Posted on 03/05/2004 11:04:28 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Today: March 05, 2004 at 9:26:44 PST
By Suzanne Struglinski
<suzanne@lasvegassun.com>
LAS VEGAS SUN
WASHINGTON -- Nuclear industry and government officials touted the benefits of nuclear power at a Senate panel meeting Thursday as they made their pitch for more government incentives to help expansions, but made no mention of how they plan to manage future nuclear waste.
The officials listed nuclear power's lack of emissions, price stability and other benefits to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which is guiding the ongoing debate over the energy bill. The industry officials also asked Congress for the continuation of federally backed insurance that covers the industry in the event of an accident, tax incentives for power plants and a push for more plants.
There are 103 nuclear reactors across the country that generate about 20 percent of the electricity used annually, said Marvin Fertel, senior vice president and chief nuclear officer for the Nuclear Energy Institute. The plants have increased their operating levels and many will opt to renew their operating licenses for 20 more years. In the last year, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission renewed 13 reactor licenses and it has 33 extension applications before it currently, Fertel said.
Will Travers, executive director for operations at the commission, explained that the agency is reviewing the licenses and is ready to deal with the construction of a new plant. It has been about 20 years since a nuclear power plant has been built in the United States.
Only one of the five witnesses at Thursday's hearing -- James Asselstine, managing director of of Lehman Brothers -- said that spent fuel management needs to be addressed before the industry can advance.
"Public acceptance of new nuclear plant commitment will likely turn on two issues: public perceptions of the safety of nuclear power plants and confidence that we will achieve a workable solution for spent fuel disposal," Asselstine said. "Continued progress in developing, licensing, building, and ultimately, operating a waste repository will likely be the determining factor on the spent fuel disposal issue."
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 requires that the Energy Department take spent nuclear fuel from the commercial utilities and permanently store it in a geologic repository. The department was supposed to take the waste by 1998, but now intends to open a repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas in 2010. The state has opposed that idea for decades and is fighting it every step of the way.
After the hearing, Fertel said it is important that progress is made on spent fuel management, whether it is onsite at the nuclear power plants or eventually at Yucca. Plants now have to manage the waste since the department will take the waste at least 12 years later than required by law.
"It's not a technical or safety issue," Fertel said. "It's probably an economic issue, companies are going to build onsite storage and they are also going to continue to pay into the nuclear waste fund."
Nuclear ratepayers put money into an account earmarked specifically for Yucca, but Congress has authority over how the money is spent.
"2010, that's a date we'd like to see met given they are already 12 years late," Fertel said. "The industry would like to see the government fulfill its responsibility. ... If it was 2011, does that change anything? Not really. We believe 2010 is do-able, we want to see it and want to see it done right"
"Ultimately, you have a by-product that you have to dispose of safely. Our belief right now from the science done at Yucca is that it's clearly is ripe for going into licensing. To be completely honest, the thing that we and Nevada have very much in common is to see that it's done right. Wherever it goes whether its on our sites or in Nevada, we want this to be done safely."
Under the law, Yucca can hold only 77,000 tons of nuclear waste, but since additional storage space will be needed for future waste, the department has to go back to Congress in 2007 to explain what its next plan will be.
Fertel said it is still not clear what decision will be made then, since Congress could pursue studies on nuclear fuel cycles that could reduce the volume and toxicity of the waste.
Brendan Hoffman, an organizer for Public Citizen, called it "irresponsible" for the industry to talk about building new plants without even addressing the waste that would along with it.
"But that's they way it is set up," Hoffman said. "This issue should have been addressed before they built the first nuclear power plant, but it wasn't. They got their foot in the door and never looked back."
If Spencer Abraham commits to increasing this to 40% over the next 10 years, I will vote for G.W.Bush this fall.
|
|
(billion kWh) |
% |
% |
% |
% |
| Austria |
59.283
|
|
|
|
|
| Belgium |
79.829
|
|
|
|
|
| Denmark |
37.885
|
|
|
|
|
| Finland |
75.792
|
|
|
|
|
| France |
497.260
|
|
|
|
|
| Germany |
531.377
|
|
|
|
|
| Greece |
46.432
|
|
|
|
|
| Ireland |
19.542
|
|
|
|
|
| Italy |
247.679
|
|
|
|
|
| Luxembourg |
0.648
|
|
|
|
|
| Netherlands |
85.294
|
|
|
|
|
| Portugal |
41.696
|
|
|
|
|
| Spain |
197.694
|
|
|
|
|
| Sweden |
146.633
|
|
|
|
|
| United Kingdom |
342.771
|
|
|
|
|
| Total European Union |
2409.815
|
|
|
|
|
| United States |
3678.000
|
|
|
|
|
It already has been- it's merely an engineering problem with a solution long used by countries not hobbled by Jimmy Carter's foolish executive order hog-tying recycling:
US Nuclear Power Debate
... The Bush administration also wants to explore new technology to recycle nuclear
fuel, increasing its efficiency and possibly reducing its danger. ...
Other info:
Numatec - the Tri-Cities' 'French connection'
... Numatec other parent is Cogema, the owner and operator of facilities used to produce
and recycle nuclear fuel, including many designed and built by SGN. ...
Nuclear Electricity
... gas equivalent). • Uranium offers a long-term source of energy. Unlike
fossil fuels, we can recycle nuclear fuel. We can recover ...
[MMA Alumni] Helping out MMA Nuclear Employed Alumni
... Many MMA Grads are employed in the Nuclear Power industry, ever since President Carter
killed the national plans to recycle nuclear fuel as was always intended ...
[PDF] U. S. Nuclear Waste Policy: Reaching Critical Mass
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
... An Aside: Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Overseas In addition to the United States,
only two other countries don't recycle nuclear fuel as a matter of national ...
Salon.com Technology | Nukes now!
... Other countries, such as Japan and France -- which gets about 80 percent of its
electricity from nuclear power -- recycle nuclear fuel, but President Ford ...
Multinational oil interests have owned the Democrats for fifty years. Witness that Carter banned nuclear fuel reprocessing, and we are the only country to do so. Further, there is enough excess wood in our nationalized forest to provide domestic electrical needs on a continuous basis for 140 million Americans, thanks in part to carbon dioxide, which has significantly increased tree growth.
Few realize that the impaction of the nation's forests is a direct consequence of the carbon dioxide so derided by environmentalists for bogus reasons, but their funding sources in oil company foundations wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with that!
That's not exactly "Breaking News".
Sadly, the Energy Secretary is somewhat less than aggressive in advocating this sensible Energy Policy.
Abraham said the government's strategy "is to go for the imported gas over the next 20 years. After 20 years, we believe there will be new ways to generate electricity."
Energy Secretary Says United States Must Tap Foreign Liquid Natural Gas Supply
Another TWENTY YEARS before we pursue other sources to generate electricity?
And how are we supposed to pay for 20 years of IMPORTS on top of the stifling Trade and Budget deficits we're already suffering?
I agree.
But that doesn't mean that we can't start taking advantage of the $$$ multi-billions we've already invested over the last 20 years.
We haven't built anything new in OVER 20 years. It doesn't make much sense to just sit back and let that technology just gather dust.
what happened to the Idaho Labs working on a Thorium process?
I'm afraid I don't know the most up-to-date status,
but it sure appears to be a very promising improvement in technology!
Thorium-Uranium Fuel Only: A New Fuel Promises Cheaper, Cleaner, Safer Nuclear Power
I don't blame utilities for wanting to use natural gas for generation of electricity. it IS an extremely clean-burning fuel which makes it easy for them to comply with emission regulations with minimal added investment in special pollution control technology.
Nevertheless, I AM concerned about the implications of this trend. With so many utilities taking this approach, they're bound to create significant demand in competition with the more traditional users of natural gas: industrial, commercial and residential heating & cooking (not to mention the usage of natural gas in the various chemical industries.) Such a trend will only drive up the price for everybody.
I'd much rather see utilities utilize clean-coal or nuclear for centralized generation of electricity, where proper safety/environmental technologies and procedures can be implemented and monitored. Reserve the natural gas for the more widespread, traditional applications where the concerns aren't so serious.
Just my opinion. I'm not opposed to utilities using natural gas.
Just concerned that the expediency might not make sense in the overall perspective.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.