By Kevin Sieff in Washington
Published: May 13 2010 17:48
The Obama administration’s efforts to foster a renaissance in nuclear power in the US are coming up against an old dilemma – what to do with the waste.
The climate bill before the Senate envisages the construction of the first US reactors in more than three decades as a solution to both global warming and the country’s addiction to oil; an expansion supported by President Barack Obama and Republicans at a time of new concerns about the safety of oil drilling.
But the issue of spent fuel storage is haunting US nuclear ambitions. In March, Mr Obama announced that Yucca Mountain, the country’s only prospective nuclear waste repository, would be shut before ever opening.
The 20-year-old facility outside Las Vegas has cost the government about $9bn (€7.1bn, £6.1bn). Mr Obama promised during his election campaign that he would kill the project on the urging of Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, whose Nevada constituency opposes it.
The closure has shaken the nuclear power industry during what some are calling its long-awaited revival.
The largest nuclear power company, Exelon, has said it will not construct new plants until progress is made on storage. “This is a major impediment to the development of new nuclear sites,” said John Rowe, Exelon’s chief executive.
The Senate climate bill, sponsored by John Kerry, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, and Joe Lieberman, an independent senator from Connecticut, increases the existing nuclear loan guarantee programme from $18.5bn to over $50bn. Such a programme could spur the construction of a dozen nuclear plants. But the bill leaves the question of waste storage unanswered.
Lawmakers, utilities and trade groups have protested against Yucca’s closure, claiming that Mr Obama has a legal obligation to move forward with it.
“We consider the department’s actions contrary to the clear intent of Congress and regard your proposal as prematurely and unwisely removing deep geologic disposal from the options to be considered,” a group of top Democratic congressmen wrote in a letter to Mr Obama last month.
Meanwhile, 16 utilities have sued the US Department of Energy to halt the government’s collection of $750m in annual nuclear waste disposal fees, arguing that the country no longer has a disposal plan after closing Yucca Mountain.
In the wake of Yucca’s closure, the Energy Department appointed a commission to address the issue of long-term nuclear storage.
Several commissioners acknowledged to the Financial Times that a deep repository was a necessity, but expressed doubts that the political will for such a project existed.
“Members of Congress are not keen on opening up the site selection process if the nation’s nuclear dump might end up in their backyard,” said Robert Alvarez, a senior energy adviser in the Clinton administration.
States that have been most active in nuclear energy production are now recoiling.
Washington and South Carolina filed lawsuits against the federal government in April, claiming that the energy department was supposed to begin taking spent fuel from utilities for disposal at Yucca Mountain by 1998.
“The original bargain was that this waste was going to taken off their hands,” said Mr Alvarez. “But now interim storage sites all over the country feel they’re going to be stranded with this stuff – and there is more coming.”
Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/66176650-5eaa-11df-af86-00144feab49a.html
Published: May 13 2010 17:48
The Obama administration’s efforts to foster a renaissance in nuclear power in the US are coming up against an old dilemma – what to do with the waste.
The climate bill before the Senate envisages the construction of the first US reactors in more than three decades as a solution to both global warming and the country’s addiction to oil; an expansion supported by President Barack Obama and Republicans at a time of new concerns about the safety of oil drilling.
But the issue of spent fuel storage is haunting US nuclear ambitions. In March, Mr Obama announced that Yucca Mountain, the country’s only prospective nuclear waste repository, would be shut before ever opening.
The 20-year-old facility outside Las Vegas has cost the government about $9bn (€7.1bn, £6.1bn). Mr Obama promised during his election campaign that he would kill the project on the urging of Harry Reid, the Democratic leader in the Senate, whose Nevada constituency opposes it.
The closure has shaken the nuclear power industry during what some are calling its long-awaited revival.
The largest nuclear power company, Exelon, has said it will not construct new plants until progress is made on storage. “This is a major impediment to the development of new nuclear sites,” said John Rowe, Exelon’s chief executive.
The Senate climate bill, sponsored by John Kerry, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, and Joe Lieberman, an independent senator from Connecticut, increases the existing nuclear loan guarantee programme from $18.5bn to over $50bn. Such a programme could spur the construction of a dozen nuclear plants. But the bill leaves the question of waste storage unanswered.
Lawmakers, utilities and trade groups have protested against Yucca’s closure, claiming that Mr Obama has a legal obligation to move forward with it.
“We consider the department’s actions contrary to the clear intent of Congress and regard your proposal as prematurely and unwisely removing deep geologic disposal from the options to be considered,” a group of top Democratic congressmen wrote in a letter to Mr Obama last month.
Meanwhile, 16 utilities have sued the US Department of Energy to halt the government’s collection of $750m in annual nuclear waste disposal fees, arguing that the country no longer has a disposal plan after closing Yucca Mountain.
In the wake of Yucca’s closure, the Energy Department appointed a commission to address the issue of long-term nuclear storage.
Several commissioners acknowledged to the Financial Times that a deep repository was a necessity, but expressed doubts that the political will for such a project existed.
“Members of Congress are not keen on opening up the site selection process if the nation’s nuclear dump might end up in their backyard,” said Robert Alvarez, a senior energy adviser in the Clinton administration.
States that have been most active in nuclear energy production are now recoiling.
Washington and South Carolina filed lawsuits against the federal government in April, claiming that the energy department was supposed to begin taking spent fuel from utilities for disposal at Yucca Mountain by 1998.
“The original bargain was that this waste was going to taken off their hands,” said Mr Alvarez. “But now interim storage sites all over the country feel they’re going to be stranded with this stuff – and there is more coming.”
Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/66176650-5eaa-11df-af86-00144feab49a.html
Comments
Post a Comment