Add new comment

Part 2 of 3 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
Talking Point #1 – Yucca Mountain is a good choice for a repository for spent nuclear fuel from U.S. nuclear power reactors.
     An old salt mine under Yucca Mountain in Nevada was chosen for a permanent geological repository for spent nuclear fuel in 1987. It was not selected because it was the best choice from a scientific and technical point of view. Originally, the plan was to carry out an adaptive, phased and science-based process to select the best site for the repository. However, Congress gave up on the idea of a scientific selection process because of the high cost of carrying out a comprehensive comparison of potential disposal sites. Congress proceeded to select the “most politically expedient” choice at that time which was Yucca Mountain.
    Yucca Mountain never was a rational choice, and, in time, it was no long so expedient. Concerns were raised that there could be serious problems with ground water movement at Yucca Mountain that could penetrate the salt mine. Nevada politicians and community leaders have been able to present a united front against the use of Yucca Mountain for a repository. Nevada has a strong argument that science shows that Yucca Mountain repository would be a bad idea. Utah, Tennessee, South Dakota, New Mexico, and Texas have all rejected attempts to build a nuclear waste repository in their states. States must be more fully engaged and empowered in the quest for a site for a permanent geological repository for spent nuclear fuel.
Talking Point #2 – The problem of spent nuclear fuel disposal is slowing down the spread of nuclear power in the U.S.
     An expert witness for the Nuclear Energy Institute testified at one of the Congressional hearings that nuclear waste was “the albatross on the neck of the nuclear industry.” However, this is not as true as some may think. Since 1957, it has been generally recognized that a deep permanent geological repository is the best way to dispose of spent nuclear fuel. However, despite attempts such as the Yucca Mountain repository project, in the past sixty years, no repository has been constructed and put into operation. While eighty thousand tons of nuclear waste has been piling up around the U.S., over one hundred commercial nuclear power plants were constructed. Two new reactors are currently being build at Plant Vogtle in Georgia with little consideration of how they will impact the nuclear waste disposal problem.
    In reality, the real albatross around the neck of the U.S. nuclear industry is the huge upfront costs of constructing a nuclear reactor and the lack of economic competitiveness in the current U.S. energy markets. Decades of direct subsidies and special legal protection provided by the U.S. government have enabled the rise of nuclear power. Many U.S. nuclear power reactors are at risk of early closure because of safety issues and rising operating costs. They are unable to compete against low cost natural gas and renewable energy sources that currently dominate the U.S. energy marketplace.
    New reactors were being constructed at the VC Summer plant in South Carolina. The project was cancelled due to cost overruns, scheduling delays and mismanagement after nine billion dollars had been spent. It is now estimated that completion of the Vogtle reactors in Georgia will cost twenty-eight billion dollars which is about twice what was original estimated when the project started. Ultimately, it is not the waste problem but rather the economics of nuclear power that is impeding the expansion of the U.S. nuclear industry.
Please read Part 3