Yucca Mountain News Clips - Friday, May 11, 2007

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Friday, May 11, 2007
---------------------------

E&E TV
May 10, 2007

Reporters Roundtable:

E&E Daily reporters discuss latest on CTL, CAFE, climate legislation, nuclear energy

With just a few weeks to go before Congress heads into its Memorial Day recess, how much will the Democrats accomplish on the energy policy front before then? During today's OnPoint, E&E Daily reporters Mary O'Driscoll, Alex Kaplun and Darren Samuelsohn have an in-depth discussion about key energy policy issues. They discuss the latest on CTL as it heads to the House this week, talk about the future of CAFE and nuclear energy, and preview what the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has planned for climate legislation.

Transcript:

Monica Trauzzi: Welcome to OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. Joining me today for a reporters roundtable are E&E Daily reporters Mary O'Driscoll, Alex Kaplun and Darren Samuelsohn. Thanks for coming on the show guys.

Darren Samuelsohn: Great to be back.

Monica Trauzzi: Alex, let's start off with an interesting battle that's happening in the Senate currently. Senator Bingaman recently proposed biofuels legislation. At the same time many enviro groups came out saying they wouldn't support his legislation. Now Senator Boxer has proposed legislation. Talk about the situation there and who's going to end up winning.

Alex Kaplun: Yes, I think what Boxer is trying to do is to very clearly sort of assert her jurisdiction. The last time there was a biofuels mandate she wasn't in charge of the committee, Jim Inhofe was, but that came out of EPW. And a lot of people are saying, you know, the Environment and Public Works Committee needs to play a role here. It shouldn't just be an energy committee issue. That was especially coming from environmental groups who did not like the Bingaman bill, came out against it, which is sort of an unusual step for environmental groups to come out so harshly against kind of a Democratic priority. And they wanted Boxer to introduce her bill. Sort of unclear what's going to happen when it comes to the floor, the whole schedule has been pushed back a little bit. I think people have said the Bingaman bill is not quite ready to be sort of taken up as is. There's clearly going to be some changes to it. Whether that means that it will incorporate part of the Boxer bill or the Boxer bill will sort of be the substitute, you know, it's really a little too early to tell at this point.

Monica Trauzzi: A lot happening on the coals to liquid front as well. Last week we saw a battle in the Senate ENR Committee and this week CTL is hitting the House. What are you expecting in the House this week?

Alex Kaplun: Yeah, Rick Boucher is going to introduce his CTL bill today. They're still a little bit a ways away from sort of crafting their big energy package in the House, but this is clearly something that has a lot of momentum in that chamber. He's very interested in acting on it. There's a few Republicans who were interested in the issue. It's hard to tell exactly where it will end up, if it will be, again, its own bill. More likely, it will be part of some kind of bigger energy legislation as it moves forward.

Monica Trauzzi: And it seems like there's a lot of focus on CTL this time around. Were you expecting that much focus? What is that due to? Is it due to the big lobbying campaign?

Alex Kaplun: You know, I think that's part of it, they're assuming a lot of interest, leaning on lawmakers. I think the issue's getting a lot of attention because of sort of the right people and the right places. You know, Rick Boucher is a big coal state guy. He sort of has a lot of influence over the energy bill process. A lot of it is happening in his subcommittee right now, so it's getting a lot of publicity. You have the same thing on the Senate side, on the Senate energy committee. You have quite a few sort of coal state lawmakers that are putting this issue front and center. You know, how successful it is once it ever gets to, if it ever gets to the House or Senate floor, that's a little bit harder to read because that's not an issue that's been kind of a major topic of debate the last few years. I don't think it's necessarily yet on the radar of a lot of lawmakers who are not on those few committees.

Monica Trauzzi: And we're expecting some action on CAFE this week as well. It's the first time we're seeing major action in the Senate. How did the Commerce Committee finally get to the point of reaching agreement on some legislation?

Alex Kaplun: You know, I think we've generally seen a lot of momentum behind CAFE. And kind of the very clear indicator of that early on was Senator Ted Stevens backing a mandated CAFE increase. You know you have this Feinstein bill that picked up the support of, I believe, the majority of the Democrats in the Commerce Committee. They changed it a little bit to kind of appease Senator Stephens and some others, kind of dealt with the heavier vehicle issue by putting a mandate on them, but not necessarily as strict of a mandate as on sort of the rest of the cars. But, again, the Commerce Committee sort of, there's a fair number of Democrats that are kind of to the left on this issue. It should get out of there fairly easily, especially with the support of both the chairman and the ranking member. You know, again, once it gets to the floor it remains to be seen. The last time there was a CAFE vote on the floor was five years ago. It only picked up 38 votes. I mean things have clearly changed. You have a more democratic Senate. There's some Republicans who have come around on the issue, whether it's at that 60 vote benchmark, quite honestly, I don't know. As far as the vote total, Carl Levin last week even said that he doesn't know exactly how many votes there are for a CAFE bill.

Monica Trauzzi: Darren, IPCC report out last week saying that global warming will not bankrupt the economy. Is that enough to get the mandatory cap critics on the bandwagon?

Darren Samuelsohn: Hard to say right now. I think that what you're seeing is the debate, which maybe in years past had been about the science about climate change, has now sort of shifted to the cost. And you're seeing sort of the crystallization of this issue. I think going forward, for the next two years, will be about how much is this going to cost and weighing the benefits and sort of this back-and-forth. I mean there's a hearing starting tomorrow in the Senate EPW committee where Joe Lieberman and his main goal is to try and convince the ranking member on the committee, John Warner, to support cap and trade. And John Warner has said, previously, that he would support it, but I think Lieberman is trying to just shore up support for whenever that vote may come. He's going to definitely get this one Republican. And then he's also looking at Lamar Alexander, another Republican on the Senate EPW committee who has supported caps on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants alone. He hasn't shown any interest in going through the entire economy. So he's just looking at these two Republicans. It's possible that you could see more down the line, but I think a lot more information needs to get to members of Congress. There will be a series of hearings on this issue coming up.

Monica Trauzzi: So any legislative proposal that's emerging as the favorite in the Senate EPW?

Darren Samuelsohn: That's a good question. There's been a little bit of a quiet time in the Senate EPW Committee on climate change from, there was a loud rush right after January, February, March. We had Al Gore come testify and that might've been the peak. Some people have been telling me that they think that might have been the peak for the entire two years, was the Al Gore appearance on Capitol Hill. And it's going to sort of fizzle out, and they're going to realize that they can't do cap and trade. They don't have the votes, that they're going to be doing for easier lift kinds of things, whether it be CAFE, whether it be green buildings. So it's possible that the EPW Committee does try and do this. I mean you have environmental groups pushing and they were very insistent at the start of this year that they wanted to see action on cap and trade. So whether or not there's a favorite vehicle, that's a good question. It seems like there were the power plant proposals that came out a couple of weeks ago, which brings up a debate of three or four years ago that happened in the Senate EPW Committee. Whether or not they can just focus on power plants is hard, because once you bring up power plants you're probably going to start to see amendments about other industries and other sectors of the economy. So it would be very difficult, I think, if they tried just to keep it to power plants.

Monica Trauzzi: And there's the international issue as well. Recently C. Boyden Gray was quoted that, "U.S. global warming legislation would have to include a program for China and India." What does that say about the future of climate change legislation in this country? Is this going to be another hurdle for lawmakers to overcome?

Darren Samuelsohn: This has always been a hurdle in the climate change debates. It goes back to a 1997 debate on the Senate floor when they voted 95 to 0 against, this was before Kyoto was signed by President Clinton, but they basically said China and India have to be involved, back in '97. This is going to come up again. It's an issue that that you're seeing President Bush talk about the day after the Supreme Court decision. It's an issue you're hearing from Republicans on the Hill saying that China and India have to be involved. You're seeing proposals to try and get trade barriers put in the way to try and bring them on board. And then, it's interesting, this all goes forward to the international discussions that are going to be happening later this year in Bali. And they're happening actually right now in Bonn, Germany as they're preparing for that. So the United States, the Bush administration, which is only here for two more years, has a role to play, but then the international community is also thinking post 2008. And they're thinking to whoever the next president of the United States will be is going to have a role. That could force China and India in, but, again, China and India as well are reluctant to talk about mandatory caps on their emissions. They're thinking more I think along the lines of intensity targets, kind of what the Bush administration has been using in the United States for the last six years.

Monica Trauzzi: Mary, lots of attention being paid to nuclear, as always it seems.

Mary O'Driscoll: The IPCC report actually did mention it and the Bush administration made a very big deal about it, really trying to make nuclear their point of contention in that race.

Monica Trauzzi: And the role that it can play in the future of the U.S. energy policy. But recently the CFR came out with a report saying that nuclear wouldn't play a big role in the next 50 years.

Mary O'Driscoll: Right.

Monica Trauzzi: So obviously nuclear supporters say that it will play a big role. How is this back and forth affecting things? How is it affecting funding for Yucca Mountain?

Mary O'Driscoll: Well, you've got a situation where, for the short term, the nuclear debate is being played out in the appropriations process. And they're all in kind of the quiet time right now, writing their appropriation bills. But they still don't need, I don't know what their allocations are, so no one is really quite sure where everything is going. There's some fear that, of course, Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, opponent of Yucca Mountain, is in control of the Senate agenda and is going to be heavily influencing whatever happens to the Senate appropriations bill on Yucca. It's unclear what that means, how that's going to translate. Then you have a situation where you've got the global nuclear energy partnership. They're making a big push. The Bush administration is making a big push for money for GNEP this year. You know, this is a Democratic Congress. They've got other priorities such as energy efficiency, renewable energy programs, and things like that. And you've got Senator Dorgan, who's the chairman of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee in the Senate, who is really pushing for much more focus on energy programs at DOE, rather than DOE's kind of this hybrid of national security, nuclear, and then a little bit of energy. He's really pushing for putting more emphasis on energy there. So there likely will be some significant changes that come out of Congress this year. As you may recall, last year the House significantly cut the GNEP program funding, and so we could probably expect to see the same thing. A lot of lawmakers still are not convinced about it. But then that's the short term, that's a funding situation. What everyone is really focusing on though is a situation that's going on where we are expecting, at the end of this year, this fall, we'll be seeing probably the first of many applications for building new nuclear power plants. And so that will be the next indicator of where things are going, that you need to get these applications in. It's under the combined construction and operating license program, that they are trying to simplify the process, so you don't run into the 10, 15 year processes that happened with the end of the last nuclear cycle in the 70s. So there are a lot of things that are going on right now. The ball is being played around. You're seeing that proponents are always pointing to global warming, that this is going to be what is going to sell the world on nuclear power. Opponents are saying not so fast. It's expensive. There are other ways of doing it, that maybe we ought to start looking at a more comprehensive view. So it's good, we'll be seeing this play out for a long time, but there are both short-term and long-term debates that are going on right now.

Monica Trauzzi: All right. I know you guys will all be keeping an eye on these issues in the coming weeks. Thanks for coming on the show.

Alex Kaplun: Thank you.

Monica Trauzzi: This is OnPoint. I'm Monica Trauzzi. Thanks for watching.

[End of Audio]

---------------------------

Decatur Daily
May 10, 2007

EDITORIAL

Nuclear may be solution, but waste still a problem

Browns Ferry in Limestone County is leading an American revival in nuclear energy.

While that is positive news for local residents and businesses that depend on low-cost electricity from the Tennessee Valley Authority, it adds to a problem that neither scientists nor politicians have been able to solve.

What do we do with all of that nuclear waste?

For now, Browns Ferry and other nuclear plants are postponing a solution by stockpiling radioactive waste for later disposal. The government solution is the Yucca Mountain nuclear landfill in Nevada, but it's a shortsighted fix. By the time the controversial dump opens, the accumulated nuclear waste will fill it immediately.

Then what?

Despite his wartime differences with France, President Bush points to that European ally for a solution. The French recycle their spent nuclear fuel and reuse it. This leaves less highly radioactive material to be sealed in caskets and buried deep underground.

"If we do reprocessing and recycle, we can increase the capacity of Yucca Mountain 100-fold," Phillip Finck, a nuclear engineer, told the IEEE Spectrum, a trade magazine for electrical engineers.

Until good science catches up with good intentions, however, recycling is not yet the perfect solution. So far, it's cheaper to use new fuel than recycled fuel and, in some forms, the recycled fuel leaves a waste problem that is more dangerous than the original form.

But, President Bush is right in pushing our scientists and government leaders to perfect recycling. We can benefit from an alliance with the French when it comes to nuclear waste.

---------------------------

Chillicothe Gazette
May 10, 2007

Waste dump not in plan for Piketon

One of the biggest challenges public officials face is separating facts from rhetoric.

A while back, handbills were distributed and phone calls made claiming I supported a nuclear waste dump at the Department of Energy's facility at Piketon. In fact, quite the opposite is true. I will be introducing legislation this week that will prevent such a thing from ever happening at the Piketon Plant.

The confusion centered around a proposal for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion plant - more commonly known as the Piketon Plant - located in Pike County. The proposed study is part of the Department of Energy's new program known as GNEP, which stands for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.

GNEP is a program that plans to recycle spent fuel rods and convert them to new fuel for our nation's nuclear power plants. GNEP holds promise for revitalizing nuclear power in the United States, increasing our national security and reducing nuclear waste in our environment.

In the United States, nuclear power provides one-fifth of our electricity and reduces the annual release of millions of tons of carbon dioxide emissions. Nuclear power will continue to play a significant role in meeting our energy needs.

The major drawback to nuclear power is the waste. Spent fuel rods are to be stored in Yucca Mountain, which is located in Nevada, once construction of the waste storage site is completed.

The GNEP recycling program will allow us to reduce both the volume of waste at the Yucca Mountain site and the radioactivity of that waste.

The Department of Energy's Piketon facility currently houses a uranium-enrichment facility - the American Centrifuge Project. Soon, all of the nuclear fuel made in America will be enriched at the Piketon Plant. The plant has a long and proud history of enriching uranium.

With the full support of the local unions, local elected officials and businesses, community leaders have submitted a proposal to add the GNEP project to the Piketon facility's responsibilities. In fact, Piketon has been chosen as one of 11 sites the Department of Energy is reviewing. Billions of dollars of investment and thousands of jobs will go to the final site selected.

Some have mischaracterized dramatically the proposed GNEP project. They use rhetoric describing the program as a plan to put a nuclear waste dump at Piketon. Yucca Mountain is the repository for nuclear waste in the Untied States and no one is trying to alter that. My legislation makes that point crystal clear.

Under my legislation, it would be illegal for the government to build a so-called GNEP nuclear waste dump at Piketon.

I don't know if Piketon will be selected. The GNEP competition is fierce. I do know there will be no nuclear waste dump constructed in Piketon or anywhere else in the 2nd Congressional District.

I will continue to keep you updated on the proposed GNEP project.

(Schmidt represents the 2nd Congressional District, which includes Pike County.)

---------------------------

EurekAlert
May 09, 2007

Contact: Ann Cairns
acairns@geosociety.org
303-357-1056
Geological Society of America

20 years of Yucca Mountain research now available for scientific review

Boulder, Colorado, USA -- The scientific community can now take a long-awaited look at the research behind the selection of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as the nation's high-level radioactive waste repository.

The Geology and Climatology of Yucca Mountain and Vicinity, Southern Nevada and California, published by the Geological Society of America, presents important results of a significant part of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Yucca Mountain site characterization study. The study was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the DOE National Laboratories. The book includes discussion of the mountain's tectonic setting and detailed structural geology and stratigraphy, evaluation of tectonic models that have been proposed, and a study of the climate history and possible climate change that could affect the mountain's ability to isolate radioactive waste.

According to co-editor John Stuckless, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO, more than $6 billion has been spent thus far to study geologic, engineering, and transportation issues associated with Yucca Mountain. The site characterization study contained results of more than 20 years of scientific research and analysis by hundreds of scientists.

"A major challenge of producing the book was coping with the sheer volume of research," said Stuckless. "We needed to boil it down and make it usable, retaining key findings as well as important nuances."

Stuckless expects the book to draw significant interest from beyond the scientific community. "This research will be the prime support for DOE's application for licensing, which will be submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2008," he said. "The research reported in this Memoir will be studied and used by the legal community, Congressional staffs, and virtually everyone involved with or having a stake in Yucca Mountain."

Stuckless and co-editor Robert Levich, U.S. Department of Energy (retired), are now at work on a second volume. It will summarize current understanding of the hydrology and geochemistry of the Yucca Mountain area. They hope to have it ready to submit to GSA by the end of 2007.

###

Journalists may request review copies by contacting Jeanette Hammann at jhammann@geosociety.org.

Individual copies may be purchased through the Geological Society of America online bookstore (http://rock.geosociety.org/bookstore/default.asp"oID=0&catID=8&pID=MWR199) or by contacting GSA Sales and Service, gsaservice@geosociety.org.

The Geology and Climatology of Yucca Mountain and Vicinity, Southern Nevada and California
John S. Stuckless and Robert A. Levich (Eds.)
Geological Society of America Memoir 199
2007, 205 pages, US$65.00, GSA member price US$46.00
ISBN-13 978-0-8137-1199-7
www.geosociety.org

---------------------------

People's Defender
May 09, 2007

Editorial: A Piketon update and clarification

Jean Schmidt
U.S. Rep.

One of the biggest challenges that public officials face is separating facts from rhetoric. A while back, handbills were distributed and phone calls made claiming that I supported a nuclear waste dump at the Department of Energy's facility at Piketon. In fact, quite the opposite is true. I will be introducing legislation this week that will prevent such a thing from ever happening at the Piketon Plant.

The confusion centered around a proposal for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion plant - more commonly known as the Piketon Plant - located in Pike County.

The proposed study is part of the Department of Energy's new program known as "GNEP," which stands for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.

In the United States, nuclear power provides one-fifth of our electricity and reduces the annual release of millions of tons of CO2 emissions. Nuclear power will continue to play a significant role in meeting our energy needs. The major draw back to nuclear power is the waste. Spent fuel rods are to be stored in Yucca Mountain, which is located in Nevada, once construction of the waste storage site is completed.

The GNEP recycling program will allow us to reduce both the volume of waste at the Yucca Mountain site and the radioactivity of that waste.

The Department of Energy's Piketon facility currently houses a uranium-enrichment facility - the American Centrifuge Project. Soon all of the nuclear fuel made

in America will be enriched at the Piketon Plant. The plant has a long and proud history of enriching uranium.

With the full support of the local unions, local elected officials, and businesses, community leaders have submitted a proposal to add the GNEP project to the Piketon facility's responsibilities. In fact, Piketon has been chosen as one of eleven sites the Department of Energy is reviewing. Billions of dollars of investment and thousands of jobs will go to the final site selected.

I don't know if Piketon will be selected. The GNEP competition is fierce. I do know there will be no nuclear waste dump constructed in Piketon or anywhere else in the Second Congressional District. I will continue to keep you updated on the proposed GNEP project.

---------------------------

Las Vegas Review-Journal
May 08, 2007

YUCCA MOUNTAIN RAIL LINE: Reid steps in, sways tribe

Senator uses his clout to persuade Paiutes to refuse DOE's rail plan

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- Once again showing his clout on Yucca Mountain, Sen. Harry Reid helped the Walker River Paiute Indians reach a decision against allowing nuclear waste to be shipped through their reservation to the proposed repository, according to government officials and lobbyists.

It is not clear whether Reid, D-Nev., used a carrot or a stick to persuade the Paiutes to withdraw from a railroad corridor study being prepared by the Energy Department. The tribe made a surprise announcement on April 17 pulling out of the project.

A number of factors almost certainly played into the decision, observers said, such as the Indians' environmental conscience, concerns about safety, discomfort among the tribe's rank and file, and growing vocal opposition from other Northern Nevada communities.

But tribal leaders have told the Energy Department that Reid's intervention played a role in their decision, according to sources in Nevada and Washington who have spoken with DOE officials, and several others familiar with the situation.

The Paiutes "explained it as Harry had just given them an offer they couldn't refuse," said a nuclear industry lobbyist who has spoken to DOE managers.

Reid told the Paiutes that he will look into the possibility of having the government relocate the railroad tracks that bisect the tribal community of Schurz in Mineral County, his spokesman Jon Summers said.

"There is nothing firm on the table just yet," Summers said.

The tribe long has wanted to move the railroad away from town, as it conveys ordnance to and from the Hawthorne Army Depot 40 miles to the south. Until Reid's promise, the tribe was looking to the Department of Energy to relocate the rail as part of any agreement to allow radioactive waste on the tracks.

The tribe also has sought Reid's help to obtain federal funding for fisheries and to settle disputes over water rights in the Walker River basin.

By stepping in, Reid once again displayed his influence on matters involving Yucca Mountain, both in Nevada and Congress where he has worked to cut funding and to block legislation that would speed up the nuclear waste project.

"Clearly we were aware of dialogue going on with the senator's office," said David Blee, executive director of the U.S. Transport Council, a pro-Yucca organization of waste shippers that had met with the Walker River Paiutes before the tribe's announcement.

"The feeling always was that Senator Reid would make a more attractive offer to the tribe than continuing to dialogue with the (Energy) Department," Blee said. "He did what I would have done if I was the senior senator from Nevada. The only surprise is that it didn't happen later in the process.

"You can't underestimate how important it was to the (Walker River Paiutes) to get the rail line moved," Blee said.

Reid said in a short interview he has been a champion of all Nevada Indian tribes, and that he continues to help the Walker River Paiutes pursue economic development opportunities.

"The Walker River tribe is going to be taken care of in many different ways," Reid said. "They don't have to ask for help."

As for the tribe's involvement with Yucca Mountain, "I am not going to get into specifics of negotiations but obviously the Walker River tribe was able to see this DOE thing as a pig in a poke," Reid said. "It was DOE's effort to buy something from somebody that they shouldn't have been dealing with.

"We'll look at any of the concerns the tribe has at this stage," Reid said.

Summers said Reid's intervention should come as no surprise.

"Obviously the senator would want to talk to the tribe about changing their mind on a position that would help out Yucca," Summers said. "Senator Reid is adamant about preventing the dump from ever being built.

"If there is anyone who is considering doing anything that could be helpful to Yucca he will have a conversation with them, or someone from our office will have a conversation with them about the cons associated with the dump," Summers said.

The Walker River Paiutes did not respond to an e-mail requesting an interview with chairwoman Genia Williams.

The tribe said in its April 17 statement that it had been contacted by business interests interested in economic development that could make use of a north-south rail route through the state.

The Paiutes said they contacted Reid's office to propose a cooperative effort to develop such opportunities that would allow the construction of new railroad tracks to bypass Schurz.

"A new rail line bypass could provide a safer community on the reservation and could have economic benefits to Nevada," Williams said in the statement.

"We plan to work cooperatively with Senator Reid to explore the benefits of this project and sincerely request his assistance in its development for the benefit of the Walker River Paiute Tribe as well as his constituents throughout Nevada," Williams said in the statement.

---------------------------

Gloucester Daily Times
May 08, 2007

Nuclear energy resurges as source of energy in U.S.

By Duncan Mansfield
Associated Press

KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (AP) - America's nuclear energy program is being revived at the site of one of its worst accidents.

All signs from regulators and operators point to a startup within days of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Unit 1 reactor at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Athens, Ala., culminating a five-year, $1.8 billion restoration.

Mothballed since 1985, TVA's oldest reactor was the scene of a major fire sparked by a candle three decades ago. It has been reborn as a modern 1,200-megawatt atomic generator capable of lighting 650,000 homes.

The reactor is the last of three Browns Ferry units designed in the 1960s, run in the 1970s, idled in the 1980s and revived since the 1990s. It will be this country's first "new" nuclear generator of the 21st century - the 104th active commercial reactor.

Though no one has applied to build a new nuclear plant in the U.S. since the 1970s, several are now being planned.

"You could almost point to Browns Ferry Unit 1 as really the beginning of nuclear energy's rejuvenation in the United States," said Scott Peterson, vice president of the industry's Nuclear Energy Institute.

Growing demand for electricity and concern over global climate change are propelling this nuclear renaissance. The Department of Energy estimates 50 new reactors will be needed by 2030 to keep pace. Tighter controls on greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants are looming and will be expensive.

"If you care about global warming and clean air, it is hard not to be for nuclear power," said U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., co-chairman of the TVA congressional caucus.

Alan Griffith, spokesman for the Seabrook Station nuclear power plant, said global warming, whether you believe it's true or not, is the "main driving motivation" for what he called a "very real resurgence" in interest in nuclear power.

He added that "global warming aside," other contributing factors include the country's over-dependence on foreign oil, strife in the Middle East and an insufficient supply of domestic sources of electricity - not to mention support from Pres. George Bush.

"We in the nuclear industry have known this for a long time," he said. "At the end of the day, nuclear energy is the safest and cleanest source of electricity we have."

He said the company that owns Seabrook, FPL Energy, is actually a fairly diverse energy company, and operates wind farms, solar arrays and hydroelectric dams.

"We're not all about nuclear," he said. "It's about diversity and diversification."

Dealing with the radioactive waste accumulating at plant sites - an industry volume that Peterson says would cover a football field 7 feet deep - remains a problem. Political hurdles remain on burying it in Nevada. Technical hurdles surround proposals to reprocess it like the French.

Griffith said that at Seabrook, that problem has been solved.

He noted that the nuclear waste is currently held in "wet storage" at Seabrook, but that FPL is in the process of building a dry storage facility, which should be done by next year some time.

In addition, FPL and other nuclear plant operators have sued the federal government over the failure to fulfill its obligation to provide a national waste disposal site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. He noted that the national repository, which will take radioactive waste from medical and military facilities as well as nuclear power plants, won't be done until 2010 or 2011 at the earliest, meaning that in the meantime, waste will continue to be stored on FPL property in Seabrook.

New nukes on horizon

Meanwhile, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects to receive fast-track construction and operating license applications for 28 standard design reactors at 19 sites by 2009, most in the energy-hungry Southeast and Southwest.

Among the interested utilities is a group of power companies and equipment manufacturers called NuStart Energy Development LLC. The consortium, which includes TVA, is looking to build two reactors at TVA's unfinished Bellefonte plant site in Hollywood, Ala.

Knoxville-based TVA, the country's largest public utility serving 8.7 million consumers in Tennessee and six surrounding states, also expects to decide by late summer if it will complete a second reactor at its Watts Bar plant in Spring City.

Watts Bar, the last new plant in the U.S., came on line in 1996 after 22 years of construction. TVA still holds a construction license for a second reactor there.

TVA estimates it could finish the second unit by 2013 for around $2 billion, about a third of the cost of the first unit. That would give TVA three plants and seven reactors, with a two-reactor Bellefonte plant coming on board between 2018 and 2020.

"We are probably going to stay in the nuclear ballpark until the clean-air regulations clear up," TVA President and CEO Tom Kilgore told The Associated Press. "I think nuclear (projects are) going to be in our future for a decade."

TVA will have spent nearly $6 billion on emission controls for its fleet of 11 coal plants in Alabama, Tennessee and Kentucky under existing rules by the end of the decade. Tougher standards to capture carbon could cost billions more.

TVA's situation is not unique. Coal produces nearly one of every two megawatts in this country, and about 40 percent of all carbon emissions. Carbon-free nuclear supplies about 20 percent of the nation's electricity.

TVA gets 64 percent of its power from coal, 29 percent from nuclear, 6 percent from hydroelectric and 1 percent from natural gas and diesel. TVA's wind, solar and methane renewable energy program contributes less than 1 percent.

If Watts Bar 2 and Bellefonte are built, TVA's nuclear generation could approach 40 percent.

Rocky history

Nuclear plants cost about half as much to operate as coal-fired power plants but cost twice as much to build, Kilgore said.

Kilgore said the TVA is taking a more cautious one-plant-a-time approach today than in the 1970s, when TVA was forced to scrap much of a planned 17-reactor system. He also said renewable energy and conservation programs can't satisfy a market growing nearly 2 percent annually.

In 1975, Browns Ferry Unit 1 caught fire when a candle used by a worker to check for air leaks ignited insulation near the control room. Safety systems failed and a nuclear disaster was narrowly avoided. The mishap caused $10 million in damage, knocked the reactor out of service for more than a year and was considered the worst nuclear accident in the U.S. until the near meltdown at Pennsylvania's Three Mile Island plant in 1979.

TVA shut down its entire nuclear program in 1985 over safety concerns, NRC fines and whistleblower complaints. It scrapped three plants and delayed others. Finishing Watts Bar Unit 1 cost nearly $7 billion because of extensive rewiring and pipe rewelding.

"I think it is shortsighted. Rushing back to nuclear power is a real mistake," said Steve Smith, director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.

While conceding a place for nuclear in TVA's generation mix, Smith cautioned that, "We are still digging ourselves out of the last experiment TVA did with nuclear power, and it led to the massive ($25 billion) debt that TVA continues to struggle with."

Few know this better than S. David Freeman, a former TVA chairman who helped kill eight of the 17 planned reactors between 1977 and 1984.

"You know if anybody gave nuclear power 'the college try' it was the Tennessee Valley Authority. And I know because I had to suffer through it. It failed financially," said Freeman, now a commissioner with the Port of Los Angeles.

"We don't even need to go to the new concerns about terrorism and nuclear proliferation and what to do with the waste and all of those issues," he said. "The pure economics of it killed it, and there is no reason to think that another round with the same technology is going to do any better."

Kilgore acknowledged TVA won't be able to build just from cash flow; some borrowing will be required. But he hopes to boost the agency's debt to no more than $28 billion, still below its $30 billion congressional ceiling.

Activists continue to worry about safety at TVA plants. But NRC spokesman Ken Clark said the agency's Sequoyah, Watts Bar and Browns Ferry stations have performed well in recent years.

John Johnson, an Earth First! organizer, said TVA's reactors have run better than he expected when he was staging demonstrations against opening the Watts Bar plant 11 years ago.

"Just to be honest and fair, I would have to give the operators credit for managing to avoid a catastrophe," Johnson said. "I still don't think it is a safe source of energy, but they are sure trying their best, since nothing bad has happened."

Business Editor Bill Kirk contributed to this story.

timeline:

Seabrook nuclear plant timeline

* Built during the 1970s

* Completed and fully operational in 1986

* Protests and politics delayed start-up until 1990

* After a series of ownership changes, in 2002 it was sold by majority owner Northeast Utitlities to FPL Energy, the current owner

* Originally built to have two reactors; second reactor was partially built but never went on-line and was demolished in 2003

* Generates 1,245 megawatts of electricity, enough to power more than 1 million homes

--Source: Alan Griffith, Seabrook spokesman

---------------------------

Las Vegas Review-Journal
May 07, 2007

NEVADA'S LITMUS TEST: Scrutiny increases on Yucca

Review finds presidential hopefuls varied in stances

By Molly Ball
Review-Journal

It's Nevada's unique litmus test for presidential candidates: Where do they stand on Yucca Mountain?

"All the candidates need to explain in very clear terms, without a lot of spin, whether they support going forward with Yucca Mountain," Gov. Jim Gibbons said. "Or do they oppose it in its totality, and as president will they pull the plug?"

The scrutiny on the issue is only intensifying as the 2008 presidential election gets under way, with Nevada preparing to be the second state in the nation to hold presidential nominating contests for both parties.

A review of the candidates' stances finds a full spectrum from staunch support to consistent opposition, with plenty of room for wishy-washiness in between.

Republican John McCain is all for it. Democrats Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson can point to records of opposition to it.

Democrats Chris Dodd and John Edwards now say they are against the repository, but they've supported it in the past. Democrat Barack Obama hasn't had occasion to vote on the issue but says he opposes Yucca.

Republicans Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney also have no record on the issue, and they have not indicated opposition to the proposal.

The state is officially against the federal proposal to transport nuclear waste from power plants around the country to a repository in the Nevada desert about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

In Congress, Republicans have generally supported the proposed repository, while most Democrats have opposed it, although there are many exceptions on both sides. All five of Nevada's federal representatives strongly oppose the site.

The issue last came to a vote of the whole Congress in 2002, when both the House and Senate voted to override then-Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn's veto of the proposal.

For candidates, the issue can be a tricky one. In addition to trying to win the electoral votes of Nevada, a small but critical swing state, they must also campaign in the many states eager to get rid of the waste sitting precariously at the plant sites in temporary storage.

But Nevada advocates insist that it's too dangerous to transport radioactive waste across the country to Yucca Mountain and say candidates should come out strongly against the site.

"Any thinking person running for president of the United States should understand this is not a Nevada issue," said Peggy Maze Johnson, executive director of Citizen Alert. "This is a national issue, because it has to do with the safety of our roadways."

In the 2004 presidential election, Democratic nominee John Kerry said he opposed Yucca and would shut down the project. President Bush since 2000 has said he would base his decision on "sound science."

Advocates such as Maze Johnson consider Bush to have gone back on his word, especially after e-mails surfaced in 2005 showing that scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey were falsifying research data on the site.

The Bush administration has pressed on, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has led the charge to stall and cut funding for the project, and earlier this year he said he considered it "dead."

Maze Johnson said it wasn't quite safe to assume the fight against Yucca is over.

"It's gasping," she said. "I can hear the death rattle, as my Irish grandmother would say, but until it's taken its last gasp, we have to be vigilant."

Maze Johnson said she hoped Giuliani could learn more about the issue and come around.

She criticized Romney's vague promise to base decisions on "sound science and conclusive studies," saying, "That sounds like a nonstatement."

Of Dodd and Edwards' changes of heart on the issue, she said she hoped they'd stay opposed.

"They can't claim to be consistent, but a lot of these senators have learned a lot since that vote in 2002," she said. "Since then, so much more has come out" about the project's risks.

Candidates must answer two more questions as well, she said: What they consider the best alternative to the Nevada repository, and whether they believe in nuclear energy as a source of electricity.

"It's irresponsible for candidates to support expansion of nuclear power when this issue (waste disposal) is not resolved," she said.

On that score the candidates often have a harder time. Biden, for example, said he had no alternative plan to deal with the on-site waste, which experts worry could be a target for terrorist attack; all the Republican candidates and Dodd said they wouldn't rule out expanding nuclear power.

Then there is the question of whether Nevada voters care enough about the issue to base their votes on it.

Statewide polling indicates nearly three-quarters of Nevadans are against the site, but that doesn't mean they'll only vote for an anti-Yucca candidate. McCain, when he visited Nevada last month, noted that Bush won Nevada twice despite not opposing the project.

Asked why Nevadans should support a pro-Yucca candidate, McCain said, "Well, if that's their defining issue then I certainly understand why they wouldn't." But he said he hoped Nevada voters would also consider his stances on other issues.

Republican political consultant Steve Wark said Nevadans aren't focused on Yucca Mountain to the exclusion of all else.

"I have seen many polls going back almost 20 years, and they have consistently shown that voters rank Yucca Mountain at ninth or 10th in importance when compared to other issues," he said. "Obviously, when the question is asked whether or not you'd like to have nuclear waste in your backyard, they all say no, but they are not losing sleep over it."

Gibbons said Nevadans deserve clear answers from all the candidates.

"Yucca Mountain is a bad idea, because Nevada does not need to be a dumping ground for other states' problems. It's scientifically unsafe, and I'm a scientist," said Gibbons, who has a master's degree in geology.

Gibbons said he "absolutely" condemned McCain's stance on the issue, but at least there was no doubt about his position.

"The next president, if they are to get the support of Nevadans, needs to be clear on where they stand," he added. "I don't think it's responsible for any candidate to support it, but every voter in this state has to make that decision for him- or herself."

How do the 2008 presidential contenders stack up on the proposal for a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, which the state of Nevada opposes? The Review-Journal asked all the candidates who have active campaigns in Nevada where they stand on the issue.

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.

RECORD: Opposed Yucca in Senate in 2002.

SAYS: "I have voted against Yucca Mountain on at least three occasions. I oppose it. It's not stable. ... Two reasons. No. 1, the transportation is not safe at this point, and No. 2, all the data I have seen about how stable Yucca Mountain is." Asked if he knew of an alternative way to dispose of nuclear waste, Biden said he did not, although he noted that his state, Delaware, is "surrounded on all sides" by nuclear waste.

Review-Journal interview -- 2/15/07

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

RECORD: Opposed Yucca in Senate in 2002.

SAYS: "I've long opposed using Yucca as a site for nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain is not a suitable place for long-term storage of our nuclear waste. There are too many unanswered questions about both the geology of the site and integrity of the science done to support the decision to store waste there."

Statement -- 3/6/07

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.

RECORD: In 2002, issued a news release headlined, "Dodd supports moving nuclear waste out of Connecticut to Yucca Mountain site," but voted against a procedural motion to go forward with the project.

SAYS: Now says he merely supported "the idea of coming up with a facility."

"The latest studies on this stuff have indicated serious geological issues, transportation issues, and I'm satisfied at this point that it does not make sense. Yucca Mountain is not a good answer to this."

Review-Journal interview -- 4/14/07

Former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.

RECORD: Supported Yucca in Senate in 2002.

SAYS: "Over time it's become clear that the science is unreliable. That seems to be now the consensus of the scientific community. There's also been serious allegations about fraud and misrepresentation in some of the scientific documents, and I've also become more concerned over time with the transport of nuclear waste across the country, particularly with what's happened with the threat of terrorism." Said he is against expanding nuclear power.

Review-Journal interview -- 4/30/07

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Republican

RECORD: None

SAYS: "One of the things you've got to be real careful about with nuclear power is you've got to make sure it's really, really safe. Frankly, some of the problems that have occurred with Yucca Mountain are matters of grave concern, so you'd have to take a good look at that." Would not rule out continuing to pursue the repository.

Review-Journal -- 3/29/07

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

RECORD: Supported Yucca in Senate in 2002.

SAYS: "I think we have to have a place to store the waste. I think that nuclear power has got to be a vital part of our effort to be independent of foreign oil, and I think it's (Yucca Mountain) a suitable place for storage." McCain said he had not been convinced that the site isn't safe or that transporting the waste to the site was unduly dangerous.

Review-Journal -- 4/20/07

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

RECORD: None.

SAYS: "After spending billions of dollars on Yucca Mountain, there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there. So, at this time, Senator Obama can't support the Yucca Mountain project and believes we should redirect spending on alternatives, such as improving the safety and security of spent fuel at plant sites around the country. At the same time, we should continue looking for a safe, long-term disposal solution based on sound science."

Statement, campaign spokesman Bill Burton -- 2/18/07

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Democrat

RECORD: As energy secretary under President Clinton, says he prevented the project from continuing.

SAYS: "If I'm president, I would terminate it, because I believe it's unsuitable. When I was there (secretary of energy) many of my scientists wanted me to declare it suitable and there were significant water problems, there were significant other environmental, scientific problems that we hadn't worked out. ... I'd always voted against it in Congress. My record is clear. I don't have like, two positions, like other candidates."

Review-Journal interview -- 4/30/07

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Republican

RECORD: None.

SAYS: "While nuclear power is one of our most promising avenues for developing energy independence from foreign oil, it also presents obstacles such as how to dispose of spent nuclear fuel. To overcome these obstacles, the governor believes decisions must be made on the basis of sound science and conclusive studies instead of political calculations."

Statement, campaign spokeswoman Sarah Pompei -- 4/24/07

---------------------------

Boston Globe
May 07, 2007

Resisting Sin City, candidates give in to Nevada

Susan Milligan
Globe Staff

LAS VEGAS -- The Strip dazzles like a giant fishing lure, dangling promises of easy money, sex, and margaritas-by-the-yard inside grand hotels that make up America's most notorious adult theme park.

It could also be a potential minefield this campaign season for stressed-out candidates and their staff members, who must maneuver through a difficult political landscape while resisting the temptations of Sin City.

After all, the current governor, Jim Gibbons, won election last year despite allegations during the heat of the campaign that the Mormon politician shoved a casino cocktail waitress against a wall when she refused his sexual advances. Gibbons said he was just helping her keep from falling.

Yet candidates don't dare duck the state. Since Nevada brought forward its presidential caucuses to next January, the Silver State has become one of the must-visit states for candidates hoping to secure an early victory and gain momentum going into the Feb. 5 slew of primaries.

With a diverse electorate and fragmented political power base that has not coalesced around a favorite candidate, Nevada offers an unusual opportunity for lesser-known candidates to score an early win in the West.

But Las Vegas also overflows with temptations that campaigns don't need if they want to stay focused and scandal free.

"You have 24-hour access to alcohol. You have 24-hour access to gambling. You have legalized prostitution on the other side of the county line," said Kenneth E. Fernandez, a political scientist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

"There's far more opportunity to get in trouble here than in Iowa, definitely," Fernandez said, referring to another early caucus state.

Nevadans say they don't judge. But presidential campaign operatives know that such stories -- while tolerated in a town with the motto "What Happens in Vegas, Stays in Vegas" -- don't play too well on the national stage.

"We were jokingly told to be careful -- to stay away from the brothels," said a Democratic presidential staff member who asked not to be named.

As Democratic consultant Peter Fenn put it: "There's a lot of temptation."

Home-grown presidential staff members say they aren't too interested in Las Vegas's 24-seven party scene, which is more of an attraction for tourists.

"People who live here don't gamble. I never go to the Strip unless I go to a show," said Roberta Lange, Nevada state director for the Democratic presidential campaign of Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

Nevada presents some thorny political challenges as well. The fastest-growing state in the nation, it attracts 5,000 new residents every month. "It's a volatile vote," said Assemblyman Ruben Kihuen, Democrat of Las Vegas. "If Richardson comes back a month [after a campaign visit], there will be new voters here."

While Nevada has its political power brokers, such as Democratic Senate majority leader Harry Reid, the state is still wide open to both the Democratic and Republican fields, Fernandez said. The union vote -- especially the Culinary Workers Union, whose 50,000 to 60,000 members could have an enormous impact on the Democratic caucuses, should they vote as a block -- is especially critical here, analysts said.

Further, candidates may get into trouble if they take Nevada-friendly stands opposing a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain and supporting Internet gambling -- positions that are unpopular in places such as Iowa and South Carolina, which have primaries close to Nevada's, said Jon Ralston, a Las Vegas-based independent political consultant.

Richardson was the first to open a campaign headquarters in Nevada; the homey-looking office sits in a leafy neighborhood street in what locals say is the "real" Las Vegas. Other campaigns have announced state directors and field staff but have not yet rented real estate here.

Nevada drew increased campaign traffic in 2004, because it was considered a battleground state in the general election, Ralston said. But this year, the state expects to host an unprecedented number of visits from candidates in both parties.

Democrats have held two forums in Nevada and all the GOP candidates have visited the state.

Last winter, Democrats moved the Nevada contest from its usual mid-February date to Jan 19, 2008, soon after the traditional first caucuses in Iowa, to highlight the party's increasing focus on the West. The change is also intended to give a stronger voice to Latinos, who make up nearly a fourth of the state's population.

Republicans are expected to move their contest to the same day, despite rules of the Republican National Committee that prohibit states from holding primaries or caucuses before Feb. 5 of next year.

Although the state has only five electoral votes, a win in Nevada could give a boost to a back-of-the-pack candidate just before the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries. The state could be especially key for Richardson, who is part-Latino and a Westerner, and to former North Carolina senator John Edwards, who appeals to organized labor.

While candidates and their staffs may want to avoid trouble on the Las Vegas Strip, they can't avoid it entirely. The opulent casino hotels are perfect for meetings and fund-raising. In March, Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, held a fund-raiser at Mandalay Bay, a Caribbean-themed hotel. Also that month, Richardson spoke to a Nevada Democratic group at the Riviera.

While those who play on the Strip tend to be from out of state, the employees who staff the restaurants, casinos, and bars there are members of the powerful Culinary Workers Union. With 60,000 members, the union could be a crucial force in the Democratic caucuses, Fernandez said.

It is possible to campaign in Nevada away from the neon lights. Rudolph Giuliani, former mayor of New York, recently quietly attended a Reno fund-raiser. His only contact with reporters was outside a Costco discount store. "Not everybody overdoes it here," Ralston said.

---------------------------

Las Vegas SUN
May 06, 2007

Doing It Her Way

Shelley Berkley, in her fifth term as the congresswoman from nevada, works behind the scenes and collects her chits

By Lisa Mascaro
Las Vegas Sun

WASHINGTON - Congresswoman Shelley Berkley pulls her Cadillac into a Las Vegas gas station and immediately feels her constituents' pain, about $60 worth by the time she's done filling the tank.

Residents can't stomach the prospect of $4-a-gallon gasoline any better than she can. She winces as the nation depends on foreign oil from a region hostile to her beloved Israel while the state's vast solar and geothermal energy sources go untapped.

So she introduced sweeping legislation to turn the nation's energy source green.

And it will probably never become law.

Such is the plight of a midlevel, midcareer member of Congress such as Berkley. Even though Democrats control Congress for the first time since she came to Washington eight years ago, Berkley is not likely to see her name on marquee legislation or change Washington the way Mr. Smith did.

For a lawmaker who embodies Vegas with glittery pizzazz - which last week included hot pink sunglasses to match a Dana Buchman blazer to match fuchsia manicured nails - Berkley's power and prestige are more subtle statements.

In the House, with its 435 members, power comes in different forms. There are the obvious faces of the party, the leaders and committee chairs who have risen through seniority and skill. Even young stars enjoy a bit of clout simply by their newness.

Then there are lawmakers such as Berkley, who congressional scholar Norman Ornstein said could simply ride out a career as a backbencher but instead has learned to collect her strength in less obvious ways.

Those who know her say she has emerged as the go-to expert on gambling, nuclear waste and Middle Eastern affairs, someone colleagues and lobbyists can trust for information.

Perhaps even more valuable, she has carved a niche with her ability to nudge and noodle her peers to deliver votes, all the while willing to cede the limelight.

"There are a lot of different ways of approaching a career and breaking out of the pack when you're in these middle stages ; she's done it well," Ornstein said.

"You can go a long way on interpersonal skills, especially if you're willing to use them to build coalitions to help others," he said. "If you do so , you're going to build up chit. When you need help, you're much more able to get it."

That, he said, has helped make Berkley "very much a player."

Her strength plays out behind the scenes in ways few back home will ever know.

"There are some colleagues you see on C-SPAN nonstop," said Rep. Tom Lantos, the California Democrat who heads the House Foreign Affairs Committee. "They may be some of the least respected members of Congress. Shelley is not one of those."

But the chairman, who tapped Berkley to lead a congressional delegation to Europe later this month, said the reputation she has gained makes her better known among her colleagues than "the majority of the women in the U.S. Senate."

As the congresswoman lays out her goals for the session, she plans to have a hand in the big-ticket issues of the day: revamping Medicare, providing health care for the uninsured, improving education, mending Social Security - many of the campaign themes she shared with Democrats nationally in 2006.

As always, she will continue working to block nuclear waste from being shipped to Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, and will use her new position on the powerful Ways and Means tax-writing committee to protect the state's No. 1 industry, the casinos on the Strip.

But not many of those topics are found in the 11 bills Berkley has offered this session. The bills include meager feel-good legislation such as one to support the contributions of suffragists.

Others, like her energy bill and legislation to boost veterans benefits, have strengths, but with 131 other energy bills vying for attention, hers will likely be folded into broader legislation. Her FREE Act - Freedom through Renewable Energy Expansion - got a five-minute hearing this month and may never be heard from again.

But none of that matters. Berkley has carved a niche for herself as a valued player on the Democratic team. She goes on offense to round up votes as part of the House whip operation on key issues. Then she reaps the rewards when she switches to defense to block nuclear waste or gambling taxes in Nevada.

She is confident her hand will be seen in key Democratic legislation, including the energy bill.

"You're not going to see in the final bill that comes out, it's not going to be in neon 'the Shelley Berkley FREE Act,' " she said in her office, where a life-size cutout of Liberace in patriotic short-shorts towers over her desk.

"I have no expectation that's going to happen," she said. "But I have an expectation that many of the sections of my legislation are going to be in the final legislation."

"I'm OK with that," she added. "I'm going to have the satisfaction of knowing I did a job well and succeeded. There will be plenty of credit to go around."

Berkley has also ingratiated herself with party leadership, despite her old rift with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, by doling out hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates. Last election cycle alone, she turned over more than $500,000 to the House's Democratic fundraising arm, the Nevada state party and individual candidates, including North Carolina's Heath Shuler, a former Washington Redskins quarterback whose victory helped Democrats win a majority in November.

Berkley, the former student body president-turned-cocktail-waitress-turned-lawyer, understands the Washington rule of relationships, and the power of connecting with people to form lasting bonds.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, says Berkley was the one who took her aside after an NCAA betting ban hearing some years ago and got her to think differently about her opposition to gaming.

"I have been a changed mind on the Judiciary Committee," Jackson Lee said. "She really changed a lot of minds."

Lantos said Berkley gathers support in the most charming ways, loading colleagues up with her best brainy arguments, then giving them a big kiss and a hug if they decline, shrugging, "I'll get you next time."

After a career with Democrats in the minority, Berkley has not had to withstand the scrutiny that comes with being the party in power.

Will Berkley be able to meet the expectations voters have for Democrats to change Washington? Will her constituents be satisfied with a behind-the-scenes lawmaker or desire a more obvious leader?

When Berkley and Nevada Republican Rep. Jon Porter landed coveted seats on the powerful Ways and Means Committee, there were plenty of comments about why it took her five terms to accomplish what he did in three. (Others say Porter got a break when half the Republicans on the committee failed to win reelection, and his leadership tossed him a perk to secure his standing in 2008.)

Even more, as Las Vegas continues to grow and change, will her close ties to the industries people love to hate Â- gambling and mining - become less popular if residents seriously rally for gaming taxes or stricter environmental controls?

Stepping off the House elevator in her Stuart Weitzman pumps and matching bag, Berkley's battle with osteoporosis shows in her hunched posture as she moves to the House floor.

She wishes she were here more, making speeches and playing a dramatic role in shaping national policy. But the day is short and there is other work to do.

Today she is introducing gambling legislation, a bill to study whether online gaming , which was outlawed under the Republican-led Congress last year, could be regulated and legalized.

Berkley submits the bill with 61 co-sponsors who signed on the day before when, "like Nirvana," back-to-back votes gave her a captive audience. On her list of co-sponsors: no less than three committee chairmen and the House whip.

She has no idea when the bill will get attention, but she'll know the timing is right when she sees it.

"There's rhythm, there's a feeling where things are going," she said. "That's what's going to make you effective or not. You're either sensitive to the vibrations or you're banging your head up against the wall."

When that time comes, you can bet she'll be stopping old friends in the halls for a friendly little chat.

--Lisa Mascaro can be reached at (202) 662-7436 or at lisa.mascaro@lasvegassun.com.

---------------------------

USA Today
May 06, 2007

Edwards grilled on reversals on war, education and Yucca Mountain

By: Mark Memmott and Jill Lawrence

Democrat John Edwards, his party's 2004 vice presidential nominee, underwent a tough grilling Sunday on ABC's This Week about his evolution from what host George Stephanopoulos called "hawkish new Democrat" to "ultra-liberal." Click here to see a video clip.

Stephanopoulos said Edwards has changed his mind about a number of positions he supported when he was a senator from North Carolina -- starting with the Iraq war but also including bankruptcy reform, free trade with China, the No Child Left Behind education law and storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

A few of their exchanges:

• Edwards has called his 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq war a mistake. He was asked about a Boston Globe report that he urged privately in 2004 that he and nominee John Kerry stand by their votes and not admit to making a mistake. Edwards said that when the election was over and he had time to reflect, "I thought it was my personal responsibility to be honest."

• Edwards said he did not remember saying his vote for No Child Left Behind was a mistake. He said the law "needs to stay in place" but it should be changed because "the testing regimen is too intrusive."

• Stephanopoulos said Edwards criticized offshore tax shelters in the 2004 election but went to work the next year for an investment group with hedge funds incorporated in the Cayman Islands, which get tax breaks. "I learned about this after the fact. I didn't know it at the time," Edwards said. He said he remains opposed to offshore tax shelters and would try to eliminate them as president. He said his pay from the Fortress Investment Group will be on his next financial disclosure report.

• Edwards did not address the trade, bankruptcy or Yucca Mountain issues on the show. Nevada has moved to the beginning of the nomination process with caucuses scheduled Jan. 19. Majorities there oppose the nuclear waste repository.

---------------------------

Reno Gazette-Journal
May 05, 2007

Committees still on different page when it comes to Nevada budget

Amanda Fehd
Associated Press

CARSON CITY -- With a deadline to complete work a little over four weeks away, Senate and Assembly budget committees met Friday to start resolving their differences -- but didn't get very far.

Assembly Ways and Means and Senate Finance members must resolve differences and complete work on a nearly

$7 billion budget so that lawmakers can adjourn by June 4. If they don't get their work done by then, the legislators face the prospect of a special session.

Clashing spending plans discussed Friday included funding to fight federal efforts to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.

The Assembly approved the original amount,

$1.9 million a year, while the Senate proposed to cut that by about $250,000 a year as requested by Gov. Jim Gibbons.

Senate Finance Chairman Bill Raggio said his committee will go back and consider a reduced cut of $136,000 now being recommended by the governor.

Other topics covered by the committees on Friday included the state Department of Cultural Affairs budget.

The panels delayed any action on most of the items in that budget.

Special appropriations to programs for the homeless, autism research, health care and education will be under tight scrutiny as lawmakers look for ways to slice at least $110 million from original budget estimates because of a projected revenue shortfall from sales taxes.

Less than a tenth of the state budget for the next two fiscal years has been approved by the full budget panels in the Republican-controlled Senate and the Democratic-controlled Assembly. However, budget subcommittees have completed about 70 percent of their work.

Among the big obstacles still facing the money committees is a disagreement over education funding.

Assembly Democrats on Thursday voted to cut

$25.7 million more from university budgets during a meeting of a joint subcommittee covering education. The cuts came on top of $11 million in reductions ordered by the governor.

Raggio complained that the lawmakers "gutted" the higher education budget, adding that he believes Democrats want to hurt higher education in order to increase K-12 funding.

Assembly Ways and Means Chairman Morse Arberry, D-Las Vegas, said higher education has been treated well in past sessions while K-12 schools get "the short end of the stick."

---------------------------

KRNV
May 04, 2007

Nevada Legislature Works to Iron Out Budget Issues

Nevada Senate and Assembly budget committees have begun meetings to start resolving their differences as a deadline to complete work looms a little over four weeks away.

Assembly Ways and Means and Senate Finance members must resolve differences and complete work on a nearly seven-billion dollar budget so that lawmakers can adjourn by June fourth.

Among the clashing spending plans is money to fight federal efforts to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. The Assembly approved the original amount, 1.9-million dollars a year, while the Senate proposed to cut that by about 250,000 dollars, as requested by Governor Jim Gibbons.

Senate Finance Chairman Bill Raggio says his committee will go back and consider a reduced cut of 136,000 dollars now being recommended by the governor.

---------------------------

Las Vegas SUN
May 04, 2007

Nevada lawmakers work to complete state budget

By Amanda Fehd
Associated Press Writer

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - With a deadline to complete work a little over four weeks away, Senate and Assembly budget committees met Friday to start resolving their differences - but didn't get very far.

Assembly Ways and Means and Senate Finance members must resolve differences and complete work on a nearly $7 billion budget so that lawmakers can adjourn by June 4. If they don't get their work done by then, the legislators face the prospect of a special session.

Clashing spending plans discussed Friday included funding to fight federal efforts to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. The Assembly approved the original amount, $1.9 million a year, while the Senate proposed to cut that by about $250,000 a year as requested by Gov. Jim Gibbons.

Senate Finance Chairman Bill Raggio said his committee will go back and consider a reduced cut of $136,000 now being recommended by the governor.

Other topics covered by the committees on Friday included the state Department of Cultural Affairs budget. The panels delayed any action on most of the items in that budget.

Special appropriations to programs for the homeless, autism research, health care and education will be under tight scrutiny as lawmakers look for ways to slice at least $110 million from original budget estimates due to a projected revenue shortfall from sales taxes.

Among the big obstacles still facing the money committees is a disagreement over education funding.

Assembly Democrats on Thursday voted to cut $25.7 million more from university budgets during a meeting of a joint subcommittee covering education. The cuts came on top of $11 million in reductions ordered by the governor.

Raggio complained that the lawmakers "gutted" the higher education budget, adding that he believes Democrats want to hurt higher education in order to increase K-12 funding.

Assembly Ways and Means Chairman Morse Arberry, D-Las Vegas, said higher education has been treated well in past sessions while K-12 schools get "the short end of the stick."

Other education funding disputes include a battle over full-day kindergarten. The plan, which would cost $100 million a year, is being pushed by Assembly Speaker Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas.

---------------------------

Pahrump Valley Times
May 04, 2007

Master plan may have found some traction

By Richard Stephens
PVT

BEATTY -- The wheels that have been spinning for some time regarding the development of a Beatty master plan may have found some traction at the town board's April 25 meeting.

Skip Canfield from the state planning office was on hand again, and this time he brought others with him, including Kevin Hill, who administers the Question 1 (Q1) grant money, with some of which the community plans to do open-space planning.

Nye County's new planning director, Jack Lohman, was also at the meeting and said he was still learning about the county and about what was available, but he said he would do what he could to help the town acquire the maps it needs for the planning process.

Lohman also said that he recommended going to bid with the request for proposal for the open space plan without specifying the dollar amount. He said the plan might cost more than the amount of the Q1 grant and the county's match, which totals $40,000, but that it is a slow time for planners in Nevada, and he'd like to see what kind of response they get.

Hill said the state might be able to come up with more Q1 money to help if necessary.

Canfield explained that a good way to proceed would be to begin with a "windshield survey," which involves volunteers driving around the community and marking a map with what already exists in each location, whether it be single-family residence, multiple-family, commercial, public, vacant and so on.

He said that overlay maps should be created, showing different areas of interest. He said five are required by law -- population, conservation, transportation, land use, and public services -- but the community can plan in other categories that it finds important.

Chairman Larry Gray said he was frustrated with "spinning our wheels" in the planning process, and audience member Gus Sullivan questioned why the board had disbanded its planning committee. He said the board needs to establish a time line to get things done.

Gray asked Canfield whether he could help the board identify concrete things they could accomplish at the next couple of meetings. After some discussion, three issues were scheduled: the windshield survey, the acquisition of a flood-plain map and information on public utilities.

Charlie Cook pointed out that the Department of Energy is apparently planning to close the Yucca Mountain Information Office in Beatty.

He felt that the community should express support for keeping it open and preserving the jobs of those who work there. Gray put it on the agenda for the next meeting.

---------------------------

Pahrump Valley Times
May 04, 2007

County will lease more office space

By Mark Waite
PVT

Nye County will expand its office space in Pahrump by moving into a new building being constructed by Provenza-Neth Properties, whch is partly-owned by former Nye County Commissioner Henry Neth.

Jim Marble, director of the Nye County Department of Natural Resources and Federal Facilities, said he looked at eight different sites to house workers involved in the program.

Provenza-Neth Properties wants a three-year lease at $2,760.80 per month; Marble was told to agree to up to two years.

Construction of the offices, at 401 S. Frontage Road, should be completed by June, Marble said. He told commissioners he should be able to obtain at least 75 percent of the cost of the lease from grants.

Commissioner Butch Borasky questioned spending all that money to lease more office space.

"If the landlord can build this property, lease it and make money on it, why can't the county? At least look into it that we could build a strip mall or strip office or some type of setup like they do and eventually own it and have it rent free," Borasky said.

But County Manager Ron Williams said grant funds come with restrictions on building brick and mortar. Borasky suggested evaluating the Nye County Courthouse complex on Basin Avenue, which is being remodeled to add more courtrooms, while the county treasurer's and assessor's offices are moved into modular buildings.

Earlier, Nye County commissioners passed a routine one-year renewal of a lease agreement with Wulfenstein Development for $5,054 per month to house the Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office at 1210 E. Basin Road.

Nye County is also remodeling the old building at the Calvada Eye, which will be used for a future meeting room, district attorney's offices and county manager's offices.

In addition, the county manager, county commissioners and other county administrators like the comptroller have office space in the county administration building, next to the county courthouse at 1510 E. Basin Road, where there is also a meeting room for special county commission conference calls.

The county planning department is located in the Marilyn Galvan Office Complex at 250 N. Highway 160, the site of the former county courthouse. Public works and the county road department are located in modular buildings on Boothill Road off Highway 160 just north of the Pahrump town offices.

---------------------------

Arms Control Today
May 04, 2007

Risks and Realities: The “New Nuclear Energy Revival”

Sharon Squassoni

The headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) sits in the suburbs of Vienna, in the northeast corner of a country that has outlawed nuclear power plants since 1978. The irony of this situation masks deeper divisions in the nuclear energy debate, which recent assertions of a nuclear renaissance have papered over.

Concern about greenhouse gas emissions and energy security combined with forecasts of strong growth in electricity demand has awakened dormant interest in nuclear energy. Yet, the industry has not yet fully addressed the issues that have kept global nuclear energy capacity roughly the same for the last two decades. Although nuclear safety has improved significantly, nuclear energy’s inherent vulnerabilities regarding waste disposal, economic competitiveness, and proliferation remain. Moreover, nuclear security concerns have increased since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Nuclear energy’s revival depends strongly on public sector support and financial backing. Even if it were true that nuclear energy emits no carbon dioxide, that it is renewable, and that it will provide energy independence—all selling points made by President George W. Bush—the fact would remain that nuclear energy is more expensive than alternative sources of electricity.

IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei has repeatedly cautioned that “nuclear energy alone is not a panacea, but it is likely in the near future to have an increasing role as part of the global energy mix.”[1] Such reticence from the agency tasked with promoting the peaceful uses of nuclear energy contrasts with the strong enthusiasm of business and media.[2] Yet here too, divisions are evident. Op-eds have swung between cautious optimism about nuclear expansion and growing pessimism about the proliferation-sensitive nuclear fuel-cycle technologies: uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing that could provide the essential fissile material for nuclear weapons. Such concern increased after the 2004 revelations of a black market network for uranium-enrichment technology led by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan and the continuing refusal of Iran to halt enrichment-related activities.

The IAEA is at the forefront of efforts to manage future development of states’ fuel cycles so that access to weapons-usable fissile material—highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium—is limited, if not eliminated. As in the past, proposals likely to succeed are those that provide incentives to forgo sensitive fuel-cycle technologies rather than those that impose restrictions.[3] Even with such fuel supply assurances, however, any significant expansion of nuclear power is likely to prompt additional states to join the nuclear fuel haves. Already, Argentina, Australia, Canada, and South Africa have expressed interest in developing commercial uranium-enrichment capabilities. Ukraine is seeking cooperation with foreign partners “to obtain the full cycle of enrichment and production of nuclear fuel” to counter uncertain gas supplies from Russia.[4] Additional capacity in these states may not cause alarm, but it will make it increasingly difficult to justify why other states should not develop such capabilities.

Nuclear Power Today

Global nuclear energy capacity is currently about 368 gigawatts, with approximately 435 nuclear power reactors operating in 30 states. Three countries account for one-half of all nuclear power reactors: the United States (103), France (59), and Japan (55).[5] Most of the growth in nuclear energy occurred following the oil shocks of the 1970s. The low cost of uranium also helped make nuclear energy attractive. New nuclear energy development, however, started to slow after the Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl accidents (1986) and after a drop in natural gas prices in the 1990s made gas-powered turbines more attractive than nuclear alternatives in Europe and the United States. Nonetheless, nuclear energy has been able to increase its share of electricity generation largely through better efficiency.

Coal and hydroelectric power still dominate the electricity market, with 39 percent and 19 percent shares, respectively, of world electricity generation. Nuclear energy accounts for about 16 percent of that supply, and gas and oil produce 25 percent. Renewable energy accounts for 1-2 percent. States that use nuclear energy to provide a significant portion of their electricity include Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Japan, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Some 20 percent of U.S. electricity is generated by nuclear energy.

Front and Back Ends of the Fuel Cycle

Nuclear reactors are supported by uranium mining, milling, conversion, enrichment, and fuel fabrication. Almost 90 percent of the world’s reactors are light-water reactors (LWRs), requiring low-enriched uranium for fuel. Uranium resources are available across the globe, although Australia and Canada account for more than one-half of current production and more than 90 percent of reserves. Other key producers include Kazakhstan, Namibia, Niger, Russia, South Africa, the United States, and Uzbekistan. Although many countries may have uranium on their territory, the costs of extracting it could exceed the benefits for quite some time, particularly if it is of lower quality or quantity.

To be fabricated into fuel, the uranium must be converted into uranium hexafluoride. Four companies currently account for 88 percent of the conversion market: Rosatom (Russia), COMURHEX (France), ConverDyn (United States) and Cameco (Canada). Additionally, Brazil, China, Iran, and the United Kingdom operate uranium-conversion plants. Uranium enrichment, the next step in fuel fabrication, is conducted by four major enrichment suppliers, accounting for 95 percent of the market: Tenex (Russia); Eurodif (France); Urenco (France, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom); and the U.S. Enrichment Corp., or USEC (United States). Other countries also have enrichment capability, although not all are commercial: Brazil (in commissioning stage), China and India (military), Iran (under construction), and Japan and Pakistan (military). Commercial capacity has exceeded demand for many years. Demand for enrichment was 38 million separative work units in 2004 while production totaled 50 million separative work units.[6] Although the IAEA estimates that enrichment capacity is sufficient for projected nuclear energy growth until 2030, other estimates suggest that substantial reactor orders would require “heroic efforts” to expand uranium mining and enrichment.[7] In addition, 16 countries have fuel fabrication plants, which take enriched uranium and process it into a form (fuel rods) that can be inserted into reactors. Four companies account for 84 percent of the market: AREVA (France), Westinghouse (United States), Global Nuclear Fuel (Japan and the United States), and TVEL (Russia).[8]

Spent fuel is either stored or reprocessed. Reprocessing uses mechanical and chemical processes to extract plutonium, uranium, and waste products from spent nuclear fuel. Currently, the plutonium is combined with uranium to form a mixed-oxide fuel, which can also be used in LWRs. About one-third of the existing stored spent fuel has been reprocessed. Worldwide, four primary commercial facilities reprocess plutonium from spent fuel for further power production: La Hague and Marcoule in France, Sellafield in the United Kingdom, and Chelyabinsk-65/Ozersk in Russia.[9] These four plants reprocess about 95 percent of all commercial spent fuel that undergoes the process. Belgium, Germany, Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland have been the main customers of the British and French plants. Russia has reprocessed spent fuel from Finland, Hungary, and Ukraine. The Sellafield thermal oxide reprocessing plant closed in April 2005 after a leakage occurred and may reopen in mid-2007.[10] Japan has been reprocessing at the small-scale Tokai pilot plant since the 1970s, but the large-scale (800-ton capacity per year) Rokkasho-mura plant has been delayed for decades; it may begin operations this year. India, which is not a party to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), has three small reprocessing plants. Only one of these, PREFRE, is partially safeguarded. Other states have current or past reprocessing capabilities, including the United States, which reprocessed fuel for weapons purposes and, for a short time, commercial purposes. The current reprocessing capacity worldwide is about 5,000 tons of heavy metal per year.

In the 1970s, the United Kingdom and France anticipated scaling up reprocessing capacity to move to a plutonium-based fuel cycle, including the use of plutonium fuel in fast reactors. This has not yet materialized. Fast reactors, unlike the prevalent thermal reactors that use a moderator to slow down neutrons, are capable of fissioning a wider range of isotopes and thus can be used to “burn up” more isotopes in fuel. No state has been able yet to commercialize such reactors.[11] Given their reported expense and the relative inexpensive cost of uranium, there have been few economic incentives to move forward. Belgium and Germany, for instance, have stopped sending their fuel for reprocessing in anticipation of phasing out their use of nuclear power.

Why Nuclear and Why Now?

Sharp increases in oil and natural gas prices have made nuclear energy more attractive in the last few years. Whereas oil was priced at below $10 per barrel in 1999, it rose above $60 per barrel in March 2007.[12] Natural gas prices are often pegged to oil prices, and these too have increased dramatically. In the United States and Europe, new electricity generation in the 1990s was fired by natural gas rather than coal, but this is now changing.

Prices of alternative energy sources are just one factor in national energy policies. Improved safety and efficiency, at least in U.S. reactors, also has contributed to more attention to nuclear energy, as well as to regulatory streamlining and incentives for new nuclear power plants. Nuclear energy also is increasingly being viewed as part of the solution to climate change and energy security.[13]

Pressures from Climate Change

The Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change entered into force in 2005, establishing legally binding levels for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of an average of 6 to 8 percent below 1990 levels between the years 2008-2012. There are many different routes to meeting the reduction levels, a discussion of which is beyond the scope of this article. Although increased efficiency and energy savings are a common-sense solution, these are sometimes viewed as conflicting with economic growth imperatives. The December 2004 UN High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change noted that developing nations viewed binding emission caps as impediments to economic growth, while industrialized nations were unwilling to reduce levels unless developing nations also did.[14]

Nuclear energy, relative to fossil fuels, contributes little to greenhouse gas emissions.[15] The extent to which increasing reliance on nuclear energy will solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions, however, is doubtful. Power generation accounts for about 40 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation accounts for another 25 percent. Even optimistic scenarios of nuclear power expansion do not foresee a much-larger share for nuclear energy in overall electricity generation because, simply, electricity generation is forecasted to double by 2030.[16]

Moreover, much of that electricity growth will occur in the developing world, specifically in China and India. Because China and India are not bound to Kyoto Protocol reductions, their decisions on electricity production may be influenced by other factors, including cost and, in the case of India, a decision by the Nuclear Suppliers Group to allow nuclear cooperation with a non-NPT state.[17] Significant nuclear expansion will likely occur only after the time frame of the Kyoto Protocol because new nuclear power reactors will require 10-15 years to become operational following a decision to build. It is likely to take even longer in “new” nuclear technology states without existing infrastructure, including a system for regulating nuclear safety. Under the most optimistic scenario (five years to build), reactors under construction now will not make a significant difference in the time frame of the Kyoto Protocol.

Two years ago, the International Energy Agency concluded that “unless governments introduce new energy policies, growth in world energy production and consumption in the next three decades is projected to be 65 percent higher than the growth in the past 30 years.” More than 70 percent of that growth would come from outside the major developed countries, those states are grouped together in the Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD), with the largest shares coming from China and India. At the same time, the International Energy Agency noted that global carbon dioxide emissions would grow by 69 percent in the absence of new policies. Again, much of the growth would come from outside the OECD countries.[18] The carbon content of energy would increase because of the “declining share of nuclear and hydro power in the global energy mix.” The International Energy Agency forecasts that nuclear energy could drop to 10 percent of electricity generation in the absence of significant policy changes.

Assuming no significant policy changes emerge, nuclear energy is expected to grow to 416 gigawatts by 2030, about a 20 percent increase in capacity. This includes the retirement of 27 gigawatts of nuclear energy in Europe. Much of the increase will come from China, which plans to install 40 gigawatts of nuclear power by 2020; Japan, which plans to install 28 gigawatts by 2015; and India, which plans to install 40 gigawatts by 2030. The case of India is uncertain, as its previous goals remain unmet and its current plans assume buying a foreign LWR, a prospect that is far from assured.

Energy Insecurity

Many states are wary of depending on imported energy sources, leading states such as France and Japan to rely on nuclear power for most of their electricity needs. Recent cutoffs have underscored the instability of the oil and gas supply. In 2006 a natural gas price dispute between Russia and Ukraine resulted in a temporary cutoff of natural gas supplies to western and central Europe. In 2007, price disputes between Russia and Azerbaijan and between Russia and Belarus caused a temporary cutoff in oil supplies to Russia from Azerbaijan and in oil supplies from Russia to Germany, Poland, and Slovakia.[19] Other developments also have underscored the uncertainty of oil and gas supplies, among them temporary production shutdowns in the Gulf of Mexico and the Trans-Alaskan pipeline, instability in Nigeria, and nationalization of oil and gas fields in Bolivia in 2006.

Shifting to a plutonium-based fuel cycle was once thought to be a solution to potential uranium shortages, but many agree that the supply of uranium will be sufficient for several decades.[20] Already, China, Japan, and India are seeking to secure long-term uranium contracts to support nuclear expansion goals. Relative to gas and oil, the ability to stockpile uranium offers greater assurance of weathering potential cutoffs. Efforts also are already underway to establish an international nuclear fuel bank in an attempt to inject greater certainty in fuel supplies, although these are targeted at providing incentives for states to forgo uranium enrichment.[21] Uranium conversion, enrichment, and fuel fabrication—the three steps after uranium mining that are necessary before fuel can be inserted into a reactor—are now concentrated in a handful of countries. Although cost and economies of scale should argue against additional enrichment capacity, this may not be enough to dissuade some states from pursuing enrichment.[22]

Ultimately, only the development of breeder reactors, which produce additional nuclear material (plutonium or U-233) that can be used for future fuel, could provide real energy independence. Yet, the risks and costs associated with breeder reactors, which have not yet been proven commercially, are significant, especially where safety, security, and nonproliferation are concerned.

The Next Three Decades

Some nuclear expansion is already underway, but its direction is uncertain.[23] Where will expansion take place? Will expansion be limited to reactors only, or will it include enrichment and reprocessing facilities? What spent fuel disposal options will be necessary or desirable?

With the exception of South Africa, most of the growth in nuclear energy will occur in Asia and South Asia. One-half of the 26 reactors now under construction are located in Asia. States with the most growth have full nuclear fuel cycles; China, Japan, and India already have enrichment and reprocessing capabilities. South Korea continues to express interest in further developing a pyroprocessing technique that does not separate plutonium from uranium, as a solution to growing stockpiles of spent fuel.

Lack of strong nuclear expansion, however, has not stopped several countries from expressing interest in developing enrichment capabilities, including Argentina, Australia, Canada, and South Africa. None of these countries has a domestic reactor base that would require developing enrichment capability. Instead, they may be interested in enrichment to keep their future options open and for export purposes. Brazil, which is commissioning a new centrifuge enrichment plant at Resende, will likely produce more low-enriched uranium than is needed for its consumption by 2015. If such decisions were made purely on economic grounds, the thresholds for achieving economies of scale are high but not insurmountable.[24] One estimate is that indigenous centrifuge enrichment becomes cost effective at the capacity level of 1.5 million separative work units, an amount required by 10 1-gigawatt plants. Even then, such an enrichment plant is unlikely to be competitive with larger suppliers such as Urenco.[25]

More than a dozen countries without nuclear power are reportedly considering their nuclear energy options. These include states in Europe (Poland and Turkey), the Middle East (Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates), Africa (Namibia), Central Asia (Georgia), and Asia (Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam). It is unlikely that these states will pursue a full nuclear fuel cycle in the short run, but they may also desire to keep their options open.

A key question is what impact the U.S. Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) will have on global nuclear expansion. Will it make nuclear power “safe” for all states, as its proponents claim? The domestic portion of GNEP involves the development of “advanced recycling” of spent fuel, which overturns the 1970s-era U.S. policy of not encouraging the use of plutonium in the civil nuclear fuel cycle. The international component of GNEP envisions a consortium of nations with advanced nuclear technology that would provide fuel services and reactors to countries that “agree to refrain from fuel-cycle activities” such as enrichment and reprocessing. It is essentially a fuel leasing approach, wherein the supplier takes responsibility for the final disposition of the spent fuel. It is not clear if or how states would agree to refrain from fuel cycle activities, but the two components of GNEP together send a mixed message that recycling is valuable for some states but not for others.

South Korea, for one, seems to view GNEP as a green light to proceed with its pyroprocessing technique.[26] Until now, the United States has not permitted South Korea to reprocess U.S.-origin spent fuel because of proliferation concerns. Other states may be more interested in having someone else solve the problem either of spent fuel storage or high-level waste storage. Greater reprocessing capacity might help solve spent fuel storage but not necessarily high-level waste storage because no commercial reprocessing service will store high-level waste.[27] There also is no commitment yet to take back spent fuel, and delays in opening the Yucca Mountain repository, the first of its kind, provide little confidence that will happen. A further complication is the uncertainty of U.S. intentions. Although the Department of Energy has stated that, under GNEP, the supplier would take responsibility for the final disposition of spent fuel, it also has stated that the supplier “would retain the responsibility to ensure that the material is secured, safeguarded, and disposed of in a manner that meets shared nonproliferation policies.” As ever, the devil is in the details.

Implications for Nonproliferation

The expansion of nuclear power could have cascading effects on the nuclear nonproliferation regime, ranging from practical pressures to significant vulnerabilities. On the practical side, additional facilities will mean additional safeguards effort by IAEA inspectors. Although reactors themselves require relatively few inspection days, there will be significant work in helping prepare new nuclear states for nuclear power programs. Already, the IAEA has conducted workshops on infrastructure requirements, including energy needs and planning considerations; nuclear security and safeguards; physical infrastructure; current and future reactor technology; experience in developing nuclear programs; human resource requirements; and public perceptions.

Should a nuclear renaissance result in more states with so-called bulk-handling facilities (enrichment and reprocessing), the task of inspecting such facilities could place significant strain on the IAEA and the safeguards system. Some critics of the IAEA suggest that current methods of inspection cannot provide timely warning of diversion of a significant quantity of special nuclear material. Yet, the largest enrichment and reprocessing plants under safeguards now are under EURATOM safeguards; the IAEA’s role in verifying material balances in those plants is limited by the IAEA-EURATOM agreement. The only experience in safeguarding commercial-scale enrichment and reprocessing plants outside of EURATOM in a non-nuclear-weapon state is in Japan, where incidents with significant material losses have raised questions.

One question is whether new nuclear states would raise proliferation concerns by virtue of their geographic location, the existence of terrorist groups on their soil, or other sources of political instability. Would expanded nuclear infrastructure in Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Morocco, Nigeria, Vietnam, and the GCC countries lead their neighbors to worry about and respond to the possibility that these countries will develop weapons programs? More broadly, will a nuclear renaissance that succeeds in limiting the number of states with uranium-enrichment or spent fuel reprocessing capabilities ultimately further erode the NPT by extending the existence of haves and have-nots from nuclear weapons into the nuclear fuel cycle? In the short term, efforts to limit expansion could slow some states’ implementation of the safeguards-strengthening measures in the 1997 Model Additional Protocol. In the long term, other decisions to strengthen the NPT could be jeopardized.

A nuclear renaissance that embraces reprocessing as necessary to reduce spent fuel accumulation could result in more plutonium in transit, providing more potential targets for diversion. A renaissance that includes widespread installation of fast reactors would similarly increase targets for diversion. Further down the road, will the next generation of reactors be more or less proliferation resistant than existing reactors? As of December 2002, the Generation IV Forum had not yet adopted a standard methodology for evaluating proliferation resistance and physical protection for the six systems under consideration.[28]

Finally, there is a larger question of whether technological developments will outpace nonproliferation initiatives, such as fuel supply assurances and multinational fuel-cycle centers, voluntary export guidelines, and further restrictions within the Nuclear Suppliers Group. Some recent criticism of the U.S. GNEP program has been aimed at the aggressive timeline for technology demonstration of advanced reprocessing, in contrast to developments more closely tied to nonproliferation objectives, such as supporting more proliferation-resistant reactors with sealed fuel cores that would limit handling of fuel.[29]

Conclusions

There is little doubt that nuclear energy will remain an important part of the global energy mix, but it is not the panacea that many advocates are selling. To begin with, a nuclear renaissance will take too long to have more than a negligible impact on carbon dioxide emissions that threaten significant climate change in the next decade. Further, the petroleum-dominated transportation sector, which accounts for 25 percent of world carbon dioxide emissions, offers few footholds now for nuclear energy substitution. (By contrast, oil only accounted for 5 percent of the global electricity mix in 2001.) In the distant future, perhaps nuclear energy may help offset transportation emissions through the production of hydrogen.

Nonetheless, nuclear energy could grow faster to 519 gigawatts by 2030 given significant policy support.[30] This would require not only that policymakers and regulators take steps to mitigate the inherent risks of nuclear power, which are calculated differently by all states, but that nuclear energy is as cost effective as alternative sources of electricity. Factors that may help improve the position of nuclear energy vis-à-vis alternatives include higher prices for other sources (natural gas and coal through a carbon tax), scaling down of reactor sizes to mitigate initial capital investment, regulatory improvements, and waste disposal solutions.

The nonproliferation risks of a nuclear renaissance clearly depend on the shape of nuclear expansion. More LWRs pose essentially no new technical challenges to the safeguards system, but additional enrichment or reprocessing capabilities in non-nuclear-weapon states could easily strain the system. A shift to fast reactors with reprocessing will likely introduce further strains on the nuclear nonproliferation regime. Fleets of fast reactors that burn plutonium could help diminish the size of civilian plutonium stockpiles eventually, but their cost effectiveness is highly doubtful. The provision of “cradle to grave” fuel services, as foreseen by GNEP, could go far toward limiting the spread of sensitive fuel-cycle technologies but awaits real decisions by key governments, such as the United States and Russia, on spent fuel and waste disposition. Clearly, measures are needed to help shape these potential developments to minimize the proliferation impact.

Endnotes:

1. See “Nuclear Power Not Panacea for Energy Supply, But It Certainly Helps—UN Atomic Chief,” UN News Center, December 1, 2006.

2. See Geoffrey Colvin, “Nuclear Power Is Back—Not a Moment Too Soon,” Fortune, May 30, 2005, p. 57; “The Greening of Nuclear Power,” New York Times, May 13, 2006, p. A16; “Nuclear Spring,” Chicago Tribune, May 15, 2006, p. 8.

3. See Lawrence Scheinman, “The Nuclear Fuel Cycle: A Challenge for Nonproliferation,” Disarmament Diplomacy, No. 76 (March/April 2004). For Scheinman’s discussion of past proposals, see Lawrence Scheinman, “Equal Opportunity: Historical Challenges and Future Prospects of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle,” Arms Control Today, May 2007, pp. 18-22.

4. “Ukrainian leaders See Nuclear as Key to Energy Independence,” Nucleonics Week, February 23, 2006, p 4.

5. Russia has 31 operating reactors. Eight states have between 10 and 20 reactors (Canada, China, Germany, India, South Korea, Sweden, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom). Five states have between five and 10 reactors, and 13 states have between one and four reactors. One-half of the states in the last category rely on nuclear power to supply more than one-third of their electricity needs.

6. This difference can be a little misleading because some enrichment demand is met by downblended Russian highly enriched uranium (HEU). Nonetheless, even the most optimistic estimates for worldwide demand by the World Nuclear Association posit 52 million separative work units by 2020. See International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), “Multilateral Approaches to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Expert Group Report Submitted to the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency,” INFCIRC/640, February 2005.

7. Thomas L. Neff, “Uranium and Enrichment: Enough Fuel for the Nuclear Renaissance?” Briefing presented at Global Nuclear Renaissance Summit, December 5, 2006.

8. Per Brunzell, “Nuclear Fuel Cycle; Technical Issues,” Briefing presented at IAEA conference “New Framework for the Utilization of Nuclear Energy in the 21st Century: Assurances of Supply and Nonproliferation,” September 2006.

9. See Frans Berkhout, “The International Civilian Reprocessing Business,” Energy and Security, No. 2 (September 8, 2005).

10. “THORP: Delay After Delay; Re-Opening Now Unlikely Until Mid-2007 at the Earliest,” Nuclear Monitor, March 19, 2007, p. 8.

11. The Russian BN-600 operates commercially now, but uses HEU fuel. See IAEA, “Multilateral Approaches to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle,” p. 78.

12. See Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, “Petroleum Navigator,” found at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wtotworldw.htm.

13. See Charles D. Ferguson, “Nuclear Energy: Balancing Benefits and Risks,” Council on Foreign Relations Special Report, No. 28 (April 2007).

14. “United Nations High Level Panel on Threats Challenges and Change,” UNGA A/59/565, December 2004.

15. The contribution is not zero because the inputs leading up to the operation of reactors require fossil fuels. See http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/SeviorSLSRebutall.

16. International Energy Agency, “World Energy Outlook 2006,” 2006, p. 71.

17. See Fred McGoldrick et al., “The U.S.-India Nuclear Deal: Taking Stock,” Arms Control Today, October 2005, p. 6-12.

18. The International Energy Agency estimated that “power generation, which currently accounts for around 40 percent of the emissions, will contribute almost half the increase (or 8 billion metric tons) in global emissions between 2000 and 2030. Transport will account for more than a quarter, residential, commercial, and industrial sectors for the rest.” International Energy Agency, “30 Key Energy Trends of the IEA and Worldwide,” 2005, p. 32.

19. Deutsche Welle, “Merkel Puts Germany’s Nuclear Phase-Out in Question,” January 1, 2007, found at http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2304599,00.html.

20. See Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Red Book Retrospective: Forty Years of Uranium Resources, Production and Demand in Perspective (Paris: OECD, 2006); World Nuclear Association, “Supply of Uranium,” March 2007, found at http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html.

21. Oliver Meier, “The Growing Nuclear Fuel-Cycle Debate,” Arms Control Today, November 2006, pp. 40-44.

22. A single enrichment plant can supply up to 25 percent of the world market: 10 million separative work units, which is enough for 100 reactors.

23. According to the World Nuclear Association, 26 reactors were under construction as of January 2007, with another 64 planned and 156 proposed. Much of the short-term growth will come from Asia. India and China top the list of reactors under construction, with seven and five, respectively; China and Japan top the list of planned reactors with 13 and 11, respectively. China and South Africa lead in the number of proposed reactors (50 and 24), followed by the United States (21), Russia (18) and India (15). Of course, this latter category can be highly speculative. Meanwhile, other states are phasing out nuclear energy, and some are reconsidering decisions to phase out nuclear energy. Belgium, Germany, and Sweden have made decisions to phase out nuclear energy. In the case of Germany, the deadline is 2020, although Chancellor Angela Merkel has questioned this decision, given the need to meet Kyoto carbon dioxide emission targets and recent uncertainties about the reliability of Russia as a source of oil and gas. Seventeen nuclear reactors currently provide 30 percent of Germany’s electricity generation.

24. This discussion draws from an analysis generously provided by Harold A. Feiveson. See Harold A. Feiveson, “Global Warming, Radioactive Waste Disposal, and the Nuclear Future,” Arms Control Today, May 2007, pp. 13-17.. The IAEA Experts Group did not address the economics of enrichment, merely noting that there was little data on the topic.

25. IAEA, “Multilateral Approaches to the Nuclear Fuel Cycle,” p. 63. EURODIF produces 8 million separative work units per year; URENCO, 6 million separative work units per year; Rosatom, 20 million separative work units per year.

26. This technique, developed for metal fuel, does not separate plutonium from uranium. South Korea would then recycle the spent fuel in CANDU reactors. See “Pyroprocessing Might Be Nearing ROK Goal of Inclusion in GNEP,” Nuclear Fuel, February 26, 2007.

27. A complication is that the United States must provide consent to reprocess U.S.-origin spent fuel. For Russia to reprocess such fuel, a nuclear cooperation agreement (“Section 123” agreement) is necessary. This is currently under negotiation.

28. U.S. DOE Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee and the Generation IV International Forum, “A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems,” December 2002, p. 18, found at http://nuclear.energy.gov/genIV/documents/gen_iv_roadmap.pdf.

29. Matthew Bunn, “Assessing the Benefits, Costs, and Risks of Near-Term Reprocessing and Alternatives,” Testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, September 14, 2006. See Jessica Tuchman Matthews, speech given at the First Annual Nuclear Fuel Cycle Monitor Global Nuclear Renaissance Summit, December 5, 2006.

30. For a discussion of the International Energy Agency’s Alternative Policy Scenario (APS), see International Energy Agency, “World Energy Outlook 2006,” pp. 361-385. The APS assumed that certain states would slow the retirement of reactors and that most reactors proposed already would come online with a few exceptions. This scenario did not account for states announcing the introduction of nuclear power, of which there are now at least 12 and possibly more. The scenario speculated that nuclear energy would be more competitive if natural gas prices hovered between $4 and $5 per million British thermal units (they are currently at $6.13); if coal exceeded $70 per ton (in the United States, it averaged $23 per ton on the open market, although prices are highly variable); if a carbon penalty was introduced; and if nuclear investment required less than $2,000 per kilowatt hour.

---sidebar---

A Short History of Nuclear Power in the United States

The first commercial nuclear power plant in the United States began operation in 1960. The Atomic Energy Commission soon forecast that the United States would install 1,000 reactors by the year 2000, but this did not materialize. In the heyday of nuclear power in the United States, 41 orders for nuclear power plants were placed in just one year (1973). Five years later, however, the nuclear bubble burst. The last new nuclear power plant in the United States was ordered in 1978, but it was ultimately cancelled, along with 120 other orders. A combination of high construction and operating costs, safety concerns, the accident at Three Mile Island, and disputes over long-term storage of nuclear waste continued to make nuclear energy more costly than other alternatives. Nonetheless, more than 46 units entered service between 1979 and 1989.

Since then, the U.S. nuclear power industry has steadily improved its safety records and operating capacities and has lowered operating costs. Reactors with 40-year operating lives may now be extended another 20 years. Since 2001, U.S. national policy has supported new nuclear reactors, providing tax incentives, streamlined licensing, and funds for advanced research and development. As a result, utilities have expressed interest in applying for licenses for more than 30 new reactors. The 2005 Energy Policy Act of 2005, signed by President George W. Bush in August 2005, contained significant incentives for new commercial reactors. These include production tax credits, loan guarantees, insurance against regulatory delays, and extension of the Price-Anderson Act nuclear liability system. Higher fossil fuel prices and possible greenhouse gas controls may spur further interest by utilities and other potential reactor developers.

The Bush administration has supported nuclear energy since it entered office. In 2001 the National Energy Policy Development Group, chaired by Vice President Dick Cheney, recommended that Bush “support the expansion of nuclear energy in the United States as a major component of our national energy policy.” Specifically, the group recommended that the United States “reexamine its policies to allow for research, development and deployment of fuel conditioning methods…that reduce waste streams and enhance proliferation resistance. In doing so, the United States will continue to discourage the accumulation of separated plutonium worldwide.” The group also recommended that the United States consider technologies in collaboration with international partners “to develop reprocessing and fuel treatment technologies that are cleaner, more efficient, less waste-intensive, and more proliferation-resistant.”

In fiscal year 2003, the Department of Energy launched the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) to develop and demonstrate nuclear fuel cycles that could reduce the long-term hazards of spent nuclear fuel. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), established in early 2006, is now considered a centerpiece of the AFCI, and much of the AFCI funding will be spent on demonstrating a new spent-fuel separation technology called Urex+.[1]

In introducing GNEP, the Energy Department envisioned that the United States, which currently has 103 operating nuclear reactors, would install 300 reactors by 2050. “Advanced recycling” of fuel is a key part of GNEP. Commercial reprocessing of spent fuel, although rehabilitated by the Reagan administration, ultimately was abandoned for economic reasons. It appears that part of GNEP’s emphasis on recycling fuel is based on the assumption that the United States is unlikely to open a second repository for nuclear waste beyond the already designated site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. At present, the United States has 55,000 metric tons of spent fuel in storage and is producing about 2,000 metric tons per year. U.S. officials have testified before Congress that, by 2010, the Yucca Mountain repository will be oversubscribed, despite an earliest anticipated opening date of 2017. Congress has passed legislation to authorize non-site-specific work related to identifying a second repository.[2] Nonetheless, many observers believe that there is no rush to take care of U.S. spent fuel and that reprocessing may not be the best answer.

Sharon Squassoni

Endnotes:

1. Urex+ chemically removes uranium and other elements from dissolved spent fuel, leaving plutonium and other highly radioactive elements.

2. R. Shane Johnson, Statement before the Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, April 6, 2006.

--Sharon Squassoni is a senior associate with the Nonproliferation Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

---------------------------

Arms Control Today
May 04, 2007

Faux Renaissance: Global Warming, Radioactive Waste Disposal, and the Nuclear Future

Harold A. Feiveson

Over the past 20 years, there has been little or no net growth in installed nuclear capacity in much of the world with the exception of Asia, where there has been some limited new nuclear construction. Many energy analysts now expect, however, a dramatic nuclear renaissance, provoked in part by anxieties over global warming and claims that nuclear power can play a substantial role in easing these concerns.

Yet, nuclear power will have to expand fivefold or more worldwide to make even a modest contribution to greenhouse gas reductions. Such an expansion does not appear feasible in the next quarter-century or longer, and in the interim, there are alternative paths to low-carbon-emitting electricity that appear equally or more promising than nuclear power.

At the same time, the Bush administration and some advocates of this nuclear renaissance are using another environmental concern—the growing quantities of spent fuel—to justify a sharp change in U.S. policy toward spent fuel reprocessing. The administration’s Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) aims at deploying reprocessing on a large scale, thus ending a more than 30-year moratorium in the United States, and coupling this reprocessing with deployment of a fleet of fast reactors designed to burn the plutonium and other transuranics separated in the reprocessing operation. The technologies envisioned, however, have not yet been proven, and even if they were to be developed, they will do little to manage the spent fuel problem while costing an enormous amount of money and risking increased weapons proliferation.

Rather than rushing headlong into promoting nuclear power as a means of curbing global warming, policymakers should take the ample time they have to assess the practical feasibility of implementing other alternatives on a large scale. Until this is done, there is no reason that nuclear power should be privileged by government policies.

Projections

Nuclear power plants often take decades to build. Despite the hoopla over a nuclear renaissance, there is little evidence of a vast surge in construction before 2030, the farthest point in time where the projections at least roughly can be based on actual plans. At the end of 2005, 443 nuclear plants, with an installed capacity of 367 gigawatts-electric (GWe), were in operation in 31 countries. These units provided about 2,700 terawatt hours in 2005, approximately 15 percent of electricity generation worldwide.[1] Six countries—the United States, France, Japan, Germany, Russia, and South Korea—accounted for 75 percent of the capacity. Projections from international, governmental, and private groups vary somewhat but generally fall into the range of 400-600 GWe of installed nuclear power in 2030. For example, the International Energy Agency forecasts a worldwide capacity in 2030 of 416-519 GWe. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) projects a nuclear capacity in 2030 of 414-679 GWe.[2] The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates 2030 capacity at 438 GWe.[3] The trade journal NUKEM, which relied on a “number of informational sources” for its projections, projects a capacity in 2030 of 535 GWe.

For those advocating or expecting a nuclear renaissance, it is the period after 2030 that is of the greatest interest. A 2003 MIT interdisciplinary study presented one scenario of what a nuclear system might look like by mid-century.[4]

The MIT study imagined a worldwide nuclear capacity in 2050 of 1,000-1,500 GWe, respectively termed low and high scenarios. The authors point out that the projection “is certainly not a prediction of rapid growth in nuclear power. Rather, it is an attempt to understand what the distribution of nuclear deployment would be if robust growth were realized.”

It is unlikely that the more robust projections of the expansion of nuclear power will come to pass. Investors in developed countries continue to shy away from nuclear power technology because of the continuing high financial risk they see in the sector. Few developing countries have the infrastructure or incentive to support a large nuclear capacity. It is doubtful that nuclear capacity in 2050 could reach even the low MIT scenario of 1,000 GWe of installed nuclear power, much less the high scenario of 1,500 GWe.

If nuclear power were to grow to 1,000-1,500 GWe by mid-century, it is noteworthy that plants would have to be built in several developing countries that have no or negligible nuclear power today. These countries include Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Mexico, North Korea, Pakistan, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, and Vietnam. A level of 1,000-1,500 GWe of global p