Yucca Mountain News Clips - Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
---------------------------

Augusta Chronicle
December 07, 2009

Nuclear waste storage decision will affect SRS

By Rob Pavey

Centralized storage of the nation's nuclear waste at two unnamed locations is a possible alternative to the Yucca Mountain project scrapped earlier this year by the U.S. Energy Department, according to a new Government Accountability Office report.

A second alternative -- continuing the current practice of onsite storage at 80 locations in 35 states -- was also explored by investigators who compiled the 79-page analysis released last week.

Either option -- or the resurrection of the Yucca Mountain project in Nevada -- could have far-reaching impact on the Savannah River Site, according to local experts.

"It's looking to me more and more like Yucca Mountain is not going forward," said Tom Clements, the Southeast nuclear campaign coordinator for Friends of the Earth, who was also interviewed for the GAO report.

Yucca Mountain, 90 miles from Las Vegas, was being designed as a permanent repository for radioactive material now stored at temporary sites, including SRS, where high-level wastes are encased in glass and stored in steel cylinders to be shipped elsewhere. In addition to government weapons waste, the site was to accommodate spent fuel from commercial reactors.

In March, however, Energy Secretary Steven Chu recommended that new strategies be developed for nuclear waste and that a 27-year, $13.5 billion effort to establish the Yucca Mountain project be abandoned. He plans to appoint a panel to explore alternatives.

The GAO said any centralized storage locations would be "built at existing federal facilities and be owned and operated by DOE," which might mean SRS could be explored for such a role, Mr. Clements said.

"I think there is no doubt SRS would be considered," he said. "The question is whether it would be geologically acceptable, and that is a big question. It is over sandy soils with a high water table and those are the kinds of considerations that could rule out Savannah River Site."

The GAO report, which refers to spent nuclear fuel as "one of the most hazardous substances on earth," noted that the nation's waste dilemma will never go away and that a clear disposal path is essential for the expected resurgence of nuclear power.

"The U.S. national inventory of 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste -- enough to fill a football field more than 15 feet deep -- has been accumulating since the mid-1940s and is expected to more than double to 153,000 metric tons by 2055," the report said.

The GAO also noted that centralized storage would still not be a final solution and would likely generate fierce opposition from any state where such a project was to be located.

"Centralized storage at two locations provides an alternative that could be implemented within 10 to 30 years, allowing more time to consider final disposal options," investigators wrote. "However, DOE's statutory authority to provide centralized storage is uncertain, and finding a state willing to host a facility could be extremely challenging."

Even if centralized storage became a reality, the report said, "it does not provide for final waste disposal, so much of the waste would be transported twice to reach its final destination."

One option would reduce the volume of waste. Savannah River Site's Community Reuse Organization, in a paper unveiled last month, calls for more dialogue and interest in reprocessing, which extracts materials from spent fuel that can be used again as reactor fuel.

Such a concept, CRO Director Rick McLeod said, could even be tested at SRS.

"We're not trying to push reprocessing as a main theme of our paper, but it's something that's out there and it needs to be looked at," he said. "If the country decides it goes here, it just goes here. But it could also go to someplace like Hanford" in Washington state.

Mr. McLeod also noted that a reprocessing program would not completely eliminate the need for a permanent disposal site for nuclear waste.

"There is still waste that has to go somewhere," he said. "Reprocessing would be a way to treat the material and any residual waste would leave the state. We want a disposition path for the material to leave here."

Such a recycling project, he added, would also mean a large facility with jobs and a new mission for the site.

Local officials are not the only proponents of exploring such an option. In a recent speech to energy interests at the National Press Club, former U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici advocated exactly such a program, which could be funded by money earmarked for Yucca Mountain.

"I believe that we should take the $23 billion in the Yucca Mountain Trust Fund, paid for by rate-payers in the various states, and use that money for a pilot project on recycling used nuclear fuel," he said, according to a transcript of his speech posted online by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a sponsor of the event.

Mr. Clements, however, said such a project -- which would bring spent fuel from commercial reactors across the U.S. to South Carolina -- would complicate an already complex network of nuclear waste issues in play at the site.

"It's an expensive pipe dream that would not go anywhere, but SRS would certainly be at the top of the list for that kind of project," he said. "The environmental stakeholders are very much against SRS becoming a reprocessing site, and they would have a real fight on their hands if they wanted to make it the nation's nuclear fuel dump."

Reach Rob Pavey at 868-1222, ext. 119, or rob.pavey@augustachronicle.com.

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

Charleston Post & Courier
December 05, 2009

Why import nuclear waste?

Italy has some great imports -- pointy shoes, beautifully designed sports cars, a wide variety of wines and fancy leather products, to name a few. But the United States should draw the line at Italian nuclear waste. Why accept foreign nuclear waste when we can't handle our own?

Plans to import 20,000 tons of nuclear waste through either the port of Charleston or New Orleans have properly drawn a congressional challenge. A bill approved by the House this week would halt plans to bring low-level radioactive waste from Italy to Tennessee, where it would be processed for eventual disposal at a desert location in Utah. About 1,600 tons would be buried there.

Supporters say disposal space in the United States should be retained for domestic use. Certainly the availability of that space has been a problem. Indeed, our state once provided the disposal solution for much of the nation.

Fortunately, South Carolina wised up nine years ago and worked out an arrangement to create a multi-state compact with two other small states, thereby leaving most of the available space at the Barnwell landfill for our long-term use.

The compact system is the only way that states with a disposal site can limit the importation of domestic low-level radioactive waste across their borders.

South Carolinians have another reason to be balky about the Italian waste. It could be transported from our port across the state. We're confident that the port's personnel could handle the material safely, but why should the U.S. accommodate the unwillingness of the Italians to handle their own nuclear garbage?

Of course, the larger waste disposal issue is for the highly radioactive by-products created by nuclear power plants. Despite a legal mandate, Congress has stalled on a waste disposal site for high-level waste. Billions have been spent to develop a federal repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain.

However, since Harry Reid became Senate majority leader, plans for its completion have been on hold. And unfortunately, President Obama has taken Sen. Reid's part in the controversy, effectively ensuring that dozens of ad hoc high-level waste sites will continue to exist throughout the nation.

It's difficult to understand how the administration expects to include nuclear power in an energy policy aimed at reducing the nation's carbon footprint and its dependency on foreign oil, when, at the same time, it stymies the most suitable site for high-level waste disposal.

The House's willingness to address the foreign waste issue is encouraging. The Senate should do the same.

Next, Congress should take up the more daunting task of domestic high-level waste, which must precede any serious discussion of new nuclear power plants -- no matter how badly they might be needed.

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

World Nuclear News
December 04, 2009

High cost for US radwaste alternatives

The Yucca Mountain waste repository could turn out to be less expensive in the long run than other options for the management of the USA's high-level nuclear waste, a government report has found.

The report, Nuclear Waste Management: Key Attributes, Challenges, and Costs for the Yucca Mountain Repository and Two Potential Alternatives, was prepared by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) at the request of Nevada senators Harry Reid and John Ensign and California senator Barbara Boxer. Reid and Ensign are both vocal in their opposition to the proposed Yucca Mountain waste repository, while Boxer was instrumental in blocking plans for a nuclear waste site at Ward Valley, California.

The latest report examines the key attributes, challenges and costs of the Yucca Mountain repository and two alternatives for managing the growing US stock of high-level radioactive wastes: storage of the waste at two centralised locations, or continued storage of waste at the site where it was generated. Both of these options would, however, only serve to postpone the day when final geologic disposal would take place.

The Yucca Mountain waste repository could turn out to be less expensive in the long run than other options for the management of the USA's high-level nuclear waste, a government report has found.

A final repository for US high-level wastes at Yucca Mountain in Nevada was designed to provide a permanent solution while enabling the US Department of Energy (DoE) to meet its legal obligations to take custody of commercial waste, which it was supposed to do from 1998. Although a formal application to build the repository was submitted to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 2008, the US administration earlier this year announced plans to discontinue the project and seek alternatives. Nevertheless, the GAO's analysis of DoE cost projections suggests that if Yucca Mountain was to go ahead, a repository to dispose of some 153,000 metric tons would cost from $41 billion to $67 billion (in 2009 dollars) over a 143-year period until closure.

Costing the alternatives

The second option under consideration in the GAO report, centralised storage at two locations, could be implemented within 10 to 30 years. As well as giving more time to consider final disposal options, this option would also enable nuclear waste to be removed from decommissioned reactor sites and the government to take custody of commercial nuclear waste, potentially saving it billions of dollars in liabilities. However, notes the GAO, this option could be tricky to implement.

The DoE's statutory authority to provide centralized storage is uncertain, and finding a state willing to host a facility could be "extremely challenging". Added to that, it would not provide a final waste disposal solution, so in practice much of the waste would have to be transported twice to reach its final destination. Using cost data gathered from nuclear waste

management experts, the GAO estimated the 2009 present value cost of the centralised storage option for 153,000 metric tons over 100 years would be between $15 billion and $29 billion. When final geologic disposal costs were factored in the range increased to $23-$81 billion, potentially well over the upper estimate for final disposal at Yucca Mountain.

Finally, the GAO turned its attention to on-site storage, an alternative that it said would require little change from the status quo - without the availability of Yucca Mountain utilities currently face having to store their used fuel on site. Like centralised storage, on-site storage would buy time for the consideration of final disposal options, and with the added benefit of the waste naturally becoming safer to handle over the passage of time, reducing risks when it is finally transported.

However, the GAO warned that the government would be unlikely to take custody of the waste, especially at operating nuclear reactor sites, which could result in significant financial liabilities that would increase over time. The government's failure to take custody of the waste would also potentially intensify public opposition to used fuel storage site renewals and reactor license extensions or even new build plans, particularly with no plan in place for final waste disposition. The on-site storage option came out with the highest potential cost of the three, at $13-34 billion (in 2009 dollars) for the on-site storage of 153,000 metric tons over 100 years, increasing to $20-$97 billion with final geologic disposal.

Valuable experience

The GAO did not make any recommendations in the report, although it noted that both DoE and NRC were in general agreement with its findings. It also did not attempt to make direct comparisons between the three options, citing significant, unquantifiable differences in their inherent characteristics. However, in its concluding comments, the GAO noted that developing a long-term national strategy for dealing with the nation's high-level waste would not be an easy task, with the need to balance many factors while facing political, legal, and regulatory challenges.

In any case, all the options needs must ultimately lead to final disposition, the report noted. "In the case of the Yucca Mountain repository, these challenges have left the nation with nearly three decades of experience," it said. "In moving forward, whether the nation commits to the same or a different waste management strategy, federal agencies, industry, and policy makers at all levels of government can benefit from the lessons of Yucca Mountain."

<sidebar>
"In moving forward, whether the nation commits to the same or a different waste management strategy, federal agencies, industry, and policy makers at all levels of government can benefit from the lessons of Yucca Mountain."
<sidebar>

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

Las Vegas SUN
December 03, 2009

Sun Editorial:

Don’t throw money away

GAO report shows storing nuclear waste on site would save money

There are many reasons why it was a terrible idea for the federal government to designate Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, as a potential dumping ground for the nation’s high-level nuclear waste. We can now add to that long list a report released Wednesday by the Government Accountability Office showing that it is far less expensive to store the radioactive waste where it is generated than to bury it in Nevada.

The GAO, the investigative arm of Congress, estimated it would cost as little as $10 billion to store on site the 70,000 metric tons of waste that has been generated in this country, versus a minimum $27 billion at Yucca Mountain. When factoring in the possibility of even more waste, the difference in cost widens.

The findings, prepared for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., and Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., are important because taxpayers would pay 20 percent of the costs of building a permanent dump. Nuclear utility ratepayers would be responsible for the balance.

Reid, who has taken a leadership role in the fight against the dump plan, aptly said: “This report confirms what most Nevadans already know, that the president made the right decision to stop the Yucca Mountain project and focus on finding alternatives to dealing with nuclear waste.”

The Obama administration has vowed to eliminate the dump plan, leaving only enough money in the Energy Department’s proposed budget to close the site. But Nevadans cannot afford to relax until the department permanently withdraws its application to build the dump, an application pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

That day has not yet come. But the GAO report certainly bolsters the arguments against Yucca Mountain.

Not only would disposal there be unsafe for Nevadans and for all other Americans who live near potential waste transportation corridors, but it would also be a big waste of money.

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

Platts
December 03, 2009

US GAO ranks cost of spent nuclear fuel storage options

New York (Platts)--2Dec2009/559 pm EST/2259 GMT

Storing spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites and eventually depositing the waste in a geologic repository is likely to be the most expensive of several options available for addressing the US' atomic waste problem, the Government Accountability Office said in a report evaluating different storage and repository options.

Nevada senators Harry Reid, a Democrat, and John Ensign, a Republican, requested the GAO report on nuclear waste management in addition to Senator Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat.

The report evaluates the Department of Energy's nuclear waste management program and other possible approaches to storing spent nuclear fuel in the long term.

It evaluates the attributes, challenges and cost of the Yucca Mountain waste repository program in Nevada, which President Barack Obama's administration is terminating, and alternative waste management approaches.

The Obama administration plans to establish a commission to evaluate the alternatives to Yucca Mountain, which is roughly 95 miles outside Las Vegas.

GAO does not make a final recommendation in the report but does call on federal agencies, industry and policymakers to consider a "complementary and parallel" strategy of interim and long-term disposal options.

Such a route "would allow [the government] time to work with local communities and to pursue research and development efforts in key areas," GAO said in the report.

GAO estimates that developing Yucca Mountain to dispose of 153,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel would cost $41 billion to $67 billion in 2009 present value over a 143-year period until the repository is closed. The US is expected to generate 153,000 metric tons of nuclear waste by 2055, GAO said.

Although the scientific community generally agrees that geological disposal of spent nuclear fuel is the preferred long-term management alternative, the Yucca Mountain program faces significant licensing, environmental, budgetary and technical challenges, the GAO said.

GAO evaluates the pros and cons of other storage options -- centralized and on-site storage -- that it sees as "near-term" alternatives to a permanent repository. The alternatives do not preclude the eventual need for final disposition of waste, the GAO said.

GAO estimates that centralized storage of 153,000 metric tons at the end of a 100-year period would cost $15 billion to $29 billion, increasing to between $23 billion and $81 billion with final geologic disposal.

Challenges to the alternative include the fact that DOE does not have the authority to provide centralized storage for nuclear waste and that it could prove difficult to find a host location for the centralized facility, it said.

GAO estimates the cost of storing 153,000 metric tons of spent fuel at reactor sites for 100 years would cost $13 billion to $34 billion, increasing to between $20 billion and $97 billion with final geologic disposal. The $13 billion and $97 billion figures are the lowest and highest levels respectively of the main alternatives evaluated by GAO.

GAO also said legal, community and technical challenges of storing spent fuel at reactor sites could intensify over time as waste remains on site without plans for final disposition.

--Randy Woods, randall_woods@platts.com

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

Tri-City Herald
December 03, 2009

Plutonium Finishing Plant removes last of high-risk material

By Annette Cary

HANFORD — The last of the nuclear materials requiring high security has been removed from Hanford's Plutonium Finishing Plant.

"It eliminates the need for special security requirements for deactivation and decommissioning workers at the Plutonium Finishing Plant," said Geoff Tyree, spokesman for the Department of Energy. "It becomes like any other facility at the Hanford Site going through D and D."

Work is under way to clean out and demolish the Plutonium Finishing Plant as part of the environmental cleanup of Hanford, where plutonium was produced for the nation's nuclear weapons program.

But security at the plant in central Hanford has been some of the tightest at the nuclear reservation because of materials stored there. Workers had to pass through metal detectors when they arrived at the plant and materials taken out of the plant had to be scanned for security.

The last high security material to be removed from the plant was irradiated fuel from the Fast Flux Test Facility that had been temporarily stored at the Plutonium Finishing Plant, said Matt McCormick, DOE assistant manager for central Hanford. It was stored there because of the amount of plutonium it contained and level of radiation.

It has been moved to the Canister Storage Building complex at Hanford after $20 million worth of work to prepare for it was completed. DOE's long-term plan for the irradiated fuel has been to store it there until the U.S. has a national repository available, McCormick said.

That likely would have been at Yucca Mountain, Nev., but the Obama administration is reconsidering what to do with DOE's high-level radioactive waste and irradiated nuclear fuel.

To prepare for interim storage of the fuel at Hanford, five buildings have been moved, installed or built at the Canister Storage Building complex. Two facilities have been renovated and structural barriers, fencing and heavy gates have been installed. New roadways and parking lots also were built.

The project has numerous levels of physical barriers, multiple detection and assessment systems, new and expanded communications systems, multimedia recording devices and a new control room to monitor all material and systems, said former DOE contractor Fluor Hanford as it worked on the project earlier this year. The work also included more space for the Hanford Patrol.

Earlier, other high security materials also were stored at the Plutonium Finishing Plant, but they have been shipped to Savannah River, S.C., as part of a DOE program to consolidate weapons-grade plutonium there.

DOE emptied the vaults at the Plutonium Finishing Plant of about 2,300 coffee-can-sized canisters of plutonium and shipped all of them to South Carolina as of April.

While irradiated FFTF fuel remains at Hanford, some unirradiated or "green" fuel from FFTF that was stored at the Plutonium Finishing Plant was sent to South Carolina. Those shipments were completed early this fall.

Hanford continues to ship some additional plutonium in a mixture that includes a type of plutonium not used for weapons to South Carolina, but it is not stored at the Plutonium Finishing Plant. Plutonium 239 is used for weapons and plutonium 238 is used in the nation's space program because it generates heat that can be turned into electricity on journeys deep into space.

If the weapons-grade plutonium had remained at the Plutonium Finishing Plant, it not only would have interfered with environmental cleanup plans, but also would have required $100 million in upgrades at the plant to meet increased national security requirements after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The Plutonium Finishing Plant was used to turn plutonium produced at Hanford into metal buttons the size of hockey pucks to be shipped off-site for conversion to weapons use. At the end of the Cold War, enough plutonium was left at the plant to fill about 2,300 canisters.

DOE plans to invite some community leaders and the media to tour the plant and see where plutonium was once stored now that security restrictions have been lifted. It's an area of Hanford that few people besides the workers there have seen because of the previously tight security.

-- Annette Cary: 509-582-1533; acary@tricityherald.com; more Hanford news at hanfordnews.com.

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

CBS 13
December 02, 2009

Reliance On Casks Initially Cheaper Than YuccaWASHINGTON (AP) ? Federal auditors said Wednesday it would be cheaper to store nuclear waste in concrete casks at the nation's nuclear plants than at Nevada's Yucca Mountain, at least in the short-term.

But in the long run, relying on the casks could turn out to be more expensive.

The Government Accountability Office estimates the cost of maintaining radioactive waste at the nation's nuclear plants for 100 years at between $13 billion and $34 billion.

Meanwhile, the projected costs of storing a similar amount of nuclear waste at the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear dump northwest of Las Vegas would range from $41 billion to $67 billion.

Nevada lawmakers said the analysis reinforces their contention that taxpayers are better off finding an alternative to the Yucca Mountain repository. Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign requested the report, along with Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

"This report confirms what most Nevadans already know: that the president made the right decision to stop the Yucca Mountain Project and focus on finding alternatives to dealing with nuclear waste," Reid said.

The national inventory of nuclear waste stands at 70,000 metric tons — enough to fill a football field more than 15 feet deep. The material is accumulating at 80 sites. Congress approved legislation in 2002 that approved Yucca Mountain site as the nation

The GAO report said that most of the costs for Yucca Mountain would occur upfront. Meanwhile, the costs associated with onsite storage would be back-loaded because the waste would have to be repackaged every 100 years for safety or because the U.S. may end up building a permanent repository after all. The delay could add to the cost of building a repository beyond what's estimated for Yucca Mountain.

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

Las Vegas SUN
December 02, 2009

Report: Yucca Mountain costs double other alternatives

By Lisa Mascaro

WASHINGTON -- A government report released today said developing Yucca Mountain would cost twice as much as other options for storing nuclear waste, but that both interim or on-site storage alternatives would face long-term costs and potential political pitfalls.

The report comes the day after a longtime advocate of nuclear power said during a speech in Washington that the Yucca Mountain project is dead.

Nevada’s lawmakers said the developments are more evidence that the proposed nuclear waste dump 90 miles north of Las Vegas will not be built.

“This $100 billion dinosaur’s days are numbered,” Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley said in a statement. “It’s long past time those who produced this nuclear garbage take responsibility for finding a real solution to this issue.”

Former Sen. Pete Domenici, the New Mexico Republican who had been chairman of two powerful committees handling Yucca Mountain issues, said during a talk Tuesday at the National Press Club that it was time to consider alternatives to Yucca Mountain.

"We need to be realistic here," Domenici said, according to an account in ClimateWire, which is also published on the New York Times Web site. “Yucca Mountain, once chosen as the site for permanent disposal of nuclear waste, is dead."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he has received assurances from the Obama administration that the Yucca Mountain project will be zeroed out in next year’s federal budget, which is expected by February.

The Government Accountability Office report released today had been requested by Reid, Republican Sen. John Ensign and Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, who is chair of the Environment and Public Works committee.

The report surveys the higher costs of Yucca Mountain compared to storing nuclear waste where it now sits at existing nuclear power plants or at a pair of interim storage facilities. Operating Yucca Mountain at double its planned capacity would cost between $41 billion and $67 billion, compared to $13 billion to $34 billion for on-site storage handling similar quantities of waste or $15 billion to $29 billion for interim storage.

However, the report notes that even if waste were stored at an on-site or interim storage facility, it would still be needed to be relocated eventually to a geologic storage facility, which would create additional costs. The report also noted political challenges of siting a storage facility and relocating the waste through communities.

Still, Nevada’s lawmakers welcomed the report as highlighting what they have long claimed – that temporary storage would be cheaper than Yucca Mountain.

“This report confirms what most Nevadans already know, that the President made the right decision to stop the Yucca Mountain Project and focus on finding alternatives to dealing with nuclear waste,” Reid said in a statement.

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

New York Times
December 02, 2009

Yucca Mountain Nuclear Disposal Site Is Dead, Says Longtime Advocate

PETER BEHR

Former Sen. Pete Domenici, a longtime advocate of nuclear power, said yesterday that it is time to give up attempts to create a permanent disposal site for the nation's nuclear waste fuel at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. He urged the Obama administration to move ahead with a planned blue-ribbon commission to find an alternative.

"We need to be realistic here," the former New Mexico Republican legislator said in a speech in Washington. "Yucca Mountain, once chosen as the site for permanent disposal of nuclear waste, is dead."

President Obama has cut off Energy Department funding for the Yucca Mountain project, following through on a campaign commitment to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), the project's powerful and implacable opponent.

DOE declined to comment last week on reports that the department would withdraw the project's permit application at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But DOE spokeswoman Stephanie Mueller said that "the president and Secretary [Steven] Chu have made it clear that nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain is not an option, period."

"Yucca Mountain is political. Everybody knows that," Domenici said in an interview after the speech. "The truth of the matter is, the world has passed by the idea of putting spent fuel rods -- as hot as they come out of the reactor -- underground in perpetuity."

Chu has proposed creating a new panel to study options for permanent disposal or reprocessing of spent fuel. Sources familiar with the administration's plans say that former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton (D), president of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft have been approached to lead the commission.

But as Domenici noted yesterday, the administration has not yet acted. "The blue-ribbon commission has been discussed but has no legitimate momentum. We must quickly make this commission a reality," he said.

A $23 billion question

The Energy Department agreed in 1982 to store spent civilian reactor fuel and high-level radioactive wastes beginning in 1998, and in 1983, utilities began paying into a fund to cover storage costs. The fund has a balance of $23 billion currently, based on annual payments by utilities of $750 million, plus interest earnings, minus design work on the Yucca Mountain facility and other costs.

But to date, DOE has not taken on any civilian nuclear wastes "and currently has no identifiable plan for handling that responsibility," said Kim Cawley of the Congressional Budget Office, in testimony to the House Budget Committee in July.

The spent fuel is stored instead at reactor sites, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has concluded there is space to continue on-site storage safely for at least the balance of this century.

Many nuclear power plant operators have sued the Energy Department for breach of contract over the waste storage issue, however. In response to the suits, the federal government has paid utilities more than $565 million to cover the utilities' on-site fuel storage costs, and that number could rise to $12 billion by 2020, according to DOE -- assuming the government has created a storage option by then, Cawley said.

"A legislative solution would be preferable to the current drain on the resources of the courts and the Department of Justice caused by the seemingly endless litigation," Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michael Hertz told the committee at the same hearing.

Recycling pushed as a waste-reducing option

Domenici said the $23 billion in the waste fund should be used to fund a pilot project on recycling spent fuel, which could substantially reduce the amount of storage space required. Opponents of reprocessing say it would increase the risk that radioactive materials could fall into terrorists' hands.

Other countries are proceeding with new nuclear reactors, he continued, urging that the United States take leadership in developing strategies for waste treatment that effectively manage the threat of proliferation of nuclear materials for weapons. "The United States can acknowledge reality, or we can continue to bury our head in the sand while nuclear waste, and nuclear proliferation dangers, build up throughout the world."

He praised the recent commitment by the United Arab Emirates to rely on international nuclear fuel suppliers as it develops nuclear power, pledging to return spent fuel to the United Kingdom and France and to refrain from recycling its own fuel. "This is a model that, with modifications, may work in future agreements with other nations," he noted.

He added that this model requires adequate international infrastructure to responsibly manage used fuel through arrangements for take-back, treatment, recycling and storage of spent fuel. "America's present domestic policy is out of step with our demonstrated technology and scientific abilities," he said.

Another potential approach could be based on the Waste Isolation Pilot Project in New Mexico, Domenici said. It stores less toxic nuclear wastes in salt deposits 3,500 feet underground.

Domenici also criticized the Energy Department for continued delay in carrying out an $18.5 billion loan guarantee program for new nuclear reactors that was authorized by Congress in 2005.

Administration officials are still debating the amount of up-front payments that reactor developers would have to pay to obtain the guarantees, based on how the government assesses the risk of loan defaults if projects cannot be completed.

"I find it especially perplexing that the Department of Energy and the Office of Management and Budget are still negotiating the level of the credit risk fee," he said. "If the fee is set too high, we will never build the next generation of nuclear plants," he added.

Domenici said a fee of 1 percent of the guaranteed loan would be adequate. The Union of Concerned Scientists and other nuclear power critics and skeptics say that the costs of building new reactors are rising, threatening successful project completion, and the risk fee should be set substantially higher.

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

Allentown Morning Call
December 02, 2009

TOWN SQUARE

Nuke wonks focused on Pahrump

Paul Carpenter

The road from Las Vegas to Death Valley runs past the town of Pahrump, Nev., known for three things.

First, Pahrump has the nearest legal brothel to Vegas. (I am not speaking from personal experience, mind you.) Second, it was the setting for ''Mars Attacks,'' a movie about invading Martians, who are unfazed by thermonuclear bombs but are defeated by Slim Whitman's cornball yodeling, which makes their heads explode.

Pahrump's third claim to fame is the on-again off-again multibillion-dollar project to bury radioactive waste under nearby Yucca Mountain, which, naturally, brings us to one of the heroes of Three Mile Island, who lives in Allentown.

I told you about Edwin Gischel in June. He was TMI's engineering director and was one of three nationally recognized whistle-blowers when the plant's utility company schemed to further endanger the public years after the 1979 accident.

I'll get back to Gischel, who is one element in a mystic convergence of events involving Yucca Mountain and an amazing article in Newsweek magazine, but first a personal recollection.

I am familiar with Pahrump because my wife loves Las Vegas, which I hate, and I love Death Valley, which she regards as just a furnace of rocks, sand and salt. So when she's in Vegas, I'm off to the furnace.

A few years ago, I persuaded her to go with me to Death Valley and, as we (make that I) were enjoying the enchanting Zabriskie Point, we had a magic moment.

Martin Abrams, a hardy hiker, came climbing up a trail from the valley floor and we got into a conversation. It turned out he had just retired from the world-renowned Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which meant we both had a background involving nuclear weapons.

My wife had heard about the declassified parts of my work on those weapons when I was in the military, but was impressed when she heard it confirmed as Abrams and I talked. I have had a warm spot in my heart for the Livermore lab ever since.

A familiarity with nuclear technology came in handy when I covered the accident at TMI for The Associated Press. Despite what happened there, I believe nuclear power is the best way to meet energy needs. Fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) pollute and solar and wind scams are feasible only when propped up with huge subsidies.

Other utility companies (Allentown-based PPL is one of the best examples) have proved that nuclear power is safe and clean, but hysteria over TMI paralyzed new construction of reactors while much of the rest of the world passed us by.

A key element in the nuke debate is what to do with spent uranium fuel and other waste. Groups that oppose nuclear energy go crazy over this issue, with Yucca Mountain at its apex. Radioactive waste would be buried in a vast maze of tunnels, and $6 billion already has been spent on it.

The Obama administration, however, is pulling the plug. ''All license defense activities [for Yucca Mountain] will be terminated in December 2009,'' said a Department of Energy memo in October. That reflects a campaign promise Obama made to the anti-nuclear crowd last year, so it is $6 billion down the drain, along with hopes for a single repository for nuclear wastes.

''Shutting down the Yucca Mountain program was the right thing to do,'' Gischel told me in a letter, ''but [Obama] did it for all the wrong reasons.''

Noting the Obama administration is on its way to trillion-dollar deficits, he said ''it is incredible that someone with such a prolific tax and spend mentality and no managerial or technical skills or experience whatsoever would interject himself into a highly technical issue like the high-level radioactive waste disposal problem.''

He said Obama wants to scuttle Yucca Mountain without ''the foggiest idea of the issues involved,'' based on hopes for politically attractive solar and wind pursuits.

Still, Gischel favors ''regional ground-level or shallow'' storage of nuke waste and hopes that Obama's ''blind edict'' will ''lift the roadblock that's been preventing the construction'' of new nuclear plants.

I favor the Pahrump plan and envision only bigger roadblocks, so we disagree on that, but when I talked to Gischel this week, I asked if he had seen the latest Newsweek article about a sensational development at the Lawrence Livermore lab.

It said Livermore may have ''cracked the problem'' of controlled fusion (current nuke plants use fission). Using lasers to zap deuterium and tritium (from sea water), Newsweek said, the process would create zero radioactive waste and could generate unlimited energy as early as 2030.

''I know they've been working on that for, it seems, like eons,'' Gischel said. ''I hope it does come to pass.''

No more coal smoke, no more spent uranium fuel, no more wind/solar scam subsidies -- just energy from one resource (water) and one residue (also water).

All these converging developments may appeal more to nuke wonks than to normal people, but think of the benefits they could provide to your progeny.

--paul.carpenter@mcall.com 610-820-6176

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

Lahontan Valley News
December 02, 2009

County commissioners meet Thursday

BY Stephanie Carroll

Churchill County Commissioners will meet for a regular scheduled meeting Thursday at 8:15 a.m. at the county administration building, 155 N. Taylor St., to discuss or take action on the following:

• Appointments include certification of expenditure of funds relative to the Yucca Mountain program and request bid authorization for Bottom/Alcorn Road sewer line and a presentation on the Upper Carson Study.

• New Business includes a review of issues concerning representation of indigent defendants in criminal and juvenile delinquency cases; agreement for services for Dr. Darko Koracin, director of Atmospheric Sciences, and agreement for services for Dr. John Sagebiel, environmental affairs manager, relative to Bango Road.

• Consent items include presentation of Carson Water Subconservancy District audit report of the 2008-2009 fiscal year and notification from the Nevada Department of Transportation that contract, No. 3396 for a project on U.S. Highway 50 at Crook Road by Silverado Excavating has been completed.

• Consent items also include the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) provides notice of renewal of Discharge Permit for Kennametal, Inc.; NDEP provides notice of no further action determination regarding eastbound Interstate 80, exit 65, concerning a spill/complaint and regarding the Stillwater I Geothermal Power Plant concerning a spill/complaint.

All items were not included in this summary. For full agenda, go to http://www.churchillcounty.org/commissioners/index.php.

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

Wire Service Canada
December 02, 2009

This article was passed on to me to have it relayed to the public and spread it far and wide.

David Chura
Research investigator,
Field of CMA energy.
www.climatechangemagneticenergy.com
Stop global warming before it's to late, with energy of our future.

Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2009 21:18:49 -0600
From: sabest1@sasktel.net
Subject: NUKE 3. The Chronology
To: sabest1@sasktel.net

(Item numbers 1 - 5 are included in the two previous emails.)

(6) CHRONOLOGY (CONTEXT) FOR UNDERSTANDING HOW MORE MONEY WILL BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE GOVERNMENT TO THE NUCLEAR/URANIUM INDUSTRY. THE UNIVERSITY IS THE MIDDLE MAN.

The following chronology is an aid to understanding the November 30th decision of the "Expert Review Panel". It creates CONTEXT.

It is just a sampling of evidence from the public record. Some of you will add your own information to it.

I want to get this chronology out prior to the announcement of the decision of the panel, in case it might be useful. Please consider forwarding it to media people you might know, as background.

I will send supporting news reports for the chronology later; don't want to overload you with email today! If you don't hear from me it will be because of computer troubles. /Sandra

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

EXPERT REVIEW PANEL DECISION ON FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ISOTOPE PRODUCTION AND UNIVERSITY OF SASKATCHEWAN'S PROPOSAL FOR A SMALL NUCLEAR REACTOR FOR CANADIAN DEMOCRACY AND TAX-PAYERS

PUSH FOR NUCLEAR/URANIUM AGENDA REVEALED BY CHRONOLOGY:

• 1974, India broke the International Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty by building & testing a nuclear bomb made using Canadian nuclear technology.

• 1976, Eldorado Nuclear planned to build a uranium refinery near Warman, SK. The NDP Government of the day wanted to "add value" to the uranium resource by refining milled yellow-cake into fuel for nuclear reactors. Citizen opposition coalesced.

• In 1980, Premier Bill Bennett bowed to public pressure and introduced a seven-year moratorium on uranium mining and exploration in B.C. The moratorium remains in place.

• In 1981, after 5 years of intense citizen efforts (more than 500 people) Eldorado announced it was withdrawing its bid to build a refinery in Saskatchewan.

• In 1981 Nova Scotia placed a moratorium on uranium mining. (See Oct 2009, the N.S. moratorium becomes entrenched in law.)

• 1987, Manitoba passed a law to prohibit high level radioactive waste disposal in its territory.

• November 2007, Saskatchewan Party (conservative) elected. Nuclear/uranium agenda not in its platform.

• March 2008, Alberta signs agreement with Idaho National Laboratory, the U.S. Department of Energy's leading institution for nuclear energy research. "Marriage made in heaven".

http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/cityplus/story.html?id=1556f1f1-24a3-4276-945d-1d60a965b153&p=1

• March 2008, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall in Washington “promoting the province as a secure source of energy, including oil, gas, uranium and, potentially, oilsands”.

• March 28, 2008. Leader Post reports on Brad Wall’s "big plans" for nuclear power in Saskatchewan, following “lengthy discussion” he had with Stephen Harper.

http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=eb5b2b4d-77d3-41d1-b060-18c6c9ca9c44

• July 04 2008. “New Brunswick introduces new regulations on uranium mining”

“GOVERNMENT TRIES TO MUTE CALLS FOR A MORATORIUM

The Telegraph-Journal reports, " In an effort to mute calls for a moratorium on uranium exploration, the government announced in May much tighter regulations that included returning all radioactive materials to drill holes sealed with a clay-like substance called bentonite; testing water wells within 500 metres of a drill site before and after work is done; and keeping liquid waste from drilling operations a safe distance from wetlands. But that failed to quell the public uproar. Recent information sessions with concerned landowners in Fredericton and Moncton turned into boisterous protests, with citizens railing passionately against uranium exploration."

• Nov 5, 2008 Obama elected President of the U.S.

• Feb 27, 2009 “Work on disposing of radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain (Nevada) has all but stopped after President Barack Obama's budget blueprint. The move remains in line with Obama's pre-election statements that Yucca Mountain was "not an option." America must now set a new course for long-term management of high-level radioactive waste, ….

"Obama's position on the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), which would see a community of countries share nuclear power technology with leading nations storing all the high-level waste from the entire group…

“Modern long-term strategies usually involve a step-wise reversible process that starts with an invitation to communities nationwide to express interest.”

(Precisely the process that is being used by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) in Canada. Saskatchewan is a targeted site. The NWMO met in Saskatoon in Sept – see the chronology. And will be here again in December - see chronology.)

• March 2009, the Government of Saskatchewan Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) Panel chaired by Richard Florizone, Vice-President of the University, recommended that Saskatchewan develop nuclear power, create a nuclear waste dump and a studies centre of excellence at the University of Saskatchewan. With respect to radioactive isotopes it said:

"the economics of a stand-alone isotope reactor are not attractive"

a reactor to do research and development that "is synergetic" with the larger nuclear expansion plan "may also be used to produce medical isotopes...to partly offset the cost of developing and operating the reactor."

It suggests this "could justify further funding from federal authorities."

• March 17, 2009 Energy and Resources Minister Bill Boyd and Enterprise and Innovation Minister Lyle Stewart signed a Memorandum of Understanding between the government and Idaho National Laboratory (INL), a U.S. Department of Energy institution that is considered that country's top national laboratory for nuclear energy research.

• April 2009, “Experts examining Areva's cash situation just days before its accounts are published show that it is "staring down the barrel of business failure" with a 3 billion Euro bail-out request from the French Government. Overrun costs of its reactor build in Finland have left the project facing a 5.4 billion Euro bill including an invoice to Areva of 2.4 billion Euros in penalties for lateness amounting to over three years. Embarrasingly for Areva, German engineering partner Siemans recently walked away from the project.

• Meanwhile in Saskatchewan, growing public concern about UDP industry-one-sidedness left the Sask Party government with no political alternative but to undertake a “public consultation process”

• May 2009 Public Consultations began. Dan Perrins conducted the consultations. 2,637 people in total attended thirteen public meetings. 1,275 written submissions and 61 stakeholder groups presented, 2,263 responses in total.

• 84% of the submissions were opposed to nuclear power, in spite of a letter-writing campaign by the nuclear industry and the Chamber of Commerce.

• Energy and Resources Minister Bill Boyd called it “the broadest and most transparent public debate on uranium development ever undertaken in Saskatchewan”.

• June 15, “Spearheaded by Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall and Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer“ “hailed their push to develop a cross-border (Canada – U.S.) Western Energy Corridor that will be the largest on the planet and one that develops both non-renewable (tar sands) and clean-energy (nuclear) options.”

This news report was in the middle of the “public consultations”, on the same day as approximately 800 people turned out to the Saskatoon meeting. The Travelodge had to extend the meeting room which filled to standing room only. Some people did not attend because parking was not to be found.

• June 2009, Point le Preau nuclear reactor in New Brunswick – “The $1.4-billion refurbishment of the Point Lepreau nuclear plant has fallen behind schedule. . . That delay will cost NB Power an estimated $70 million to $90 million. Ottawa gives $200 million in extra funding to AECL. "This amounts to more subsidies to a nuclear white elephant”. (Around the time of this news article, James Risdon in New Brunswick started “Say NO to Nuclear Waste in N.B.! “ – on The Petition Site.”)

• June 19, Federal Government announces four Expert Review Panel Members and call for expressions of interest in isotope production.

http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/media/newcom/2009/200962-eng.php

Thom Mason, Director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, part of the U.S. Department of Energy is a panel member.

http://www.ornl.gov/ornlhome/leadership/mason_bio.shtml

• July 9, 2009 REACTOR PARTNERSHIP REACHED : GOVT, U OF S TO PURSUE MEDICAL ISOTOPE PRODUCTION

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/Reactor+partnership+reached/1773364/story.html

• June 14, 2009. Canada-U.S. Western Energy Corridor announced.

http://www.vancouversun.com/Business/Premiers+governors+promote+Canada+energy+corridor/1695862/story.html

"Western premiers and U.S. governors on Sunday hailed their push to develop a cross-border Western Energy Corridor that will be the largest on the planet and one that develops both non-renewable (INSERT: tar sands) and clean-energy (INSERT: nuclear) options. ...

Spearheaded by Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall and Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer ... "

• July 17, The On Campus News says “Nuclear studies centre already under development” … working at various points in the nuclear cycle, … that extends from exploration and mining to power production to safe storage” (radioactive waste disposal).

http://www.usask.ca/communications/ocn/09-july-17/2.php

• July 2009, “First time ever University Presidents join Government and Corporate leaders, Canada – U.S."

http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-08-2009/0005056956&EDATE=

"Other highlights:

- University President's Roundtable - first time ever University Presidents from both the US and Canada will meet to discuss Innovation and collaboration in the region (15 University Presidents will be in attendance) . .

- First Energy Horizon Legislative Institute. 30 Legislators from throughout the Region to be certified on Energy Policy by University of Idaho, PNWER, and National Conference of State Legislators.

(INSERT: I looked this up. The Idaho National Laboratory, with which Saskatchewan and Alberta have signed deals, is at the University of Idaho. The “certification” process “educates” legislators on the “energy” question, a la Americano.)

- Water Policy to focus on water management policies and overview of the Columbia River Treaty . . .

- Admiral John Grossenbacher, Idaho National Laboratory, will chair a session led by INL on emerging regional interests in nuclear energy, western energy corridor ...

- Building Transmission for the future - Session to address regional transmission projects (high power transmission lines)

• July 31, 2009 federal deadline for applications for funding related to radioactive isotopes. The Government of Saskatchewan (Brad Wall) Crown Investments Corporation jointly with the University of Saskatchewan applied:

“recommending establishing a national nuclear studies centre of excellence at the university. .. will include building a nuclear research reactor for both isotope production and neutron science.”

“Targets 2016 for reactor to be online”

• July 31, 2009. The deadline for citizens to respond to the Government's Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) report (public consultation process on the Government’s nuclear/uranium agenda).

• September 15, Dan Perrins delivered his report on the public consultations to Wall’s government. The Executive Summary says, “the overwhelming response was that nuclear power generation should not be a choice for Saskatchewan.”

Regarding other recommendations of the UDP Report, Perrins reported

“the majority of responses dealing with the exploration and mining of uranium did not support current or future activities in this area.”

The majority “are largely opposed to any upgrading, including enrichment fuel fabrication and all other forms of upgrading.”.

Many people who expressed support for the production of medical isotopes stipulated it should occur without the use of nuclear fission.”

• October 2009, String of incidents, several incidents of "exceedances" and spills, prompts investigation at Cameco Port Hope conversion plant.

• October 4, 2009. "No nukes, go Renewables" parade and rally in Saskatoon draws people from around the province.

• October 14, 2009. Nova Scotia legislates a moratorium on exploration and mining of uranium. http://www.gov.ns.ca/news/details.asp?id=20091014006

“The province introduced legislation today, Oct. 14, to entrench a uranium ban that had been in effect since 1981.”

• October 2009, Speech from the Throne Government of Saskatchewan contains no mention of the Government’s nuclear/uranium agenda.

• October 2009, Book launch “Selling Out, Academic Freedom and the Corporate Market”, McGill-Queen’s University Press, by Howard Woodhouse, professor of educational foundations and co-director of the University of Saskatchewan Process Philosophy Research Unit.

Page 166: (Bancroft is interim director of the Canadian Light Source Inc (synchrotron) at the University of Saskatchewan) “Bancroft’s emphasis on the CLS’s “strong commitment to industrial users and private/public partnerships, [with] designated Canadian and international mining companies as the top priority for industrial development” was consistent with the facility’s mission.

(Note: the supporting news reports in the next emails clearly make the connection between the synchrotron at the University of Saskatchewan and the nuclear/uranium agenda.)

P. 165 “Yet the CLS . . . was paid for almost entirely out of public funds from the federal and provincial governments, several universities, and a Saskatchewan Crown corporation. The capital costs of $173.5 million were split into $140.9 million in cash and $32.6 million in in-kind contributions

(see table). . . . Moreover this amount does not include the in-kind contribution of the university’s Linear Accelerator, worth almost $33 million … By far the largest amount of money came from the federal government - - “ etc.

• (?? I don't know if this should be included) November 4, 2009 Fortune Minerals Metallurgical processing plant near Saskatoon.

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/Refinery+planned+Langham/2181681/story.html

This is a "maybe" connection. The background is that the nuclear/uranium industry in Canada is facing problems with processing and conversion capacity. It is running into more and more public opposition. The Port Hope refinery is under assault for effects on health and the release of radioactive spills into Lake Ontario, etc. (other examples).

Regarding the Star Phoenix refinery announcement November 4, it was curious to me that a penny stock company, Fortune Minerals, would truck ore all the way from Yellowknife, N.W.T. to Saskatoon, SK for "metallurgical processing".

I wonder whether such a processing facility might also be used for uranium? Given the stated priorities for the University of Saskatchewan's synchrotron, the Canadian Nuclear Studies Centre at the University and the University's commitment to work that has commercial application it seems plausible.

It seems to me that the nuclear/uranium corporations (with their Government, University supporters and role in the U.S. corporate energy strategy (the SPP)) are hard-pressed now to be honest and forthright about their intentions.

• Nov 15 Stephen Harper, salesman for the co-dependent nuclear and tar sands industries, in India. “Canada had suspended nuclear relations with India in 1974 after India used Canadian technology to make its first nuclear bomb. During his visit here, Harper said a new nuclear co-operation deal between the two countries would be signed soon and he met with key representatives of India’s nuclear energy sector.” India has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

“The two countries signed a memorandum of understanding this year that will let Canada play a role in India’s planned building of 25 to 30 nuclear reactors. … India’s reactor demand for uranium may triple in the next 15 years, according to Saskatoon, Saskatchewan-based Cameco Corp. the world’s second-largest producer of uranium. . . .

Australia, holder of the biggest known uranium reserves, doesn’t allow exports of the nuclear fuel to India because the South Asian country hasn’t signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. ”

• November 29, 2009. “Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada signs a nuclear co-operation agreement with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan as way to trade uranium and nuclear technology with India” . . . on whose behalf?

http://trak.in/news/india-canada-clinch-nuclear-deal/29084/

• NWMO (Nuclear Waste Management Organization) in Saskatchewan (again!) December 7, 8, 9, looking for a "host community".

http://www.nwmo.ca/events?event

- - - - - - - - - - -

Note: I have not included the propaganda efforts by Bruce Power in the North Saskatchewan River corridor where they want to buy options on land for a nuclear reactor, or the polling reported on in the Prince Albert Herald and elsewhere. The polling questions were designed to manipulate and provide very skewed results.

I have not included efforts by Bruce Power and by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization to target First Nations, Dene and Metis communities for the siting of their operations.

Nor have I mentioned the resistance by motley crews of local groups.

I have not mentioned the efforts of people in Alberta to stop the billion-dollar high power transmission lines (part of the Canada - U.S. Western Energy Corridor) from proceeding.

Nor a whole lot of other important events! /Sandra

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

Popular Science
December 02, 2009

Finnish Company Claims Its Copper Canisters Can Store Nuclear Waste for 100,000 Years

By Clay Dillow

Spent Fuel Rods in Storage With nowhere to store spent nuclear fuel rods, most end up in limbo, either cooling in large water baths or sealed up steel containers at secure facilities. Posiva

While the fate of America's Yucca Mountain appears to be sealed, Finnish company Posiva is moving forward with a cutting-edge nuclear waste storage facility that it claims will safely store radioactive waste in drums deep in the ground for 100,000 years. While challenges abound, a green light from the Finnish government expected by 2012 will make the site on Finland's Olkiluoto Island the first permanent nuclear waste repository in the world, opening the door for more to follow.

The task is not a small one, however. First, Posiva carved nearly 16,500 feet of tunnels, collecting borehole samples along the way to ensure that the bedrock is solid and that water -- a nuclear waste repository's biggest enemy -- cannot get in. Then they had to figure out how to create the nearly 29-ton copper storage bins lined with iron and sealed with a weld so precise that it will hold through Finland's next ice age.

Oh, and naturally they must execute that precision weld after placing highly radioactive fuel rods inside, rendering the drums untouchable.

To make it all work, Posiva's engineers came up with a unique system. Bundles of rods will be delivered in special transit bins to a sealed room in the facility. A robot arm, controlled remotely via a video link, will remove the fuel bundles and dry them -- remember, absolutely no water can go into storage with the rods -- before placing the extremely hot cargo into the copper canisters.

While moving the rods is the most dangerous part, sealing them in their bins is by far the hardest. To make sure the welds are perfect -- and to last 100,000 years, they have to be -- the engineers are designing a kind of conveyor belt that allows the drums to swivel and turn as they move. As each bin rotates precisely, high-velocity electrons bombard the seal between lid and canister, fusing the cask with a strong weld without weakening the surrounding material. Any flaws or weak spots in the welding seam will be caught at the end of the track, where X-ray, ultrasonic and eddy-current inspection devices check the seam for imperfections.

If all goes to plan and the government approves Posiva's ambitious plan, the Olkiluoto facility will be in business by 2020. But by proving the technology works, Posiva won't just earn the right to a contract for 100 years of nuclear storage; it will have demonstrated to the world that indeed such facilities are possible, perhaps resurrecting abandoned projects like Yucca Mountain and pushing nuclear energy to new prominence. Right now, it starts with a perfect weld seam -- check back in 100,000 and we'll tell you how it ends.

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

Business Day
December 02, 2009

Letter: Nuclear energy costs

In his letter (Expensive questions, December 1), Mike Deats questions the nuclear Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) but suggests SA should go ahead with nuclear power as soon as possible to mitigate climate change even without the PBMR technology. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency , which exists to spread the peaceful use of the atom, revealed in a report a few years ago that power generation through nuclear fission could not grow fast enough over the next decades to slow climate change — even under the most favourable circumstances.

The cost of developing nuclear energy is rising exponentially. In the US uranium now costs 60 for 450g, compared with 10 for 450g nine years ago. There is still no safe repository for nuclear waste anywhere in the world, and Yucca Mountain where the US hopes to store its nuclear waste had an estimated cost of 58bn in 2001, which has now escalated to an estimated 96bn. Last year there were 250 incidents of nuclear material being lost or stolen. In the worst-case scenario of a Chernobyl-type accident, the costs could be as high as 700bn, roughly the size of the current US fiscal bail-out.

The Germans have built an experimental, interlinking, countrywide network of generation facilities that include hydro, wind, solar and biomass plants. This consistently delivers the same amount of electricity as any conventional power station.

In addition, new technology has been developed to store solar power. Wave energy can also generate electricity 24 hours a day. The number of jobs offered by renewable energy far outstrips both nuclear and coal energy. What is SA waiting for?

Andrew Taynton
Shongweni

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

UNR The Nevada Sagebrush
December 01, 2009

Student group to host clean energy forum

By: Benjamin Miller

A campus organization is hosting a 10-member-panel discussion on clean energy at 11 a.m. Sunday in ballrooms B and C in the Joe Crowley Student Union.

The event, called the Clean Energy Forum, will be free and include a lunch.

The four-and-a-half-hour event will feature talks given by 10 local panelists on several energy issues, from wind and solar energy to the nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain. The panelists are University of Nevada, Reno professors, local businesspeople and elected officials.

“Renewable energy is a hot topic right now,” Susannah Lee, the president of the event’s organizing group, called the Sustainable Energy Forum, said.

Lee said talks given by the panelists will be 15-20 minutes long, with a question-and-answer session after. Topics will also include biomass, geothermal energy, local renewable energy centers and Nevada energy policy.

Several local businesses will also have booths around the perimeter of the room to explain how their businesses use clean technology and different renewable energy sources.

The event is meant to not only engage students in discussion about renewable energy, but to get exposure for the Sustainable Energy Forum as well, Lee said.

“It’s important because all too often our voices aren’t heard as the little guy,” Jonathan Martinez, a 25-year-old general studies major and the vice president of the group, said. “Nevada has a huge potential for renewables to be implemented, and a huge potential for jobs.”

“It should be a really good conversation,” he added.

The group, which started last year and has about 10 active members, has been heavily promoting the event, posting flyers around the community, sending personal invitations to local environmental organizations and using ad space in the Reno Gazette-Journal and Reno News and Review.

“It’s totally the biggest thing we’ve done,” Martinez said. “(The) campus is on board. There’s a lot of students mobilizing.”

Although the group has hosted lectures in the past, Martinez says they are trying to become a more active organization with a loose goal of hosting a large event at least once a semester.

Lee said that formal or business dress is preferred for the forum, but organizers won’t turn people without it away.

Benjamin Miller can be reached at news@nevadasagebrush.com.

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

Columbia Daily Tribune
December 01, 2009

The Tribune's View

Time to recycle

Nuclear fuel, that is

By Henry J. Waters III

About once a year I give public thanks for William Miller, a professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Missouri. For years, during the dark ages when the very idea of expanding nuclear power generation was taboo, Miller consistently touted its advantages from an expert perspective.

Now, as the nation and world continue to fret about fossil fuel emissions, Miller continues his expert discussion. On our Opinion page Sunday he turned to fuel recycling, a subject often discussed here without benefit of the professor’s imprimatur.

It’s a simple concept. Rather than worrying about permanent storage of large amounts of spent nuclear fuel, we should do what the French and English have done for years: We should recycle and reuse the material for additional generation.

This well-known process would allow 95 percent of leftover fuel to be used for generation, leaving only 5 percent as radioactive waste, a much simpler problem than the one we make for ourselves now.

If we change our foolish national policy against recycling, we won’t need to devise Yucca Mountain solutions, making the road ahead for increasing amounts of nuclear generation that much easier. The anti-recycling policy was crafted back in the Jimmy Carter administration, when we were gripped by a phony national paranoia that concentrated recycling residue might be stolen and used by enemies to make nuclear weapons despite long experience to the contrary in Europe, where nuclear power is much more widely used.

We went through an extended de-facto embargo on new nuclear plants. We had plenty of power, and expensive nuclear plants were not sought by power companies, so why mess with the politics of additional waste, a shortsighted view we should correct now.

Even without recycling, a good case can be made for expanded use of nuclear power. With recycling, the case is even better. We fill the air with demagoguery and dithering over how to meet the challenging energy future with dramatic reductions in fossil fuel emissions. The most effective way is to expand nuclear power, a proven technique ready in commercial scale right now.

HJW III

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

Greenville News
December 01, 2009

Energy Secretary Chu visits GE plant, ICAR in Greenville

By Rudolph Bell

U.S. Energy Department Secretary Steven Chu said Monday during a visit to Greenville that the Obama administration wants to revive nuclear energy in the United States, despite its rejection of a long-planned repository in Nevada for storing the industry’s waste.

“The administration is very supportive of nuclear energy,” Chu told The Greenville News during a tour of General Electric Co. ’s local plant to inspect the manufacture of power-producing turbines.

He reiterated the pro-nuclear position later in the day during an energy symposium at Clemson University’s International Center for Automotive Research.

While the administration earlier this year rejected plans for the repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, it’s getting ready to announce a blue-ribbon panel to explore new ways of handling nuclear waste, Chu said.

Chu’s visit came one week after the Energy Department announced that it had picked Clemson to receive the biggest research grant in the school’s history — $45 million to develop a testing center for wind turbine drivetrains in North Charleston.

He was accompanied by Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, who is under fire for working with Democrats on legislation the administration favors to cap carbon emissions.

A coalition of energy companies has attacked Graham in television ads, and Charleston County Republicans declared in a resolution recently that he had weakened the GOP brand.

But the senator offered no apologies during remarks Monday at ICAR.

The bill he favors would promote methods of energy production that don’t emit greenhouse gases such as nuclear and wind, and Graham argues that would not only help reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, but also create jobs in South Carolina, where General Electric Co. makes wind turbine parts and where power companies plan four new nuclear reactors.

“The real driver for me is energy independence,” Graham said. “There may be a debate among some about how much the planet’s heating up. There’s no debate by any American that we’re dependent on foreign oil way too much.”

Later, the senator drew applause in a packed auditorium by saying it’s not healthy if politicians from different parties can’t work together to solve the nation’s problems.

Before traveling to Greenville, Chu and Graham attended a groundbreaking ceremony for a biomass generation plant at the Energy Department’s Savannah River Site in Aiken. Joining them for the plant tour in Greenville was John Krenicki, chief executive of GE Energy.

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

Mother Nature Network
December 01, 2009

A new nuclear equation

Nuclear power may be the only technology capable of meeting our growing demand for energy while keeping emissions down. Devereaux Bell offers his opinion.

By Devereaux Bell

Coal can be dirty. Natural gas is fraught with security and supply problems. So what’s left to make our light bulbs glow? How about the atom?

Granted, the threat of nuclear calamity hasn’t ceased to exist. But these days it’s less unsettling — and less pressing — than catastrophic climate change. All of which leads to a new nuclear equation: If it has risks, they’re worth running — a sentiment which has prompted climate- and energy-focused governments to take another look at nuclear power.

Atomic energy is remarkably clean, with reactor plants emitting no carbon dioxide. The simple fact is that only two energy sources offer base-load generating capacity: coal and nuclear. This will likely remain true for quite a while. Since many agree that coal is simply too dirty, nuclear power becomes a singular resource: the only technology capable of meeting our growing demand for energy while keeping emissions down.

A bright upshot is that nuclear energy is relatively cheap — and will only get cheaper as other energy sources become more expensive with the likely establishment of a carbon emissions tax. As far as security and availability are concerned, atomic energy is a good deal. The raw material for nuclear fuel, uranium ore, is abundantly available through friendly, Western-oriented countries such as Australia. With regards to safety, the nuclear industry’s record has been nearly spot-free since the Chernobyl incident in 1986. No big accidents resulting in deaths; only close calls —thanks mostly to better design and improved safety standards.

Many American energy analysts have ceased focusing on which technology will prevail. The real question is how quickly the country can become energy independent while simultaneously maintaining economic growth and causing little environmental impact. Do we need more energy from solar, wind, hydro and other renewable sources or from clean coal and natural gas? Yes. But, so the argument goes, we also need the energy nuclear can provide — and more of it.

More is possible

Though nuclear power already makes up a significant portion of world energy, a great deal more is possible. Nearly 450 operating reactors produce 16 percent of all electricity generated worldwide. In the U.S., over 100 plants generate 20 percent. But in France a whopping 85 percent of electricity comes from the atom, showing just how much more energy is available if the technology is more fully embraced.

In the United States, Sens. John Kerry and Barbara Boxer have introduced an energy bill that advocates such an embrace. Granted, it’s more modest than some would like, but it clearly accepts the notion that more reactors are a viable low-emission power boost. And as a piece of legislation, it has a bright future, with Republicans long-itching to go nuclear.

Already, utilities and nuclear power companies have filed 17 applications for 26 new reactors and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expects applications for five more reactors before year’s end. Worldwide, though, most of the 40 reactors now under construction are in Russia and Asia — with many of the latter in China. But reactor construction is also under way in Latin America, the Middle East and Africa. New reactors currently proposed or in progress (the IAEA estimates some 70 new plants in 15 years) would more than double the capacity of the 436 now in operation.

Still, plenty stands in the way of a full nuclear renaissance. Nuclear development is often faced with a lack of political and popular support. Both are essential. The $5 billion to $7 billion cost of a plant’s construction is too heavy a burden for nuclear power companies to bear without the prop of people and government.

But even though they’re expensive to build — demanding copious amounts of both financial and political capital — they are incredibly cheap to maintain. And cheap maintenance costs could help companies burdened by new carbon taxes offset some of that cost by diversifying into nuclear energy. In fact, revenue from nuclear power may prove so plenteous that nuclear-invested companies could end up paying windfall profits taxes, providing more cost offsets.

The greatest problem

But a certain stigma and fear are still attached to nuclear energy; and the public fears Chernobyl-like accidents and terrorist attacks. The greatest practical problem, however, is waste storage. The long-term risks of storing radioactive waste have not yet been adequately solved. Spent nuclear fuel remains dangerous for thousands of years, though it can be isolated in solid state and managed safely on a relatively small scale.

But no nuclear-powered nation has, so far, constructed a permanent geological repository for high-level nuclear waste. And this year President Obama effectively killed the closest (though admittedly problematic) thing to a solution-level repository in the U.S. by ending funding for the Yucca Mountain storage facility in his 2010 budget request.

High-level waste is not the only concern. Reactors also emit low-level waste, which poses its own disposal and storage problems. It is less dangerous but much more plentiful. And it still must be disposed of carefully. While a number of promising technologies are in development, no real “solution” currently exists.

There is also a looming shortage of qualified nuclear engineers after what was essentially a three-decade hiatus in new plant construction, which saw the emigration of lots of American nuclear construction infrastructure to Europe and Asia. In fact, the biggest challenges to really scaling-up nuclear energy in America are workforce and infrastructure related.

Nuclear energy remains uniquely viable for developing countries. Governments in these nations can take advantage of the otherwise unfortunate fact of their authoritarian nature to push through reactor construction and other aspects of a coherent nuclear development strategy that might be opposed in more democratic countries.

The basic truth is that in order to meet growing demand, the U.S. electric power industry needs to invest between $750 billion and $1 trillion in new generating capacity, new transmission and distribution infrastructure, and environmental controls over the next decade. And there is a good argument putting much of that money into nuclear energy expansion since there’s essentially no doubt atomic energy can produce a plentiful and reliable energy situation — a situation capable of supporting, for example, a vast fleet of electric cars.
---------------------------

PR Newswire
December 01, 2009

Former Senator Pete Domenici Delivers Speech on Future of Global Nuclear Energy

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Former Senator Pete Domenici today delivered a speech outlining a 21st century framework for global nuclear power at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) and the United States Energy Association hosted the presentation by former Senator Domenici, now a Senior Fellow at the BPC.

In his speech, Senator Domenici argued that America's nuclear renaissance has stalled and, as a result, the United States is lagging in the development and deployment of new nuclear technologies. Senator Domenici called for effective implementation of the bipartisan Energy Policy Act of 2005 provisions to support nuclear growth in the U.S.

Senator Domenici also emphasized the need to chart a strategic path forward for domestic waste in order to meaningfully participate in the management of used nuclear fuel. He argued that the U.S. must take the lead in addressing the growing global challenges of waste management and non-proliferation.

"The global resurgence of nuclear power is a reality. We need to recognize that and provide leadership in the areas of non-proliferation and waste treatment. Sadly, much of our policy framework is frozen in time, accommodating domestic nuclear plants and waste already in existence, but offering nothing to meet the challenges ahead," said Senator Domenici. "The United States can acknowledge reality or we can continue to bury our head in the sand while nuclear waste, and nuclear proliferation dangers, build up throughout the world."

Senator Domenici joined the BPC in January 2009 after retiring from the U.S. Senate. During his 36 years in the Senate, Senator Domenici served as Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Budget Committee, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and the Appropriations Sub-Committee of Energy and Water Development. At the BPC, Senator Domenici focuses on energy and national debt issues.

Below is the text of Senator Domenici's speech, as prepared for delivery:

Has America's Nuclear Renaissance Stalled?

More than 12 years ago, at Harvard University, I proposed a new energy paradigm: resurgence of nuclear power. At that time, interest in nuclear power in the United States was stagnant. That is no longer the case. Both the American people and the international community show renewed interest in nuclear energy. This is a tremendous opportunity -- and represents a crucial challenge. As the global renaissance takes shape, we must ensure that America doesn't fall behind.

Yet, I fear that America's nuclear renaissance has stalled.

The United States lags in the development and deployment of new nuclear technologies. Worldwide, 53 new nuclear reactors are being constructed. China alone is currently building 18. The United States is constructing only one. By 2030, as many as 300 new reactors will be up and running worldwide. Less than 10 percent of these will be in the U.S. We are quickly falling behind and will forfeit our historical leadership on this issue if current trends continue.

America is stalled in thinking about used nuclear fuel. Other countries have developed, or are in advanced stages of developing, strategies to address waste and non-proliferation concerns. Countries like France and Japan have been applying recycling technology to reduce waste volume by 75 percent or more. They have been tackling this challenge for years. We are stuck in policies that are more than 30 years old.

Jumpstarting Our Domestic Resurgence

As a long-time advocate of nuclear power, I was pleased by the bipartisan work that led to passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. That law included significant support for nuclear power. Since then it has become clear that even more needs to be done if the American nuclear industry is to provide an increasing supply of reliable, economical, and clean electricity.

Implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provisions reveals a mixed bag. Some provisions are working well. For example, 18 companies have applied for new combined operating licenses to build and operate 26 reactors. These applications show a serious commitment by American utilities to expand nuclear power in America. Approval of the first of these applications should occur in 2011. This is a good step forward, but many other pieces need to fall into place before we can call the licensing process a complete success.

We have failed, however, to effectively implement the Act's innovative energy technology loan guarantee program. The loan guarantee program for low-carbon energy technologies may have been one of the most potent provisions in the Act -- but four years later we still find those policies entangled in bureaucratic disputes and bickering in Congress. I fully support Secretary Chu's recommendation to double the size of the loan guarantee program, and I believe we could go even further, but such a pronouncement won't have much impact if we can't even execute the present loan guarantee program in a timely fashion.

I find it especially perplexing that the Department of Energy and the Office of Management and Budget are still negotiating the level of the credit risk fee -- the amount a project sponsor must pay to the government in advance to essentially "guarantee the guarantee." If the fee is set too high, we will never build the next generation of nuclear plants, or any of the other clean energy technologies that can use the loan guarantee program. An appropriate fee, and one that we judged correct in 2005 based on loan repayment rates in other programs, would be close to 1 percent of the total guarantee. At that rate, the loan guarantee provisions will prove a forceful driver for nuclear technology.

More than most, I am familiar with the debate on budgetary impact of loan guarantees within the appropriations process. Our intention in structuring the program -- and the way we wrote it into law -- was to have a minimal risk to the federal budget while spurring deployment of advanced, low-carbon technologies. The United States has a long history of monitoring federal loan guarantee programs and officials should have resolved these disputes long ago -- and they need to be resolved quickly if we are to move nuclear energy forward.

The Need for a Waste Management Strategy

Two challenges that I highlighted in that Harvard speech 12 years ago have become more urgent: nuclear waste disposal and global non-proliferation concerns. In that speech, I said that we should not advocate use of nuclear energy, unless we were willing to get serious about the nuclear waste problem. During the last 12 years, America has moved backwards, not forward, in addressing this challenge.

We need to be realistic here. Yucca Mountain, once chosen as the site for permanent disposal of nuclear waste, is dead. We need to move beyond Yucca, not only as a site, but as a concept. At some point America will need a permanent nuclear disposal site, but for the time-being, the temporary use of nuclear reactor sites seems safe. Leaving Yucca behind means turning to more productive policies.

We hurt our competitive position by claiming that "we don't yet know how to effectively recycle nuclear waste," and simply throwing up our hands in frustration. I strongly disagree that we don't know how. More accurately, we haven't tried what we already know and we haven't gotten serious about learning more.

I believe that we should take the $23 billion in the Yucca Mountain Trust Fund, paid for by rate-payers in the various states, and use that money for a pilot project on recycling used nuclear fuel.

This fund sits unused for its original purpose, despite the pledges we made to the various utilities and their rate-payers. With the consent of the fund contributors, the United State should use the $23 billion to construct a pilot plant -- with an associated research and development effort -- for advanced recycling technologies to expeditiously and thoroughly address nuclear waste and non-proliferation issues.

We must fully engage the public in this effort. A Blue Ribbon Commission, like that discussed within the Administration, could be an important part of that public debate. The Blue Ribbon Commission has been discussed but has no legitimate momentum. We must quickly make this Commission a reality.

Let me give you an example of how such a public debate can take place. We have a model in the state of New Mexico, the spectacular success of the Waste Isolation Pilot Project (WIPP), which has just celebrated its 10-year anniversary. We had years and years of public debate, at all government levels, before we embarked on WIPP. The public endorsed the project, after it learned that transuranic waste would lie in 3,500 feet of salt, which hasn't moved in 40 million years, and that we would get to the site using the most advanced transportation system ever developed for this purpose. WIPP has suffered no failures of any kind, no accidents, and has received recognition for the extraordinary engineering used in the project.

We need the same type of pilot project for recycling nuclear waste. If we strategically engage our scientific and engineering community, we can develop research and development plans that will push the frontier of waste minimization, toxicity reduction, and non-proliferation strategies. As it is now, we stand almost paralyzed while nuclear energy becomes the energy source of the future for many developing nations. For example, research has already shown that high-level military and non-military waste can be safely stored in salt, as we do with less toxic waste at WIPP. But, we have made no effort to apply that research. We have become almost passive observers of the nuclear energy renaissance, while other nations move forward.

For a moment, let me discuss how we got here. In President Carter's term, he decided that we should not pursue reprocessing because reprocessing could produce plutonium, a material we did not want other countries to develop. The theory was that if America took the high road and rejected reprocessing, then other nations would follow. History has proven this theory wrong - other countries are reprocessing and America has fallen behind. So in order for the United States to be an effective international leader, a dramatic policy shift must occur here. Deployment of a strong domestic capability is necessary to provide the foundation for the United States to participate in any meaningful way in the global management of used nuclear fuel.

No nuclear technology can ever be perfectly "proliferation-proof." But, we can take significant steps, both in science and in international diplomacy, to chart a strategic path forward. We need to start immediately on those steps. The announcement by Iran that it will have as many as 10 nuclear sites within months, even if over-stated, dramatizes the urgency.

Providing Credible International Leadership

The global resurgence of nuclear power is a reality. We need to recognize that and provide leadership in the areas of non-proliferation and waste treatment. Sadly, much of our policy framework is frozen in time, accommodating domestic nuclear plants and waste already in existence, but offering nothing to meet the challenges ahead. The United States can acknowledge reality or we can continue to bury our head in the sand while nuclear waste, and nuclear proliferation dangers, build up throughout the world.

We have an opportunity to pro-actively address this challenge. We can provide a safe and reliable global nuclear energy infrastructure that accommodates growth of nuclear power here and abroad. An important recent example is the Section 123 Agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation between the United States and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

In short, UAE wants to actively develop a civilian nuclear energy program to produce secure and reliable electricity to support its developing economy. This U.S.-UAE agreement that recently went into effect contains the strongest non-proliferation conditions ever agreed to by a foreign nation. The UAE has accepted a legally binding obligation not to pursue its own uranium enrichment. Instead, they will receive guaranteed long-term fuel contracts with international suppliers. The UAE has also agreed to refrain from pursuing recycling. Instead, the spent fuel will be returned to the international parties, the United Kingdom and France in this instance.

This is a model that, with modifications, may work in future agreements with other nations. However, this model requires adequate international infrastructure to responsibly manage used fuel through arrangements for take-back, treatment, recycling, and storage of spent fuel. America's present domestic policy is out of step with our demonstrated technology and scientific abilities.

The concept of a fuel bank, an exciting idea that I proposed several years ago in the Senate, offers a real chance for greater American involvement in the global nuclear renaissance. This concept of a "cradle to grave" fuel service enjoys widespread support from the United States, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the Nuclear Threat Initiative. International reliance on a secure fuel bank will require our leadership and engagement with key nuclear partners. For example, Russia already has and will continue to play a critical role in global nuclear issues. In order to be true partners in managing nuclear waste, the United States and Russia should sign a Section 123 agreement. The last U.S.-Russia agreement sent to Congress was withdrawn after the Russian invasion of Georgia. I hope this Administration will re-submit this agreement so that we can begin to develop the international capacity to implement the fuel bank concept.

Perhaps as important, the U.S. proposal to provide cradle to grave services requires a "grave" -- something we have not effectively pursued. Deployment of domestic recycling technologies can provide the foundation for our nation to powerfully participate in the global management of used nuclear fuel. Only through our active international participation and long-overdue policy shift can we lead by example on waste solutions.

We can continue to pursue a long-outdated policy and try to avoid real participation in the new global nuclear reality. Or we can seize the opportunity to act now.

About the Bipartisan Policy Center:

In 2007, former U.S. Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, Bob Dole, and George Mitchell formed the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) to develop and promote solutions that can attract the public support and political momentum to achieve real progress. The BPC acts as an incubator for policy efforts that engage top political figures, advocates, academics, and business leaders in the art of principled compromise. For more information please visit our website: http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/.

SOURCE Bipartisan Policy Center

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

U.S. News & World Report
November 30, 2009

Democrats Change Tune on Nuclear Energy

By Kent Garber

During the 2008 presidential campaign, it was Sen. John McCain, not then Sen. Barack Obama, who touted nuclear power. Obama, for the most part, was noncommittal on the subject. But in the year since being elected, President Obama and congressional Democrats increasingly appear to be embracing nuclear power.

Democrats' support has not been entirely rock solid. Obama's decision, last spring, to scrap a decades-old plan to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada was interpreted by some critics as an early sign of an antinuke stance within the administration. But many less high-profile moves, especially in recent weeks, suggest that Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill, far from turning their backs on nuclear power, now see it as a way of advancing their goals on energy and climate policy.

Perhaps the most telling sign is that representatives of the nuclear industry are giving the administration relatively high marks for its nuclear policies thus far.

"This administration has been very seriously engaged on nuclear issues," says Alex Flint, the Nuclear Energy Institute's top lobbyist. "There is no longer a political stigma associated with it.""We are pleased with the of support the administration has expressed," says Buzz Miller, who heads up nuclear development for Southern Nuclear, which operates three nuclear plants in the Southeast and is starting to work on building two more reactors near Augusta, Ga.

New reactors, according to industry estimates, will probably cost at least $6 billion each. Like several other nuclear companies, Southern has applied for financial help from the Department of Energy. It's also still waiting for final approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But it's on funding and policy issues that Democrats are proving surprisingly supportive.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, a liberal California Democrat, has included a whole set of goodies for nuclear energy in her climate bill in an effort to win Republicans' and moderate Democrats'support. Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the bill's cosponsor, recently penned an op-ed with South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham calling for expanding the industry.

And earlier this month, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia and Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee proposed legislation to double the U.S. production of nuclear power in the next 20 years.

All these proposals are notable for the emerging political reality they represent. Nuclear power is low in carbon emissions, domestically generated, and it's particularly popular in the Southeast and some Midwestern states.That means liberal Democrats, who have often railed against nuclear energy because of the radioactive waste it produces, will almost certainly have to fork over money for nuclear to win the votes for their climate bill. .

This calculation is outraging many of the administration's environmental-minded supporters, who say the nuclear industry is siphoning off funds that could be used for other projects, like energy efficiency, that don't take nearly as long or cost nearly as much as building reactors. "They are seeing an opportunity," says Anna Aurilio, D.C. director of the nonprofit Environment America. "The nuclear industry wouldn't exist but for massive federal subsidies, and they are trying to position themselves to get even more federal subsidies."

This tension, no doubt, is only going to sharpen as the administration shifts its focus from healthcare to energy and other topics. Over the past year or two, many politicians have called for "an all of the above" approach to the country's energy policies, one that would include new nukes and new offshore oil drilling as well as massive support for solar and wind power. But each would require extensive funding, and at a time when so much attention is being placed on federal spending, someone's gain will most likely be someone else's loss in the energy world.

---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744
---------------------------