Part 1 of 2 Parts
      The U.S. does not have a permanent underground repository for spent nuclear fuel. Until such a repository is constructed, there is a need for temporary storage of spent fuel. The search is on for temporary sites but can encounter resistance from local citizens and politicians.
       Holtec International has proposed a temporary repository for up to one hundred thousand metric tons of spent nuclear fuel rods at a site near the Eddy-Lea county line in New Mexico. The repository is scheduled to begin accepting shipments of spent nuclear fuel in 2022. Holtec applied to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for a license in 2017. The application was officially accepted in 2018 which began a public feedback process that will include an NRC environmental impact statement. If all requirements are satisfied, a federal license for Holtec will be the result.
       Both houses of the New Mexico legislature have collaborated in the creation of the N.M. Radioactive and Hazarrdous Materials Committed. State Senator Jeff Steinborn is the Chair of the Committee. He sent a list of fifty-seven questions to various state departments last months. Most of those departments forwarded the questions to the NRC.
       In mid-July, the Attorney General of New Mexico (A.G.) responded to six of the questions posed by Steinborn. In answer to one question, the A.G. said that the federal government alone can regulate such sites before they go into operation. States can only “indirectly” regulate such sites once they are in operation. He said, “While it is abundantly clear that the state cannot license or otherwise directly regulate interim storage facilities, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that state tort law can provide a remedy for injuries suffered as a result of nuclear plant operation.”
       Most nuclear activities in the U.S. are regulated by two federal laws: The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA). The NWPA directed the Department of Energy to create a permanent geological repository for nuclear waste including spent nuclear fuel. The NWPA was amended in 2008 to direct the DoE to construct a repository for spent nuclear fuel under Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The project was halted in 2009 because of opposition from Nevada state lawmakers and because of budget cuts by the Obama administration. In 2010, the DoE cancelled its application for the site. Recently, the Trump administration has called for resuming the project at Yucca Mountain.
      In the meantime, the NRC does have the authority to license “privately-owned, away-from-reactor” storage facilities to hold spent nuclear fuel temporarily before a permanent repository is constructed. Opposition from states chosen by the NRC for temporary spent fuel storage cannot overrule this NRC authority. 
Please read Part 2

Ambient office  = 88 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 105 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 107 nanosieverts per hour

Carrot from Central Market = 116 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 119 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 114 nanosieverts per hour

Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
      At this time there is only one nuclear power plant being constructed in the U.S. in the state of Georgia. It is now estimated that it will cost twenty-five billion dollars to complete and it had to be supported by twelve billion dollars in federal loan guarantees. The Georgia Public Service Commission stated that even a delay of a few months could raise the cost so much that the project might have to be abandoned.
      The problem with the rising cost of nuclear power is not confined to the U.S. In Britain, the Hinkley Point C power plant is the first new nuclear power plant to be constructed there in more than twenty years. The original cost projects of sixteen billion dollars has risen by more than fifty percent to twenty-six billion dollars.
       France has been getting more than seventy-five percent of its electricity from nuclear power for years. Even with all their experience in nuclear power, they are unable to construct a next generation nuclear power plant at a reasonable cost and on schedule.
        EDF is the French owned nuclear utility. They have just announced that there will be another schedule delay and additional costs in the construction of their first European Pressurized Reactor. The original estimated cost was about four billion dollars. The latest estimate is twelve and three quarter billion dollars. This is more than three times the original estimate.
        There were discussions in South Africa about the need for nuclear power. Secret conversations with Russia about building a nuclear power plant were revealed and caused a scandal. The critics of nuclear power in S.A. say that it is not needed and is far too expensive. Other African countries are been courted by the Russian nuclear company, Rosatom but, once again, there are critics who point out that the costs are too high, the demand is too low and infrastructure is lacking to make it practical to turn to nuclear power.
       Vietnam and Russia were discussing the construction of a nuclear power plant in Vietnam by Rosatom. It would utilize something that the Russians call the Build-Own-Operate model. The basic concept here would be to have Rosatom construct, staff, and fuel the new plant. Russia would own it and would deal with removal of spent fuel. There would also be a massive loan from Russian banks for construction with the money going to Rosatom, of course. The Vietnamese decided against the project and it was cancelled.
       All over the world, the use of nuclear power in developed nations has been declining except for Russia and China who are actively building reactors for internal power generation and export to other nations. The focus of their sales efforts have largely been on the developing world. Massive amounts of money, international status and possible nuclear weapon development are supporting the international nuclear power market. Problems with governmental corruption, incompetence, and possibilities for the proliferation of nuclear weapons are strong reasons for the developing world to reject nuclear power.
       In the end, it will be economics that will destroy nuclear power. Hopefully, the reality that nuclear power is too expensive and dangerous will sink in and the world’s infatuation with nuclear power will end.

Ambient office  = 116 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 79 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 78 nanosieverts per hour

Orange bell pepper from Central Market = 171 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 102 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 94 nanosieverts per hour

Part 1 of 2 Parts
        I like to say that nuclear power is the most complex and dangerous way to boil water ever invented by the human race. I also like to say that, in the end, it will be economics and public opinion that brings an end to the global use of nuclear power to provide a great deal of the electricity consumed by the nations of the world. Now a long time nuclear industry advocate appears to agree with me, at least with respect to economic issues.
       Nobuo Tanaca is the former head of the International Energy Agency (IAEA). The IEA is “Paris-based autonomous intergovernmental organization established in the framework of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1974 in the wake of the 1973 oil crisis.” While originally aimed at responding to physical disruptions of the global oil supply, the mandate for the IEA has expanded to include energy security, economic development and environmental protection.
       Tanaka says that new nuclear power plants are ridiculously expensive and uncompetitive compared to solar power. Bloomberg says that the U.S. nuclear power plants are “bleeding cash” and the Brattle Group published an analysis on July 19th which said that it would cost at least five billion dollars a year to save existing nuclear power plants.
        Proposals have been brought forward in the U.S. Congress to put a price on carbon pollution which would make nuclear power more competitive. Conservatives in Congress have opposed every such proposal. A 2009 proposal for carbon cap-and-trade climate change mitigation passed in the House but was defeated by conservatives in the Senate. A rising price on carbon dioxide emissions would certainly improve the competitiveness of carbon-free nuclear power against natural gas, one of its major competitors. Studies show that a twenty dollar a ton carbon tax could preserve the nuclear industry in the U.S.
      Proponents of nuclear power as a major solution to mitigating climate change have criticized environmentalists as blocking progress in saving nuclear power. However, as I have often said, economics will kill nuclear power, not environmentalism.
      An analysis released last November from Lazard Ltd. pointed out that in many regions, building and operating new renewable energy installations is cheaper that just operating a nuclear power plant. A May New Energy Finance report from Bloomberg concluded that twenty four out of sixty six U.S. nuclear power plants are either scheduled to be shut down or will probably fail to turn profit by 2021.
      It should be obvious that if existing nuclear power plants are so uncompetitive, building and financing an entire fleet of new nuclear power plants would be too expensive to even consider. Two nuclear power reactors that were being built in South Carolina have been abandoned after nine billion dollars had been spent partly due to rising costs and schedule slippage. It was originally estimated that it would cost eleven and a half billion dollars to build the two reactors. When the project was cancelled, the estimated cost had rising to twenty-five billion dollars, more than twice the original cost.
Please read Part 2

Ambient office  = 116 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 79 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 78 nanosieverts per hour

Beefsteak tomato from Central Market = 171 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 102 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 94 nanosieverts per hour