Yucca Mountain News Clips
Thursday, January 18, 2007
---------------------------
Guardian
January 17, 2007
Nuclear Chief Pushes for Safer Plants
By H. Josef Hebert
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Future nuclear power plants should include design improvements to better protect against a terrorist attack by large aircraft, the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said Tuesday.
The chairman, Dale Klein, said the commission soon will give guidance to reactor manufacturers on ``what we believe the reactors should be designed to withstand,'' including the possibility of a terrorist crashing a plane into the reactor.
``It is likely that we will ask the vendors to consider that in a different way than we did in the previous plants,'' said Klein in an Associated Press interview in his office at NRC headquarters in suburban Rockville, Md.
Klein, who became the commission's chairman last June, said it was incorrect to suggest that the NRC will not require design improvements to guard against an airborne terrorist attack.
The 103 reactors now in use were designed under regulations that did not require consideration of a direct hit by an aircraft. The nuclear industry maintains that protection against such an attack is a government matter and not one reactor operators should be responsible for as part of their security. While the industry says tests show current reactors can withstand such a direct hit, others have raised doubts.
Klein said the NRC will likely want future reactor designs to take such a possibility into account.
``These new plants have the opportunity to reduce the (deterrent) actions'' that will be required as part of plant operations ``by increased design requirements,'' Klein said. ``The new reactors in all likelihood will be more robust than the existing fleet.''
The NRC is gearing up for a rush of applications for new power reactors, the first such applications since the 1970s before the Three Mile Island nuclear accident.
Klein said four or five firm applications for new reactors are expected to be received this year with another eight likely in 2008. Most, if not all, of the new reactors are expected to be built on the sites of existing nuclear power plants.
In the interview, Klein expressed concern that the NRC won't be able to handle the license requests promptly unless Congress increases funding. The NRC, like other agencies, has not received a new budget and will run $95 million, or 12 percent, short. ``It will slow (the licensing) down,'' said Klein, because there won't be money to train licensing specialists.
On other matters, Klein:
-Said the NRC is ready and in ``a watch-and-see mode'' when it comes to the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. He noted there have been several ``false starts'' in the Energy Department's push to complete a license application.
-Expressed confidence that reactor waste can continue to be stored at nuclear plant sites in water pools and dry-cask storage, which are both regulated by the NRC.
-Said that the new, streamlined licensing process for new power reactors - now about 42 months - should be shortened even more, at least after the initial group of licenses. It can be done ``with no compromise on safety,'' he said.
-Expects that Congress will require NRC approval for licenses for proposed reprocessing facilities under the Bush administration's Global Nuclear Energy Program. ``In today's world, it's not likely the DOE will self-regulate like it has in the past,'' Klein said.
He said the NRC is on the fence when it comes to reprocessing nuclear fuel, the centerpiece of the Bush administration's vision of an expanded nuclear industry.
``As a regulator, we will evaluate whatever proposal comes at us, but we are not promoting recycling nor are we discouraging it,'' Klein said.
---On the Web:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: www.nrc.gov
---------------------------
Nevada Appeal
January 17, 2007
Preview for presidential hopefuls coming to Carson
It's exciting news that the nation's attention will be on Carson City next year when the Democratic presidential hopefuls arrive here for a forum.
With them and ahead of them will come the legions of TV crews taking the temperature of small-town America. You know the type ... they mill around in coffee shops asking local folk in flannel shirts what's on their minds.
In case those candidates want a head start on getting their forum answers ready, we can already tell them what they'll hear in our coffee shops.
First off, skip all the vague generalizations politicians use when they don't want to offend potential voters. We'll respect you more if you stand straight up, look into the cameras, and tell us what you think about the issues.
What issues? Well, you won't find many surprises there. Immigration is one of them, of course, and make sure you bring your voting record with you.
As you're driven through town, you'll see lots of people who are working paycheck to paycheck. In fact, many people are deeper in debt than they ought to be. In other words, we need to hear what you're going to do to keep Social Security solvent ... a lot of people will be depending on it when they retire.
And while we're talking about being far too deep in debt, what are you going to do to cut federal spending and pay down the federal deficit? It's not a comfortable feeling to know our economy is at the mercy of China.
If you happen to knock on some doors while you're in town - it makes for good photo ops - you'll probably meet some of our seniors. Again, no surprises here: they're probably going to show you their latest prescription bill and ask for your help in figuring out how to pay it and still keep a little extra money for groceries and the heating bill. And within a few more doors, you're bound to meet a gambling family. Oh, we're not talking about the casinos. They'd be one of the many families who have no health insurance and are one injury away from financial catastrophe. And you're bound to meet a veteran who's going to tell you how he or she put his her or life on the line to serve our country, and now they're having to fight for their benefits.
So be sure you bring real answers to share with all those people on these tough issues. But, relax, we'll leave you with an easy one: We're suckers for candidates who tell us Yucca Mountain will never open.
---------------------------
Dallas Morning News
January 16, 2007
Power providers banking on getting a hand from Uncle Sam
By Sudeep Reddy
The Dallas Morning News
WASHINGTON – To kick-start the U.S. nuclear power industry, the federal government is preparing to spend billions of dollars to prove a point to Wall Street.
Proponents of nuclear power are banking on federal support to show investors that revamped licensing procedures and new technology won't result in mammoth cost overruns that defined the last era of nuclear plant construction.
Whether that support materializes may make the difference between a future of growth or stagnation for nuclear power, which now provides 20 percent of the U.S. electricity supply.
Energy companies have announced their interest in building as many as 30 new reactors, including at least six in Texas.
Dallas-based TXU Corp. alone says it may construct six new reactors at three sites.
But most energy executives remain cautious publicly about their prospects. Bond agencies have already warned that companies taking on the multibillion-dollar risk of a new plant could put their credit ratings at risk. Investors generally are interested in shorter-term projects.
Even the strongest supporters of nuclear power agree that the industry's goals hinge on the government's financial support to show that new plants can get built on time and on budget.
"The industry has been dormant for so many years," said Keith McCoy, vice president of resources and environmental policy at the National Association of Manufacturers. "In order to move nuclear energy back to a level of where we should be, you're going to need some incentives."
Once promoted as a limitless source of low-cost electricity, nuclear plants would later be derided as boondoggles on the backs of taxpayers and consumers.
Numerous plants went far off schedule and way over budget. TXU's Comanche Peak power plant took two decades to build. Its original cost estimate: less than $1 billion. The final tab: $11 billion.
Dozens of nuclear construction projects were canceled in the 1970s and 1980s. No new reactors have been ordered since before the 1979 meltdown at Three Mile Island that raised government scrutiny and scared off much of the public.
But as other nations moved forward with new construction, U.S. lawmakers slowly reawakened to the idea of new plants. Environmental concerns throughout the 1990s helped give the industry new momentum. Regulators revamped licensing procedures, though no companies stepped forward until recently.
A new climate
Soaring oil and gas prices in recent years, along with worries about global warming, have allowed the nuclear industry to market itself as a stable source of emissions-free power.
The Bush administration embraced nuclear power from its earliest days, backing key industry incentives that ultimately passed in the 2005 energy bill.
And several key lawmakers have indicated that they won't entertain legislation to address global warming unless nuclear power is considered part of the solution with incentives or other support.
"I think what the politicians are doing is attempting to level the playing field to such an extent that nuclear can compete with coal," said Patrick Moore, co-chair of the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, a group funded by the nuclear industry.
Dr. Moore, a founder of Greenpeace who later left the organization, said a tax on carbon emissions would be one of the strongest ways to give the industry a boost.
"It is still cheaper to build a coal plant because of environmental discharge," Dr. Moore said. "That is likely what a business person would do unless the law changed."
TXU has focused its energy recently on a plan to build 11 coal plants across Texas, meeting stiff resistance from environmental groups and many local officials.
The company hasn't said where it would build all of the nuclear reactors, though it would double the size of its 2,300-megawatt Comanche Peak plant. It could partner with other power companies to build some of the six reactors, which would go online between 2015 and 2020.
"Texas needs power," spokesman Tom Kleckner said. "We're not looking at nuclear to solve short-term problems. We think it'll work for the long term."
TXU plans to file for its construction and operating licenses by the end of next year. Companies that file by then would be eligible to share federal tax breaks for the energy produced by their nuclear plant.
Approved changes
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already approved standardized plant designs using newer technology.
The pressures of deregulation could scare away some utilities, even though nuclear plants have lowered their production costs and raised output to near-record levels.
The federal government has already committed $6 billion in tax credits for the first companies to build new plants. The Department of Energy has also promised $260 million to offset plant design and application costs with NuStart, a consortium of nuclear operators aiming to build new plants.
Michele Boyd, legislative director for Public Citizen's energy program, said the overall cost of subsidies and tax breaks outlined in the 2005 energy bill would be at least $13 billion.
"The whole point of investors and making money is that you make money when you risk your money," said. "This is yet another attempt to put the burden on the taxpayers and yet allow investors to make a bundle."
Critics and supporters agree that two of the most critical issues have yet to be resolved.
Storing the radioactive waste produced at nuclear plants has shown few signs of resolution, as Nevada lawmakers block development of the Yucca Mountain Repository. Spent fuel remains at nuclear reactor sites across the country.
New definitions?
"The industry and investors need to see progress on waste," said Christine Tezak, a policy analyst at Stanford Group Company in Washington. With Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada as the new Senate majority leader, "we may need to adjust our definition of progress."
Companies are also waiting to see how the Bush administration aims to fund the $2 billion in loan guarantees that the 2005 energy bill authorized.
The government can back up to 80 percent of a project's cost, but offering less than that could turn away companies operating in competitive markets rather than regulated ones.
"The loan guarantees may dictate who scrambles to the front of the queue," Ms. Tezak said.
Critics warn that despite the industry's bullish sentiments, the hope for construction of new power plants without subsidies is far from proving itself out.
"What Congress and the Department of Energy are proving right now is that the government can build nuclear plants, which we know already," said Peter Bradford, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and now vice chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"They're going to need to operate for some years before private investors are going to have confidence that the claims that have been made for this generation of power plants are really reliable," Mr. Bradford said.
--E-mail sreddy@dallasnews.com
---------------------------
Los Angeles Times
January 15, 2007
Road to The White House
Nevada is game for '08 caucuses
The state's Democrats have unique concerns that 2008 candidates ignore at their peril.
By Mark Z. Barabak
Times Staff Writer
LAS VEGAS — Forget the jokes about caucusing in brothels, or trawling for votes amid the slot machines and blackjack tables along the neon-drenched Strip.
When Democratic presidential hopefuls come calling on Nevada, the real challenge will be the party faithful they find in this independent-minded state, which will host the West's first nominating contest in a little over a year.
Democrats here like guns, loathe taxes and see nature as a source of fun and profit, not a place that some Washington bureaucrat should lock away. And skip the Rust Belt rhetoric about all those manufacturing jobs fleeing to China and Mexico. Economic issues require a different approach in a state that has boomed for the last 40 years.
"If you give the same speech on the economy in Nevada that you give in Iowa, you're going to seem out of touch," said Eric Herzik, who teaches political science at the University of Nevada in Reno.
"A lack of knowledge," he added, "can offend quicker than anything."
Nevada represents the leading edge in a political shift, as the Rocky Mountain West becomes the new battleground in presidential politics. Democrats, hoping to bring a fresh voice to their nominating process and give candidates a head start on the fall campaign, have set Nevada's caucuses for Jan. 19, 2008.
It is the first time any Western state has had so much influence so early: Nevada will go second, after the Iowa caucuses begin the presidential balloting a few days earlier. And if the state's leading Democrats have their way, what happens in Vegas won't stay in Vegas.
"This is seen as a very, very unique opportunity to get the presidential candidates on the record on Western issues and put them in the national arena early," said Billy Vassiliadis, one of Nevada's political power brokers and the impresario behind Las Vegas' sly marketing slogan. "Instead of talking about manufacturing jobs and farm subsidies, we'll be discussing public lands, infrastructure needs, ranching, mining and water, water, water."
On Saturday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and national labor leaders announced plans for five candidate forums in Nevada, starting next month in Carson City.
For some Democrats, campaigning here may require them to learn a new way of talking — starting with the pronunciation of the state. It's Ne-VAD-uh, not Ne-VAH-duh, which may seem like a small thing unless you live here.
Beyond that, Nevada is a state with a strong libertarian streak. Burdened with a hostile terrain, it found its salvation in sin: gambling, legal prostitution (outside the metropolitan areas) and quickie marriages and divorces. Although that makes for a broad-minded social policy, it also translates into an aversion toward big government and its costs.
There is no state income tax, no corporate or inheritance taxes and no great affection for Nevada's major overseer, the federal government, which control's 90% of the state's land. That makes the environment, usually a Democratic strong suit, a tricky issue.
"People will say we can't allow species to be exterminated," said Chris Wicker, chairman of the Washoe County Democratic Party in Reno. "But they're not going to march in the street for the desert tortoise."
Other national issues play differently as well. Talk of energy independence focuses on wind and solar power, not corn-based ethanol, which fuels the discussion in the Midwest. It's fine to discuss gun safety — more than one in three Nevada households keep at least one firearm — but don't bring up anything that impinges on gun ownership.
Economic concerns, such as transit, land-use and water policy, stem from Nevada's staggering growth — each month, about 5,000 people move to the Las Vegas area alone. The exact number is uncertain — experts can't keep up — and the political ramifications are also unclear.
Many of the newcomers are Latinos attracted by an abundance of service-industry jobs. But they register to vote in relatively small numbers. Senior citizens also make up a large percentage of new arrivals, but many combine social conservatism with a reliance on big government programs such as Social Security.
"It's a mystery," said Michael Green, a historian who has written several books on Nevada.
The issues are nothing like the challenges that confront fading sections of the Northeast. Danny Thompson, head of Nevada's AFL-CIO, jokes that "the tower crane is the state bird." On a recent day, more than a dozen of the construction towers were visible from Tropicana Avenue, where the Statue of Liberty meets a gargantuan MGM lion on the Las Vegas Strip.
In addition, Nevada has its own set of issues, particularly nuclear waste disposal. For more than 20 years, state politicians have fought the federal government over a proposed radioactive dump at Yucca Mountain, a ridge of volcanic rock and ash about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. With Reid leading the fight as Senate majority leader, the only question is how vehement fellow Democrats will be in their opposition.
Gaming — as gambling is called here — is another crucial issue. Any attempt to increase the industry's hefty tax burden, or ban wagering on college sports, would not be welcomed. And candidates stumping in the rural north would do well to appreciate the resentment many feel toward the rapidly expanding, water-guzzling south. (Think San Francisco versus Los Angeles)
"It's more a fight across geographic lines than between the parties," Herzik said.
The state's Democrats face their own challenge in building a caucus system from the desert floor up. (The GOP is still deciding its nominating calendar; some jealous Nevada Republicans would like to push their vote forward to match Democrats' early start.)
Four years ago, about 8,500 Democrats participated in Nevada's caucuses, which fell in mid-February, after the nomination was more or less decided. There were 17 voting sites, or one per county, in a state that sprawls over nearly 110,000 square miles — much of it vast stretches given over to scrub and wild horses.
In 2008, organizers hope to provide about 1,000 voting sites for as many as 100,000 Democrats, with most of the action expected in the population centers of Las Vegas and Reno.
Organized labor helped lure the Democrats to Nevada — the state is one of the few places where membership is growing — and unions are expected to play a major role in the caucuses, even before delivering any endorsements. Thompson said labor hoped to turn out more than a quarter of its 200,000 statewide members and had begun compiling an events calendar so that if visiting candidates want to, say, address a group of seniors, they can find a forum.
The Democrats have hired experienced hands from Iowa to oversee the caucuses, along with a team of national political strategists. The state's gambling industry and other business interests are being tapped to finance the operation. Nobody wants to stumble in the spotlight, or embarrass Reid, Nevada's senior Democrat.
Still, it is unclear how vigorously the Democratic presidential hopefuls will compete. No one is abandoning Iowa or New Hampshire — the leadoff caucus and primary states, respectively — to take up residence in Sparks or Elko. But no one is talking about ignoring Nevada, either. A one-two sweep of Iowa and Nevada could make nationally known candidates such as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois or former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina unstoppable heading into New Hampshire's primary, tentatively set for three days after Nevada's caucuses.
Other Democratic hopefuls have their own incentives to do well. For former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, Nevada could provide an important test of strength outside his home state. For New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Nevada offers a chance to capitalize on his standing as the lone Westerner in the Democratic field.
"The West is crucial for Democrats," said Mike Stratton, a Richardson advisor who served on the committee that retooled the party's nominating calendar. "Candidates will have to understand the Western ethos and they'll have to speak it."
For all Nevada's differences, there are some topics that visiting Democrats will recognize. Immigration has begun to boil as an issue — the state's Latino population has grown by 44% in the last five years. The war in Iraq is a concern. And, like voters everywhere, Nevadans care about jobs, education, affordable healthcare and a comfortable retirement.
"You'll be talking to different people than in Iowa and New Hampshire, no doubt," said Jon Ralston, the state's leading political pundit. "But there are plenty of blue-collar workers in union halls. And, hey, showgirls and blackjack dealers are people, too."
--mark.barabak@latimes.com
---------------------------
StockInterview
January 15, 2007
Nuclear Renaissance Plagued by High Costs, Waste Issues
James Finch
jfinch@stockinterview.com
Exelon Corp Chief Executive John Rowe. He won’t build any more U.S. nuclear power plants until the government gets its act straight on nuclear fuel disposition.
Depending upon which side of the fence you are sitting, the nuclear renaissance is either in full blossom or an arid landscape. The new uranium miners – Paladin Resources, UrAsia and SXR Uranium One – celebrate the record spot and long-term uranium price. Exelon Corp Chief Executive John Rowe is less sanguine, based upon comments he made this past Friday, “The government may have fooled me on 17 reactors that I currently run, but I’m the one who’s being foolish if I build a new plant without knowing what they’re going to do with the spent fuel.” Exelon is the largest owner of nuclear power plants in the United States .
In a September 19th article, we interviewed Steven Kraft, Nuclear Energy Institute Director for Used Fuel Management. Mr. Kraft hinted the stalls around the nuclear renaissance in the United States would revolve around the spent fuel depository issue. What happens with the 40,000 metric tons of used nuclear reactor fuel? Right now, they are chilling out in 141 concrete cooling ponds scattered around the country.
For the past quarter century, the nuclear industry expected the reactor fuel would end up in a centralized depository, as has been proposed at Yucca Mountain , Nevada . Thanks to U.S. Senator Reid, and his efforts to squash this site, the Department of Energy has been paralyzed in moving forward. Alternatives are now being proposed, and the U.S. part of the nuclear renaissance remains stalled.
Then the other shoe drops. Because of the vociferous environmental lobbyists, pre-construction costs dissuade nuclear utilities from accelerating their plans to build new nuclear reactors in the United States . Utilities do what is convenient – they pass on these licensing costs to their utility consumers. Because of the environmental lobby, Georgia electricity consumers are paying the freight to license the new nuclear reactors proposed by Atlanta-based Southern Co. Charlotte-based Duke Energy hopes to get the same deal in North Carolina .
How much does it cost to license a nuclear power plant? Standard & Poors analyst Dimitri Nikas estimated the permits to construct a nuclear plant would cost between $1.5 billion and $2 billion. This means roughly one-half the cost of constructing a nuclear plant in the United States goes to pay for a permit to build and operate the reactor. New reactors are supposed to cost between $3 and $5 billion each to build (plus financing costs). If 30 new reactors are planned in the U.S., about $45 to $60 billion will be spent on permitting costs (A special thanks to 'Friend of the Earth' for that penalty!).
Because of this expensive proposition, nuclear energy costs more to produce electricity in the United States than it would in places like China, Korea, Japan or just about anywhere else. For a nuclear plant costing $2 million per megawatt to build, the power plant’s electricity would cost $55 per megawatt hour. By comparison, a coal-fired power plant costs consumers $53 per megawatt hour for their electricity. A combined cycle integrated gasification plant fueled by coal produces electricity for $50 per megawatt hour.
On the bright side, the S&P analyst believes that after the first wave of nuclear power plant construction, overall costs could plunge to $1.5 million per megawatt hour for electricity, or roughly $44 per megawatt hour. Because of this drop Mr. Niklas concluded nuclear energy “is by far the most competitive cost from any resource, except perhaps hydroelectricity generation.” This is more good news for uranium miners now supplying the nuclear industry and those who hope to do so over the next decade.
The question facing most Americans – and we would guess 99 percent haven’t the slightest clue about this problem – is whether or not they would prefer losing the nuclear option as part of their electricity generation. The environmental lobby would cheer the loss but the utility consumer would lose up to 20 percent of their baseload electricity generation. And on a darker note, the alternative would be more coal-fired power plants – not wind or solar power, which are still more than one decade away from offering any sort of hope for baseload electricity generation.
To put this into perspective, coal now generates 54 percent of America ’s electricity. One pound of coal produces 1.25 kilowatt hours of electricity, enough to power one 100-watt light bulb for 10 hours. The average internet user consumes more than his body weight in coal just to surf the net: 12 hours weekly over the course of one year consumes 300 pounds of coal. (For example, the electricity consumed to order StockInterview’s “Investing in the Great Uranium Bull Market,” would burn up one lump of coal.) Total demand for electricity by personal computers now amounts to 8 percent of the U.S. electrical supply. In the future, over one billion people will be accessing the Internet. This amount of computer time would be equal to the total ‘current’ capacity of U.S. electrical production.
If the U.S. nuclear renaissance doesn’t get launched, we will either be accessing the Internet by polluting our environment with several hundred additional millions of tons of CO2 emissions, or the Internet users will suffer. Wind and solar won’t power the Internet, but coal, gas and especially nuclear will.
And at this stage of the uranium renaissance, U.S. utilities have contracted with three non-U.S. uranium mining companies – Paladin, SXR Uranium One and UrAsia – to purchase uranium mined in Namibia , South Africa and Kazakhstan . Where is the energy independence in that observation? Next we’ll be buying our electricity from the Russians, Chinese, and quite possibly the Iranians, if this nonsense continues. Please bring this to the attention of your local environmental lobbying office.
---------------------------
Energy Tribune
January 15, 2007
The Three Ways Out
By George Taylor
Any prudent observer would consider the possibility that fossil fuels might run short within years and very short within decades. Given that we depend on oil, natural gas, and coal for 90 percent of our energy, we could be facing the most catastrophic change in modern history. Equally scary, even should more fossil fuels be discovered, burning them without storing away the carbon dioxide they produce could cause global warming.
The False Ways Out
Many purported ways out are false hopes, either because they are too small to matter or because they have a fatal flaw.
- Hydroelectric power is low-cost, but cannot be expanded.
- Geothermal is available in only a few locations, and likewise cannot be expanded.
- Wind has huge potential capacity, but even in the best locations only blows fast enough to turn the windmills one-third of the time. Its fatal flaw is that we have no storage mechanism for electricity today, and none of the proposed ones would return more than 25 percent of the energy that goes in. The electricity produced by windmills could be used to make liquid fuels, but such transformations are very wasteful. If battery technology improves enough, hybrid-electric or pure electric vehicles may be the wave of the future, and full-time electric power plants (such as coal or nuclear) would avoid the conversions required by intermittent ones, such as wind or solar.
- Photovoltaic solar is many times more expensive than competing technologies, and will remain so indefinitely because sunlight is weak, the physical infrastructure costs are huge, and the sun delivers only about two thousand effective hours per year (25 percent), even in the desert. Plus, solar has the same flaw as wind: we can’t store it. Thus, while it may address peak electricity demand on a summer afternoon, it would not be reliable enough to power the world.
- Biomass as currently practiced – corn ethanol or soybean diesel – produces such small net gains in energy that no amount of farmland could ever replace a meaningful portion of our fossil fuel consumption. Corn ethanol is just a way to convert natural gas (through fertilizer and steam) into a liquid fuel. It has only gained traction because of the temporary availability of natural gas at prices lower than oil, state-level mandates, and federal-level subsidies (of 75 cents per gasoline-equivalent gallon). Soy diesel, in contrast, can be produced at a small profit, but only because we need the soy protein first. Even so, net production of 35 gallons per acre would yield less than 1 percent of U.S. petroleum consumption (2.5 billion gallons) even if all 75 million acres of soybeans were utilized. The only biomass that hasn’t been discredited as a serious energy source is cellulosic alcohol – because the proposals for it are so poorly defined no one can say what they mean. We should be skeptical because cellulose is far more difficult to break down than corn or soybeans, and the lignin that cellulose advocates propose to use for process heat is as little as 20 percent of fast-growing plants.
- Finally, while both the world and the U.S. have a lot of coal, we have yet to demonstrate even one case of large-scale long-term storage of CO2.
The Real Ways Out
Fortunately, we won’t have to live in the dark or melt all the glaciers. Conservation, efficiency, and nuclear power are real ways out.
Cutting demand (conservation) won’t be popular, but we could take at least one significant step – by curbing population growth. By 2050, the path we’re on will add 150 million people to the 300 million we reached in the U.S. this year. But the growth is driven almost entirely by immigration levels set by Congress, which Congress has the power to reduce. They just haven’t made the connection between population and energy.
Increased efficiency, particularly in transportation, space heating, and electric appliances, could generate huge savings, and many observers claim the first 50 percent reduction could be achieved with little impact on quality of life. Higher-mileage cars, better insulation, and more efficient lighting could go a long way.
But after all that, we will still need a massive source of reliable, long-lasting, low-pollution energy. And, except for a huge piece of luck, there might have been none. But we’re lucky, and one exists – nuclear fission. If, over the next 50 years, we built a thousand one-gigawatt nuclear power plants in the best known way, we could simultaneously: 1) meet all of our energy needs at reasonable cost, 2) operate them more safely than any other large-scale technology ever deployed, 3) reduce greenhouse gas emissions to a fraction of their current rate, 4) solve the waste disposal problem, 5) have a fuel supply that would last forever, and 6) add nothing to the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation.
The fundamental reason is that nuclear forces are vastly stronger than chemical bonds – about 3 million times stronger, if you compare the weight of uranium to the energy-equivalent weight of coal.
The way to unlock uranium’s full potential while minimizing its harmful by-products is to change from today’s open fuel cycle to a closed one, and from today’s fleet of light-water reactors to one containing at least some so-called fast reactors. A closed fuel cycle means reprocessing the spent fuel, in order to send the unused uranium and the created undesirable trans-uranium elements back into the reactor to be split apart, thereby releasing more energy. Only the fission products – the smaller atoms created when large ones break – would be sent to a repository. Fast reactors, which are named after the higher-energy neutrons they utilize, would serve two purposes – to burn up the trans-uranium elements and to breed new fuel (hence, the name breeder reactors) by converting the 99 percent of uranium which will not normally split into plutonium atoms which will. Light-water reactors do this, too, but on too small a scale to keep the process going. Thus they require far higher quantities of fresh uranium.
The differences would be dramatic – over 100 times more energy per ton of uranium in, and 20 times less waste per gigawatt-year of electricity produced. Even more important, the waste stream would contain so little radioactive material that after 500 years it would be no more radioactive than uranium ore in the ground. Repositories such as Yucca Mountain could be simplified or even eliminated.
How could these claims be true, you ask, since we rarely hear anyone talking about them? Because after Three Mile Island, the nuclear industry had to improve its procedures and designs, nuclear power’s opponents stopped all rational discussion, and natural gas was plentiful and cheap for a couple of decades. Nuclear power genuinely had a problem, but that’s changed.
Let’s look at these claims. Nuclear is safe enough, because even an accident which caused a large economic loss, such as Three Mile Island, harmed no one. The defense-in-depth design did what it was supposed to do, and the industry learned and applied many lessons to reduce the chance of a similar accident. We would have greenhouse gas reductions, because nuclear fission emits none. And there would be non-proliferation, because all the proposed fuel cycles mix materials in ways which would make recycled fuel undesirable for weapons design and dangerous to handle.
Nuclear power can be had at reasonable cost because: 1) the 2005 energy bill solved the unpredictable licensing process by mandating a single license for construction and operation, 2) because fast reactors will keep nuclear fuel inexpensive, and 3) because nuclear waste can be reduced to a small problem by reprocessing steps that would cost less, some say far less, than one cent per kilowatt-hour (about 12 percent of today’s average retail price).
Not that all of this will be simple. The development of closed fuel cycles and fast reactors is not yet finished. But what’s left is engineering, not the discovery of new solutions. It will take decades to build a thousand reactors, but that just underlines the task’s urgency. We can’t wait until there’s a crisis to start developing solutions, and we can’t afford to waste time on false hopes.
--George Taylor is a writer in Los Altos, California who is researching a book on the feasibility, economics, and environmental impacts of all practical sources of primary energy for the next 50 years.
---------------------------
Desert Greens/Green Party of Utah
January 15, 2007
Desert Greens Lead Utah Groups Demanding an End to Divine Strake Nuclear Blast Simulation
SALT LAKE CITY -- Applauding Governor Huntsman's call for meetings that allow public input regarding the Divine Strake explosion, the Desert Greens Green Party of Utah, Blue Sky Institute and Shundahai Network as members of the Stop Divine Strake Coalition, a coalition of four-dozen indigenous, peace, environmental justice, disarmament groups and Western Shoshone leaders, are echoing the dire need for an EIS.
An s-EIS is needed since an activity like Divine Strake was not evaluated in the original EIS (1996) for the NTS. This would allow more public involvement into the purpose for Divine Strake. Concerned citizens fear that the blast, which is predicted to create a 10,000 foot mushroom cloud, will re-suspend long-lived radioactive contaminants in the soil at the Nevada Test Site, putting Western Shoshone communities, Utahns and other civilian downwind populations once again at risk. Citizens are also concerned that information from the test will lead to the development of new nuclear weapons and the resumption of nuclear weapons testing. The formal EIS process requires public involvement prior to the environmental analysis to develop the "scope" of the study, and follow up comment on a draft document.
On December 20th, the National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA) released a revised Environmental Assessment and disclosed their schedule of public information sessions in Las Vegas, Salt Lake and St. George; but these sessions will not include a public hearing on the issue. Instead, NNSA officials said that the public sessions are basically open house meetings where people can look at informational posters and ask questions.
"In the past, these meetings allowed public verbal input by citizens, allowing everyone present to hear a variety of views," said Deanna Taylor, Co-Coordinator of the Desert Greens. "The meetings as planned were nothing more than slick sales pitches."
Given the decision of the United Nations Committee to Eliminate Racial Discrimination (UNCERD) last March urging the United States to "freeze", "desist" and "stop" actions being taken, or threatened to be taken, against the Western Shoshone Peoples of the Western Shoshone Nation, this is an egregious violation. The UNCERD decision referred to a number of actions and threats including ongoing weapons testing at the Nevada Test Site as well as efforts to build an unprecedented high-level nuclear waste repository at adjacent Yucca Mountain.
"Are we a nation of laws or not?" said Eileen McCabe, former Associate Director of Shundahai Network and Desert Greens National Delegate (to the Green Party of the United States). "The United States selectively condemns nations that violate or are even suspected of violating treaties or UN resolutions, yet we ourselves flout the decision of the CERD committee in finding the US in clear violation of the treaty of Ruby Valley of 1863. This test, and in fact all tests at the Nevada Test site, are destructive acts of trespassing on Western Shoshone land, and should cease immediately."
The purpose of Divine Strake, an explosion of 700 tons of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil that would be 50 times larger than the largest conventional weapon in the U.S. arsenal has not been clarified.
"Originally the Defense Department's budget documents identified Divine Strake as necessary to determine the smallest proper /nuclear/ yield necessary to destroy underground targets," said Eileen McCabe. "After questions were raised that information from the blast will aid in the design of new nuclear weapons, NNSA officials stepped back, claiming that there were no nuclear applications for the test."
Groups remain unconvinced that it is conventional weapons that the U.S. would use on deeply buried targets and tunnels because the sheer mass of conventional explosives that would be needed (~0.6 kiloton, i.e. 600 tons of TNT) would be too large to be practical as a conventional weapon.
"This test is another building block in the development of new weapons," said Chuck Tripp, 2006 Desert Greens candidate for Salt Lake County Council. "Although we decry even the suspicion of nuclear weapons development by other countries, we find loopholes in laws and refuse to ratify treaties to allow us to continue building new and more lethal weapons. Our continuing and escalating weapons development and testing activities send exactly the wrong message in an unstable world."
Stop Divine Strake Coalition member groups in Utah and Nevada are hosting press events and protests to encourage citizen resistance and public participation before the February 7th deadline.
Information:
Eileen McCabe, Desert Greens (801) 201-0219
gpu@gput.org
www.desertgreens.org
www.gput.org
---------------------------
Pottstown Mercury
January 15, 2007
NRC: Dry casks not part of new 9/11 safeguards
Evan Brandt
ebrandt@pottsmerc.com
LIMERICK -- When it comes to building new nuclear power plants, the nuclear industry has asked that it be required to design plants that can withstand a 9/11-type attack by a hijacked jet.
When it comes to dry cask storage facilities however, the industry, the federal government and even one of the nuclear industry’s harshest critics do not have the same concerns.
One such dry cask storage facility is planned for Exelon Nuclear’s Limerick Generating Station.
On Dec. 8, the Nuclear Energy Institute sent a widely referenced letter to Dale E. Klein, chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The letter, as reported in The New York Times and the In a Dec. 25 Associated Press report, Nuclear Energy Institute spokesman Scott Peterson said "if you need to change the design to accommodate greater security, particularly for large fires and explosions, you want to do that up front in the design process, not after you build the plant."
Peterson also told the Associated Press that the threat from a hijacked airliner is not on the current list of threats against which a plant is required to be capable of defending itself.
In the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the NRC did require existing plants to develop new, more stringent security procedures including ways to protect against an attack with an airplane.
The specifics of those procedures, called the "design basis threat," are secret for obvious reasons.
What the industry has asked for is for the design requirements for new plants to be more stringent.
The Dec. 8 letter "asks nothing new or beyond what the NRC already has underway for new reactors," according to an NRC response released Jan. 4 which explained that the additional regulation the industry was requesting is part of a on-going process for new rules the NRC is considering.
What neither the NRC or the industry addressed in the exchange, however, is whether standards for dry cask fuel storage facilities, such as the one planned for the Limerick plant, should also be upgraded to protect against a 9/11-type attack.
Tony Pietrangelo, vice president of regulatory affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, said there was no reason to address changes in the dry cask storage regulations because they are already adequate to protect against a 9/11-type attack.
"What we were trying to address in our letter was for new regulations to address the new issues to be on the front end and not have changes being made after designs were finished or construction begun," said Pietrangelo.
As for dry cask storage facilities, those regulations are newer and do not need to be updated, he said. "We know they’re safe," he said.
NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said NRC also has addressed the issue.
In a statement e-mailed to The Mercury, Sheehan wrote that a German manufacturer conducted tests on a particular dry cask design -- not the one to be used in Limerick -- which suggested the casks are resilient against an attack using hand-held missiles, particularly when the casks are surrounded by concrete.
However he added that "the NRC has not reviewed the experimental procedures nor commented on the test."
He said current NRC regulations must be able to "provide for the protection of public health and safety" against naturally occurring events including flying debris from tornadoes or hurricanes, floods and earthquakes.
Additionally, Sheehan wrote, the NRC has "conducted a series of comprehensive vulnerability assessments for dry cask storage systems, including consideration of ground assaults using various weapons and aircraft impacts."
He said the results of the assessments, conducted largely by using computer models, "indicate that it is unlikely that a significant release of radioactivity would occur from a ground assault or a large aircraft impact on a dry spent fuel storage cask."
The same result occurred in a separate 2002 study conducted for the NEI by the Electric Power Research Institute, said NEI spokesman Mitch Singer.
That study focused primarily on the standards for existing nuclear plant buildings, but also came to the same conclusion for steel dry casks.
David Lochbaum is the director of the nuclear safety program for the Union of Concerned Scientists and a frequent critic of the nuclear industry’s safety record.
Lochbaum said he does not consider dry storage casks to be the greatest risk at a nuclear plant under attack from a plane, although he does have some concerns.
"Generally, they’re not anchored to the ground so they would be kind of like pins in a bowling alley and could get toppled or moved if a plane crashed there," Lochbaum said.
However, more vulnerable, Lochbaum said, are the spent fuel pools located inside the reactor buildings.
The dry cask storage facilities are erected once the spent fuel pool inside, used to cool the spent fuel for at least five years, nears capacity.
Dry casks are currently considered a temporary solution by both the industry and the NRC until the national fuel storage facility at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain is completed.
Behind schedule, over-budget and opposed by Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the new senate majority leader, Yucca Mountain’s future is anything but certain however, Lochbaum said.
Because the pools hold so much more spent fuel than the individual casks and because Lochbaum considers the walls that surround those pools to be more vulnerable to an attack with an airplane than the casks themselves, he said the pools are the greater risk.
"The pools hold 1,000 tons of spent fuel but the casks hold only 10 to 20 tons," Lochbaum said. "If I’m a terrorist with a plane, I’m probably going to aim at the fuel pool instead of any casks."
That is where the federal government should direct its preventative efforts he said.
According to a position statement posted at the Union of Concerned Scientists site: "The 2005 Energy Bill contained potentially billions of federal subsidies for new nuclear reactors. But amid all the talk about building new nuclear power reactors, the majority of NRC’s Commissioners voted against requiring new reactor designs to explicitly consider intentional aircraft crashes. Thus, new reactor designs have been developed accounting for bad guys who arrive on foot or by boat, but not by aircraft. It’s as if the Wright Brothers never invented the aircraft or 9/11 never happened."
Elizabeth Rapczynski, spokesperson for Exelon’s Limerick plant, disagreed with Lochbaum’s assessment.
"We believe the technology used for both spent fuel pools and dry cask storage are equally safe and proven," she said.
One of the nation’s newest nuclear plants, the Limerick facility received permission to erect its dry cask storage facility in July from the Limerick Board of Supervisors.
The supervisors had jurisdiction over only the land development aspect of the concrete pad on which the casks will sit.
All other regulation for the dry casks rests with the NRC. The NUHOM cask system Exelon has chosen for Limerick is pre-licensed by the NRC and no new permits were required for the project.
The NRC violation issued last year against a Japanese steel plant where Limerick’s casks are being manufactured did not involve the casks that are being manufactured for Limerick.
---------------------------
Reno Gazette-Journal
January 14, 2007
Reid offers insights on Nevada caucus
U.S. Sen. Harry Reid spoke with reporter Anjeanette Damon by telephone from Washington D.C. on Thursday. Some excerpts from the interview:
Q: What does a candidate need to do to win the Nevada caucus?
A: First, they are going to have to come to Nevada. And second, they are going to have to understand Nevada when they get here. This is going to be a very important day that we're looking forward to. It's something that I've dreamed of for many, many years, and it is now upon us.
Q: What is key to understanding Nevada?
A: Nevada is not like any other state, but it is like the West. We have water problems; problems dealing with land, which we have a shortage of. Nevada is a state where we thrive on tourism. Then the demographics of Nevada are significant. We are a heavy union state. We have a good mix of demographics of different ethnic bases. It is a state where people come to work. I think the candidates will find it is a state that is representative of our country.
Q: What is most critical to success?
A: We're working very hard preparing. We've hired a top-notch pro who ran the 2004 Iowa caucus, Jean Hessberg. She's putting her team together. On Saturday, we're going to announce the members of our caucus commission. We have a significant number of people coming from around the country. Then, we had a real shot in the arm today by having Denver selected as the place for the convention.
Q: What will it take for Nevada to attract the national media attention that it needs for the candidates to take it seriously?
A: I don't think we have to do much. It's always easy to get people to come to Nevada. This gives them an excuse for them to come here. We have a significant number of members of the Senate who are running. (U.S. Sen. Barack) Obama has been there. (Obama has not been to Nevada since 2004 when he campaigned for Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry in Las Vegas).
(U.S. Sen. Hillary) Clinton has been there many times. (U.S. Sen. Joe) Biden has been there. Gov. (Bill) Richardson has been there a number of times. (Gov. Tom) Vilsack. We've had good participation.
Q: Is that bad news for the Democrats that so many senators are running? Do you think Democrats can get a senator elected president? It hasn't worked for four decades.
A: We did (John F.) Kennedy. And we elected (U.S. Sen. Al) Gore. He got more of the popular votes than the person he lost to.
Q: You've said you're going to stay out the process here (and not endorse any candidates). Are you really going to do that?
A: I'm sure going to do my best.
Q: Do you have kind words for any of the candidates? All of the candidates?
A: I have kind words for all of them. U.S. Sen. (Chris) Dodd, he would be a good president. Any one of the senators would be a good president.
Q: Do you think any of them have a leg up in Nevada?
A: No. I'm going to stay out of that.
Q: Tell me about the significance of the (Nevada Caucus) Commission.
A: I think it is going to show that we have a representative group of people who are convinced that Nevada is a place that people should come and campaign.
Q: How big an issue do you think Yucca Mountain will be?
A: It will be an issue. It is not going to be the only issue, of course. But it will be an issue.
---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744
---------------------------