Yucca Mountain News Clips - Thursday, August 14, 2008

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Thursday, August 14, 2008
---------------------------

Las Vegas Review-Journal
August 14, 2008

Nevada gets more time to file Yucca challenges

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Wednesday granted Nevada 30 additional days to file license challenges to the Yucca Mountain repository, short of the extra time the state requested for its preparations.

Attorneys for the state in April asked the nuclear safety commissioners to allow 180 days for participants in license hearings to file "contentions" that challenge aspects of the nuclear waste plan. NRC rules currently allow 30 days.

In a seven-page order, the four-member commission said 180 days was too long to alter longstanding rules.

But they agreed to allow an additional 30 days as a "modest extension of time." On top of the 30 days already allowed, this means the state and other participants in Yucca licensing would have 60 days to file contentions.

The clock starts ticking after the NRC decides whether it will docket and hold hearings on a Yucca Mountain repository application. If the agency decides to move forward, the 60 day period starts when it files a formal notice of hearing. The agency is expected to announce a docketing decision early next month.

Bob Loux, executive director of Nevada's nuclear projects agency, said he welcomed whatever extra time the NRC granted.

"We would have wanted a lot more time but we are grateful we got at least some time," Loux said. "Candidly we were preparing we would get denied in total."

Nevada attorneys have said they might file between 250 and 500 contentions on various elements of the Yucca program in a bid to kill or further delay the project.

Those numbers of contentions would be a record for a nuclear license application, although attorneys say they expect only a portion will be accepted for discussion.

The Department of Energy on June 3 sent the NRC volumes of studies supporting its application to build the Nevada repository to hold 70,000 metric tons of high level radioactive waste.

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

Michigan Business Review
August 14, 2008

Michigan nuclear plan likely faces heavy cost

by Mark Fellows

DTE Energy in the next dozen years aims to do something no American utility has managed in a generation: bring a new nuclear plant online.

It's the only one planned today for Michigan, yet DTE will jostle with utilities around the country to meet federal tax credit eligibility -- starting with an application deadline this year -- and to mobilize a supplier base to a large extent now gone or located overseas.

The state's largest electric utility, with 2.2 million customers, DTE [NYSE: DTE] aims to submit its application to regulators in September, Chairman and CEO Anthony Earley said.

The projected cost of a new reactor approximates DTE's $8.5 billion annual revenues. It's not a cost DTE likely can bear alone.

"We will probably have to look for partners in the plant," Earley said.

"These are going to be expensive plants up front, but once you get them built, they are very efficient and end up being some of the cheapest electricity you can use," Earley said.

DTE's Fermi 2 plant in Frenchtown Township, which hosted Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain on Aug. 5, is now DTE's cheapest plant to run, Earley said.

The stars are aligning to again build nuclear plants across the U.S., as Americans confront higher fuel and energy costs and the fears stoked by malfunctions at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and even Fermi 1 fade.

The lack of greenhouse and other emissions from nuclear plants is positioning them now as the more environmentally friendly option. Michigan's coal plants produce about 70 million tons of carbon dioxide a year, or about 40 percent of the state's total, officials estimate. Federal taxes on such emissions could add to costs of such power in the future, they fear, while no such costs are anticipated for nuclear generation.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission expects to field nearly three dozen applications for new reactors by 2010.

McCain said he wants to see 45 new nuclear plants by 2030.

State's power needs to grow

Michigan producers generate about 105 million megawatt-hours of electricity each year. With peak electricity demand projected by the Michigan Public Service Commission to grow by 1.3 percent annually for the next two decades, new baseload generating capacity will be necessary by 2015. That's the assessment of former MPSC Chairman Peter Larks's 21st Century Electric Energy Plan submitted to the governor in 2007.

A mix of sources will be needed to fill Michigan's need, regulators and utility executives agree, but the state's second-largest electric utility has worked its way out of the nuclear business.

Consumers Energy, the electricity subsidiary of CMS Energy [NYSE: CMS] of Jackson, sold its Palisades nuclear plant near South Haven in 2007. It had abandoned plans for a mostly completed nuclear plant in Midland in 1984 because of construction site issues and post-Three Mile Island regulations, turning it into a gas-fired electrical- and steam-generating plant. Consumers sold its interest in the Midland Cogeneration Venture in 2006.

It more recently completed decommissioning of its Big Rock nuclear plant near Charlevoix, paying the Palisades buyer, Entergy Corp., to take custody of spent fuel there. Executives concluded that one nuclear plant wasn't enough to sustain the work force and other resources for its operation, utility spokesman Jeff Holyfield said.

"We've said that down the road (nuclear) might be something we would look at," Holyfield said.

CMS last December purchased a gas-fired power plant in Zeeland, so for now, coal, natural gas and eventually wind will generate its power.

Consumers, with 1.8 million customers, now is laying plans to build a $2 billion coal-fired plant at its Karn/Weadock Generating Complex near Bay City by 2015.

Both DTE and CMS identify Michigan's semiregulated customer electrical-choice market as an impediment to their plans. Michigan's Public Act 141 allows customers more latitude to choose their electric provider than many states, which utilities say makes their customer base unpredictable and, therefore, unattractive to lenders.

Both state legislative chambers passed bills limiting customer choice to no more than 10 percent of a utility's load, which Earley describes as adequate to take to lenders. The bills are now in conference committee.

Project would add jobs

DTE's proposed reactor would be housed in a new building on the Fermi site, 35 miles south of Detroit. At 1,520 megawatts, the GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy Advanced Boiling Water Reactor is 30 percent larger than Fermi 2, Earley said.

Executives figure the project could create as many as 3,000 construction jobs lasting for the better part of a decade and as many as 800 permanent engineering and other support positions.

That would mean a ripple effect of $500 million annually, by one estimate.

Although nuclear waste still must be stored on site due to the nation's inability to so far bring the Nevada Yucca Mountain site into use, Earley likens that to an annoyance more than a roadblock.

"What's at stake here is an opportunity to really add a number of highly skilled, highly paid jobs to Michigan at a time they are desperately needed, while we are strengthening our infrastructure," he said.

It won't be the last generating plant DTE invests in, given the aging generation infrastructure providing power in Michigan.

"I think we are looking at a building cycle that will last for a number of decades," Earley said.

The average age of a Michigan power plant now is close to 50 years, state regulators said, while the design life-span of such plants tends to be around 65 years.

"If we don't do this, other states are going to be building power plants," Earley said, siphoning energy dollars and jobs from Michigan.

That could add another daunting obstacle to the state's efforts to retool its economy.

"Unless you have reliable and affordable electric supply," Earley said, "any state's going to have trouble attracting businesses."

--Mark Fellows is managing editor of Michigan Business Review.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
August 13, 2008

Nevada gets more time to file Yucca challenges

WASHINGTON -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission today granted Nevada 30 additional days to file license challenges to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, short of the extra time the state wanted for preparations.

Attorneys for the state in April asked the nuclear safety commissioners to allow 180 days for participants in license hearings to file "contentions" challenging aspects of the nuclear waste plan. The rules currently allow 30 days.

In a seven-page order, the four-member commission said 180 days was too long. But they agreed to allow another 30 days, meaning the state and other stakeholders in Yucca licensing have 60 days to file contentions.

The head of Nevada's nuclear projects agency said he was prepared to have the state's request rejected totally, and he welcomed whatever extra time the NRC granted.

Nevada attorneys have said they might file between 250 and 500 contentions, a record for a nuclear license application.

The clock starts ticking when the NRC announces whether it will docket and hold hearings on the repository license application the Department of Energy filed on June 3. The NRC is expected to make that announcement in September.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
August 13, 2008

TV show's host asks Obama campaign to pull commercial

By Molly Ball
Review-Journal

The host of a Northern Nevada news discussion television program has asked the presidential campaign of Democrat Barack Obama to take down a commercial that uses footage from his show.

Sam Shad, host of "Nevada Newsmakers," interviewed Obama's Republican opponent, John McCain, in May 2007. A short clip from that interview is featured in a new Obama campaign ad that takes McCain to task for his support of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

The Obama campaign maintains that permission was not necessary to use the eight seconds of footage that are featured in the ad.

In a letter to Shad on Tuesday, lawyers for the campaign said federal law "provides broad protection for the use of copyrighted work."

Shad said he objects to having footage from his show used for political purposes, an objection other campaigns have honored.

During the primary campaign two years ago, he said, the campaign of Brian Krolicki, then the state treasurer and a Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, used a clip from the show in a commercial critical of another Republican candidate, Barbara Lee Woollen. Shad asked Krolicki's campaign to pull the ad, and it complied, he said.

"My request is not political or partisan in nature, I would request the same of the McCain campaign or anyone else who attempted this," Shad wrote in an e-mail to the Obama campaign lawyers Tuesday. He added, "Your client did not seek permission to use this and it would not have been granted if they did."

Under the copyright law doctrine of "fair use," a small amount of copyrighted material may be excerpted without permission for certain non-commercial purposes, such as when the text of a book is quoted in a book review.

Shad said he did not think the campaign ad met that standard because it was a paid advertisement, not a political commentary. He said Tuesday he was awaiting a further response from the campaign but would consider other options, including legal challenges.

A spokeswoman for the Obama campaign, Kirsten Searer, said the ad, which began airing Monday statewide, would not be pulled or altered.

The clip featured in the ad shows Shad asking McCain, "Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Arizona on its way, you know, going through Phoenix, on its way to Yucca Mountain?"

McCain answers, "No, I would not," and the commercial cuts off the rest.

"He's not worried about nuclear waste in our state -- only in Arizona," a narrator says in the ad, titled "Backyard."

But in the original interview, McCain went on to say, "I think it can be made safe, and ... what people forget is the (other) option of leaving this waste in areas outside, maybe unprotected or certainly not well-protected, all over America rather than having it in a safe and secure repository for it."

--Contact reporter Molly Ball at mball@reviewjournal.com or 702-387-2919.

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

Las Vegas SUN
August 13, 2008

Obama on Yucca

By Jon Ralston

That John McCain is a fervent backer of Yucca Mountain is not in dispute.

So it was hardly surprising that Barack Obama’s first Nevada-specific ad of the cycle would be on the subject near and dear to every candidate who comes to Nevada and every media person who works here, but perhaps not so top of mind to those seeming irrelevancies known as voters.

What is surprising, however, is that the part of an interview with McCain highlighted in the ad, designed to indicate that the Arizona senator balks at shipping nuclear waste through his home state but is fine with its rolling down Nevada’s highways, appears to be quite unfair to the Republican. And that is no one’s fault but McCain’s.

Watching the interview with Sam Shad of “Nevada Newsmakers” from May 2007, it’s apparent McCain simply misunderstood his interlocutor. I don’t suggest that the Obama campaign realized this — although it is pretty obvious — but the exchange is truncated in the ad.

Check for yourself at www.nevadanewsmakers.com (search for McCain), but I will save you the trouble if you prefer not to surf. Here’s the exchange in the ad:

Shad: “Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Arizona on its way, you know going through Phoenix, on its way to Yucca Mountain?”

McCain: “No, I would not. No, I would not.”

But the actual interview has McCain quickly saying all in one breath in answer to Shad’s query, “No, I would not. No, I would not. I think it can be made safe.”

Now why would McCain emphasize how the waste “can be made safe” if he weren’t trying to emphasize he would have no worries about the substance passing through Phoenix? Obviously, he thought Shad was asking him whether he felt comfortable with waste going through Arizona and answered too quickly. So the central point of the ad — that McCain would be wary of it in Arizona but not in Nevada — is simply false.

Now the irony gets richer: The reason McCain was so obviously saying exactly the opposite of what the ad says is because he was trying to show why he is so supportive of Yucca Mountain.

(And even richer: Shad is trying to get the ad pulled because “it is an attack without full context on Sen. McCain.”)

He had previously told Shad “that we have to have a waste repository and that Yucca Mountain is the place it can be made safe.” He also said if the dump doesn’t happen, “we will have a more dangerous situation in my point of view,” with on-site storage, which he called a threat to national security.

The man, quite simply, loves the idea. Or did in May 2007 before he was the presumptive nominee and needed the state he ignored last year. Now he is trying to fudge a little by saying it has to meet “the environmental and safety standards that are necessary,” as he told KLAS-TV’s Mark Sayre over the weekend. That’s the same “sound science” sop — and a meaningless one — President Bush and many others have used.

McCain simply was demonstrating his Yuccalove in that Shad interview, so of course he would be comfortable with nuclear waste going through Arizona. Why? It can be made safe!

Obama’s position on the dump also is worth noting here vis-a-vis the ad, which declares the Democratic contender “opposes opening Yucca.” Indeed, he has said so, although what he can do if it is licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is questionable.

Obama has no record of relevant votes on Yucca Mountain — he was not there for any of the Screw Nevada Bill iterations, nor for the final 2002 votes that sealed the deal with President Bush leading the way and Congress following.

Obama is full of promises and as Hillary Clinton — or is it McCain? — would say, he can give a good speech on Yucca Mountain, but how would he have voted? Remember Illinois is chock-full of nuclear plants and Obama’s ties to Exelon, a major contributor to his campaigns, have been documented in The New York Times and elsewhere. I am not sure that even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could have persuaded Obama to oppose Yucca had the presidential hopeful been in the Senate in 2002.

So with McCain, you pretty much know what’s going to happen on Yucca and with Obama it’s a gamble — a microcosm of the election, from some perspectives at least.

One last note on this subject: Even more than a year ago, McCain’s electoral calculation is clear when he reminded Shad, “The president of the United States supported Yucca Mountain and he was able to carry Nevada in the last election.”

We will soon know whether history repeats.

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

Dallas Morning News
August 13, 2008

Editorial: Candidates offer few nuclear energy specifics

John McCain wants the United States to build 45 new nuclear energy plants by 2030, a plan Barack Obama vows to oppose until the nation can figure out how to secure and dispose of nuclear waste.

Mr. Obama's stand is particularly troublesome because he speaks about safety and security issues as if nuclear power has never been used in this country or anywhere else in the world.

For the record, 104 nuclear plants are operating safely in the United States, and the nuclear waste generated at each is stored on-site. France and Japan depend heavily on nuclear power, and China, Russia and India plan to build more than 100 nuclear facilities.

While Mr. McCain clearly gets the urgency of this issue much more clearly than Mr. Obama, the nation deserves many more specifics from him. He is absolutely right when he says the United States needs nuclear energy as it weans itself from foreign oil and fossil fuels.

But if the Republican is serious about adding new plants, he should propose a strategy to get past roadblocks. After all, a new nuclear plant hasn't been built in this country in about three decades.

The typical nuclear plant costs $6 billion to $8 billion to build, an investment many utilities will not make without assurances that the federal government won't pull the financial rug from beneath the industry, as it did after Three Mile Island in 1979.

Mr. McCain should be proposing tax incentives, regulatory changes or other measures to encourage utilities to make these sizeable investments. The industry also needs a commitment to build a storage facility to handle the waste, an issue that should have been resolved a decade ago. On that latter point, Mr. McCain has taken the "not in my back yard" position – backing plans to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada but opposing the transportation of waste through his home state of Arizona.

Enough posturing. We're eager to hear details of what it will take to turn this energy option into a reality.

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

Reno Gazette-Journal
August 12, 2008

We can't be nation's radioactive dump

By Lydia Ball

For years, Nevadans have successfully beat back plans to build a massive nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, just 90 miles from Las Vegas.

Now, as we find ourselves sinking deeper into an energy crisis, the nuclear energy industry is pushing to build more plants around the country. Some leaders from outside our state want to double the number of nuclear plants in America.

There is one very big problem with this: It would also double the production of nuclear waste. And right now the only plan for dealing with that waste is to ship it all here, to Nevada.

The high-level nuclear waste that would be transported is nasty stuff. It contains elements that decay slowly and remain radioactive for hundreds or thousands of years and is so dangerous that it must be handled by remote-control from behind protective shielding to protect workers. Under the latest proposals, 15,638 casks of nuclear waste would travel to Nevada. Each cask would carry between 2 and 15 tons of high-level waste.

Our state isn't the only one that would be at risk. On its way here, the nuclear waste would travel through more than 703 counties in 45 states. More than 123 million people live along the proposed truck routes alone. And more than 10 million people live within a half-mile of the proposed routes.

But ultimately, we in Nevada will be most vulnerable to a disaster. Each time a load of nuclear waste crosses our state line, there will be a chance that something could go wrong: a high-speed collision, a dangerous fire, a terrorist attack, a spill, a fire or worse. One mistake is too many. And this chance isn't so small when you consider the tens of thousands of shipments they're planning on making. This is a risk we simply can't take.

Building new nuclear plants doesn't even make economic sense. Based on cost estimates put forth by utilities like Florida Power and Light, plans to build 100 new nuclear plants could cost our nation more than $1 trillion. And the environmental and health costs of a nuclear transport accident are incalculable.

The fevered push for more nuclear energy just serves as a distraction from the real, safe, clean energy solutions we should be focused on, like efficiency and wind and solar power.

These solutions would not just keep Nevadans out of harm's way -- they would actually benefit our state by creating jobs. An investment in real clean energy will breathe new life into our economy and will reposition America as a technological leader in the world.

When there are so many good solutions on the table, it doesn't make sense to waste time and money on ill-conceived, dangerous, and costly plans for new nuclear facilities. There are answers to our energy crisis, but making Nevada the nation's nuclear dumping ground isn't one of them.

--Lydia Ball is regional representative of the Sierra Club in Las Vegas.

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

San Luis Obispo Tribune
August 12, 2008

Court ruling: PG&E should get more money for government's failure to open nuclear waste facility

By David Sneed
dsneed@thetribunenews.com

A federal court of appeals has ruled that Pacific Gas and Electric should be able to recover a greater amount of its costs for expenses it has incurred storing used reactor fuel at Diablo Canyon and Humboldt Bay nuclear power plants.

In 1998, the utility successfully sued the Department of Energy for failing to open a national storage repository for highly radioactive nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert.

PG&E sought $92.1 million from the agency to recover its costs through 2004.

The Federal Court of Claims ruled that the utility should only get $42.8 million using the assumption that the utility would have incurred some expenses even if the repository had opened in a timely manner.

The Aug. 7 court of appeals ruling overturned the lower court's ruling and directed it to recalculate the amount PG&E will receive.

PG&E officials have called the ruling important and have promised to return the money to ratepayers.

The utility will work with the Public Utilities Commission to determine how the money would be returned to ratepayers once the case is settled, said Diablo Canyon spokesman Pete Resler.

PG&E estimates that has spent $200 million through 2007 building dry cask storage facilities at Diablo Canyon and Humboldt Bay as well as installing a temporary storage rack for the spent fuel pools at Diablo Canyon. The Humboldt Bay plant was shut down in 1983.

--Reach David Sneed at 781-7930.

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

Facing South
August 12, 2008

New high-level nuclear waste dump could be slated for the South

by Sue Sturgis

The Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group for the U.S. nuclear industry, is in the process of selecting at least two rural U.S. communities to serve as potential dump sites for highly radioactive spent fuel from the nation's nuclear power plants.

The NEI refuses to identify the communities being considered or even say what region they're in. But while a representative of the group has said New England is not a candidate, he refuses to say the same about the South.

"We're in a very preliminary stage," Marshall Cohen, who's heading NEI's selection process, tells Facing South. "It's not appropriate to characterize geography yet."

Cohen recently disclosed to a reporter from Connecticut that her region was not home to the communities being considered, according to Linda Gunter of the Maryland-based watchdog group Beyond Nuclear. NEI initially considered seven sites and narrowed the choice to two, Beyond Nuclear reports. The communities under consideration already have nuclear installations of some kind.

The sites would serve as storage facilities for the spent fuel currently being stored on the grounds of nuclear power plants until -- and if -- the Department of Energy's controversial Yucca Mountain high-level radioactive waste dump opens in Nevada. Yucca Mountain was supposed to begin accepting spent fuel in 1998 but has faced numerous delays due to legal challenges and other problems. There is still no official opening date set for that facility.

In March of this year, the Las Vegas Sun reported that NEI "was quietly talking to communities across the nation to see if they are interested in hosting a temporary waste storage site -- perhaps not just a dump, but a nuclear industrial park that could support ancillary businesses and bring in jobs."

Beyond Nuclear criticizes the secretive site selection process as undemocratic.

"NEI and the two mayors should tell their communities and the neighboring towns they are being targeted for radioactive waste traffic," says Paul Gunter, Beyond Nuclear's director of reactor oversight. "This is not a decision that should be made behind closed doors but in the full light of day."

But Cohen blames Beyond Nuclear for the secrecy, alleging that if the targeted communities were disclosed the group would "immediately scare and frighten them with misinformation."

Besides, he adds, after NEI selects the sites they still have to undergo the official licensing process, which offers an opportunity for public input.

Labels: Beyond Nuclear, Nuclear Energy Institute, nuclear power, nuclear waste, Yucca Mountain

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

Janesville Gazette
August 12, 2008

Croaking Canaries

By Joel McNally

When even Democratic politicians start warming to the idea of building new nuclear power plants, which have banned from Wisconsin since 1983, our canaries could start croaking any day.

Coal miners used to take canaries into the mines to warn them of danger. Canaries were highly sensitive to poisonous build-ups of carbon monoxide. When the canaries started toppling over with little Xs over their eyes, miners knew to scramble for their lives.

Surprisingly, Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle embraced a task force recommendation to modify the ban on new nuclear plants approved by voters statewide 25 years ago.

When we hear somebody suggesting we reconsider our prescient decision to curtail nuclear power, it’s usually some cartoon villain like Mr. Burns on The Simpsons or Vice President Dick Cheney.

Doyle sounded almost Cheneyian when he suggested those who refused to consider nuclear power were burying their heads in the sand.

It’s certainly true that our world has changed a lot since voters approved the ban on new nuclear plants 25 years ago. But what Doyle didn’t say was that the most dramatic changes have made proliferation of nuclear power even more frightening.

When Wisconsin voters approved the nuclear moratorium in 1983, the world did not yet have the example of the Chernobyl nuclear accident of 1986. But that cataclysmic event sure made us look smart.

The largest release of radioactivity from a nuclear power plant in history turned an area of the Ukraine once considered the breadbasket of the Soviet Union into a wasteland that now goes by far grimmer nicknames such as the “Dead Zone” and the “Zone of Alienation.”

Not only that, but the plume of radioactive fallout, 30 to 40 times that released by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, eventually drifted over most of Europe and even eastern parts of North America.

The other major world event since 1983, of course, was 9/11. Along with everything else that changed after that momentous event was increased awareness of all the deadly dangers around us.

That is made even more frightening because of one thing that absolutely has not changed in the quarter of a century since Wisconsin approved the moratorium on new nuclear plants.

As Wisconsin wisely decreed in 1983, new nuclear plants should not be built until there is a national or international disposal site where the deadly, radioactive waste the plants generate can be safely stored.

Guess what? Twenty-five years later, there still isn’t. The Bush administration has attempted to turn Yucca Mountain in Nevada into a nuclear waste dump, but legal battles and geological questions make the site increasingly unlikely.

As difficult as it’s been to secure a disposal site, that’s just the beginning. The idea of transporting deadly, nuclear waste from all over the country, through our towns and cities and countryside, certainly would require far more careful planning and competence than the current administration has ever demonstrated.

The development of nuclear power always has required a shocking human arrogance and lack of concern about the near impossibility of protecting future generations from growing stockpiles of radioactive nuclear waste that remain deadly for hundreds of thousands of years.

The age of terrorism has multiplied every danger. The nuclear by-product of plutonium can be easily converted into handy-dandy nuclear weapons by sinister movements or whacked-out individuals bent on destroying human life.

It’s been so long since we’ve actually had to worry about building new nuclear plants, many people today have never heard of Three Mile Island or the Academy Award winning film, The China Syndrome, or the compelling, non-fiction book by journalist John Fuller, We Almost Lost Detroit.

It’s not surprising to hear Republican presidential candidate John McCain promise millionaire executives 45 new nuclear plants after he gets done personally drilling all of our nation’s beaches for oil.

But we’ve counted on Doyle and the Democratic state Senate to protect us from Assembly Republicans, who voted earlier this year to lift the nuclear moratorium.

If Doyle’s gone over to the dark side, we may have to start giving our canaries CPR any day now.

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

Columbus Free Press
August 12, 2008

No nukes! Challenge Sen. Voinovich's Pro-Nuclear Stance

by Sierra Club

Senator Voinovich brags that he introduced 2002 legislation that continued the Price Anderson indemnity for the nuclear power industry, thus allowing further nuclear power development. The Nuclear team of the Ohio Sierra Club is organizing a rally to challenge Senator George Voinovich’s support for the expansion of nuclear power in Ohio. At a time when Ohioans are already reeling from multiple economic blows and environmental devastation, a ramping up of nuclear power will only leave the state with more contamination, more sickness and more debt. Like others in the pro-nuclear lobby, Voinovich has tried pasting a happy face on nuclear power by claiming that nukes are “clean, green, safe and cheap” and that they offer a solution to the global climate crisis. But the truth lies in the opposite direction.

If the world is to avoid catastrophic global warming we must start reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions immediately. More reactors cannot halt climate change in time. Even if nuclear power were clean and safe (which it is not) it would take more than 300 new reactors in the U.S. and 1,500 worldwide just to make a dent in greenhouse gas emissions. One reactor takes at least 10 years and upwards of $6 billion to build. Since climate protection will take loads of money, every $ must be spent as efficiently as possible. Study after study concludes that nuclear power comes out as the most expensive energy option. According to the highly regarded energy efficiency analyst Amory Lovins, “If you buy more nuclear plants, you ‘re going to get about two to ten times less climate solution per dollar, and you’ll get it about twenty to forty times slower” than efficient use of electricity, renewables and micropower.

Nuclear power is not emissions-free. The fossil-fuel intensive processes of mining, milling, enriching and fabricating uranium fuel plus all the failed attempts at storing the radioactive waste add up to enormous quantities of CO2 emissions. Then there’s the problem of where to store the high level radioactive waste for the next 240,000 years. Building 1,000 new reactors in the world would require a new Yucca Mountain-sized dump every 4 years. So far the world hasn’t figured out how to safely store even the first cupful of the thousands of tons of high level waste that are piled up next to the reactors. The Chernobyl explosion and its lingering radioactive fallout have killed at least 500,000 people in horribly, painful ways.2 Twenty years later there are still food restrictions caused by the fallout in certain places that are thousands of miles from the site.3 Expanding nuclear power means increasing the risks of another Chernobyl-type accident. Then there are the routine releases of radioactive gases from reactors into the surrounding communities.

Since winning election to the U.S. Senate in 1999, Senator Voinovich has been an outspoken proponent for nuclear power. He is the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change and Nuclear Safety, which has jurisdiction over the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and legislation pertaining to nuclear energy. He was a major supporter of the 2005 Energy Policy Act which provides over $13 billion in subsidies for the nuclear industry. Senator Voinovich wrote in an article in the March 2008 issue of Nuclear News titled Making the Nuclear Renaissance a Reality in which he says “I intend to work with my colleagues in the Senate to build bipartisan support and leadership for making the nuclear renaissance a reality.”

Senator Voinovich and other nuclear industry advocates have identified Ohio as susceptible to these deceptive claims that nuclear energy is clean, green, safe, cheap and an answer to global warming. Let him know that you know differently. Please join in this critical effort to oppose the actions of Senator Voinovich and the nuclear industry for the sake of Ohio’s economy and environment.

***Please write to Senator George Voinovich, 37 W. Broad St., Columbus, OH 43215 and ask him to stop promoting nuclear power. For more information contact Ohio Sierra Club Nuclear Committee Chair Pat Marida at 614-890-7865 or marida@wideopenwest.com.

***Come to the rally on Sept. 9 between 11:45 and 1pm at 37 W. Broad in downtown Columbus!

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

Heritage Foundation
August 12, 2008

A Letter to Alec “The Atom Bomb” Baldwin

Nick Loris

Dear Alec Baldwin,

I really don’t know much about you except that your acting as a New York media mogul in 30 Rock is awesome. Yet, your acting as an expert on nuclear energy is—well—pretty weak.

In The Huffington Post on Sunday you discussed “The Misconception(s) of Nuclear Power.” Your first concern is safety, claiming that “Grave concerns linger to this day about how to safely dispose of nuclear waste. Since 9/11, security issues dominate much of the debate.” I’m going to go out on a limb and say that security issues have dominated the debate about nuclear power for much longer than that, but if it’s a plane crashing into a reactor you’re worried about, they’ve got it covered. Watch this. I should also mention that after 9/11 that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) responsibly took the initiative to increase patrols, add more physical barriers, implement tighter restrictions on access control sites, and enhanced emergency preparedness and response plans. A full background report can be found here. I can’t remember the last time a nuclear plant was attacked in the U.S. Oh yeah, it hasn’t ever happened.

Disposing of nuclear waste isn’t an issue either—at least not technologically.

Anti-nuclear extremists like you use the transportation of nuclear waste as a scare tactic when it’s a non-issue. Nuclear waste has been transported on roads and railways worldwide for years without a significant incident. Indeed, more than 20 million packages with radioactive materials are transported globally each year–3 million of them in the United States. Since 1971, more than 20,000 shipments of spent fuel and high-level waste have been transported more than 18 million miles without incident. Transportation of radioactive materials is just not a problem.

Furthermore, there are plenty of solutions to dispose of the waste. Admittedly, the current management of used nuclear fuel is not working (largely because of the government) in the United States and needs significant overhaul. Regardless, used nuclear fuel can be removed from the reactor, reprocessed to separate unused fuel, and then used again. The remaining waste could then be placed in either interim or long-term storage, such as in the Yucca Mountain repository. France and other countries carry out some version of this process safely every day. Furthermore, technology advances could yield greater efficiencies and improve the process.

You also say nuclear poses a significant health risk, saying that “[…] no level of exposure to ambient radiation produced every day at utility sites is healthy for humans, particularly pregnant women and young children.” It’s true that nuclear power plants emit radiation, but there’s probably more in your house. Perhaps this chart would do you some good. The truth is that the radiation from nuclear power plants is well under the legal safety limits set by the NRC, and there is no scientific evidence that local populations have been ill-affected from commercial nuclear power plants.

And lastly you claim that nuclear energy isn’t clean. To quote you, “The mining of uranium, like the excavation of any other resource that must be discovered, torn out of the ground and carted away, along with the handling of excess rubble, by heavy equipment, could not be any more polluting.” You know what the money phrase is in this quote, Mr. Baldwin? Like the excavation of any other resource. Think about it. Whether you like it or not, the world currently runs on fossil fuel. Until the nation changes its energy profile–which can be done with nuclear energy–almost any activity, even building windmills, will result in CO2 emissions. And if you’d like to learn the truth about “dirty uranium mining” you should read this paper.

If you’d like to respond, you can call me here at The Heritage Foundation. If I don’t answer, feel free to leave a voicemail.

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

PolitickerNV
August 11, 2008

McCain takes the long way to Yucca Mountain

By Rob Tornoe

Editorial Cartoon:
http://www.politickernv.com/files/politickernv/images/yucca-footsteps.preview.jpg

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

KLAS-TV
August 11, 2008

Senator John McCain Talks Nevada Politics

Monday morning, Arizona Senator John McCain toured a General Motors plant in Erie, Pennsylvania. The presumed Republican candidate met with employees, then had a town hall meeting.

McCain was joined by former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge -- who is rumored to be a potential running mate.

Senator McCain was here in Las Vegas over the weekend. He sat down with reporter Mark Sayre, who asked Senator McCain about the Culinary Union's support for Democrats.

Mark Sayre: For members of various unions -- including the Culinary -- that might be watching this interview, give them one reason to not go with what their union says, which is to vote for Barack Obama. Why should they consider voting for you?

Sen. John McCain: Jobs, taxes, an economy that will improve dramatically. I believe that people should not have their taxes increased. Senator Obama wants to increase their taxes. I think the government should not run health care in America. Senator Obama does. And security -- let me tell you, in those unions, there are a whole lot of veterans and a whole lot of people have served our country and they know I would make a commander in chief that they could rely on."

Senator McCain also reiterated his support for Yucca Mountain -- as long as all safety and environmental standards are met.

Mark Sayre: "Why not hit the word Yucca Mountain right on point and talk to Nevadans about the Yucca Mountain Project while you were here?"

Sen. John McCain: "Well, I have been right on point, and I will continue to be. Yucca Mountain, I think, needs to be used as long as it meets the environmental and safety standards that are necessary. But let me also tell you what we need -- we need to reprocess spent nuclear fuel and that way we can reduce the amount of waste. Senator Obama opposes both storage and reprocessing. The French, the British and the Japanese now all reprocess -- that could reduce the amounts of that dramatically. And finally could I just mention -- I was at nuclear power plant in Michigan recently. They've got a pool there with spent nuclear fuel in it. We've got these pools all over America. It is a significant national security risk."

He also feels Nevada would greatly benefit from his plan to help solve the housing crisis.

"I realize that in Nevada, housing is a huge issue. I think we ought to try -- to have a plan that allows a homeowner to go down and get a 30-year FHA guaranteed loan -- 30 year loan -- at the new value of their home so they can stay in their home. Nevada is hurting in their economy in many ways, but the housing crisis is really vital and we have got to help people stay in their homes -- not reward the greedy speculator that came to Arizona or Nevada and bought two houses and decided to leave them empty. But we have got to help people stay in their homes."

We also asked the senator about his view of on-the-job worker safety.

Mark Sayre: "If I could draw on your experience in the U.S. Senate. You probably are aware that we have had quite a few workplace fatalities in this state with all of these projects here on the Strip. Federal OSHA, and the state component here in Nevada, have been under scrutiny. What is your view of OSHA? Do you think it just complicates things for employers or do you think it is an important part of the fabric of America for the American worker?"

Sen. John McCain: "I think it a very important part of America for the American worker. This goes back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt, when they had terrible conditions in some workplaces in America. We have an obligation, as a federal government, to do what we can to help protect the lives and safety of the American worker."

Mark Sayre: "And as President, there's nothing on your agenda that would weaken OSHA or OSHA protections for the American worker?"

Sen. John McCain: "Oh no. Look -- these are hard working Americans. Probably the hardest working Americans -- I don't mean to be comparative -- but the fact is these people work so hard in this construction business. It is inherently dangerous. So we've got to provide them with all the safety and protections that we can."

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

Las Vegas SUN
August 11, 2008

Letter to The Editor:

McCain oblivious to Nevada’s needs

Frank O’Neill

Las Vegas

Just a reminder to Nevada voters: What would bring the two topics of Yucca Mountain and sports gambling together? Easy — John McCain.

He favors the establishment of a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain that could bring more than 100,000 tons of nuclear waste over our highways that would be placed in the ground less than 100 miles from Las Vegas.

If that isn’t enough of a damaging blow to Las Vegas, he also has favored the outlawing of betting on college sports, which would also hurt Las Vegas quite a bit.

So, remember, Las Vegans: John McCain does not care about Las Vegas and Nevada.

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

Grist Magazine
August 11, 2008

Waste not, want not

Obama campaign targets McCain's support of dumping nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain

Posted by Kate Sheppard

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama released a new ad over the weekend in Nevada, targeting Republican rival John McCain's support for dumping nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain.

"Imagine trucks hauling the nation's nuclear waste on our highways to Yucca Mountain," the ad says. "John McCain supports opening Yucca. He's not worried about nuclear waste in our state -- only in Arizona."

The ad then replays video of a May 2007 interview with McCain in which he appears to say that he would not want nuclear waste trucked through his home state of Arizona. Grist has covered this particular video before, and if you watch the rest of his response, which the Obama ad cuts off, it's clear that McCain seems to have either misheard or misunderstand the question (as he has with other questions on environmental issues). He goes on to say that he thinks the technology can be made safe, and that having waste in insecure locations around the country is dangerous.

"What people forget is the option of leaving this waste in areas outside, maybe unprotected, certainly not well protected, all over America, rather than having it in a safe and secure repository for it," McCain continued. "I preferred not having the status quo. And, I think it is a national security issue."

That's not to say McCain's support of nuclear is unproblematic. Despite the candidate's love affair with nuclear power, he hasn't addressed concerns about safety or the problem of where all this waste from those new reactors should go. And while McCain is an avid supporter of dumping at Yucca Mountain, most Nevadans oppose plans to deposit the waste in their state.

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

Morris Daily Herald
August 11, 2008

DOE study will solely address if, not where, for nuclear recycling

By Jo Ann Hustis
Herald Writer

CHICAGO - Morris could possibly still be in the running for a nuclear recycling facility - not now, but maybe in the future, a federal spokesman says.

“The key word here is ‘maybe,'” noted Brian Quirke of the U.S. Department of Energy.

“I know people likes yeses and nos, but we can't say that at this point. It is premature to say whether Morris will ever be considered in the future siting processes for GNEP-type activities.”

GNEP is the acronym for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program.

The DOE in early 2007 had eyed the GE nuclear spent fuel storage site on East Pine Bluff Road at Morris as a location for a proposed nuclear fuel recycling center and advance recycling reactor.

Late last month, however, the DOE eliminated all siting decisions from the GNEP's Program-matic Environmental Impact Statement, including Morris and Argonne National Laboratory, to decide instead on recycling spent fuel or disposing of it at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

“No, it doesn't wipe Morris out permanently,” Quirke said Thursday of the decision.

“In 2007, when the DOE introduced the idea of GNEP to Illinois, there were two purposes for the PEIS. These were to make the decision whether or not the country should recycle spent fuel from commercial reactors. The other was where we should be doing that.”

As of now, however, the DOE is streamlining the process by focusing on the most important public policy issue.

“Of whether or not we should recycle spent fuel,” he said. “That decision means the DOE will not be considering sites as a part of this PEIS. We said this four months ago, except then the DOE was still considering sites for the laboratory, and Argonne was still in consideration.

“We've now streamlined this process to focus on one question, and we've decided not to consider sites within this document - the (P)EIS.”

After the DOE finishes its decision-making about recycling spent nuclear fuel, the agency may begin a new process to select sites where the reprocessing will be conducted.

Morris is out of the running for now as part of this document, however.

In the future, depending on the outcome of the PEIS, the agency may identify and select specific sites for GNEP-type activities, Quirke noted.

“This will be done in a separate Environmental Impact Statement process, complete with public hearings,” he said.

“The sites in Illinois might be considered under those separate EIS documents in the future.”

The DOE is to be finishing the PEIS this month.

The next step is release of a draft PEIS, which is ex-pected within a few months.

“When we announce the release of the draft statement, we will also announce the public hearings on the draft,” Quirke said.

The decision-making process is complicated, he noted of the site selection, which included public hearings within the 13 areas nationwide under consideration.

All told, about 14,000 comments were received last year by the DOE, which reconsidered its proposals on specific facilities in light of these and other considerations.

“It frequently seems like the federal government is not listening to people who pay our salaries, but we have been,” said Quirke. “We're not required to do what people tell us to, but we are required to listen, and that's what we've done.”

A recycler at the Morris GE site would break down spent nuclear fuel into its various components. The reactor at the site would then burn up the waste remaining after the breakdown. That left after the burning process would be transported to Yucca Mountain in Nevada for long-term storage.

The DOE was considering Argonne National Laboratory as the site for the advanced fuel cycle facility, or lab, which needs to be built and operated in advance of the recycler/reactor.

The lab provides for re-searchers to finalize the design for the recycler/reactor before it is built on a commercial scale.

Some parts of processes that would go on in a commercial scale plant, such as the proposed Morris recycler/reactor, would be tested at the lab via computerized modeling and simulation.

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

Las Vegas SUN
August 10, 2008

Letter from Washington:

Energy platforms could sway state’s voters

Visions of a nuclear waste dump 90 miles from Las Vegas and a solar revolution play out in election

By Lisa Mascaro

Washington — The wide open Southern Nevada desert has always been home to such hope and heartache. Dreamers have been coming here for generations to build something out of nothing, mining the gold deep in its rocks, testing bombs in the name of national defense, entertaining the world on its glittery, gambling Strip.

With every development comes a legacy, etching itself into the narrative of a place. Gold mining booms come and go. Test site workers protect a nation, but expose themselves to sickness. Casinos gamble on a dream, and win a fortune.

Now, once again, choices will be made in the desert. This summer, as high gas prices dominate the national political debate, the desert has emerged as an important road to the White House.

Nevada holds the answers to some of the larger questions being asked of the nation about the country’s future energy policy.

Will the state store the nation’s nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, as has been planned for decades and, perhaps, foster a local boom for related industries, as supporters envision?

Or will the land play host to a green rush — a new generation of engineers and entrepreneurs who want to blanket the landscape with solar panels to power the cities in ways we’ve only imagined?

Nevada is a swing state this presidential election year and is showing itself among the most politically unpredictable in the nation. The state’s shifting demographics and a fiercely independent streak make projecting Nevada’s presidential choice virtually impossible.

Both presidential candidates support nuclear energy as well as renewable energy development, but in discussing their energy policies last week, they offered stark reminders that they have different ideas for what will become of this land.

Sen. John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, supports Yucca Mountain, the nation’s proposed waste dump 90 miles north of Las Vegas.

The presumed Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, does not.

McCain called out that difference during a speech urging construction of as many as 45 new nuclear plants, telling the crowd, according to reports, that his opponent “says no to nuclear storage and no to nuclear processing. I could not disagree more.”

Obama later the same day widened the divide during an interview with the Sun’s Jon Ralston on Channel 8.

“John McCain is in favor of Yucca Mountain,” Obama said. “I’m opposed to it.”

Yucca Mountain is at a critical juncture after decades in development. The storage site once envisioned by Washington as a solution to the nuclear waste problem is now 20 years behind schedule. A report last week put total construction and operating costs at $96.2 billion, substantially higher than previous estimates.

Federal regulators are expected to decide by Labor Day whether to advance the government’s application for the dump to the next stage. Many believe they will.

Obama has vowed to halt that process if elected. McCain would continue development.

Yucca’s opponents, including Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader, often say the project is dead. But it is the upcoming presidential election, perhaps more than any other expected action, that will determine its future.

Nevadans overwhelmingly oppose Yucca Mountain, yet it remains low among their political priorities. Could that change in a year when the election could determine the fate — finally — of Yucca?

Could a hot summer of record energy prices, and the worries about a cold winter ahead, be enough to soften attitudes toward Yucca? Could the threat of climate change made worse by coal-fired power plants play a role? Nuclear power is carbon-free. Is that enough to overtake worries about the waste dump?

Many people have come to this desert with an idea for a future. Now voters might well play a central role in the presidential election — and in deciding what comes next for Yucca.

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

Lahontan Valley News
August 09, 2008

Churchill County joins others in nuclear repository investigations

By Stephanie Carroll

The Churchill County Commissioners approved an interlocal agreement on Thursday among Churchill, Esmeralda, Nye and Mineral counties to investigate issues and activities connected to the proposed first high-level nuclear and radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain.

Yucca Mountain is 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Nye County, which is bordered by Churchill, Esmeralda and Mineral counties, among others.

In 1978 the Department of Energy began investigating Yucca Mountain as a possible site for the repository, which will store waste produced by nuclear power generation and national defense projects, according to the Mineral County Yucca Mountain Oversight Project Web page.

After years of research and development, the Energy Department submitted an application in 2008 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a license to build and operate the repository, according to the Web page.

“It’s a massive project,” said Robert List, senior council for Armstrong Teasdale LLP, the group representing Churchill and other counties at the licensing proceedings. “The effects on the state of Nevada are far reaching.”

There is no certainty of when this project will be completed, but List said that if everything went perfectly, the repository would be finished by 2019.

The waste will be transported via train and truck from 126 different sites from across the nation, so it will have to be brought in through various counties and communities, including Churchill County. Transporting nuclear waste through populated areas poses some problems.

List explained that as a part of the licensing procedure, counties may experience an impact from this project have the ability to conduct their own investigations and submit contentions, or problems and suggestions, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

“They’ve been very receptive to our suggestions,” he said.

Rex Massey, administrator for the program in Churchill County, explained that the point of the inter-local agreement is to join the four counties together in their investigations, so only one party conducts the investigations rather than all four. List also noted that they have acquired power by joining together.

“Our joint representation with the other counties has given us strength,” List said. “It doesn’t go unnoticed by the NRC.”

Under this agreement Mineral County will conduct all investigations and is responsible for conducting research on transportation issues, providing public information, maintaining an updating a Web site for public information, maintaining a Yucca Mountain geographic information system and databases and attending National and regional nuclear waste meetings, conferences and site visits.

The investigation project will cost $100,000. Churchill, Mineral and Esmeralda counties will pay 17 percent each and Nye County will pay 49 percent.

The most pertinent issue for Churchill County is the transportation of nuclear waste.

“This is one area we think is of relevance and significance to Churchill County,” List said.

If nuclear waste is brought through U.S. Highway 50 or U.S. Highway 95, there is more potential for accidents and spills.

“It’s dangerous with the truck traffic we have now,” Chair Gwen Washburn said. “Coming through town is definitely a problem.”

Another option is to build a bypass that will take trucks to the Yucca Mountain area without going through the county. However, County Commissioner Norman Frey explained a bypass would also be used as an alternative by travelers, which would take away an important revenue source.

Although these circumstances pose a lot of possible problems, there may be an upside to it as well.

Washburn said the construction of a rail route could provide economic development for Churchill County. Also trucks coming through the county will bring in more revenue, Frey added.

“We’re trying to make the best out of a bad situation,” Massey said.

Also at the County Commissioners meeting: — Sierra Pacific will be notifying the public of likely electrical price increases due to the nearly doubling of natural gas prices in the past year.

— The Churchill County Road Department recently finished the Allen Road Microsurface and Chipseal Projects, which consisted of basic road maintenance.

— Commissioner approved the New Frontier Litigation Recovery Agreement, which will allow for involved parties to pursue recovery against all possible responsible parties from the March 26, 2007, fire that occurred at the New Frontier Treatment Center.

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

AP Google
August 09, 2008

Obama launches Yucca attack at McCain

The Associated Press

TITLE: "Backyard"

LENGTH: 30 seconds.

AIRING: In Las Vegas and Reno, Nev., markets starting Monday.

SCRIPT: Announcer: "Imagine trucks hauling the nation's nuclear waste on our highways to Yucca Mountain? John McCain supports opening Yucca. He's not worried about nuclear waste in our state — only in Arizona." Clip from May 2007 television interview: Reporter: "Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Arizona on its way, you know going through Phoenix, on its way to Yucca Mountain? John McCain: "No, I would not. No, I would not." Narrator: "John McCain. For nuclear waste in Nevada, just not in his backyard. Barack Obama opposes opening Yucca. He'll protect our families.

Obama: "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message."

KEY IMAGES: The spot opens with images of what appear to be nuclear waste storage canisters loaded on a flatbed, a radioactive material warning sign and a truck driving on a desert highway. It's followed by photos of Yucca Mountain, a "Welcome to Nevada" sign and photos of John McCain. The ad then cuts to a clip of the television interview and close-up on McCain with the words, "John McCain, for nuclear waste in Nevada." Idyllic images of Arizona red rocks follow accompanied by the words, "John McCain, against nuclear waste in Arizona." The spot ends with images of Obama talking to voters.

ANALYSIS: Yucca Mountain, a proposed nuclear waste repository under construction 90 miles outside Las Vegas, has become a political football in presidential campaigns as Nevada has become a contested state. Most voters say they oppose Yucca Mountain, but it's not yet clear how the issue affects Nevadans' votes for president.

In 2000, George W. Bush promised not to allow temporary storage at the site, and then approved the Yucca Mountain for permanent storage during his first term in office.

In 2004, Democratic nominee John Kerry came out strongly opposed to the site and tried to paint Bush as breaking his initial promise. Bush narrowly won the state anyway.

Obama, who is opposed to Yucca Mountain, is taking a slightly different approach.

McCain has a long voting record in the Senate in support of the repository. He has repeated his position in several campaign stops in the state, and his campaign has suggested voters may respect the Arizona senator for sticking to his opinion, however unpopular.

Obama's ad uses a short clip of a television interview to suggest McCain wouldn't take such a bold stance in his own state.

The ad does not include McCain's full comments from the May 2007 interview, in which the Republican also said he believed the transport of waste could be made safe and that the current storage situation was also dangerous.

"What people forget is the option of leaving this waste in areas outside, maybe unprotected, certainly not well protected, all over America, rather than having it in a safe and secure repository for it," McCain said. "I preferred not having the status quo. And, I think it is a national security issue."

--Analysis by Kathleen Hennessey

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

NEI Nuclear Notes

August 09, 2008

LA Times Editorial: Fact Checking Required

The LA Times today published an inaccurate and sloppy editorial stating: "McCain's energy plan misleads the public and ignores the risks of nuclear energy." Nearly every claim in this opinion piece on nuclear energy is either grossly exaggerated or wrong. The editorial also makes several qualitative statements unsupported by facts to play into the fears of its readers. Here are a few:

McCain claims that nuclear power is clean, safe and cheap, but it is none of the above. Nuclear waste remains hazardous for millenniums, and this country still hasn't developed a practical way to store it.

No "practical" way to store the used fuel, huh? I guess the LA Times hasn't heard of Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Congress designated YM, which is in the middle of a desert 100 miles from the nearest city, to store the nuclear industry's used fuel. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has just begun reviewing the application submitted by the Department of Energy to build the repository.

Yes, used fuel is hazardous for millennia. But being hazardous doesn't mean used fuel will actually harm anyone. After nuclear fuel has been fissioned in a reactor, it cools in a spent fuel pool for at least five years before being moved into dry casks. Both spent fuel pools and dry casks keep nuclear workers and the public safe from the used fuel. Here's a video showing the strength of dry casks.

Also, here's the nuclear industry's plan for managing its used fuel (pdf):

1. interim storage

2. research, development and demonstration to close the nuclear fuel cycle, and

3. development of a permanent disposal facility that is suitable for the final waste form.

So instead of having to isolate the used fuel for several thousand years, we will only have to isolate certain byproducts [after reprocessing] for several hundred years.

On to more bogus claims from the LA Times:

The risk of meltdowns or other serious accidents remains high

Risk is in the eye of the beholder. According to page three of this EPRI document (pdf), "industry CDF [core damage frequency - basically the beginning of what is commonly known as a meltdown] has dropped by nearly 40% since 2000 and by nearly a factor of five since 1992." This means that US nuclear plants have improved their safety nearly five-fold since 1992.

The last time a "meltdown" happened in the US was 30 years ago. So if I read that nuclear plants have dramatically increased their safety in the past 15 years, plus no meltdowns have occurred over the past 30 years, I would believe that the risk of meltdowns or other serious accidents is low based on these facts. Yet, the LA Times makes the opposite claim based on nothing.

Back to the LA Times:

the cost of building new plants, even though it's subsidized by the federal government, is prohibitive.

The cost to build a new plant is high, but it's not prohibitive. A recent NEI White Paper states:

Analysis by generating companies, the academic community, and financial experts shows that even at capital costs in the $4,000/kWe to $6,000/kWe range, the electricity generated from nuclear power can be competitive with other new sources of baseload power, including coal and natural gas. These results are absent any restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions. With regional or national programs that put a significant price on carbon emissions, nuclear power becomes even more competitive.

Continuing on from the LA Times:

McCain can be forgiven for ignoring or downplaying such issues; they're mostly technical challenges that could someday be resolved. He can't be forgiven for pretending that his goal of building 45 plants in 22 years is practical, nor that it would make any difference if it were.

From 1970 - 1979, 58 nuclear plants came online in the US. From 1980-1989, 47 nuclear plants came online. In a 20 year time frame, 105 nuclear plants came online in the US. How is it impractical to build 45 plants in 22 years when 105 plants in 20 years have already been built before? It sounds like the LA Times has very little faith that American workers can rise to meet this challenge.

The difference 45 new nuclear plants would make is substantial. The average new plant size is about 1,400 megawatts so 45 new plants would equal about 63,000 MW of new capacity. Right now, the 100,000 MW of operating US nuclear plants avoid nearly 700 million metric tons of CO2 each year.

If we built the 63,000 MW of new nuclear capacity, they would avoid an additional 440 million metric tons of CO2 each year - nearly twice as much CO2 as produced from jet fuel in the US.

The economic benefits from new nuclear plants are also substantial. One new nuclear plant would:

employ 1,400 to 1,800 people during construction (with peak employment as high as 2,400)

employ 400 to 700 people long-term, at salaries typically substantially higher than the average salaries in the local area

produce approximately $430 million annually in expenditures for goods, services and labor, and through subsequent spending because of the presence of the plant and its employees

provide annual state and local tax revenue of more than $20 million, benefiting schools, roads and other state and local infrastructure, and

provide annual federal tax payments of approximately $75 million.

I'll let the reader do the math on the economic benefits of 45 new plants. Back to the bogus claims from the LA Times:

The great majority of the 104 nuclear power plants in the United States are nearing the end of their useful lives; by McCain's 2030 deadline, roughly half may have to be decommissioned.

Umm, no. So far, 48 nuclear reactors have received license renewals to operate for a total of 60 years. Applications for seventeen units are currently under review and 30 have submitted their intentions to renew in the coming years. Only nine units have not announced their intentions to renew yet. It is reasonable to expect that nearly all (if not all) nuclear reactors in the US will operate for 60 years. If this happens, only 4,500 MW of nuclear capacity out of 100,000 MW would retire by 2030, not half. Back to the LA Times:

Because of the regulatory and community hurdles that must be overcome to build a plant, experts think it would take more than a decade from planning to completion for any new project.

The first few plants may take a decade to come online. The industry, however, is standardizing its designs and processes meaning we'll become more and more efficient at building new plants. We expect over time to license nuclear plants in 2-3 years (instead of the current four years). We also expect to construct plants in 4-5 years. This makes the duration to license, construct and then start-up a new plant a total of 6-8 years.

Remember, even though it takes quite a few years to build a new nuclear plant, it will be expected to operate for 60 years if not 80 or 100 years.

More from the LA Times:

Add to that the fact that even though investors have applied for 10 licenses for new plants since September 2007, no U.S. utility has dared to build one since the Three Mile Island disaster in 1979.

Actually, utilities stopped ordering new plants in 1978 (see page 273, pdf), way before the accident at TMI. Utilities, however, still kept building - fifty-one nuclear plants came online after TMI. Last claim from the LA Times:

But misleading the public about nuclear energy will not serve the country, or his campaign, well.

Misleading? If the LA Times would actually research something, maybe they would find that building 45 new nuclear plants IS practical, will provide great benefits to the country, and with support from the next Presidential Administration (whether it be Obama or McCain), most likely will happen by 2030 ... if not before. That would be good for the country, and with the emissions avoided by nuclear generation, good for the world.

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

Morris Daily Herald
August 09, 2008

GNEP to Morris: Not now