The Obama administration remains steadfastly opposed to the Yucca Mountain project, but new Energy Secretary Steven Chu is leaving the door ajar for the government to continue seeking a license needed to open the nuclear waste dump site.
In remarks to the Las Vegas Sun last week, Chu declined to say he was pulling the license application pending before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Critics of Yucca want the application killed because they fear that if it is approved, a future presidential administration could open the dump fairly quickly -- avoiding a new, years-long application process.
President Obama's campaign pledged last year to kill the application, which is widely opposed in Nevada. When asked May 29 whether Obama would withdraw the application as president, a spokeswoman said unequivocally, "Yes."
In comments Thursday, Chu gave assurances that Obama remains opposed to the nuclear dump site. "The position is Yucca Mountain is not going forward, that's the president's position," Chu said following a talk in Washington. "But it's a very complicated issue because we still have to do things that allow that we can use nuclear as part of our energy mix."
Though quickly withdrawing the application is one sure way to kill the project, it may be easier said than done.
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires the building of Yucca Mountain. That law remains in effect, which means the administration opens itself to potential legal action if it abruptly halts the process without an alternative.
Utility companies that operate nuclear power plants across the nation have sued the government for failing to open Yucca Mountain by the promised 1998 start date. The waste is piling up at their plant sites.
Obama has repeatedly said that he will not pursue Yucca Mountain to store spent fuel. Discussions are under way for a national blue-ribbon commission that could consider alternatives to Yucca Mountain that would be acceptable to both the industry as well as lawmakers in Washington.
Similarly, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's main lobbying arm, has been visiting communities across the United States to gauge interest in hosting waste dumps. Some proponents think there are economic benefits to housing such an operation.
Energy spokeswoman Stephanie Mueller said late Thursday that "charting a path forward on alternatives to Yucca Mountain is a key priority of Secretary Chu ... Under an Obama administration, no license application will result in a nuclear waste storage site at Yucca Mountain."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, among the dump's strongest opponents, is confident Obama and Chu will stop the dump, a spokesman said Thursday. Reid had vowed to try to block any nominee for energy secretary who didn't oppose Yucca Mountain.
"We do want to pull the license application, though there are some steps that need to be taken to do that," Reid spokesman Jon Summers said.
"Keep in mind that Obama has been in office all of a month," Summers added. "President Obama and Secretary Chu made a promise to the people of Nevada and to Senator Reid that they're going to kill the dump. We have no doubt they're going to do that. But we also realize there's some groundwork that needs to be completed before you pull the license application."
Bob Loux, the former head of the Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency, who fought the dump for more than 25 years, suggested that Chu's inability to readily commit to pulling the application might mean he "is trying to forestall a wholesale revolt."
Loux said Energy department staff could also be interested in seeing the project through to completion as an exercise to understand what it would take to win licensing approval of a full-scale repository -- the first of its kind.
The licensing process began last fall and is expected to take four years. The nuclear lobbying group has also promoted finishing the process to determine the project's viability.
But Loux added that if Obama's fiscal 2010 budget essentially zeroes out funding for Yucca Mountain, as Reid has indicated it would, there may not be resources to finish the licensing process anyway.
Estimates are it would take $200 million annually to support the work, he said.
Campaign position:
When asked whether President Obama would withdraw the Energy Department's application to license the nuclear waste repository as president, a spokeswoman for the then-senator replied unequivocally in an e-mail: "Yes." -- As reported in the Las Vegas Sun, June 2008
Cabinet member's remarks:
"The position is Yucca Mountain is not going forward, that's the president's position. But it's a very complicated issue because we still have to do things that allow that we can use nuclear as part of our energy mix." -- Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Thursday
What it means for states:
If the dump's license application is allowed to proceed and is approved, some say, a future president might be able to open it without new approval process.
(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.scrippsnews.com.)
Must credit Las Vegas Sun
When it comes to Nuclear Waste, it is better to make less of it
We should Transition to Nuclear Technology that makes less Waste.
DOE Lab Scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory have pioneered a less costly and less waste generating nuclear technology that has been successfully demonstrated in the laboratory but has never been commercialized.
Nuclear power currently produces 70% of the nation’s non-GHG producing energy. Thorium Molten Salt Reactors are practical proven technology that really does produce 1 part in 1000 the amount of high level radiotoxic waste as current Light Water Reactor technology. We need to commercialize Thorium Molten Salt Reactors to provide America with abundant clean nuclear power and achieve genuine energy independence.
Using Thorium Molten Salt Reactors (TMSR) as backup systems to our renewable energy systems will greatly improve the satisfaction of Americans with the completed energy system. People will not be happy with an energy system that has greater brownouts, blackouts, or intermittency than the fossil fuel based power system they are used to. Thorium Molten Salt Reactors can easily and safely be throttled in power output unlike conventional nuclear technology which is well adapted to constant power operation. TMSR reactors can safely and easily change power output and are excellent load following and peak generating power sources. Conventional LWR operate better when set and then operated at a constant power level for an extended period of time. Backing-up with Thorium Nuclear will keep the quality and customer satisfaction with the overall completed energy system high.
Dr. Edward Teller, the founding director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, wrote his final paper a month before his death on the subject of the advantages of Thorium Molten Salt Reactors and the contribution this style of less polluting nuclear energy could provide in solving the problem of achieving energy independence while reducing the need to generate green house gases. This paper can be downloaded from the following URL:
http://www.geocities.com/rmoir2003/moir_teller.pdf
Respectfully, Robert Steinhaus – Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Retired)
TMSR
Without knowing much about TMSRs (having been brought up in an LWR world), I can't comment about the amount of waste one might generate relative to a LWR. I do know that successful molten salt reactors (MSRs) have been demonstrated as feasible for several decades. Most notably EBR-2 (Idaho) and FFTF (Hanford) - but these were uranium fueled, not thorium. I was most impressed by the EBR-II model, which also had spent fuel reprocessing, fuel fabrication, and refuelling capabilties co-located with the reactor. Very impressive. I am only slightly familiar with MSRE in Oak Ridge.
Regardless, proposing TMSRs for load following backup to renewable energy systems (presumably you are refering to solar and wind power) doesn't make sense to me. As noted, existing and proposed LWRs are best at base-load generation. Isn't that what we want - a stable base load capacity that can be supplemented by load following generation when needed? It would seem renewable technologies such as wind and solar are, by their very nature, inherently unreliable for base load generation. Wouldn't they be best suited for a type of load following application, where they are brought on line when they are able to produce, and taken off line when they are not? (I confess I have not yet read Teller's paper, and will do so at my earliest opportunity)
Perhaps the ideal integrated solution might include LWRs or MSRs (uranium or thorium fueled) for base generation, TMSRs for load following, and renewable (particuarly solar) for distributed generating capacity (i.e, to power individual homwes in the appropriate climates)? Just a thought.
No authority to withdraw license application
Contrary to Obama's, Chu's and/or Reid's desire to withdraw the License Application, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act has no such provision at this stage of the project.
Post new comment