large amounts of money being spent on uranium exploration, both in Australia and around the world, begin to translate into new mine production. Here's another take on uranium prices according to NEI's Marvin Fertel : In the long run, "I think we're going to end up with a much better situation than we even had before," he sai...

For all you stat gurus out there, I'm going to begin periodically posting new and updated statistics as they come out. Here you go. Electricity Demand According to EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2007, forecasts show that the United States will need an estimated 40 percent more electricity by 2030 (xls). In terms of capacity, the U.S. is projected to need an additional 292 GW by 2030 (xls). 2005 Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases According to EIA, U.S. nuclear plants avoided 36% of all reported emissions avoided in 2005 (pdf). This is more than any other category in the program. Nuclear Waste Fund Statistics Q1 FY 2007 As of December 31st, 2006, total ratepayer commitments to the Nuclear Waste Fund are $28.938B .