RGJ.com: Plans to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain begin to crumble
RGJ.com: Plans to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain begin to crumble: "
Doug Abrahms
DABRAHMS@GNS.GANNETT.COM
Posted: 11/27/2005
WASHINGTON -- For more than 20 years, the federal government's sole plan to dispose of nuclear waste building up at atomic reactors around the nation has been to bury it in a rural mountainside in Nevada about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
But lately there have been hints that a new plan is in the works, especially as the deadline to open the Yucca Mountain repository as a long-term nuclear-waste dumping ground keeps slipping.
Since 1982, when Congress approved burying high-level radioactive waste in a national repository, the nation's energy scene has shifted dramatically -- with utility companies poised to build nuclear power plants for the first time in a generation, said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., a staunch supporter of nuclear power.
"I believe we must look anew on our policy on spent nuclear fuel," he said in a speech Tuesday, "and I think that re-evaluation is under way."
Nuclear power generates about 20 percent of the nation's electricity, and proponents say it offers the best hope to cut air pollution and lower natural gas prices. Disposal of the nuclear waste remains a problem.
The Energy Department's long-range disposal plan would move 77,000 tons of nuclear waste by trains and trucks across the country to Yucca Mountain, and the project will cost electric consumers at least $58 billion. The department remains committed to the project, spokesman Craig Stevens said.
The department's license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the Yucca project will proceed despite a federal appeals court decision in 2004 that federal radiation safety standards for Yucca are inadequate, he said. The last deadline to open Yucca Mountain was 2012, but the department no longer offers any timetable. This month, Congress agreed to spend $50 million to study reprocessing nuclear waste, which breaks down enriched uranium rods into components for more efficient use. Proponents say it could reduce nuclear waste volumes and eliminate the need for Yucca Mountain.
But many nuclear experts say that current reprocessing technology doesn't work. The practice was stopped in 1979 because expense, ineffectiveness in reducing nuclear waste and also because the process generates a certain kind of plutonium isotope that is a key element in nuclear bombs, said Steve Kraft, an official with the Nuclear Energy Institute.
"At the end of the day, you still have material to dispose of," Kraft said.
"It doesn't make (nuclear) waste go away. All it does is separate it into different fractions," agreed Ed Lyman, senior staff scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group that opposes reprocessing.
In theory, a new type of atomic reactor could be built that would consume most of the nuclear material and vastly reduce the amount of waste to be stored, said Joe Egan, a nuclear physicist and attorney working for Nevada to block the Yucca Mountain project. Scientific American magazine published an article this month describing such a reactor that uses liquid sodium rather than water as a coolant, he said.
"The only problem is that no one has ever built one of these reactors successfully," Egan said. "It's like the Mars project -- it's a nice thought, but it's not going to happen anytime soon."
Nevada U.S. Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign plan to introduce legislation next month to keep nuclear waste stored at reactor sites with the federal government assuming ownership, said Tessa Hafen, a spokeswoman for Reid. The spent fuel rods would be stored in protective casks and could remain there safely for many decades until a better solution can be developed, she said."
Doug Abrahms
DABRAHMS@GNS.GANNETT.COM
Posted: 11/27/2005
WASHINGTON -- For more than 20 years, the federal government's sole plan to dispose of nuclear waste building up at atomic reactors around the nation has been to bury it in a rural mountainside in Nevada about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
But lately there have been hints that a new plan is in the works, especially as the deadline to open the Yucca Mountain repository as a long-term nuclear-waste dumping ground keeps slipping.
Since 1982, when Congress approved burying high-level radioactive waste in a national repository, the nation's energy scene has shifted dramatically -- with utility companies poised to build nuclear power plants for the first time in a generation, said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., a staunch supporter of nuclear power.
"I believe we must look anew on our policy on spent nuclear fuel," he said in a speech Tuesday, "and I think that re-evaluation is under way."
Nuclear power generates about 20 percent of the nation's electricity, and proponents say it offers the best hope to cut air pollution and lower natural gas prices. Disposal of the nuclear waste remains a problem.
The Energy Department's long-range disposal plan would move 77,000 tons of nuclear waste by trains and trucks across the country to Yucca Mountain, and the project will cost electric consumers at least $58 billion. The department remains committed to the project, spokesman Craig Stevens said.
The department's license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the Yucca project will proceed despite a federal appeals court decision in 2004 that federal radiation safety standards for Yucca are inadequate, he said. The last deadline to open Yucca Mountain was 2012, but the department no longer offers any timetable. This month, Congress agreed to spend $50 million to study reprocessing nuclear waste, which breaks down enriched uranium rods into components for more efficient use. Proponents say it could reduce nuclear waste volumes and eliminate the need for Yucca Mountain.
But many nuclear experts say that current reprocessing technology doesn't work. The practice was stopped in 1979 because expense, ineffectiveness in reducing nuclear waste and also because the process generates a certain kind of plutonium isotope that is a key element in nuclear bombs, said Steve Kraft, an official with the Nuclear Energy Institute.
"At the end of the day, you still have material to dispose of," Kraft said.
"It doesn't make (nuclear) waste go away. All it does is separate it into different fractions," agreed Ed Lyman, senior staff scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, an environmental group that opposes reprocessing.
In theory, a new type of atomic reactor could be built that would consume most of the nuclear material and vastly reduce the amount of waste to be stored, said Joe Egan, a nuclear physicist and attorney working for Nevada to block the Yucca Mountain project. Scientific American magazine published an article this month describing such a reactor that uses liquid sodium rather than water as a coolant, he said.
"The only problem is that no one has ever built one of these reactors successfully," Egan said. "It's like the Mars project -- it's a nice thought, but it's not going to happen anytime soon."
Nevada U.S. Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign plan to introduce legislation next month to keep nuclear waste stored at reactor sites with the federal government assuming ownership, said Tessa Hafen, a spokeswoman for Reid. The spent fuel rods would be stored in protective casks and could remain there safely for many decades until a better solution can be developed, she said."
posted by Greta Jane at Sunday, November 27, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home