Chu Says Price On Carbon Is Key To New Nuclear Options

Mar 23: The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an op-ed by U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary of Energy Steven Chu on small modular nuclear reactors entitled, "America's New Nuclear Option; Small modular reactors will expand the ways we use atomic power."

    Secretary Chu said, "America is on the cusp of reviving its nuclear power industry. Last month President Obama pledged more than $8 billion in conditional loan guarantees for what will be the first U.S. nuclear power plant to break ground in nearly three decades. And with the new authority granted by the president's 2011 budget request, the Department of Energy will be able to support between six and nine new reactors. What does all of this mean for the country? This investment will provide enough clean energy to power more than six million American homes. It will also create tens of thousands of jobs in the years ahead.

    "Perhaps most importantly, investing in nuclear energy will position America to lead in a growing industry. World-wide electricity generation is projected to rise 77% by 2030. If we are serious about cutting carbon pollution then nuclear power must be part of the solution. Countries such as China, South Korea and India have recognized this and are making investments in nuclear power that are driving demand for nuclear technologies. Our choice is clear: Develop these technologies today or import them tomorrow. . .

    "Small modular reactors [SMRs] would be less than one-third the size of current plants. They have compact designs and could be made in factories and transported to sites by truck or rail. SMRs would be ready to "plug and play" upon arrival. If commercially successful, SMRs would significantly expand the options for nuclear power and its applications. Their small size makes them suitable to small electric grids so they are a good option for locations that cannot accommodate large-scale plants. The modular construction process would make them more affordable by reducing capital costs and construction times.

    Their size would also increase flexibility for utilities since they could add units as demand changes, or use them for on-site replacement of aging fossil fuel plants. Some of the designs for SMRs use little or no water for cooling, which would reduce their environmental impact. Finally, some advanced concepts could potentially burn used fuel or nuclear waste, eliminating the plutonium that critics say could be used for nuclear weapons. In his 2011 budget request, President Obama requested $39 million for a new program specifically for small modular reactors. Although the Department of Energy has supported advanced reactor technologies for years, this is the first time funding has been requested to help get SMR designs licensed for widespread commercial use. . . These SMRs are based on proven light-water reactor technologies and could be deployed in about 10 years.

    "We are also accelerating our R&D efforts into other innovative reactor technologies. This includes developing high-temperature gas reactors that can provide carbon-free heat for industrial applications, as well as advanced reactor designs that will harness much more of the energy from uranium.

    "These efforts are restarting the nuclear power industry in the U.S. But to truly promote nuclear power and other forms of carbon-free electricity, we need long-term incentives. The single most effective step we could take is to put a price on carbon by passing comprehensive energy and climate legislation. Requiring a gradual reduction in carbon emissions will make clean energy profitable-and will fuel investment in nuclear power."

    Access the complete op-ed in a release from DOE (click here).

Reactions To The President's Nuclear Policy Proposals

Feb 16: There was mixed reaction to President Obama's announcement of the $8.3 billion in loan guarantees to operate two new nuclear reactors at a plant in Burke, Georgia [See WIMS 2/16/10]. The President said it would be the first new nuclear power plant in nearly three decades and was expected to create approximately 3,500 construction jobs and 800 permanent jobs. The President also reaffirmed the role of nuclear energy and said, "To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It's that simple. "

 

    U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) an outspoken advocate for accelerating nuclear power development who has called for 100 new nuclear plants in 20 years said he was "encouraged" by the announcement. He said, "This first loan guarantee for the first new reactors in more than three decades are a welcome change from an energy policy that was looking like a national windmill policy, the equivalent of going to war in sailboats. We wouldn't think of mothballing our nuclear navy but that's exactly what we have done with nuclear plant construction -- America's best weapon against climate change, high energy prices, polluted air and energy insecurity. All Republican senators -- and a growing number of democrats -- support building 100 nuclear plants as the first step in a clean energy policy. President Obama deserves credit for moving ahead with these guarantees as well as for recent superior appointments to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission."

 

    Marvin Fertel, the Nuclear Energy Institute's (NEI) president and chief executive officer issued a statement saying, "The nuclear industry commends the Obama administration and the Department of Energy for having reached this major milestone in implementing the clean-energy loan guarantee program authorized by Congress in 2005. This first conditional commitment demonstrates the Administration's recognition that new nuclear power plants must be part of America's clean energy portfolio. . . "

 

    NEI also indicated in a release that the announcement of the conditional commitment with Southern Co. is "one of a number of steps taken by the Obama Administration to support nuclear energy expansion." Other steps include: the FY11 budget proposal to triple DOE's loan guarantee authority for new reactors, adding $36 billion to last year's $18.5 billion appropriation; a change to the regulations governing the loan guarantee program, which allow clean-energy projects to tap other sources of financing side-by-side with the DOE-guaranteed debt; and the recent award of investment tax credits to Shaw Modular Solutions and Alstom to build new facilities to manufacture components for advanced-design nuclear power plants.

 

    Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), Chair of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming issued a statement saying, "President Obama continues to look to the energy sector as the vehicle for driving job creation." said Rep. Markey, adding, "The President made it clear that passing comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation, like the House passed Waxman-Markey clean energy bill, is critical to American leadership in developing new technologies and industries to compete with China, India and other nations. The United States has not built a new nuclear power plant in three decades, due to huge cost overruns, safety concerns, and waste disposal problems that made nuclear power economically uncompetitive -- leading investors to shun nuclear power due to its high risks and poor financial performance. Recognizing the ongoing financial challenges facing the nuclear industry, the Waxman-Markey legislation included a Clean Energy Bank to help provide financing support for new reactors, as well as other non-carbon energy sources such as wind, solar, and efficiency. 

 

    "In recognition, the Nuclear Energy Institute supported the Waxman-Markey legislation's key provisions when the bill was debated on the House floor last June. . . While nuclear energy will play a competitive role in a low carbon economy, the issues of waste disposal and the inherent uncertainties in putting taxpayer dollars on the line for a nuclear power plant design that hasn't yet been deemed to be safe to the public must be dealt with. The process needs to be closely monitored to ensure public safety so that public dollars are responsibly provided only when the reactor is truly safe and shovel-ready."

 

    Ralph Nader, Consumer Advocate issued a release calling the Administration's actions and policy a "monumental mistake" and saying, "It is a decision that is bad for consumers and taxpayers, and it is wrong-headed from an environmental and national security perspective." He said, "It is deplorable that President Obama has called for more so-called "safe, clean nuclear power plants." Adding insult to injury, he requested from Congress another $54 billion in taxpayer loan guarantees on top of the $18 billion previously approved under Bush. Wall Street financiers will not loan electric companies money to build new nuclear plants, which can cost $12 billion and up, unless Uncle Sam guarantees the loans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that nuclear companies will default on loans for new reactors 50 percent of the time. . ."

    Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director issued a statement saying, "We are pleased that President Obama reiterated the need to put a price on carbon and build a clean energy economy with more renewable energy and greater energy efficiency. While we remain wholeheartedly behind the president's overall vision for America's energy future, there are areas of disagreement and loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants are one of them. We need to prioritize the cleanest, cheapest, safest, and fastest ways to reduce emissions and nuclear power is neither clean, cheap, nor fast, nor safe.  Putting taxpayers on the hook for billions, particularly when the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office puts the risk of default at over 50 percent, is not the best use of limited government resources. . . Studies also show that investments in outdated energy sources like oil, coal, and nuclear power create far fewer jobs per dollar than investments in energy efficiency and clean energy. The loan guarantees announced today may ease the politics around comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation, but we do not believe that they are the best policy." 

 

    Tyson Slocum, Director, Public Citizen's (PC) Energy Program issued a statement saying the President's actions, "takes us entirely in the wrong direction. Proven efficiency and renewable energy technologies that can benefit millions of households are more cost-effective public investments than financially risky and uncertified nuclear technology. . . In 2005, the nuclear industry estimated that building a new reactor would cost $2 billion. In the five years since nuclear power was included as a recipient of federal loans, costs have ballooned fourfold. . . Not only is the final price tag for Southern Company's two new reactors unknown, but the reactor design that has been tapped for federal backing, the Westinghouse AP1000, has yet to receive design certification from the NRC. . . the government should scrap the loan guarantee program and instead develop and deploy small-scale renewable energy sources such as rooftop solar, wind and geothermal. . ."

 

    There were also some interesting non-reactions to the President's announcement as well. The following key energy policy decision makers did not issue any statements or comments on the President's nuclear energy announcements. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV); Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Chair of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee; Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Chair of the Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA); Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY); and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH).

 

    Access a release from Senator Alexander (click here). Access the statement from NEI (click here). Access the statement from Access a release from Representative Markey (click here). Access the release from Nader (click here). Access a statement from Sierra Club (click here). Access a release from PC (click here).

DOE Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future

Jan 29: As part of the Obama Administration’s commitment to restarting America’s nuclear industry, U.S. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu announced the formation of a Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future to provide recommendations for developing a safe, long-term solution to managing the Nation’s used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. The Commission is being co-chaired by former Congressman Lee Hamilton and former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft.

DOE indicated that in light of the Administration’s decision not to proceed with the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, President Obama has directed Secretary Chu to establish the Commission to conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. The Commission will provide advice and make recommendations on issues including alternatives for the storage, processing, and disposal of civilian and defense spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.

In his State of the Union address on January 27, the President said, ". . .to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America." [See WIMS 1/28/10].

Secretary Chu said, “Nuclear energy provides clean, safe, reliable power and has an important role to play as we build a low-carbon future. The Administration is committed to promoting nuclear power in the United States and developing a safe, long-term solution for the management of used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste. The work of the Blue Ribbon Commission will be invaluable to this process. I want to thank Congressman Hamilton and General Scowcroft for leading the Commission and I look forward to receiving their recommendations." Carol Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change said, “As the world moves to tackle climate change and diversify our national energy portfolio, nuclear energy will play a vital role. Today, the Obama Administration has taken an important step. With the creation of the Blue Ribbon Commission, we are bringing together leading experts from around the country to ensure a safe and sustainable nuclear energy future.”

During a recent hearing before the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Republican members questioned Chu extensively on the need for a more ambitious role of nuclear energy in the mix of technologies to address climate and energy issues. Chu said he and the Administration agree that nuclear energy must be an important part of the energy solution [See WIMS 1/21/10].

Congressman Hamilton said, "Finding an acceptable long-term solution to our used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste storage needs is vital to the economic, environmental and security interests of the United States. This will be a thorough, comprehensive review based on the best available science. I'm looking forward to working with the many distinguished experts on this panel to achieve a consensus on the best path forward." General Scowcroft said, "As the United States responds to climate change and moves forward with a long overdue expansion of nuclear energy, we also need to work together to find a responsible, long-term strategy to deal with the leftover fuel and nuclear waste. I'm pleased to be part of that effort along with Congressman Hamilton and such an impressive group of scientific and industry experts."

The Commission is made up of 15 members who have a range of expertise and experience in nuclear issues, including scientists, industry representatives, and respected former elected officials. The Commission’s co-chairs have a record of tackling tough challenges in a thoughtful, comprehensive manner and building consensus among an array of interests. The Commission is charged with producing an interim report within 18 months and a final report within 24 months.

Other members of the Commission include: Mark Ayers, President, Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO; Vicky Bailey, Former Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; Former IN PUC Commissioner; Former Department of Energy Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs; Albert Carnesale, Chancellor Emeritus and Professor, UCLA; Pete V. Domenici, Senior Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center; former U.S. Senator (R-NM); Susan Eisenhower, President, Eisenhower Group, Inc.; Chuck Hagel, Former U.S. Senator (R-NE); Jonathan Lash, President, World Resources Institute; Allison Macfarlane, Associate Professor of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University; Richard A. Meserve, President, Carnegie Institution for Science, and former Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Ernie Moniz, Professor of Physics and Cecil & Ida Green Distinguished Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Per Peterson, Professor and Chair, Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California - Berkeley; John Rowe, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Exelon Corporation; and Phil Sharp, President, Resources for the Future.

Access a release from DOE (click here). Access the Presidential Memo directing the establishment of the Commission (click here). Access DOE's Nuclear Energy website for additional information (click here).

GAO Report On Nuclear Waste Storage & Disposal Options

Dec 2: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Nuclear Waste Management: Key Attributes, Challenges, and Costs for the Yucca Mountain Repository and Two Potential Alternatives (GAO-10-48, November 04, 2009). The report was requested by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman Committee on Environment and Public Works; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D-NV) and John Ensign (D-NV).

According to GAO high-level nuclear waste -- one of the nation's most hazardous substances -- is accumulating at 80 sites in 35 states. The United States has generated 70,000 metric tons of nuclear waste and is expected to generate 153,000 metric tons by 2055. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, requires the Department of Energy (DOE) to dispose of the waste in a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada. However, the repository is more than a decade behind schedule, and the nuclear waste generally remains at the commercial nuclear reactor sites and DOE sites where it was generated.

The report examines the key attributes, challenges, and costs of the Yucca Mountain repository and the two principal alternatives to a repository that nuclear waste management experts identified: (1) storing the nuclear waste at two centralized locations; and, (2) continuing to store the waste on site where it was generated. GAO developed models of total cost ranges for each alternative using component cost estimates provided by the nuclear waste management experts. However, GAO did not compare these alternatives because of significant differences in their inherent characteristics that could not be quantified.

The Yucca Mountain repository is designed to provide a permanent solution for managing nuclear waste, minimize the uncertainty of future waste safety, and enable DOE to begin fulfilling its legal obligation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to take custody of commercial waste, which began in 1998. However, project delays have led to utility lawsuits that DOE estimates are costing taxpayers about $12.3 billion in damages through 2020 and could cost $500 million per year after 2020, though the outcome of pending litigation may affect the government's total liability. Also, the administration has announced plans to terminate Yucca Mountain and seek alternatives.

Even if DOE continues the program, it must obtain a Nuclear Regulatory Commission construction and operations license, a process likely to be delayed by budget shortfalls. GAO's analysis of DOE's cost projections found that a repository to dispose of 153,000 metric tons would cost from $41 billion to $67 billion (in 2009 present value) over a 143-year period until the repository is closed. Nuclear power rate payers would pay about 80 percent of these costs, and taxpayers would pay about 20 percent.

Centralized storage at two locations provides an alternative that could be implemented within 10 to 30 years, allowing more time to consider final disposal options, nuclear waste to be removed from decommissioned reactor sites, and the government to take custody of commercial nuclear waste, saving billions of dollars in liabilities. However, DOE's statutory authority to provide centralized storage is uncertain, and finding a state willing to host a facility could be extremely challenging. In addition, centralized storage does not provide for final waste disposal, so much of the waste would be transported twice to reach its final destination. Using cost data from experts, GAO estimated the 2009 present value cost of centralized storage of 153,000 metric tons at the end of 100 years to range from $15 billion to $29 billion but increasing to between $23 billion and $81 billion with final geologic disposal.

On-site storage would provide an alternative requiring little change from the status quo, but would face increasing challenges over time. It would also allow time for consideration of final disposal options. The additional time in on-site storage would make the waste safer to handle, reducing risks when waste is transported for final disposal. However, the government is unlikely to take custody of the waste, especially at operating nuclear reactor sites, which could result in significant financial liabilities that would increase over time.

Not taking custody could also intensify public opposition to spent fuel storage site renewals and reactor license extensions, particularly with no plan in place for final waste disposition. In addition, 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. Using cost data from experts, GAO estimated the 2009 present value cost of on-site storage of 153,000 metric tons at the end of 100 years to range from $13 billion to $34 billion but increasing to between $20 billion to $97 billion with final geologic disposal.

Access the complete 84-page report (click here).

Groups Focus On President's Goal To End Nuclear Weapons

President Obama In Prague

Apr 8: Following up on the President's call for a world without nuclear weapons in Prague, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) released a report calling for fundamental changes to U.S. nuclear war planning, a vital prerequisite if smaller nuclear arsenals are to be achieved. The report, From Counterforce to Minimal Deterrence -- A New Nuclear Policy on the Path Toward Eliminating Nuclear Weapons, calls to abandon the almost five-decade-long central mission for U.S. nuclear forces, which the groups say has been and continues to be “counterforce,” the capability for U.S. forces to destroy an enemy’s military forces, its weapons, its command and control facilities and its key leaders.

Ivan Oelrich, vice president of the Strategic Security Program at FAS and one of the report authors said, “The current rationale for maintaining an arsenal of nuclear weapons no longer exists. And to get future reductions in the number of weapons, we have to eliminate the missions they are assigned.” According to a release from the groups, the nuclear mission flows from directives and guidance given by the President, through the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to Strategic Command where it is implemented into elaborate war plans. The report calls for eliminating all but one mission for nuclear forces.

Robert Norris, senior research associate with NRDC and report co-author said, “President Obama has already taken the first step by stating America’s commitment to a world without nuclear weapons. We present the radical changes needed in U.S. policies to make disarmament a reality.” According to the report, "That sole mission is deterrence, narrowly defined, to mean the certain capability to retaliate if any nation was unwise enough to use nuclear weapons against the United States or certain allies. Hans Kristensen, director of the FAS Nuclear Information Project and report co-author said, “Under minimal deterrence, all requirements for war planners to achieve an advantage in a nuclear exchange or limit damage to ourselves will disappear, leaving only in place the most basic mission of a sure retaliatory response."

In a related action, the Nuclear Weapons Complex Consolidation Policy (NWCC) Network, a collaboration of six national and regional groups, released another study that provides the roadmap for a large and swift reduction in the nation’s nuclear weapons and the sprawling government complex that develops and produces them. The study -- Transforming the U.S. Strategic Posture and Weapons Complex for Transition to a Nuclear Weapons-Free World -- outlines the case for a tenfold reduction in the nation’s active nuclear weapons stockpile, to 500 deployed nuclear warheads by 2015, supported by a weapons complex reduced from the current eight sites in seven states to just three sites in two states, Texas and New Mexico.

Contributors to the study include two national organizations, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), and four regional groups located in the vicinity of major weapons complex sites: Nuclear Watch New Mexico, near the Los Alamos and Sandia National Labs; Tri-Valley CAREs, near the Lawrence Livermore National Lab; the Greater Kansas City Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, near the Kansas City Plant (KCP); and JustPeace of Texas, near the Pantex Plant.

The study’s lead author, Dr. Robert Civiak, a physicist and former OMB budget examiner for DOE nuclear weapons programs, commented, “As a matter of overriding policy, the United States should view its strategic force for one purpose and one purpose only -- to deter the use of nuclear weapons by others until the world is free of nuclear weapons. The Department of Defense and the National Nuclear Security Administration should structure U.S. nuclear forces and the weapons complex accordingly.” Christopher Paine, Director of NRDC’s Nuclear Program and a co-author of the report, added, “The U.S. government has wasted hundreds of billions in the 20 years since the Cold War ended maintaining nuclear forces and a make-work weapons laboratory complex far larger than needed for deterring a nuclear attack on the United States or its allies.”

In yet another related matter, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) applauded President Obama's "bold new approach to addressing the threat posed by nuclear weapons," as outlined in his groundbreaking speech on Sunday, April 5 in Prague. UCS said in a release, "Although the cold war ended some 20 years ago, Obama is the first U.S. president to commit to making significant changes in U.S. nuclear weapons policy to reflect new global realities."

UCS said the President "laid out several concrete, pragmatic steps his administration will take. These include reducing the role that nuclear weapons have in overall U.S. security policy; negotiating a new U.S.-Russian treaty to reduce nuclear arsenals, now on a fast-track to completion by the end of the year; pursuing Senate ratification of the international treaty banning the explosive testing of nuclear weapons; and initiating a new program to secure all nuclear weapons material around the world within four years. UCS strongly supports all these steps, which will reduce the risk of an accidental Russian nuclear launch, and the likelihood that more nations and terrorists will acquire nuclear weapons. These steps will make the U.S. public, and the world, far safer."

In his Prague speech, the President laid the groundwork for change and discussed the magnitude of the threat. He said, ". . .The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War. No nuclear war was fought between the United States and the Soviet Union, but generations lived with the knowledge that their world could be erased in a single flash of light. Cities like Prague that existed for centuries, that embodied the beauty and the talent of so much of humanity, would have ceased to exist.

"Today, the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up. More nations have acquired these weapons. Testing has continued. Black market trade in nuclear secrets and nuclear materials abound. The technology to build a bomb has spread. Terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one. Our efforts to contain these dangers are centered on a global non-proliferation regime, but as more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point where the center cannot hold.

"Now, understand, this matters to people everywhere. One nuclear weapon exploded in one city -- be it New York or Moscow, Islamabad or Mumbai, Tokyo or Tel Aviv, Paris or Prague -- could kill hundreds of thousands of people. And no matter where it happens, there is no end to what the consequences might be -- for our global safety, our security, our society, our economy, to our ultimate survival.

"Some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be stopped, cannot be checked -- that we are destined to live in a world where more nations and more people possess the ultimate tools of destruction. Such fatalism is a deadly adversary, for if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then in some way we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable.

"Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century. (Applause.) And as nuclear power -- as a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.

"So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. (Applause.) I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly -- perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, 'Yes, we can. . .'"

Access a release on the "Minimal Deterrence" report with links to the full report and additional information (click here). Access a release on the "Transforming" report with links to the full report and related information (click here). Access a release from UCS (click here). Access the UCS Nuclear Weapons & Global Security for more information (click here). Access the full text of President Obama's Prague speech (click here). Access the video of the President's complete Prague speech (click here).

Senate Hearing On Nuclear Energy Development

Mar 18: The Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) held a hearing to receive testimony on nuclear energy development. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: Dale E. Klein - Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC); the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI); and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) both delivered statements.

Chairman Bingaman provided some background and indicated that 104 nuclear power plants now operating in the U.S. supply 20 percent of the nation's electricity. He said, "They do so reliably, cost-effectively, and without emitting greenhouse gases. Nuclear power is an essential part of our energy mix, and must remain so for the foreseeable future." He noted that the current generation of nuclear power plants was mostly built in the 1960s, '70s, and '80s. For nearly 30 years, utilities did not order a single new nuclear power plant, but in the last two years, 17 companies or groups of companies have ordered 26 new reactors.

The hearing focused on two main themes -- the licensing process and the financial challenges and other obstacles facing new nuclear power plant development. Bingaman indicated that, “The original licensing process was often blamed for the construction delays and cost overruns experienced in the past, but the Commission and Congress replaced that process with a new, streamlined, one-step process, which is now in place but has yet to be fully demonstrated." He said, "The high capital cost of building a new nuclear power plant is a serious obstacle to developing new nuclear power plants. We have previously tried to address the financial challenges through loan guarantees, delay and accident insurance, and production tax credits."

Finally, he indicated that, “What to do with the spent fuel nuclear power plants is, of course, one of the biggest unsolved problems facing the nuclear industry. But nuclear waste is not the subject of today's hearing. I hope to schedule a separate hearing on nuclear waste in the weeks ahead. Nonetheless, I recognize the keen interest that Senators have in the problem, and in the Administration's decision to stop work on the Yucca Mountain repository, and I expect we will have questions for the panel on the waste problem as well.”

Senator Murkowski called on the Obama Administration "to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and boost domestic power generation by supporting nuclear energy projects." She said, “There’s not just one solution to the energy challenges we face -- there are many. Nuclear energy is one of the few solutions that’s already commercially viable, tested and proven to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We’re seeing a lot of license applications for new reactors. Assuming they’re all approved, we need to be prepared to take the next step and support construction. Our ultimate goal is to develop a robust and self-sustaining nuclear energy industry.”

She said the Administration’s recent removal of support for Nevada’s Yucca Mountain repository for spent nuclear fuel, "despite the Administration’s oft stated support for the industry" sends the wrong signal to potential investors and suggests the Administration is not serious about expanding domestic nuclear power. I’m concerned about the future of nuclear energy if we don’t take substantive steps to address the disposal of nuclear waste until the Administration has an alternative, we need to fund and support the Yucca Mountain license review.”

Marvin Fertel, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) testified on behalf of members that include all companies licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the U.S., nuclear plant designers, major architect/engineering firms, fuel fabrication facilities, materials licensees, and other organizations and individuals involved in the nuclear energy industry. His testimony focused on five major areas including: Current status of the U.S. nuclear energy industry; The need for new nuclear generating capacity; Progress toward new nuclear power plant construction; Financial challenges facing the electric power sector; and Policy actions necessary to address the challenges facing new nuclear plant development.

He testified that the NRC is reviewing construction and operating license applications from 17 companies or groups of companies for 26 new reactors totaling 34,200 MW. The new plants will be built at a measured pace over the next 10-15 years. NEI estimates a new nuclear power plant could cost $6 billion to $8 billion, including financing costs.

Under policy actions, Fertel said NEI is encouraged by Energy Secretary Steven Chu’s intent, expressed before this committee during his confirmation hearing and at other times, to address the difficulties that have arisen during implementation of the Title XVII loan guarantee program. He said many of these problems can be corrected through rulemaking, and NEI understands that DOE is developing revised rules to address defects in the current rule and to implement the new loan guarantee program authorized in the economic stimulus legislation.

On the subject to management of used nuclear fuel Fertel said it "is managed safely and securely at nuclear plant sites today, and can be managed safely and securely for an extended period of time. For this reason, used nuclear fuel does not represent an impediment to new nuclear plant development in the near term. It is, however, an issue that must be addressed for the long-term." He indicated that the Obama Administration has made it clear that Yucca Mountain “is not an option.”

He said, the nuclear industry’s position on used fuel management is clear: " The Nuclear Waste Policy Act establishes an unequivocal federal legal obligation to manage used nuclear fuel, and remains the law of the land. Until that law is changed, the nuclear industry believes the NRC’s review of the Yucca Mountain license application should continue. If the administration unilaterally decides to abandon the Yucca Mountain project without enacting new legislation to modify or replace existing law, it should expect a new wave of lawsuits seeking further damage payments and refunds of at least $22 billion in the Nuclear Waste Fund already collected from consumers that has not been spent on the program.Given the uncertainties associated with the Yucca Mountain project, DOE should reduce the fee paid by consumers to cover only costs incurred by DOE, NRC and local Nevada government units that provide oversight of the program. . ."

Dr. Thomas Cochran, Senior Scientist for the NRDC Nuclear Program testified and said that NRDC's testimony focused on three issues: a) whether additional federal loan guarantees should be provided to construct new nuclear power plants; b) whether the United States should engage in reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel; and c) whether Congress should intervene in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposed rulemakings on temporary storage of spent fuel and so-called "waste confidence," that is, "whether sufficient confidence exists today in the long-term ability to isolate spent fuel from the biosphere that we can responsibly license new reactors that will add to the nuclear waste burden."

On Spent Fuel Reprocessing, NRDC said, "The federal government should not encourage or support commercial spent fuel processing. Putting aside for the moment the serious proliferation and security concerns in any future global shift toward reprocessing, it's clear that combating climate change is an urgent task that requires near term investments yielding huge decarbonization dividends on a 5 to 20 year timescale. . .Congress and the new Administration should terminate funding for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) and its associated efforts to close the nuclear fuel cycle and introduce fast burner reactors in the United States [See WIMS 5/23/08]."

On Nuclear Waste Disposal, NRDC said, "As the political sun sets on the proposed Yucca Mountain project, the federal government needs to begin identifying alternative geological disposal sites for the country's nuclear waste. Congress should initiate a search for a new geologic repository site for the disposal of spent fuel, and insure that adequate federal funding is available to retain the technical community associated with the Yucca Mountain project, so that this expertise will be available to assess and develop new proposed geological waste disposal sites. The Congress should not interfere in the NRC's ongoing Waste Confidence and Temporary Storage rulemakings, and let this regulatory body attempt to fulfill its independent regulatory mandate."

Access the hearing website for links to all testimony and a webcast (click here). Access the statement from Senator Bingaman (click here). Access the statement from Senator Murkowski (click here). [*Energy/Nuclear]

Final Rule On Aircraft Impacts For Nuclear Power Reactors

Feb 17: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a final rule that requires applicants for new power reactors to assess the ability of their reactor designs to avoid or mitigate the effects of a large commercial aircraft impact. NRC Chairman Dale Klein, said, “This is a common sense approach to address an issue raised by the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001. I am quite confident that this rule will be an important element in the regulatory framework for new reactor applications that will result in a margin of safety far beyond that required to achieve reasonable assurance of public health and safety.” [emphasis in original]

NRC said in a release that nuclear power plants are designed under very stringent requirements to assure they can safely shut down following “design-basis events” such as large fires, floods, earthquakes and hurricanes, as well as improbable equipment malfunctions including pipe breaks. These requirements include having two redundant systems to accomplish each safety function. The rule treats large commercial aircraft crashes as "a beyond-design-basis events." Under the rule, any design feature or functional capability adopted solely to comply with the rule will meet high quality standards but is exempt from NRC design-basis regulations, such as regulations for redundancy. The design features and functional capabilities must address core cooling capability, containment integrity, spent fuel cooling capability, and spent fuel pool integrity following an aircraft impact.

The release indicates, "The agency does not believe nuclear power plant operators should be required to prevent the impact of large commercial aircraft; that responsibility rests with the federal government. The NRC works closely with other federal agencies such as NORAD, the Federal Aviation Administration and the intelligence community to provide layered protection against such a threat. The agency expects these efforts would effectively preclude an aircraft attack from occurring. Should such an unlikely event take place at a new plant designed in accordance with the new rule, the NRC expects the plant would be better able to withstand such a crash than the same design without changes resulting from the rule."

Access a release from NRC (click here). Access an October 15, 2008 draft of the final rule with a information on the purpose, summary, background, discussion, commitments, recommendations and resources (click here). Access the February 17, 2009, NRC final action on the rule, with comments and edits (click here). Access a 4-page issue brief from the Union of Concerned Scientists on New Reactor Designs for Aircraft Threats (click here).

DOE Awards $2.5 Billion For Yucca Mountain Project M&O

Oct 30: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) awarded a $2.5 billion management and operating (M&O) contract to USA Repository Services (USA-RS), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the URS Corporation. USA-RS will be supported by principal subcontractors: Shaw Environmental and Infrastructure, Inc., and AREVA Federal Services, Inc. USA-RS will provide mission support to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) for the Yucca Mountain Project. As awarded, the contract has a five-year period of performance with a potential five-year option period. If fully exercised, this contract will continue through March 31, 2019.

Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman said, “If we are to meet growing energy demand and slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions, nuclear power must be a larger part of our energy mix; it is a mature technology with significant potential to supply large amounts of safe, reliable, emissions-free base load power. In order to ensure that such an expansion can occur, the United States must have a permanent repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. This contract will enable our national repository program to move forward by securing the necessary management and operations expertise needed as we begin the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing proceedings.”

The subject of Yucca Mountain is one where the presidential candidates have distinct differences. John McCain has supported the administration's plan of licensing and developing the Yucca Mountain repository. McCain says he wants to construct 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 [See WIMS 10/20/08]. He indicates that, "Nuclear power is a proven, zero-emission source of energy, and it is time we recommit to advancing our use of nuclear power." However, at a speech in May of this year he said, "I would seek to establish an international repository for spent nuclear fuel that could collect and safely store materials overseas that might otherwise be reprocessed to acquire bomb-grade materials. It is even possible that such an international center could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada."

Barack Obama says, "It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. . . " He said he will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti-terrorism priority. In terms of waste storage, [Obama & Biden] do not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. They said they will "lead Federal efforts to look for safe, long-term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, they will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry-cask storage technology available." [See WIMS 10/21/08].

Access a release from DOE (click here). Access additional information from the DOE OCRWM (click here). Access the McCain May speech on nuclear security (click here). [*Haz/Nuclear]

Yucca Mountain Application Docketed - Triggers 3-Year+ Review

Sep 8: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has formally docketed the Department of Energy’s license application for the proposed high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, NV. The Agency staff has also recommended that the Commission adopt, with further supplementation, DOE’s Environmental Impact Statement for the repository project. The decision to docket the application follows the NRC staff’s determination that the application, submitted June 3 [See WIMS 6/3/08], is sufficiently complete for the staff to begin its full technical review. Docketing the application does not indicate whether the Commission will approve or reject the construction authorization for the repository, nor does it preclude the Commission or the agency staff from requesting additional information from DOE during the course of its comprehensive technical review.

Docketing the application triggers a three-year deadline, with a possible one-year extension, set by Congress for the NRC to decide whether to grant a construction authorization. NRC officials have stated that meeting this deadline is contingent on the agency receiving sufficient resources from Congress. After reviewing DOE’s Environmental Impact Statement and its supplements, the NRC staff determined that it would be practicable for the Agency to adopt the DOE report. However, the staff is requesting that DOE supplement some aspects of its groundwater analyses. A notice of docketing will be published soon in the Federal Register. A subsequent Federal Register notice will provide an opportunity for interested parties to seek an adjudicatory hearing before the NRC’s Atomic Safety and Licensing Board regarding the NRC’s adoption of the Environmental Impact Statement or the substance of the license application.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel Bodman said, “This is a significant step forward in solving the nation’s problem of disposing of spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste currently sitting at 121 temporary locations in 39 states across the country. I am confident the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s rigorous review process will validate that the Yucca Mountain repository will safely store this waste in a manner that is most protective of human health and the environment. As energy demand in the United States grows, the expansion of commercial nuclear power will be the key to providing the large amounts of emissions-free base load power we need, and the establishment of the Yucca Mountain repository is an important step toward enabling that expansion to occur.”

Access a release from NRC (click here). Access a release from DOE (click here). Access complete information on the Yucca application including links to all detailed documents (click here). [*Energy/Nuclear]

GAO Adds To Reports Critical Of DOE's GNEP

Subscribers Note: We will not be publishing on Monday, May 26, 2008, in observance of the Memorial Day holiday.

May 22: The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report entitled, Global Nuclear Energy Partnership: DOE Should Reassess Its Approach to Designing and Building Spent Nuclear Fuel Recycling Facilities (GAO-08-483, April 22, 2008). In the report GAO recommends that the Department of Energy (DOE) reassess its preference for accelerating GNEP. DOE stated it will continue to assess alternative approaches to GNEP. The GAO report is the latest in a series of critical reviews of the GNEP (See additional information below).

The Department of Energy (DOE) proposes under the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP) to build facilities to begin recycling the nation's commercial spent nuclear fuel. GNEP's objectives include reducing radioactive waste disposed of in a geologic repository and mitigating the nuclear proliferation risks of existing recycling technologies. DOE originally planned a small engineering-scale demonstration of advanced recycling technologies being developed by DOE national laboratories. While DOE has not ruled out this approach, the current GNEP strategic plan favors working with industry to demonstrate the latest commercially available technology in full-scale facilities and to do so in a way that will attract industry investment.

DOE has funded four industry groups to prepare proposals for full-scale facilities. DOE officials expect the Secretary of Energy to decide on an approach to GNEP by the end of 2008. GAO evaluated the extent to which DOE would address GNEP's objectives under (1) its original engineering-scale approach and (2) the accelerated approach to building full-scale facilities. GAO analyzed DOE plans and industry proposals and interviewed DOE and industry officials concerning the pros and cons of both approaches.

DOE's original approach of building engineering-scale facilities would meet GNEP's objectives if the advanced technologies on which it focused can be successfully developed and commercialized. The advanced technologies would reduce waste to a greater degree than existing technologies by recycling radioactive material that a geologic repository has limited capacity to accommodate. The advanced technologies would also mitigate proliferation risks relative to existing technologies by increasing the difficulty of theft or diversion of weapons-usable nuclear material from recycling facilities.

Nonetheless, DOE's engineering-scale approach had two shortcomings. First, it lacked industry participation, potentially reducing the prospects for eventual commercialization of the technologies. In particular, the approach included some technologies that may introduce unnecessary costs and technical challenges while creating waste management challenges; industry representatives have questioned whether such technologies could be commercialized. Second, DOE's schedule called for building one of the recycling facilities (a reprocessing plant for separating reusable materials from spent nuclear fuel and fabricating recycled fuel) before conducting R&D on recycled fuel that would help determine the plant's design requirements. This schedule unnecessarily increased the risk that the spent fuel would be separated in a form that cannot be recycled.

The other two facilities DOE had planned to build (an advanced reactor for using recycled fuel and an R&D facility) would allow DOE to conduct R&D that existing DOE facilities have limited capability to support. DOE's accelerated approach of building full-scale facilities would likely require using unproven evolutions of existing technologies that would reduce radioactive waste and mitigate proliferation risks to a much lesser degree than anticipated from more advanced technologies. Two of the four industry groups that have received funding under GNEP proposed evolutionary technologies for recycling spent fuel in existing reactors even though the GNEP strategic plan ruled out such technologies. While the evolutionary technologies could allow DOE to begin recycling a large amount of spent fuel sooner than under its original approach, fully meeting GNEP's waste reduction and nonproliferation objectives would require a later transition to more advanced technologies.

Two other industry groups proposed technologies that would address GNEP's waste reduction and nonproliferation objectives by using technologies that are not mature enough to allow DOE to accelerate construction of full-scale recycling facilities. Under any of the proposals, DOE is unlikely to attract enough industry investment to avoid the need for a large amount of government funding for full-scale facilities. For example, the industry groups have proposed that DOE fund an advanced reactor, which DOE and industry officials expect would at least initially be more expensive than existing reactors to build and operate and thus not be commercially competitive. DOE acknowledges the limitations of its accelerated approach but cites other benefits, such as the potential to exert more immediate international influence on nonproliferation issues.

As WIMS has reported previously [See WIMS 5/16/08], despite many critics and recommendations to alter the GNEP, DOE continues to push forward with the program. On March 31, 2008, a coalition of public interest, environmental and policy groups released a report detailing what they say are, "the severe shortcomings and false assertions" posed in the Administration's GNEP [See WIMS 4/2/08]. The GNEP has been criticized by others as well. The program recently came under scrutiny of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) that said the research and development component of the GNEP should not go forward at its current pace [See WIMS 10/30/07]. On June 14, 2007, the Keystone Center released a report from a diverse group of 27 stakeholders that concluded, "that critical elements of the program [GNEP] are unlikely to succeed" [See WIMS 6/18/07]. On November 2, 2007, more than 40 national and local environmental, science and national security organizations sent a letter to Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Pete Domenici (R-NM), urging them to eliminate funding for the GNEP plan for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. The program, they wrote, "undermines U.S. nonproliferation policy, would cost taxpayers $100 billion or more, and … [would] not solve the nuclear waste problem."

Access the complete GAO report (click here). Access a release on the Risky Appropriations report with links to the complete 64-page report and fact sheet (click here). Access the GNEP website (click here). Access the GNEP Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (click here). Access further information on DOE’s nuclear energy program website (click here). [*Energy, *Haz/Nuclear]

CBO Report On Nuclear Power’s Role In Generating Electricity

May 2: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a 46-page report entitled, Nuclear Power’s Role In Generating Electricity. At the request of the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, CBO assessed the competitiveness of nuclear power when compared with other sources of new capacity to generate electricity, focusing on the possible effects of constraints on carbon dioxide emissions and the impact of EPAct incentives.

The report indicates that concerns about the adequacy of electricity supply and the impact of greenhouse-gas emissions on the environment have prompted policymakers to reevaluate the role that nuclear power might play in the future in meeting the nation’s demand for electricity. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct) offers incentives for expanding utilities’ capacity to generate electricity using innovative fossil fuel technologies and a new generation of nuclear reactors that are designed to decrease costs and enhance safety. In addition, policymakers are considering various proposals that would impose charges on entities that emit carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. Such policies could further encourage the use of nuclear power, which emits no such gases, by increasing the cost of generating electricity with competing fossil-fuel technologies.

To assess the competitiveness of advanced nuclear technology in comparison with other base-load options, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the levelized cost of alternatives under a reference scenario reflecting the agency’s best judgment about future market conditions and the policy environment before the enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and under alternatives that consider the effects of both carbon dioxide charges and EPAct incentives. To calculate those costs, CBO adopted base-case assumptions about an array of technical and economic choices confronting investors in new electricity-generating capacity.

The results section of the report indicates, "under the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, it is probable that at least a few nuclear power plants will be built over the next decade, most likely in markets where electricity usage and the corresponding demand for additional base-load capacity are expected to grow significantly. Ultimately, however, the longer-term competitiveness of nuclear technology as a source of electricity is likely to depend on policymakers’ decisions regarding carbon dioxide constraints. If such constraints are implemented, nuclear power will probably enjoy a cost advantage over conventional fossil-fuel alternatives as a source of electricity-generating capacity.

Today, even the anticipation that carbon dioxide emissions will be priced is a factor being weighed in investors’ decisions about new base-load capacity. Those conclusions are tentative, though, because the electricity industry faces numerous uncertainties. If expectations related to future market conditions -- especially those pertaining to construction costs or fuel prices-- shift before investors commit to the construction of new base-load capacity, the prospects for new nuclear capacity could change dramatically.

While the report does not make recommendations, it indicates that carbon dioxide charges of about $45 per metric ton would probably make nuclear generation competitive with conventional fossil fuel technologies as a source of new capacity and could lead utilities to build new nuclear plants that would eventually replace existing coal power plants. At charges below that threshold, conventional gas technology would probably be a more economic source of baseload capacity than coal technology. Below about $5 per metric ton, conventional coal technology would probably be the lowest cost source of new capacity.

The report notes however, that even if carbon dioxide charges over $45 per metric ton were implemented, it would take decades for sufficient nuclear capacity to be put in place before most utilities could consider substituting new nuclear capacity for existing coal plants. Replacing the 300,000 megawatts of existing coal capacity would require hundreds of new nuclear plants. The capacity of the industry that builds nuclear plants and its suppliers of components is currently constrained and unlikely to expand rapidly enough for even tens of plants to be built in the next decade.

Access the complete report (click here). Access a brief CBO blog summary of the study by the director (click here). Access a description of the Methodology Behind the Levelized Cost Analysis (click here). [*Energy]

Nuclear Power In A Warming World: Solution or Illusion?

Mar 12: The House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Chaired by Edward Markey (D-MA)held a hearing entitled, “Nuclear Power in a Warming World: Solution or Illusion?” The hearing explored the degree to which nuclear power can provide a solution for addressing climate change. According to an announcement, the contemplated future role of nuclear power in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions will clearly require a monumental capital investment, many years if not decades of planning and construction, extensive international coordination, and substantial assumption of risk by the general public and by investors. The hearing examine the feasibility of achieving such a nuclear expansion, the costs and benefits of this nuclear path, and whether nuclear power can play a leading role in solving the climate challenge.

Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: Amory Lovins, Cofounder, Chairman, and Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute; Sharon Squassoni, Senior Associate in the Nonproliferation Program of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; and David Lochbaum, Director of the Nuclear Safety Project for the Union of Concerned Scientists; and Adam Flint, Senior Vice President, Government Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute.

Lovins titled his presentation, "Why expanding nuclear power would reduce and retard climate protection and energy security… but can’t survive free-market capitalism." He said, "I’ll summarize why nuclear power isn’t needed for any civilian purpose; how and why it’s being dramatically outcompeted in the global marketplace by no- and low-carbon electrical resources that deliver far more climate solution per dollar, far faster; and why nuclear expansion would inhibit climate protection, energy security, and reliably powering prosperity. Even if nuclear power could attract private risk capital, it could not in principle deliver its claimed climate and security benefits. But because it’s uneconomic and unnecessary, we needn’t inquire into its other attributes. Far from undergoing a renaissance, nuclear power is conspicuously failing in the marketplace, for the same forgotten reason it failed previously: it costs too much and it bears too much financial risk to attract private risk capital, despite federal subsidies now approaching or exceeding its total cost. . ." He concluded saying, "The capital markets are now injecting a welcome realism long absent from Federal policy. The straightest path to American energy security and to a richer, fairer, cooler, safer world is to let all ways to save or produce energy compete fairly, at honest prices, regardless of their type, technology, size, location, and ownership. That’s pretty much the opposite of the Federal energy policy we have."

Sharon Squassoni, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace testified that the recent increase in Administration support for nuclear power (i.e. subsidies, presidential and official statements, the 2005 Energy Policy Act, etc.) have created "a confused debate that paints nuclear energy 'clean and green,' advocates nuclear energy for all, even though some states with nuclear reactors could pose significant safety and proliferation concerns, and suggests that nuclear energy is a path to energy security, while insisting that some states rely on market mechanisms for fuel supplies instead of developing their own indigenous resources and capabilities. Yet, this approach obscures important policy considerations as the United States and other countries consider nuclear investments on the order of several hundred billion dollars. A first order question is the extent to which nuclear energy can really make a difference in terms of global climate change."

Her analysis, based on a 2004 “wedge analysis” indicates that, "For nuclear energy to “solve” just one-seventh of the problem – lowering emissions by 1 billion tons per year – an additional 700 GWe of capacity would have to be built, assuming the reactors replaced 700 GWe of modern coal-electric plants.4 Because virtually all operating reactors will have to be retired in that time, this means building approximately 1070 reactors in 42 years [i.e. by 2050], or about 25 reactors per year. Current global reactor capacity is 373 GWe or 439 reactors worldwide. In short, one “nuclear wedge” would require almost tripling current capacity."

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) testified that it recently re-examined nuclear power’s role in combating global warming. He said, "We concluded that an expansion of nuclear power could help curb global warming because nuclear power plants do not emit global warming gases during operation and the emissions during the nuclear fuel cycle and plant construction are relatively modest. Unfortunately, history has repeatedly shown that the safety and security risks of this nuclear curb are both significant and sustained. . ." UCS concludes, "If the NRC is not reformed, even existing reactors may not operate long into the future and new reactors are unlikely to make a meaningful contribution to global warming. Thus, if the NRC is not reformed, UCS believes that nuclear power will be more of an illusion than a solution." UCS testimony includes an attachment of the Executive summary from UCS’s December 2007 report Nuclear Power in a Warming World [See WIMS 12/12/07]. The complete report is available from the link below.

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) indicated that it is responsible for developing policy for the U.S. nuclear industry on generic technical, regulatory, business and other matters of industry-wide importance. More than 300 corporate and other members of NEI represent a broad spectrum of interests, including every U.S. electric utility that operates a nuclear power plant. NEI said that the Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts global electricity demand to nearly double between 2004 and 2030 from 16.4 trillion kilowatt-hours in 2004 to 30.4 trillion kilowatt-hours in 2030.

NEI said, "It is extraordinarily challenging to imagine credible scenarios by which electricity production can double in the coming decades while reducing significantly the emission of greenhouse gases from electricity generation. To do so will take the successful implementation of a wide range of solutions, as Princeton Professors Stephen Pacala and David Socolow made clear in their wedge analysis. A credible program will require a portfolio of technologies and approaches, including the widespread use of nuclear energy, renewables, conservation, efficiency, and carbon sequestration from the use of fossil fuels. The magnitude of this challenge should not be underestimated.

"That conclusion is shared by leaders and governments around the world including Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, who, in July 2007 said he had never seen a credible scenario for reducing emissions that did not include nuclear energy. Similar conclusions have been reached by the G-8 in its declaration on “Growth and Responsibility in the World Economy” issued after the June 2007 G-8 summit. . .

"There are 34 nuclear units under construction worldwide including seven in Russian, six in India, and five in China. In the United States, we have one, the 5-year, $2.5 billion completion of TVA’s Watts Bar 2 underway. In the United States, 17 companies or groups of companies are preparing license applications for as many as 31 new reactors. . .

"In closing, nuclear energy is the single largest source of non-carbon emitting generation. It is a mature technology, operated at high standards by an experienced industry that is committed to safety. It is the only energy option available today that can provide large-scale electricity 24/7 at a competitive cost without emitting greenhouse gases."

Access the hearing website for links to all testimony (click here). Access an overview and link to the complete 74-page UCS report (click here). [*Energy/Nuclear, *Haz/Nuclear]

U.S. Funding Russian Assistance On Iranian Nuclear Projects

Feb 6: In a startling revelation, Representatives John D. Dingell (D-MI), Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Bart Stupak (D-MI), Chairman of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee say that a highly touted Department of Energy (DOE) nonproliferation program, which is intended to keep Soviet-era scientists from migrating to rogue states following the collapse of the Soviet Union, has been funding Russian research institutes that support nuclear projects in Iran. Dingell said, “Only this Administration would complain about proliferation in Iran, as part of President Bush’s nuclear axis of evil, and then finance it with American taxpayer dollars."

The two Representatives wrote Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman regarding the Department of Energy’s (DOE's) Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention Program (IPP). The letter from Stupak and Dingell notes that two IPP-funded institutes in Russia have performed work on the Buhsher nuclear reactor in Iran. The revelations came the day before Bodman testified before the Committee on Energy and Commerce Committee on the Department of Energy’s Fiscal Year 2009 Budget.

Stupak said, “During our hearing in January, Department of Energy and State Department witnesses told me they didn’t know if the United States is funding projects at institutes that are also doing work for the Iranian nuclear program. We now know that they are. I find it to be a rather schizophrenic foreign policy position for the Bush Administration to label Iran part of the ‘axis of evil’ but then send millions of U.S. tax dollars intended for non-proliferation programs to Russian institutes that are doing work on Iran’s nuclear program. I look forward to hearing the Energy and State Departments’ justifications for such a policy.”

Bodman said he is unsure if the allegations are true and DOE is still investigating the charges in the letter, but said it is his belief that U.S. funds are "not contributing to the Iranian nuclear program." He said DOE will get the Committee answers to their questions.

Access a release from Dingell and Stupak with links to the letter and two attachments (click here). Access the Committee hearing website and archived webcast where Secretary Bodman is questioned on this issue (click here). [*Energy, *Haz/Nuclear]

Despite Critics DOE Touts GNEP On European & Central Asia Tour

Nov 13: U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman delivered remarks at the 20th World Energy Congress Ministerial Forum, highlighting the importance of robust investments in a diversity of energy supplies and breakthrough technologies to meet growing global demand for energy. While in Rome, Secretary Bodman welcomed Italy to the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP), an international framework that DOE says is "aimed at expanding nuclear power worldwide while responsibly managing nuclear waste and reducing proliferation risks." Italy is the most recent nation to sign the GNEP Statement of Principles, which 16 nations joined in September at the Partnership’s second Ministerial in Vienna, Austria.

The GNEP program has recently come under scrutiny of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Research Council (NRC) that said the research and development component of the GNEP should not go forward at its current pace [See WIMS 10/30/07]. Despite the NAS concerns, Secretary Bodman said, “By becoming a member of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, Italy is joining a growing group of nations committed to developing solutions to power a clean, safe and reliable energy future. To increase global energy security, producing and consuming nations alike must make robust investments in a diversity of energy sources, accelerate efforts to increase energy efficiency, and rapidly deploy advanced clean energy technologies to meet growing energy demand and sustain economic growth.”

In signing the GNEP Principles, Italy joins China, France, Japan, Russia and the United States, who are original GNEP partners, as well as Australia, Bulgaria, Ghana, Hungary, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, and Ukraine in efforts to address the prospects of expanding the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, including enhanced safeguards, international fuel service frameworks, and advanced technologies. DOE indicates that GNEP seeks to develop worldwide consensus on enabling expanded use of clean, safe, and affordable nuclear energy to meet growing electricity demand. GNEP proposes a nuclear fuel cycle that enhances energy security, while promoting non-proliferation.

Italy is the first stop in Secretary Bodman’s five-nation visit to Europe and Central Asia. Later in the week, he will travel to Ashgabat, Turkmenistan to address the Turkmenistan Industrial Oil and Gas Exhibit (TIOGE) and meet with the President and Foreign Minister of Turkmenistan. Following his visit to Turkmenistan, he will travel to Turkey to highlight the importance of expanding and securing oil and gas infrastructure and to Greece to celebrate the opening of the Turkey-Greece Inter-connector pipeline, which will be a critical link between the gas suppliers of central Asia and the consumers of Europe. He will conclude his trip in London, England where he is expected to hold bilateral meetings with senior English officials and deliver remarks to U.S. and British business leaders.

The GNEP program has also been criticized by others. On June 14, 2007, the Keystone Center released a report showing areas of agreement from a diverse group of 27 stakeholders associated with the nuclear industry, environmental groups, consumer advocates, government regulators, consultants, and academics. On the issue of the GNEP the report concluded, "that critical elements of the program are unlikely to succeed" [See WIMS 6/18/07]. On November 2, 2007, more than 40 national and local environmental, science and national security organizations sent a letter to Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Pete Domenici (R-NM), urging them to eliminate funding for the GNEP plan for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel. The program, they wrote, "undermines U.S. nonproliferation policy, would cost taxpayers $100 billion or more, and … [would] not solve the nuclear waste problem."

Simultaneously, the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, Chaired by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), held a hearing today (November 14, 2007), to receive testimony on GNEP as it relates to U.S. policy on nuclear fuel management. Those testifying at the hearing included: the Department of Energy; the Congressional Budget Office; Los Alamos National Laboratory; Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Harvard University Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; and The Boston Consulting Group.

DOE testified that, "GNEP is crucial to developing an effective and durable waste management strategy in the United States, aswell as around the world. To that end, GNEP is completely compatible with our near-term effort to license and open the waste repository at Yucca Mountain."

CBO testified that, "The cost of directly disposing of spent nuclear fuel is less than the cost of reprocessing it..." CBO said that one study by the Boston Consulting Group estimates that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel would cost $585 per kilogram and another study, by Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government indicates a cost about $1,300 per kilogram -- or more than twice as much as direct disposal. CBO concludes that for the roughly 2,200 metric tons of spent fuel produced each year in the United States, the reprocessing alternative would be likely to cost at least $5 billion more in present-value terms than the direct-disposal alternative over the life of a reprocessing plant.

Matthew Bunn of the Belfer Center testified that, "Some elements of GNEP could make important contributions to reducing proliferation risks. Unfortunately, GNEP’s heavy focus on building a commercial-scale reprocessing plant in the near term would, if accepted, increase proliferation risks rather than decreasing them...The recent National Academy of Sciences review has provided an excellent discussion of just how premature it would be to build commercial-scale facilities now, unanimously recommending against proceeding with a GNEP program focused on near-term large-scale construction." Neil Todreas of MIT testified, "I believe such an R&D program to evaluate the potential of nuclear energy systems operating in the closed fuel cycle is an important national undertaking."

Access a release from DOE (click here). Access the GNEP website for further details (click here). Access a release from the Union of Concerned Scientists on the letter to Senators (click here). Access the Senate hearing website for links to all testimony (click here). [*Energy, *Haz/Nuclear]

Senate Hearing On Yucca Mountain Repository Licensing Process

Oct 31: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), held a hearing entitled, Examination of the Licensing Process for the Yucca Mountain Repository. The hearing included testimony from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV); Senator John Ensign (R-NV); Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC); the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, U.S. Department of Energy; the Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA; the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; the Attorney General for the State of Nevada; the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners; and the Environmental Working Group. Senators Boxer, Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and James Inhofe (R-OK) all delivered opening statements and Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) submitted a letter statement to the Committee.

The Yucca Mountain project is nearing a critical stage of the process and DOE testified that it is preparing to submit a license application for Yucca Mountain to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission "not later than June 30, 2008." EPA testified that its draft final rule was submitted for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review in December 2006. "We have engaged in productive discussions with other federal agencies about the important and complex issues raised by setting a standard that will protect public health and safety and the environment for up to one million years after the Yucca Mountain repository closes. We look forward to completing those discussions and our analysis of the public comments and issuing the final rule soon."

Senator Boxer said, "My serious concerns about Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository date back many years because my state of California will be severely impacted if it is built and put into operation... Billions of taxpayer dollars could be wasted on a proposal that is fatally flawed because it will put millions of people at risk. If Yucca Mountain becomes operational, radioactive waste will be transported there from across the Nation."

Senator Inhofe said, "Nuclear energy must play a growing part of our nation's energy future, both for the sake of national security and environmental progress. However, I am concerned that the resurgence of the nuclear industry may be hindered if there isn’t sufficient progress toward development of a repository for spent fuel... So far, we have spent over 25 years and $6 billion on this lengthy, thorough, bipartisan process to prepare DOE to file a license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission asking for authorization to build the repository. Yet there are those who would like to abandon Yucca Mountain and start over without the NRC ever even considering the project... To me, the toughest question is: If not Yucca Mountain, then where are we going to build a repository?... It’s time to proceed with the next step in the rigorous and thoughtful process provided in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act."

Senator Clinton said, "I want to start by stating what the available scientific evidence makes clear: Yucca Mountain is not a safe place to store spent fuel from our nation’s nuclear reactors. Looking forward, scientists have predicted that an earthquake registering 6 or more on the Richter scale is likely to occur in the next 10,000 years, given that Nevada is the third-most earthquake-prone state in the country after California and Alaska. An even greater potential risk at the site is its history of volcanic activity. As an MIT geologist testified to this committee last year, and I quote: 'Though the likelihood of an explosive volcano erupting directly beneath the repository is remote, the outcome would be devastating, spewing radioactive material directly into the atmosphere...' We do need to find a long-term storage solution for our nation’s nuclear waste. But Yucca Mountain is not the answer. It’s time to step back and take a deep breath."

Indicating that the technical and legal issues could delay the repository for at least another 20 years, Senator Obama indicated in his letter that "I believe it no longer a sustainable Federal policy for Yucca Mountain to be considered a permanent repository... the time has come for the Federal government to refocus its resources on finding more viable alternatives for the storage of spent nuclear fuel... In short the selection of Yucca Mountain has failed, the time for debate on this site is over, and its time to start exploring new alternatives... "

Senator Reid testified that, "We are talking about the most dangerous substance known on the face of the earth. And instead of seriously studying whether or not the proposed site at Yucca Mountain is safe to store this waste, the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency are cooking up their own set of books to write a radiation standard that can be met at Yucca Mountain."

Senator Ensign testified, "I want to be clear that I am not against nuclear power. I believe that it presents this nation with a viable clean air energy alternative that can help our nation meet its growing needs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil... The proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository is not a responsible solution... On-site dry cask storage is a viable, safe, and secure alternative that is readily available and will allow science and industry the time to catch up... Storing the waste on-site will allow the necessary time to develop a viable reprocessing program using advanced fuel-cycle technologies."

Senator DeMint testified, "While the United States abandoned already built facilities to recycle nuclear waste, the Europeans took American technology, improved it, and have proven the ability to control the entire nuclear fuel cycle. Now, European countries are proposing even more nuclear reactors in order to meet their pollution reduction commitments under their Kyoto agreements... my state of South Carolina embraced nuclear energy, and today more than half of the energy produced in my state comes from nuclear... What I find perplexing is that people argue the environmental standards are not strict enough to justify opening Yucca. However, if Yucca cannot meet these standards, then no other location where nuclear waste currently resides can qualify either... Without Yucca, a nuclear renaissance will not occur, and without nuclear energy we will never see significant improvements to our environment. We should not set our nation back even further like the misguided policies of 30 years ago. I applaud President Bush and the administration of every President since Carter for their strong support of Yucca Mountain."

Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, statements, letter and a webcast (click here). [*Haz/Nuclear]