Yucca Mountain News Clips - Friday, January 15, 2010

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Friday, January 15, 2010
---------------------------

Las Vegas SUN
January 14, 2010

White House, Energy Department clash over Yucca Mountain cuts

By Lisa Mascaro

WASHINGTON – The Department of Energy and the White House are at odds over how steep to cut the Yucca Mountain budget for fiscal 2011, according to reports.

Energy Secretary Stephen Chu is balking over the White House plan to slash the budget for the nearly-doomed nuclear waste dump north of Las Vegas, according to reports in Energy Daily and the Wall Street Journal.

Apparently, the White House wants to zero out the $46 million in the Energy Department's request in the president’s new budget due next month.

Chu sent a letter to White House budget director Peter Orszag last month arguing that at least $25 million was needed to close out the Yucca Mountain office, including for the retention of “critical knowledge and data.”

Obama has pledged to stop the Yucca Mountain project, and severely cut last year’s budget for the proposed waste facility. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said Obama will zero out funding in 2011.

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

Courthouse News Service
January 14, 2010

Court Rules for Utilities in Nuclear Waste Case

By Tim Hull

(CN) - The Federal Circuit reinstated a ruling that the federal government can't blame its failure to collect radioactive waste from utilities on "unavoidable delays." The court ruled 11-1 to overturn a federal claims court's ruling that the D.C. Circuit lacked jurisdiction to order the government to fulfill its contracts.

Sitting en banc, the Washington, D.C.-based appeals court ruled that the D.C. Circuit had jurisdiction to review the Department of Energy's failure to comply with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), and that the court's mandate barring the agency from using the "unavoidable delay" argument was not void, as the U.S. Court of Federal Claims had ruled.

For years the nation's nuclear energy facilities have been paying the DOE some $750 million per year under waste storage contracts that have yet to be honored. The DOE has not accepted any nuclear waste from any of the utilities, even though the law required it do so by 1998 - a fact that has generated dozens of breach of contract complaints and more than $1 billion in judgments against the government.

The DOE argued that it had no duty to start accepting nuclear waste in 1998, because it hasn't been able to build a proper repository due to "unavoidable delays" -- specifically the failure of its long-term plan to build a storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.

The Nebraska Public Power District sued the DOE in federal claims court for breach of contract, arguing that the D.C. Circuit's ruling for the utilities was binding.

The claims court sided with the government, holding that the D.C. Circuit lacked jurisdiction to force the government to comply with the NWPA.

On review, the Federal Circuit disagreed, saying the D.C. Circuit correctly interpreted the NWPA as requiring the DOE to begin accepting nuclear waste in 1998, and that the government's failure to do so could not be excused as unavoidable delay, Judge William Bryson wrote for the majority.

The ultimate question before the Federal Circuit, Bryson said, was whether the D.C. Circuit had jurisdiction to rule on an issue of "statutory construction," or "whether the doctrine of sovereign immunity barred it from reviewing the government's compliance" with the Act.

The majority of the 12-judge panel agreed that the D.C. Circuit had jurisdiction.

"The mandamus order was issued pursuant to the D.C. Circuit's authority to construe the NWPA and to direct DOE to comply with its obligations under the statute," Bryson wrote. "The order did not address any issue of contract breach, direct the implementation of any remedy, or construe any contract defense, except to the extent that the proposed interpretation of the contract would conflict with the statutory directive. Those issues are all left to the Court of Federal Claims to decide in the contract breach action before it. We are satisfied that the D.C. Circuit's order was confined to the issue of statutory interpretation and did not impermissibly invade the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims to adjudicate the parties' rights and remedies under the contract between them."

The panel reversed the order of the claims court and remanded for further proceedings.

Judge Arthur Gajarsa filed the only dissenting opinion.

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

Atlanta Journal Constitution
January 14, 2010

Fund Yucca Mountain

By David Wright

If President Barack Obama plans to live up to his promise of “science over politics” in determining policy, he will not discontinue funding for a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev.

Between 1983 and 2009 the federal government collected nearly $33 billion in fees and interest from electric utilities and their ratepayers for the express purpose of disposing of used nuclear fuel. Georgia ratepayers have contributed nearly $680 million of that amount. Just when it appeared this country had a viable solution, the president is expected to eliminate funding for the Yucca Mountain project for apparently no reason than “because I said so.”

When Obama assumed office a year ago, he said his administration would be based on the precepts of preserving the integrity of science in public policy-making.

As documented in the license application submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2008, more than 25 years of studies conducted at a cost of more than $8 billion indicate that a Yucca Mountain repository, to be built beneath a barren ridge in the Mojave Desert, would meet stringent Environmental Protection Agency standards and NRC regulations for public safety.

But the president’s fiscal 2010 budget stripped all funding from the project except the bare minimum required to review the repository license application. The trade press now reports that the FY 2011 Department of Energy budget request will zero out the budget and DOE will withdraw the license application.

Terminating the project now will short-circuit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s ongoing independent safety review of the repository. Instead, a “Blue Ribbon Commission” will study the issue of nuclear waste, but with directions from the White House that a Yucca Mountain repository is not an acceptable option.

Why not? The law of the land — the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and a bipartisan joint resolution from Congress in 2002 — calls for a repository at Yucca Mountain if it proves to be safe.

Despite repeated requests from Congress and others, the administration has offered no rationale for its actions and intentions. It is apparent the answer lies in politics, not science. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is a staunch opponent of the project. How is that consistent with making decisions based on objective science?

The commercial nuclear industry has proven that it can store used fuel safely at nuclear power plants for a very long time. But something eventually must be done with it. Moreover, electric utility customers are now paying twice for used fuel — first to cover the waste fee, and again to store used fuel at reactor sites long after the federal government should have disposed of it.

Utilities have begun to collect damages from the government for its inaction on contracts to dispose of nuclear waste. The government’s failure to accomplish anything with the $33 billion already collected for the repository has resulted in a financial liability to all taxpayers — not just ratepayers — that will reach $12.3 billion by 2020, and continue to grow $500 million for each additional year of delay. The Obama administration plan for nuclear waste — essentially starting over — ensures that the taxpayer will be paying those costs for decades.

Nuclear power produces electricity safely, economically and without generating greenhouse gases. Like all means of energy production, nuclear power produces waste, but the volume of used fuel is relatively small. The technology of geologic disposal of nuclear waste is sound and proven. The waste problem is not one of technology, but of political will.

--David Wright is a commissioner with the South Carolina Public Service Commission and chairman of the Nuclear Waste Strategy Coalition.

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

Brattleboro Reformer
January 14, 2010

N.E.governors seek spent fuel removal

By Bob Audette

BRATTLEBORO -- The six governors of the New England states recently forwarded a letter to the Department of Energy requesting it remove spent fuel and high level waste from nuclear reactor sites in the region "at the earliest possible date."

Steven Chu, the secretary of DOE, announced earlier this year that he was establishing a "blue ribbon" commission to look for ways DOE can deal with the nuclear waste accumulating at the 104 operating reactors and the 31 decommissioned reactors in the United States.

Originally, DOE had planned to move the waste to a national repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Due to environmental concerns and opposition from Nevada’s congressional delegation, the repository has been delayed by more than two decades.

Shortly after taking office, President Barack Obama announced funding of the repository would be drastically reduced, which basically means the federal government has shelved Yucca Mountain for the time being.

The New England governors expressed their concern that the waste has not been removed "as required by law and contract" and was limiting the use of the three sites in the region that have been decommissioned.

The three decommissioned reactors are Yankee Rowe, in Rowe, Mass., Maine Yankee in Wiscasset, Maine, and Connecticut Yankee in Haddam Neck, Conn.

"All three nuclear sites could be fully returned to the benefit of the local communities, but for the fact that the used nuclear fuel and high level radioactive waste has not been removed by the federal government," stated the letter to Chu.

Though Gov. James Douglas believes the continued operation of Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in Vernon is in the best interests of the Green Mountain State, said his spokesman David Corriel, he also believes it’s incumbent upon the federal government to come up with a solution.

"This is something it has promised to nuclear power plants and the states that host them," said Corriel.

Entergy has applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to extend the operating license of Vermont Yankee for another 20 years, from 2012 to 2032. In addition to NRC approval, Entergy must also receive a certificate of public good from the Public Service Board and the OK from the Vermont Legislature.

The New England governors also stated that continued storage of spent fuel on site is forcing ratepayers to pay more than they should for electricity in the amount of "tens of millions of dollars annually."

At Vermont Yankee, there are five dry casks containing 68 fuel assemblies, located just outside the reactor building. Its spent fuel pool, which is inside the reactor building, contains a little more than 2,800 assemblies.

Depending on when the federal government finds a solution for the nuclear waste quandary, spent fuel could remain in Vernon for 100 years or more.

--Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.com, or at 802-254-2311, ext. 273.

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

NRC
January 14, 2010

NRC'S Yucca Mountain Board to Hold Oral Arguments in Las Vegas January 26-27

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Construction Authorization Board will convene Jan. 26-27 in Las Vegas, Nev., to hear oral arguments on a number of legal issues and to hold a case management conference concerning documents filed in the adjudicatory proceeding over the Department of Energy’s license application for a high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain.

Oral arguments on Jan. 26 and, if necessary, Jan. 27 will concern several legal issues raised by the state of Nevada and the Nuclear Energy Institute. These issues center on DOE’s specific requirements to project environmental conditions at Yucca Mountain thousands of years in the future and the extent of several design conditions required by NRC regulations.

The case management conference on Jan. 27 will address concerns raised last month by the NRC’s administrator of the Licensing Support Network, an online database of documents supporting the license application, the NRC’s review, and the various challenges filed in the hearing. The administrator expressed concern about the availability of DOE’s thousands of documents on the network should the department decide to withdraw the license application.

Proceedings will be held at the NRC’s Las Vegas Hearing Facility, Pacific Enterprise Plaza, Building 1, 3250 Pepper Lane in Las Vegas, beginning at 9:00 a.m. Pacific Time each day. Proceedings will be Webcast at these addresses:

January 26: http://www.visualwebcaster.com/event.asp?id=65080

January 27: http://www.visualwebcaster.com/event.asp?id=65081

Media wishing to cover the pre-hearing sessions are strongly encouraged to register in advance with NRC’s Office of Public Affairs in Rockville, Maryland, by calling (301) 415-8200. Pre-registration is essential for television media, as space inside the hearing room is limited. Photographers (video or still) will not be permitted to move around the hearing room while the board is in session. Board judges will not grant interviews. No interviews of other participantsshall be permitted inside the hearing facility. Two brochures on the Las Vegas Hearing Facility – one for media and one for the general public – will be available on the NRC’s Web site at this address: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/.

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

Wall Street Journal
January 13, 2010

Chu, Orszag at Odds Over Yucca Funding

By Stephen Power

WASHINGTON – Energy Secretary Steven Chu and White House Budget Director Peter Orszag are wrestling over how quickly to slash funding for a proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear-waste repository in Nevada, a move long advocated by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who faces a tough re-election campaign this year.

In a letter sent by Mr. Chu to Mr. Orszag last month, and viewed by the Wall Street Journal, the Energy Secretary expresses "deep concerns" about cutbacks that he says Mr. Orszag's office has proposed making to the Yucca Mountain project as part of Mr. Obama's 2011 fiscal year budget proposal, due to be announced in February.

According to the letter, Mr. Orszag's office has proposed cutting $46 million that the DOE had sought to fund its Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, which is responsible for managing the Yucca Mountain project.

A spokesman for Mr. Orszag's office didn't immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter, whose content was reported Wednesday by the Energy Daily, a trade publication.

Dr. Chu's letter appeals to Mr. Orszag to provide $25 million to fund the office, saying the money is needed to support "the wrap-up of the Yucca Mountain Project," including the retention of "critical knowledge and data." It specifies that of the $25 million, $5 million is needed to retain project managers and technical staff "to continue to execute the legal and research activities that can only be performed by the staff that has been performing these activities over the past several years."

Asked whether the letter signaled a disagreement between the White House and the Energy Department over how quickly to kill the Yucca Mountain project, an Energy Department spokeswoman said "There is only one timetable. The President and the Secretary have been clear, across the board, that we are ending the Yucca Mountain project quickly and responsibly."

Under federal law, Yucca Mountain is the designated site for the nation's first spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. But the repository – which has been long opposed by Mr. Reid and other Nevada politicians – is more than a decade behind schedule. As a result, nuclear waste generally remains at the commercial nuclear reactors and DOE sites where it was generated. That has led to litigation and court judgments ordering the Energy Department to compensate electric utilities for the cost of storing the waste at their facilities. Based on existing judgments and settlements, DOE has estimated the costs of such litigation at $12.3 billion through 2020 and up to $500 million per year after that.

In keeping with a campaign pledge, Mr. Obama persuaded Congress last year to cut off most funding for Yucca. But the budget Congress approved didn't zero out funding for the project altogether; it left a small amount available to allow the DOE and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to move forward with a license application in favor of the project that was submitted to the NRC in 2008 by the George W. Bush administration.

"Sen. Reid and President Obama agree that Yucca Mountain is no longer an option for dealing with nuclear waste and they will continue working to bring the last remaining activities of this ill-conceived project to an end," a spokesman for Mr. Reid said Thursday.

Republicans in Congress have warned that the Energy Department could expose itself to further litigation if it ceases work on the license application. In a letter to Dr. Chu last November, Representatives Joe Barton of Texas and Greg Walden of Oregon said abandoning the application could "increase the Department's or taxpayer liabilities and permanently strand billions of dollars in federal funding and investment in the project."

--Write to Stephen Power at stephen.power@wsj.com

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

Mondaq News Alerts
January 13, 2010

United States: Nuclear Utility Awarded More Than $50 Million For Partial Breach Of Contract Claim

by Richard W. Oehler

On December 18, 2009, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims issued an opinion awarding more than $50 million to Perkins Coie's client, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WE), in its claim against the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for the partial breach of a contract to accept and dispose of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level waste (HLW) from WE's Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant. See http://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/opinions_decisions_general/Published (http://tinyurl.com/yz7z8zw)

The WE litigation is one of numerous lawsuits filed by utilities against the DOE for its failure to begin accepting and disposing the utilities' SNF/HLW by January 31, 1998, as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 10101-10270, and the standard contracts that the NWPA required the utilities to enter into with DOE.

Prior to 1977, utilities had assumed that their SNF would be reprocessed. After President Jimmy Carter effectively halted the reprocessing of SNF in 1977, the NWPA was passed in 1983, affirming the federal government's responsibility to provide for the permanent disposal of SNF/HLW. In return for the government's performance, the NWPA required the nuclear utilities to pay for the costs of such disposal through an initial fee based on electricity generated by each utility's nuclear reactors prior to April 7, 1983, and through continuing fees based on subsequent generation. These fees are deposited into the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF). As of September 30, 2009, the utilities' payments and credited interest to the NWF totaled $30.2 billion.

The DOE, however, has failed to accept any SNF or HLW and, given the current administration's position that it will not proceed with Yucca Mountain, it is uncertain how the government intends to deal with spent fuel. At the same time, there appears to be renewed interest in the construction of nuclear plants in the United States. Currently, there are more than 15 applications for more than 25 new reactors under active consideration before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. While long-term storage or disposal of SNF/HLW obviously is an issue for nuclear plants that requires the cooperation of the federal government, the generation of nuclear power does not result in the generation of emissions that cause global warming. Nuclear power can also generally provide substantial base power generation at an attractive price per megawatt.

While the government has settled several of the spent fuel lawsuits, it has also chosen to litigate many of these cases. In the WE case, there was a trial in Washington, D.C., that lasted more than five weeks during which 27 witnesses testified and hundreds of exhibits were entered into evidence. The focus of the trial was on past damages that WE had incurred to mitigate the DOE's partial breach because, prior to trial, the court had determined that the DOE had partially breached its contract with WE.

WE's past damages consisted of the costs that it incurred in providing for alternative storage of its spent fuel. These damages primarily included costs for constructing a dry storage facility, purchasing casks for the storing and transporting of spent fuel, loading spent fuel into these casks, and obtaining approval to incur these dry storage costs from the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin. In its decision, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims awarded WE more than 96% of its claimed "nominal," or non-finance-related damages to mitigate DOE's breach.

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

Energy Collective blog
January 13, 2010

White House aide speaks up for nuclear energy

by Dan Yurman

Carol Browner says she is talking with the industry

In an public live online chat (video) held Jan 12, Ms. Browner, a top energy and environmental aide to President Barack Obama, finally moved the pointer, relative to nuclear energy policy, on the ship-of-state’s telegraph from dead stop, past stand-by, to slow ahead.

It is a remarkable change from what has looked for some time to be a message of “finished with engines.” The green wing of the Democratic party has forced its message on the White House producing a chilly reluctance to say anything about nuclear energy and its role in reducing the increase of greenhouse gases.

While Ms. Browner made some positive statements during the live chat about nuclear energy, her views are those of a political realist. She must balance the need to push climate change through Congress, with a nuclear energy section, while not making too many waves with the environmental advocates who staunchly supported the President in the campaign. They will be needed in the Fall 2010 mid-term elections.

Reuters reports the White House now wants to engage with the nuclear industry to “understand what they need.” According to Reuters, Browner (right) said the Obama administration wants to help the nuclear industry build nuclear power plants to help diversify U.S. energy supplies and fight climate change.

"We have not built a nuclear plant in this country in a long time but we want to work with the industry to make that happen in the not too distant future."

"The president believes that nuclear needs to be a part of our energy future," Browner said. "If you believe as we do that climate change is a serious problem ... then you need to be open to what are all of the ways in which we can produce energy in a clean manner."

Leadership needed to navigate rough seas ahead

These are helpful statements to advance the President’s energy agenda to include nuclear energy. However, work is needed to close with three major challenges ahead and all involve passages through rough political waters.

First, the federal loan guarantees for $18.5 billion are still locked up in a bureaucratic budget dispute between DOE and OMB. It will take someone with Browner’s influence inside the White House to clear it up. Nuclear utilities need commitments for them to bring investors to the table and soon. Within the next 18 months more than a dozen new reactor projects will get their NRC licenses.

Second, Energy Secretary Chu has still not named the members of a blue ribbon commission to study how to deal with spent nuclear fuel. One of the likely reasons is that highly qualified people approached by the government don’t agree that Yucca Mountain should be taken off the table. A blue ribbon commission with heads nodding north & south isn’t likely to be credible with the industry or Congress.

This is another place where someone with Browner’s political astuteness could be useful. Opening dialog about spent fuel reprocessing, and the use of MOX fuel in light water reactors, would be a good way to add technically credible options to the debate.

Third, Congress needs to pass a climate bill with a strong nuclear energy section in it. It would need to include a doubling of the loan guarantees from $18.5 to $37 billion, something Energy Secretary Chu has called for in recent statements. Again, leadership from the White House can make a difference.

The rest of the world is way ahead of the U.S. The U.K. France, Italy, Japan, and China are making major commitments to building new nuclear power stations. Ms. Browner says “we are continuing to engage the rest of the world” on climate change. This is a good policy, and now that it includes nuclear energy, perhaps the U.S. will move to take its place among the nations of the earth in this realm as well.

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

BusinessWeek
January 12, 2010

U.S. Can’t Cite Delays to Defend Nuclear Waste Suits (Update1)

By Cary O’Reilly

Jan. 12 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. can’t argue that delays in collecting spent fuel from the nation’s nuclear power plants were unavoidable as the government defends against multibillion- dollar claims by utility companies, an appeals court ruled.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington today reversed a lower court’s finding and ruled that another appeals panel had the authority to bar the Department of Energy from using the defense in contract disputes.

The decision is a victory for Nebraska Public Power District and other utilities that are seeking to recover billions of dollars they have spent over the last two decades on storing spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste while waiting for the government to construct a permanent storage facility.

The utilities were obligated by Congress in 1982 to collect spent nuclear fuel on site while a permanent storage facility they would help fund was built at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The companies paid more than $27 billion into the fund over the years, though the storage facility was never built.

“We’ve been eagerly awaiting this decision,” said Jay Silberg, an attorney for Nebraska Public Power, in an interview. Dozens of lawsuits by utility companies against the government have been held up pending the ruling, he said. “We have a lot of cases that are stuck on appeal or stuck on remand. We’re really very, very pleased.”

Stephanie Mueller, an Energy Department spokeswoman, didn’t immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

Yucca Mountain

President Barack Obama last year decided that nuclear waste can never be stored at Yucca Mountain, rejecting the $58 billion project after 20 years of planning.

The decision left unresolved what to do with more than 50,000 tons of nuclear waste now held at 122 temporary sites in 39 states, even as utilities seek to build more reactors in the U.S.

Exelon Corp., the biggest U.S. operator of nuclear power plants, settled its dispute with the federal government in 2004, saying it would be paid as much as $300 million through 2010 for the cost of storing spent nuclear fuel.

The case is Nebraska Public Power District v. U.S., 2007- 5083, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Washington).

--With assistance from Susan Decker. Editors: Peter Blumberg, Steve Farr

--To contact the reporter on this story: Cary O’Reilly in Washington at +1-202-624-1859 or caryoreilly@bloomberg.net.

--To contact the editor responsible for this story: David Rovella at +1-212-617-1092 or drovella@bloomberg.net.

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

Common Dreams
January 12, 2010

Yucca Haunts Admin's Lagging Efforts on Nuclear Waste Study Panel

by Katherine Ling of Greenwire

While President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget proposal is expected to sound a death knell for the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, the administration has so far failed to launch the blue-ribbon commission it promised almost a year ago to decide on a waste-disposal alternative.

Hanging in the balance is 60,000 metric tons of commercial and defense nuclear waste.

"I find it quite disconcerting that a commission with a proper broad charter to look at this problem hasn't been created," said Arjun Makhijani, president of Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, a nonprofit opposed to nuclear power.

"I think the bigger danger is that inaction will simply lead us back to Yucca Mountain," Makhijani said, adding, "Leaving the problem to fester is not good."

No one expected the issue would be left to fester last February when Obama dramatically cut funding for the Nevada repository in his fiscal 2010 budget request and announced his intention to form a commission to chart an alternative waste-management solution. Energy Secretary Steven Chu quickly followed up, telling Congress last March that the commission would be formed "ideally" within a month and would craft recommendations by the end of 2009.

Last week, Chu responded to questions about the commission by saying the Energy Department is "working as hard and fast as we can on that."

The lawmaker who has led opposition to the Yucca project, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), is confident that the administration's delay won't translate into a revival of the Nevada project. "The administration has been very clear that Yucca will never be built," Reid spokeswoman Regan Lachapelle said. "Senator Reid understands that it takes time to assemble the highly qualified people needed to determine how best to dispose of the nation's nuclear waste."

But despite agreements between Reid and the administration, Yucca Mountain remains -- by law -- the disposal site for U.S. nuclear waste. The DOE repository license has not been withdrawn, nor has the department moved to do so, according to an industry source. Meanwhile, Reid is facing a tough re-election battle this year.

Moreover, some say that disagreement over whether the blue-ribbon panel should consider Yucca Mountain as a potential waste management solution is one reason the administration has taken so long to get the commission going. Qualified candidates, several sources say, do not agree Yucca should be taken off the table.

"I think it is too early to predict what the long-term prospects for Yucca Mountain will be, but the project certainly appears to be near death right now," said Ed Lyman, a senior scientist for the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists.

"Ultimately, the U.S. will have to restart the siting process for a nuclear waste repository, and whether Yucca Mountain will be a viable candidate again remains to be seen, given its technical and political challenges."

Ramifications

Lyman said the Yucca project suspension "has created a vacuum in the nation's nuclear waste disposal policy that is allowing a lot of silly ideas ... to flourish." Among those ideas, he said, is a push for reprocessing spent fuel.

Meanwhile, Lyman said, new nuclear power plants are being proposed that will create even more waste than the nation's fleet of 104 reactors.

"It will be a risky proposition if the U.S. goes forward with the construction of a large number of new nuclear plants if there is no credible plan to safely dispose of the waste they will generate, and development of such a plan will take time and effort," Lyman said.

On the other hand, Derrick Freeman, senior director of legislative programs at the Nuclear Energy Institute, maintains that the delay in getting the commission launched should not affect the power industry's plans for more plants, since the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has ruled that plants' waste may be stored on-site for at least 100 years.

But while the federal efforts lag, the industry -- and therefore its customers -- is still paying fees on electricity generated by nuclear plants into a waste fund that currently has no objective. The industry wants that to end.

"Yucca has been something that DOE has been working on for the last 20 years, funded through our fees, and now we continue to pay fees into the waste fund," Freeman said. "If the administration does defund or eliminate Yucca, we should be able to suspend our fees or put them into an escrow account."

Several Republicans, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona, have introduced measures to do just that, but to no avail. The problem: The fees -- worth about $750 million a year -- go to the Treasury. Take them away and Congress would need to cut spending or find alternative sources of revenue. On paper, the waste fund is worth about $25 billion.

Another financial ramification of delay is the increasing federal financial liability.

Under DOE's contract with utilities, the government was supposed to have started taking spent fuel from power plants by 1998. Utilities have so far recovered more than $7 billion for the partial breach of contract from Treasury's general judgment fund.

A key question: Would a federal defunding of the Yucca Mountain project without providing an alternative mean the government has breached the utility contract? NEI is examining the matter and has not ruled out taking legal action.

There are also nine power plants that have been decommissioned but still have 2,800 metric tons of on-site used fuel, said Brian O'Connell, director of the nuclear waste program at the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.

"The properties would otherwise be turned back for productive use but for the stranded nuclear waste," O'Connell said. "We subscribe to the belief that it is economic and safer to collect all that stuff in the nine locations and put them in a central site that is better designed, managed and operated for that purpose."

'Not some political football'

While a federal commission should be formed quickly to address questions of waste storage, financial liability and a final depository, most experts say determining a U.S. course on nuclear waste should not be hasty.

An energy bill that cleared the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last year requires the blue-ribbon commission to provide a report within two years of its establishment. While some Republicans pushed for a six-month timeline, Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said that was too little time.

IEER's Makhijani and others agree, although Makhijani said the commission should not be part of any energy bill.

"This is a serious thing. This is not some political football," he said.

The panel should examine a wide range of issues for a repository before considering any dump site, Makhijani said. Such an examination would require scientists, engineers and policy experts. But companies and groups with stakes in the issue say they are in the dark as to who might be asked to join the panel.

Among the names being floated for the commission: former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.), who has participated in several commissions, including the Iraq Study Group, and is now president and director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and Shirley Ann Jackson, a former NRC chairwoman and current president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

Another big question about the commission: Would it be established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires a public record and hearings, and formally provides its report to Congress? The 9/11 Commission, which Hamilton co-chaired, worked under that law.

The panel could also be established through executive branch authority. The energy advisory committee headed by then-Vice President Dick Cheney worked that way. It was the subject of much controversy and lawsuits regarding the participants in the dozens of private meetings held before the final report -- which heavily influenced the 2001 and 2005 energy bills -- was published in 2001.

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

Common Dreams
January 12, 2010

Federal Nuclear Judges Affirm Citizen Intervention Against New Nuclear Power Reactors on Florida Nature Coast

Decision Relegates Hottest Waste in Question to Orphan Status

- January 12 - Three Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners have upheld the July 2009 ruling by a panel of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) that is hearing a challenge to two new Progress Energy Florida (PEF) nuclear reactors in Levy County, Florida. Three organizations, the Ecology Party of Florida, Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) and the Green Party of Florida are representing the interests of members living within a 50 mile radius of the proposed new nuclear site, located in the Florida Nature Coast less than 10 miles from the existing PEF Crystal River Nuclear Power Station. The Levy County reactors are projected to cost $17 billion.

The landmark ruling, handed down on Thursday, January 7 in response to an appeal by PEF, affirms that the ASLB will hear very broad concerns raised by the Intervening groups, including impacts of a new nuclear plant on ground and surface waters, endangered species, and environmental and safety issues of generating so-called "low-level" radioactive waste that currently has no off-site disposal option.

"The Environment Report submitted by Progress in its application is completely inadequate," said Gary Hecker, Treasurer of the Ecology Party and co-author of the legal submissions on the environmental issues. "Progress has a legal responsibility to investigate completely and report the impacts of this project on the land and water of the region. With this ruling on our Contention (the most comprehensive environmental contention admitted thus far in current NRC proceedings) the NRC is allowing us to draw attention to the deficiencies in the Progress Energy application. We hope this will also augur well for other groups' efforts."

Yet the NRC ruling did limit some contentions from further hearing.

"It is good news that the Commission supports litigation on waste that will be produced if this new atomic power site goes forward; however the decision makes the most concentrated portion of this waste stream - known as ‘Greater than Class C' - an orphan," said Dr. Marvin Resnikoff, an expert working with NIRS on the intervention. "This waste includes highly radioactive metal from components that are replaced during operation, or at the point of decommissioning of the reactor. The new decision means that PEF is not required to provide a plan for Greater Than Class C waste. Current federal regulations make this waste the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), but since the DOE didn't include it in the license application for Yucca Mountain, the proposed repository in Nevada, the Commissioners have left it homeless," concluded Resnikoff who is the principal at Radioactive Waste Management Associates in New York City.

"More than 50 years after the first nuclear power reactor began operating in the US there is still no proven way to isolate the radioactive waste because some of it will still be dangerous in a million years. Wherever the waste - of any class-high or low, A, B, C or Greater than C - ends up will be a sacrifice area and the Florida Nature Coast is being sacrificed. The best plan is simply to not make it in the first place," said Diane D'Arrigo, Director of the Radioactive Waste Project at Nuclear Information and Resource Service.

Mary Olson, of NIRS from its Southeast Office, is coordinating the pro se legal prosecution of these issues and is satisfied by the ruling. "It's exciting - it's been 35 years since the nuclear industry tried to site and build new reactors. These new facilities are still not clean, they are not safe, and building a huge radioactive facility on top of the recharge area for some of the most pristine freshwater springs on the planet is wrong," said Olson.

The hearing on the PEF license application will proceed with development of expert testimony, the publication of federal documents on safety and environment and then in 2011 or 2012, a hearing that will be conducted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

The full petition to intervene (filed in February 2009) and key legal rulings are posted at:

http://www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/levy/levyhome.htm

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

Wall Street Journal blog
January 12, 2010

Green Ink: Shallow Gas, Electric Cars, and the Future of Yucca Mountain

By Keith Johnson

Crude oil futures fell toward $81 a barrel amid forecasts of warmer weather in the U.S., Bloomberg reports.

Chevron warns on fourth-quarter earnings due to a weak refining environment that couldn’t offset higher oil prices, in the WSJ.

Natural gas finds a new, shallow-water frontier: McMoRan’s potentially huge shallow-water find in the Gulf of Mexico raises hopes of abundant, low-cost supplies, in the Houston Chronicle.

More scorecards on President Obama’s first year in office. Daniel Weiss of the Center for American Progress figures the president went 10-for-10 on the think thank’s clean-energy prescriptions, at Grist.

California is studying ways to return money from climate-change plans to consumers, through rebates or tax cuts elsewhere, in the WSJ. California’s approach represents another way of buying support for oft-controversial climate plans, in Greenspace.

Electric cars stole the show at the opening of the Detroit Auto Show, even if they and their hybrid cousins are still terribly niche. GM warns of teething pains, in the NYT:”’It’s going to take us three generations of range-extended electric vehicles to get any anywhere near reasonable costs,’ said Thomas Stephens, G.M.’s vice chairman for product development.”

GM’s Bob Lutz also warns that first-generation batteries will be very fickle things, especially in winter, in the WSJ. More on all the new models at Earth2Tech.

Venezuela’s teetering economy could take another hit from power shortages, brought about as low rainfall cripples key hydroelectric plants. Who’s to blame—El Nino or La Corrupcion?, in the FT.

It’s official—China scraps the restriction on foreign parts in turbines used for wind farms, potentially opening up the world’s fastest-growing market to more foreign investment, in AFP.

Finally, what ever happened to that blue-ribbon panel meant to find an answer to Yucca Mountain? It has yet to be formed, leaving the nuclear industry to struggle still with the waste question, in Greenwire.

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

La Crosse Tribune
January 11, 2010

Diane Farsetta: Remove nuclear provisions from Clean Energy Jobs Act

By Diane Farsetta

Would a truly "clean energy" source produce "one of the nation's most hazardous substances"?

Of course not.

So why include provisions on nuclear reactors in the state's Clean Energy Jobs Act, recently introduced in the state legislature? Nuclear reactors generate high-level radioactive waste, which is "one of the nation's most hazardous substances," according to the U.S. Govern-ment Accountability Office.

In a November 2009 report, the respected nonpartisan agency found there were no good options for dealing with the radioactive waste. And, as the federal government continues its decades-long struggle to find a solution to this grave public safety, environmental and political problem, the costs to taxpayers and ratepayers will skyrocket.

In the meantime, radioactive waste is piling up at 80 sites in 35 states, including three sites in Wisconsin. Many sites are active nuclear reactors, where the mounting waste problem has forced plant operators to rearrange "the racks holding spent fuel in (cooling) pools ... to allow for more dense storage," according to the GAO report. "Even with this re-racking, spent nuclear fuel pools are reaching their capacities."

Although the GAO notes that radioactive waste can also be stored in dry casks next to reactors, it warns that "extended on-site storage could introduce possible risks to the safety and security of the waste as the storage systems degrade and the waste decays, potentially requiring new maintenance and security measures."

The GAO report should be mandatory reading for anyone contemplating weakening Wisconsin's safeguards on new nuclear reactors. For 25 years, state law has required that there be a federally licensed repository for high-level nuclear waste, before new reactors can be built here. This condition is needed to ensure that more of our communities don't become dumping grounds for "one of the nation's most hazardous substances."

Unfortunately, one of the most important environmental measures ever to come before our state Legislature - the Clean Energy Jobs Act, or Assembly Bill 649 - contains a provision that would weaken our nuclear safeguards. The provision would completely remove the requirement for a nuclear waste repository. Instead, it would allow new nuclear reactors to be built in the state if the plan to deal with the radioactive waste is deemed "economic, reasonable, stringent and in the public interest."

While that language may sound strong, it's how the nuclear industry describes its practice of keeping the radioactive waste at reactor sites indefinitely - the same non-solution that the GAO warned about.

There is no effective way to deal with nuclear waste, short of avoiding its production in the first place. No country - not even France, the favorite example of nuclear boosters - has been able to build what scientists consider the safest long-term storage option for radioactive nuclear waste: a deep geologic repository.

Why does the Clean Energy Jobs Act include problematic nuclear provisions, among its many commendable measures to address global warming and strengthen Wisconsin's economy by increasing energy efficiency and supporting renewable energy projects?

Simply put, it's spin- and lobbying-driven politics. For years, the nuclear industry has lobbied the federal government furiously - and often, successfully - for more subsidies and fewer regulations, claiming to be the answer to global warming. For the past year, these same lobbyists have been active in Madison, and some state legislators have bought their arguments. As a result, pro-nuclear provisions were included in the Clean Energy Jobs Act, in a bid to increase support for a complex bill sure to be contentious.

Yet good politics often doesn't make good policy. Keeping nuclear provisions in the Clean Energy Jobs Act gives serious pause to environmentalists, public health professionals and concerned citizens who understand that their state must mount a robust response to global warming. They know that the changes would open the door to more nuclear reactors - and more radioactive waste stockpiles - in Wisconsin.

Even worse, the provisions may incline federal policymakers seeking an alternative to the long-stalled and now officially rejected Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository to look our way. In the 1980s, the Wolf River Batholith region was high on the list of potential sites for a national nuclear waste repository. Passing a global warming measure that relaxes our nuclear safeguards could get Wisconsin back on that list.

Nuclear reactors do not produce clean energy; they create "one of the nation's most hazardous substances." Therefore, legislators must take the pro-nuclear provisions out of the Clean Energy Jobs Act.

--Diane Farsetta is coordinator of the Carbon Free, Nuclear Free campaign of the Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice (wnpj.org), a coalition of more than 160 environmental, peace, religious, labor and human rights groups from across the state.

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

Duluth News Tribune
January 11, 2010

Pro/con: Nuclear is too expensive, too risky

Lofty claims about the benefits of nuclear power have been coming from the Nuclear Energy Institute’s lobbyists and others. Yet news journals, financial journals and energy journals all make clear that boiling water with uranium is the costliest and dirtiest energy choice.

By: John LaForge

Even Time magazine reported, on Dec. 31, 2008, that, “New [reactors] would be not just extremely expensive but spectacularly expensive.”

Florida Power and Light’s recent estimate for a two-reactor system was a shocking $12 billion to $18 billion. The Wall Street Journal reported on nuclear’s prospects on May 12, 2008, finding that, “The projected cost is causing some sticker shock [and is] double to quadruple earlier rough estimates.”

No less than Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric, one of the world’s richest nuclear engineering firms, discouraged new reactor construction because of financial liabilities. In the Nov. 18, 2007, London Financial Times, Immelt said, “If you were a utility CEO and looked at your world today, you would just do gas and wind. You would say [they are] easier to site, digestible [and] I don’t have to bet my company on any of this stuff. You would never do nuclear. The economics are overwhelming.”

The estimates never even include the cost of managing radioactive waste, a bill that keeps coming for centuries. The New York Times reported five years ago that the owners of nearly half the reactors in the U.S. “are not reserving enough money to decommission them on retirement.” The newspaper’s sources were Congressional auditors, who also said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was not tracking the money carefully.

Radioactive tritium has poisoned groundwater near at least 14 reactors in the U.S., including in Kewaunee, Wis. Groundwater is contaminated with tritium above Environmental Protection Agency and Nuclear Regulatory Commission allowances under the communities of Braidwood, Ill., Dresden, Ill., Brookhaven, N.Y., Palo Verde, Ariz., Indian Point, N.Y., Diablo Canyon, Calif., San Onofre, Calif., and Kewaunee.

Nuclear is so dirty Germany legislated a national phase-out of its

17 reactors by 2025. That 1998 decision was based partly on government studies that found high rates of childhood leukemia in areas near German reactors. In July 2007 the European Journal of Cancer Care published a similar report by Dr. Peter Baker of the Medical University of South Carolina that found elevated leukemia incidence in children near U.S. reactors.

U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., complained to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2005: “The nuclear industry and the NRC have automatically dismissed all studies that link increased cancer risk to exposure to low levels of radiation. The NRC needs to study — not summarily dismiss — the connection between serious health risks and radiation released from nuclear reactors.”

The Oxford Research Group’s 2007 study, “Too Hot to Handle,” called the hope of quickly building new reactors a “pipe dream.” In his 2008 book, “Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy,” Dr. Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, said, “Even the leaders of the nuclear industry have said that they will not build new plants without

100 percent federal loan guarantees.”

Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute, wrote “The Flawed Economics of Nuclear Power” in 2008, noting, “While little private capital is going into nuclear power, investors are pouring tens of billions of dollars into wind farms each year. And while the world’s nuclear-generating capacity is estimated to expand by only 1,000 megawatts this year, wind-generating capacity will likely grow by 30,000 megawatts.”

The Washington Post reported less than two months ago that “leading environmental figures, including former Vice President Al Gore, remain skeptical of nuclear’s promise.” That’s due to the high cost of construction and the threat of nuclear-weapons proliferation. Leading security and big-business figures are skeptical for similar reasons.

The U.S. Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism has called for ending subsidies that would expand nuclear power. In its Oct. 21 report, “The Clock Is Ticking,” the commission recommended that the “U.S. … work internationally toward strengthening the non-proliferation regime ... discouraging, to the extent possible, the use of financial incentives in the promotion of civil nuclear power.”

Nuclear power’s pollution burden already is carried by the public. This is bailout enough. The industry should not also be allowed to unload on us its overwhelming financial risks.

--John LaForge of Luck, Wis., is a staff member for the independent action group Nukewatch and edits its quarterly newsletter.

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

New York Times
January 11, 2010

Yucca Haunts Admin's Lagging Efforts on Nuclear Waste Study Panel

By Katherine Ling

Hanging in the balance is 60,000 metric tons of commercial and defense nuclear waste.

"I think the bigger danger is that inaction will simply lead us back to Yucca Mountain," Makhijani said, adding, "Leaving the problem to fester is not good."

Last week, Chu responded to questions about the commission by saying the Energy Department is "working as hard and fast as we can on that."

Ramifications

Meanwhile, Lyman said, new nuclear power plants are being proposed that will create even more waste than the nation's fleet of 104 reactors.

Another financial ramification of delay is the increasing federal financial liability.

'Not some political football'

IEER's Makhijani and others agree, although Makhijani said the commission should not be part of any energy bill.

"This is a serious thing. This is not some political football," he said.

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

Las Vegas Review-Journal
January 10, 2010

Jan. 10, 2010
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal

John L. Smith: Not brand new, but they'll take it

Tonopah

The collective sigh of relief is almost audible at the Nye Regional Medical Center -- and it's not coming just from the patients.

The Nye County Commission recently approved spending $55,000 for a new X-ray machine for the diminutive medical center in the central Nevada community, located on U.S. Highway 95 about 200 miles northwest of Las Vegas. It was welcome news to the hospital's staff, which has been watching its old X-ray machine fade like a dying neon sign.

In this case, "new" is a relative term.

"It's new to us," hospital administrator Charlie Mann says. Although several years old, technologically speaking the machine is light years ahead of the current model, which was uncrated when the hospital opened in the 1970s. "We've gotten 35 years of service out of that X-ray machine. The people who have maintained it have run out of parts from the last two machines they've been cannibalizing for parts to fix it. The model doesn't even exist anymore."

Why make a fuss over a new X-ray machine?

Because this is Tonopah. You are a long way from the next medical facility. Although Nye County Commission Chairwoman Joni Eastley likes to say Tonopah is "in the middle of everywhere," it's three hours northwest of Las Vegas, even farther south of Reno and Elko.

On U.S. 95 between Las Vegas and Hawthorne, a stretch of 300 miles, there's precisely one emergency room. Nye Regional features two gurneys in the E.R., 14 acute-care beds, two nurses, one doctor, one respiratory therapist and one X-ray technician. But it takes many of the same trauma cases, especially auto accidents, seen by big-city hospitals.

"We get the whole gamut," Mann says. "Naturally, with two beds in the emergency room, if a family of four rolls over their car, to me that's a mass casualty incident. Out here we practice what's called frontier medicine. That's even more remote than rural medicine. To work in health care in a rural-frontier setting is radically different from working in an urban setting, mainly because you have to wear so many hats."

And you take your benefactors where you find them. In the case of the almost new X-ray machine, the funding originated with the Yucca Mountain Project, which has annually poured an average of $11 million into Nye County for a variety of quality of life improvements in recent years. And, some would argue, to soften its image with a skeptical public.

For Commissioner Eastley, an unabashed proponent of the politically endangered nuclear waste repository, it's another example of the county benefiting from the Department of Energy project. Unlike a majority of residents in the urban areas of Clark and Washoe counties, most rural Nevadans aren't worried about Yucca Mountain's safety issues. Eastley sees the project as potentially creating an economic boost for her constituents in a county where new jobs are hard to come by.

Eastley points to the X-ray machine as one of many examples of the Yucca Mountain Project already paying dividends to rural Nevada residents.

At the hospital, Mann has already started laying the groundwork for the new machine, including installing new wiring in the lab to accommodate this century's technology.

"The difference it will make for us is literally life and death," Mann says. "We can do what we do right now with what we have right now, but it's old, and the quality of the image we will get will be so much better."

Politically speaking, these days the Yucca Mountain Project is on its deathbed. Under pressure from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the government continues to cut funding to the project. That's a good thing to those who want Yucca's scalp, but those cuts also have an impact on funding slated to benefit places such as Tonopah.

Reid's political clout wins him big headlines in Las Vegas and Reno and Washington, but it makes him few friends in Tonopah and other towns that dot Nevada's vast outback.

The good news is, if Reid or one of his opponents takes a spill on U.S. 95 while on the campaign trail, there will be an almost new X-ray machine waiting for them in Tonopah.

--John L. Smith (Smith@review-journal.com) is a Review-Journal columnist.

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

Sonoran Weekly Review
January 09, 2010

Dr. Edwin X. Berry and MG Paul E. Vallely – Why we support nuclear power and why you should too

By Edwin X Berry, PhD, and Paul Vallely (MG US Army Retired)

Several of my subscribers have asked why I support nuclear power. Basically, I support nuclear power because, as a physicist, I am aware of its significant advantages and minimal disadvantages.

America needs abundant, low-cost, reliable energy. America’s enemies – The Sierra Club,their likes, our politicians, and our duped university ecologists – have ganged up on America to propagate myths that turn us against the very resources we need to survive.

These groups began by stopping nuclear power 40 years ago and by stopping coal and oil production 30 years ago. America’s economy is presently crashing largely because they, our enemy, have been successful in de-energizing America. They want our energizer bunny to stop beating.

Thermodynamics is powerful physics. It tells us that the more compact our energy source, the higher the energy quality. We can make better use of compact energy than disperse energy. Wind, solar and bio-fuels are disperse energy sources. Coal and oil are concentrated sources and we need them to power our economy.

My principal message has been that carbon dioxide emissions will not change our climate and should not be regulated. Therefore, coal and oil energy are not climate change problems. My second message is the we should use nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy is 3 million times more concentrated than coal and oil energy. Cost wise, nuclear competes favorably with coal. Nuclear does not need 100 railroad cars of coal per day. In the last 30 years, the average life-time costs of nuclear and coal electricity are about the same.

Here are some facts about nuclear power that most people do not know. For more details, see the website of “Don Lutz”: http://www.truthaboutenergy.com/index.html:

1 – Nuclear power offers an infinite supply of energy.

2 – Energy produced from nuclear power plants is the most economical of all sources.

3 – Nuclear power has no pollutants.

4 – Nuclear power fission product wastes are minuscule and can be safely stored.

5 – Nuclear power is safe as demonstrated by the records of 104 commercial plants each operated over 30 years.

The myth of limited uranium supply originated from the old light water reactors, also called slow neutron reactors. They were able to use only about 1% of the energy in the uranium.The remaining 99% then would need to be put in Yucca Mountain for 10,000 years.

But since 1951, we have had fast neutron reactors that can use the remaining 99% of the uranium. The government and media have hidden the fact (just like they hide the facts about climate change) that we have fast neutron reactors that use 100% of the uranium fuel. There is no need for a Yucca Mountain.

Using fast neutron technology, we have enough uranium lying around from our slow neutron reactors and our weapons programs to power all the electrical needs of America for 700 years.

We now have two problems:

First,educating the public to the truth (just like we have to do with climate change).

Second, getting moving on nuclear before all our trained experts go to nuclear heaven. If we keep delaying we will leave America with no nuclear experts. This would be like firing all the Navy Top Gun pilots and expecting a new generation to learn such flying all by themselves. It won’t happen. Without getting our nuclear programs going soon, we will lose America’s opportunity. This, of course, is our enemy’s desire.

The heavy hitter supporters of John Shanahan’s letter know all about this nuclear technology. They worked on our fast neutron reactors for 50 years. They pioneered the work over 30 years ago that our government has worked to destroy since. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton stopped all fast neutron reactor development. John Holdren was their key adviser.

Building nuclear power in America will create good jobs and useful jobs. It will build our economy and support a new generation of business that will provide more jobs.

It is amazing to think that if Obama were to make nuclear power a true priority, it would be the best thing he and any president before him has done for America. With one executive order he could out-scoop the Republicans and go from being public enemy number one to becoming a national hero. He truly has the whole world in his hands.

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

Pahrump Valley Times
January 08, 2010

Commission decides to hook up buildings to Utilities Inc.

By Mark Waite
PVT

TONOPAH -- Nye County commissioners Tuesday rescinded their Nov. 17 action to drill their own well and build their own commercial septic system for the new county administration building on the Calvada Eye.

Instead, commissioners will hook up to Utilities Inc. of Central Nevada after all. Commission Chairman Gary Hollis cast the sole vote against the motion.

County Manager Rick Osborne presented updated figures which showed the county would have to pay $952,473 for its own water and sewer system, as opposed to $477,000 if they hooked up to Utilities Inc. -- a difference of $475,473.

Figures presented in November estimated the county cost at $533,000 and the cost of hooking up to Utilities Inc. at $354,952.

Osborne said he was unaware he could submit information he received at the 11th hour for consideration before that November meeting.

The fire suppression system would be the biggest expense in building a county-owned system, estimated to cost $306,671. Drilling a well would cost another $150,000.

Assistant County Manager Pam Webster said the county still has $186,386 appropriated for remodeling the Calvada Eye apartments (that were ultimately demolished) which could be used for the project. But if the county hooks up to Utilities Inc. there wouldn't be a need to allocate any additional money, she said.

Commissioners allocated $2 million for the new administration building out of Payment Equal to Taxes for Yucca Mountain. They already signed a contract with Pac-Van Inc. for $1.43 million to install the 11,000-square-foot modular buildings and various other contracts.

"If you're trying to poke your finger in Utilities Inc.'s eye, you should put in your own well and septic. If you're trying to save taxpayer money, that's another question," Commissioner Joni Eastley said.

Hollis said the county could recoup the money for its own well and septic system over 10 years from money it would spend on monthly charges by Utilities Inc.

But Commissioner Butch Borasky said, "I don't want to poke their eye for $398,000."

Eastley said Osborne's itemized list didn't include the cost of maintaining the water pumping equipment. Osborne said the county didn't have a good handle on what those maintenance costs might be.

Osborne said Nye County paid Utilities Inc. $23,000 last year for water, a decrease from the $56,451 estimate at the November meeting.

But Hollis was concerned about giving Utilities Inc. water rights.

"If down the road, five, 10 years from now," he said, "a board of county commissioners decide they want to go and do their own project there, we just handed Utilities Inc. 42 acre feet of water, unless we can get legal advice to put something in the quit claim deed that says that water comes back to the county, and then I don't know if Utilities Inc. would accept that quit claim deed."

Osborne said Nye County has to donate 42 acre feet of water if it drills its own well. He was more concerned about whether the Nevada Division of Water Resources would allow Nye County to drill its own well, being inside the Utilities Inc. service territory.

Hollis said the Public Utilities Commission just denied Utilities Inc. permission to offer Nye County an irrigation rate of 60 cents per 1,000 gallons for landscaping the Calvada Eye. That means the county will pay the full rate for potable water, more than double that amount.

"If a developer had a 10-acre ball field of grass, is Utilities Inc. going to give them the same rate they gave the county? The PUC said they're granting favoritism," Hollis said.

Borasky was concerned bickering with the state and Utilities Inc. would hold up the project. Osborne said consultants for Nevada Geo-Tech reported it takes four to six months to receive a decision from the Nevada Division of Water Resources on applications for drilling a well.

"So when these buildings that have already been ordered start arriving, we're going to have to make sure they're fenced in and secure so we can finish the project, because we're not sure where the lines are going to run," Osborne said.

Osborne told Hollis there are water lines hooked up to the temporary, modular building used for county administration at the Calvada Eye that formerly housed Nevada JobConnect.

At first there wasn't a second to Borasky's motion to enter into a contract with Utilities Inc.

"I'll still make the same motion. If they don't want to second it and the building gets delayed again, please don't point any fingers at me," Borasky said.

Commissioner Fely Quitevis then offered to second the motion.

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

Green.Blorge
January 08, 2010

What do we do with nuclear waste

by Susan Wilson

Every nuclear power plant in the world creates nuclear waste. We aren’t talking about something with a 10 year life span, but waste that will take 300 years to more than 100,000 years to decay to safe environmental levels. The problem of disposal continues to present problems especially now when so many nuclear reactors have reached the end of their life spans. A lot of proposals have been thrown out there but no real resolution has been reached.

Ezra Gold, a student at the University of Rochester, provides an overview of three ways to take care of spent fuel. One is short term storage. The second is long term storage and the last is transmutation (also known as “recycling) or changing the fuel from a highly radioactive substance to a less radioactive substance for use in other types of reactors.

The August 2009 edition of Scientific American, carried an article, “Is There a Place for Nuclear Waste?” that discussed current methods of disposing of nuclear waste and some proposed future methods. The current method is to remove the spent fuel (fuel is considered spent after three to six years in a nuclear reactor) and submerge it in a concrete and steel lined pool of water for about 10 years. After the initial submersion in water to cool off the spent fuel, the fuel is removed in steel casings that are placed in a concrete cask for storage on site.

Recycling was banned in the US in 1976 by President Ford. Since recycling the spent fuel meant the creation of Plutonium as part of the process. It was deemed to risky. Plutonium is a weapons grade fuel that posed a potential security problem if it was ever stolen.

The challenging storage problem is the removal and storage of actinides that are created during the fission process. Actinides have half-lives in the hundreds of thousands of years and need to be disposed of in such a way that they don’t pose a security risk, or harm to humans or the environment.

The consensus among nations with nuclear reactors, is that long term disposal of highly radioactive materials requires a deep geological repository. As the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), has stated:

The safety of geological disposal is widely accepted amongst the technical community and a number of countries have now decided to move forward with this option. . . Strategies for storage and disposal need careful consideration in light of the many issues involved. These include transport of radioactive wastes from storage sites to disposal sites, security of the waste, retrievability of the waste from storage, safe packaging and conditioning of waste for long term storage and disposal, availability of suitable disposal sites, confidence that adequate levels of safety can be achieved, and the availability of finances.

Finding that repository is proving to be a problem in many countries resulting in a nuclear waste problem.

Several proposed sites for the United States such as deep sea burial, Columbia River basalt, Carlsbad Caverns, and Yucca Mountain, all have significant problems that should rule them out of contention. However, politics has a way of ignoring any negative issues, if enough money is involved. That’s how we got Yucca Mountain as a proposed site courtesy of a 1987 amendment of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. President Obama’s administration has nixed that idea, although it could be resurrected at some future date.

Thirteen years ago, a research study at the University of Rochester, showed that stored nuclear material at a closed nuclear reprocessing center in West Valley, NY was leaking into two streams. The contamination is not harmful but does point to potential problems with other more dangerous sites. Luckily, other nuclear facilities in New York state were not leaking.

The IAEA, was created in 1957 within the United Nations as the “Atoms for Peace” program. The IAEA works with UN member states to “promote safe, secure and peaceful nuclear technologies.” The organization provides independent regulatory oversight, education and research facilities for nations and organizations world wide. Another function is the development of security and safety measures for handling nuclear material.

The Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management, entered into force on 18 June 2001, is considered an IAEA related treaty. The IAEA conducts regular review meetings of the signatories.

The objectives of this Convention are:

(i) to achieve and maintain a high level of safety worldwide in spent fuel and radioactive waste management, through the enhancement of national measures and international co-operation, including where appropriate, safety-related technical co-operation;

(ii) to ensure that during all stages of spent fuel and radioactive waste management there are effective defenses against potential hazards so that individuals, society and the environment are protected from harmful effects of ionizing radiation, now and in the future, in such a way that the needs and aspirations of the present generation are met without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs and aspirations;

(iii) to prevent accidents with radiological consequences and to mitigate their consequences should they occur during any stage of spent fuel or radioactive waste management

The Convention covers all aspects of spent fuel and radioactive waste containment and disposal. Each of the signatories, one of which is the US, has agreed to abide by safety guidelines set out in the convention.

The guidelines aren’t in dispute nor are the requirements for proper storage and disposal of radioactive waste. What has been and continues to be a problem is developing and selecting methods that meet all of the safety requirements.

According to an IAEA publication it isn’t just our current society that must be taken into account. Indeed,

Long term safety also requires that future societies will be in a position to exercise active control over these materials and maintain effective transfer of responsibility, knowledge and information from generation to generation. Long term storage is only sustainable if future societies can maintain these responsibilities.

For the moment, the US is adopting the Scarlett O’Hara approach, we’ll think about that tomorrow. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has changed the “waste confidence doctrine” “which says that while there is no repository now, there is “reasonable assurance” that there will be one by 2025,” to “the waste can be stored in casks for decades at reactors with no environmental effect, until burial is available.” In other words, who knows when.

This result is that the NRC is accepting onsite storage as the long term solution for dealing with all nuclear waste. Sometime in the future, someone will come up with somewhere to actually dispose of it all.

In the meantime, the IAEA has stated that one “1,000 megawatt nuclear reactor produces 33 tons of spent fuel a year.” That’s a lot of nuclear waste that has been building up and continues to build up for onsite above ground storage. But, we don’t have to worry about that now, its an issue for a future generation.

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

The Guardian
January 08, 2010

Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto by Stewart Brand

Jon Turney enjoys an intriguing argument for an end to idealism from an environmentalist with 60s credentials

Jon Turney

If we are serious about curbing climate change, what would actually help? More people in cities, lots of nuclear power stations and lashings of GM crops, urges Stewart Brand. Unless green activists embrace the benefits of all three, they are not part of the solution, but part of the problem.

This prescription, from the founder of that quintessential 1960s publication the Whole Earth Catalog

He builds his case skilfully, weaving together a wealth of sources. The most novel material concerns cities, now home to more than half of humanity, and set to attract many millions more. Most will begin their new urban lives in the shanty towns and slums of the southern hemisphere. Viewed from the comfort of the developed world, they are pretty terrible places. They are also, Brand insists, full of people working their way out of poverty as fast as they can. They offer freedoms denied to villagers, especially women villagers, and foster a zillion micro-enterprises. And cities new and old cram many people into small spaces, exacting a lower environmental cost than if they stayed in the countryside.

On nuclear power, he finds that those who know the most see the least to fear. The opposite is true of coal plants, and their vast outpouring of carbon dioxide. Monuments to nuclear fear, such as the $10bn Yucca Mountain waste depository in Nevada, are, he concludes after a visit, "nutty". Why commit to entombing radioactive waste for thousands of years with existing technology? The question has additional force when posed by the co-founder of the Long Now Foundation – another of Brand's many ventures – which is dedicated to long-term thinking. The way to deal with the long term is to allow for adaptation and keep options open, not lock into a single strategy. In a couple of hundred years, never mind a thousand, there is a good chance we will have far better ways of dealing with nuclear waste. On the other hand, if we are back in the stone age by then, decaying nuclear waste dumps will be the least of our worries.

On genetic manipulation, he relates no Yucca-style epiphany. Brand felt that swapping genes around was no big deal back in the 70s, when scientists first worked out how to do it. The profoundly unnatural human activity, for him, is agriculture. But it has become clearer that GM crops can make it better: more productive, more sustainable, and more adaptable to climate change. Opposing such use of helpful technology, in his view, is the biggest mistake the environmental movement has ever made.

Brand's arguments are good, and his mind-changing, let's-all-learn-from-my-mistakes rhetoric is pretty persuasive. How effective will it be? I am uncertain, because unsure how far environmentalists will accept his claim to be one of their own. Sure, he studied ecology with Paul Ehrlich, dropped acid with Ken Kesey and lives on a tugboat in San Francisco, so his 60s credentials are second to none. But he has always had an unusual appetite for ideas, and is as likely to be found talking to tech entrepreneurs as tree-huggers. Climate change really grabbed his attention when the Global Business Network – yet another venture he co-founded – did a famous study for the Pentagon on the dangers of rapid climate shifts.

His own big idea is that the best approach to the issues he discusses is pragmatism. He fleshes it out by example, rather than by discussing its philosophical defence by John Dewey or William James. He reckons it is an engineer's approach, accepting whatever gets results. For environmentalists, he suggests, it means not a shift in ideology, but discarding ideology completely.

Maybe so, but there are deeper matters of world view at stake here than that simple suggestion recognises. Some of them are taken up in the latter part of the book, where Brand offers his own vision of caring for ecosystems even as we transform them – adopting lessons from everyone from Native Americans to modern, scientifically informed restoration projects. There is a long tradition of managing, maintaining and repairing ecosystems which we have to learn from, he argues. It begins with gardening, but can be scaled up to take in a whole planet.

In fact, we must use that tradition to expand our future repertoire to include geoengineering as well as the trio of cities, nukes and gene-tweaking he has already dealt with. This will be an even bigger stretch for old-school environmentalists. Discussion of serious options for geoengineering, such as pumping sulphur dioxide aerosols into the atmosphere or manufacturing artificial "trees" to remove carbon dioxide, is just beginning. But it can easily sound like a collection of hubristic schemes dreamed up by mad scientists.

Again, Brand is pragmatic and cautious. We will soon be considering geoengineering, he argues, because mitigation is not going to work. We do not yet know which geoengineering schemes will work, either, but we must do the research to find out, especially through investment in sensors and monitoring to improve understanding of earth systems. He foresees that old-school greens will go on clinging to their opposition to the technologies they love to hate. But if that happens, they will be marginalised by a new generation of science-led, environmentally aware ecoengineers who recognise that the state of the Earth is now in our hands. Contemplating the outcome of the Copenhagen climate conference, I can only hope he is right. There will be long, impassioned arguments along the way, but this wise book is a great start.

--Jon Turney's Rough Guide to the Future will published later this year.

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

Lincoln County Record
January 07, 2010

Higbee Presents Report

By Dave Maxwell

Vaughn Higbee, of Alamo, reported to County Commissioners December 21 about the trip to a nuclear plant in Idaho Falls he made on behalf of Robison/Seidler.

He, along with Mayor Keith Larson of Caliente, Commissioner Ed Higbee of Alamo, and Chris Binzer of Las Vegas, made the trip in early December. He said the weather was nice in Idaho Falls. "It was clear, about 8 below in the day and 20 below at night

The Department of Energy has a plant at Idaho Falls, Argonne National Laboratories, which is involved at present with developing what Higbee said are Energy Parks and Energy Initiative programs.

"It's a small group," he said, "and they spent a lot of time visiting and talking with us about how things operate."

A new research project at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and Argonne National Laboratory will use an innovative approach to learn how to get more use from nuclear fuel. "They create a higher temperature burn-up in order to better utilize nuclear fuel and still maintain a safe rate," Higbee commented.

The U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory seeks solutions to pressing national problems in science and technology. The nation's first national laboratory, Argonne conducts leading-edge basic and applied scientific research in virtually every scientific discipline. Argonne researchers work closely with researchers from hundreds of companies, universities, and federal, state and municipal agencies to help them solve their specific problems, advance America's scientific leadership and prepare the nation for a better future.

A lot of the liquid fuel that was created and stored there during their military phase, Higbee said, is now being processed into a small nuclear granules and being put into dry-cask storage and eventually the plan is, he said, to ship the casks to the Yucca Mountain Repository.

Another project at INL, Higbee said, involves retrieving large amounts of both high-and low-level nuclear wastes, mostly low level. The waste, he explained is highly compacted by something similar to a hay compactor, and placed in 100 gallon drums. A system of controls has been developed that sorts the most high-level materials from the rest of the waste. Higbee said the 100-gallon drums, after being packed, are loaded on military trucks and are being shipped to the Nevada Test Site (NTS).

He presented Commissioners a report on new developments in the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy which has a "primary mission to advance nuclear power as a resource capable of making major contributions in meeting Nevada's energy supply, environmental and energy security needs by resolving technical, cost, safety, security and regulatory issues through research, development and demonstration."

Higbee read part of a statement regarding some questions being asked by Senators Joe Barton (R-TX) and Greg Walden (R-OR) of Energy Secretary Steven Chu, claiming that by closing down the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository site, "the Obama administration would strand more than $6 billion of public investment, abandon 25 years of scientific engineering work, ensure that spent nuclear fuel will remain indefinitely at 121 sites in 39 states, including major metropolitan areas, and undermine development of nuclear power in the United States."

Outspoken local Yucca Mountain opponent Marge Detraz of Caliente, again said during the public comment period, she believes Lincoln County Commissioners are really trying to get Yucca Mountain licensed, and are in direct opposition to the State of Nevada, which does not want to have the repository site licensed or built, but Commissioners denied her claim.

In further comments to Commissioners Higbee spoke about HR2729, a bill that has to do with the creation of National Energy Reserves.

Sponsored by Congressman Benjamin Lujan, (D-NM), the bill authorizes the designation of National Environmental Research Parks by the Secretary of Energy. It is now before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy.

One of the sites chosen for a National Environmental Reserve is the Nevada Test Site (NTS), Higbee said.

The Department of Energy and its Office of Nuclear Energy, is planning on working together with the University of Nevada-Reno and Emergency Management to create an area that would essentially become a research park to deal with all types of energy, i.e., solar, biomass, geo-thermal, natural gas, clean coal, etc. The intent is in looking to use alternate energy to create electricity.

Higbee suggested Commissioners consider the idea and plan for a future meeting to create a position for Lincoln County on these parks. He said he thought the County could have an influence on the park because part of the Nevada Test Site is in Lincoln County.

A handout Higbee presented stated the five new imperatives of the Office of Nuclear
Energy are to:

• Extend life, improve performance, and sustain health and safety of the current fleet.

• Enable new plant builds and improve the affordability of nuclear energy.

• Enable transition away from fossil fuels in the transportation and industrial sectors.

• Enable sustainable fuel cycles.

• Understand and minimize proliferation risk.

He explained the parks would be pre-licensed locations for testing. They are pre-licensed, he stated, so it doesn't take 10-20 years to get a site selected and prepared to do the testing.

From what he observed on his trip to Idaho, the plant there is already gearing up for being one of the Energy Reserve sites. He said the plant anticipates nearly tripling their work force in the next three to five years.

Commissioner Ronda Hornbeck commented that Lincoln County does not have any input to what the Nevada Test Site does, and she would not like to see "time and effort" spent on a project like this. Higbee responded by saying the Community Reuse Alliance (CRA) is working hard to "get a voice for local leaders so they will be able to have a say about what is going on at these reserves as they change from storage areas."

This will allow the different National Reserves to "have some input with a seat at the table." He added, the Energy Community Alliance (ECA) is also working toward the same objective. In addition, he said he believes Lincoln County "needs to establish and position and continue working closely with the ECA, and stay involved with them."

Higbee said a lot of the sites being considered are really under the Department of Defense. The mission, he thought, is to change a place like the Nevada Test Site, from testing atomic material to doing energy research and development. "If that were to happen, then Lincoln County would want to be involved," he said. "So they can help to both create positive, and mitigate the negative impacts."

Marge Detraz, nuclear energy waste storage opponent, said during public comment the Nevada Test Site is not safe. The Nevada delegation has stopped the Yucca Mountain Railroad and the County Commission isn't going to get anywhere with this. "President Obama and Senator Reid have both said No. The board isn't going to overrule them."

She added, Nevada has hired different attorneys to prevent Yucca Mountain licensing, but Lincoln County continues to seem to be determined to hire attorneys and lobbyists to get it licensed. Chairman Paul Mathews disagreed, saying that is not what Lincoln County has done.

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

Huffington Post
January 07, 2010

Why Obama Should Rethink the Closure of Yucca Mountain

Wil Hylton
GQ Correspondent

Whatever else one thinks of Yucca Mountain, the view from on top is breathtaking: To the west, you can spot Mount Whitney, the highest point in the continental U.S.; to the south, Death Valley, the nation's lowest point; and in between, and all around, the sweeping vista of the Amargosa Valley, peppered with wild sage, blackbrush, and a sprinkling of volcanic cinder cones. If Yucca Mountain had not been designated as a dumpsite for radioactive waste in 1987, it might easily have become a scenic overlook on the long drive between Tonopah and Las Vegas.

Instead, gazing out from the summit today, it is difficult to focus on anything but those cinder cones. Within a few miles of the mountain's base, there are at least seven of these small volcanoes, two of which have erupted during the past 10,000 years - precisely the period of time that the Yucca Mountain repository is supposed to last. Indeed, Yucca Mountain itself is nothing more than a 1200-foot pile of volcanic debris, a somewhat unsettling detail that the project's promoters have not exactly emphasized. How scientists can guarantee that these volcanoes, which fluctuate between active and dormant status over geologic time, will not erupt again at any time in the next 10,000 years, is a question very much in need of an answer.

It was also the question that seemed to be on President Barack Obama's mind early last year, as he canceled funding for the nuclear repository and shuttered the site indefinitely. "Yucca Mountain," Senator Harry Reid of Nevada commented with a grin, "is gone."

Yet if Obama's decision to close Yucca Mountain seemed like a victory for the environment, it may have been just the opposite. Although the issues at Yucca are serious and several - including those cinder cones, a nearby seismic fault, and the gradual creep of water through the mountain - the decision to cancel the repository may be even riskier still.

The unfortunate reality is that for nuclear waste, as the President likes to say, there are no easy answers. Today, Yucca Mountain is one of only two options for the waste that are even under consideration; and the other - the one endorsed by Obama and Reid - is to do nothing at all, leaving the waste where it currently sits, scattered among 121 locations in 39 states, beside water sources like the Hudson River, and in many cases, just a few miles from population centers like Manhattan and Chicago. Whereas the repository at Yucca is more than a thousand feet underground, deep in the Nevada desert, in a honeycomb of tunnels more than five miles long, the current facilities for storing the nation's 132 million pounds of radioactive garbage are almost all on the grounds of private energy companies, and in containers that were intended to be temporary - either concrete casks stored outside nuclear reactors, or submerged inside the plants under relatively shallow pools of water. I have stood at the edge of one of these spent-fuel pools, looking down at the iridescent glow of radioactive rods, knowing that if the water were to drain accidentally, I would be exposed to a radiation dose equivalent to that on the ground in Hiroshima just after the blast. If Yucca Mountain is an imperfect solution to the nation's nuclear waste crisis, the current arrangement is no solution at all.

Yet finding a solution for our radioactive waste is a matter of rising urgency. Since the dawn of the atomic age, the federal government has promised Americans that the refuse from nuclear plants would be safeguarded by a rigorous government program. That's because nuclear waste is staggeringly lethal - far more volatile than raw uranium (a chunk of which I keep on my desk) or even fresh nuclear fuel, which is only 3% pure. Brimming with nuclear byproducts like cesium, strontium, and plutonium, the apt comparison is between spent nuclear fuel and a nuclear weapon. In fact, spent fuel can be used to make a nuclear weapon. Yet after decades of working to develop a better place to house these lethal chemicals, at a cost of more than $13 billion to taxpayers, the Obama administration appears ready to return to square one and leave the waste untouched while we embark on another 50-year, multi-billion-dollar quest for a new facility.

The larger debate over atomic power itself can be highly polarizing and complex, with heated opinions on both sides. For my own part, I believe that the case for nuclear plants remains strong - and that our country needs to confront the difficult choice between atomic power, with its risk of a meltdown, and coal power, with its certain doom - spewing millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air and accelerating global warming. The record for nuclear plants in the US is surprisingly strong; to date, not a single civilian life has been lost at a plant, and the 104 existing reactors provide some 20% of household electricity with virtually no carbon footprint. If these nuclear plants were phased out tomorrow, as many anti-nuclear activists propose, the only viable way to supplement their power would be with more coal - and more pollution, and more sick and dying. To an increasing number of environmentalists, the nuclear option has begun to seem, in a field of distasteful choices, slightly less distasteful than the others. But this is a calculation about which reasonable people can, and do, differ.

Still, even the most fervent critics of nuclear power should be concerned about the closure of Yucca Mountain. Regardless of whether or not we continue to use nuclear plants, the question of what to do with the existing stockpile of radioactive waste cannot be wished away. To close Yucca Mountain is an implicit decision to leave that waste in the hands of energy companies, in temporary containers, near major cities and waterways - simply because the Nevada desert may experience a seismic event at some point in the next 10,000 years. This is a trade-off that few people outside Nevada would consider wise.

Over the past year, as President Obama has allowed development of the repository to grind to a halt, it has been especially sad to watch a leader from the state of Illinois, which leads the US in nuclear production and generates more than half its electricity from nuclear plants, buckle to political pressure from Majority Leader Reid without offering any other solution to the waste crisis. At a minimum, we should be prepared to open Yucca on a conditional basis, and consolidate our waste there while we search for a more perfect solution. The notion that doing so would be risky represents a serious misunderstanding of the risk in doing nothing.

Starting this month, GQ Correspondent Wil S. Hylton will be writing occasionally on the intersection of science and politics at The Wire, GQ.com's news and politics blog. He last covered the nuclear power industry in a 2008 feature entitled "Meltdown."

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

Reno News & Review
January 07, 2010

Another dump for Nevada

By Dennis Myers
dennism@newsreview.com

In an op-ed essay in the Reno Gazette-Journal, Republican Dean Rhodes, a state senator, and Democrat Harry Reid, a U.S. senator, were critical of plans to create a 95-year garbage dump for California in Nevada’s Humboldt County near Winnemucca at Jungo, a former railroad station.

“The proponents of the Jungo dump claim that it will be the safest of facilities, but the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection has determined that leachate from the site will pollute local groundwater,” Rhodes and Reid wrote. “In addition, the proposed dump would have to get exemptions from two Nevada laws that we think make a great deal of sense.”

Ashley Powers at the Los Angeles Times channeled the thinking of Nevadans with a letter:

“Dear Nation: Please stop trying to dump stuff in our state. We know, we exist because of your willingness to blow your money at our poker tables and hotels. But we clean up your spilled margaritas and tolerate your fanny packs. So let’s call it even, OK?

“You tried to put a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, a plan partly dependent on titanium drip shields being installed a century from now—by robots. There’s a reason that, in these parts, the legislation making Yucca the nation’s nuclear repository is often called the “Screw Nevada” bill. Now although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has proclaimed the project dead, a new threat looms. Garbage. From California!!!!!!! …

“Reid has also declared the proposed dump a ‘threat to Nevada’s sovereignty and dignity.’ That’s right, California: We’ve got lots of dignity here. We keep whatever you lose in Vegas. So back off. Your friend, Nevada. P.S. Come visit soon!”

Nevada has a mercury dump in Mineral County and a low-level nuclear and chemical waste dump in Nye County.

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

The Indypendent
January 07, 2010

All Things Considered: Climate Change from Different Angles

By Steven Arnerich

Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto

By Stewart Brand

Now that more people are attuned to the ticking clock of climate change, there is no shortage of theories for how the next act will play out. Though scientists, activists and theorists have been wildly off the mark so far, they continue to guess at what will be the solutions — and pitfalls — for getting the planet back on track.

Stewart Brand first made his mark not by imagining the future, but by making it happen. His Whole Earth Catalog of 1968 (published through the early 1970s), changed publishing, kick-started the computer revolution, the green movement, organic farming and the whole concept of living off the grid.

His signature scattershot style — he served as the Catalog’s editor — brought together openended possibilities: In a single place one could learn about abandoned railroads, barn building, integrated circuits, the illusion of money and several thousand other things one had never heard of. It was subtitled Access to Tools. It would not be a stretch to say it laid the groundwork for the internet.

In his new book, Whole Earth Discipline, Brand intends to serve, if not the same smorgasbord, then at least a little something in the same style. He is quick to throw ideas around: don’t worry about polar bears, let them interbreed with grizzlies; slums empower women and slow population growth; no agricultural product has been “natural” for 10,000 years; coal has killed more people than radiation. Like Al Gore, he’s certain that if we don’t do anything, we’re toast. There’s plenty of counterintuitive things actually worth trying. He introduces the reader to dozens of scientists who support, and sometimes oppose, his ideas.

What’s his prescription? Embrace nuclear power, genetic modification and geoengineering and stop trying to solve the imaginary problem of what might happen. (Anyone remember Y2K? He admits he was wrong about that.) Brand considers Yucca Mountain to be the “classic example of the folly of long-term planning” — why should we expect that nuclear waste disposal must remain intact for 10,000 years? It’s more likely that we will dig up buried waste to use as fuel long before it leaks out; or it’s just as likely we’ll be reduced to a new stone age, and then radiation will be the least of our problems.

As for genetic modification, he quotes Bertolt Brecht: “Grub first, then ethics.” Brand makes the unsettling accusation that Greenpeace’s opposition to genetically modified food has condemned millions to death by starvation. From an African point of view, a European ban on genetic modification gives Europe an economic advantage at Africa’s peril.

With this approach, it is difficult to say Brand is wrong about any one thing, since he often changes the subject from one paragraph to the next. His cavalier suggestion that no state would risk handing nuclear weapons over to stateless terrorists for fear of retaliation doesn’t sound like a safe bet to me, imaginary problem or not. Despite Brand’s attempts at persuasion, making the leap from (to paraphrase Brand) “lots of what we worry about has already been solved” to “technology can fix any problem” is not a compromise I am always willing to make.

On the other hand: mirrors in space? Why not? A 1991 volcano sent enough sulphur into the upper atmosphere to cool the planet by half a degree; enough to account, maybe, for a slightly higher birthrate of polar bears in 1992. Is it crazy to send more sulphur up there? Not as crazy as burning a few thousand gallons of jet fuel, well-proven to have the opposite effect, on your next summer vacation.

On balance, Whole Earth Discipline is essential reading—Brand refuses to give us easy answers, but positions himself, correctly, I believe, at the core of the scientific method: restless, optimistic and never fully resolved.

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

NYTimes Opinionator
January 07, 2010

New Year’s Resolutions

By David Brooks and Gail Collins

Gail Collins: David, Happy New Year. I don’t know how you feel about New Year’s resolutions. I tend to make 20 or 30 of them and the only ones that achieve fruition are things like “buy a better coat.”

If I kept half I would not only be a much better person, I would be a much better person who speaks several languages fluently and has read “Remembrance of Things Past.” In French.

David Brooks: Gail, I’m very efficient about my New Year’s resolutions; I keep the same one every year, though this year I have modified the wording: Don’t end the year so that you qualify to be a contestant on “America’s Biggest Loser.”

Gail Collins: Well, David, this year, I want to try to be more evenhanded. Evenhandedness is, of course, one of those qualities that everybody likes in theory but hates in practice.

Here goes: In 2009 I was very forthright about cases in which conservatives avoided speaking the truth because they knew it would offend their base. The Republican howling about health care “rationing” would be one good example. And there must have been a few folks who voted to make it legal to carry a concealed weapon in New York City if you had a permit to do so in Boise who knew deep in their hearts that this was a bad idea.

Let me offer up a nominee from the other side of the aisle: nuclear power.

David Brooks: If you are going to come out for nuclear power, I suppose I should grapple with the cap-and-trade legislation now working its way in the Senate.

Gail Collins: Nuclear power should be a serious element in our energy policy. It does double duty in fighting global warming and reducing our reliance on imported oil. The practical challenges aren’t as great as in most of the new green energy sources that are all the rage. But we haven’t built a new plant since 1979. That’s crazy.

It is my strong impression that the Obama administration knows this, but prefers not to talk about it for base-pacification reasons.

Much of the environmental community hates nuclear power. These are wonderful people I admire greatly but on this count they’re wrong.

Nuclear plants obviously have baggage. The biggest issue is global nuclear proliferation, and the danger that countries will use them as a beard for a weapons program. Our failure to expand the peaceful use of nuclear power at home will, unfortunately, do less than nothing to resolve that problem.

There’s also the matter of storing spent fuel. The government facility in Yucca Mountain would do fine. One reason it hasn’t gone forward is that it’s located in Nevada, home of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. But I hear Reid is in re-election trouble, and if Nevadans don’t want him around anymore, perhaps they would be happy to trade him for some used plutonium.

Whenever you ask Democrats like Barack Obama or Al Gore about nuclear power, they tend to acknowledge it has to be “in the mix.” This is generally said so quickly and the subject is changed so rapidly that it requires the hearing of a beagle to catch their drift.

Anyhow, that’s my offering. So, yours is cap-and-trade?

David Brooks: I have to confess, I am not at my best when dealing with environmental issues. On the one hand, I totally accept the scientific authorities who say that global warming is real and that it is manmade. On the other hand, I feel a frisson of pleasure when I come across evidence that contradicts the models. I don’t know if this is just because I distrust people who are so confident they can model complex systems or because I relish any fact that might make Al Gore look silly.

I totally buy the argument that we need to set a cap on carbon emissions. But I feel myself sometimes rooting for people in coal states like Indiana who feel that they are fighting against a bunch of rich toffs from the Vineyard who are trying to take away their livelihood.

Maybe this year I should resolve to overcome my unworthy visceral reactions and follow the evidence. In that case, I’m off to a decent start.

Last night I was up in Boston moderating a panel discussion sponsored by the National Hockey League on environmental and global warming issues. (Hockey players like ice and want to preserve frozen ponds.) I could tell you that I flew up just so I could talk about carbon sequestration, but the real reason I did it was so I could do a panel in Fenway Park and meet Mike Richter.

Richter is the greatest American-born goalie of all time. He led the Rangers to the only Stanley Cup of my lifetime. Since his remarkable hockey career, he went to Yale and now works at an environmentally oriented investment firm. He’s very impressive.

During the course of the panel, my normal unworthy emotions on these issues were replaced by emotions I’m a bit prouder of. As the panelists (academics, business leaders, activists) spoke, I did get infected by their passion. It is a remarkably broad social movement. I learned from Fred Krupp of the Environmental Defense Fund, my favorite environmental group, that the cap-and-trade bill, which I thought was dead in the senate, actually is close to getting enough votes to pass. What’s more, I was once again reminded how many business and investment types are thinking quite practically and capitalistically about green, job-creating technologies. For us Hamiltonian conservatives who believe in internal improvements, energy and infrastructure are obviously the two big areas where we should be investing.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying that if you’re willing to give me nuclear power, I’m willing to follow Lindsey Graham’s lead and do a little bit on the cap-and-trade bill, which is an imperfect piece of legislation, God knows, but still probably good for the country.

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

Ely Daily Times
January 06, 2010

Water will continue to be big issue in 2010

By Kent Harper
Ely Times Editor

The water supply was a big issue in during 2009 and will continue to be a big issue into 2010, according to Ely's mayor.

Mayor Jon Hickman told the Ely Times last week that Robinson Nevada Mining Co. would be testing a new well this week.

"They've located a well above Murry Springs that taps into that aquifer that feeds (the) springs. They're going to start testing that well on Jan. 4," he said.

It's all part of the mine's plan to dewater the Ruth Pit. Pumping the groundwater that has risen in the open pit will enable the company to excavate deeper and extend the mine's life.

"It was important that the council kept its mind open and allowed Robinson Nevada Mining Co, to dewater the Ruth Pit. That decision has contributed to keeping the mine open."

But the decision also was controversial, as Murry Springs flow has declined.

"Nobody knows for sure if dewatering has dried up Murry Srpings or not," Hickman added. "It could be the drought; it could be a lot of things. Nobody knows for sure."

Hickman said if the new well above Murry Springs "pans out, that could bring in the future up to 5,000 gallons per minute. That will end Ely's water woes."

Hickman said the community needs about 2,000 gpm.

"We're right about there now (2,000 gpm) with the additional wells and the water we're getting out of Murry Springs - well, we're getting very little out of Murry Springs," he said.

"We cut the deal where we didn't have to pay for any of these wells - these are all wells the city might have had to come up with the money for (in the future).

"Some of these are all new wells; some of these are wells we already had that were reconditioned," he noted.

Besides the water supply, Hickman reviewed the city's other accomplishments in 2009.

"Some times the accomplishments in small cities would be silly little things mayors of big cities would laugh at," he said.

"Things like the (signal) light over by McDonald's," he said, adding, "That's one of the issues I ran on.

Immediately upon taking office, Hickman said he asked City Clerk Jim Alworth about the efforts to have a signal light installed at the intersection of the Great Basin Highway with Veterans Boulevard.

He said Alworth told him the city had put in for a grant to pay for the additional signal, but nothing had ever come of it.

Hickman said, "Let's put in for it, again.

"We did and got the money. But it took a long time after we got the money, for whatever the reason. I had to go to the governor to try and get this thing moving," he added.

The signal was one of several traffic problems facing the community.

"I think we've slowed the traffic down in town a little bit - on Mill and Murry streets: we put that stop sign over there."

He said he campaigned on making things work better.

"I don't like politicians who make promises, and then when they get into office you never hear from them."

Hickman counts among his greatest accomplishments, the improvement of morale and relationships in city hall.

He said he's "straightened out the mess we had at city hall. It was a disaster when I got there - from what was going on with George Chachas."

Chachas was mayor the term before Hickman. His relationship with city hall, when, before and since his term was caustic and combative.

The city hall workers get along much better with the mayor now and communications between the elected officials and working staff are better.

Communications are important to Hickman, he notes.

Hickman has met and talked with all of Nevada's mayors. He has a good relationship with Oscar Goodman, mayor of Las Vegas.

"He called up my house and told me, 'I've got an ambulance for you.'"

"I think it's good for the mayor to have a good relationship with other mayors, so I know what's going on" he added.

He says a big part of his job is to serve as a good will ambassador for the city.

Hickman said in his conversations with other mayors, he's learned that tension between city administrations and county governments seems to be the norm in Nevada.

"Like Clark County and Las Vegas - there's always a conflict."

But the conflict here never seems to go away.

Hickman said he feels the city has tried to reach out to the county.

"I've worked with (County Commission Chairman) Lauri Carson; I'm working with (Commissioners) Robin Bell; Gary Perea, of course. I've been out to Baker - I always stop in Baker to say 'hi' to him and his mom if he's there's," he said.

But there's a couple of people with the county - like there's a couple of people with the city - who refuse to budge on cooperating with each other.

"Now there's a lot of saber rattling coming out of the county, like 'We're going to unincorporate the city,' or 'We're going to do a countywide business license" so the businesses in the city will have to pay two business licenses," the mayor added.

Things like that are ridiculous. That's saber rattling... Things like that don't help," he said.

The lingering disputes focus on how much the city pays the county for the sheriff's office to also serve as the city police department.

"I've no problem with the sheriff," the mayor said. "I go into see him and he always has time for me."

If the sheriff isn't there, however, he usually can learn very little, having been told to "call the sheriff at home."

Hickman would like the sheriff to attend or send a representative to the council meetings.

"We've got problems - not just George (Chachas)." Hickman has ejected Chachas from the council meetings before for interruptions.

Hickman said when the city ordered yards cleaned up in Central Ely one resident was so upset, the mayor feared he might get violent at a council meeting."

"He was screaming and yelling.

"I've asked (the sheriff) to come to the council meetings, but he doesn't. We have no representation from the sheriff's office."

Hickman said he also wanted to see relations with the White Pine County School District improve.

The school district has built its own football stadium, but still wants to use the baseball diamond at Broadbent Park.

The council approved a $2,500 settlement for the field to be used three times. But the school board rejected that offer.

A local businessman contacted Hickman after the last council meeting and said he would donate the $2,500 for the schools to use the park.

Hickman said the disagreement about the rental fee has been a communications breakdown. He said he wants the school district and the city to negotiate from "a zero point."

Starting at $10,000 isn't trully negotiation, he said "That's what you had before."

He said that's why the district and city need to talk and "work it out together."

Hickman said he has never vetoes council action, but when it voted 3-2 to demand hook-up fees for the new athletic field, "That's one I should have vetoed."

"I think it would have paid for us in the long run."

However, he noted, "We're not the treasurer for the school district."

The city's last offer actually would have cost the schools more than even UNLV pays to use the field for practice over the summer. It's charged $350 per day. But three games for $2,500 is much higher - about $850 a game.

Hickman said he and Schools Superintendent Bob Dolezal have talked recently. "I should have been more involved."

The city and schools will continue to find acceptable middle ground.

Hickman isn't known as a controversial mayor. But a plan he's working on may change that.

"We're looking into nuclear (power)," he said. "We've put together a small committee: we're going to meet later this month."

Hickman said the committee won't act without public support.

"I think what we're going to end up doing, is holding a public forum ... and get the idea of the feeling of the community. It's a fact-finding type thing.

"We have an interest in UniStar, that's the company building nuclear plants."

If a plant were to be constructed in northern Steptoe Valley, the company would have to rebuild the railroad to bring in the equipment.

"We don't need the power; the county gets the (tax revenue) money. We just get the jobs and the railroad," he said.

But pursuing a nuclear power plant does not mean the mothballed coal-fired plants are totally off the table.

Hickman said those are awaiting a change in politics and the economy.

That could happen, he notes, but the city is encouraging other routes.

He says he has spoken with Gov. Jim Gibbons and Sens. John Ensign and Harry Reid.

"All three told me they support nuclear power and would agree to a plant being located here.

"Reid said in front of a bunch of mayors - in a telephone conference call - that he's for nuclear power, but doesn't want Yucca Mountain to be used," Hickman added.

"The same thing Ensign and Gibbons said: they don't want to use Yucca Mountain."

Reid also was concerned about available water for a nuclear power plant. It would need close to 60,000 acre feet.

Other issues facing the city include establishing the city's planning commission, after the county pulled out of the regional planning commission.

There are four applicants for the five seats.

He'd said he'd also like to see something done with 11th Street.

Tourist go to see the city's main tourism attraction, the Nevada Northern Railway but they see vacant buildings and empty lots, he said.

"It's like when Rubin (Gonzalez) wanted to open Fantasy Fast Photo. He needed the water turned on to remodel the building, but he was denied until the building was brought up to code."

He needed the water to make the improvements, but couldn't get the water turned on until the improvements were made.

"It was a Catch 22," the mayor said. "That's not how it should work."

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

RenewableEnergyWorld blog
January 06, 2010

Nuclear, renewables and the storage issue

jennifer-zajac-62957

Nuclear and renewables are often pitted against each other when discussing clean energy resources.

Storage poses one of the most pressing issues for both fuels. For nuclear, how and where to store spent fuel for the next several centuries or so remains an unanswered question. Since the inception of nuclear power, it was assumed that either the current generation or the next would come up with a technical solution to address how to store it safely over the long term. That has not happened, and spent nuclear fuel continues to be temporarily stored at nuclear power plant sites.

Yucca Mountain is all but dead, and there currently is no viable alternative U.S. location. Recycling nuclear waste may be an option, as it is in France, Japan and other countries, but that approach is likely to face the same drawn-out, contentious debate as a federal disposal site. Utilities have said that the lack of a permanent storage solution for spent fuel will not hinder the development of new nuclear plants. The public and environmental groups may at the very least impede new nuclear plans because of concerns regarding nuclear waste.

Renewables have a leg up when it comes to storage and public support. Several promising energy storage technologies are being developed for utility-scale projects, including compressed air energy storage, flywheel energy storage and battery storage. Unlike nuclear, wind and solar energy is intermittent and a significant challenge, given that both sources require backup generation from traditional fuel sources, mainly natural gas.

Here's the thing: When commercial-scale energy storage technology becomes available, it arguably will be one of the biggest game changers the industry has seen since the first nuclear power plants went online. And that is more likely to happen long before the United States figures out what to do with spent fuel from nuclear power plants.

It should be agreed that investment in both types of fuels will be necessary to meet demand and meet climate change policies. Some of the largest utilities in the country, including Exelon Corp., Duke Energy Corp., Dominion Resources Inc. and American Electric Power Co. Inc., have nuclear plants in their generation portfolios and are planning to build more nuclear facilities. New nuclear plants must be built not only to increase baseload capacity but to replace aging facilities. Industry executives still remember the lesson they learned the hard way in the '90s when some utilities — particularly merchant companies — invested too much in natural gas plants and did not diversify their generation portfolios to reduce their risk to fuel volatility.

State and federal policies are prompting those same utilities and others to invest in renewable energy projects. Some utility execs and industry insiders continue to grumble and scoff at utility-scale renewable energy projects and discuss them with much less enthusiasm. That may change when utility-scale energy storage technology becomes commercially viable.

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

LATimes blog
January 04, 2010

Top of the Ticket

Politics and commentary, coast to coast, from the Los Angeles Times

Nevada growing tired of being a dumping ground, nuclear or otherwise

Dear Nation:

Please stop trying to dump stuff in our state.

We know, we exist because of your willingness to blow your money at our poker tables and hotels. But we clean up your spilled margaritas and tolerate your fanny packs. So let’s call it even, OK?

You tried to put a nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain, a plan partly dependent on titanium drip shields being installed a century from now -- by robots. There’s a reason that, in these parts, the legislation making Yucca the nation’s nuclear repository is often called the “Screw Nevada” bill.

Now although Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has proclaimed the project dead, a new threat looms. Garbage. From California!!!!!!!

The 4,000 tons of trash would be trucked in, five days a week, for 95 years, to the pit stop of Winnemucca. And, yes, no one knows where Winnemucca is (in northern Nevada) or how to pronounce it (rhymes with Yucca). But, really, after all the fuss over Yucca, we’re still considered your trash can?

Harry sure doesn’t like it. "California is a big state," he and state Sen. Dean Rhoads, a Republican, wrote in an op-ed piece in December. "They should have no problem finding a suitable location for their waste within their own borders." Reid has also declared the proposed dump a "threat to Nevada’s sovereignty and dignity."

That’s right, California: We’ve got lots of dignity here. We keep whatever you lose in Vegas. So back off.

Your friend,

Nevada

P.S. Come visit soon!

-- Channeled by Ashley Powers

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